Hey, we're just a couple minutes late,
so we'll call the um meeting of April
28th, 2026 to order. Jen, will you take
roll call, please?
>> Council member Alberish
>> here.
>> Council member Brown
>> here.
>> Council member Gold. Council member
Wall, Mayor Donowski,
>> here. Uh Mayor Prom Gold, will you lead
us in the pledge of allegiance, please?
stands nation under God, indivisible
with liberty and justice for all.
>> All right. Very good. Thank you. I think
with that we will open up public
comment. So persons wishing to address
the council on any non-aggendaized items
that are in the jurisdiction of the town
are invited to do so.
Please note, however, that the council
is not able to undertake extended
discussions on non-aggendaized items.
Those items can be referred to staff for
future action on a future agenda. This
communication period is limited to five
persons, three minutes each, and we're
going to hold to that because we have a big agenda again tonight. So, uh,
everyone else who would like to speak
after that, you can speak after regular
business is done. So, thank you for
that. Are there any members of the
public who would like to speak on any
item that is not agendaized tonight?
>> Come on up. Thank you.
>> Um,
good evening, council members.
>> I'm just going to read my notes
>> just to be precise.
>> Oh, thank you.
>> Yeah, I got it. Yeah, my name is Terra
Pachuan. I live at 164 Bit Road
immediately adjacent to the proposed new
resident at 156 Bit Road. Um I
respectfully request that this comment
be included verbatim in the record. I
will provide a written copy.
I'm asking the council to look into
serious procedural problems with the SRB
review conducted on November 17 of last
year. The board the ASRB was told the
project had no code violations. No
exceptions were anticipated
that everything was I'm sorry it was
that was inaccurate. The plans presented
contain objective code violations.
Um there were issues involving setbacks
and development on slope steeper than
35%
steepness.
Uh there's some substantial retaining
wall that should not have been allowed.
The ASRB packet also contained factual
errors including stating the property
was connected to the sewer when it
remained unsusceptive. Still
there was just a lot of errors on that
information packet provided to the SRB.
Because the board was given inaccurate
information, it made recommendations
based on a floor record.
Equally important, the project was not
meaningfully evaluated under section
153.911
of the Woodside Municipal Code. the
required design criteria intended to
minimize grading, protect privacy,
preserve neighborhood character.
Those standards were not properly
applied and adjacent neighbors are
bearing the consequences.
I respectfully ask the council to help
return the project back to the ASRB for
proper review based on code compliant
plans and accurate information so a
lawful and sound design can be
implemented and not later challenged
avoiding further delay for the property
owner.
Legal proceedings would be costly and
hostile to all parties. Things already
gotten very hostile and should be
avoided. But it is also not reasonable
for adjacent neighbors as to absorb
severe privacy and property impacts
without seeking a fair remedy. This is
why I'm asking for a corrective action
now during the design phase.
As section 10.40 40 of the Woodside
Municipal Code states resident have a
right to expect code compliant without
confrontation with neighbors. I'm not
asking to stop development. I'm asking
for a lawful review, fair treatment,
adherent to the town's code for the
benefits of neighbors,
>> the applicant and the town.
>> Thank you. Yeah, I've heard about this
from three or four staff members in the
last got to be four or five months now,
I'm guessing. Um, my understanding is
you can't appeal a conceptual design,
but there will be a time when you can
have a timely appeal on setbacks and
easements, and that's in the next phase
of this. And I think staff has committed
to making sure that you're informed and
um about when you can make a timely
appeal is my recollection.
>> It's not just a code, there was no
education.
>> Well, okay. Well, we're not going to
have a conversation about it, but is
there anything else that staff would
like to add um or does that pretty much
capture it?
>> Um, I could just add that yes, you're
correct. It went through conceptual
design review. At the concept uh part of
design review um it looks at the basic
design of a project. They give feedback
on the design evaluation criteria. The
ASRB did that. Um they made uh a
recommendation to move forward to formal
design review. At the formal design
review part of the process is when it
all of the detailed information is um
looked at to make sure for code
compliance. Uh so the applicant has
submitted for formal design review.
There are some items of that application
that have been deemed incomplete which
they are working on in terms of setbacks
and other code issues. All of that stuff
they had to do minor tweaks to the
design to ensure that they could comply
with the setbacks. Um so if there was
significant changes to the design it
would be taken back to ASRB but at this
time they have not made significant
changes. they've made some minor tweaks
to the position of the building and then
changing a roof line to ensure
compliance with setbacks and heights.
>> So the next step is planning commit.
>> So no at this point it is just to
complete formal design review at the
staff level because they installed story
poles and the ASRB did not have
significant issues with the design. So
all the neighbors especially on the
neighbor here speaking will be informed
of any decision that's made on that
application and that application that
decision can be appealed to the planning
commission. Okay. Any decision in the
planning commission can be appealed to
the town council.
>> I speak the ASRP did not have any issue
because they were presented with
inaccurate information. So the entire
evaluation criteria were not evaluated
accordingly.
The project should not have advanced a
formal design to begin with.
>> Well, there's going to be an opportunity
for a timely appeal for sure. So this is
just the way the municipal system works
at this point. Why would a resident have
to even
>> Yeah. So, this is a non-aggendaized
item. We're not going to talk about it,
but I appreciate bring it up. We're well
aware of it. I want you to know your
voice has been heard and
>> I'm watching it too for you. So, just
know that we will we'll be in contact,
>> right? I think we need to pro follow the
procedure.
>> We don't. Yes. Any other public comments
from anyone? Alia Luben. Hello.
>> Hi. Um,
I just want to say on uh for myself and
for the history committee, I really
appreciate the council
even considering the purchase of the
Velicate House. And as you all know and
whatever part Jen played in having the
school board purchase it, I just just
great big thank you and I hope that the
town will help facilitate whatever plan
is going forward. I understand there's a
desire for teacher housing on that site
and you know it's sort of a I hate the
word win-win but we saved the old
Velicad house and we we now have
something that can be used as a model
for additional housing in the center of
town. And I also want to uh you've
probably heard about it. I want to
reinforce our invitation to the museum
on May 12th. we have our annual
preservation award and every everybody
in the room is invited. Um and after
which we will be coming to the council
for the proclamation for preservation
month and our two recipients this year
is the old stone winery on Laquesta away
and the used to be called the telephone
exchange and then it was the almanac
building and now it's Delgavio. It's on
the corner right kitty corner from
Robert. So, um, I do hope you'll all
join us. Thank you.
>> Thank you and thanks for your advocacy.
That did lead to a close session
discussion and I I haven't met a single
person who isn't thrilled with the
outcome uh of what's happened with that
property.
Other questions or comments for uh
non-aggendaized items from the room?
See none. And I see none in the Zoom
room. So, we will close
uh public comment and we'll move right
into presentations. And we have a
wonderful presentation to kick things
off with our our new sheriff. I'll end
things off.
Welcome.
Uh good evening, Mr. Mayor, council
members, members of the community. Uh
just want to say it's truly an honor to
stand here before you all tonight um as
a newly appointed captain overseeing uh
the police services for the town of
Woodside. I'm grateful for this
opportunity to serve this community and
to work alongside all of you and
continuing to keep Woodside a safe,
vibrant, and exceptional place to live.
And just a little bit about myself is I
was born just down the road here in
Redwood City. So serving, you know, here
is especially meaningful to me. This
region has always been home and I take
great pride in contributing to the
well-being of the communities that shape
it.
I bring 22 years of service with me um
here at the sheriff's office and over
the course of my career I've had the
privilege of working in a wide ride wide
excuse me a wide range of assignments
across the organization. Most recently I
served as our transit bureau commander
overseeing police services for uh Calr
and Samr uh where I oversaw complex
operations involving public safety
infrastructure and regional
coordination.
Each of these experiences has given me a
broad perspective of policing and
reinforced my core belief that strong
partnerships are the foundation of
effective public safety.
And with Woodside being a unique and
special community known for its
exceptional quality of life, its natural
beauty, and its engaged residents, I am
deeply committed to maintaining and
enhancing that standard.
I also recognize that every community
has its own set of priorities and
concerns.
And my role is not only to provide
service, but to listen carefully and
consistently to the issues that matter
most to the people who live here. So
whether that's traffic safety, emergency
preparedness, or property crime
prevention, quality of life issues, I
want you to know that I'm committed to
working collaboratively with the town
leadership, the residents, and the
deputies um underneath my command on
those challenges. in a thoughtful,
proactive, and collaborative way. One of
my top priorities is to ensure that our
sheriff's office personnel are visible,
accessible, and approachable.
Community trust is built through
relationships, and relationships are
built through presence and engagement.
And you will see me in the community as
well. So, please, I encourage the
residents, any of you, to connect with
me, connect with the deputies, uh share
your concerns, be active, and we can
partner together in shaping our public
safety efforts for this great town. And
I really want to emphasize my commitment
to transparency, accountability, and
responsiveness. These principles guide
how I lead everywhere I've gone through
the sheriff's office, and that will
continue here in Woodside, and they're
essential to maintaining the trust that
this community rightfully expects and
deserves.
So, in closing, I just want you to know
that I'm very excited to be here. Um, I
know there's work ahead, but the
opportunity to serve this great town.
Um, I look forward to building strong
relationships with each one of you, with
the residents in the community and
really understanding what your
priorities are and how I can be of
assistance and support. So, thank you
for your time. Um, and I look forward to
uh to seeing each of you in the future.
So, thanks again.
>> Thank you.
>> Appreciate it.
>> Uh, and welcome. Is are there any
questions from council
>> for the Go ahead, Paul.
>> Yeah, I'd like to welcome Brandon. Um
you've already made a big impact on our
community as we were talking about
before. Um it's quite a history you're
following here. I was trying to think of
all the names, but but um you're
following in the footsteps at least in
Woodside. Christina Corpus have the same
position uh as captain of this
particular bureau. Uh Frank Delporto,
Mark Meyers. I mean, it's a pretty
impressive list. And um I think that uh
although it's big shoes to fill uh the
capabilities we've seen already, we're
very impressed and uh wanted to
personally welcome you to Woodside.
We're really glad you're here and you have just such a great crew. We're happy to have them all here.
>> Absolutely. And I think I touched on it
before talking to you. I you know I have
great respect for this town. I mean it's
a it's a really a full circle moment for
me in my career. you know, as a young
deputy 22 years ago when I first cleared
the training program. My first
assignment on my own was right here in
the town of Woodside. Um, and yeah,
that's 22 years ago. I know a lot's
changed, but you know, I have great
respect, great memories of of the people
who work here, the town leadership, and
I'm excited to be back on, you know, at
this point in this juncture of my
career.
>> Wonderful. Thank you. That's
>> I just wanted to also welcome you
personally. Oh, sorry. Um, and just
offer up, you know, it you know, you're
from Redwood City. you know the area
quite well, but you know, Woodside is a
small town with kind of unique needs and
interests and just to the extent any of
us on the council can be helpful to you
to kind of like share with you any
history or communicate just what we're
hearing from residents around traffic
concerns or um at one point there was a
spike in burglaries, whatever the case
may be. We're very, you know, very
interested in just sharing whatever
information might be useful.
>> Absolutely. I I welcome that type of
partnership. So, thank you. Are
>> there any members of the public that
would like to speak?
>> Okay.
>> Brandon. Brandon. And my last name is
Hel.
>> Thank you.
>> Well, yeah. And I'll just, you know,
we'll wrap up. Well, thank you and and
welcome. Uh we really appreciate hearing
your vision tonight and uh we look
forward to working with you to keep
Woodside safe and well connected. So, uh
I'm sure as you heard, there are a lot
of people that would love to spend some
time with you. So, absolutely. We'll
look forward to that.
>> Thank you very much. Thank you for being
here.
>> Appreciate.
>> Take care.
» Okay. And our other presentation is from
Peninsula Clean Energy, soon to be
otherwise named.
>> Uh thank you, Mayor Dowski, and uh
members of the council and staff. Thank
you very much for your time here. Uh my
name is Rafael Reyes. I'm senior
director of energy programs for
Peninsula Clean Energy. Um uh uh what
I'm going to do is offer a brief update
on where we are with the organization.
And as the mayor just mentioned, we are
going to be announcing a name change. Uh
and this is on your consent uh agenda.
Uh I also want to acknowledge uh council
member Aberish for his service on our uh
board and really appreciate uh his time
and contributions there. So thank you
very much uh for that. Why don't we move
on to the next slide, please? Uh for
those of you who may not be familiar
with Peninsula Clean Energy, we're your
notfor-profit energy uh provider for San
Mo County. Um we provide what are what's
known as the generation services. Uh
PG&E owns the poles and wires and
manages the delivery of the electrons as
it were um to the homes and businesses
in the service territory including in
Woodside. And our power is both cleaner
and at lower rates. um than uh P Gen. So
there are savings that uh customers
acrew as a result of being Peninsula
Clean Energy customers. Next slide
please.
Um so Peninsula Clean Energy was formed
10 years ago. Uh we are a joint powers
authority created by all the cities
including the town of Woodside through a
unanimous vote in 2016. Uh as I
mentioned earlier, we provide both lower
cost and cleaner energy um through those
generation services. And in addition, we
also do community investments associated
with clean energy, including the solar
power here on this uh uh facility uh
which is projected to save some 140,000
uh dollars over the life of the system.
Next slide, please.
uh for the uh residents and businesses
here in Woodside. Um over that 10 years,
uh the uh customers, PCE customers have
saved uh $2.5 million in that uh 10
years. Uh and PCE has made over $560,000
of investments in the community through
a variety of credits and rebates that
customers have access to. Next slide,
please.
Now our role over that 10 years has
expanded from not only providing uh
clean energy at lower costs but also
increasing the support to the community
through a variety of programs that have
been developed over that time. Next
slide.
Looking ahead um we are continuing to
provide a discount uh on the generation
services. Um we have uh recently also
issued uh the what are known as the
member agency grants including here in
Woodside. Uh in the case of Woodside
that's $113,000
for the e garden program which is the
landscape electrification rebate. Uh
currently the generation uh discount is
at 10% relative to PG&E and we look
forward to later this year rolling out a
solar and storage program that customers
here in Woodside may be interested in.
Next slide please. Uh as the mayor noted
uh PCE will be changing its name this
year. In fact, in June, we will have the
formal broadcast announcement of the N
uh of the new name, which is West Light
Energy. The agency is still the same not
forprofit uh clean energy provider.
Nothing else changes. Um but we have
found that there is often confusion
between PCE
and PG and E. Um this comes up quite
regularly. uh and that confusion among
other things uh has led to a decision to
rename uh the agency. Again, nothing
else about the agency will be changing.
Next slide, please. And so our ask here
is um per what uh the item on your
consent agenda is approval of the JPA
amendment uh with the new name which
again is really intended to help us
better communicate to and connect with
customers including residents and
businesses here in Woodside. Uh we will
also have a whole series of events um
over the course of the year marking our
10-year anniversary including a policy
reception in the fall and a variety of
uh community events and there will be
further communication on those and we
hope to have your participation
and I'm happy to answer any questions
that you may have.
>> Very good. Thank you, Raphael. Any
questions from council?
>> No questions. I just want to say thank
you for the great presentation for all
the work you do.
>> Thank you very much.
any members of the public that would
like to speak on this issue
» uh in September.
» You've come to the right community with
that message. Uh okay. Well, we
appreciate you being here to uh make the
presentation and your evolution to West
Light Energy and uh we will move on to
consent in just a moment for approval.
>> Thank you very Thank you.
All right, I think with that we will
move on to the consent. So all items on
the consent calendar are considered
routine and will be approved by one roll
call motion unless any member of the
council or any member of the public
would like to have a one of those items
pulled. There's nine items tonight. Are
there any items on the consent that any
council member would like to pull? Yes,
sir.
>> Item number eight.
>> Commit.
Are there any items that any member of
the public would like us to pull for
further discussion?
Hearing none, can we get a motion to
approve items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and nine,
please?
>> So moved.
>> Thank you,
>> Council Member Alberish.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Brown.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Gold.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Wall. Mayor Donowski.
>> Yes. Thank you. and we'll turn it over
to you, council member Brown, on
resolution for the town manager to
execute
an expansion of the contract with good
city.
>> Yeah, I simply wanted to understand a
little bit better what the $20,000 was
going into.
>> Sure, I can answer that and then if I
miss something, I'll turn it over to our
consultants who are here as well. uh we
in reviewing the concept drawings that
were you will see later tonight uh
before they the CAC started with verbal
uh meetings and our design team put
together concept drawings that were to
be brought forward and per the timeline
it was going to come back to town
council first and then return to the CAC
and in talking with the consultants and
staff we decided that we added in an
additional CAC meeting uh sorry citizen
advisory committee meeting that uh took
place last Tuesday so that we could get
the feedback uh from that committee on
the concept drawings before we brought
it forward to the town council. And so
the the it took extra work to put that
meeting together and the presentation
attend that meeting and also uh the
consultants reached out to the
stakeholders for the private property
business owners in the town center area
to uh present those ideas and hear
concerns from them.
