Yes, there be on Monday's over the seventh at 4.30. Yeah. We have a roll call. Chair Lindsay. Yes. Vice Chair camera. Yes. Member Taft. Members, uh, middleman and delgaviour noted absent. We have any changes to the agenda. There are no changes to the agenda. However, you do have desk items that you have all received. Most of the items are for the project to come out of corners. And there is one item for item number two from the lives.committee. Is there anyone from the public either in the room or online who wishes to make a comment or statement about anything not on the agenda. For those online, please raise your hand if you'd like to make a comment. No raised hands. Thank you. Senator agenda. Nothing tonight. All right. Tonight is. 3036, 3062. Woodside Road. Thank you chair. Good afternoon. 3036, 362, what side wrote? Great. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon. Board members, tonight we have a continued review of a project at the Kaniotic Hornors Commercial Center. And this is to provide two new outdoor dining parklets, expanded seating for two existing restaurants. new outdoor dining parklets, expanded seating for two existing restaurants, and then an expansion of the parking lot to accommodate, the currently under park parking lot, as well as the additional seating for the two restaurants. On September 23rd, the ASRB review the item took testimony from the applicant and members of the public. After discussion, the SRB outlined some items for the applicant to look into and return to the ASRB and trying to keep on schedule the additional reviews by Planning Commission and Town Council. The applicant did turn around materials and therefore we are at the meeting today. So I'll go through the comments from the ASRB and the applicant's response and a little bit of background on this. So the first item, the applicant was asked to clarify the number of seats made available at the Village Bakery throughout the day to determine if the bakery supply in more seats than it's permitted by the CUP. The bakery makes more seats available. It should be noted that it's contributing to the parking problems of the center. And the applicant has noted that they'll need to look into that further with their tenants to make sure they're compliant with the CUP. In terms of the current application we have for us today is it's a property owner who's providing an expanded seating for Bucks and the village bakery also to expand the parking lot to accommodate that parking And just kind of given the combination of the passage of measure a Kind of the expiration of the COVID temporary orders and the current application that's been submitted, the staff has been directed to continue the processing of this application. And to find out what outcome this proposed application would have on the number of seats that need to be out there. With the second item, the ASRB recommended that the applicant revise the plans, detailing some additional improvements that could be created on the onsite trail, as well as the trails adjacent to the site on Kaniata Road and Woodside Road. And this would be to address the comments raised by the circulation committee. So I'll pull up my screen here. So the applicant submitted some revised architectural sheets to address the concerns raised by the circulation committee. And so go here to sheet a six. And what's shown, we'll start with the onsite trail. And so what you see here is path A is the location of the existing trail that goes through the site that is not located within the existing equest, easement? As we noted the last meeting, the applicant is proposed to shift the easement a little bit further south currently. It's immediately adjacent to that northern property line right up against the neighbor and it's there's more trees there as well as it being a little bit steeper of a slope. So the applicant has proposed to remove that easement a little bit further south, which would provide an area where there's fewer if any trees and a less deep slope. During the conversations at circulation and trails committee and ASRB, there's been talk if there maybe should be path that meanders a little bit more. So they've looked at this, what they've called path C. It's another alternative. If that was something that was preferred by the town, the easement would have to be adjusted around that alternative. They did provide the average slopes of the different paths, showing that path B, the one originally proposed, is the, it's less steep than the others. And it's it's on average. So, you know, as you get to the top thing, it's a little bit steeper for all the paths, but it kind of flattens out a little bit back where this flat is that site gets. So the applicant also proposed some improvements here to the trails that are on the exterior side of the problem. So for most of the property along Cognata Road the trail is well separated from the roadway. It might need some minor grading moving of dirt and gravel around if there's any potholes, things like that to fill. But otherwise it's alignment doesn't really need to be changed. And as this trail approaches the corners we talked about last time. It started to get a little steep there. There's also some erosion issues. We know that those would need to be dealt with, but it also brings the trail out a little bit closer to the roadway. On this zoomed-in view, the African is looking at a way to possibly do a little grading, keeping the trail as far away from the corner as possible and then once leading to the trail that's along Woodside Road. It proposed a crosswalk improvement to help identify the crossing of the area. And as one would keep approaching towards the west, that trail would come into a pathway that actually brings the rider or pedestrian a little bit further away from the main woodside road with another crosswalk there. Can continue to, if this project is approved, can continue to work with the applicant to look at. No, if it makes sense to and there's enough room to put some type of. At least visual safety barriers between the trail similar to what's out there. On the remaining part of the trail now has the small but in fencing. So those are other things that could be done and looked at possible signage for riders and pedestrians just to make them aware that they're crossing an area where vehicles are traveling. So increased awareness is something that could also be worked on. The next item the applicant, I'm sorry the ASRB recommended for the applicant to look into was to look into adjusting the proposed parking lot further east and the intent to allow more of a buffer between the parking lot and the properties on the a significant amount more grading to move the the marking lot further to the east and it starts to get steep into the hillside here. You know, the main goal is to provide additional area here for landscaping. What we're talking about is shifting this entire area over. It's not a perfect rectangle, so it's not as easy as just shifting all the way over. As you start to move this towards the east, now you have an issue with of with your, your, your, your circulation kind of coming through here. Um, and so keeping these aisle with, if the circulation here gets moved over, you have some of these spaces that could be affected. And it's not just as easy as digging more dirt out of the ground. And to what extent, you know, a five foot over, would provide a significant redesign, as well as a significant more amount of gradient tree removal, and probably for not a significant amount of benefit of land. Staff would be happy to work with the applicant, we've in our report to the Planning Commission have recommended a condition that there's an open space enhancement plan that goes along with the project that looks for a biologist. We've done this on other sites necessarily for open space but near creeks in which biologists provide proper recommendations for the type of riparian vegetation. It's appropriate for the area that supports the habitat as well as can provide some additional screening. So with the trail reallignment, I think that would be a good opportunity to look for more landscaping on that side of the property. So next the ASRB asked the applicants to provide more of a comprehensive lighting plan had the show the existing lights and then just propose some additional lights for the new expanded area and some of the new exp uh the new lights were proposed to match some of the existing lights that were out there that are that are about 14 feet tall. And so what they've done is they've removed all the old lights as in the proposal as well as, they've removed all the old lights in the proposal as well as providing new lights. And let me get to that sheet here. Sorry, just a minute. So the new plan provides 12-foot tall lights. That would be in the center of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the building official and others in the building department. Marshall parking lots actually don't have a minimum lighting. And so staff still in the report to the planning commission with all the conditions in it has recommended that still revisit the lighting and look for lighting that's lower the ground. It may require more fixtures but maybe those are about up to five feet tall, maybe more appropriate just given the adjacency to the creek as well as the neighbors across the creek. So there's definitely an opportunity to further look and discuss the lighting but this is what's being proposed by the applicant the ASRB meal pine on that. And lastly there was a request by the applicant, the ASRB mail pine on that. And lastly, there was a request for the applicant to look at installing additional bicycle parking near the hardware store. The applicant, it wasn't able to squeeze in parking near the hardware store, but right across the parking lot near the existing salon has provided some additional parking there and response to that comment. So that concludes my presentation, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you made. Thank you. Does anyone on the board have questions of? It's time. Yeah, I'm fortunate I wasn't here last week, but I've been following the one, but as you know, one big request, one you've answered. Is there going to be any V chargers? So the applicant is not proposed any electrical vehicle charging. It's not required by the building code for the expansion, but something that the applicant could respond to if they have any comments on it. The next stage to double click the distance from the newly proposed path to the cars marked in that area. If we go back to the point, it shows the newly adjusted. So I'm sorry, what was the question? The newly proposed walkway along the creek. How close it gets to the parking spot, which is the minimal distance. True. It is not, and