[0:19] Okay. All right. We're going to go ahead

[0:21] and call the meeting to order and think

[0:24] we have an echo. We got Okay. We're

[0:27] going to begin with the pledge of

[0:28] >> allegiance.

[0:38] One nation under God, indivisible, with

[0:41] liberty and justice for all.

[0:46] >> All right. Roll call.

[0:47] >> Chair Gar

[0:49] >> here.

[0:50] >> Vice Chair Tobert

[0:51] >> here.

[0:51] >> Commissioner Weaver

[0:52] >> here.

[0:53] >> And Commissioners Evans and Ganero are

[0:55] noted absent.

[0:58] >> Great. Uh are there any changes to the

[1:00] agenda?

[1:01] >> Um there are no changes to the agenda.

[1:04] Uh however, you have two desk items. Um

[1:07] one is from a member of the public. Uh

[1:09] she's um brought up some concerns

[1:12] related to unpermitted improvements and

[1:15] the equestrian trail easement for our

[1:18] only public hearing tonight, which is

[1:20] item number two. Um she's also uh

[1:23] brought up some questions about

[1:24] landscaping in the right of way. And um

[1:27] in response to that, those are items

[1:28] that will have to be dealt with um in

[1:31] any event. But it also in response to

[1:32] that, we've included a few extra

[1:34] conditions of approval uh just to ensure

[1:37] that those unpermitted um improvements

[1:39] are taken out of the trail easement and

[1:42] that they work with the public works

[1:43] department uh to determine what if

[1:46] anything can remain in the public right

[1:48] away regarding the landscape elements.

[1:50] Um and then uh lastly in the um desk

[1:53] item resolution, it's just a formatting

[1:56] change that we're doing with all of our

[1:58] staff reports for formal design review.

[2:00] It's just the leadin to the findings and

[2:02] so we've just revised that for our new

[2:04] uh updated format, but it doesn't have

[2:06] any substantive change. Um and then

[2:09] Jillian will present the project when we

[2:10] get to that item. All right.

[2:13] >> Okay. Thanks. We're going to move to uh

[2:15] public communications. If there are

[2:17] members of the public either here or on

[2:19] Zoom have a comment about an item not on

[2:22] the agenda tonight, uh now is the time.

[2:25] And for those online, please use a raise

[2:27] hand feature if you'd like to make a

[2:28] comment.

[2:31] » There are no raise hands.

[2:37] » All right. Uh we are going to move on

[2:40] then to the consent agenda. So aimed

[2:44] tonight, I believe the first item we

[2:45] have is the minutes. So uh approval of

[2:48] the May 20th, 2026 minutes is the first

[2:52] piece. And does anyone have any comments

[2:54] on the minutes? Uh as written.

[3:03] » I move that the minutes from May 20th be

[3:05] approved.

[3:10] » Chair Weaver.

[3:12] I'm sorry. Excuse me. Chair Gar.

[3:15] >> Yes.

[3:16] >> Vice Chair Tober.

[3:18] Commissioner Weaver.

[3:20] >> Yes.

[3:20] >> You

[3:24] okay? Uh well, in that case, we're going

[3:26] to move on to the uh the public hearing

[3:29] for the first item, which is 170 Fox

[3:31] Hollow Road.

[3:46] Uh everyone hope you're having a great

[3:48] start to your week. Um, this

[3:49] presentation is going to include a brief

[3:51] analysis for formal design review uh to

[3:53] demolish an existing single family

[3:55] dwelling

[3:58] school and associated site improvements

[4:00] and construction of a new single family

[4:01] main residence with an attached garage

[4:04] and attached studio ADU. Two detached

[4:08] accessory dwelling units, a detached

[4:11] trellis, a pool and associated site

[4:13] improvements on a lot located at 170 Fox

[4:17] Road. The project does require approval

[4:20] of a maximum mean resident size

[4:21] exception as well as a grading exception

[4:24] for site grading in excess of 1500 cubic

[4:27] yards. Um the desk items as mentioned

[4:30] earlier are pertaining to this

[4:32] particular item and the project is

[4:34] categorically exempt from the provisions

[4:36] of SQA.

[4:39] As a quick overview, the subject

[4:40] property is about 3.013 acres and it's

[4:44] located at the end of Fox Hollow Road.

[4:46] It is currently developed with a single

[4:48] family main residence, a pool and

[4:50] associated site improvements which we

[4:52] can see a little bit on the existing

[4:53] plans here on the right. Site slopes

[4:56] upward from Foxall Road and contains

[4:57] numerous significant trees along the

[4:59] peripheries of the property. Large

[5:01] portions of the existing tree stands

[5:03] existing east, south, and west of the

[5:05] existing main residence.

[5:08] We can see here that the applicant is

[5:10] proposed to construct a new single

[5:12] family main residence which is the

[5:14] L-shaped structure that you see

[5:16] approximately in the center of the lot

[5:18] here. Um near the general location of

[5:21] the existing main home which we can see

[5:23] dashed outlined in the center as well.

