you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you Thank you. All right. All right. I'm going to bring this meeting to order the ASRB on Monday, September the 23rd, 432 p.m. I have a roll call please. Chair Lindsey. Presence. Member Middellman. Member Topp. Present. Are there any changes to the agenda to pertinent? There are no changes to the agenda. However, you have a number of desk items that have been sent to you previously, prior to the meeting related to the Kiniyada corners project. There are various emails and letters, most of which are in opposition to the project. As a reminder, we do have a large agenda tonight or items and anticipating one of them is going to generate a lot of public interest and a lot of comments. So I would ask that when we get to that stage that if you're going to make a comment, please be mindful of the time. Be mindful if a point has been made not to belabor the page too much or for too long. We'll try to be efficient so we do anticipate a lot of comment. Okay. One question, considering that the comment on that item, the larger than the other items, we consider changing the agenda and the movements in the end. I don't see a reason to. No. The only my only concern is that it is very important that we get through this item. So I do want to, given that we've had to continue it twice. And so I just, for whatever reason, the meeting does go along on the other items. This is the first time they've been on the agenda. Great. Okay. Public communications, is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to speak on a topic not on the agenda tonight? So please raise your hand on if you're online and like to speak on something not on the agenda. See no hands raised. Okay. I see no one in the room approaching the microphone. Consent agenda. Is there anything apply with regard to that tonight? No, there's nothing on the consent agenda. Good. Power efficient. All right. Let's move to the public hearing. The first agenda item. First agenda item is a 336, the 362 website road known as the Kaniotic corners commercial center and I will give the presentation. So just give a little brief background of the site and then I'll go through briefly about the conditional use permit and then the details of the project construction. So in 1979 the planning commission approved a conditional use permit to expand the commercial center. It was to construct the hardware store as well as what could be referred to as the Emily Jobair wing of the property. And that was without approval the town required the granted of an open space easement for the remaining portion of the rear parcel. And also it required an equestrian trail easement, conservation easement, as well as in the south east corner of the parcel it required a bike, equestrian, pedestrian easement. And I'll go into those easement locations a little bit more, but I did want to bring up the APN map to kind of give an idea just let's consider the front and rear parcels. So there are two assessor parcel numbers. The one in the front has the buildings on it that ends in 360 is the final number of the APN. And then there's 3, 5, 0, the map cuts off the zeros, but there's always a 0 at the end. And anyway, that is the rear parcel. And what you can see here, it's roughly shown, although it's not, the Sessers map isn't quite accurate in the exact location. But what you see this kind of rectangular area here, it's kind of demarking, where the existing parking is, and the open space, he's been goes around that. But again, I have detailed map that will show that easements in a little bit. So while that was required, the granted those easements, they were eventually granted and accepted by the town in 1980. In 1988, the rear parcel was further encumbered when the voters approved Measure J. That required the parcel to remain in a residential, it required the residential zone parcels and joining to the town center, including the rear parcel, to remain in a residential use, except the commercial parking that had already been permitted there. I should note that the open space easement did allow for any underground infrastructure required to serve the parcel. That still remains in place today. And then in 2021, measure A was approved by the voters and that changed the land use regulations for the residential zone of parcels in the town center. It authorize the installation of surface parking at the rear parcel and this will be to accommodate outdoor dining. Now it does note that the property owner doesn't just automatically happen but the property owner would have to submit an application for all required entitlements in order to make those changes. But that did the passage of measure a changed measure J in there for allowing the process to move forward. So in 2016 was the most recent conditional use permit that was approved on this CUP update was for the village bakery. It was replacing the old woodside bakery and it also took over the space of the woodside gallery. The square footage was increased but that was primarily due to expanding the kitchen area for the bakery. So the seat count was not increased at that time. The woodside bakery under an old CUP, the loud 70 seats during the daytime hours and an additional 25 seats the night time hours for a total of 95 seats and that that would be allowed during the nighttime hours. It should be noted that that time in 2016, even without the changes in the hours of operation, that staff report noted that 173 spaces would be required between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. The site was under parked, but it was a legal non-conforming situation. And because there were no changes or any proposed actions that would increase the need for additional parking, it wasn't required to increase the parking at the time. So there's now a current CUP application and the applicant is proposed in two outdoor dining parklets to serve the existing food service establishments, currently which are bucks and the village bakery. The existing CUP allows bucks to have 120 seats occupied at all business hours. The proposed application would include a parklet for bucks and another 24 seats for total 144 seats at bucks. The current application also would provide additional 22 seats for in the parklet for the village bakery. And that would bring a total given the 70 in a day plus the additional at night, allowing a total of 117 seats. This proposal also is to eliminate those restrictions on the hours of operation. And so the design for the parking lot was done to accommodate the current under parking that's at the site, as well as to accommodate additional seats that would be anticipated through the changes of hours as well as to accommodate additional seats that would be anticipated through the changes of hours as well as the parklets. So I'll go to the plan and show through, just go through a bit here, of the actual project to show some visuals. So what you see here on the left side is. Is the existing lot as it sits now and you'll see the open space is been kind of wrapping it around the back portion of the log. And then you have on the right side is the proposed plan which shows the expanded parking lot the the rear of a lot, and the two new parklets the front with bicycle parking in the middle. I'm going to go to a sheet here that better shows the easements. So currently this is the site as it sits. You'll see in this kind of pink diagonal hatch. That is the existing location of the open space easement. There is a conservation easement along the stream corridor at the front parcel that has not been modified as part of this project. There is an existing trail easement that runs along the stream bank and then it makes this turn up to Kinyata Road. Existing trail doesn't isn't completely located in that trail, Eastman. It currently cuts through towards the middle of the open space, Eastman today. Then this is the corner I mentioned earlier. There's a small Eastman kind of along the southeast corner and that was to accommodate trail for bikes, pedestrians and equestrians. There is currently a trail that also runs around the site along Canyada Road. It turns into a trail that's less protected. There's some vaults here in grades. It has to cross the one driveway. And then it continues along here to cross the one driveway, and then it continues along here to cross the second driveway leading you to what do the fish. So the project, I'm sorry, let me go to, this is the proposed project. And so this is kind of using that same color coordination, sewer easement would be moved to where the sewer actually is located today. And part of the open space easement would be moved to where the sewer actually is located today. And part of the open space easement would be removed. So currently the open space easement is around 70,000 square feet. And it is proposed to be remaining about 50,000 square feet. A retaining wall would be necessary to construct the parking lot. So the applicant is pushing the parking lot within. It has to remain outside of the stream corridor on the west side. And then, you know, there's a more of a significant grade on the east side. And so there will be the need for retaining wall. But it varies in height. At the tallest point, it's about eight to ten feet. The applicant, and then it kind of goes down to about four to six feet, and it's about three feet at the smallest point as it dives into the ground. The applicant's proposing to do a gabion basket design. And so I'll show you just here's the sections of the wall here being proposed. So it's kind of stepped, but it does vary in size and note. And I'll show you if you're not familiar with the Gabi and Basket design, it's basically kind of thick hog wire that holds in rocks. And all of that and the applicant can very best explain out all work structurally, but it is something that's been looked at by a town geologist and has not found any issues with that design. So on top of the wall, just behind it would be a Corten steel fence. So Corten is actually used a lot in wood side. It's a material that rusts with certain degree early on. And you'll see a kind of a sample image here. It would be kind of the Corten metal post with just a little see through mesh. But the idea is to create that protection barrier for anyone who might venture towards the top of that retaining wall. So I'm going to show, given that we're at ASRB, look at the proposed parklets. So these are the proposed parklets. They would take up about six to eight spaces here that are currently existing. These are not what you see out there now, what you see out there now is from a temporary approval during COVID. So they wouldn't exactly look like that. They'd be a little bit more permanent, as well as creating an exterior that provides a nice structural barrier between vehicles traveling in the diners. So this is the two different park that's showing a lay out for the number of seats. Here's a rendering of the proposed parklets. On their posing these landscape planters with a board-formed concrete walls. There are low shielded lights proposed in the wall that will light up the aisle withs. There's also some low lighting on the inside of those walls for the dining areas. But they would basically look the same for both. And this is just the more technical elevation of it showing them there about three feet tall are the proposed walls. So then there is the proposed lighting for the property. There we go. Okay. So there are current existing light fixtures out of the site now. There are taller light fixtures out of the site now. There are taller light fixtures about 14 feet tall. There are some lower baller style light fixtures. The plan shows the existing lights. So we have the taller lights are LB. There's one here. It's currently existing one here in the rear island and two of the shorter lights. Applicants plan has shown a three new of the taller light fixtures to light up the expanded rear parking lot. There is a building in code that there's a certain amount of lighting that is required. I've reached out to the building department. They're working on getting me the exact code language, but it would be possible to something to AS or be made want to consider if they may look at having lower light fixtures, there might need to be a couple more of them, but that would create the lighting lower to the ground that would reduce the availability from offside, especially the nearby residences. So I do want to talk about here the proposal for three removal. So there's a number of trees that would be removed that are in the area of the expanded parking lot. It's, they just have to come out for construction. The, the applicant is proposing to relocate six of the smaller trees smaller trees generally do well Better during relocation, but these would all be oak trees that would be relocated So there is 45 non significant trees a bunch of us a lot of smaller trees They're mostly fruit trees and small oaks And there would be the need for the removal of 23 significant trees with the project. Something that the ASRB might want to consider, if the open space is reduced in size, the town may consider looking at some type of open space enhancement plan that could, right, some additional native vegetation, maybe try to eradicate some of the non-native vegetation, as well as providing opportunities to help for screening for neighbors across the creek, as well as the neighbor to the north, that's across the fence line. So the town, in terms of process, the town has brought this project to three committees so far and now to the ASRB. So it went to the Open Space Committee initially. The Open Space Committee was charged at looking at the modifications to the Open Space easement. Generally, the Open Space Committee did not support the project primarily on the basis for the Open Space easement needed to be partially removed. So they did not support the project. The Trails Committee reviewed the project twice. I'm one a couple years ago. I'm a then more recently to provide them the information they were looking for. And the Trails Committee did look for a motion to recommend rejection, although that motion failed. They did recommend to, I should note that the first meeting, the applicant, the trails committee looked at possibly the need to relocate the easement. The easement along the northern fence line here, it's a little bit steeper. It also has a lot more trees. So if you go a little bit south of this, you actually kind of see it. There's an area that kind of goes between trees and require a lot less tree removal. So the applicant, in response to that, looked at modified, proposing to modify the