it's possible to deduce it based on the scale, but just to be explicit about it. This would be the closest point in which it gets to the trail. So there'd be a 15 foot wide easement and the trail would be located in that easement. The easement itself is probably about a foot or two away from the parking lot itself and the trail could be adjusted a little bit further away from that. So it's probably about three to five feet away from the parking area. You'll notice here at this point is where the existing trail comes through the site. So it'd be everything of north of here would be new. That could then next. If we can clearly mark the area where the distance from the parked vehicles is under five feet. It would be just in this area where my cursor is the closest point. So it would affect two parking spots there? Well these are the proposed parking spots. So I wouldn't, I mean, it wouldn't affect them. They would be separated far enough away. Right. But again, if there is a suggestion or requirement how to move that entire parking lot over. Back here, just in this small space, if you were just to get rid of those spaces, provide more planting, they would lose in the three to five spaces. I'm spacious. Thank you. Yes, yes, it just, yeah, and I think we're it's about really trying to get landscaping in that area and yes, we whether it's on the west side of the trail or on the same at that point. For the applicants, there's a curb there. So I believe the parking lot will be slightly lower than the trail grade. inches. The six inches or so. Okay. Any other questions? I have a question about this is just to clarify a validator statement I saw in one of the documents this has to do with the number of proposed parking spots is based on the allowance as defined in the conditional use permit. And so the number of parking spots is based on the number of seats per for all of the uses. And then as far as the food service business is the number of seats for bucks and the village bakery is the total number of seats that they would be allowed to have just during all hours of operation as defined by the right. Yes. So I think if I recall correctly, 146 at bucks and 117 seats at the bakery. Got it. Okay. Just one more clarification just to confirm my understanding that the ownership of the village bakery is essentially under the same ownership as another beloved place here in Woodside the village Gurme. I believe it's the same owners the village pub. Village pub and it to say. marketing spots for the village bakery, really, will be operational for dinner time when Robert's supermarket will be closed. The way it's set up, the way it's proposed is that all the seats that they're allowed, the total number of seats, could be used throughout the day. So during the daytime and nighttime hours. But because the market gets basically closed is at 7 o'clock. There's some business that closed down earlier. So at the nighttime, there doesn't tend to be as much of a problem. But some of the other businesses in the center, they closed earlier. So there is no discussion that we understand it. To have a valid parking also available for the rich bakery. No, there has not been discussion about that. Thank you. Hey, good. More questions of staff. So we'll move on if the applicant is here. You wish to make a. All on presentation and augmented presentation. Or statement. Yes. I'm date. I like to clarify a few things of sage can pull up the plans. I think it's the a six. One of them. Showing where we couldn't move the parking any closer in. There's also, besides, moving more dirt. There's an easement through there. It's a sewer easement. So there's a little bit of a problem going into the easement. And I can only do so much of a cut on a hillside for safety reasons. So we're right at the edge. I couldn't move over another inch by try. So just for safety reasons. It's kind of hard to do what we're doing. We're trying to put five gallons of water on one gallon jug to make everybody happy on this project. It's not the easiest thing in the world to do. I know you'd like to see some screening, and I know nobody likes to see fencing, but we could put, so there's no headlight glare is going to the neighbors, maybe a three foot or a four foot tall, simple wall to go there. They would stop that casting of light over to the across the creek. I have, that's one of the ideas. If we deal with a biologist for the, in the creek, which I have to, if I'm going to plant in there, we'll have to have a biologist there. Most of their suggestions are plants that would not be screening plants. They, they're low plants, nothing that'll help the neighbors at all. So it's kind of a wash on that one. That it would really help. Another one I like to clarify on is the lighting. For safety's sake, I moved the lighting in board. Lord, the light stands. I can see if I can get them down lower and put them on a rear stat so we can dim them down to the minimum of what you need, the cast the light out. A five foot tall or four foot tall light in that area, I would need a lot of them to make it work. And all the positions so people could walk and see where they're walking, the cars will block out most of the lights. So they would have to literally be in the walkways or the driveways, and that doesn't work for anybody. So it doesn't work. So the best way to handle it is to have the shortest, higher light with the least amount of off-cast. I put on, if you put the lighting plan sage, please. We did a study on the off casting of the light itself. We had some help from the manufacturer on it a little bit for what the light bleed would be. We could tone it down some more. I'm still looking at the which light. We're going to have to go with LED lighting for energy lighting for energy consumption for energy. And we can tone down the light itself from a blue light down to a yellow light and we can reduce the wattage on it down to the point where we still have light but not a lot of light. And we have to work with staff on that one and it's easy to do. Anyway, we tried to make it so it works without having too much light. So, light reduction was more about anything else than adding more lights. So, if I was to do five foot lights, I'd probably need 25 to 30 lights in there, which that's not really my soul king. Lord, is it work in efficiency at all? So anyway, I've been trying to make this work for everybody and hopefully, you know, I can't please everybody but we're trying our hardest. All right. What it comes down to the trails, could you pull up the trails? So we did a lot of studying on the trails and how they can be affected. So the best route we came up with path C, which was the least amount of slope that we could get out of something with partly adding any more length to the path at all and still keep it out of the parking lot. This would work better than path B and path A, if the parking lot goes through, it won't be there. So in the front, in the parking lot of the center, we pushed the cars back four feet so we can get the trail in, still have ample room for backing cars up and the path will be right on the owner's property itself. So that whole trail is pretty simple to do actually. We figured it out and made it work. We would make it so it matches in with the safe routes to school, same type of materials, same way everything they did. There's two hard corners, one to be the one you can see right there, not the Southwest corner, but the western corner where Woody the Fish is. That one is just, it's there. It's just, it's not movable. So we managed to get around the corner there and put in the walkways. So somebody can see that it is a walkway, brightly colored, just like they did in all the paths of the school, say, process the school. All of this, to me works. So anyway, if you have any other questions on our thoughts on this, Could you speak up a little? CV Chargers. Yeah, who pays for them? Yeah, that's that's really asking a lot, right? So, and EV chargers, I seem everywhere now. So, anyway, and most people are coming in there. They're only going to be there for a couple of minutes anyway. The dinner or something, they're not going to be there all day to get charged a car. Well, the employees might be there all day. The employees might be there all day. Yes, in the back. That's possible. That, yeah. Anyway, that wasn't taken into consideration. Well, any other questions? I wish. Okay. I'll just couple things. So thank you for taking our original feedback from the last meeting to Hart, especially here on addressing the path on Kinyata Road and the side road. I think this would be markedly improved over what we have today. Lighting, I think, there's still room to explore what's the right balance in terms of height and luminance and timing and all those wonderful. Right. And a lot of that can be adjusted on site. Well, that one, well, once you choose a height, then you can't adjust that. I think I saw a picture of proposed fixture of 12 feet. I think that's, did I see that correctly? The age is nodding his head. We were at 12 feet. Yes, that's what it's that's what the casting shows right now. Yeah. We're trying to see if we can lower it down to 10. If we any lower than 10, if somebody pulls in with a truck with a camper on it, they'll hit the light. So it was also overhead clearance. Yes, sir. But I just I'm The weighted observation or it will be in charge of lighting the path. So the path at night if someone walks there. The pathways, the pathway itself. The pathway itself has never been led. Right. From the time they will be worked done. So is there any. We did not any lighting for the pathways now. People walking at night time. Right. We didn't have any lighting in for that. But if you like something, we can put in low light there. Right. But then it's also going to cast over to the neighbors and so on. Support so it's well. It's pretty typical not the towns of trails around town. Don't have anyone. Yeah. I don't think there's a trail in town I have pathway lights. It's just, but it's kind of become a little bit more urban than there is to be. Right. Yeah. Let you know when I sat on the S or B, I actually helped write all the lighting specs for the town of Woodside and why we did it. Yes, so I do understand the lighting quite a bit. Absolutely. All right. Thank you. So clearly the priority is to preserve safe. Yes. We're trying to minimize impact but also keep safety down. So all the employers there, burden keep safety up. Yeah. Yeah. And and you know, and today's times it's in a little dacy out there sometimes, but still lighting helps each year from crime and so on so forth. So and also people sleeping out there at night time and all the other things that we used to find. There used to be a woman who had my office there slept there for