[5:27] Um the attached garage is towards the

[5:30] front of the structure where my cursor

[5:31] is and then the detached um the attached

[5:35] studio ADU is uh partially daylighted

[5:37] and it's under this portion of the

[5:39] residence. Um this is the proposed pool

[5:41] ADU up here. Trellis is dashed over

[5:45] adjacent to the pool. And then we have

[5:48] new guest ADU adjacent to a proposed

[5:50] autoc court. Um the driveway here has

[5:53] been rerouted from the lower portion of

[5:56] the property frontage to the northward

[5:57] portion of the property frontage. Uh we

[6:01] can see that outlined here in the darker

[6:03] gray.

[6:06] Here's a quick overview of the main

[6:08] residence elevations.

[6:11] Um we can see that the main residence

[6:14] employs one and twostory elements. Um

[6:17] which helps to break up that massing a

[6:19] little bit. Um, we have covered patio

[6:21] spaces adjoining adjoining the front and

[6:23] the rear property facads and the

[6:26] building contains medium to high pitch

[6:28] gable roofs connected by a series of

[6:30] small breezeways.

[6:32] Um, we can see that there is also some

[6:35] glazing that is oriented towards these

[6:37] outdoor living spaces.

[6:41] The form of the accessory uh dwelling

[6:43] units that are detached from the main

[6:45] house are complimentary to the main

[6:46] house structure. where they have medium

[6:48] pitch gable roots as well. Um, and you

[6:52] can see uh relatively low visual

[6:55] footprint on that trellis adjacent.

[7:00] Here's a brief overview of the colors

[7:02] and materials palette. You also have

[7:04] physical material samples to your left

[7:06] on the table uh for a little bit of a

[7:09] better idea of what those look like in

[7:10] person. Um the main house contains

[7:13] weathered wood siding, rubble stone

[7:15] walls, standing sea metal roofs, patina

[7:17] steel doors, windows, metal railing, and

[7:19] metal cladding. Um we have an assortment

[7:22] of earth tones including browns, grays,

[7:25] um charcoal gray leaning towards black

[7:28] and um similar materials are being

[7:31] proposed in conjunction with the

[7:32] detached ADUs including wood siding,

[7:34] steel doors and windows, stone veneer,

[7:36] and standing seam metal roofs as well in

[7:38] the same colors and materials palette.

[7:41] On September 15th of last year, this

[7:44] project did go before the architectural

[7:46] and site review board for conceptual

[7:47] design review. The applicant was

[7:49] commended for their colors and materials

[7:51] choices as well as their simple forms,

[7:53] but the ASRB did request that they make

[7:56] some tweaks to the fenistration on the

[7:58] building as well as um the site grading

[8:01] to minimize that to the greatest extent

[8:03] possible. The project did return on May

[8:06] 18th for formal design review and at

[8:09] that time the architectural and site

[8:11] review board deemed that the project had

[8:13] satisfied all their outstanding design

[8:16] concerns.

[8:20] Um big meat of tonight's analysis will

[8:24] be pertaining to the grading exception

[8:26] um which is the planning commission

[8:29] angle that was not addressed by the

[8:30] architectural insight review board. As

[8:33] mentioned earlier pursuant to section

[8:35] 151.22 of the municipal code. Um this

[8:38] grading exception is required because

[8:40] the grading for the proposed site

[8:42] exceeds 1500 cubic yards. We have a pro

[8:46] a proposal of approximately 2560 cubic

[8:48] yards of sight specific grading that

[8:50] doesn't include things such as like the

[8:52] basement or the pool cuts. Those are

[8:54] excluded from that valuation. Um the

[8:56] municipal code does allow the planning

[8:58] commission to approve a site grading

[9:00] exception so long as the findings that

[9:02] you can see here on the right side of

[9:04] the slide are met. After reviewing the

[9:07] proposed project, staff believes that

[9:09] the project plans meet the findings

[9:10] required to grant a grading exception. A

[9:13] comprehensive review of the overview of

[9:16] um the stat the staff determination is

[9:18] available in the staff report if you

[9:19] want details regarding uh the detail uh

[9:22] sorry the various facets of the project

[9:25] that came to that determination. Um but

[9:27] we are happy to provide an overview of

[9:29] both the required findings as well as

[9:33] the project details that we believe

[9:35] support the findings if additional

[9:37] information is required from you.

[9:39] >> We ask questions now or should we wait

[9:40] till the end of the presentation? Um,

[9:43] that's the brief overview of everything.

[9:47] Um, I just want to flag we do have

[9:49] members of the team here available to go

[9:52] over both the architectural angle and

[9:53] the grading angle. Um, so if you have

[9:56] anything that's not clearly covered by

[9:58] the staff report, they will be able to

[9:59] help. But otherwise, I'm able to answer

[10:01] some question.

[10:02] >> I just had one actually on the on on

[10:03] this slide particularly which is just so

[10:05] we're understanding the finding, right,

[10:08] which is

[10:09] >> the constraints finding. Mhm.

[10:11] >> So when it's saying there no significant

[10:13] physical constraints related to grading.