trail easement location. So bring a little bit further south. One, it keeps it further away from the neighbor. It creates the buffer from the neighbor as well as the ability to retain those trees and require less grading. And so the trails committee just recommended to leave the trail as is. Currently, it's a trail that allows for a quest tree and use. We know the informal trail is used by a number of people, including kids going back and forth from school. We do acknowledge that this at this The town will look will work with planning commission town council to it's likely recommend that it be a mixed use trail now It should be noted that bicyclists and the question is generally should not mix there's a conflict there cyclists can spook a horse whereas it's not it's more common that you see pedestrians and equestrian sharing trails so the town could as part if this project is approved could require that that easement is modified to allow a quest or an ampadestrians. So the trails committee, they also recommend if the project is going to move forward that the applicant create some safety improvements on It's a little bit steeper, so the applicant could work with the town engineer to figure out what improvements might be necessary to create anything that's safer, both for all modes of transportation. This particular case would be for bikes, equestrians and pedestrians, given that's in the public right of way. And then the last was the circulation committee. They reviewed the project. They noted that the project could negatively impact circulation through the town center. But if approved, they should allow pedestrian access on the trail through the site, as well as the same as the trails committee in regards to looking for safety improvements on the trails that go around the site along the outer road and woodside road. So with that kind of long winded presentation and I'd like to kick it off. You know where? And my questions are primarily just clarifications. I want to dig into a couple of comments you make because I think there's some relevant history and information that you made a statement about this site being historically underparked. And is this not why, but how is parking identified? Is it a ratio of business size relative to number spots? Should I? Title two? It's so the code identifies different parking requirements for different uses. So it's basically formulas are set up. It's quite common you find this in zoning codes. And for example, whereas a retail use requires one space per every 150 square feet of publicly used areas, plus one space for every three employees. Whereas a food service establishment requires one space for every two and a half seats or standing spaces. And so, you know, it's assumed that these formulas done for different reasons, they are taking into account employees at the site as well as the publicly served areas. So you get into areas like the kitchen, the first food service establishment or restrooms for any business storage rooms. None of those would contribute towards the need for parking spaces. identify the different formula and the applicant has come up with a plan to show that they could supply enough spaces to serve all the uses. thereby meeting the code requirement. correct. there was I know one of the titlements being asked is or has been listed as parking site size. So many of the existing parking sites are nonconforming in terms of size. Is the as I didn't see in the application whether there was a request to standardize on sizes. So the proposal is to just keep the existing spaces as they are, whereas the new spaces, some of them would meet the town's code to be. Would be. Sorry, 9 by 20 feet deep. So that's a standard size space in woodside does allow for a quarter of the parking spaces to be compact spaces, which is 9 by 16. Some of the spaces being proposed by the applicant are 9 by 18. And so as part of the review, it will need a variance for those size requirements given our code requires a 20 foot depth. And there's different cities have different size for parking spaces so there's not necessarily a standard across California. Another cities I worked for is 19 feet. I know of other cities around here. It's 18 feet, whereas wood sign is 20 feet. So they will seek a variance for that. And just to be clear, the parking serves all the businesses. You know, that's correct. It is to serve all the businesses in the other corners. And the plan currently doesn't really identify or designate them in any special way. And this land is privately held. Yeah, so it's a privately owned piece of land. There are these easements that are dedicated to the town, but the underlying ownership is private. And the easements that are dedicated to the town, but the land, the underlying ownership is private, and the easements are items in which that the town has use of. This gives the applicant the right to bring this project to the town. Yes. The responsibility has to respond to it. The correct. The town has to process the application. A property owner has the right to apply for what they like. You know, there's a couple of things here as we have the voter measures. And so I talked about that earlier, as well as then there's the recorded open space easement. And in the easement, it talks about being an open space for perpetuity. It also does anticipate, and this is a state government code, there's a process in which the applicant can apply for to abandon completely our portion of the open space easement, so they have applied for that. And this notion of in perpetuity, I mean, this requires filing with the state. It would, it's, it has to be approved by the town. Yeah, so that it gets approved by the town, and ultimately, if it is approved by the town, they'd be recorded with the county. So that really has to with tax assessments. But it has never been up to this point in time. It's a recorded easement, currently, with the county. So at any time there's an easement generally speaking it's recorded on the land through the county and recorders office so different counties would have different recorders. And just last question there's seven entitlements that would have to be modified in order to that sounds about right I they're listed in the report. Yep. Okay Got it. Thank you Couple questions I might miss it in your answer and Excuse me just a reminder for everyone. Just also want to make sure we speak directly into the microphones for those on zoom Couple questions and I might have missed in your answer. Looking at the parking requirements table, the veterans don't have them before he counts. That is, when why is that? It's the way the formula is set up. So it's just, whereas, you know, this one space for two and a half seats, something is that that's taken into account employee parking. Whereas the retail, it's, you know, square footage and one space per three employees. So it's not one per employee. Just these different formulas that have been developed for the different uses. Mr. Stern, and then on the other question I had, in some of the desk items, California Government Code 51093 was mentioned. How does the abandonment of the open space easement line with that government code? That's all stuff that's going to be outline of the Plenty Commission report and the town council report. So it's still being reviewed by staff and the town attorney. And in order the town council will have to make those findings if they want to approve the project. Okay, so in order for the this project to be approved, they have to find that they have to find the findings that are outlined in that government code. That's correct. I have for now. If you want to go. Just to clarify the business context of it, we assume that the property ownership for the reverse center and for this subject property is basically same ownership. Yes, it's the Robert family. Thank you. Any other questions? Not at the moment. Okay. Right. Let's move on. And if the applicant is here and wishes to make a presentation. Yep. Great. Yes. I'm Dave Tanner. I brought all this to you. I think it's sage has explained quite a bit about it. And if you have any questions, I'm here to answer them. The presentation is in the plans. And if you, like I've been through all the other committees, just tell me if you want to change something or add something, or you know, we'll consider that and go through everything. So, but there are any questions. You don't like me to answer? Or be glad to do it. I have a question. Okay. Why now? Why now? This is actually my last project. Anyway, it was the measure, I guess COVID said everybody off. They wanted the exterior park, the exterior put out so they can sit outside in the front and join themselves. And we looked at doing this parking a long time ago. And George came to me, I think, as 10, 12, 15 years ago, and said, start thinking about this. So I've sat down and worked on this project for a long time, trying to work my way through all the problems you have to deal with, the entitlements. I mean, you have to look at the project as a whole and if you look at what we have to do, this is an incredibly hard and difficult project to add parking to the town of Woodside. All right. There's no open lots anywhere. There's everything's privately owned and everybody's used everything to the maximum that they can. So this is an extension of the Roberts property. There was a measure pass that asked first to go forward. So we're trying to go forward. And before I got here, just to get it up to the point where I can get through staff and stuff, we've been working on it. I think pretty close to two, almost three years. So it's taken a lot, a lot of time, a lot of money, a lot of studies. I've had some engineers, anybody they can throw at me, they did. And they have. And I've had a lot of meetings with everybody trying to get through all this and make everything work. So we can't add another car inside here. Well, you could, but it'd be a, it's not to go even further deeper into the lot. I was been trying to be nice to the neighbors, next door, and you know, just trying to make it work. So we have enough parking to make the place legal. I had an office there for many years and I can tell you about the horror stories about parking there. So I've watched fights, accidents, you name it. People are going to one another. I mean, literally makes everybody angry trying to find parking in that shopping center. They drive around angry. So it's quite the problem there. And I believe this will take a alleviate a lot of the problem, but not everything that we can in the town itself. So anyway, any other questions? Yeah, I had a couple. Can you consider going up or down to the parking? Well, I can't go down because to make it work, I have to apply by code, which they threw out means that you need at least an X amount of parking to make it work. Going up and. Sorry, you consider building parking garage up or. No, no, no. No, no. That's it's an extreme expense and putting a second story parking and wood side would be. Like trying to add a high rise in the town. I don't think it would be accepted very well. By the time you get done adding, I don't know if you've ever done any parking structures at all, but by the time you get done, what do you mean? Dealing with the size and all the things that it requires, you don't gain that much with it. It was better off just pushing it out and trying to go up. And the size and constraints is also there's we have the Kinyada fault they already said is there and we have the you know San Andreas fault is down the street too so The columns for the signal would be huge. So anyway. The other question I had is that the parking study was done in 2022 correct? The study yes. And if I've been read up correctly, the restaurants had a temporary conditional use permit to move, seating out and not add seating correct. That's correct. But far as I know, yes. So I guess what was absent was recording or an audit of how many seats were in those restaurants that day. And so my question to you was, do you know if they were in compliance with the conditional use permit when the traffic study was applied? Was conducted? Not that I know. The channel was under, they allowed the exterior to go out for proceeding but nobody's monitored it and nobody's done anything on it and it's each restaurant is under a an honesty program because there is no seating cops or parking cops in town I I mean, everybody does what they want. So, um, they've over sat the places a few times. I understand which causes even a bigger problem. So they've added the parking monitor there to try to tell people go someplace else to park, which is you have parking right here out of town hall, and that's about it. So, I understand your answer right. You do not know how many seats were in the restaurant here at the study. Can you speak a little bit louder? I'm really having a hard time here and even with that microphone. All right, if I understand your answer correctly, you don't know the number of seats that were in the restaurant during the day of the study. Oh, we went off the standard on it. I have strong plans with all the seating for each restaurant. Each restaurant has literally applied for their seating, their conditional use permits. So they're supposed to comply with their conditional use permit for the seating. It's up to them to comply. All right. We did a study for the size of each restaurant and what they can have. Each one already had a conditional use permit, what allowed for the seating and that's what was used for figuring everything out. In terms of the results of the study, you don't know just to be clear. You don't know if they were in compliance with the conditional use permits when the study was conducted. Oh, right. We were doing everything by legally. It's not compliance. We didn't look at them for compliance, we looked at them for what they were allowed at the time. Okay. Only what they were allowed. So if they had in more seats, it wasn't up to us to figure it out, count it up. Got it. Thanks. Okay. Any other questions? I'm going to run right now. Thank you very much. All right. Thanks. It just one more clarification. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks. We just want more clarification. Just a context. It's certainly enjoyable place to sit outside, box or village bakery and it's to the benefit of the people who are outside, who certainly enjoy this and the people who are driving in, who also get attracted to it. But in terms of these aesthetics, mentioned basket design, it is a low cost solution typically, right? In terms of aesthetics, what's your assessment of the choice? So the gaming baskets run about costs. It's a wall that can go up that can actually breathe and move with the land. It also limits the noise that could be penetrating out. It doesn't reflect noise, it absorbs it. So it would be easier for the neighbors to not have a lot of noise, people talking, cars, you know, the normal noise you have in a parking lot, gets pushed down quite a bit. It literally is a sound deadening. I know if you've ever been to the Highlands Inn in Carmel. Yes. If you look at when you first pull up in there, the whole wall is done at it, so people could sleep there. The ocean comes in, makes so much noise. It literally went up the wall and kept the place awake. So they actually installed these gaming baskets up that area and stopped all that noise. There's got acoustical properties which are useful. Thank you very much for the question. Yeah, it's a useful wall. It does a lot of things. So I'm going to write. Thank you. OK. does a lot of things. So, and thank you. Okay. Question on maybe sage as the answer on the parklets. Are they larger? They do they occupy more space than the current temporary sea a little bit less. Yeah, yeah. Okay. So currently they don't they think they would allow more seats in the size. Actually quite a bit less. Yeah. It's yeah, it's again, it also accommodates for the bicycle parking as well in the plan. So and if you recall, the park that's initially went all the way across the parking lot, they've been a little bit downsize, but this proposal will be a lot less. Yeah. Thank you. Um, I have a few more questions. Yeah. I'm on that note, I had a question for you. The initial use permit modifications, is it changing the number of seats in the restaurants? So the proposal would, yes, change the number of seats. So as I noted, it would, for bucks, it would be in addition to what's already allowed. And with regard to the bakery, it would be in addition to what's already allowed and with regard to the bakery it would be in addition to what's already allowed as well as not allowing the full number of seats throughout the entire business day. Okay. Very clarifying. So in addition to without the temporary seating, so into account or over and above the temporary seating. Not the temporary seating, but what we just, the bucks allowed 120 now, total, they would have another 24. So a total of 144. That would be with the parklet. Whereas the bakery during the day is allowed 70 and night is allowed 95. And the idea would just be to allow the 95 all day long. And then in addition to that allowing another 22 seats for a total of 117. That 95 today does that include the temporary seating? It does not include. It just includes a total number of seats And so if there is more than that, then it's not. I'm just trying to understand whether it's just taking it, it's, it's possible that if, if it's more than 90 seats, it's not taking that into account. I want to understand with the current temporary use permit, it's moved the same seats outside the original number. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? No, thank you. All right. Okay. Good. Thank you. With that, we'll move on to public hearing and public comment. Couple things just to reminder. Sorry. You can still step up. I just want to remind people if if you're in the room, please, and especially if you're going to speak, please make a note putting your name in the book. So we have our record of your attendance. Otherwise, we'll start and we'll move between people online and people in the room as we go along. Hi, I'm Don Pueh, a 50 year resident of Woodside, and it fought vigorously to save rural Woodside over these years. I am totally opposed to bulldozing the open space just to allow the bakery in a private entity to expand. First, it's unnecessary. The 2016 CUP bakery agreed to have just 70 seats in the daytime, but they have 172. It seems to be worth ignoring that. 100 extra. Well, when you have an excess of 100 seats and you get the demand for it, it's the demand for parking and that's why we have a problem. Now I've been after the town council forgot a year and a half now to say, let's start in 40 seeing the seating limits. But no one seems to be in charge in the town council. I don't know why has not enforced the seating on it. So that's their failure that we have a parking problem today. It wouldn't be a problem if the bakery followed it because before in the old days before COVID things were fine. We can easily keep the outdoor dining. It needs about six spaces and work out a few of those details but we with this violation of the CUP. It's not working out. The second reason and so the parking study by the way was based upon having 172 seats. Well, you know the statement that its valid is Bologna. I'm sorry. You can't start measuring something when they're violating the law. Okay, let's talk about, it's a violation of general plan because the responsibility of a local business is to serve the day-to-day needs of the residents. And a recent study revealed that only 5% of the people that were eating at the bakery were residents. 95% were tourists. And the question is, should woodside become a tourist destination, just so the bakery can bake a much more money. I don't see that's appropriate. Also the findings, the open space easement, it's dedicated in perpetuity in 1979. George Roberts agreed, is okay, if I can build this on a residential lot, I will dedicate this open space in perpetuity in 1979. If you look at those findings, there is no way in hell they can possibly be made because there to be benefiting a private business, they are a violation of a general plan and there's a dozen other reasons why it won't happen. Legal folks have already looked at this and you might hear from someone from a legal standpoint the fact that the open space cannot be abandoned. But, lastly, a 12-foot retaining wall with high steel fences on top. It'd be great if it was an elephant enclosure, I guess. But it would be incredibly disruptive to do. It would be ugly, totally out of keeping on woodside. There is no other place on woodside that has kind of monstrous, gigantic retaining walls like that. How about how a disruptive it will be? Well, the construction is going to go on for nine months. They're going to have 400 dump trucks going in and out hauling stuff in, hauling stuff out. It will be absolute mess. Half the parking will be constrained by a construction equipment. The trail will be a disaster to try to use while this. And lastly, is it appropriate that we should be doing this to benefit a private interest? So the question is, do you want the commercial interest to eat away at a rural environment? Are we going to stand up for what Woodside really stands up for, and that is to become a haven for a rural environment? Any questions? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Steve, a little bit in Palm Circle. In 1979 when the town gave the conditional use permit for this greatly expanded use from what was there before, I made the motion at the planning commission. So I'm pretty familiar with it. The town acquired the Equestrian easement, the Contervation easement, the Open Space easement, and the easement for pedestrians, bicycles, and equestrians along Woodside Road. The, I don't think any of the maps really show the true extent of that easement along woodside road. It I believe that the parking extends into that easement. It's I think, you know, the circulation committee has agreed that really the best solution for getting kids to school is is something that replaces the, you know, the existing existing permissive use in the back that being upgraded to, to, you know, what, on a Gilbert's property was called a, what was it, a multi-use safety trail or something of that extent. I think Patown already has that kind of easement on Gilbert's. The town spent a lot of money building across the lock that supported that permissive use. So there's a good reason to to reinforce that trail. And it should also be designed so kid it's safer kid riding to school. I think that could be accomplished behind the the new parking lot by it, making a couple of sweeping turns and reducing the grade from the trail that's proposed. It's kids on bicycles and kids walking and horses have shared it quite successfully for many years now. In addition, I think one of the conditional use permits from 1979 required bicycle parking. I think the proposal has quite good bicycle parking for the restaurants, but not for the hardware store. I've had arguments with the people at the hardware store when I tried to lock my bicycle to that wheelbarrow out there and was chased away. I think would be a bicycle or actually be added in the triangle in front of the hardware store to encourage people to ride their bicycles to town and maybe there'd be fewer parking spots needed. I also find it really frustrating that the town is about to embark on a town center plan and is considering this really major, the most major chain in decades to the center of town. At the same meeting, it's considering a request for proposal for a consultant for the town center plan. I think there's opportunities, other opportunities for parking in town center that haven't been explored. There should be explored before this project is approved. There's no reason for the town to give up its property rights in the open space easement unless these issues are explored. I think that's it for now. Please ask if you have any questions. Please ask away. Mr. Liban, I had a quick question. I don't know if it's fair to ask, but considering you were at that 1979 meeting, can you describe what the sentiment around the dedication of our space easement was? Well, the sentiment was that it was presumed it would always be there. That it was something that, from there on forward, belonged to the town to a garbage, didn't object to it at the time. He accepted it as a condition of really a major expansion of use of the property. And I think, you know, the town, the trails committee objected to sharing the equestrian easement. And that's why the easement across the Woodside Road was dedicated. And I think that hasn't been, you know, I think the town should either obtain, you know, more complete use of the trail in the vicinity where the Equestrian trail is or else develop that, you know, a safe route across Woodside Road utilizing that easement. I think some of the existing parking encroaches on that easement. Thank you. I will do one more in the room before we go online. Good evening. My name is Richard Van Duser. I'm an attorney at Frella, Bronn and Martell in San Francisco and I represent Mickey Malca and Becky Kleiner. We submitted some written materials to the board prior to the meeting tonight, so I won't repeat myself, but there are a couple of things I'd like to highlight. First of all, as we discussed in the letter, we believe this plan is inconsistent with the general plan of the town for a whole variety of reasons. And I think if you look at both the open space element and the land use element, you look at the code, you look at the ordinance, I think you come to that same conclusion. This is not being done to service the residents of this town. This is being done to allow for the influx of visitors who come into town just about every weekend when the weather's good and who want to frequent the restaurants at the commercial center. The open space easement, which was referred to earlier, was dedicated in perpetuity. There are findings that absolutely will have to be made by the town council in order to allow for the abandonment of that easement. As Mr. Puse said, we do not believe there's any way those findings can be made, which means this project will be subject to legal challenge, and ultimately we think and joined. So to a great extent, we think this project is premature and we think it will never withstand legal scrutiny. Now, there was a lot of discussion about the parking spaces and I just wanna make sure we all understand what we're talking about here. Right now, the parking requirements are 70 during the day and 25 at night. And well, excuse me, that's the seating capacity. Essentially, they're adding 35 or 34 spaces of parking. And if you look at the drawing, what you'll see is that roughly 60 of the new spaces are going to be in this new area of paved surface parking at the very backside of the property. And with all due respect to Mr. Tanner, it's not being nice to the neighbors, including my clients, to build 60 more spaces of parking, immediately adjacent to their property across the creek. Take out and remove every tree that runs between that paved parking area and the creek that currently buffers their property from the view the parking area. It buffers them from some of the noise. It helps with some of the combustibles that come off of Kandata Road, but it provides a screening that is completely being removed. The code requires that screening be provided in this particular case. The town in its comments leading up to this required it. There is none. They're removing every bit of screening that currently exists between where the new pave parking will be and the creek and my clients property. We talk a little bit in our letter about both, the general concern about abandoning the open space easement, but also about some of the specific concerns my clients have and I won't go through those. Some of them relate to lighting, some of them relate to security, some of them relate to privacy and light of how this paved parking is going to be built and the trees that are going to need to be removed. We heard about from Sean, he said that only 20,000 square feet of the 70,000 square feet open space easement are being removed for purposes of installing the parking. But if you were paying attention to the picture, what you'll see is that the vast majority of the 50,000 that's left doesn't buffer either my client's property, nor the property owner to the north. It runs along Kinyatta Road. So it serves no purpose to maintain an open space easement along the periphery of the land, but joining conyatta road when you're taking away the existing buffer that my clients have and the people to the north have by virtue of the open space easement. I think that's something that I think it's overlooked at times. With respect to tree removal, as I said, they're removing 70 trees, 25 of which are significant and they're removing every single tree along the western side of the project between the creek and the paved parking. They're moving that paved parking right up against the new easement or the existing easement that which is now going to be the equestrian only easement, which is gonna require