>> Okay. All right, understand. Thank you.
>> Would you like to motion for eight?
Council member Brown.
>> I move that we approve item eight.
Second,
>> council member Alberish.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Brown.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Gold.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Wall.
>> Mayor Dowski.
>> Yes. Thank you. All right. Moving right
along. Public hearing item A. So tonight
we're going to have a public hearing on
updating our fee schedule, which is a
continuation from April 14th agenda.
Uh, and this is boomeranging Melissa to
Patty, right? Okay. Welcome, Patty.
» Okay. Hi, my name is Patty Higashioa.
I'm a senior management analyst here at
the town. Um, it's recommended that the
town approve the resolution updating the
user and regulatory fees effective July
1st. Um, I'd like to introduce Terry
Madson. Um he is the president and
principal consultant at Clear Source
Financial Consulting. Um since 2003,
Terry has um assisted the town in
preparing our fee schedule, so he'll
give the presentation tonight. Thank
you.
>> Thank you. Welcome, Terry. I think this
is the first time we haven't seen you on
Zoom.
>> Yes.
>> Good to have you.
>> Good evening, Mayor.
>> You want to pick that up a little bit
for you? You don't have to.
Thank you very much.
>> Very good. Well, good evening, mayor and
members of the town council. Uh, thank
you for allowing me to speak with you
this evening on this topic. I know you
mentioned you have a full agenda, so I
will u make my way quickly through about
a dozen slides and I'm available to
receive any feedback or questions from
the council. Uh, just by way of
background, we'll we'll uh in terms of a
meeting agenda, we'll talk through the
background regarding user and regulatory
fees and then we'll uh discuss staff's
recommendation for this item. um
effective July 1, 2026.
So, by way of background, um next slide,
please. Uh we're dealing with what we
would cons call call user and regulatory
fees. And these are different than
taxes. So, communities primarily use tax
revenues to fund services that provide
broad communitywide benefit. We most
commonly think of these as public safety
services, public works services, park
maintenance type services that that we
all access um as needed. And when we see
a direct receiver of service, we use um
regulatory fees or user fees to recover
the cost of providing a service
specifically to uh a member or or
business within the community. Most
commonly we think of this as plan
review, permit fees, um inspection
related fees. Next slide please.
Um what's important to note is that we
are not examining as any part of this
update. The council is not being asked
to consider any sort of adjustments or u
modifications to taxes, any assessments,
any utility rates. So, the things that
we we think about and experience most
commonly, they are not a subject um of this topic. We're thinking of
service-based most common building
permit type fees, planning entitlement
fees, and so forth. Next slide.
The reason um towns like Woodside and
cities throughout California examine
their fees periodically and charge fees
is the number one reason we examine fees
and go through this mechanism of council
consideration is to comply with legal
requirements. The California
Constitution and the California
Government Code um outline the process
for fee setting and fee establishment
and the number one criteria is we're not
in the profitm business. we're in the
cost recovery um business and so a fee
we don't want to exceed our our cost
providing service. When we do recover
fees from the the receiver of service,
we are by definition freeing up the
town's general fund to be used for any
other council priority in terms of uh uh
that that you might see fit when
building a budget. And then I think this
final bullet point is important. When we
recover our cost of providing service,
we are positioning Woodside to continue
to meet the service level expectation of
the community. Next slide, please.
I mentioned this idea that these items
are approved by the town council. That's
why they come before you is because fees
are adopted by the town council. They
are intended to be dynamic. You, as a
matter of process, review fees annually.
um you perform a study periodically and
then you uh do some inflationary
adjustments in between comprehensive
studies but ultimately any fee is
adopted by the town council. Next slide.
In terms of history, the most recent
comprehensive fee study was completed in
2023.
Um in 2020 and and as part of that
adopting resolution, the town council
said we'd like to do this periodically
in the in between years. We'd like to
have fees follow regional cost inflation
with a not to exceed amount. And so
that's what we've been doing for the
last couple years. In 2024, there was a
planning fee study. Um but this year is
just an inflationary adjustment with
minor um non-inflationary type
adjustments when we're trying to enhance
fee schedule clarity or make it um make
it more clear in terms of service
provided and fee collected. So staff
still intends to perform a comprehensive
type study every 3 to 5 years, but in
these interim years, they're more
inflationary type adjustments. Next
slide.
In terms of what the council is being
asked to consider that would be
effective 2627,
the most recent regional cost inflation,
um the metric that has been used for the
last several years is the regional CPI.
That amount changed by 2.18%. And so
most of your fees are proposed to be
adjusted by 2.18%. I mentioned there's
very there's some other minor uh
non-inflationary adjustments. Next
slide.
For this evening, staff recommends the council would complete the public
hearing and consider adopting the
updated uh schedule of fees that would
be effective July 1, 2026. Thank you so
much for your time and attention.
>> Thank you, Terry. Uh any questions from
council?
Uh yes, I have one question uh regarding
road impact fees. Um Woodside has very
delicate roadways. I mean, you may not
realize that most of them were stage
coach roads some time ago. Um and I'm
wondering do we get enough road impact
fee uh representing how delicate we are,
how different we are from most of the
communities. Um seeing how much heavy
equipment goes through the town every
day. I wish I could give you a good
answer to that. When I mentioned what
we're not examining, I mentioned this
idea of taxes, assessments, utility
rates, there was this fourth item that's
in the slide, but I didn't mention it.
Impact fees are adopted by separate
legislation, and we are not examining
those. So, I wouldn't be qualified to
let you know whether your impact fees as
they exist today are sufficient for your
anticipated costs or not. We're dealing
with service based fees. So a human
providing service to another human
impact fees are dealing with
infrastructure. What is the cost of the
payment the pavement or the new um
facility to accommodate any future
development? And so it's a it's a
completely different world and they are
not being proposed for adjustment via
this item.
>> How do we find out? You would h you
would connect with an expert in
infrastructure costs and impact fees and
they would work with your town engineer
to think about um what is likely future
development, what is the impact of that
development on our town infrastructure
and then you would think through knowing
that do my impact fees are they
sufficient to accommodate that? Okay,
>> good. Thank you. Great. Um, other
questions if any from council.
All right. Any comments from the public
on this item?
Okay, we will close public. Let me just
double check. I didn't mean to. Thank
you. Uh, we will close public comment
and uh any deliberation from council.
>> Just my point. I'd like us to look into
the impact fees that were being paid
because I have a suspicion we're not
getting paid enough for all of the
damage being done to our streets with
construction equipment.
Okay.
And then I'll just say obviously we're
in an inflationary environment. We have
to be a going concern. So I'm certainly
supportive of of this uh reasonable
proposal of 2.18%.
If there are no other comments, I think
we will Can we get a Sorry, can we get a
motion to approve the new fee? Sorry,
let me pull it up. Approve the
resolution to update our regulatory
fees.
>> So moved.
>> Second. Council
>> member Alish.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Brown.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Gold. Yes.
>> Council member Wall. Mayor Donowski.
>> Yes. Very good. Thank you. Thank you,
Patty. Thank you, Terry. Appreciate it.
And uh I guess on to new business in the
main event tonight uh which is a
discussion of the town center area plan.
Um before I hand it off to our
consultants uh the council has asked
good city not to repeat the page by page
presentations that we've had in the uh
CAC meeting. We're going to go directly
to the summary page to understand what
the CAC is recommending with the
majority
um of support and um then we can use the
rest of the report as a reference for
any questions that anybody might have.
So the process tonight is going to be
we're going to hear the summary, council
will ask questions, then we'll take it
to public comment. Uh and then we'll go
back and um we'll the council will give
general direction based on what they
heard and uh and then we'll move on and
we actually made incredible time in the
first part of this meeting. So uh I
actually believe that we're going to get
through this whole thing tonight. So
let's let's see what happens. But we we
might call it after two hours because we
don't uh
we found that some of the best decisions
happen in the first two hours and maybe
not in that third hour. So, um, so I
think with that, I'm handing it off to
our consultants from Good City.
>> Thank you, Mayor Dumbowski, and good
evening, council members. Um,
evening.
>> Oh, I was just going to say that tonight
before us is a presentation from the
good city on the town center area plan
update, and I'm just going to turn it
over to Troy and Ryan and
secure. We'll Great. All right.
Well, thank you everyone. Um,
and as I said, um, we're, um, we're
excited. I'm really excited to be back
here in front of you all. Um, I was here
about a year ago to introduce and kick
off this project. Um, we've made a lot
of progress since then. So, um, now
we're here to talk about what we've done
and to kind of take a a kind of key
temperature check on some of the
direction we're heading in. So, um,
we've got a full agenda. Um, first I'll
share some updates about the project,
uh, what the progress that we've made so
far, what we want to get out of this
project, and what really we heard um, in
our first round of engagement, including
two meetings with the CAC. Then uh Ryan
and I will present some key concepts.
We'll try and cut to the chase. Um as
the mayor discussed um we'll divide the
conversation these four topics,
transportation, parking, land use,
public space. We'll have a break um
after transportation.
And what we're really looking for
tonight is for council to offer some
preliminary uh feedback and direction on
these concepts and these strategies that
we've come up with um and that we intend
on sharing with the community. The
larger community is part of our upcoming
round of engagement. Um so just to be
clear, this is not a final decision-m as
far as the area plan, but kind of a a
midcheck on where we're at and if we're
heading in the right direction. Um so
then we'll have public comment and we'll
have the council discussion um for each
of these topics one by one.
So just as a reminder this is an
overview of our schedule for the
project. As I said we met you know last
um June with the council to kick off
this effort. Since then we've had a
number of stakeholder meetings. We've
had three CAC meetings. uh a number of
popups, a survey, and a workshop. Um as
um town manager just mentioned, we added
the CAC meeting last week um to really
give the the committee the first crack
at at previewing some of these concepts
um before we were going to bring them to
council tonight. So, we added that
meeting um as a special uh sort of
decision to to make them aware of the
concepts we were going to be discussing.
Um so then after tonight we'll be moving
to the second round of community
engagement. We'll come back to the CAC
and to the council again before we
initiate the SQA process. And um
according to this pace, we would
anticipate adoption of the plan in um
quarter 1 or quarter two of 2027.
So, just quickly to start off, I'll lay
out some of the policy context. Um, just
as a reminder that kind of guides and
informs our work on this update and I'll
restate some of the outcomes that we
want to get out of this effort so that
we're all moving in the same direction
and we're all aligned on what we want to
achieve with this project. Um, and just
as a reminder, you see here this image.
At our first meeting, the council
extended the boundary of the plan. Um,
in both directions along Woodside Road
from 280 on the eastern side all the way
to Little Store on the western side. Um,
so that was one of the early moves by
council to influence the direction of
this plan.
Uh, so this slide shows the zoning uh
current zoning in the town center. Uh
most of the area which you see in red is
uh community commercial. A zone that
does not allow multifamily or mixed use.
Two parcels that are in yellow or orange
there are where we are tonight. The town
hall and the adjacent town museum. Um
even though they're rural residential,
there are still some ballot constraints
uh that constrain them from being used
for residential. Then you see village
Helen Green uh which is also constrained
uh by a ballot measure to remain an open
space.
Another important limitation that I
think most of us are aware of but it's
worth uh just restating is the measure J
which was adopted in 8 1988 limits the
building heights to 17 ft above the
crown of the road within 100 ft from the
edge of Woodside Road. And you see that
area kind of represented in red here. Um
so and it covers essentially mo most of
the privately owned portions of the town
center.
So just to take a quick step back here
are the key outcomes that the
CEC and the community and I think this
body here this council would all like to
see out of this update. Um, you know,
we've talked through this um with the
community at various engagement
opportunities and then also again with
the CAC. Um, they've had multiple
opportunities to kind of weigh in on
these different points. Um, and their
feedback's been incorporated in this
list. Um, but I'll briefly just go over
these, you know, building consensus
around a shared vision. Very important
to us um to come out of this effort with
um kind of forward momentum around ideas
we all agree on. uh prioritizing the
concerns of residents and local
stakeholders over those of the out
outside visitors. Maintaining the rural
equestrian centric and small town
character, something that was, you know,
repeated over and over through all of
our engagement. uh improving the safe
movement through and around the town
center for all different modes,
facilitating seasonal outdoor dining,
fostering a few additional public
gathering spaces, improving the
aesthetic appeal of the of the area, uh
providing more guidance on the character
and the design that we want to see of
buildings in the town center. Enabling
the long-term success economically of
local businesses. expanding the uses
that we have in the town center to
better serve our needs, offering more
flexibility to land owners, which
includes exploring residential use, and
finally enhancing the revenue generating
capacity of the town center um to help
with the town's budget.
All right, with that, I'll go through
quickly uh what we heard in the first
round of engagement. So, basically what
we've been up to to for the better part
of a year. Um that includes uh as I said
we had an extensive round of engagement.
We had four popups all across um the
town center. We had a very successful
survey. Over 500 people responded to the
survey. The vast majority of those were
residents of Woodside. We had an open
house at the elementary school which uh
drew in a lot of families with school
age children. Overall we had over 700 um
touches of different folks in the
community. Um, on top of that sort of
broader outreach, we also had three
really productive meetings with our
community advisory committee. The last
one being just a week ago. Um, and as I
said before, their participation has
been really um, integral in the um, in
shaping the concepts and the policies we
were going to be discussing tonight. Um,
and we'll be repeating most of these
engagement activities in the next round
of engagement which will begin shortly
after this meeting.
Uh so just as an example of some of the
feedback from our online survey, we
asked uh for folks to rank which
improvements were the most important.
And so some of the top vote getters were
um improvements to parking, uh
pedestrian safety, the diversity of
businesses, public spaces, public
amenities, and traffic safety. Um so
those were some of the things that
people really um were looking for to be
improved and enhanced in the town
center. Some other things people
mentioned were outdoor dining,
family-friendly spaces, um a focus on
resident serving businesses were some of
the other things that came up in the
survey.
So, we asked about uh housing in the
survey and um we found that it's pretty
evenly split um about 4040 um in in both
cases and overall some of the opinions
are a bit polarized about about this
topic. Um but there are those who
support housing are in favor of more
modest and smallcale housing, housing
for local workforce um and and aging
residents. Uh it's a way to serve the
community's needs and to help the town
sort of economically and those who are
more opposed um you know raised concerns
around um character around housing um
negatively impacting the small town
character, traffic and infrastructure.
Um and then there are a lot of those who
are in this kind of not sure, curious,
cautiously optimistic bucket um who sort
of conditionally um supported housing
depending on if it's sort of designed
right, the scale is right, it's
appropriate to the context. Um
so kind of as a summary of all the
engagement which again was across a
number of different activities and
locations um there we we did find a
general agreement on the priorities for
the town center. The first is really
preserve what makes Woodside unique um
which is the kind of unique combination
of rural, equestrian and small town. All
those three things being important kind
of pieces of of the town center. Um it's
a place that you know brings people
together um while we're still
maintaining that character. Uh the
second kind of pillar is invigorating
community life and that as I mentioned
before starts with outdoor dining, more
gathering spaces, more local events and
programming. Um a place that's vibrant
while still being rural. Um a place to
meet your neighbors and enjoy community
gatherings. um more public spaces and
more outdoor life. The third pillar and
the fourth pillar both revolve really
around transportation. Transportation,
one of the biggest topics that came up
um in our discussions with the CAC and
with the general community. Um the the
idea of safety and comfort really
addressing the speed and crossings and
visibility.
um an an emphasis on sort of lower
smaller scale interventions rather than
big big moves. Um but interventions that
enhance the sort of the safety and the
beauty of the town center. Um and
enhancing that access for all the users,
not just one type of user. Um but again
while keeping natural services, natural
types of interventions that reflect
Woodside. And the last pillar is about
the economy um support for local
businesses and while still some interest
um in in finding sort of missing re
retail niches that we could fill um in
the future.
Uh so as I mentioned we had a few
meetings with the CAC. Um some of the
key takeaways again really echo some of
the previous points but the idea that
the preservation of the existing
character is really important.
circulation was really I would say
undoubtedly the top interest and top
priority for the CAC. We spent a whole
sort of additional meeting just on that
topic. Um as I mentioned support for
outdoor dining and creating um some new
gathering spaces. Uh when it comes to
parking, we'll circle around on this
later, but interest in parking
management and parking enforcement in
particular um with a goal of making sure
that parking spaces are um reserved for
residents rather than visitors. Um and
there was, I would say, overall sort of
cautious support for uh two-story
mixeduse housing and and mixeduse
development. And there were also lots of
ideas for housing opportunity sites um
outside of the plan area that were
brought up in the discussion.