three months every night because of the place she felt safe. I think I saw a mention in your response around signage for the trails. Yes, we could put signage in for the trails. I don't know what signage or who's going to use which trail or you're going to make them all horse bike and pedestrian or you're going to have one of the trails set just for horses. It's up to you, but anyway, whatever signs you would like to have on what you want on them, no problem. We can do that. That's easy. The fur of that trails committee, I don't know if they have recommendations around reminding people that trails are mixed use. Yeah. Right now, there's only one horse trail that runs around the backside and that's it. That's, it was a dedicated horse trail, which nobody uses that trail at all. So it's in wherever they want to go. I guess my last question is around the ongoing debate around the number of spots relative to the conditional use permit. And my question really is, I mean, with the food service businesses and the retail businesses as your tenants, what do you think your role is in terms of enforcing? Well, that has been quite a bit of talk between us. One of the things is the town itself writes the CUP to the Planning Commission. They're the ones who say, this is all you can have. The landlord says in the lease, please pay attention to what your CUP is going to be. It's an honor system, basically. Pay attention to what it is. So the landlord is kind of stuck in the middle between a tenant, not paying attention to it. And then the town also not being the police force. So one of the things is if this goes through is it's limited seating because now they don't have to change from day to night time seating at the bakery. They'll have their strict seating. I walked through the bakery today, counted 148 seats sitting there, which is way over what they have, but they weren't over seating it. But the seats were there. for their. My suggestion would be for the planning commission doing this to see you pee on it was you're allowed X amount of chairs there maybe one as a replacement in case one breaks but that's it you're allowed so many seats you get caught with it you get a fine or you lose the use of your CUP for a week or a month or you keep breaking it and you know break breaking the rules. But right now there's no teeth into it. It just says, don't do this. But there's no cop. There's no town cop to police it. There's staff doesn't go abroad to police it. They have nothing to say. It's like, remove the seats. There's no fines. There's no, nothing to stop the people from doing it. So they just keep doing it because they know nothing can happen to them. Nothing's ever happened at the, at Bucks Restaurant, there have been, they play very well with everybody and they don't over seat, they don't, they haven't gone over their capacity at all in any way, but the bakery has been the one that has been not so nice to deal with. So my suggestion to be, or you can make the suggestion, goes up to the planning commission that they put some teeth in the CUPs and because they're gonna have to go through it anyway. So before they can use these parklets that we planned in there, they're gonna have to adjust their CUPs anyway. So at that time, they could be brought up and can maybe add a little teeth to the rules and gives the landlord something also to point out and say, look, you have to shut down for a week or you get a fine for this. And that'd be part of the Lisa Green. So anyway, that's the only way I can figure out how to make it work. might be lawyers have different ideas that yeah. Question sage does planning commission own the CUP? Do they? Granted right is granted. Well, the CUP gets granted generally by planning commission. This case will be the town council because the other entitlements that are necessary. So that's what gets granted. The CUP is issued to a property owner. Property owners are supposed to follow their CUP on how they deal with their tenants. Is there in between business? And Town will pursue enforcement actions if necessary. Once the application is complete, and we figure out where the appropriate state in the mountains. Thank you. Anything else? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for that. Hi. Miller face. Steve Lubin again. I'm glad to say Dave's other proposal for the path coming down from Kaniyatta Road with a bit of a wiggle in it. I think if he played with that idea a bit more, he might be able to get a path that comes down below 10% grade or something that wouldn't be dangerous for kids because I think there should be some, we should look at the grade of that path because kids are going to be ready and their bicycles down there no matter what. I think the path in the front, the widows at the Western entry are going to make it really problematic for kids to ride bicycles through there the way it's designed. I'm not entirely clear there is the easement in the front that and I guess the path has been moved onto the property but I suspect it's still in that easement so that's in the town owns. As far as the back easement goes, if this were just a straight application for a use permit, there'd be a little leverage to get that trail dedicated for pedestrian and kids on bikes. But this is the applicant asking the town to give up its property right in an open space easement back there. So I think that issue should be pushed. And the other issue is that, you know, I think the parking, we're talking about parking from the restaurants, but it's also used, this parking lot's always so used with employees at the grocery store, which brings me to, you know, my big point is, it would be much better if this application were considered after the town gets through its town center process, which could look at all as a whole, including the property across the street, all the parking in the neighborhood, and all the circulation in the neighborhood and all the circulation and neighborhood by all users where we have a chance of maybe you know getting some people out of cars and needing fewer parking spots. So you know once again this the applicant's asking the town to give up it's right on this property. So I think there's considerable leverage there. Thank you. Hi, I'm Don Pugh, a 50-year resident of Woodside. And for all those years, I've been fighting to save and preserve our beautiful Woodside environment. Bulldozing the open space is absolutely ridiculous solution, particularly to facilitate the expansion of the bakery. It goes against everything that Woodside stands for. In the meeting of last, on the 23rd, SB requested a couple things, sage specifically, did you count the seeds, sage? No. Thank you. For two years, I have been complaining to town council and staff. I filed a formal complaint that they were violating the CUP and the town has failed to address this violation that has been going on and is creating a major hazard to the citizens of Woodside with this parking problem that is self-created by the illegal violation. I appreciate Dave Tannifer actually recognizing this as a problem failure to enforce. Who should be enforcing it? You know, I've seen the suggestion that, well, the Roberts the ownership of the force, or or the township force, but what about voluntary compliance, honesty and integrity on the part of the bakery, to follow the rules that they agreed to back in the CUP of 2016. They agreed 70 seats. I can make a fine financial return. It was unnecessary to expand. Those, the old Woodside Bakery that used to be there, they vigorously enforced it all the time. And so why are we being so pro-development-oriented now? I counted 172 seats, David myths 148 seats. I really think it's a failure of staff not to go out and give us an official count. I agree once they've officially counted, then they'd have to recognize there's ongoing violation of the CUP. I am very puzzled why, sage, staff, council is taking such a pro-development stance and supporting a project that is so wrong for the citizens. Why is this going on? The applicant said parking problems are not a result of over-seating. Is that baloney? I mean, come on. Over-seating is what's causing the parking problems. We gotta cure that first. And as I mentioned earlier, complaints at neither the town or Roberts isn't forcing the seating limits. And now we're expecting that they will in the future somehow be doing this. As I mentioned earlier, complaints at neither the town or Roberts isn't forcing the seating limits. And now we're expecting that they will in the future somehow be doing this. No, absolutely we need to have some sort of compliance with law. The parking study that's being used is garbage because it reflects a situation that does not exist. If everybody crews down woodside road at 80 miles an hour, should that be the new speed limit? Because they're all violating the law. I don't think so. We do rules based upon reasonable restrictions and limitations of things. So I'm I think this whole plan should be put on hold until the applicants and the bakery comply with the rules. Now, the second question is, say, you indicated some sort of expansion of the seating to the bakery was planned. I'd heard 30 seats, 50 seats. What is the number that they want to expand over and above what is currently in the CUP? The CUP allows for 95 seats total at night. They're expanding to 117. Bucks allows for 120. They're expanding to 146. Okay, so we're bulldozing the open space just to facilitate the expansion of private businesses. Something's wrong with that. It's a violation of all kinds of rules, regs and laws and it could well be the town will be on the wrong end of a lawsuit and paying a bunch of money because they are violating California law about abandoning open space to benefit a private developer. So that's a whole lot of expansion that we're talking about. So why should we sacrifice open space to expand? Now that's the fundamental question we've got. Now let's talk about the architectural aspect of things. A 12-foot tall retaining wall topped by steel fences up even higher. Wouldn't is that really architecturally suited in woodside? I mean, are we building an elephant enclosure? I was hoping to get a few jokes out of that. I mean, come on, 12 foot tall and steal things on the top. I mean, talk about being ugly, completely impout. We would never allow that kind of thing on any kind of private property development or anywhere. So that should be a non-starter right there. The construction, nine months, 1500 yards of materials, 400 truckloads in and out, portions of the parking lot will be closed and the trail will be unsafe and off limits for months and months on end. All to benefit a private business that's been violating the law. So I'm asking the S or B and all the other groups shut this project down, tell them to go back and develop a plan that fits within the existing constraints of parking, require them to obey the existing CUP. Everybody agreed back in 2016. It was a fine number. There wasn't really a problem. Any questions? We're exactly used to wall in the film. How long is that wall? It's going to be a big beautiful wall. So this is the location of the proposed retaining wall. So it varies in height. At the shortest point, it's probably one or two feet tall. And then it goes up to about eight to 10 feet tall, the tallest point. And then right behind that is an open, actually it's shown right here, is a proposed open core 10 steel fence, which is similar to other fences that we've seen Woodside. Actually, it should be a barrier to avoid people from falling off the higher part. It's actually 12 feet, according to one of the sections, the high point of the wall, but 12, 10, 8, ugly, good for elephants. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Hey, gentlemen, well said. You don't have to miss all people there. Yeah. No, no, no. I could see over and over and around you. All people here. Yeah. Yeah. Good. I can see over and around you. You're up for your point. I want to hear because this is so emotional for us. We've both lived here over 60 years. We went through Woods, High Down, and all our kids went through it. We've volunteered the heck out of this town and this is just breaking our hearts. This should not be happening. My name is Pam Roberts. Yes, I'm related. This is Mark Dickey. We've been very involved in town politics, town volunteering, school board, you name it. This does not benefit the town. It's our job as people who live here and live in this beautiful place to protect this town. And we appreciate that you're volunteering and you're listening to all of us. We really, really appreciate that. Thank you. We do not need to help the bakery make more money. No one's been policing them. I've written letters, dawns written letters. a lot of people on safe rural woodside, if written letters to the town council. The only person who's responded is Paul Gould. And he says to me, I don't know why they don't stop it. I don't know why they won't talk to me. There's just stuff going on that you write another letter. Paul responds. You write a letter to the district attorney in redwood city. And he says, I'll look into it. And then he says, well, I can't do anything. So we're here. Pretty frustrated, trying to save our town, trying to keep this as open space in perpetuity, trying to protect the neighbors that live there. They bought this properties, beautiful properties. They don't deserve these fences and these lights and these cars. It's been three plus decades that this has been open space. Why are we going to help a bakery make more money and cut down a whole bunch of oak trees? Let's get these businesses back on track where they're following the leases that they had. And then we won't have all this parking problem. And we won't be irritating the kind people that live there. That's how we feel. Anything else? Sorry to be so emotional. Holy moly. Actually just two questions. I'm curious about the creek and the proximity. Seems to me that there's always a lot of state regulations around that. And I haven't really attended any of these meetings. I'm just curious as to what those regulations are, distance from the creek, etc. And I do think Don raised it up, I think they raised it up as well. What's the point of a conditional use permit if you don't enforce them? So either agree to have conditional use permits or let's just get rid of conditional use permits and have people do whatever they would like to do. But if we're going to have them, let's use them appropriately to protect the interests of the town as well as the businesses themselves. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Do we have anyone online? Do you not see any wrist hands? Hello, my name is Elena Vannevert Wagner. We have some really good points here today as we have in the past. A couple of things that I wanted to bring up today. One is the fact that we all know and are very excited about the fact that we have town center planning coming up. I'm sure that has been well aware to you guys as a S R B committee. As have I so I am running for district five council at the moment. I've been having a lot of conversations with our mayor and with our current council. All of whom are excited for the planning for the town center. I'm very confused as to why this is getting pushed forth ahead of a town center plan. I don't know why that wouldn't be something that would be incorporated as we do a whole town center plan. One of the things I hate to see happen is about the Titian where we do one thing and then we have to replace things and change it and go back over and you lose a lot of fiscal responsibility when you do that kind of work. I don't know exactly what the plan is going to look like yet. I don't think any of us do. But that doesn't make sense to me as we just form a very major action against very high regulations around conservation land easements and take bold decisions around how close we get to Creeg's taking out pads, bulldozing conservation land easements specifically for this parking lot. If we're gonna do a parking lot, which we may need, it definitely shouldn't be for the benefit of one. I fail to see why we would expand the bakery and bucks seating and the parking lot. That is a catch 22 to me. It's very obvious to me. If we're going to do one, it's not going to be the other. Otherwise, there's no point. We are at capacity. It's very difficult to utilize the town center at the moment for any of the locals. A resolution doesn't need to be found. But I'm not sure that adding more seats. I don't see, I fail to see how that helps resolve that issue. And would love to see time attention given to the town center planning before we make any decisions on what happens with the parking. And the second issue that I want to bring up is that while now running for council, the question that everyone is asking me and the Almanac continues to, you know, put things out about me asking, you know, what is it that's important to you? What would you like to see change? And I'm sure all of you thought about this as you came on to ASRB as well. And one of those, the most important thing that I have seen in my five years of working for the committees is end with the town and the town council from everyone is that they with the committees, how we can help the community feel that their voice is not only heard, but their impact is actually implemented when deciding these things. I think this is a very big point that you guys all have to take into consideration because the town has been very vocal. The community has been very vocal on this issue. And if it is just decided that the local community's voice is not taken into representation in this decision, that is going to impact greatly how the committees are able to work, how you guys are able to hear the voice of the community, and how you will earn back the trust of the community, which to me is everything Mayor Shaw was working for, Mayor Wall has been working for, and I think all the ASRB committees and the town have been reaching out for multiple times trying to work towards. So I'd like to see that be your goal here on this issue as well. Thank you guys. Good evening. I'm Richard Van Duser. I represent the owners of 150 prospect street. We're here today. I think you've probably heard enough about the seating issue, but I want to just kind of make just a couple of quick points. any rational person could come to the conclusion other than the village bakery has been violating its use permit. The town has done absolutely nothing to enforce it and the owner of the property has done absolutely nothing to enforce it. And to think that things are going to change going forward is a fool's errand. The planning staff is recommending to the planning commission that it be self-enforcing. That's their plan. I heard Mr. Sean talk about the city enforcing those seating capacity limits, but that's not what the recommendation is to the planning commission. It's to leave this in the hands of the same people who have completely ignored it. I cited in my letter to the board, the letter that came from the owner of Bucks. It's clear that even the owner of Bucks who stood up in front of you last time, we had a meeting here, and who was fairly supportive and even handed, believes that it's the village bakery who's been exceeding the capacity of their conditional use permit with the town's permission and who's creating this unsafe parking and traffic situation. So the other thing I want to mention just briefly about the seating capacity is that I think what gets glossed over here is that during the daytime hours, 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. This conditional use plan amendment request is going to increase the seating capacity in the village bakery alone by 47 seats during the daytime hours Monday through Sunday, because right now the limit is 50 during the period 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. and it moves up, excuse me, 70, excuse me, I misspoke 70 and it moves up to 95 after 8 o'clock. So the truth is that this is an enormous increase in the seating capacity of the village bakery. They could easily accommodate the additional outdoor seats by simply adding some seating capacity to the 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. hour, which would allow for the additional outdoor seating and they would just have to deal with incorporating the outdoor seating into their 95 seat limit after hours. But that's not what's being done here. What's being done here is that what currently allows for 70 is going to be increased to 117 and what currently allows for 95 is going to be increased to 117 for all hours of the day. The improvements to the easement, I just have one comment to make there. I think again, what gets lost is that instead of being able to walk through this open space area, easement on their bikes, on their feet, people, kids, walking dogs, not walking dogs, horses, those kids are now going to be rerouted along Kinyata Road. And what you didn't see in that drawing is any improvement to any trail from the back of the parking lot down Kinyata Road to the corner of Kinyata and Woodside. It remains untouched. It's simply unsafe. And I think if you had a kid, and I've heard people at these various meetings, all of them are concerned about the safety of their children. And just because you put a little jig or a jog in the path when you get to the corner, doesn't solve the problem. There could be kids walking down that street that might never get to that corner. And so to not condition this approval, if you're