children and adults to not use only easement, which is going to require children and adults to not use that easement, not cut through the property, but instead walk along the small gravel trail next to Kinyata Road and around the corner on Woodside. The committees who have considered this so far have rejected it. The Open Space Committee unanimously rejected this project. The trails committee voted four to four and did not approve this project precisely because of some of the reasons that were articulating for you tonight. The circulation committee adopted a resolution that said this plan will have a negative impact on the circulation of traffic and people within the town of Woodside. So not a single community committee has approved of this project. In fact, at least one has rejected it and the other has split 50-50 down the middle when they voted on it. We've heard about the possibility of improving that path along Cognado Road and Woodside Road, but it's important, I think, for you to understand it is not a condition of approval of this project. It has never been and it's not being proposed as a condition to the acceptance or approval of this project. It is simply a promise perhaps by the owner of the property to work with the town of Woodside for those purposes. There are no guarantees at anything ultimately will be done. There's no guarantee that that path will be improved and made safer for people to travel. The, as I said, just to sum up, the abandonment of this open space, the easement, it abandons 20,000 square feet of space. It places 60 new parking spaces, immediately adjacent to my clients property and close to the property to the north, much closer than it currently is. At a minimum, we think this project obviously requires modification, substantial modification. It is not that over-parked. In fact, when the applicant submitted a letter to the town in August of 2022, when the parking study was done, they concluded that it was over-parked by six spaces. That's it. And they're adding 34 or 35 spaces, none of which are going to be at the front of the property, and all of which are going to be at the back of the property, along with another 20 to 25 additional spaces, which will have obviously a negative impact on my client's peaceful enjoyment of their property, but also the owners to the north. That's all I have if you have any questions about either our submission or what I've said here tonight, I'm happy to entertain them. Thank you. Thank you. It's because it's a timely topic at sage. There's a lot of scrutiny on the number of space and seats, specifically the village bakeries being targeted in the perverse seats. Unsequitionally, the number of spaces that are being expanded to I think a couple of things is just so the if it was just the daytime seats are the 70 seats. There is. There's a requirement for 28 spaces. And then the additional 25 at night would require 10 more spaces. So that were done all day long. The idea when the CUP was approved, other businesses were closed at that time. It was actually shown that when businesses were closed in the old CUP staff report, it showed only 101 spaces were needed at that time at night time. So it was really the peak time during the days. And so the park lit itself would add the requirement for another nine spaces. So if you kind of take all those together, the 70 plus the 25 plus the 22, and then the park lit for bucks, you know, is adding another 24 seats requiring an additional 10 spaces parking. So it's the combination of those things. I think we'll come back to this topic. And then we have the applicants attorney online that has a hand up. Okay. Let's go online and so Lee if you can allow, lead to speak. Thank you, Sage. Good afternoon. My name is Lee Prince. I am the attorney for the applicant. Thank you for giving the opportunity to talk to you on Zoom. I've heard in public comment this evening that, you know that only 5% of the people at the bakery are residents, that the majority who visit the bakery are visitors, and that this expansion isn't serving the day-to-day needs of the town of Woodside and its residents. But I do want to highlight that measure A wasn't voted on by visitors to the town. It was voted on and approved to the town. It was voted on and approved by the residents of the town to allow these parklets and to allow additional parking. We have also submitted letters in support of how this project satisfies the general plan. In fact, there is in the general plan language about the strong desire for residents to improve the parking and circulation in this area of town. In fact, there is a circulation policy to improve commercial district circulation, traffic, flow, and parking. So this project is really designed to meet the needs of Woodside residents to satisfy the desires that are expressed by those residents and the general plan and the town and the policies that are adopted in the plans. It's not merely just something that is, you know, binding the pockets of a business owner. It is something that will serve the town because the shortage of parking is something that everyone knows exists. And this project will provide a community benefit or at least continue the community benefit that began with providing the outdoor dining for residents during the pandemic. I also wanna just highlight the fact that, you know, this project and Dave, as he said, has gone through great lengths to make sure that the noise is mitigated, so it doesn't impact the neighbors, that the lights are shielded in a way that light does not intrude on the neighbors. There were a number of studies done to confirm that this did not require any additional, you know, that there were no significant impacts to the neighbors. And each of those studies did confirm that the neighbors were being buffered from light intrusion, from noise intrusion, from visual intrusion, and that there's adequate open space. I mean, I think there was much made of that this wasn't enough, but there's still 50,000 square feet of open space being preserved. So, I think there is adequate basis on which to make the findings to approve this project. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We'll do someone in the room. Hope you take time. Well, let's let let's let this individual speak and then Good afternoon, I'm Mickey Malcom, the homeowner, one of the... It's easy because we have... Thanks. My name is Mickey Malcolm, one of the two home owners being affected by this project, the most, the neighbor on the other side of the creek. I want to start by saying a couple things that were said before, being kind to the neighbors. You have never called me. You have never visited me. You have never ringed my day off. You have never shown me a plan. Excuse me, could you please direct your comments to the board? I am. Thank you. I'm speaking on the microphone. You have never called me. You should direct your comments to the board. Thank you. In Woodside, there's a tradition of a neighborhood community. Not once we have been reached out. We have reached out to the town of Wotsai multiple times. Asking for updates. Asking to be involved. Nothing has been called to upon us. We have not seen the lightning. We have not seen the nothing. We haven't even asked. That's not how Woodside works. That's not how Woodside was created. That's not the community that we live in. Number two, there's precedence on this. I've been calling this town of Woodside for the last four years, complaining that Robert's property is not compliant with noise ordinance. It's not keeping safety checks and health checks at night at those garages. Trout deliveries start arriving at 4.30 in the morning when they're not supposed to do at 6. When I call the city of Woodside to complain that, they say, call Roberts. That's their problem. I call Roberts. They don't care. They never answer. Luckily, one of the tenants, a box, has been super kind to take it above himself to help us figure out those delivery trucks. But the property owner has not even cared once to tackle it. We did the same for lights today. Nothing has happened. So when I see this plan and I see words like being kind to the neighbors, I don't see it. As a neighbor, I have no issue with the Roberts never, made them, don't know them, came to Wutland in 21, I have no history with the open space or not open space, Eastman, but I'll tell you one thing. We have never been called neither myself nor Dick D'Luna, the neighbor on the north about this project at all. And I can speak on his behalf, not once. Number two, they also mentioned we got a max out because everybody's maxing out. What you are, they are maxing out. 60 parking spaces is insane. It affects all of us. Not just, listen, my kids went to elementary school until last year and that path they walk is a path they all walk. Putting that pathway all the way to the creek, first and foremost, three months of the year, they're able to use it because water rises, it's super slippery, it gets really, really muddy down there. They talk about horses and bikes. What about the kits? The most important asset in our life is not the horses or the bikes, it's the kits. Not one mentioned by the city or by them on how that's going to be good for kids to walk around. But more important is the health and risk. We have called multiple times to report at night on those garages, gatherings of all kinds of people, doing drugs, alcohol, doing donuts on the garages, creating noise, we report them and nothing happens. So expanding that will increase dramatically how preference that space is to do that because no one cares, no one goes to stop it. You can walk today around it at night and you'll find lots of empty bottles of liquor there which then the fire department is to come and say rovers please clean it up because it's fire hazard. How is that going to change? So as a neighbor, I'm going to let the letter that we sent in talk about the legal terms. I'm talking more as a human neighbor. I was expecting a lot more from our neighbors. Private property, commercial, residential, it's the same. But it hasn't been for the record. It hasn't been one single approach. Not once. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Hey, let's go to online. There's more in the audience than the audience. We're just trying to get everyone. There's still 12 people online. We're just trying to get every button. There's still 12 people online. So if anyone online would like to speak, please raise your hand. No hands raised. I shrink this thing now. You were so talk. Hi, my name is Elena Vanavort-Wagner. This is my first time standing up in front of the new ASRB committee. So I know one of you, but I have not met the other two. I appreciate meeting both of you. And thank you so much for being on the committee today. Good to see you, Sage, and some of you here. I've been following this for a long time. I was chair of the environment committee for many years. And I'm now vice chair of the climate and sustainability committee for the town of woodside. So of course, I know of this issue going on for many years now and have been following it for a long time. And this is my first time standing up for it. I find it very interesting. One as a person of woodside, who has a business here in woodside, who does a lot of her meetings within those restaurants of which we're talking about the parking areas for. I have to say it's been six months since I have gone to bucks or the bakery for coffee or the bakery for dinner. Easily six months because it's impossible to park. I can't invite people to come. If I have an hour for a meeting, it can take a half an hour, 45 minutes to circle and circle and circle for parking. And that's impossible for people of the town of Woodside. So I have followed this closely wondering what's gonna happen, how we're gonna find a resolution for this. I was one of the people and I understand I've heard some of the comments from online where I was one of the people that was for putting out chairs and expanding during COVID. I thought it was a wonderful idea for us to be able to meet outside. And for a very brief period of time, it was absolutely fantastic. And then it really expanded the amount of chairs and I certainly noticed the breach of people that they were allotted there in terms of fire hazard being breached multiple times when I was there as it is frustrating as a local woodside resident. Obviously beyond that we're talking about something that is very important to the safety of the children. I think anybody can walk by there in the evenings and see a lot of disaster happening within trash and beer bottles and that is a concern. I appreciate that being raised because the mother of a teenage son in the area, I know they're always looking for places to hang out and as we look to destroy more of the environment of woodside of which we all move here for, that is obviously a concern that needs to be addressed. Also looking into, you know, in breachment of areas around waterways is something that strategically is written in our guidelines that we need to follow. So as we look at taking down these trees and spreading out, it's one thing to talk about conservation land easements. It's one thing to talk about conservation land easements. It's one thing to talk about oak trees that we talk so much about preserving or the guidelines which we set that we expect our residents to follow, but as a town potentially are looking at not following. But it's another thing to really say, how does that work for the people of Woodside? More chairs? Does it mean more people get to come? Or not? Is it something that if we expand the number of chairs and then we expand the parking lot, where does that end? Where do we keep going with this? Right? We started off very small several years ago when we agreed to bring in these restaurants. But that was with the conservation managers and with them we've expanded ones. Now we're expanding again. So I really appreciate that this is a difficult one for the ASRB committee. And I know you guys have very high standards. I have sat here many times watching ASRB committee go on for hours about one person's barn light outside they're barn. These are really strict standards that we have for our town. And I really hope and support you guys in taking the decision to keep the high level of standards for the town of Woodside. Thank you. Thank you. One more comment is that we're talking about the parking demand created by the restaurants. And I believe in I think Christine could correct me if I'm wrong in this. I believe that a lot is also used as parking for employees at the grocery store and for some