All right,
so with that um now we'll jump into kind
of a topic by topic overview and I'll
hand it over to Ryan.
>> Thanks Troy. Thank you town council and
mayor. Appreciate your time tonight. Uh
this is an explorative process. you
know, we reach out to the community, the
CAC, yourselves. We hear a lot of
statements and opinions that always
don't coales. You don't start at
consensus, you build consensus. And so,
our job is to take all these things,
create visual exhibits, and have uh the
kind folks like yourself beat them up.
So, that's what we're here to do
tonight. We had a really, really great
vibrant discussion with the CAC. We
learned a great deal from that. uh and
we've distilled some new ideas into the
set responding to what we heard from
them and then our next step is to hear
from you uh and then take your feedback
uh refine and then go out to the
community for our next steps. So again,
thank you again tonight. Uh next slide.
So we'll be talking about transportation
mobility and streetscapes. So this
addresses the need for pedestrian safety
which is one of the priorities um
gathering spaces, placem and then also
making sure that the changes we make to
any of the vehicle movements um or other
modes of transit such as horses and
bikes are also uh for the better. Next
slide.
So these were some of the big um areas
that we were asked to focus on. Of
course, kind of the heart of your town
is the intersection of Woodside and
Kinyatta uh and Mountain Home. It's a
challenging it's a wide expanse of
asphalt and the pedestrian movements are
not super clear. That was one area to
address.
Uh and then also looking for the full
length of Woodside
is making it easier and safer to cross.
Uh and then looking at traffic speeds
around the school. And we've also
learned to look at the traffic speeds
behind uh the shops and restaurants
along Woodside Avenue uh through the
parking lot. Um uh pathways to the north
side of Woodside Road. Um the parking uh
condition at just the corner where you
turn on the mountain home and then
looking at some of the left turn lane uh
movements out of Whiskey Hill. Uh, one
of the challenges uh is as a pedestrian
to safely travel from maybe your office
to the grocery store. How can we make
that more attractive, enticing, and keep
people from getting in their car and
instead taking a walk to do uh some of
their needs from their place of work to
uh the the shopping. Next slide.
So, uh we organized our study areas from
uh west to east. So, starting off with
Woodside Road, uh, from really, uh, a
little beyond Little Store into Robert's
uh, Grocery and then looking at the
intersection of Kinyatta and Woodside
Road and then on to the central stretch
of Woodside Road and then the
intersection at Whiskey Hill and then up
to Woodside Road.
Next slide.
And so uh I was told that you spent
hours and hours pouring over the slides
absorbing the concepts that I could be
very brief tonight. So I will respect
that and be very brief tonight and we
can come back and have uh as much depth
in the discussion as you would like. So
next slide. Uh so the area A which
stretches from little store or up to
Robert's grocery kind of three concepts
here. These are mostly to orient you to
where these concepts happen. Uh you know
the first is really let's enhance the
safety as much as possible uh around
Woodside Elementary School. Next slide.
Uh the second stretch was um or concept
two. This is looking at how do we make
the north side of Woodside Road more
consistent, more uh more pedestrian
friendly, and creating a pedestrian
pathway really on both sides. And then
also formalizing uh separated bike lanes
on both sides of the travel lanes. You
know, there's a couple spots where trees
get in the way, but for the most part,
it's possible. Um, next slide.
So this shows the condition around
little store. And the other issue that
is apparent is it's a little
unclear where you can park and where you
can't park. And just getting clarity by
looking at surveys and documenting
what's public right away and what's not
and getting signage up so people know if
they're parking in the right or they're
parking in the wrong. So that clarity is
really important. Um, and then just
looking at ways of near narrowing the
travel lanes so we can accommodate safe
bike movement and and most importantly I
think in the lowest hanging fruit is
upgrading the pedestrian path on the
south side of the street um going west
beyond the school. Next slide.
So the CAC feedback was um yes on the
concept one you know as many uh traffic
coming uh devices as we can do. The one
thing that was not wellreceived are
speed bumps. Um but looking at speed
tables that are carefully designed to
take into consideration truck trailers,
horse trailers, things like that is
important. uh the north side multi-
youth pass uh path was uh you know there
was support for the concept but there's
also acknowledgement that the drainage
and uh the irregular conditions there
might make that very expensive and
difficult to achieve and so looking at
that block by block but that was kind of
more lukewarm
uh and then concept three is getting
absolute clarity on where you can park
and where you
uh was wellreceived.
So, I thought we'd stop there and hear
your thoughts before we go on to the
next session.
>> Awesome. Thank you. Any questions from
council on area A?
Yeah, I would I'd like to understand
what other experience other communities
that you worked with have had with any
changes pre-post implementation of
programs in pedestrian and bicycle usage
downtown or in the area that you're
working in. We have a lot of
presumptions here that we're going to
build all these bike paths and walking
paths and I'd like to understand how
many people will really use those.
>> Yeah, I think that that's a it's a fair
question. Uh Alta is going to do uh a
pedestrian survey. Uh is that tomorrow
or this week? This this morning. So, our
transportation consultant is actually
spending time looking at how people
actually use your streets and path. Um,
some of the things that we learned from
our community outreach was a consistent
concern among citizens about the
difficulty of walking from one zone to
another. So looking at general, you
know, what's basically good practices
for uh urban design, pedestrian,
multimodal, bike, uh and in this case,
equestrian
uh uses. Uh it's really trying to find
that balance between traffic speeds,
lane widths for cars with uh you know uh
widths for sidewalks uh and and bike
facilities that are safer for all three
to make them more inviting to all ages.
And so we work in various cities all
throughout the Bay Area. And these are
generally directives that many cities
are pursuing to encourage more people
safer travel in those other than car
modes of transportation.
>> You've encouraged it, but has have you
actually seen results? Has it actually
happened?
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, Berkeley. Um, and I know
this isn't Berkeley. Clearly, it's a big city, but they went from
streets that were actually quite bike
unfriendly and dangerous in an area
where there are a lot of bikes and
pedestrians, and they've done uh an exa
aggressive transformation of their
streets to accommodate uh protected bike
lanes. And they're getting a lot more
people on bikes. and it's mostly serving
the immediate there's a lot of single
family home neighborhoods just directly
adjacent to the downtown core and those
people are finding number one it's
expensive to park in Berkeley and so
they can take their bike and on those
safe tracks with their kids into town
easier than they could prior and they
feel safer doing it. There's also a high
density of student population there that
uses their bike quite a bit. Um so NATO
is one of our um guidelines for bike
safety design that we're using. Um but
it also addresses good you know the
where where pedestrians, bikes and cars
intersect requires a lot of attention so
that you don't have collisions in those.
>> I'm familiar with Berkeley situation. So
yeah, I understand what you're saying.
Thank you. Um the other the other thing
I wanted to ask you to to flesh out more
the next couple rounds and that's going
to be on parking.
>> You have under area two parking and you
got four ideas there. Um, but I would
love to see at least a couple of those
explored extensively because we've
talked on and on as a community um about
doing something about all the parking
because it's a mess, but nothing's
happened. And I really want to see
something come out of these meetings
that that says meaningful action. And I think your ideas here are good ones.
Um, I think one person in this room I
know would probably agree with me on
some of those ideas. Um,
No, I voted but not at all.
>> Okay. Well, she has a big voice in this.
So, I just urge you to try to come to
some concrete recommendations for us to
deal with.
>> Great.
>> Thank you, Council Member Wall.
>> I wanted to ask about uh concept one,
the traffic calming. Um can you say a
little bit about what the implementation
path would be to for that because I I
mean it is a a highway and I and
controlled by CALR. So, um, if we wanted
to make these changes, what would the
process for that look like?
>> Yeah, I think that's a good question.
Um, so we already met, um, along with
the town, we we met with Calrans early
on. um as we were developing these
concepts to touch base with them.
Obviously, like you say, uh Woodside
Roads controlled by CALR. So, most
anything that we ultimately will do
would would require some buy off on
their end. Um
so, that would be the first step after
assuming we go through this process. So
first we're going to go through this
process and if we all agree on this
direction then that will become sort of
the policy direction of this plan is a
series of trafficcoming interventions
additional research and exploration
probably what would happen would be um
there would be a more focused corridor
plan like a blockby-block plan for this
area. We're kind of looking at it at a
high level at a conceptual level um at a
policy level. Um but so this plan is not
like um you know a detailed construction
level analysis of this corridor but what
would happen is we would commission that
type of study and then Calrans would be
brought in CALR would likely do their
own analysis. They have their own
process for reviewing these um types of
interventions. Um and then these would
be deployed um again depending on if
this the town was to acquire or go after
some safe routes to schools grants those
could be phased in over time. Um the
implementation I think would depend
largely on CALR's acceptance of these
treatments. They've become much more
accepting of these kinds of programs um
and safe rest to schools is is very
popular um across the state. And then
the other piece of the implementation
would be the funding. Um, I don't know
if there are any I don't think any of
these are specifically in this town's um
capital improvements plan at the moment,
but that gets updated on a regular
basis. Um, so I don't know if that that
could be these improvements could be
funded through grants or future CIPs
depending on what the town public works
decides to prioritize or go after from a
grant standpoint.
>> Um, I also had a question about concept
2. So it sounds like that was met with
some lukewarm support but some concerns
about the cost and I think on one of the
other slides it indicated that more more
diligence was needed. Um and I know this
is also something that the circulation
committee has looked into and I believe
they were also doing some more diligence
on the costs. Is that diligence now
being done and is that being facilitated
in any way by by your firm?
um that's not really in our scope to do
that level of detail. I think what we
can do is
maybe try and take a stab at um a high
level like cost, but we're not going to
be able to get in and do a level of
detail um analysis that you would need
to really know like tree by tree. Um but
one of the recommendations that could
come out of this effort is to do exactly
that
to to do another more detailed um look
at it. I think here this process is more
going to establish the policy direction
of whether or not we want to try to
do a certain facility intervention in
this case being a trail or or a bike
lane. So here we would establish the
direction and then we would there would
be an additional effort to look at to
probably do some surveying because it
would it would require I think some
pretty detailed fine tooth comb looking
at where the property lines are and
where utilities are. I think the
utilities and the drainage are where
there would be some challenges here but
we could come up with conceptual
direction and conceptual design in this
process but then there would be a
follow-up needed.
>> Thank you.
Uh, other questions?
>> I have one.
>> Yes, sir.
>> So, for the path on the north side of
Woodside Road that we were just uh
talking about. So, I remember when it
came before us, I believe the estimated
cost was something like $2 million and
it sounded like there's other options
that you could look at like um to reduce
that cost. Can you explain a little bit
like what that would look like? how how
we could get around uh lower cost and
how much lower I mean I I understand you
can't give any specifics but just kind
of ballpark
>> so for our particular exercise we're
really assessing whether what is the
strength and advocacy for this vision
amongst the community and yourselves and
CAC
um but we can see that there are some
potential pitfalls uh the storm drain uh
situation is is challenging requires
civil engineer uh to assess and then
there'd be a variety of different
solutions which are outside of my
expertise that would you know give you
longer term benefits but perhaps a
higher investment cost in the near term.
There would be options where you might
get a wider nicer sidewalk but it might
come with a higher uh subterranean
infrastructure cost. Uh so there's a lot of discussion about what
are the tradeoffs for these things and
long-term and short-term that would be
part of that process. Um the other parts
that would require a lot of I think
sensitivity would be how um when cars
approach the corner of intersections,
intersecting roads, what are the
visibility constraints? How do we need
to open things up? it might require some
removal of visual obstacles which could
have leaves on them, things like that.
So, um this is really about if if the
community yourselves and the CAC
strongly believe that this is a priority
then then that helps um support an
initiative to do that deep dive. The
takeback, the takeaway from our CAC
meeting is that the southside trail is
pretty easy to implement, you know,
beyond the school, even past little
store. That should be a high priority.
The more expensive um options such as
this might be a secondary priority to
getting that first one tackled.
>> Thank you.
>> I can ask a quick question. So is a is
an is an extension of the southside path
part of concept one.
>> Uh
it can be uh you know this is basically
these are a collection of ideas and you
can there's multiple ideas in each
concept and you can pick and pull the
ones that you think are of the highest
priority. I think generally we feel that
the improvement of that southside
um trail is is important to make it a
little more formalized. It's quite good
leading all the way from downtown uh
from from the the village center to the
school, but going beyond that it gets a
little amorphous and less defined.
» Uh does concept 3 block concept 2 in any
way? Meaning, does the parking get get
in the way of a north side trail?
>> Is that is that the choice that we have
to make?
>> It definitely could, but this is where
we really need to and it's not obvious
when you stand out there where private
property stops and where public property
starts. So, the challenge is people have
claimed it. They've put pieces of wood
or different things out there to say
this is not public property. And this is
where I think um there aren't the usual
kind of obvious indicators such as
fences and and things like that. So
there needs to be a survey. And then the
other part it has to coincide with is
CALR accepting 11T lanes um that allows
the 5-ft bike facility and then kind of
working from the center line of the road
out to see what kind of dimension we
have left until we hit that private
property line.
So there is a bit it's a bit
interconnected and I think if you do a
survey to determine what's public right
away and what's private right away
through there uh it'll be much clearer
what you you can achieve.
>> And in general uh rightway is what 18 ft
off the center basically or what is it?
>> Uh
oh 46 from edge to edge but that's from
property edge to property edge. um 23
feet off the center way for for a
highway for state highway.
>> Yeah. And the the the thing that's
interesting about this design is we got
feedback early on saying the bike lanes
had to have just a stripe se separating
them so that in the case of fire or
other things, fire trucks have full
access of the 16 feet of asphalt there.
Um,
okay. Any other questions?
>> Uh, just a quick observation and and a
question. I wanted to talk about those
dimensions. First of all, you guys have
been doing great job. I think about a
third of the people here have been in
those meetings and it's pretty
impressive to see. And also I think that
um though your presentation is sort of
in summary format it really doesn't the
um the back and forth that was going on
there where we where the group started
and where it ended up where I mean it
was um pretty chaotic at times I think
but um we ended up at least here in
front of the council with this um
the um as you alluded to there's all
these competing issues like the bike
lanes getting I know that there was
advocacy to make them bigger and that
sort of thing. And then of course we
need the fire trucks have to have
certain room and big trucks come through
and the the equestrian community said,
"Gee, I come through here with a big
trailer with my horses and I need more
room." So we've got all these moving
parts here that we have to wrestle
through. Um is there a way and I know
this came up Steve Luben's here. He
actually I think he may have been the
person who brought this up. um about he
not combining the bike and the multi-use
but somehow you know shoehorning them in
there and I guess you've just got this
limited dimension that you really you
know you got to allocate something to
cars and trucks on a state highway. How
do you wrestle with that? I mean could
we end up with a single multi, you know,
for bike and pedestrians so that we can
make it work or is that just I mean we run into the wall on that and you
just can't do that. It's a great
discussion and I think there are a
number of different tradeoffs that come
with it. Part of it is some cycle you
might end up with two-way bike traffic
on one side for the people that follow
the rules and then you might have the
kind of high-speed cyclists that prefer
not engaging other cyclists at close
quarters driving out in the road. So it
might you might end up in the situation
where your your bikes end up in almost
too many places. Um, but I think it's an
it's it was an idea that we hadn't
considered. It's an interesting idea to
look at. Um, one of the challenges
coming up beyond the school after you've
passed the school, so there's a large
tree that forces the bike traffic really
in the lane. And so if you had both
directions of bike traffic, we'd need to
figure out how to get them to cross
Woodside Road at some point to
transition. And that comes with some
certain uh difficulties. But the one
positive thing I'll say about that
scheme though is you have a very long
stretch um after the school um and a
very wide shoulder that you could
explore having a really generous two-way
bike lane that I think for maybe the non
um competitive cyclist uh might be very
attractive to families and and folks
heading to the school.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Right. I think with that we will uh open
up public comment on area A. Does
anybody have a public comment that they
would make like to make on this on this
issue?
A lot of people are here parking. Okay.
Hello Steve Luben.