going to approve it, on real improvements to that path, so that it's safe is a mistake. Let's talk just a little bit about the screening and the parking and whether you can move the parking, whether you can't. I have not seen other than the very general statements that have been made in the written product produced to you and Mr. Tanner's comments today, any serious analysis of what could be done to move the parking further to the east. It also doesn't make any attempt to reduce the number of new spaces to allow for that movement to take place. And so I would suggest that, again, if you're going to approve of this project, that you condition it upon a more thorough study, not just to back of the envelope off the cuff conclusion, but a thorough study about whether that private parking can move further away from the east side of the property where residents live, that hasn't been done. The municipal code clearly says that you can't approve a project like this without providing adequate privacy screening. What we just heard here today is that there is none. We have a proposal about there being perhaps a fence, a four foot, five foot fence that might shield the lights from shining into my clients backyard, but this project doesn't incorporate any of that it wipes out every tree between my clients property and the new parking lot. place a single one of them. So it does not comply with the municipal code. There simply is no screening and what we heard Mr. Tanner say is this whole idea of an open space enhancement is not going to solve that problem. It's going to provide some blow level growth in the area, perhaps between the creek and the parking area, but it's not going to provide any screening whatsoever and my clients are going to be left with an open view of a new 60 space parking paved parking area. And by the way, my client's property, and I know you can't, you don't know this because you haven't been there, my client's property sits at a lower elevation than the parking lot. So when you sit in there in their backyard, I do look across that creek and you see 12 foot or 14 foot poles, they're really more like 20 feet in the air, maybe even more. And so they're very visible, they're easy to see. The planning staff has recommended what amounts to pedestrian grade lighting, the five foot above grade lighting. We obviously would encourage you to condition your approval upon the adoption of that recommendation, because we don't see any reason why that shouldn't be the case. There's also a response by the applicant about security, about installing gates or barricades, so that people don't enter the parking lot after hour when they don't belong there. There's no reason why gates, security gates or security barriers can't either be placed at the entrance into the lot or the exit of the lot or at a minimum to the back portion of the lot, which is the new area of the lot furthest away from the street, hardest to enforce, that's closest to my clients' property, as well as the property to the north of the new paved parking area. And then I just will stop by saying, I know this is not your purview, and you made that clear last time, and so I don't wanna belabor the the point but we've now seen the findings that the planning department is suggesting the planning commission make we've seen the findings that the applicant is suggesting of abandoning an open space easement like this. And you don't need to take my word for it. Obviously the city and the town has their own lawyers. The applicant has their own lawyers. But I will tell you that there is no way. There is no way. The abandonment of this open space easement will survive legal challenge. They just cannot make the findings required by the statute and it's very clear from their submissions that they can't. Thank you. Thank you. So do we have any information online? No, we do not. Can't continue. Do we need a break? OK. Happy to take a break? Okay. Happy to take a break if you need. Good afternoon. My name is Lee Brents. I'm not that tall. I'm glad to be here with you tonight. I have been online most of the other meetings. I'm a land use attorney with Roberts. So I first want to talk briefly about the applicants. Efforts to revise the plans that have been made. I've been a part of these efforts, and I just kind of want to highlight a few of them. They really have a try to respond to the committee comments as well as the community comments after the trails and paths committee. I actually reached out to Liz Kerr and had a nice conversation with her about the safe routes to school. She and I were actually one of the ones that talked about, well, how do we make this trail safe for equestrian for the kids biking to school? You know, how many kids, how many questions are using this? And one of the things we did talk about was potentially putting up signage that notices, hey, kids are going to use this trail, you know, within the half hour around the starter school and with a half hour around the end of school. This is fairly consistent with California State Park guidance on multi-use trails where they put up signs for bikers to pay attention to their speed when they're sharing the pathway within a questrian. Similarly, we did a little bit of research and looked into the state park's guidelines on grades for trails for children versus more experienced riders and that kind of thing. Anything under a 10% grade is considered safe for children to bike on. All of these trails paths A, B, and C that are proposed for your consideration are all approximately around 6%. So effort was definitely made in looking at this to make sure that the grade that the kids will experience is pretty similar to the path that they've carved through there now. So, and I know there's been a lot of talk about there's no benefit to the town, but I do think that improving this trail for all users, as well as improving the trail along Canyada is a benefit to the town. You know, the center is paying for that. The town, I think, used to want to try and do that, but didn't have the resources. So this is a benefit to the community. I also just want to kind of highlight again that even when the trail gets close to the parking lot, there is a curb, right? The kids are going to be safe biking to school. Cars are going to see them. I think everybody in the community knows it gets used that way. And then I also want to say after that last meeting, where applicants attorney Richard talked about the fact that nobody had reached out to them. I did reach out and make a phone call and ask, what can we do as the applicant to suede your concerns. And we talked about those options, about the fencing, about the additional planting, and about the gates. Christine looked at the idea of the gates. I talked about all these things, and we figured out what could we do? We agreed that we could do some planting. Hopefully they do provide more screening than maybe Dave suggested. But so far, no resolution. There was nothing short of just don't build this that really seemed to hit the mark there, but the applicant is trying to address those concerns. Now I just want to talk a little bit about the outdoor dining. So as a reminder, the outdoor dining and the parklets began in the pandemic in 2020 as a temporary benefit to the residents of the town of Woodside. Outdoor seating was such a community benefit and such a wonderful gathering place that the community expressed interest in considering keeping them, right, which is why, well, which is why in 2021 residents of Woodside approved measure a to allow for use for modifications to improve the parking the trails and accommodate outdoor dining. So that's, you know, Christine heard that message loud and clear and brought forward this plan. They've, Dave, it's been a lot of time working with Sage to make this plan work to deal with fire lanes and everything else. Really the goal of this project is kind of right sizing the parking for what's there now. So it really is existing parking plus only 19 spaces for the parklets. So people keep talking about the vast expansion that's happening for the bakery. It's really just 19 spaces and right sizing for the uses that are already there, which isn't as large as it sounds when people are talking about it. And I also do just want to point out that this is not a code enforcement action. I really encourage you to focus on the application that's before you. Whether the bakeries overseeding or not is not what's in front of you today to talk about. It's about whether the parking lot that's proposed with the improvements to the trails is right for the community and you like the design. The town actually does have enforcement authority in the existing conditional use permit. The municipal code provides their ways to enforce use permits. This exists. the town could do them right now if they wanted to. And then lastly, or I guess not quite lastly, Dave really did take a look at the lighting, he is willing to work with it. I mean, they did study and take a look. Like how much can we lower the poles? The idea is to bring it as close to the center as possible as far away from the neighbors as possible. So they're not seeing those light poles as much. And I think both that as well as I'll point out, all the trees are not being cut down in that open area. There's actually a biological resources report that the town spent a lot of time doing. And all those trees are not being cleared cut on the side by the creek. In fact, we can't touch most of what's in the creek, like set back area. So that just want to clarify that because I know that was mentioned. And then finally, it's, and this is just a lawyer in me, you know, towns get a lot of difference in interpreting their own, you know, codes, their own general plans and in making their own findings. So if the town decides to make the findings to support this project, I think in court they'll get a lot of difference for the choice that they're making as a benefit to their community. Thank you. Hi, my name is Andrea Bunt. I just sorry this point has been made already, but what's our question has been asked. How many parking spaces exactly are required to keep the outdoor dining as it exists today? Part, yeah, justitz, I would like to ask you a question. So for parklets for the bakery requires nine spaces, Parklets for bucks requires 10 spaces. So 19 spaces. So when I counted the spaces on the plan, it's 69 new spaces with a delta of 57 from what's currently there. So why why is there such a, I mean, it couldn't 19 spaces, you just see the space. So I'm going to have to go back to the space. So I'm going to have to go back to the space. plan it's 69 new spaces with the Delta 57 from what's currently there. So why, why is there such a, I mean, it couldn't 19 spaces you just get by, you