patrons at the grocery store. And so that's another reason to, you know, to put this off until we can look at the bigger picture. We can look at the Kinyata Woodside Road intersection that's a disaster and the parking associated with the grocery store and how the grocery store parking exasper exacerbates the the problem on on this side the town's going to be looking you know at at traffic and parking and housing I think is going to be added to the menu for town center this time around and it's you know that's going to be a big change and it's really ashamed to go ahead with this that will impact it without seeing the bigger picture. Thank you. See okay anyone else in the room wish to make a comment? I was on the board when there was the whole discussion of the seats. And I remember when Mark had the bakery, I was was sort of a de facto increase in parking requirements. So all of a sudden we have a parking problem. I agree with Steve Lubin that I think this is premature. I'll be kind and say it's incomplete. I mean, you are the site review board. And I think that Dave has done a pretty good job of figuring out how to get the required, even though I'm opposed to the expansion in theory, he's done a good job of laying out those spaces. And the retaining wall is a good design. That material is conducive to looking rustic pretty quickly. My concern and why I think this is incomplete is the rest of the site. And so far I have not heard of a problem of kids on bikes and horses having a conflict or pedestrians and horses. So we are now abandoning that diagonal which has sort of come into use. So I think we need to revisit that trail that's remaining for all users. And I think we need to seriously look at the easement along Cognata Road and in front of Woodside Road, which then you're forcing the kids to cross two driveways. And there are a lot of kids, I think a lot of kids come from the glens and areas north. So we need that should be looked at as part of the whole of this of this plan. And if you do go ahead with it, I think it should be looked at as part of the whole of this plan. And if you do go ahead with it, I think it should be heavily conditioned on dealing with these issues. You know, I say it's incomplete because I don't think it has addressed all the problems. And at the circulation committee, they were all struggling. And it seems like if you're struggling that much, there's something that's not quite finished. And so I'd like to see it go back to the drawing board and be done right. This is a significant change in the town center. And I think it would be a missed opportunity to not do it right. And to address those issues, to deal with that whole front of Woodside Road and how that trail could be developed. If it is indeed the only alternative, I still think that the remaining the trail they're proposing making some changes on the question trail could could be a multi use trail. I've never seen any adult cyclists use that trail or any of the peloton. So I think we do need to look at kids safety and address some of these issues. So I would, my recommendation would be that you take a hard look at this and let's figure it out and let's do it right. This is a big deal in Woodside. And Christine has a right to make the application and to run her business. But the town also has a right to expect that in return for abandoning the open space easement that we do some serious planning that's done right with good design. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, Don Pue, again, I just had one or two comments. First of all, Christine wrote a letter to the town complaining about the bakeries excess use of parking the town ignored it. The question I've got sage is why hasn't the town counted the seats? I know you spoke with the town manager. I'll defer to the town manager and the town manager said the council don't count the seats. Something is missing here. How can we make a decision without knowing a few facts? I counted 172. That's my number. Hopefully the town will decide this is an important piece of data that we should have. Secondly, the big thing that's missing on this whole thing is the findings required to ban in the open-skate sage. It hasn't been mentioned. You know, you've talked about the... That's something that the Planning Commission and the town council will think of. And the other is whether this is SQL, a violation or not. Now somehow it says, category, exempt, but I don't think so. I think when we're talking about the environmental impact of this, it definitely should be there. And in earlier comment regarding measure A, well measure A, which basically undid some things to measure J, of which I was the author of that the J. It was a very distorted misleading thing. The variance was four votes out of 1800 or votes. That was the difference. And we'd filed complaints with a fair political practice commission that we're not followed up on regarding things like using paid signature gathers and so forth. So I wouldn't, for respect to Lee, to expect that measure a at all reflects the interest of the citizens of Woodside. I think what you're hearing now is the interest of the citizens. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the room? I wish this to make a comment. Gosh, I guess the love's got to go. What's the biggest? How big is the target? My name is Tyler McNeven. I was raised in Woodside. I went to Woodside Elementary. My children currently attend Woodside Elementary. I love this town deeply. I was raised here. I plan on probably being scattered around some oak trees here somewhere. This is a tough one. Wow! I'm really sorry this is happening and it's coming to this. I think there I was thinking about it in this room, I was thinking, am I, have I heard more complaints about the parking than anyone else? I thought no, Christine has, I do not enter your position. It's tough, I'm in the hospitality business. I've worked my whole life and trying to make people happy. And I'm trying to do that as we navigate this and as my family and I speak up our voice for what we think is right for the town. Because like you and like the town council, we have the best intentions for the town for the residents of the town and the people who visit our town. I came here mostly today to gather more information and to learn more. I learned a tremendous amount from this presentation. There's certainly a lot of considerations here. But I'm just going to give you a little bit of perspective of what it's like running the business. I receive a lot of complaints about the parking. It's been a big source spot, especially since COVID, but it's been a 20-year-long issue. And it started when the previous owner of the bakery expanded seating outside into the backyard and created an outdoor patio that started as tables and then umbrellas and then a temporary wall, which became kind of a permanent fixture back there in which I'm trying to do some math here, but my understanding is that the future CUP of the bakery would be as much as their crit indoor seating and the backyard outdoor seating now. So we'd effectively be adding a second outdoor space and telling them you can never sit one of them. I'm wondering if that math is correct. So the current proposal is to allow the rear patio, the indoor all day long. All day long. And then addition allow the front outdoor. Got it. And that total is I think 170? Oh, 117 seats, 117 seats. Got it. I think our counting varies by about maybe 50 seats. So that's, but I'm not sure. I think I think the official counting should take place. We should all kind of hold hands on what those numbers were. But I will say that, you know, I believe that what the S R B and what the town decides will be ultimately best for the town's needs. I know that the outdoor seating has been absolutely wonderful. It's very hard to sustain what we're doing with the current parking situation. And that's just coming from the perspective of a business owner. So good luck everybody. Everybody. I wish we could all hold hands and sink in by on to the sunset This is gonna be a tough one and feelings are gonna get hurt and I just hope that you know We continue to do it with grace and with compassion for everybody and of course with the safety of Everyone in mind, so thanks everybody. Thank you I'm going to go to the parking. I'm going to go to the parking. I'm going to go to the parking. I'm going to go to the parking. I'm going to go to the parking. I'm going to go to the parking. I'm going to go to the parking. I'm going to go to the parking. I'm going to go to the parking. I'm going to go to the parking. I'm going to go to the parking. several parking spaces needed and there's bike parking for the restaurants I see so just can we throw that into the plan if it moves ahead? I will put a limit on the number of times she can't do that. No, it's just a question. How hard is it to count seats? Why is there a difference of 50 seats? For me to put, even a light bulb on my property, you guys have to come and do many inspections and it takes a while. Why is it so hard to agree on a number of seats? I don't understand. We can stop the meeting, go over there, and count them right now. It's that simple. Is there anyone else? I think I'll say a little more. I think we're going to have a little more of a bit of a discussion. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Well, as we'll bring public hearing to close. Oh, oh. I think I'll say a little more. Oh. This is the last. This is the last one. Except to say, I mean, my perspective, and I really appreciate the opinions tonight, but my perspective is someone who does not live near this parking lot. If I live near this parking lot, I would be outraged at this proposal. I think it is greatly affecting the people who live within that vicinity. And I'm sorry to not hear more voices from those people that are there tonight. I know they've been fighting this strongly, but I really hope we take the immediate local people and how they're being affected by this quite seriously. Thank you. Thanks. the public online. Let's just do a last check. No hands raised. No hands raised online. Right. I will close the public hearing and we'll move to board discussion who would like to kick us off. I have a couple of questions for sage. The backyard patio expansion of the Woodside Bakery. When did it happen or when did we approve it? Okay, I sure. I had to tell it was prior to the 90s. There's one of the website bakery did some changes. I'd have to double check. It was prior to the 2016 on a CUP. And then you know how many spots were lost when that was expanded? There that patio would didn't take up any spaces. It was just a patio. It's like it was kind of like a sidewalk patio area behind. Then there was a permit issue to constrain went through ASRB to construct the wall. Okay. Okay. Okay. I have a lot of comments. I like to wait. Yeah. I have my thoughts. Thank you. Thank you for reminding me. I counted 14 items cited by different folks who actually are not necessarily against it, but they have concerns. And I counted, I just, three considerations, strictly in favor of the proposal. But the common mood appears to be, it's a problem, a long-standing problem, which needs to be addressed. Many people in the wood side and outside of the wood side would have to be able to use box and build bakery. But it helps say if I read out loud 14 items already have them so that it's fresh in everyone's memory. At this point we're just looking for any comments that you have. Okay, again 14 items ranging from ranging from what happened in 1979 through concerns related to how make it work better, better separation of the, between the parking lot and the neighbors use of the bicycle racks to reduce the number of parking stalls. And also no direct assigned responsibility for who and the winnable count of the sheets. That seemed to be contribution. I would say the easiest one to address as someone just expressed it is to count the sheets and then see what is the minimal number of marking spots to not offend the neighbors or not to inflict on their rights and use the optimization which Mrs. Lippen proposed. Well, I'll go. It is a hard one. I think this year, first time, the last four or five sessions of this board, we've had to tackle a project with an impact open space. And I think we're gonna continue to see a lot of that and going forward. The town is challenged and there's very, only a handful of spaces left in the town to actually develop and meet our housing element requirements, develop in terms of encouraging business to thrive within the town, without impacting someone, or many people in some cases. So open spaces will continue to be a sensitive topic. I think one of the things that didn't hear brought up, actually I'll take that up with the last speaker we heard about trying to do business within the town. And I think the town does have a responsibility to facilitate businesses being successful. And then what's debatable is, well, what is too much success? We provide too much parking. Does that then translate too much seating and too much success for a business could be looked at that way? I think there is another aspect with regard to the role, the charter of this board and the legality of this application. And I think it is outside the charter to debate or discuss whether or not applicant has a legal right to bring a project to the town. And I think we best put that aside and not focus on that too much because I think the legality will be taken up by the Planning Commission and town council when they render opinion on the entitlements or any of the other changes that are required, such as rezoning. We didn't talk at all about the actual design proposal itself, other than perhaps the actual placement of it, relative to change in the open space easement as it impacts surrounding neighbors. Personal opinion on that is I do think there is an opportunity. The land east of the eastern boundary of the property is land that's going to be remain designated as open space. I do think there is an opportunity to revisit and perhaps shift the parking somewhat east to accommodate or to accommodate those neighbors on the creek side by giving a little more land on the western side of the property. As for the design itself, I mean, the use of the the gabion wall as a means of a retaining wall, I have no concerns about that. I'm assuming the fence on top of that is primarily a safety issue, given it's a 12 foot drop up to a 12 foot drop into the parking space we don't want to see anyone going over that wall. I think there was a valid point made about taking a broader view of the entire site