>> Surprise surprise. Um I I um I think
really there's a issue of space. I I
think that it would be great to have the
sidewalk on the north side, but it's um
I you know, if there's enough room to
put bike lanes on both sides, then I
think it makes sense to put the
sidewalks on both sides, but I'm not
sure there is everywhere. And um I I
have from at least the part from the
school to Roberts I think it's limited
enough so that if you have uh you know
good bike lanes and good there just
isn't enough room and that it takes
actually less room to have a a shared
path like Troy was talking about that's you know a shared a shared
two-way path states and federal
standards is 12 feet wide. what we have
there is 5T now. And so we end up with
really a dangerous situation for kids,
especially in the afternoon heading from
the school to the store. The kids will
ride their bikes and come up to to
pedestrians and then veer out into the traffic and and um that isn't
as dangerous eastbound because the cars
are going slow. If that were replicated
in the other direction, I think it would
be really dangerous because the bicycles
are going up up up uphill
and are going slower. Uh so I you know I
think it's really a matter of of space
and I think you can get a I have a I
think it needs careful study but I think
there's a good chance that having a
shared you know a 12t wide shared
facility on the south side with frequent
crosswalks and and and and crosswalk
tables uh and and just enough on the
north side to get people to the
crosswalks might end up with a better
facility. And I I think that should be
explored. The other issue is is there
the illustration that that good cities
presented showed that a bike lane
immediately adjacent to parked cars,
which is a really bad idea. You need if
you have parked cars, you need a door
zone. It takes another three feet. So,
uh there's once you once you start
introducing parking, it takes even more
space.
» Thank you. Any other comments on area A?
See none in the Zoom. So, we'll close
public and uh any thoughts from council
on general direction here.
Tough one.
>> Thank you, Council Member Wall.
Appreciate it.
>> Um, okay. So, I know we're we're
limiting our comments right now just to
the area A. Um, and I mean I I actually
really like all three concepts. So,
um, but but I'll explain kind of my
thinking. So, concept one, um, looks
like it was also supported manously by
the the advisory committee. Um, I think
as a council we should give the policy
direction that we support this um and
that we should um take the next steps to
figure out how to interact with CALR
um and pursue this concept on concept
two. Um I'm I'm sort of cautiously
supportive. I mean I think I think we
need to do more diligence. Uh I think we
need to figure out two things like you
know is it indeed um super expensive or
have we identified a potentially less
expensive way of implementing this
multi-use path than what we um
originally thought when it was when this
was brought before council. Um and then
I think um to the mayor's point, you
know, is concept 2 compatible with
concept 3. So I think on this one, my
direction would be let's explore it
more. Let's, you know, work with the um
town engineer I believe would be
involved. Potentially the circulation
committee. Let's get some more
information on on what it would cost and like I said, you know, whether it's
compatible with concept 3. Um, on
concept three, I think the policy
direction should be that we should uh
that we support this enough to to
explore it more. Um, and again, I think
we need to look at the space
constraints, figure out to what extent
we need CALR involvement, but again, um,
I I would I would support this from a
policy standpoint.
>> You any other thoughts?
>> Um,
>> thank you, Council Member Raish.
>> Thank you. Yeah. Um I agree with the CAC
majority here. So um concept one makes a
lot of sense. It seems uh not super
expensive. Uh same with concept three
that seems like lowhanging fruit. Um and
makes sense. Um, concept two, it sounds
like it's kind of still, you know, I
don't really see a path past um, you
know, like a clear past to avoid the $2
million cost that we as cost estimate
that we heard previously. So, I wouldn't
be inclined to pursue that further,
especially considering it's got less
support. Um,
but yeah, so that's where I stand.
Yeah,
>> we had a source to fund the north side.
How would you feel? That wasn't was not
a town source.
>> That would change things. Yeah. The
board of Yeah. If
>> I have a possible source. Okay. Serious
source. So, I mean, and we're I'll have
a much better answer for you in a couple
weeks, but it's uh something that's been
in discussion now for quite some time.
And I know that a couple other members
of the council know I'm talking about a
library project that would help to tie
together the community um with a walkway
from basically bucks to the library
across the school. So you would have a
connection for children and residents um
pedestrian and bicycle. I mean have the
bike and pedestrian stuff but a walkway
that could be funded largely or
completely by the source other than the
town.
>> That's excellent.
>> Yeah. I just wanted to echo what um
Hassan said and that is that um we need
to think about this in terms of the uh
realm of reality and I think for when
you think about bang for the buck and
what we could do all in on concept one I
mean it's something feasible makes
economic sense can be done relatively we
have to get obviously buyin from CALR is
the is the big hurdle there but that can
be done uh the rest I'm a little I mean
I'm not putting the library funds aside
but um they're a little bit more
speculative and longer term and bit more
difficult to deliver on. So I just look
at it in terms of the um reality and
practicality and so I I would echo what
was said previously.
>> Great. Um I'll just mention on concept
two circulation at one point asked for
it. Citizens have asked for it. Um it is
a dangerous place to walk. You wind up
out in the bike lane right now. So, um,
and if we want to facilitate bikes and
pedestrians, uh, as we just heard from
the public comment that street parking
sort of makes that a little challenging
if somebody opens a door while you're
biking by. So, um, I do think two and
three are fortunately they're mutually
exclusive is my guess, but maybe there's
an answer where at least we can connect
parts of the pathway or something.
That's not ideal, but Kings Mountain to
little store and so forth are easier, I
think. But I think I think what we've
heard is people what we've heard maybe
on council over time is that there is a
lot of interest in that path. It's
expensive. Maybe there's an option here.
So, um I'm not sure this going to help
because you're going to hear five
different opinions it sounds like. But,
um and we're going to hear a sixth. I'm
going to just break tradition because we
have the uh chair of the uh circulation
committee just raised his hand. So, I'm
just going to Ean, can I bring you in?
» You with me, Ean?
>> I am. Hi, Mayor. Thank you. Yeah. Sorry,
I was clicking the button as you closed
it. So, I appreciate you giving me a
chance. Um yeah, no, I agree with the
general comments. I think one thing
we've been doing on circulation since
when that project came forth, you guys
as a CIP, that wasn't actually our
intent. we were trying to investigate it
and it kind of jumped from an idea to a
project and then you guys you know I
would say rightfully turned it back
because it wasn't a plan yet. I I would
say that um what we've been doing on
circulation is we've been trying to
separate the need from the price. Not
because we don't care but because we
want to say is there a justification for
this and then if there is and there's
something that's you know constructable
then funds have to be identified and
found right whether it's a library a
donor we save up pennies over the years
right this document is supposed to be
for the next few decades and so the cost
you know we try to separate them because
if you put the cost up front you're
totally right it's like oh that's
impossible we can't do it right we want
to find solutions not just reasons we
can't do it um and I think that north
sidewalk talk. It definitely has tons of
support from people. I agree with you.
There's been lots of people who asked
for it. Also, I was part of that walk
audit this morning and it turns out
there's a lot of other benefits that I
won't get into here. I think also will
come back with the details. There's a
lot of other benefits that will actually
result if you put in a sidewalk or you
know something over there to restrict
traffic flow um to some of those earlier
problems in terms of speeding and people
you know pulling around. So anyways, all
that to say
>> I think that north sidewalk is
definitely something that Woodside could
benefit from. It absolutely has
challenges, but any of you who drive
down there, you see people walking in
the bike lane. Guess what? That's
actually technically against the rules.
You could get a ticket for that. You're
not supposed to be there walking. So
again, we want to meet people where they
are. You're using that area. We want to
make it safe. And so I would say as a
policy supporting it is great with the
absolute acknowledgement that it will
not be cheap. It will not be easy, but
if you put enough effort behind it, we
might be able to pull it off. So thank
you very much.
>> Thank you. Is it fair to say that we in
some way support all three concepts?
Okay.
See a lot of head nods. So, let's just
run with that.
>> Great.
>> Jump to parking because I think we got a
lot of folks here on parking.
>> Yep. That's good direction. We'll keep
moving. I think most important is if
there's anything at this point you don't
want to move forward at all. I think
that's the most important feedback um
that you can give us. But that was that
was great. Thanks for that. All right.
We'll keep moving, Ryan.
So this was our next uh priority area is
the Woodside Road Kinyatta Road Mountain
Home Road intersection. Uh this is an
area where it can be difficult as a
motorist uh pedestrian or uh on horse uh
or bike uh partly because of visibility
issues uh and also just the size of the
intersection and the turning movements
that are there. Next slide.
So we presented three concepts. Uh I'll
go through these super briefly. This one
here was exploring uh backend parking uh
where Roberts is. Uh and then basically
uh eliminating the slip lane uh that
goes on the Woodside Road from Mountain
Home. So right now you can make that
free right going over to Woodside Road.
That would go away. expand that public
rideway up to the Gilbert's property
line and introduce uh a park that's
about double the size of your existing
Alec Donald Park. Uh next slide.
Uh again, exploratory process. Uh this
was a concept where we relocated the on
street parking uh over to uh where Alec
McDonald Park is currently. So
essentially moving the park next to
Robert's Grocery and moving the parking
over there. Uh the idea was to have free
flow of traffic, but of course getting
your carts and other things over there
was extremely problematic. Next slide.
This was the kind of the out of the box
scheme, which was let's take the slip
lane, turn that into two lanes of
traffic, and create a second
intersection. And that helped narrow up
all the crossings where Woodside
connects uh with Kenyatta, creating a
three-way intersection rather than a
four-way intersection. Um and then the
parking would be on this new park uh in front of Robert's Grocery. Uh next
slide.
So these were the three initial
concepts. We had just a tiny bit of
discussion uh for about an hour and uh
which was great and I really appreciated
everybody's feedback and there were some
brilliant new ideas that came to the
table and that's exactly what we are
trying to do with this whole process. So
if you go to the next slide,
uh there is interest in just saying you
know what what is the absolute most
minimum thing that we can do to improve
um driver safety, pedestrian safety and
enhance the crossing um from the the
business district to the east to
Robert's Grocery. And so the easiest
simple move is to make some changes to
the crosswalks. So, you notice there uh
where the slip lane enters Woodside
Road, there's a well-defined pedestrian
crossing. Uh and then you walk along
Woodside Road to another crosswalk that
would extend over. And the idea that
came from the CAC that was so
interesting was rotating your existing
crosswalk that goes over to the the
traffic triangle across Woodside.
rotating it so that the cars are coming
further forward so that they can
actually see down Mountain Home rather
than being tucked back behind Robert's
market as they are today. So that that
was a really interesting concept. The
other idea that came from that is your
through and right turn lane is fairly
wide. And if we could buy a couple feet
out of that and create 8 foot parallel
parking along the north side of Robert's
Grocery and really formalize it with
markings that people are familiar with
for parallel parking. We could introduce
um you know a more customer-friendly
parking area there and then free up um
take eliminate the hard corner space so
that we could create that landing for
pedestrians and create those connecting
crosswalks across Mountain Home and
rotating the one coming down from Kinada
Road. So that was kind of the minimal
improvements safety focus. No changes to
Alec McDonald Park and you keep the slip
lane going over to Woodside. Next slide.
So this one took kept the concept of the
two crosswalks crossing Woodside and
Mountain Home, but it eliminated the
slip lane. And so when you take back
that public rideaway and transform it
into a park, you can double the size of
your Alec Donald Park and design it in a
way that encourages social interaction,
buffers the speed and sound from
Woodside Road and creates kind of a
natural gathering place for people
getting sandwiches from Roberts or you
know uh you know they're taking a break
from work um at the the Gilbert Center.
And then what it would do is also um
putting striping a new crosswalk on the
south side of the parking from Roberts.
Uh not taking parking away but just
having a strong pedestrian uh crossing
there right now. That's that's not there
today. So that was our concept one that
basically was uh refining it. You'll
notice that there are no changes to the
parking pattern um at Robert's with the
exception of removing the space that's
right at the corner of Woodside and
Mountain Home.
So that that's kind of where we landed
after our last CAC as far as you know
taking their ideas and putting it into a
graphic visual that we could look at.
Next slide.
So this shows that in 3D and it gives
you a little bit of a sense of scale for
the space. You know, doubling the park
as it is today is pretty small and it's
a traffic island. Um this helps um you
know connect it directly to parking. Um
there's five new spots on the south side
that are accessed off a public easement
that are taken out of that former slip
lane uh so they don't encroach on the
private property. Um, and it's uh next
slide.
And so this is the view. And so there's
a welcome moment for folks traveling
through Woodside. You know, that's
formalized public realm. And uh it can
be, you know, potentially a place for
small community events. It's convenient
to all your shops and restaurants and an
office space. Next slide.
So those were, you know, we're again
we're looking at presenting as many
ideas as possible on the table to get as
many reactions as possible. And so um
from the minimalist intervention to the
out of the box intervention on concept 3
um you know we want to get as much
public feedback as possible. the CAC had
a
um a pretty strong reaction to the whole
presentation in that zone of course but
it was a really really good discussion.
So two and three they felt no only only
a few people supported those um and
concept zero was something we hadn't
drawn yet but we added that as a request
from the CAC and then concept one was
again implementing some of the ideas
that were discussed in zero but
eliminating that slip lane in lie of a
larger park. Uh so that's that's kind of
a quick summary of the concept area two.
Great. Thank you. Uh, any questions from
council on area B?
>> Yeah, I guess my only question is does
the committee have a lot of demand for
the a large enlarged park there?
>> So, the enlarged park was a product of
the community feedback that was asking
for placemaking kind of gathering place
element in the city. and rather than
locate that in a place that isn't
adjacent to commonly used or commonly
shared locations like you know the whole
community uses Robert's Grocery so
there's a chance of meeting people if
you're using that use um there's an
existing public space there currently
but it's not very usable without
crosswalks and without its current
design is not designed for people uh
it's really just a landscape element so
we're kind of taking that element and
seeing an opportunity for a gathering
concept. Um, you know, concept zero
keeps it exactly the way it is and then
concept one expands it and then concept
three, you know, introduces a pretty
radical new concept.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> Quick clarification. So, um, you say
concept the the final CIC feedback was
concept one but with some modifications.
when you just gave us the update, was
that inclusive of inclusive of the
modifications they requested?
>> Yeah. So, if you go to go one slide
back.
So, the feedback that we heard was, you
know, do not impact the parking as much
well really at all at Robert's Grocery,
which is totally understandable. So, our
response to that was, let's take a
little dimension out of Woodside Road on
the north side of the store. Um, which
actually you can see in the plan if you
go back one more.
So, you'll see kind of a red, white,
red, blue, and white cars that are right
there. There's a strip of asphalt with a
white line that looks kind of like a
shoulder. It's a little undefined the
way it is now.
>> Do you want to I mean, is it possible to
show us
So essentially you have a very wide
through lane and right turn lane there.
And so those three cars that we've drawn
there represent if you push that narrow
zone to a standard 8 ft and you put
those striping in there that clearly
makes it parallel parking that people
recognize or familiar with. It relieves
the impact of removing that space
um that we had to eliminate to make
those crosswalks feasible. So that's kind of you know we don't want to
have a negative impact on the business
or people's convenience of using the
business and front door parking is the
most golden parking you can get for any
commercial use. So we put that back and
then you'll notice the light gray kind
of arc. Um, yeah. So, that there's a
white line today that demarks where the
car should go and where the parked cars
can maneuver. And so, that line follows
that light gray follows that arc that's
there today. I think it's worth playing
up the visual clarity there. So, it's
super clear where through traffic
belongs and where cars can focus on
maneuvering or lifting tailgates. Um,
and there's even potential if it doesn't
damage the treere's root structure to um
put a compact stall potentially
um on the roadside of the palm tree
that's there. Um so that was an idea of
like let's keep things as much the way
they are as possible. um let's respond
to community um you know feedback that
gathering place is important at the
heart of of Woodside and you know this
intersection from an arrival point of
view if you're coming from Kenyatta or
if you're coming from the west into town
this is such a key arrival moment and so
putting um a park that's properly
designed which would take some careful
consideration to kind of buffer visually
the moving traffic and some of the sound
and creating a nice atmosphere. Um, but
I do think it's possible uh if if that
park gets expanded uh and is not
surrounded on three sides by traffic.
Um, so that was the concept of trying to
address that community feedback for a
gathering place.
And just remind us there was parallel
parking in front of Roberts but CALR as
I recall took it away right or no
>> threatening to okay it's
>> I think
>> but how how are you getting the extra
couple of feet there
>> so
>> removing the road I mean the stripes you
>> just the white line so five six years
ago CALR was much less amendable to 11t
lanes but they have evolved their
thinking quite a bit especially when it
comes to environments that traverse a
commercial district
>> and so they're willing to go down to 10
and a half um or 11 ft. So I think we
can see
>> we can work with that. Yeah. Make that
nicer parking.
>> Okay.
Any other comments?
>> Right. We'll we'll jump over to any
public comments on this matter. Uh we
are opening public comment on uh uh area
B of the plan. Hello Stuart. Yeah.
Uh sure. Uh we'll All right, we'll go
Leanne and then Stuart.
>> Thank you.
>> Question.
>> Can you please tell me what the green
triangular thing is across? I didn't
quite understand what you were saying.
It says Alec Donald Park or something on
it. All right. That's And it's there
now.