know, having a little gravel at the end of the parking lot, not doing anything so extreme. There's not a, there's a Delta of 34 spaces. There's a total of 155 now. The total of 189 proposed. Well, if you count, if you go on the map and you count the number of spots, it's actually 60 not from exactly what exists today. To that plan is 69 new spaces. There's a number of spaces that have to be removed for the Partly. I think that's 12 in the back. In the back. So there's a total right now of 155. And there's a proposed 189. That's a Delta of 34 spaces. Right, I get the delta of 34 on paper. I'm just saying when I count the number, it's like if you look at the you can count it if you look at the new parking spaces that new are 69 you're losing 12 in the back. So that's 57. There's some of the back on the sides as well as the park that area is the sides are for the fireways. So the park that areas is that where the outdoor dining is or what's the okay so it's so you're so from what exists today is counting the outdoor parking spaces that are you being used as outdoor dining as existing parking spaces? Yes. Okay I still I don't know we can count kind of but so what's required to keep it as 19. That is for the parklets. So the property currently does not comply with the requirements for all the spaces and all the uses now. They're bringing it up to code as well as supply and the part of the dining as well as the changes and hours of operation. Okay, could you just pull up the map one more time? Sorry, I don't want to. So I see the 12 that are lost in the back. And then how many are going to outer dining in the front looks like 6, right? I'll see you in the next one. Or six, 11 in the front. There's other sides. Oh, is it real? Is it 11 is going to dining in the front? You're losing. You're losing spaces in the front for the bicycle parking. There's some along the side there being lost. So those aren't the ones along the side. Don't have some spaces being lost to readjust spaces to be wider currently. They're only eight feet wide for both of you a not feet wide. Okay, I just I've counted a bunch and it's just not. Like I just not adding out from what exists to. Because the in the back you go to the back and you count all of the new ones it's in black area is 69 and then you lose that lot as row which is 12. You'll see that there's currently 50 spaces that are 8 feet wide and then there those are going away to increase the width of space so you're losing some spaces as you widen the overall parking lot. So the parking spaces themselves are? There's parking spaces, there's aisle widths that are also being wired to comply with the fire disrequirements. Okay, but it's 19 spaces that are required to accommodate the outdoor dining. Where the park lips is the most affected by this proposal. Interesting, do you work for the neighbors? Are you supposed to work for the city? Excuse me, through the chair. We need the line of questioning question that contains the project. Can I ask a question? I think that. Don't see how that question. Well, because I'm trying to understand how difficult it is to get a clear answer on the numbers. I find that when the applicant was asked by you to bring a number of seats, they don't. When we asked the city if the went and checked it didn't. So at the end we're paying the taxes for the city to work for the neighbors not for the business owners but for the neighbors and we ask a question and we have no answer. That's I mean you know exactly how many light bulbs I have in my house right now. But they don't on the map. They know and they inspect it and they go and check to approve it. How can they say that it's so hard to get a number of seats? We get three different numbers today, again. And one of the members on the committee last day said 177. Today they said 140, the other 170. We're talking about the parking spaces. Somebody says it's six parking spaces. Somebody says it's six parking spaces. Somebody says it's eight. Somebody says it's 11. I'm having a very difficult issue on understanding simple numbers, on having such a hard time. But that's for you to decide as an architectural committee. I can share with you that the, how I was enlightened on all of this since our last meeting. So there's an issue of enforcement. I think we all acknowledge, which has to get addressed. That's not within the charter of this committee. Correct. I think it is a very real issue, and I think we would all agree. When I came to the realization after last week's meeting was that, additionally, use permit dictates the number of spots that we need to provide. Not the number of tables and chairs. Additional use permit allows for a number of spaces as defined by CUP defines the number of seats day and evening for the restaurants and for the retail space. That's correct. Yeah So I think yeah, we were looking again from my perspective we were looking at the problem backwards We were trying to go count tables and when we already know that we believe there may be an enforcement issue They're exceeding the CUP so looking at the problem the wrong way around The CUP should define exactly how many spaces We should be accommodating I think that's an accurate statement Yes, the CUP does identify that the maximum number of states to be used. And right now the CUP is 70 and 90 and 122. And it's being complete. And for that, the parking is in the right size. Okay. So that's for you to define. For me to define as a neighbor is last week I address that I have no no consideration has been given to our property no consideration has been given. The legal attorney just called my lawyer and just said what do you want? In a very valid way with no context whatsoever, no clear definitions of any of this. It was the first phone call. And when you see the proposal today, it pounded sound on everything. And they're talking like they live in the town, like they have kids going to school every day, like they understand the traffic of the kids walking, they understand how many kids they think it's only half an hour in the morning when they walk. They don't know that kids live at different hours depending on the if they're use a preschool or middle school or late school. They don't understand that kids actually go to the rovers to have ice cream and then they still bike at 4 5 p.m. They think it's just half an hour. They don't live in town. They don't understand it. So when we look at this proposal and their contractor is saying we can put those lights with LED. If that were the case, why don't all of us have lights in our tennis courts? What say doesn't like that? Doesn't like lights? You guys are on a proven, it's not, well, but for him it's very easy to put light super big post lights up there and make our property which is probably 10 or 15 feet below have flag poles. All night. He suggesting very informally I'll put a wall so you don't have the light reflection on 40 cars parking straight looking at our house. We've no nothing whatsoever because it's too much money to move to move the parking lot. Using safety reasons. The actual safety reasons is that more people and more parking at that scale and a big scale has a lot more safety reasons for the community. Safety reasons on our security, safety reasons on who's there and night, safety reasons on what they can do there, a lot of other safety reasons that just the safety reason of the construction. And he knows, anybody knows, that there's no way to screen so close to the creek. Because I'm on the other side and we cannot screen on the creek either. So a lot of the, yes, we're going to do, it's not real. And my ask to you is, this is a city for the neighbors to protect the neighbors. First is the neighbors we got to make sure businesses thrive and they can succeed and they've been there succeeding for decades on a certain size. We want to add outdoor dining grade. We want to adjust for a dining grade but changing the rules to add 24 that they can do a night of day that they can violate it. No one wants to put a number in writing. It's insane. I understand. I understand how this city allows that to happen. I always tell how my taxes go for that. So with that I'm just on to you know that we haven't made one single ounce of progress in anything that makes the neighbors. Feel address. And I've last I recall that's what's what's I stands for. Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on your point. I have four kids, three of them are in the school and I do walk through the parking lot on average like seven times a day and my kids do go, you know, I'm there going between eight and nine. I'm going again between 11 and 12. I'm going again between 250 and 330 and it is a spectacularly beautiful open space to walk through. It's just, you get to the end of the parking lot, you reach the open space and it's like, okay, you can let the kids out of the stroll or you can, you know, you're not worried about your son on the bike. Like, it's just one of the reasons we moved towards side is for these beautiful spaces. On the same side, I love the outdoor dining too, and I think it's a great addition to the community, and everybody loves the outdoor dining. So if there's some way to keep the outdoor dining, but to not destroy the natural beauty of Woodside, there has to be something better than building out these. I know you say it's a delta building out this massive parking lot. There must be a better way to maintain the beauty of Woodside and still have this nice wonderful outdoor community. So just this just strikes me as a huge overreach on what's required to do both of those things. I think just make one clear fine comment. I just want to make sure that you understand what the issue is with the tree removal. I've got here in front of me at the tree inventory assessment protection report. It's part of your package. If you look at page 12 of 34, you see a map. And this map shows in red all the trees that are coming out. This is my client's property. This is the creek. This is the new parking area. All of these trees are being removed for the parking area. The photograph is of those trees. So every single tree on the west side of the creek, between the creek and the new parking area is essentially being removed, unless it's within the corridor itself. But they are, you know, it's not, we're not saying that they're cutting down every tree on the site. What I'm saying is they're cutting every tree that provides privacy screening and some protection for my clients property and what they're going to be replacing it with is nothing. lights when my neighbors are out in their backyards. Thank you. Yeah. Just to clarify, the outdoor dining today works wonderfully. It's fine. I think the actual consumption is six or seven spaces. That's it. So we don't need any massive expansion. I think the actual consumption is six or seven spaces. That's it. So we don't need any massive expansion. I think everybody wants to have outdoor dining. I think it was one of the things in measure A that distorted the vote a lot. No one really in measure A. Realize we're talking about bulldozing the open space. It was all about outdoor dining. But the real question on this enforcement, now we all agree that there's a lack of its sage. Why hasn't the town enforce the rules? Town councils provide their direction, they provide a response to you in processing the application that's before us today. How did the town council vote on making that decision? I've asked that question multiple times. How they communicated to staff to say don't enforce the CUP. Spoken to the town manager and you can follow up with the town manager. And that is the problem right there. Is it's been a failure to communicate and be honest about it. I believe there was a Brown Act violation where the council independently decided amongst themselves, let's not enforce the CUP and communicated that somehow to staff. I've done a public records request saying, how is this just made, who did not make it, and when it was it occurred, I've gotten zero. So right now we got a whole bunch of rare other questionable issues going on in this thing. So we should be turning it down until we get answers to all of that. And certainly bulldozing open space should have been the issue two years ago said, nope, can't bulldoze the open space find another solution. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. all of that one Don, because Don is Don. I also tried really hard to find out why the bakery hadn't been kept in check by the town council. I tried really, really hard. And I got through to one town council member and he did not know. And he said basically it was done without me being involved and I don't know how it was decided. I wasn't included. And that was very scary to me. So we have a big problem. Yes. Last call or anyone else. Otherwise, I think it flows to public comment. I should have mentioned at the beginning, but please as a reminder, before you leave, there is a book to sign in. Just we have a record who is in attendance today. Please make an effort to sign the book. And I see no one approaching. public comment and turn to board discussion. We would like to kick us off to see. I'll go first. Well, I'll blame this is like movie. It's called. Okay. I mean, this is a very positive issue. All of the enforcement has nothing to do with this committee. I think that's where you go to the town council meetings and talk to the town council. What we're really looking at is the site and how it's it's kind of being put together. The interesting thing about this I believe that I know when I voted for measure a everyone agreed that that they needed more parking behind this place. And you might worry about safety that they're on the path, which I've fallen down a couple of times. But with not enough parking, people are lined up with side road. They're over at the church, they're over at the library, they're at the school. That parking is needed and that is something that the town voted to approve extra parking. So while I think that there's a lot of issues, I mean a lot, screening, lighting, I agree with Steve on slope. I'm not sure I like that 10% slope on a kid's path, but as far as it goes taking this budget farther, I think it would be more beneficial for you to talk with the town planners who have been working over time on this housing plan. And have been, you know, I'm surprised we have any town planners left, but that work with the town planners on all of your concerns, slow screening, have, and they'll work with you and the town can then rack down on the town council for not enforcing these issues on number of seats is kind of where I stand with it. I mean I do want the EV parking and I missed the handicap parking that was out front that they took from the park was having been on crutches for two years that was awkward when that went away so I would I think for safety point this project does need to move forward. On handicap spots, there are spots proposed in the new layout. Yes, this has been reviewed a couple of times by the town's casp consultant to that's who reviews all the ADA requirements. Just wonder if the CUP numbers, they are basically, CUP is a public record. So I understand there's a question, what the responsible or who should have been responsible for getting the numbers. It seems to be if we address the problem the way it on mentioned really it's how the CUP numbers relate to the number of the marking places which this project targets. So does anyone know or has had a chance to look at the CUP numbers as we're approved? Yes, everyone has noted them. There's an issue that we're dealing with is an enforcement issue and then there is an application that we have before us that is dealing with proposed amount of seats and a parking lot that tries to comply with all of the required parking spaces for the entire center. So that's what we are processing and through Council and the manager direction code to the enforcement. That is the decision seems to be quite straightforward. So the Council really should be able to address it, should you be numbers? Number of parklets lost because everyone, because of the COVID and now everyone, myself included would be anifit and like the outdoor cafe style, but it's only 19 places, 19 spots, right? So I've not seen a reason why down council, council cannot address it. I know that we will be having elections soon. I notice that I believe Alena actually is running as a writing kind of candidate. The last name is Wagner, right? So either the existing town council or right after the elections, perhaps the new cast of people or amended cast of people should be able to resolve it. Any additional parking spots? Well, if they fit and all the requirements of the neighbors and the state and the safety can be met, great, if not, maybe it should be ill overnumbered. That is my thinking. Yeah, I think I would sort of summarize my position on this is first thank you to the applicant David or please demonstrating the receptiveness to the feedback we gave last time and how to address some of the issues that we raised. Thank you for that. I think there are a lighting with particular I think was still an issue to be resolved. I think more work is required there. Should this project go forward? I think the surrounding neighbors have continued to express concerns around privacy and light and glare. So I think an outreach effort with them to see how you can continue to accommodate their concerns would also be good. But in light of pressure, the town feels with projects we've had to review in the last few months around feeling with the housing elements, re-zoning, there's continued pressure to accommodate more. And this isn't even about accommodating more. This is about accommodating what the CUP defines. They can accommodate today. And so, you know, I think my where I fall in all of this is that I am in support of staff's recommendation on this project. And that is to move forward with it. With curdrants, we'd have to define them. So yeah, I mean, you can make a motion. There's a staff report to the planning commission, the planning commission meeting is scheduled for this Wednesday. And there there's still conditions regarding the lighting and landscaping that are recommended at that level. So they if you have further things to add, we can add those as well. So the planning commission will also be addressing future CUP, which is to expand. Correct. So it's all part of this project then which that it will expand the seating allowance for the two food service businesses, as well as for the expansion of the parking lot. So yes, all the CUP conditions will be looked at with the Planning Commission and given all the entitlements that are necessary, they would be making a recommendation to the town council. Will we be sitting here in five years going through this again? If there are actions in which, if the project is approved and there are actions in which the council or planning commission conditions, the project to come back to ASRB for any particular reason. All right. Do you want to take a step at summarizing? I didn't hear any further comments. So if someone just wants to make a motion to to to move the project, the planning commission for review. I will make the motion to move this project forward to the planning commission and that they really do pay attention to what's been said in this room because we do appreciate it. And we don't want to discount what you've said and that hopefully they will address a lot the the lighting in particular seems, seems a lot and, you know, the structures of the paths and the screening are big ones and there's probably other ones that I'm not looking at. An enforcement. So yes, I'm, I vote to pass this on to the planning information. And the SHUP arithmetic. It is really not. I mean, yeah, and the plans are always available at town hall for anyone who wants to take a look at them. You can sit down with the plans to take a closer look at all the different tables with the calculations. I did not have full clarity. So I. the whole quality. The plans identify all of the parking spaces as they're proposed and there's shows the number of spaces that are being modified and withs and it shows the number of spaces being taken out and the numbers being added. Just strictly the size. Then, I believe 19 spaces must be there based on measure A, because they were taking away by the expansion of the outdoor shooting. And that's the minimal number everything. It's what's been proposed in the application. Measure, I didn't have a specific number of seats being proposed. It's strictly talked about having outdoor dining in front for the parklets and to accommodate that to allow for expansion of the property and the rear for parking. Right. This is what we're doing is processing the application proposed by the applicant. I've made the motion. And with the motion, I heard, you know, the concerns that we do have raised, but continue to look at the lighting. The pathway alignment. As well as usage. I do want to clarify that there is a proposal for the question trail to also be used for pedestrians. The applicants proposing some bicycle usage there. That's something that we'll be talking about with planning commission and town council for their decision on those That's creating thank you for that. Yes, and the minimum distance from the Walkway to the parked cars we can identify that I'll second that. Chair Lindsey. Yes. Vice Chair Conrad. This is your recommendation. We'll explain to the planning commission. That was a two to one with one abstention. Then