would better support circulation. I think with regard to lighting, I think this, for me, this would roll. I know there's a proposal just to add, I think three light standards of the taller ones in nature. I think this should be revisited. I think the entire site lighting should be taken a look at more holistically and address, you know, how lighting, A, how it impacts the neighbors, but B, at how lighting can facilitate better security on the site. And perhaps discourage some of the behavior we're seeing late at night. I'll stop there for now. Allow my fellow member to continue. Still a lot of my thoughts. Sorry. You know, as part of the answer be. We're tasked with looking at projects from a community outreach perspective. I'm to site planning. Building design and landscape elements. at projects from a community outreach perspective, from the site planning, the building design, and landscape elements. And in this particular case, non-residential development, if I understand correctly. To your point, legality is an issue in this room at the moment. In terms of community outreach, I voted for measure A, because I also struggled with parking. But the way I ran measure A involved a public building for public use in conjunction with parking, not parking only. And I struggle with those internal dissonance, and I wonder how many people voted with that same thought in mind. Additionally, as we look at our town center plan and the fact that we vacated two open space easements for multifamily housing, and we're discussing doing the same thing in town center with multifamily housing, I wonder if this plan could be better served by looking at it holistically with that future in mind. With regards to the site planning, I focused on the traffic study because that traffic study dictated the need for parking to be built and how many spots we needed. I've had non-puse letter. I called the Woodside Bakery last weekend and they told me that they can accommodate 130 people and I also went in and I counted seats myself to see for myself. And there was nearly twice what I understood to be in the CUP. You know, if you have seats for a restaurant and you advertise those seats, people will come expecting a fine parking or said seats inside restaurant. And I wonder, you know, if we're basing this entire plan on a parking study that wasn't founded in reality when it was done and we will find ourselves here in five years with 60 more parking spaces but without a parking solution. Okay, I already asked about it. You know, in terms of building design, there's many ways to fit cars on a parcel. You know, you answered my question of, this was the most cost effective and straightforward way of doing it. In terms of landscape elements, you know, that I'd like to get the gaming and wall design. I think it was a good choice. You know, for all the reasons you mentioned, Miss Panerick. I would like to see an overall lighting plan as well that has a more consistent application of lighting fixtures as well as lower heights. It's also most clear to me looking at the layout of the lighting if it sufficiently lighted the entire proposed parking area. We are talking about removing a lot of trees from this project and, you know, with houses, with ADUs, with every other project. It isn't asked that screening be provided between the proposed project and the neighbors. Yeah, those are my comments at the moment. Okay, let's see if I can summarize this in a motion. I'll take a stab at it. I move that this project be continued to the applicant to return or an additional conceptual review and address the following specifications. One, we get an accurate and agreeable seat count for all of the food service institutions. There's just far too much debate around this. That in turn translates to an agreed upon practice spot expansion requirement. I'll also include that that circulation issues raised by the circulation committee being incorporated as part of this and a more holistic view of the entire site be considered to address safe and efficient passing of pedestrians, pedestrians, bicycles, either through and in addition to a round of the site, so that would include Kinyata Road and Midside Road. Third item would be an exploration of adjustment to the proposed location of the parking. See if there proposal for lighting that would manage the light emission from the site. But also perhaps address some of the security issues of the site. Is there anything else? I forgot to mention the wonderful idea of adding a little bit more bicycle parking. Oh, yes. The looking at bicycle parking distributed around the site. Okay. Is that the he's of enough motion? Yes, it's very clear. I appreciate's Office, given timelines in which the town has to take action on this project. And we'll report back to the ASRB. Good. Is there a second? Hi, second. Chair Lindsey? Yes. Member Middleton? Yes. Member Taft? Vice-Chair Comra and Member Del Gaviro are noted absent. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Moving on to. So excuse me just everyone if you could take your conversations outside we have a excuse me everyone We have a very packed agenda that we still need to get through if you could take your conversations outside we'd appreciate it Hey For those still on the agenda. Thank you for your patience. So next item in the agenda 25 Martin Lane. Let me just pull up my screen. All right, thank you for your patience for the applicants who are online. Hello, and thank you. I'm Melanie Olson, associate planner, and I'll be introducing the project at 25 Martin Lane, for formal designer view with the ASRB. The project includes the partial demolition and up to a complete rebuild of an existing one-story single-family residence, attached garage, and a shed to construct an addition and remodel to the rear of single family residence, attached garage, and a shed to construct an addition and remodel to the rear of the main residence, a new attached garage and relocation of the driveway, and attached to ADU to the northern side of the property. It also includes other site improvements, such as landscaping, fencing, and a new forefoot. That includes a new forefoot fence, that includes a new four-foot fence at the front of the property with a pedestrian gate. The project came before the ASRB on October 2nd, 2023 for conceptual design review. There is one desk item for this agenda item. It is from an email from the adjacent neighbor to the north of the proposed project discussing concerns related to tree safety and noise prevention. The property is about 14,000 square feet and is in the R1 zoning district. It is located on Martin Lane off of Woodside Road, which is a designated scenic corridor. The property has an existing single-story main residence attached garage and a shed on a relatively flat lot with no easements. The existing main residence has a legal, non-conforming front setback of approximately 24 and a half feet from the property line where typically the front setback for the zone district is 30 feet. And it is to be noted that the proposed project is maintaining this non-conforming legal front setback. the main residence would include an addition of the rear of the main residence and a relocation of the attached garage and driveway, locating them to the north side of the property instead of the south side. It would also include a new attached ADU at the rear north side property line that would encroach into the side and rear setbacks, which is allowed according to state law and the woodside municipal code. The proposed addition and remodel would slightly reduce the legal non-conforming front setback by removing the existing bay windows of the current main residence. The proposed main residence would be approximately 2,800 square feet and less than 17 feet tall. The materials of the proposed main residents and attached structures would be beige, moon, stucco, stained wood siding, aluminum clad windows with low e-glass and tar and gravel roofing for the proposed flat roof and a dark gray standing seam metal roof where there is a ridge roofing. So here we see the front elevation. Here we see facing the rear of the property at the west elevation. Here's the side elevation facing south. And then here is the side elevation facing north. In regard to the ASRB recommendations, the applicant is currently not proposing to remove any significant trees at this time and has provided a tree protection plan for the trees that are on and adjacent to the property. from CDR floor plan. The yellow shows where the mechanical equipment was at first located for the main residence and then the blue shows where the initial ADU entrance was located and then for formal design review instead of it facing the North property line it is now facing the front of the property. They also reduced glazing on the north side of the ADU and they're intending to plant hedges along that north property line next to the ADU to provide more privacy to the adjacent neighbor. So here is the conceptual designer view elevation of that Northside property line showing the windows with the cables. That's where the ADUs being proposed. And then here's the formal designer view, removing the windows. And then the windows they are proposing are will be blocked by the six foot tall perimeter fence on the northern side of the property. So they also included a exterior lighting plan, a robust exterior lighting plan, which the ballerads, I guess. Yeah, here we go. So the ballerads, which kind of are the path lighting for the project, they're shown in orange highlight. The wall sconces are shown in the pink highlight, which are adjacent to the or that are on the proposed project, the main residence, and then as well as security cameras with flood lights shown in green. Very few of those. The staff has recommended removing some of the baller lights, especially that are shown more in the landscape as opposed to path lighting to reduce light emissions and then to also remove some at the driveway since there's this already a significant amount of lighting attached to the building shown on the driveway. So that's something that the ASRB can consider. That concludes my presentation, the property owners and the applicant are available online, but I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Molly. two fellow members were not yet serving on this board a year ago when we first did the several review of this. So I was here. So I'll let them sort of drive a lot of the questions and discussion with the applicants. But the focus for the formal review is really on how the applicant addressed the feedback from concept. That is correct. You have that summarized anywhere. I always see your staff report. Yes. I mean, I tried to incorporate it into the presentation, but I can pull them up if that would be helpful. Let me ask in a different way. Is there anything that they have not addressed from the previous review? No, they addressed each of the items. Okay, another question for Melanie. Nope, okay. Is the applicant wish to speak on anything regarding this revised proposal for this formal review. Oh, yes, I thank you very much. You may need members, just a short statement. Yeah, as Melanie stated, we did address the neighbor to the north who had those comments. We moved all day, we kind of equipment to the south relocated the entry door to the ADU to the front away from that property line. And then also, you know, the in a landscape plan, we have some hedges that will be installed. They are planted there to provide additional privacy and light screening. And then there was also issues of trees and then potentially following during construction and their health. So there was an arborist report that was procured with construction procedures like hand dug foundations near the ADU for or for roots and then also root protection for any roots more than two inches in diameter and similar procedures to accommodate those trees during construction and afterwards. And I believe that's all the comments. Please correct me if I'm wrong melody. No, that's correct. Does anyone on the board have a question for the app? Just to confirm, just to confirm my understanding that this is not this property is not on septic. This is, but it's not an issue. Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Okay. Other questions? Those will move on to the public hearing. So beyond the one desk item we received, if there's anyone in the room or online wishes to make a comment on this application. There's anyone online, please raise your hand. I'll see you in no hands raised. Okay. Efficient. So that closed the public hearing and moved to board discussion. Start this time. Sure. I'm happy to hear that the applicant was responsive to neighbors and that the neighbors issues were addressed. I like to commend them for that. Site planning, it looks like a great layout and I do appreciate the changes to the ADU and the mechanical room. The landscape elements also shading the ADU is a good touch. I do agree with staff that some of the excess lighting should be removed and I encourage the applicant to look at security cameras that have IR lighting instead of blood lighting work just as well. I'm there on that. And those are my comments. No, I'll strip some of the chief comments. It seems to me it's a Florida and non-controversial, at least at this point in time. Okay. Yeah. I'm concerned, I wish, well, at least at this point in time. Okay. Yeah, I'll echo my fellow members comments and compliment the homeowner on addressing all of the concerns that we expressed in the conceptual review with regard to privacy and light emission impacting the neighborhood to the north. Thank you for doing that. I think with regards to the Arbor's report and tree planning, it's, I think it regards to the Arbor report and tree planning, it's, I think it addresses any concerns about risks to the trees, especially with hand dug foundations. Comes at a cost, but it's worth it to preserve trees. As it pertains to your question regarding lighting, landscape lighting, I tend to agree with staff that I think there is a large number of landscape bothered lights in the landscape. That could probably be revised and downsized. But other than that, I think this is a great example of how all of the feedback given a conceptual review has been incorporated completely in the formal review and have no issues. But with that, I would move to approve this project. And just to clarify that would be with the conditions stated in the staff report. Yes. Your second. I'll say I come back. Chair Lindsay. Yes. Member Middellman. Yes. Member Taft. Yes. Vice Chair Kamra and member Delgaviou noted