Well, I missed that one.
Okay, it's low. Okay. I didn't know.
Yeah. Um I actually hate everything
about most of this
intensely.
I think that we're asking for a lot of
people to come here and they're going to
park in these wonderful little parks.
They're going to sit there and eat. And
I want them to buy things from the
grocery store. I love the grocery store
and I love Christine and I loved Robert
George Roberts and what he did for the
town, but it's there's people that come
and all they do is throw their papers on
the ground and it's filthy and so on.
It's just another upkeep upkeep kind of
thing.
Um I don't make I'm not very good at
looking at stuff like this. I have to be
on the site in order to feel it and look
around. But um I was very offended the
last time I was here because I didn't
want to see or hear what I was hearing
about Christine's property. And that upset me greatly. And I thought
she's been a a a wonderful person to
have here in our town and to supply
things to us and be there. And we all
love Roberts.
But this is getting to be, hey, people
from all over the world, come on in. And
I don't think they're necessarily going
to be going to her place or, you know,
our bar is way down the street. I don't
think they do that, but maybe they'll
bring their own booze. Maybe they'll
bring their own food and they would like
to sit in a nice little place like that
and not even patronize places in the
town. So, you're really banking on that.
And you know, I think some people would,
but I know there's enough of us that go
to Robert's, and I hope she's doing well
for that. Are you, Christine?
And, uh, raise your prices. So, um, I
just I just don't like any of it at all.
I think it's a a mess when I'm looking
at it. But I'm not very visually
oriented. I have to be in a place.
So,
>> well, thank you.
>> You're welcome,
>> Gilbert. Appreciate it. And we will
we're jumping over to you, Stuart.
» Okay, thanks. Uh, my name is Stuart
Shawnberger. I live on 348 Roundo. Um,
one, congrat I think you guys did a
great job on this new concept. um
listening to everybody and coming up
with something that's better than was
originally there. there. I thought at
the end of the conversation last time
there was talk about having two
roundabouts and the idea that the
roundabout was thrown out right at the
for some reason and I still don't see
why there's a lot of space there and a
roundabout I I know a lot of people have
a concept of roundabouts that you know
you grew up in Boston and they're
terrible but if you grew up in Europe or
other places Um, you know, they've the
technology for roundabouts has improved
tremendously.
And one crazy idea would be um if you
made Kenyatta Lane a oneway going north,
Kinyatta Road a one lane going south,
Woodside Road stays the same. And then
uh Mountain Home Road comes in and you
put that law office in the middle of the
circle. You've got a lot of space there
for a huge roundabout. Um obviously I'm
not an architect and I'm not a
transportation designer, but it'd be
great to sort of think out of the box.
Is there a way that you could put a
roundabout there? Because you've got
basically five lanes into one area. And
this although it's better um
walking and and better use of the space
and it it definitely as a minimal
change, it improves. It still doesn't
address the fundamental problem of
being on Kenyatta Road with that
three-way or four-way or what is it and
who goes first, who goes next and and a
roundabout would uh solve that. But
that's my two cents.
>> Thank you, Stuart.
Welcome. And we Yeah, we'll jump to Zoom
right after this call. So
>> Oh, sorry.
>> No, I
All good. Welcome.
>> Anyway, I'm Leanne um Popel. I live on
Miriam Montes. And um I also was
wondering why the roundabout kind of got
thrown away so early because just
ballparking it, it seems like we have
enough space. So I was just uh wanted to
reiterate look at roundabouts. Um the
other thing I wanted to mention is I
think sometimes things can be
counterintuitive and so here as well as
um when in the in the other part um down
towards the school we were talking about
traffic calming in terms of narrowing
the roads. And I just wanted to say that
cars keep getting bigger. Drivers are
more and more distracted. We have an
older population.
And at least when on Kenyatta Road
closer to the overpass, they try to
narrow the roads. The first thing I
noticed was a lot of cars are in the
over the line. So even though
conceptually it might make sense if you
narrow roads people will go slower um I
would just say look at our population on
how those measures work especially here
as well.
>> Thank you. Uh we will go to the Zoom
room to Suzanne.
Welcome.
>> Hi. Um, is it possible to have um my
sister Christine Robert speak before me?
>> It is. Yes, we'll come back to you.
>> I think it would be better for the
sequence of the conversation. Thank you.
>> Under understood. Thank you.
>> My hand. Okay.
>> Welcome Christine to the uh microphone.
» Um,
>> hi.
>> I'm Christine Roberts for those that
don't know me. Um, I manage the
day-to-day operations at the market and
at Pinñata Corners and parking has been
a
uh subject and a source spot for us for many many years. So, um, when I was
asked to be on the committee, I thought,
you know, this is, you know, a great way
to participate in the town. And um when
I was presented with these plans, um my
heart about dropped to the floor. Um all
of them made very
large changes to the parking of my
business, which has suffered loss is in
the last few years. We lost the north
side on Woodside Road. I lost three
parking spaces to put in those three
additional parking spaces to put in
those ginormous ADA spots in my main
lot. Um, and now to even the thought of
even losing one more spot is unbearable.
It affects my business tremendously
financially. You cannot replace parking.
People will not come to your business if
they cannot park. they are not going to
bring their carts across the street. Uh
it's just not going to happen. So I was
so happy when concept zero
uh came about at the end of last
meeting. Um
this concept that puts the park across
the street from the store eliminates the
slip lane. Um,
how are all those large semitrs that we
get about 8 to 10 a day going to get
themselves back on Woodside Road and
back to 280?
Okay.
Also, a park like that, while it's nice
to have uh a gathering space, is just
going to compound not only my parking
problems, but Leanne's parking problems
because you're going to bring people
that want to come to town, ride their
bikes, you want to have a farmers market
next to my farmers market with a roof. I
mean, it's just not feasible. And then
someone mentioned, well, Roberts could
use those spots. they could maintain the
park. I'm like,
um, I'm not really seeing the benefit
here for me. Um,
so I'm hoping that um before we present
or decide to present any plans to the
community that involve
making largecale changes to my parking
without understanding
what the rights are, where my property
lines are, where Calrans can operate
should be tabled.
Um, I don't think it's fair to get
community input on that.
So, that's about all I
>> minutes. Christine,
uh, Suzanne, can we go to you now?
>> Yes, sure. Um, can you guys hear me?
>> We can hear you.
>> Um, thank you. I am I'm I'm dialing in
from the East Coast, so I'm just going
to say thank you for running a very
efficient meeting. Um I attended the one
last week and um you know it was it was
many hours. I I did learn a lot in that
meeting but um so thank you for that. Uh
good evening. Uh my name is Suzanne
Roberts Vandenberg. I'm I'm here to
support my sister um in this and I am
co-rustee of George Roberts's trust
which owns Robert's Market. Um my sister
Christine and our attorney Lee who wants
who's going to speak after me have
spoken um and my sister's speaking about
the operational concerns of the
business. I think Lee wants to speak to
more of the legal concerns and I wanted
to chime in to talk about the financial
reality of the business. Um you know our
father George built this business as you
know um over many decades and he passed
it on to us. Um that's a really
difficult thing to do um in our day and
age and especially in California. Um my
sister and I have invested significantly
uh financially and personally to be able
to carry this legacy forward for another
generation. Um we want to be here. We
want to make the market uh be part of
this community for years to come. But we
really can't operate a sustainable
business without the town's support. We
need you to understand what the
financial reality is of a grocery
business. We The plans that you
presented last week are beautiful.
They're beautifully drawn and that we
just saw um right just in just in these
few minutes. We love parks and
pedestrian spaces and they look really
inviting. But what we see as business
owners is a town center and that has to
make sense for our business. It can't
just look good on paper. Um, parks don't
bring patrons to our business. We have many costs. It creates parking
impacts to us. And in the area, we have
additional enforcement costs. We we pay
mountain patrol many hours every day of
the week to come patrol our lots now
just to enforce parking. So, we are very
concerned that these plans would make it
financially impossible to keep operating
our business. Um, you know, grocery
stores are are razor thin margin
business and we are a dying breed. As
you know, the Draggers are closing
stores. They're wonderful family. They
operate great stores, but they're not
opening stores. They have two stores
left. Um, so we're not we're a
family-run business. We're not a tech
company. We don't have outside venture
funding. Um, so our business lives and
dies by every customer. Every customer
who can't park close to us and every
delivery truck that can't make it to our
delivery dock directly impacts our
bottom line. Um, you know, we're not
residents of Woodside. We have our only
families to support. We're not able to
live in this community and we really
can't absorb the costs that these plans
propose. So the the town stated goal is
to have outdoor dining. Honestly, it's a
little bit ironic because the the
outdoor dining that we want to support
is going to be supported by the
restaurants in in Kinyatta Corner, which
would require additional parking. We've
been trying to get that parking lot and
that outdoor dining going. That
initiative has already cost us three
years and over $500,000
in planning and legal fees. We don't
even have a permit yet.
If we do get a permit, it will be likely
economically unviable for us to
implement. The town hasn't supported us
adequately in that initiative.
So, if our business stays on this
current path and becomes unsustainable,
the trust will have to consider other
higher value alternatives for this
property. That's the reality. It's not
meant to be a threat. It is the
financial reality we want you to have in
front of you as you continue through
this process.
And we're asking you as the council to
consider how important are these retail
services to the town and we really need
you to work with us before you pursue a
plan with Calrans
um that could really cost this
community. It's only grocery store.
Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. And um we will
follow that up with uh Miss Prince.
Hey Lee.
are you there?
>> I'm here. Can you hear me?
>> Yes, we can.
>> Good evening, council. This is Lee
Prince. I am the land use attorney
representing Roberts, which as you know
is the main property owner impacted by
the proposals in the area of Woodside
Road and Mountain Home Road, what we're
calling area B. Um, before I get to
specific comments on area B, I want to
note that the objective to prioritize
residents over visitors by limiting
parking contradicts the priority to
provide for resident amenities like
outdoor dining that require more parking
to be a viable both from a municipal
code parking requirement perspective and
from a financial feasibility
perspective. Roberts is intimately
familiar with the financial difficulties
associated with the impact of limited
parking in this commercial area of town.
As you know, Roberts has spent a
significant amount of time at a
significant cost to obtain a permit and
defend a permit to create outdoor dining
and additional parking. Two items the
town center area plan update process has
identified as the most important. Yet at
the very same time with these proposals,
the town is proposing to take away
convenient parking on Robert's property,
creating additional operational and
financial challenges. These proposals do
not achieve the identified goal to
ensure the long-term economic sess
success of local businesses. Roberts
strongly opposes any loss, relocation,
or reconfiguration of parking adjacent
to the market.
It is premature and imprudent to advance
concepts that depend on incorrect
assumptions about land ownership or the
scope of the right of way. An issue that
came up at the recent CAC meeting.
Roberts has information, legal
description, a record of survey that
contradict the Sanonteo County depiction
of Robert's parcel as not including what
we perceive as the full market property.
There's a public easement over Mountain
Home Road. That's correct. But Roberts
has found no documentation that supports
the right of way as depicted on the CALR
map. The town does not only own any land
at this intersection, which was another
comment that came up at the recent
meeting. Until these issues are
resolved, it is really difficult to plan
and understand what options the town may
have that are reasonable and legally
possible.
Also want to reiterate and underscore
some of Christine and Suzanne's comments
with respect to parking. Even if the
number of parking spaces is retained,
Roberts is opposed to moving parking
away from the store or across the street
from the store. Both from an operational
and a safety perspective, moving parking
away from the storefront creates
inconvenience, which results in fewer
people patronizing the market. Adequate
convenient parking is essential to
customers convenience and safety and the
market's revi viability. I think the
consultant called it, you know, golden
and that's that is correct. Um,
separating the parking from the market
will result in other users, not market
patrons, using the parking. Robert
already Robert Roberts already expends
significant resources on parking
enforcement and separated parking would
have no enforcement mechanism. Moving
parking away from the storefront
constrains parking and negatively
impacts the financial viability of the
market. The council should refrain from
supporting any programming in this area,
including a farmers market or community
event. Uh Roberts has direct firsthand
experience with the harm the competing
programming causes. Every week at the
Portola Valley store, Roberts loses
customers and revenue on Thursday when
the town hosts its farmers market.
Placing a farmers market or similar
event adjacent to Robert's Market in
Woodside would replicate that harm,
further exacerbating the financial
challenges. Roberts is not interested in
gathering space adjacent to the market.
doesn't need people to sit
and stay, but operationally needs
parking turnover to allow more guests to
come in and out. Okay, thank you.
>> I think we're we are over, but I I Yeah,
>> I appreciate that. I would say just in
conclusion, I think it's really
important to take a step back and sit
down with Christine and really have the
consultants in the town understand the
challenges that she faces. Um, and we're
happy to do that. And until we do that,
I just I would encourage the council not
to move any of these concepts forward.
>> Thank you.
Um, yes, of course. You want the
microphone, Leon?
Thanks, Steve.
Yeah, we get it back.
>> Um, uh, number is that's not numer. Uh,
down the last one, it says add two
crosswalks to Gilbert Center Park and
five new parking spaces. Can you explain
that to me?
>> Yeah.
we'll turn to you. So,
the slip lane, which is that road you
take,
>> I'm sorry, I don't know what a flip lane
is.
>> Slip lane. The free right turn. Yes, the
free right turn.
>> I don't know what a slip lane is.
>> There's a road between Alec Donald Park
as it is today that takes you It's where
the trucks go. So, Christine just
mentioned the trucks that go out
>> that go between your property and that
traffic triangle, which is the park. So
the concept here is that you create a 35
ft radius at the top of the park which
is much more gentle than it is uh today.
And that allows the trucks to come and
make that turning movement onto Woodside
Road which then releases the public
rightway that's occupied by its current
free right turn to be contributed
towards the quality of that park.
So, we're taking land that's currently
dedicated for vehicles and pushing it
into uh a park space. Part of that land
is room for five parking spots. And so
those parking spots, which this is one
idea for a plan, there could be, you
know, 30 more iterations of what that
park could look like with or without
those parking spaces. We thought it
would be beneficial to add the five
parking spaces which use some of the old
land that the slip lane occupies.
And so those are five new parking spaces
in addition to the new the other new
parking space which is just where the
white car is shown on the north side.
That parking space was created by
shifting the crosswalk closer to
Mountain Home. So essentially, we're
taking that car that was parked on the
hard corner and moving it about 20 ft to
the left.
So that's
>> You can stop because I lost you long
ago.
>> Okay.
>> I don't understand what you're saying.
I'm looking at What is the green
triangle? What? And it says Alec Donal
Park on it. What What is that? Is that a
parking space or is that some place for
people to What is that green area with
the blue thing in the middle?
» It's the You know, there's the little
stone wall.
>> Little tiny park that we It's not really
a park. It's just a little area. That's
right. And you want to make it that big.
>> It's currently 3,000 square ft. and
using the land currently occupied by the
slip lane expands it to about 5,500 to
6,000. So it doubles the size of it. And
again, this is in response to a long
list of different and not always
consensus community input. So, you know,
this is why we're here tonight and to
hear
>> you said something about having a a
trail to Gilbert Center and that's what
made me
>> Yes. So, you see that at the bottom
here, there's this crosswalk. So, this
crosswalk at the bottom would be a
crosswalk from Robert's over to your
property where that lane where your
driveway comes out. We're we're
proposing you would have a crosswalk
there over to Roberts.
» Just trying to if we can create
pedestrian crossings, the vehicles can
expect can better expect to know where
the pedestrians will be. And right now
there's a lack of crosswalks uh across
Mountain Home Road. And so people
sometimes don't know where to cross,
which means the motorist is dealing with
a number of different uh possibilities.
And this helps focus pedestrians in an
expected location. And um and so we
addressed this both in a scheme that
retains the slip lane as it is today and
the park as it is today. And then we
created this alternate version which
addresses some of the community's desire
to have uh a gathering spot in the city.
>> Was there a reason that you mentioned a
crosswalk to Gilbert Center
>> when I have my own people that are
parking there and so on? Well, we when we talked with you, you had
expressed that traffic moving on
Mountain Home Road is is quite fast
coming over the bridge and they don't
always see cars or pedestrians um who
are entering in and out of your property
in your driveway. Um so this was a
proposal to a provide a safer crossing
for people who are walking from here all
the way down over to Roberts. And then
it's also a way to slow cars down
because they they see people walking or
they see a stop sign or
>> I was telling you about people that left
our place like our our tenants
>> and they're walking over to Christine's
store.
>> So that would now have a crosswalk a
safer crosswalk for them if if if this
concept was was put into put into
action.
>> Is there any plan here to do something
about this? My last one.