these recommendations. Yes. So we have a three to zero yes. Thank you. Thank you all. I know it's all right. Hey, we are the second agenda item. 100 family. I'm not confident. Sorry. I didn't hear it. Okay. Just a moment. Let me pull up my... Where's two of them in? Move out. What's the motion? Okay. Thank you. So I will be introducing the project at 300 family farm road. The project includes the proposal to construct a new horse barn within ADU, as well as paddocks, venting and turnout areas for the barn. The project includes a second driveway onto the property, which requires a second driveway exception or review by the Planning Commission. So in December of last year, the ASRB reviewed the Conceptual Design and gave some direction to the applicant to work with staff and the Livestock and Equine Heritage Committee before returning to the ASRB for formal design review. So the applicant has since submitted their formal design review application and has made some changes to the barn in response to the LEHC committees comments that I will discuss further. is currently developed with a main residence as well as the swimming pool and some accessory structures and that's in this portion of the property here. The property is approximately six and a half acres in the SCP-5 zoning district. And so it includes a new horse barn here in this other portion of the property. It will be located in an area that is relatively flat with a few trees. Let me go to a close-up in a second. So there are paddocks proposed attached to the barn on the east and west elevation. So that's this area here as well as down here. And turnout areas for the horses for grazing. That's in these like gray areas. A new driveway into the property is proposed to serve the barn and ADU. So that's located right here. This is the driveway opening and it provides a fire truck turn around like a circular pattern here. The additional driveway, as I mentioned, does require planning commission review for a second driveway exception. So the barn is consistent with typical barn vernacular with vertical wood, woodboard and baton sighting as well as metal, clad windows and doors and a standing sea metal roof. The applicant did make some changes based on the feedback from the LEHC such as incorporating an ADU to clarify the upper loft space, removing one of the upper floor balconies and only including one for the ADU, as well as changing some of the, changing the stall doors from glass to wood. So the application was sent to the LEH subcommittee for review and they did send a comment letter, which was provided as a desk item. So just to summarize the comment letter, it discussed recommendations for the applicant regarding ventilation, some exterior design to support social interaction, containment, insect control protection from the elements and predators, as well as some interior design, for flooring, drainage, water fixtures, natural light, and safe ingress and egress. Staff has also provided the comments to the applicant. So to the extent possible, the applicant will need to submit construction plans that provide additional information that show compliance with building code and those construction plans will also be reviewed by all departments, including planning, building, engineering, fire and county health. That concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Back I know we gave you a process question. And so with the letter from the LCHC, does that automatically get submitted by them as part of the formal review process? I mean, does applicant have to respond to that or do we have to? So if you look at the items that they recommended, there are really technical items around. So those details are something that we'd see further with the building construction. So these are things that they'll have to meet certain building code requirements. And then these are things to take under consideration. Ultimately, that committee will need to sign off on their stable permit to be forced onto the property. But these are all recommendations. And the only physical really thing that would maybe change here is if the, what indoors or maybe changed it from a single door to like a Dutch door and had a split opening that these are things that the applicant can consider as they move forward. I just still need to go to planning commission for the second driver exception through the technicality that this property, this drive-by serves re-properties. Right. And on that, does this board make a recommendation to the planning commission? That's correct. So similar to, if it didn't go to planning commission, you'd be making the recommendation to the planning director. So in this case, because that entitlement, the planning commission will make the final action on the project. Okay, thank you. Yeah, no more questions. Okay, does the applicant wish to make a statement on the comments? Presentation. I'm not building a parking lot. Thank you. I'm Carter War on the Architect for the project. I want to thank staff and the S or B for your time tonight. Taking your direction, you know, in the direction of the livestock committee, you know, it was a pretty natural gestation, you know, for the project. It helped us, you know, to redefine, you know, and separate, you know, the parts of the building that were for housing, you know, from the horse facility. But we definitely wanted, you know, the ADU to be integrated, you know, into the experience of the barn. We feel very comfortable with that. We're really comfortable that the livestock committee didn't have comments related to that interaction. It would seem that their major concern from their original comments has been fully satisfied. We've received the livestock committee's comments and share our concurrence with sages understanding of what they are. They're essentially technical. They're really about air changes, really about some details that we would naturally, you know, as part of, you know, the gestation of the design into construction documents, you know, would be reviewing then. So tonight we hope that, you know, the ASRB is pleased with the response that we provided and, you know, recommend approval, you know, to the planning commission, you know, for the driveway exception for the driveway exception and the final portions of the design. And I'm running for council in the town of Portola Valley, but you don't care at all. Yeah. Good luck. Everybody's running. Thank you. A question about is there any any I'm looking at the plan for the 80 years specifically and I see what here to be sliding doors. Yes, living room that overlooked the stalls. Yep. And I was just curious about, I don't know if there's any code around this at all, but I'm just like managing air between the like separation of air between it. It's really an owner's desire to kind of live in the barn. And it's part of the experience to actually look into that and have the glass doors. So it's a personal preference. Incidentally, I've been designing a building barn since the mid-70s. So this is the first one with this much interaction between living space. But it really is a desire for them to be able to have that living space there. Okay. And we'll just know the staff level. It will be required to meet building co-there's certain fire separations between the uses. But as long as they need building code, it should be fine. Okay. Is the barn space treated more as an outdoor space in that regard? In terms of like the- Although it's there. That's my counterpart. Oh, you don't need to go. There's certain occupancies related to the building code. And when there are different occupancies, you have to have a certain amount of fire separation between the two occupancy uses. So they are both indoor spaces, but there has to be a fire separations shouldn't not ideally a fire breaks out in one of the spaces. It restricts the ability or our lessons of the ability for it to spread. Yeah, good. I have another question. Thank you. Anybody else? Well, in the war, in the fall of the war, the people of the past, the people of the past, the people of the past, the people of the past, the people of the past, the people of the past, the people of the past, the people of the past, the people of the past, the people of the past, the people of the past, the people of the past, the people of the past, the people of the past, the people of the past, the people of the past, the people of the past, the people of the past, the people of the past, the smell of money. Okay. Thank you. Open up for make a comment. And I see no raised hands. I really want to thank you for spending time. I mean, you just didn't come back the next week, but you know, some sketches on what you, I mean, you really thought about what you wanted to do and you worked on it. And the whole idea of doing this ADU bar is wonderful. I commend you on giving it a lot more thought and working with everything that the livestock committee told you that we told you. So thank you. I think it'll be beautiful to see that on down. Yeah so I have no question and the driveway thing doesn't really go through us right? No I mean you always look at site planning and those kinds of issues related but you do you are not making the finance for a second driveway except. It's the family farm neighborhood, which is a beautiful neighborhood and it's ever 10 years. Thanks. Yeah, I mean, I first time around when we reviewed this, I think there were no specific pieces of feedback on the design aesthetics, a couple of comments, but I think that's all addressed. So yeah, so I'll move that we approved this. Recommendation to the planning commission is that we do support the second driveway. There was something else too. We were recommending no. That's it. Okay. Okay. Oh, yes. I'll second. Oh, you good. I had a sadbar question page A1.4 shows the traditional features for wood signs. Oh, it's absolutely approved. But the table shows the other bulbs. I guess it's just part of cut and waste. So those will be compact fluorescent bulbs. You cannot even buy them. Thanks. Do we have a motion in a second? Yeah. Chair Lindsay? Yes. Vice Chair Kamra? Yes. Member Taft? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. You'll receive a letter the next day or two and we'll talk to you about scheduling for planning commission. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You'll receive a letter the next day or two and we'll talk to you about scheduling for planning commission. Good luck with your election. Okay. Last couple items director's report. Nothing. Nothing to report at this time. We have are we getting behind on meeting minutes? Yes, so Julie's catching up on those. So you'll have some. Definitely your next meeting for sure. OK, good. All right. And then so with that, I joined the meeting at 622. Hey, Josh. Dad.