absent. Great. Done. Thank you. Great. And for the applicant, we'll send you a letter with the next couple days. Good luck with your project. Thank you very much. Now the fun begins. Sorry, Julie. I'm still not having these a panelist. Could you please send the re-invitational. Thank you. All right, moving on to item three, 85 more road. That's a clarifying code question before we pick it up. Sure. Does the fourth rate, 80 use up back, except by the state applied a both attached and detached ideas? Yes. Cool. Is that for your own project? No, I just couldn't remember the code. I couldn't find it. All right. Great. Hi, everyone. Hope you're having a great start to your week. This evening, I'm going to be introducing a continued presentation and consideration of proposal requiring conceptual designer view to construct a new single-family main residence with an attached garage, attached accessory dwelling unit, pool, and associated site improvements on a vacant lot located at 385 more road. This application for conceptual design review was continued from July 22nd, 2024's AARISRB meeting to allow the applicants to install story pools for the benefit of the neighbors and the ASRB and to allow the applicant to complete project design revisions to increase the proposed designs alignment with the Woodside residential design guidelines. There are no desk items pertaining to this item and as of last time we will determine if this is up or secure at a future level of re-for-formal design review. On July 22, 2024, the ASRB provided the initial conceptual design review of the project. After deliberation, the ASRB determined that several design changes should be made to the project at the conceptual level before providing all the details necessary for formal design review. The ASRB provided a number of recommendations to the applicant, including reducing the overall formality of the design through changes, including but not limiting to minimizing elements such as the columns, coins, elaborately designed metal guard rails, and minimizing the large two-story building entrance. Furthermore, the board recommended exploring alternative darker colors for the siding of the structure with the intention of having more than one material assist in reducing the visual impact of the structure's massing. In addition to requesting modifications to the structural design, the ASRB ask that the applicant provide a landscape plan for review that included new landscape screening using native planting placed in an informal pattern between the Redway Scenic Corridor and the proposed development. Resume to their Woodside residential design guidelines, landscape screenings and tonnage complement design that is compliant with the design guidelines, not to mask one that is non-continent. This is just kind of a summary of what we were asking them to do with their original design that's presented in July. The applicant did revise the proposed plan set in response to the ASRB's recommendations, changes to the main residence design, including the following. The applicant has revised the project materials about the main residence and the ADU to remove the previously proposed stucco and to provide a new proposed natural stone siding at wood siding as well as new roofing materials. The applicant has revised the project colors to both the main residents and the ADU to include shades of dark grey and brown rather than the previously proposed off-lights and cream colors. The applicant revised the front entrance metal guardrails, coins and elaborate trims, largely removing them from the structure. The applicant decreased the scale of the front entryway, modified the appearance of the columns, and changed the front entry materials, and the applicant added new trims and shutters to the window exterior, all proposed in a dark brown color. In addition to modifications made to the main residents, the applicant has also provided a conceptual landscape plan at the request of the ASRB in order to help minimize the visible impacts of the site improvements from the I-280 C-NIC corridor. The conceptual landscape plan includes new screening between the proposed site improvements as well as between Highway 280 and they also included some landscape screening between the proposed site improvements and more road, which is a little added bonus that was not said directly by the ASRB. For further requests of the ASRB, the applicant has included California native trees and their post-planting composition, including Western Redbud and Coastal Live Vogue, among others. The applicant has provided updated materials palette, including natural stone siding, wood siding, and metal seam roofing. The applicant has opted to retain the exterior patio tiling proposed with their preliminary design, as well as the interlocking stones for the driveway and the black aluminum windows. While the main residents in ADU's massing inform have not changed from the original proposal design, the applicant has provided updated elevation drawings for our reference. These elevation drawings clearly demonstrate that the reduction in detailing has been applied universally across the main residents and the ADU. Members of the project team at 384 have more road here, are here to present at this meeting. I know they do have some detailed commentary in response to your comments from the last revision. So if you don't have any additional questions, feel free to ask now for staff and then we'll have the applicants subsequently. Thank you. Okay. Any questions of staff? At least some management plan, I missed. No vegetation management plan yet. plan. Yeah. Just a quick question. There's an interesting element appears to be far a pit, but I was not able to quickly surround that. Is it a far a pit or? Yeah, they have a seating area in a far pit that was included in their initial proposal and there were no outstanding comments at the time. However, read a comment on it at this time if you have. So it will be visible from to 80 correct. The the new screening installation is proposed to happen between the site improvements and the 8 to 80 corridor. But to my understanding that fire pit is recessed and shouldn't be visible from the 280 corridor. But altogether the site wall is affiliated with it might be. But altogether they knew kind of more rustic appearance of the residents. And I guess open for them as long as it's safe. There's no detract from from the NBN, so for the nature. So yeah, I don't believe so. And safety elements will be analyzed, but if I are department. Of course. So thank you very much for the clarification. Of course. Let me let the applicants presentation. If there are no additional questions. I have no questions. So yeah, invite the applicant to present. Good evening, commissioners. I know it's been a long day for you and we have another application waiting right after us. So thank you so much for the feedback at the last presentation. We had a very detailed discussion with our clients. They were surprisingly very open to listening to the feedback from the city. We had a very good like within a couple of days discussion with them. Came back with three or four options for them to review and between what worked for them and then what we were discussing with planning staff to make sure we were addressing all your comments. We went through and addressed at least to our knowledge as best as we could with everything that we were you know given to us as comments that day. We have a brief presentation if we can go through it. Just some few things that we thought would be extra helpful that we did. So we'll just go through it. So we did thanks to my colleague, Hernee, she did brave it and parked at 280 and took a picture. So we could show you what we could see from 280 because that's important for us because story polls helps us. No matter how much 3Ds we do, it's just not that visible. Story poles really tells us where things are. So that's you can see right like what's visible. We can go next. Again, these are just us imposing R3D now that we had the outline. It was kind of easy to plug it in. So we just wanted to show what it's going to look like from here. As you can see that it's like kind of you see the hillside and then the house. So you definitely don't see the pool and any of that stuff from this end. I'll just go kind of through this. And then if you guys have questions, we can come back. The landscape plan was done as per what was suggested to us last time to show the privacy screening and very much keeping it intact and very close tucked in with the main residents rather than spreading it out all over the property since we want to keep it as native as possible. And I think we've addressed that especially since we were given the condition of putting more of that around the swimming pool area and then just making sure we were shielding the house from 280. Native plantation and we've had feedback that there was no major concerns from planning. So we and the plan seemed to be happy the landscape architect was using the guideline that normally are done in what site so we kind of took their lead on this. Proposed elevations we can go through. Basically we worked on coming the house down the color scheme, as well as kind of making it more of a rustic home and the materials that are most commonly used in what site the shutter details, everything was done in order to create that feel that we were being asked to do when we were hair last. And we kind of removed all the balcony, the details of the rot island and things and made it such that we were hoping to blend this in the site as best as we could while still keeping what our clients requirement was for the floor plan. These are just side elevations. All the windows have been made smaller from our first submittal. They are not as wide as we had originally submitted in the front back and even in the side elevations. Correct. From yeah, number of windows in the back have been reduced as well. Same thing in the garage side as you would see the before and after. A lot of reduction in glazing. These are just some views that we wanted to just share. So we could show the details of what we were looking at. The comment we got for the fire pit and the pool was to just mere use more of the rustic materials and the stone cladding. And of course, we did not want to hide this with the landscaping that is proposed because we were wanted to show you the house and the changes we've done. But basically, if you look at the landscape plan, the landscaping on this side will be shielding the house quite a bit. We did take a view from the Kaldasak or kind of the private road just to show what we were able to see from this end and we try to superimpose our building in there. So this is the story pole right like where it's bare. There's just no vegetation, no landscaping, and you can see it quite clearly. This is us doing our best to impose our building in the plans. And then the next slide we did show like once our landscape screening is up, which is going to be very easy since the street is up in the houses down that we should be able to block this completely. I believe we just wanted to keep it very simple. We thought that we have gone through and addressed each and every comment worked with planning staff and they were super helpful. Thank you so much for bringing it back so fast for our clients. That was very important and we wanted to make sure that we were not rushing through the details, but still made it back in time so that we can keep this process going. But we are here to answer any questions you have. Thank you. Any question? It's kind of a off the low question, what software are you using to do the rendering? So we use multiple software. We're using Revit and then we use Lumian. And then we use 3D Max and Photoshop. So we are mixing and matching as much as we can just to kind of get the right. Thank you. Thank you. I'll start again. Check if there's anybody from the public who wants to speak on this. Is there anyone online that would like to speak on this? If so, raise your hand. Sure, put the no hands online, but yeah, there you go. I know how the questions belong in. Thank you for the story polls. Okay, once again, they prove immensely helpful in understanding how the home sits in the land visibility from 280. I'm curious if that's prompted any feedback from surrounding neighbors yet. I think the visibility from 280, I think the change in the color palette goes a long way to help the home sort of blend into the surrounding forest. So I think that's been a good change. But I am curious because it is a substantial change in direction aesthetically. So is your client happy with the new direction? They're content. For them it's important because of their family and parents aging to move the process fast. It was very important to keep the floor plan as it is because that's important for their parents, but they are content. I mean, I don't think they would be spending this kind of money if they weren't happy with this direction. We did show them quite a few options and they seem to be very comfortable with this route. Good. Thank you. I'll speak from the board's perspective. We're content. Good from that perspective, but I have no other questions. And there's no comments online. No hands raised online. Yeah. Good. Then I think this one's pretty straightforward. I think we move to move this to staff or formal review. Oh, you want my comments? No, I'm not going to send you a question. So that's why you headed. Okay, go ahead. Sorry. I was just saying I also watching the club. Good game tonight. Now I just also want to say thank you for putting up the story of all I came from the site to come to this meeting and it definitely helped. I do like the promote screening as well and I do commend the applicant and the clients for going back to the drawing board and rethinking the aesthetics. Oh, thank you. I want to ask that you do try and reach out to the neighbors to see if they have any comments before you start digging into the ground though. Okay, great. Okay, so move to a formal review and move to staff. Sure. Yeah. And we'll just clarify that this project may need a great exception. So it just would not have to come back to ASRB, but for formal could go straight to planning commission. That's necessary. If it's not, it would just be reviewed by staff. Okay. Second. Second. Charlene C. Yes. Member Middellman. Yes. Member Taft. Yes. Vice Chair Kamra and member Belgoffio noted absent. Great. Thank you. Good luck. I hope it goes fast. All right. Finally, the last item on the agenda is 88 Tom Suddenway. Sudden or Sudan? Sudan, Sudan. Sudan. Stop with