>> Okay. Thanks. Is there a plan here to do
anything about that coming down Mountain
Home Road 100 miles an hour and there's
no sight distance at all coming out of
our parking lot?
>> Yeah. So, that is sort of what this
crosswalk is all about. That crosswalk
would help alert cars to slow down. You
could have a flasher or you could have a
sign and then it also helps when people
are turning out of your property,
they'll see.
>> I think there should be a stop sign
there.
>> Okay, that may be part of that. Thank
you very much. Um, any other public
comments?
>> U, I would like to talk.
>> Okay.
>> I agree that, uh, you know, I think
Woodside
wouldn't exist as we know it without
Roberts. It's like it it could easily
turn into Sand Hill West or something of
office buildings without the store
there. So, I do think it's important to
support Roberts. I also think it's
important to to figure out how to make
this intersection work better. And I'm
not convinced that we've gotten there
yet. Um I think it's it's it's
complicated. Um I don't like the slip
lane. It's really dangerous for me. When
I ride my bicycle out Woodside Road,
people can't see me at such a low angle.
So I think this thing we have before us
is is an improvement. But I I um
I I don't really like the park there. I
mean, I don't think this is a place
where we're going to use a park. I think
when I was thinking of gathering spaces,
I'm thinking of the place, you know, the little island maybe a little bigger
outside the door of Robert's where I
meet friends and I can sit and talk with
them there on the way out or or you
know, it's it's it's a it's a
spontaneous meeting place. I don't think
a formal park this is really the right
place for it. Um but I so I I don't
think we're quite there yet. The bridge
coming from Mountain Home Road is slated
to be replaced and I think that presents
a huge opportunity to move the road
further away from Roberts and give more
room to the existing parking spot there.
And I think that the space gained by the
uh getting rid of the slip lane would be
a great place to add more parking
because this is really the part close to
Robert's where there's a huge need for
parking. And uh so if that if that I I
would rather see that, you know, be some
greenery and and more parking as well as realigning the road. But I I think
it's also necessary to for us to
evaluate the intersection to make it
work better because I'm not convinced
this is enough of a change. I think the triple intersection idea that was
roundly rejected actually simplifies and
compacts the intersection to a degree
that I I intuitively feel like cars
would move through there
much faster and that would that would
loosen up the traffic from coming from
the school in the morning where there's
you know there's often a traffic jam
there. of moving cars through this
intersection more efficiently I think is
should be our goal anyway
ideas I obviously
this is a difficult problem
>> sure is thank you any other public
comments
a little bit
>> I I just want to back up what Steve said
I I think it's we're not there yet I I
do think that we should as a benchmark
we should not take a single parking
space away from from Christine if we're
uh where that compact space my little
car would fit there. So, we're in front
of the tree. And if we're adding some
parallel adding parallel parking on on
the north side of the store, that that
helps. And this concept would allow the
employees who now park, you know, from
the Alec Donald Park all the way down
with, you know, maybe you designate that
employees only or some some way. I mean,
there's there's other ideas and and um I
have mixed feelings about Alec Donald
was the first road commissioner in
Woodside and the slip lane was
officially low road after the first
mayor of Woodside. So, I'm sad to see
the slip lane go away, but I think this
concept solves a lot of problems. And
regarding the park, I do see people
going there with sandwiches from Roberts
and cup of coffee. So, I I think it's
mostly locals. I think people from out
of town, I'm not even sure are aware of
it. So, um I think this is a a good
start. I don't think we're there yet.
And I would ask the consultants because
um I think Christine kind of gets it,
but Leanne is having a hard time
visualizing this. And if you could set
up a meeting with her on the corner
uh and walk her through it, I think at
least I'm not sure she'd agree with you,
but at least
>> in the corner, people will talk about
>> she'll she'll understand it a little
better because the these are your two
key players and we need to bring them
along if this is going to succeed. This
is our third attempt. I was on the
previous two committees. I would like to
see this go through. And to to Ryan's
point, this is conceptual, guys. The
bulldozers aren't there yet. Uh it's a
long range plan, but it would be uh
something to look forward to plan and
implement as we as we can along the way.
You know, we're
>> Okay. Thanks.
>> Thank you. Uh, we've got two comments in
the Zoom, so we'll go to you, Julie.
>> Hi there, Julie Sakara. Um, I am a
member of the Citizens Advisory
Committee, but I'm speaking on behalf of
myself and likely several of my
neighbors. Um, first, I want to
wholeheartedly
recognize um and show my support for
Roberts. Uh the last thing we'd want to
do with this project is to do anything
to hurt that business. Um I believe
Roberts and the school and perhaps the
church as well are really the heartbeats
of our community. So um you know we
should put their well-being first and
foremost. Um
we've been saying and everyone agrees
that the primary focus here is the
residents or are the residents and we
are trying to get traffic to move more
smoothly. Um, while there might be some
safety concerns around perhaps the need
for a stop sign, etc. around this
current Alec McDonald Park, I believe
that removing either of the slip lanes,
including the one here from Mountain
Home, is going to cause more congestion
and more of a backup for residents. And
um, for that reason, I support the new
concept zero and I very much appreciate
you putting it together. And um I
believe it does solve some if not all of
the problems without um leading to some
of the other negative ramifications that
might help might happen from removing
the slip lane or some of the other um
changes mentioned here.
>> Great. Thank you. And we'll go to you
Richard. Welcome
» Mr. Erstad.
>> Can you hear me?
>> Yes, we can. Yes. So I'm a member of the
committee too as well but I too am
speaking as an individual. Uh at the
meeting we had a discussion of this
intersection the meeting a week ago and
we heard from both Christine and Leia.
Since then though we now have written
correspondence from Leia. It's quite
detailed. It's quite specific. Uh it
covers the full redesign here as well.
Tonight you've heard from Leah Christine
and her sister with additional detailed
correspondence
uh delivered to you including a
highlight um regarding uh record of
survey and boundary details that was not
discussed in detail last week. I would
just suggest the town would be very wise
to step back, slow down, uh that this
change is substantive and serious
concerns have been raised and I think
everyone benefits, most particularly the
town, if it simply goes slow here. So, I
understand the council has not given
direction, hasn't raised questions,
hasn't hasn't really weighed in here. I
suggest this one item gets slowed down
though. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Any other question? Any other comments
before we close public comment? Okay, we
will close public comment and move on to
council deliberations for any direction
that anyone feels strongly about.
>> I'll open it up.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Uh and it's it's very simple. Uh, I'd
like to see the committee uh put a
priority on how to add parking spaces as
opposed to take them away from the
existing businesses downtown. Um, we've
had spent a lot of time, you've put a
lot of effort into designing great
walkways, pathways, roadways,
but it's usually at the expense of
parking. And I want to say, let's start
with parking. That's what starts with
our our businesses start with parking
and end with parking. If they don't have
it, they're not going to survive. And so
we really need to think hard about how
do we enhance the parking downtown, not
take away parking places.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. Yes. Council member Wall
>> ask for two two questions for
clarification if that's okay. Um in
concept one, I just want to make sure my
understanding is correct. Is it correct
that the one parking spot that is
considered dangerous? It's the one kind
of
that one right there. Um that parking
spot would be eliminated in this
concept, but that five additional spaces
would be added.
>> It's replaced. So that Troy uh if you
mark the corner just see that crosswalk
where that crosswalk is landing that's
crossing Woodside Road. That's a new
location for that crosswalk. We're
shifting it forward which gives you
better sight lines. The other thing it
does is it adds a parallel parking space
where the white car is shown if you can
circle that white car. So imagine we're
driving that car like 20 ft to the left
in a sense like that's a new parking
space that doesn't exist today that's
replacing the one that's on the corner.
>> So are we net positive four spaces in
this concept?
>> So right now we are on and let's just
talk directly adjacent to Robert's
Grocery. Directly adjacent to Robert's
Grocery we're at a a draw. we
>> not eliminating
>> lost one, we added one.
>> So, and then the other thing I think is
important is to really push uh tighten
the dimension at least to 11 ft from uh
for that through lane and right turn
lane so we can add 12 to 18 in to the
parallel parking that's there today so
that it's more comfortable because it's
quite narrow on the north side of
Roberts. So that's I think an important
move to make those spaces there more
usable. So we're at a we're not losing
any spaces with that current
configuration. And then by removing the
slip lane, we're adding five spaces that
are accessed off the public easement
that is in the first part of the
Gilbert's um property. So this scheme
adds five parking spaces. Now, the
interesting thing that I've heard
tonight is maybe there's a concept 1B
that uh looks at not making Alec Donald
Park a gathering moment, but more of a
beautifification moment. Maybe it's a
landscape concept. if if there's a
serious threat to the uh vitality of
Roberts and it can be solved by creating
a landscape moment there that beautifies
the city. Perhaps that's a a new idea we
should explore. The other new idea is if
we kept everything the same on the left
there at Robert's Grocery but added more
parking in lie of that green
beautifification thing. That's a concept
too. So, uh, you know, it really comes
down to a question of the community's
overall needs represented by the CAC,
represented by the town council,
represented by the community feedback.
And so in the next um and and taking
into consideration Richard's comment, so
I think we need to think about what our
next steps are in terms of
uh what ideas do we put on the table for
the community if any around area 2.
>> That thank you. That was super helpful.
And then one additional follow-up
question. Um
I in good city's view
by eliminating this if if we were to
eliminate the slip lane
how would you recommend that delivery
trucks navigate in and out of Robert's
Grocery? So currently, uh,
so currently you can't turn a truck
around the top of Alec Donald Park. It's
too sharp of a of a a radius. It's too
small of a radius. Yeah. So what we've
done is drawn a 35 ft radius, which is
the recommendation for a four horse uh
trailer.
And so the concept is that instead of
using the slip lane to get to Woodside
Avenue, we take advantage of the large
expanse of concrete and asphalt that you
have, but we soften that corner of the
park to facilitate the movement of a
large vehicle.
So that's the concept.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah, the trucks essentially take a
slightly longer turn on on off woodside
rather than the slip lane. So, it's it's
a fairly minor deviation.
» Maybe just one follow-up question on
parking. So, when you talk about those
five additional spots being in our right
away, but they're embedded in the
Gilbert lot, which is private parking.
So, how we'll have Mission creep, right?
Would we not? People might just start
parking all the way through there or
>> or no, I mean, just trying to
understand. Well, you put those spots in
the lot. This the spots are on the
public side of the they occupy the
former slip lane and they utilize the
public easement that's right at the
beginning of So that was the thinking
that's one idea.
>> Yeah. Right.
>> If if those five spots don't make sense
the community and they're a negative to
the experience of visiting the town
center and shopping at Roberts, we can
get rid of those five spots and put in
sculpture landscape. There's a lot of
things you can do with that public
realm,
>> but we're mostly repurposing the slip
lane for better use. One of which is
parking. As you know, Council Member
Brown just expressed, parking is
important to some.
>> Okay.
Other deliberations or questions?
I'll just maybe jump in then just say
I'm I'm back at concept zero just
because we don't have property owner
buyin. Um, it's very pretty, but it's
not that functional, unfortunately. And,
uh, financial hardship aspect of it is a
good part of the equation. I agree with
Council Member Brown. I mean, maybe
there are different things to look at
with
maybe, uh,
I hate to say, Donald Park doesn't have a role anymore, but maybe
you could even put parking, you know,
parallel parking along Mountain Home
Road there, a couple of spots. Um, or
carve it up. I I don't know. I have to
think about that. But the only other
thing I was listening on my mind um
besides advocating for just I think what I think I've heard is just that
there there's not going to be that we
should slow down that uh concept zero is
reasonable that we need to respect these
businesses first and foremost and they
drive this process in my own opinion.
And then just a message maybe back to
the CAC any anyone saying that you know
parking is for us and not for others
that we're not a provincial island that we we are part of a larger
community and that our businesses
require um uh for their economic
well-being. Uh very welcoming
environment um and certainly our peers
uh in other communities
uh do not have that attitude towards us
when we park to go shopping in their
neighborhoods. So uh I just want to make
that uh point but I'm a concept zero
person for now uh because I think what
I've heard is just the function that we
have working is is required and so um
and maybe there's just another iteration
or two or three or four that are still
to come but yeah I think there's just in
my opinion there's enough push back to
say uh unfortunately a beautiful design
but not not where it needs to be right
now.
other thoughts? Um,
I yeah, I I uh I liked all the designs
personally. Um, I was kind of sad to see
the three nobody wasn't popular. Um,
made sense to me to have more seating
right outside of Robert so people could,
you know, buy stuff and eat. Maybe now
>> parking on public property. It's not
even my parking anymore.
>> Yeah.
>> Which and that that I understand. So
yeah. So, so uh one I think is a net
>> net even you know for parking for
Roberts it adds some spots I that makes
sense to me. Um and having worked uh
through undergrad putting put myself
through undergrad working um and a large
part of that was delivering food um
driving large trucks. I can assure you
that, you know, if there's a need, you
can always find a way. And even if
that's parking across the street, not
the most convenient, but um you know, I
think I think delivery drivers, they can figure out a way. Um if they're
creative, as I always was,
>> making that turn.
>> Okay. Yeah. So, we you know, we're going
to we're just going to do deliberation.
>> I'm not Yeah, I'm not trying to engage
with anybody.
>> I um we're going to just deliberate and make a call here. Yeah. But I just I
think, you know, I I appreciate and I
think we do need company buyin from
Christine Roberts and Leanne. Um I
absolutely agree. Uh and so I just want
to make sure that, you know, we're not
throwing away good ideas based on issues
that aren't, you know, going to be
there. So, and if if part of the issue
is, you know, creating a competing um
market, you know, farmers market, I
think that that could be worked out
that, you know, if we if we there's
interest in it and people are are open
to it. I think, you know, ensuring that
that's not going to happen, that, you
know, we can have some kind of public
area where we're not going to have a
farmers market. Um, and so I would just,
you know, say
I I agree with zero, concept zero. Um, I
think that could be a good option. I
also think that concept one could
potentially work, you know, if um if we
work with everybody and get buyin from
everybody, but as it stands, it seems
like that's not currently where we're
at. So, um, but I I I like the idea, you
know, and I I think it's a good idea to
have, um, more parking, which that seems
to accomplish that. Um, and it seems
like a nice development. So, that's
where I stand.
>> Thank you. When we um when we talked
about the composition of the
CAC, the the committee, I know we went
through a lot of um we wanted to get the
business owners represented. It was a
big deal and we reserve spots
specifically for them and specifically
for the reason that's coming out
tonight. Without their buyin, this
doesn't happen. and um and we don't have
their buyin and I'm just you know I'm a business guy and um I know what it
means to make a payroll and that cash
register has to ring and if it doesn't
if there isn't parking the cash register
doesn't ring and you find out that
Robert's Market isn't there anymore and
it's a condominium or an office building
and then you go oh
that that that that's not a good
outcome. Um so I'm sensitive to those
things. We have to have buyin. I think
the the most interesting thing is
watching the committee go from all these
great ideas that they've got and then
you know we need uh traffic circles and
roundabouts and we want pavilions for
Pilates classes and we want picnic areas
and parks and then suddenly the reality
sets in and it's like
we're we're constrained. We're an an old
town where this intersection was
probably, as somebody mentioned before,
stage coaches coming down it a hundred
years ago. And it's bad sight lines and
oddshaped roads and it all just kind of grew up organically. We're not
downtown Redwood City or PaloAlto. And
um we're constrained by this. And so I
think we have to, you know, I'm a
reality guy. I said that earlier. And so
here's where we are. I'm deferring
completely. I'm just, you know, I want
to see these businesses not only stay
but thrive. And, you know, I defer to
the owners there. I think that they know
best uh about what makes their
businesses work.
>> You can't actually, Lean, I'm sorry. I
know.
>> Yeah. So, okay. So,
>> so I'm from I'm a minimalist. Um,
concept zero.
>> Concept zero.
>> And that's what we can send back.
>> Yeah. Um, so I'd like to weigh in as
well. Um,
so I think my policy direction would be
that that more work is needed to kind of
bridge the gap between concept zero and
concept one. Um, I think we heard it
expressed really nicely by uh Steve
Luben that Woodside wouldn't be wouldn't
exist wouldn't be what it is without
Roberts. I think we all love shopping at
Roberts. we we we would never want to
see it go away. Um we have to match that
with the reality that this intersection
has got to get better. Um and so I think
there's some good ideas in concept one.
I would also note that you know I think
the the slides indicated that concept
one had the majority support from the
citizen advisory committee. I think, you
know, business owner buyin is really
important, but so is uh resident buyin.
Um there's lots of compet competing
concerns here. So, you know, we have to try our best to bring all of
those together. Um I I like the fact
that concept one does try to address the
community desire for a public gathering
space. Um, I I I think I tend to like
the idea of expanding that that park. I
could I could imagine, you know, kids,
you know, eating there after school or,
you know, residents, you know, getting a
sandwich and and having a place to eat.