me again. Hi. So second project I'm introducing for you all tonight is conceptual design review for a post project at 80 Tom Soutenwey. This project includes the demolition of an existing single-family residence, stable, and shut to construct a new two-story single-family home with a basement, attach garage, detached accessory dwelling unit, and other site improvements. I haven't received any desk items pertaining to this agenda item. And as with the last project, we will determine if this requires sequel during formal design or due phase of the process. The subject property is approximately 0.87 acres and is located along Tom Sudenway close to its point of intersection with West California way. This site has variable elevations and slopes upward from Tumsoot and Way at an elevation of approximately 700 feet in the front. It's the rear property line with an elevation of approximately 750 feet. The subject law was created via lot merger in 2021, which combined lots 18 19, 20, 21 and 22 in blocks 602 of the Highland of Emerald Hills Lake subdivision size into a single lot. The provider preliminary title report and to bug graphics survey do not identify any easement zones. Site includes an existing single family residence located within close proximity to the north and west property lines. In addition to an existing main residence, the site also contains an existing stable in Shann. All existing structures are scoped with demolition to accommodate the new site design. Site is currently accessible by an existing driveway long time. The proposed mean residence is a two story single family home with a basement and an attached garage. The proposed mean residence would be located towards the north and west property lines near the general location of the existing residents. The main residents would be accessed from the existing driveway entrance, which is on the southwest property line, a long-term suit and way. The main residence has a relatively flat, variable roof lines between the one and two story portions of the home to minimize the massing of the building. The main residence includes simple modern forms and low pitch roofs. Pursuant to Woodside residential design guideline section 3.3D4, the placement in size of windows and skylight should be designed to prevent off-site glare as seen from adjacent properties, the roadway, and distant views. The post-mine residence includes two story glass wall elements on the main house frontage and high windows with substantial glazing on the side elevations. Subject sites of hill location creates visibility concerns or downhill properties and beyond. Therefore, the ARSRB should discuss preferred methods to the amount of glazing associated with the design, utilization of low E-glass, and installation of informally placed landscape screening, which should be used to complement main residents that is combined with the residential design guidelines. Well, floor area calculations are not required during conceptual design review. The applicant has provided preliminary for your calculations. I was mean residents is approximately 3557 square feet accounting for the garage size exception. And the project will therefore need a maximum main residence size exception during a formal design review. The proposed main residence is approximately 22.7 feet tall. And it is therefore compliant with the main residence height maximum for the R1 zoning designation. In addition to the main residence, the project proposal includes a detached accessory dwelling unit, which would be located east of the main residence adjacent to the pool and associated pool decks. The accessory dwelling unit is compliant with the maximum heights, laid heights, setbacks, and maximum floor area requirements of accessory structures within the R1 zoning designation. The proposed materials are consistent between the main residents and the detached accessory Dvaling Unit. The applicant is proposing materials including composite wood siding, smooth finished stucco, steel cable railings, composite wood fascia, aluminum windows, and eyepud siding. The project renderings provide a proposed color palette that include a variety of neutral tone colors, primarily in shades of gray, brown, and black. The applicant has proposed removal of nine trees to accommodate the project design with eight of the trees, opposed for removal, meeting the definition of significant trees, present to Woodside Municipal Code section 153.005 due to their size and species. The applicant is proposed removal of a 32-inch oak tree southeast of the proposed EDU, although it appears that this tree does not fall within or directly adjacent to the footprint of the proposed development. Prior to submitting for FDR, the applicant shall clarify their reasoning for the removal of the oak tree with a goal of maintaining as many healthy non-hazardist mature trees on site as possible. Members of the project team for 88, Tom Suden are present and will be presenting shortly. Should they have anything to share with you all? But do feel free to ask any questions of staff. Should you have any? On the topo where there's a part of the slope is identified as greater than 35 degrees. That's mitigated from the geotech report saying that that's not natural slope, is that right? Yes, there will be some exhibits that are required to confirm that that is a manmade slope. However, as per town practice historically, if the applicant can prove that this is a man-made slope, then it would be permissible to construct in that location. All right. Oh, there are questions you can. Just in terms of site design, how would you get to the ADU for the proposed parking? In terms of access. I suppose it'd be a question for the applicant in terms of how they're planning to site circulation. However, they have met the parking minimum associated with the ADU. So they have sufficiently proven that there is adequate parking on property. Although I believe that they do have a connector over this, how do you Okay. Any. No. All right. That's the applicant wishes to speak to this project or make a presentation. Please. That forward. Thank you. I must have read. Oh. But it's otherwise on. Okay. Great. Stephen Leslie, the architect, the property owner is here with me as well. Just answers. So the slope, the portion of the slope that is into the area that's over 35% that we're building into is manmade. We do have a letter from the soils engineer stating that it is the existing residents, they flattened it out and made retaining walls creating the slope as it is. So in the natural state, we are outside of any natural slope over 35%, which there's a lot on this side. So it's very, it was very hard to shoehorn everything in there. One of the big challenges of this project was also the septic because we had to reduce bedrooms, you know, bedrooms because the septic can only with the leach fields has to be outside the 35 percent so that was a kind of a Tricky situation to try to mitigate through as well But the parking for the ADU. Yes, there is we have the parking that's required and there's a walkway that goes around over you know past the pool area and then the ADU is three feet higher than the house. So there's a step. So go up there. If there are any other questions, I can answer them. How many bedrooms do you have to lose to accommodate the septic system? There are four total, so three in the main house and then one in the ADU. I mean, you said you had to shrink the plans. I mishear you or I thought you said you had to drop the bedroom counts because it's septic. Well, ideally they wanted four bedrooms in the main house and two bedrooms in the ADU. We legally could have done that, but the septic animators reduced the project at least bedrooms sizes or amounts, not size with him out. Thank you. But they have great views up there. And so they wanted to have the tall glass, which will be the insulated anti-glare glass. They're really good stuff. That's, you can get our 15s in glass these days if you can believe that that which is very good. And I believe did you get to go out there today and see the story polls? Yeah, I tried to navigate the construction across the street. Oh, that's right. It's hard to get right here. Yeah. Hard to park. Hopefully you're able to walk up. But there's an existing house as a two story or these part two story. And so we're anyway, if you saw that it is, then it's not really higher than what it is now. The ADU is actually going to get built into the hill, so it's going to block nobody's view. I mean, the next person behind is way up there. You can't even see the residence left or right. When I could tell it was basically behind of the previous household. Yeah, great. One question I had a curiosity. In the previous house's siding is much closer to the edge of the coffee line, correct? Yeah, they're actually over this setback line. Got it. And some of the retaining wall is into the neighbor's property. So we got a letter from, we were required to get a letter from the neighbor saying that you know, it's okay to have access because we're going to have to access a little bit into their property just to do the demo. And so, yeah, the current existing house and retaining wall are outside property line and set back. So yeah, we shifted a bit. Then I think I had the open question that was brought up by staff about why the trees are being removed on the other side of the property. Even where the 80 you is beyond the Indian. Yeah, that there's one right. Well, there's one to the right of the house. And then the two kind of uphill the stable. Yeah, that yeah, and that's mainly because of the retaining walls and the leach fields. That's required from the septic. I see. But if they, you know, if one of the mitigating factors of the plant more trees we can, but there's a lot of trees up there. I think it appears to be straightforward in the question I heard about. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, situated away it is. I mean, with the views, of course, that then. From a lot of glazing. And I think, you know, that. Jillian mentioned in her report that light emission is a real concern. So anything that we've done to mitigate that, I think is important. Okay. Is you otherwise you risk creating a beacon on the hill that night? Yeah. I don't think it impacts the neighbors across the road because their elevation quite a bit lower. Yes. They're not impacted. Yeah, it seems to be a loan on the hill. On the opposite side, yeah. Yes. But other than that, I mean, I have no no specific feedback on the style. I think it's fine suitable. ZapTik is what it is. Yeah, I know. I have to deal with it. Yeah, I have no other questions. Great. Thank you. Yeah. Um, Yes, we get open up for public. Yes, comment. Public hearing. Do we have anyone in the public who, in the room who wishes to comment? No. Still have an affair number of people online. Yeah, so anyone online would like to speak please virtually raise your hand. Seeing no hands raised. What's the public hearing and move to board discussion. And it's still on an open question. I'm just looking at the plans. I'm struggling to see how. I know it's 7 o'clock and finding again. Two time. I'm struggling to see how you get to the ADU from the parking pad in the existing design without. Jillian, if you're going on to the porch of the proposed house. I'm just going to say maybe showing the front runner in, but yes, you're correct. You would go on that that porch around. Okay. Great. I would encourage the applicant to find and add a separate walkway to the end of you. That might be a problem in the future to the fact of a line on the hill that here will be made on the interior lining to try and prevent it from shining through the windows, especially towards the neighbors. And yeah, with regards to those trees, I mean, north sign in the property, that might conflict with the maintaining wall. And just I kinda struggle to see the conflict so I'd encourage you to try and save those trees. That's all. I do think the design is nice and the best place to put the house. Just a question. Style wise, how would you regard this style from their architectural perspective? This style of their architecture style of the house. What would you quote from their architectural perspective? Hopefully this is on. Sorry, the owner here. Thank you for taking the time tonight. So in terms of the style, I don't know if there is. I'm not the architect. But what I would say is if you think about it as like the Pacific Northwest vibe, it really is trying to be cohesive with the nature and community. So that was the intent that what, when I was talking to Steve about it, well, we were hoping to accomplish. So I don't know if there's a specific name for it, but that's the vibe. Thank you. It's, thank you. But you described kind of me, meets my understanding of, or described with as well. Yeah. Thank you. Modern minimalist with crazy use. It's crazy. That's it. That's it. Any other comment? You're thinking of killing me if I make another comment. I just know murder. My favorite. Find one comment on the styles. I think the modern style has a place in one side. I don't know if it's more of a condition or requirement. But my personal ache on the outside aesthetic is. I think it would look better with more wood signings and stucco. But that's not. That's not a requirement. You take it back. It's a combination. Yes, a recommendation. Thank you. Yeah, I'm in terms of the style of perspective that as far as our guidelines and material selection is good. Thank you for installation of the story polls. Always helpful. Get a better appreciation of placement and volumes. Yeah, I think we just move to formal with staff. There's no there's no grading exception. No, if anything comes up, it would go to the planning commission, but what we've seen with the conceptual design so far does it appear to be? We'll need a little clarification on the 35% slope letter, but it likely would just go to staff. Good. All right. We have a second. Second. second. Carolin Z. Yes. Member Middleton. Yes. Member Taft. Yes. Vice Chair Comrade and member Delgaviou noted absent. Good. Congratulations. Thank you for your patience. No director report. No, I have nothing to add. Meeting minutes. No, no. No, we, thankfully, Julie now no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no the next scheduled meeting. We should know by the end of this week if we have any items for that meeting. I will not be here. I will not be here on the summer. Yes, thank you. We have you know to down. We should have a member Del Gauvio and Commer back then as well. With that, I will adjourn the meeting at 7 p.m.