Um, I don't I don't I don't know that is the community gathering space
that I envisioned coming out of this
process. I I' I'd like to see what other
ideas there are for community gathering
spaces cuz in my mind having some
additional community gathering spaces is
a key aspect of the town center area
plan and we haven't you know I I want to
know more about what's proposed.
Um,
I think concept 2 definitely creates
better pedestrian crossings, which I
think is a really necess.
Um, I liked the idea of having a key
arrival moment in Woodside. Um, so I
think I think more work is needed. I
would I my policy direction would be to
send this back to the community advisory
committee, talk more. Let's see if we
can bridge the gap between what the um
advisory committee is is expressing that
the residents desire um the gap that
we're hearing from the business owners.
Um so I I think we need to keep
exploring this. Um so that would be my
advice to our consultant.
» Uh so I hate split votes. Um so we have
two people that are sort of I I picked
up on our concept zero and two people
that are zero and one and go back to the
go back and workshop it. Uh and I dick I
other than parking did you have a did
you want to give any direction between
these or just so
>> I think I think you have to start with
parking and then you uh then you evolve
one two three or zero.
>> Yeah.
>> I mean right now I don't think we're
there.
>> Okay.
Does that work directionally or do you
need more from us?
>> Yeah, I think that Well, was was that a
yes to the direction to slow down? So,
that that means we'll pause.
>> It's back to the workshop, but I think
there's Yeah, I I can't tell. It looks
like there's a split. I I mean, but uh
it sounds I don't know how to how to how
to angle this.
>> Slow at the slowing down was not the
direction I took from the majority of
our comments. I think it's let's
workshop it some more to see if we can
bridge interests.
>> My point was different. It's you you've
got the two big business owners, you
know? I mean, we could think of anything
we want. If it doesn't serve their
purposes, it's a problem. I mean, it's almost a veto. I mean, look at that
big red stop sign at the top of this
slide that's up there. I mean, we
ignored that. That's a big deal and uh
we shouldn't ignore it. And I think that
they have to be involved in this loop. I
mean, they are, but I mean, if they're
not buying in, it's probably not going
to be successful.
>> Yeah, I totally agree. I think the
question is is the direction to kind of
pause all the engagement and go back and
workshop this a little more or to kind
of pull this topic out of the
engagement, continue with our planned
engagement and wall kind of a parallel
pathing having this discussion on this
specific intersection.
Um, I mean, we're what I'm hearing,
which it might be different. I don't
want to speak for my colleagues, but um,
it's
see what else you can do to workshop
concept zero to include more parking and
to maybe I'm not sure how you're going
to get a park because if you lose the
slip lane, you're losing the the ability
to service the business. So, I
>> Yeah, it's kind of either way.
>> So, it's just it's what it's what
council member Gold said is just the
constraints are
the constraints might be getting in the
way of being able to to really move
anything forward here, but we're I think
we're not saying slow. I saying I think
so what I'm hearing is this is sort of
maybe a separate path discussion from
some of these other topics that are
going to be more
>> a useful way to go
>> the focus of this upcoming engagement
and this can be kind of a side
>> this discussion needs a slip lane
>> this well put this can be kind of a side
discussion with um the key players.
Yeah.
>> And we'll keep working on it. Maybe
we'll come back.
>> Yeah.
>> Council and CAC with
>> some other ideas. Um we could ask more
general questions in the survey about
this area. See if there are other ideas
just without showing specific concepts
at this time.
>> And and to be perfectly clear, I didn't
give you my opinion of which one I like.
I'm just saying I'm deferring to them
because they have a lot at stake here in
our town. Great. Okay.
All right. Okay. We're going to keep
going unless anybody needs a break.
>> All right. See,
>> see it is.
>> None.
>> Okay. Uh Central Woodside Road uh
currently right now walking from uh the
east uh to the west end or either way
requires um a lot of intermittent kind
of steps. It's not a totally obvious or
continuous sidewalk. There are some
barriers. If you're local, you're going
to know it. You're going to do it. Um,
but it might not be the the best
possible streetscape that's out there.
So, um, you know, this is something that
we heard from the community. So, we
wanted to put some ideas out there. If
you go to the next slide.
So, one of the key issues with this is
we can't do anything until really the
private land owners decide to redevelop.
And so, the option we wanted to put on
the table was could they redevelop um
and not have pool and parking, 90° pool
and parking if they wanted more
development capacity out of their site.
Um we got a lot of great um uh comments
from uh the CAC about challenges with
redeveloping very very small parcels and
the costs that come with that and the
challenges economically and feasibility.
So I won't speak to that but that's out
there. But in the case that there is
redevelopment and the land owner is
interested how would you coordinate
that? And so we put together this
concept uh where gradually over a very long time um the street could
evolve into a sidewalk essentially
extending. There's there's one instance
of where this is happened and you see it
right in the foreground. Can you scratch
on that?
So basically taking that sidewalk and
extending that uh eastward.
Um, so next slide.
The other concept that came from the CAC
that was kind of interesting is how do
could we dress up the uh pathways that
exist behind the businesses which are
also another front door for a lot of the
businesses. And so, um, kind of taking
an idea of a shared street where, you
know, we're not going to be able to
create sidewalks back there because of
how the buildings are all at different
elevations and um, and you're walking
through a restaurant space at the pub.
But what if we turned the smooth asphalt
environment into something that's
aesthetically attractive and conducive
to walking? And kind of the key focus on
that is that red diagonal line right
there. And that's basically blocking it
to through traffic, which was a lively
debate uh at the CAC whether that's a
good idea or not. But essentially, uh
you could imagine that when the village
doctors closed and other things like
that, you would have very little traffic
back there to compete with pedestrians
and it'd be quite pleasant. Um now, you
could extend that concept of the shared
street all the way to Roberts. Um,
people could choose to walk either along
the existing pedestrian trail that
follows the creek or they could choose
to walk along the storefronts of the
Gilbert Center, but it's just kind of
creating a visual path uh that's has
some continuity from Whiskey Hill all
the way to Roberts. So, next slide.
And so if you look at the top left,
you'll see the existing conditions and
uh the rendering image here adds, you
know, some pedestrian treatments to the
paving surface. It still fully allows
vehicle traffic and access to parking
and keeps parking exactly the way it is,
but it dresses up the paving environment
to make it a little more inviting. It
sets a nicer stage for the storefronts
that are back there and uh is an attempt
to add some aesthetic beauty to that
environment. Next slide.
So, uh basically uh the concept for
formalizing the streetscape
um on Woodside Road was not um really
supported except just a handful of
members. Um there was some interest in
adding parking back onto the north side,
but acknowledging that it's a
challenging issue uh due to the uh
limited um rightway and the existing
turn lane which is necessary for the
existing businesses to have parking
access. Um the concept 2 was
wellreceived which is the pedestrian
friendly shared street behind um the
shops uh parallel to Woodside Road.
Thank you. Questions
on area C.
All right.
Uh, go ahead.
>> Uh, question. So, was concept 2
supported by the business owners? Was
>> Yes. in fact was proposed or sort of the
genesis with the was was one of the
business owners um who kind of relayed
that there's been a concerted effort by
multiple business owners to kind of
reverse or turn their businesses back
around. And so he um articulated that we
could kind of build on and and take
better advantage of those rearfacing
businesses through this kind of more um
un uh connected interconnected concept
of the of the back street of the
backside. So it came from the business.
Yeah.
>> And what is could you just explain a
little bit what is what does rear retail
activation will will need to continue
mean?
>> Right. So that's that's talking about
like the village pub, right? kind of
turned itself to the back. Um,
>> oh, you're saying the orientation of
businesses would would be encouraged.
>> So, we had some conversation about this
being an interesting idea, but to really
make it a success, we need to we would
want to keep facilitating and
encouraging businesses to be oriented
towards that back space. That'll, you
know, create more foot traffic and more
interest just in the back there. Um, so
that would be part of this effort would
be to continue supporting and
encouraging kind of rear rear
activation.
>> So just one question. This is the pad,
right? This is the parking area district
where it's basically a mutual fund of
owners. Town's only one of them. I know
we're not supposed to talk about
funding. Uh but
to do this, every single property, every
single person that's a member of the pad
would have to agree and then what we
would be doing an assessment or
something if that's what people want or
we could find the money if people, you
know.
>> Yeah. Uh it's a good question and it's
messy.
>> I'm not the PAD expert, but um it is
messy that I do know that much. Um you
could and I think anything having to do
with PAD requires 50% votes at minimum.
So it would there would be a process
here. Um,
but you could again build this out
through a combination of the pad
self-funding or it could be a CIP for,
you know, a paving project. Um, so you
could do it a couple different ways, but
I agree that the the the pad offers some
complexity, but I think we're not
proposing to lose spaces. We're
proposing to kind of beautify it. So
there there there would be, I think,
less uh resistance to that approach. But
>> you you bring up a good point. The other
key component which is not expensive is
whether or not you block the through
traffic. So we did hear through some of
the public comment that folks love
having that second parallel path, you
know, that connects Whiskey uh Hill Road
to um Mountain Home. But then there's
other folks that feel like it's very
fastm moving traffic that creates a
dangerous element for customers and for
people using the trail network back
there and that they would prefer to see
um only only the vehicular through
traffic blocked but allowing
pedestrians,
horses, um bikes and then also uh in the
event of an emergency emergency vehicles
would have the the ways to like an
operable gate so that they could get
through.
>> Am I correct that you said that there
are no parking spaces would be lo none
would be lost in this process.
>> This is an aesthetic treatment. So no
changes to the parking at all. The idea
is taking um that pavement environment
isn't obvious. it. People see it and
they think cars, you know, they think
parking lot and giving it a treatment
that feels a little more inviting and pedestrian friendly. Certain pavers
also do create kind of a textured rumble
when you drive over them. And so that
helps slow traffic going through there.
So you can use it to also add speed
calming to uh vehicular movement.
>> Thank you.
Okay, we'll close uh questions and jump
to public comment. Richard, we'll just
jump right to you. Actually, the Zoom
room.
>> Great. Thanks. Uh so, uh quick question
for Ryan and Troy. In the slide deck in
the 279 pages, there's a sheet page 239
that shows Central Woodside Road with a
scheme proposed there on a scheme that
the committee has not seen. Is has that
been taken out of tonight's deck or is
it still there? Are you coming up to it?
>> Uh I think you're referring to there was
a drawing of this this concept 1A. Uh we took that out since our direction was
to kind of um for the sake of time move
forward. Um but that that is basically a
drawing that that ex that shows what the
concept 1A would look like.
>> Yeah. Got it. So uh two comments for the
council. The uh the red line in the
drawing shows reinstatement of a wall
that long was uh there. It was removed
at the direction of the council in circa
1979
when the Gilbert Center was approved.
The wall sits on the adjoining property.
Actually, the property owned by
Millstone uh the LLC that I'm managing
member of. I'm I'm only one member of
the CAC, but I'm a strong supporter of
putting that barrier, that vehicular
barrier back up because I believe based
on personal experience, the shared
street sees some pretty fast vehicles,
both cars and trucks. So, strong support
for that. And then second, I wanted to
back up what the consultants are saying.
Over a long period of time, starting
with um sort of the mid9s when the
parking assessment district terminated,
um the town actively sought owners of
these buildings in the commercial core
to enhance uh the downstairs, the
southacing portion of their buildings.
And so that was done at a number of
those buildings with ours, with Village
Doctor, with the uh pub building uh
moving the pub from its top floor
location that fronted Woodside Road to
the uh bottom floor that fronts the
shared street and faces south. And then
of course the Gilbert's building was
built brand new at the end of that
commercial core east end and it has
quite a southern orientation to it. So,
I think this whole concept fits in well
with all that. Third final comment. As
far as I know, the parking assessment
district does not exist. It no longer
shows on our title records on both
properties. It was terminated once the
debt was fully paid off. That was a big
ceremony that Susan George held uh the
town manager before Kevin Bryant and uh
it was a big accomplishment. Thank you.
We'll follow up on that pad
comment.
Uh, hi Steve.
>> Hi, Steve Lumen again. Um, I uh I really
like the shared streets idea and I'm not
sure it actually I think the gate might
be enough. It's, you know, this is
mostly private property and I think if
people developed these properties,
they'd have the opportunity to do their
own paving and I'm not sure there's any
expense involved in it. Just let it be
as it is. Uh because it's it kind of
functions that way now. Um although I
have no objection to paving. As far as
Woodside Road goes, I think it's really
a tragedy of the town. The what we have
there now was built by CALR when when
Woodside was fighting CALR building 280
through town. All the CALR traffic from
the north was
fennled onto Kinyatta Road and they they
standard station that used to be where
Alec McDonald Park is now was removed
and this whole section was was turned
into a freeway and and I think it's just
an eyesore for the town and a horrible
place to walk and and it encourages
people to speed through here. There used
to be parking on the on the north side
of Woodside Road, which the council
banned when the pub used to face
Woodside Road. There were a lot of
people crossing the road there, and the
council banned it. I think it's a
no-brainer to replace those 20 parking
spots or so on the north side. um get
rid of the left turn lane, have have
pockets to make the the the the uh
illustration that Richard was talking
about that showed a left turn pocket,
which he doesn't like, but I think would
work just fine to allow those people to
park along the south side of Woodside
Road there. these lanes, you know, if we treated this the same way we're
thinking about area A, you know, of it
having lots of of of traffic coming
devices, you're having, you know, having
adding a couple of crosswalks here from
the parking on the north side, uh
narrowing the lanes to 11 ft and I that
the illustration showed parallel
parking. You know, it's that would lose
a lot of parking if you had a diagonal
backend parking there. It would be safer
than the than the than the perpendicular
parking and would provide a lot more
parking. Again, you know, this is a
great opportunity to increase parking in
town. So,
thank you.
» Um, Richard, your hand is up again.
Maybe it hasn't come down, but I know
you've already spoken.
>> No.
>> Is there something additional you wanted
to say?
to Steve because these these parking
stalls along the north sides of these
buildings, all five of all six of them,
of which we own two, those stalls are
very very important and that
preservation of that middle lane is
absolutely key for these top floors on
the two-story buildings. Uh there has
been concerted effort over a long period
of time to create ADA compliant stalls
at each one of these buildings to
obligate somebody who is handicapped to
drive past the building westbound and
then turn either right on Kenyatta or
left on Mountain Home, find a side
street to make a Uturn on and then come
back to access these north stalls is
simply taking a golden stall at the
front of these buildings, facing the
building, adjoining the building, and
turning it into something
much less desirable. They those stalls
have been there for a long, long time,
and so is that middle turn lane, and I
made that clear in the letter that I
wrote yesterday. Um, the tenants value
it, their customers, their guests, their
invitees, vendors, contractors, and any
sort of alteration of that middle lane,
cutting it off into something less would
be significantly detrimental to both of
us, um, both LLC's. And I would argue it
the same argument applies to all the
others there. So, while I understand
Steve's concerns about the width of the
roadway, shoot, this the fourth time
town center has been studied since uh my
family bought these two buildings in
1977 and 1987. Lots of work's been done
to try to change things out there, but
the constraints, as Paul mentioned
earlier on another topic, Council Member
Gold on another topic, the constraints
here are really substantive, really
substantial. So, it just is what it is.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Any other public comments on
area C?
All right. Hearing none, we'll close
public comment, move on to deliberations
or any d direction based on this page.
Anyone?
>> I kind of like the the idea of the
walking space. Um, but I'd like to
understand more about how it works
elsewhere in terms of encouraging
um pedestrian parking or pedestrian use
as well as that it does not discourage
parking.
You're saying you like the shared road
concept in the back?
>> Yeah, I kind of like the look of it.
>> Yep. Okay.
» I as far I think concept two is
essentially turning black pavement into
pavers.
>> Yeah,
>> it's aesthetic.
>> It's not It's not much more complicated.
>> No, you could have lights and stuff, but
it's not it's it's not magic. It's it's minimal. Yeah,
>> I'm I'm with that one.
>> Okay.
I think concept 2 is a super cool idea.
Um I have thought a lot about that area
and how it could be improved and never
thought of that. So I think um it's a
great idea. Um I think in a way it could
kind of create a community space. You
could imagine, you know, like um people
going to uh the pub and and you know,
being able to walk, you know, you know,
to the Pioneer. So, I I think it's a
really great idea. I love that the
majority of the community advisory
committee supported it. Um, doesn't
eliminate parking. The businesses
support it. Um, I think there could be
more opportunity in this idea of
orienting
the businesses to the rear and how that
how I think there's I would love to see
more ideas around like how then might
that create opportunities um for more
parking along Woodside Road. Maybe some
vegetation screening because I think it
is kind of an eyeshore um you know as
you travel down Woodside Road. Um, so I
think um I'm very supportive.
>> Uh, I'd also support concept 2. Um,
seems minimally invasive and um, yeah,
it seems like a big improvement.
>> Great. All right. I think you've got the
direction of though. I think we need a
little followup on if still exists or
not. So, I'm looking out at Jean, but
another time, not for tonight. Um, but
okay. So just to be clear, the direction
is to con keep considering all the ideas
here or just
>> two
>> only two. So we're gonna take the other
two off the table from standpoint. Okay.
» Onward and upward. I think we can still
do it.
>> Okay. Uh Whiskey Hill Road and Woodside
Road area D. Uh the community feedback
we heard is it's very difficult to make
a left turn off Whiskey Hill uh on the
Woodside. The other concern was that
traffic doesn't tend to slow down until
they reach the Kinyatta intersection. So
how do we make Woodside Road slower and
safer? And then how do we make that left
turn uh not so difficult? Next slide.
Uh we presented two concepts. One was
adding a three-way stop uh on the
intersection of Whiskey Hill and
Woodside, enhancing crosswalks. Uh and
then, you know, the we would have to
modify the um approach to the little
tunnel that's in the building there, but
there could be a right turn in into that
building. The option on the left uh is a
roundabout concept and the concept there
is the driver is really focused on one
vector of movement uh versus you know
when you're making a a standard
intersection you're watching for both
directions. So uh the roundabout is set
up so that there's pedestrian um refuge
areas. So you you can you only have to
cross half the street at a time. Um, and
so the middle table is a mountable truck
apron, which is very low, has a very
slight rise to it, but it's a very
strong visual signal that you're to
drive around it. What it does allow,
however, is trucks to drive over top of
it or to make those turning radiuses.
Uh, so that that was those two concepts.
The response that we got was interesting
because it led to the next concept which
is something the circulation con
committee is already working on.
And this was and this really stemmed
from concerns about congestion that the
time to travel from one side of Woodside
to the other gets pretty strenuous uh
during commute peaks. And so this one
here is you could make a left off
Whiskey Hill and essentially you extend
that turn lane. Um and so that turn lane
becomes a spot where you could wait and
merge into traffic when things free up.
So that that's a way for a left turner
to get out. They only have to cross one
lane of traffic at a time. So uh that's
the concept here. It doesn't necessarily
address the lowering of vehicle speeds
into Woodside, but it does at least
address half the the issues, which was
making a left off Whiskey Hill.
Next slide.
So, there was support from the CAC with
the merge lane that was mentioned. Um,
uh, only a handful of folks supported
the three-way stop and only a handful of
folks supported the mini roundabout.
might go fast.
>> They're consistent.
>> Uh any any questions?
All right. Any comments from the public?
Uh
one lubin and then the other luben.
>> I um
anything that makes people not come
through Woodside with ways w
uh I'm all for. you could have stop sign
every three blocks as far as I'm
concerned because uh when when traffic
is blocked up going north on 280
uh they come up Woodside Road, they turn
right on Kenyatta and it's it's a
traffic jam and there's times when I
live along Kinyata Road, there's times I
can't even get out. Um, so
I I prefer the three-way stop.
And I also think if we could figure out
a way to
put up some signs that says La Honda and
you turn left from Woodside Road onto
Whiskey Hill, Sand Hill, Portola,
and we make it so it's 20 or 25 miles an
hour through town. we will get a lot
less traffic and anything that that
encourages that I'm all for. It helps
all of these schemes if people are going
slower especially at the school and the
intersection.
Um,
uh, I don't know. The roundabout might
work. Uh, but again, anything that slows
it down and and if we could long range
look at diverting traffic over to
Lahonda from that intersection, I think
>> would really calm things down in in the
center of town.
Thank you, Steve.
>> I was going to say pretty much the same
thing except I mean I I think this
circulation committee scheme really
accommodates people speeding into town
and I don't think that's what we really
want to do. When we look at our goals,
we're talking about slowing people down
back at hosiendas or something. And so I
think either, you know, the three-way or
the the roundabout would be a big
improvement, but I think even better is
a three-way stop that inflects towards
Whiskey Hill Road so that it's just as
easy to take Whiskey Hill as it is
Woodside Road. And that will take some
number of people out of town center. the issue I don't think is so much u you
know the I think what we should be
trying to do is is slowing people down
but eliminating the bottlenecks and the
main bottleneck is Kinyatta and Woodside
Road that you know if if you it would be
great if people were driving 20 m an
hour from Hosiendas all the way to Kings
Mountain Road I think that's what we're
aiming for and to do that we have to put
some friction at this intersection and we have to narrow the lanes in by
Village Hill and make that not look like
a freeway. Uh
so I think you know the the the
circulation committee's proposal doesn't
do that at all. It was aimed at at
making it easier to make a left turn,
but it anyway, you get it. Yep.
Okay.
>> Any other public comments? Area D.
hearing. None. We'll close public
comment. Any deliberations or direction
that anyone has here?
>> Yeah, I'll start. And to me, it's very
simple. I think the uh the roundabout is
an interesting idea. Starting to explore
much more carefully, but uh it will slow
traffic coming both over from 280 as
well as uh trying to get uh up Whiskey
Hill. And I think it gives both of them
an avenue to do that. and u slow it but
keep it moving moving is the kind of way
I look at it
>> so you're pushing concept too
>> yes
>> any other thoughts
go for it
>> um so I was a big fan of the roundabout
um and um I was actually surprised that
it was so poorly received by the
committee I mean they really shot it
down I mean pretty quickly I mean it was
like really poo pooed
Um, and I was actually disappointed
because I think it's it addresses a lot
of the issues. It slows cars down but
keeps them moving. It allows people to
come out of Whiskey Hill. Slowing people
down before they get to our main
intersection is a big deal, I think,
because otherwise they're just racing
through there when there's little
traffic, which doesn't happen so often
anymore. But one of the worst things I
think you could do, I'm really against
the three-way stop sign, is you're
creating a sit a a a dynamic where it's
just going to back up the entire way.
So, so now uh you won't be able to
you'll just be sitting there at the stop
sign and you're going to have to wait
for one space to open up in front of
you. You're going to go there and it's
just really frustrates everybody. It's
like waiting at a traffic light. The
light changes and nobody moves. That's
what you're going to have with with the
multiple stop signs. So, I think that
the I really like the traffic circle a
lot, but I changed my mind. Well, I
mean, I when I heard the committee, you
know, shoot it down so dramatically, I
was just like, well, okay. And I thought
you answered it really well, Ryan, with
the that that you can actually Assan
brought up the the point of horse
trailers and large trucks. Can a can a
big truck make it around that circle?
Yes, they can. They can actually drive
over the edges of it um without without
even affecting it. And we do see these
in Redwood City. There are areas where
you see them all over the Bay Area now
and uh they seem to work pretty well.
They have changed a lot since uh the
1950s when they were awful and I thought
that this one was nicely designed and I
was in favor of it, but I'm not going
to, you know, fight the committee
either. But I'm glad to see that there
seems to be some support for it. Maybe
they can revisit.
» You had something about
>> Yeah. Um, I am supportive of Concept
Zero, um, as sort of like a a minimum
way to deal with the the speed and
traffic issues that we all have to live
with. Um, so yeah, I would definitely
support concept zero, although I I agree
with council members Brown and Gold. I I am disappointed to see that the mini
roundabout concept did not get more
support. Um, it sounds like it was
supported by a handful of the CAC. Um,
you know, I recognize that, you know,
there were some concerns about horse
trailers. It sounds like horse trailers
and large trucks can certainly navigate
such a roundabout. So, um, I would, as a
as policy direction, I would be
supportive of of asking the CAC to take
another look at this. Um, and you know, really kind of, you know,
determine if if we want to do something
a bit more um
ambitious than concept zero.
» Yeah. Um, I would agree with the with
everyone who's spoken so far. Um, I I
really like the the roundabout concept.
Um, I thought it was unfortunate as
well. I'm not sure. Um I feel like it
maybe been dismissed a little too
quickly. Uh because it really does, you
know, resolve the the speeding issue. Um
and also makes it easier to turn left uh
from Whiskey Hill. So I also agree I'm
not a fan of concept one um for the
reasons Paul gave. Um
I think I think it would just create a
lot more traffic. So I I'd be happy to
get rid of that one. Um I could be okay
with zero concept zero. I do think it um
uh Stephen Talia raised good points that
it's going to that is going to probably
increase speeding. So um not my top
choice but so yes I would I would
propose kind of keeping forward with
zero and two.
>> Great. Thank you. I I think we're
probably all in agreement. Um
yes, concept zero is sort of the table
stakes. Um I think I I maybe but the
issue is it just I I personally feel
that be nice to have a creative design
somewhere too, you know, something that
just welcomes you as you come over the
hillside like that. Um
it's too bad it can't have a beautiful
big tree or something in the middle of
it, but it seems like it can't, right?
Because it's too small. It has to
literally be you're rolling over that
thing if you need to roll.
>> Yeah. and sight lines and stuff, but
>> Okay. Yeah. Well,
» uh, okay.
>> As a property owner, of course. Yes.
We'll break call jump back into public
comment.
>> You don't have Bill and I spend a lot of
time.
>> Can you put need to talk? Bill and I
spend a lot of time in Lake County and
there all it is are what are those
things called? Roundabouts. They're the
greatest thing that were ever invented.
You're absolutely right. They're safe.
We have a big truck. We've had animals
in the back of our truck and you know,
they're not I wouldn't never hurt an
animal. So, I'll hurt a person first
before an animal, but um anyway, it
they're great. They work really well and
I don't I think it's a something that
should be considered. We I was on the
CAC, but I got there late, so I didn't I
don't know how it came out with this,
but it's one of the best things I've
ever seen. And it's in the dark and
they're lit up and you can see and
>> yeah, it's really good. We should demand
those circular things.
>> Well, there you go. And we have a little
property owner support, adjacent
property owner. And I'll add that if I'm
coming from the freeway turning left
into the bank,
>> somebody's on my butt, it's really hard
to turn left cuz they're like,
>> "Yeah." Okay,
>> I'm
>> There you go. That sounds like direction
is we'll ask the in engagement. We'll
ask about zero and two as kind of
>> spin around.
>> There we go. And uh maybe
>> 10:05 areas area E final area.
>> Easy. Last one's easy, but
Next slide.
So, uh the issue here is uh creating a
multi-use paved path. And then the
second issue was whether we um promote
use of the tunnel or how we promote use
of the tunnel to the east side of
Woodside. Next slide.
Um so the multi-use path on the north
side was supported uh by the majority of
the CAC. The south side is very
difficult due to a lot of variable
shoulder conditions. Um so the north
side the challenge is we need to
meaningfully connect it to the um
multimodal underpass and yeah just
getting across Woodside Road in the safe
way. Uh concept two was the open tunnel
under I280.
It's currently open, but it really could
use some enhancement to make it more
attractive for use and better more
intentional trail access. Um, apparently
it's quite difficult to get to um or
it's just not inviting at all. Uh, so
minority support generally, but strong
support from Woodside Hill residents.
>> Great. Okay. Any additional questions on
this?
All right. Any comments from the public?
Uh, hi. Welcome, Mr. Duker.
>> Something once. Okay. So, I just cuz,
uh, some of this probably came for me
and maybe got We were in the same place
as you are. Super late at night.
Everybody's tired, right? We were in the
same same place as you guys are tonight.
On Monday when we discussed this,
everybody's super tired. So to put a
point on it, there was a super strong
support from Woodside Heights and
Woodside Hills residents for the path
along Woodside Road connecting from the
path that's getting built right now that
Lewis is working on. Right. So we have a
path coming from the high school to 280.
Let's please extend that from 280 to
Town Center. You get 100. You had very
strong support for that in the CAC and
from those residents. The tunnel in 280.
I actually walked it with my dogs today.
The challenge we have it's a great
asset. It's actually possible to walk
from Town Center to Barkley Park. It's
beautiful. There's amazing trails the
whole way. The tunnel's open, but
there's not this is not a access for
like safe routes to school. It's a
hiking trail. It's like hike with your
dog. So, it's it's it's a it's it's
apples and
use your metaphor bicycles, right? To
completely different. So, you guys I
know haven't been there and haven't seen
it. I would just concept 2 is not going
to help us provide connectivity for
people and bikes and safe rest of
school, but it'd be a great hiking thing
to clean up a little bit.
>> Thank you, Dan.
Okay. Uh seeing no other public comment,
we'll close public comment. Any uh
anyone want to take a shot at direction?
>> Yeah, I will.
>> Okay, sir. I've been through that tunnel
on the uh I'll call it the north side of
280 and up to Barkley Park and it is is
not going to be of appeal to the general
public. Um it just it's just not
okay.
>> Yeah. Let me echo that because it's my
just they play it all the time. I live
in Woodside Hills. um that tunnel you it
is not what people think it is and um I
suspect that a lot of the people from
Woodside Hills who mention that tunnel
have never walked through that tunnel.
First it's hard to get there. When you
get there you end up in a place in the
Glenns which is not very convenient
either uh to get in there. So it's not
it's it's not kind of what it's cracked
up to be. Um, I think a better idea,
this is a little bit off track here, but
um, and it's late, is I think getting
people to that north side multi-use
trail from Woodside Hills would be
useful. And you could do that by going
to the end of Toto Elm Mundo and
possibly getting up, you know, that way
and avoiding that tunnel to be perfectly
frank. Um, so I'm couldn't complete uh I
like the idea of the multi-use path on
the north side which connects up with
what Dan and Lewis are are working on
now um with Calran. So that's a really
good way to hook those things up and
make it work. Right.
>> Great. And I'll just say the idea of at
least conceptually somebody being able
to walk to the their high school is a
good one. Um, and so it's a good goal to
have.
>> That's it.
>> Totally agree. I think con concept one
is a great idea. We should, the kids in
Woodside should be able to walk to their
high school. Um, I think we've talked
about this um, in other council
meetings. Um, and I think there's, you
know, from what I have observed, a lot
of support for a multi-use path on the
north side. So, very supportive of this
idea.
» I agree. Perfect. We're good on concept
one. Thank you.
Is there any other direction you need
from us tonight?
» We have a break, but we still have
parking,
land use, and public space. They are,
however, much shorter. We only have one
break and discussion point for each of
those topics.
>> Yeah, we're going to continue. That's a
good call. Is you guys okay continuing?
I'm sorry. To another meeting.
>> I'm supportive of continuing.
>> Yeah.
>> Keep it going.
No. You mean continuing or continuation
to another time?
>> Continuation to another
>> another time.
>> Continuation.
>> Okay.
>> We prefer to go to another time.
>> Okay. Okay. We're going to
>> continue this meeting to another time.
>> Another great
>> moment. Uh but thank you so much. Uh
yeah, it's like we tell our kids, no
good decisions happen after 10 p.m.
>> Um okay. Well, very good. Thank you so
much.
>> Appreciate it. Great job. Seriously, I
very impressive stuff.
>> All right, all we've got left is
reports. So, any uh volunteer committee
reports?
>> Just a reminder that the Mayday fun run
registration pre-registration closes
this Thursday evening uh for Saturday's
event and we highly
urge everybody to pre-register so the
morning of is not as crazy. Thank you.
>> Okay, very good.
>> I have one announcement,
>> sir. Um I was elected to be vice chair
of the San Francisco airport um the
community roundt that we participate in.
Um they actually wanted me to be chair
but in keeping with tradition I what
sorry um
>> I broke the tradition. Um but anyway
that was uh and and the interesting
thing is that Woodside I I'm going to
say something probably controversial
here. Um, I don't hear a whole lot from
our constituents and citizens about
airport noise. I'm not saying we
airplane noise. I'm not saying we don't
have it. I'm not saying that it doesn't
exist. There are people who complain
about it, but this ain't Milbury or
South San Francisco or, you know, a lot
of cities that just live with this
stuff, they can't sleep at night. Uh,
that doesn't happen here. I haven't
heard any planes here tonight either.
Um, so it's not a big deal. And I think
that the that it puts us in a unique
position on the round table where I
don't really have a dog in the fight
which makes it a little bit easier for
us to u um assert some stuff and we're
actually already making some pretty
significant changes. So I'm hoping that
we'll have some good news to report on
that. I'm working with Steve Raldi who
is the vice mayor of Milbury and should
be chair and he is chair and uh to to
sort of make some changes that I've been
involved with this group since 1999
and uh nothing has happened of note
since 1999 that I've been there and
hopefully we can make some changes.
>> Wonderful and congratulations on your
position.
Anything else?
Okay. Well, very good. Then we will call
it at 10:13.