[10:15] So just want to make sure I'm reading

[10:16] this correctly which is if if lock

[10:19] configuring topography

[10:21] uh removal of significant trees. So it's

[10:23] basically saying that we have to find

[10:24] that there's no removal of significant

[10:28] trees required or is it are we

[10:31] interpreting that correctly?

[10:36] Um I think it's to look at this kind of

[10:38] holistically with all of these different

[10:39] items. So any one of these things could

[10:41] be a significant constraint to grading.

[10:43] Um so uh trees sometimes are a

[10:46] significant constraint. Uh you know it

[10:48] doesn't mean you can't remove any trees

[10:50] but an effort to try to preserve some of

[10:52] the trees on site. Um sometimes that has

[10:54] to do with why grading is occurring. Um

[10:57] other times you may be dealing with

[10:59] other constraints such as septic systems

[11:01] and areas where you sometimes can't um

[11:05] balance your grading on site. Those are

[11:07] other things that are considered. So,

[11:08] it's just kind of looking at each of

[11:09] those items and are are those things

[11:12] that uh would not be significantly

[11:15] impacted by the proposed grading. Um, so

[11:18] you would not impact your septic

[11:19] systems, your groundwater, the you know

[11:22] landslide areas, all those things would

[11:23] have to be dealt with appropriately.

[11:27] >> Thank you.

[11:33] Um that's pretty much the overview of

[11:36] the project. As mentioned, um detailed

[11:38] findings are available in the staff

[11:40] report as well as the draft resolution.

[11:43] Um, but happy to answer any questions

[11:45] pertaining to how staff came to our

[11:47] recommendation or any further questions

[11:50] on the grading exception in and of

[11:52] itself or if you have any questions on

[11:53] the maximum main resident size exception

[11:56] which is also um needed for approval in

[11:58] conjunction with this project. Happy to

[12:00] help answer any questions.

[12:06] » Yes, I had a couple of brief questions.

[12:09] Um in this case the maximum resident

[12:12] size exception is purely formulaic and

[12:16] if the grading exemption was not

[12:18] required this uh particular project

[12:21] would not have come to planning

[12:22] commission.

[12:23] >> That's correct.

[12:23] >> Okay. Um the second question is related

[12:27] to equestrian access

[12:30] along the rightway on Fox Hollow Road.

[12:34] um made a second site visit this

[12:36] afternoon with that in mind and it looks

[12:40] like going on Fox Hollow Road that the

[12:43] horse path such as it is

[12:46] um crosses the road a couple of times

[12:49] based on the slope immediately where the

[12:52] asphalt ends and where trees are and and

[12:55] so it goes back and forth across the

[12:57] road. Does the town ha um

[13:03] if the town uh by virtue of the road has

[13:06] an easement along both sides of the

[13:08] road, do we actively defend the easement

[13:11] on both sides of the road if on one side

[13:14] of the road it's clear that there really

[13:17] isn't any effective um um equestrian

[13:20] access?

[13:25] So, it's a public road, so I' I'd have

[13:27] to look at maps, but my guess is that

[13:29] the trail is it within the public right

[13:31] of way. Um, so it wouldn't necessarily

[13:33] be uh a dedicated easement. So, um if

[13:37] there's any trails within the right of

[13:39] way, they're allowed to be there. They'd

[13:41] be maintained and um the way they're set

[13:44] up is usually what how best suits the

[13:46] topography or what's been out there. Um

[13:48] but trail easement on the property,

[13:50] that's a dedicated easement. the town um

[13:53] maintains those easements. Uh but as

[13:56] noted earlier, they'll have to

[13:58] >> but the rule is you're not allowed to

[14:00] have an improvement on the easement even

[14:03] if it's an impracticable easement from

[14:07] the standpoint of walking or riding or

[14:10] being used at all.

[14:11] >> There's encroachment permits can be

[14:13] granted an easement similar as they are

[14:16] in public rightways. Um, trail easements

[14:19] are generally to be kept free and clear,

[14:21] but if there's some reason for some type

[14:23] of improvement, that would be looked at

[14:24] by public works and technically the

[14:27] process would be to get an encroachment

[14:28] permit.

[14:30] And then the final point would be in the

[14:34] context of looking at equestrian access

[14:38] to the trail that runs along the edge of

[14:40] the property where that is located at

[14:44] the very end of the culdesac

[14:47] where a number of properties come

[14:49] together. They're quite large

[14:51] properties. They have nice outdoor

[14:53] landscaping. They have pools. I suspect

[14:56] that quite often people would have

[14:58] rather large parties out there. And the

[15:03] question came up in my mind is

[15:06] um does the town ever put up no parking

[15:10] signs where the trail access point

[15:13] begins to ensure that during a party

[15:16] that the valet doesn't block the

[15:18] equestrian trail access?

[15:20] >> That's a good question. Um I have to

[15:23] talk to public works. I I mean I think

[15:25] it's something we can easily pass on to

[15:26] them as a concern. Uh and because you

[15:29] were correct obviously it'd be very bad

[15:32] if they blocked the trail and the horse

[15:34] was trying to get out of it especially.

[15:37] I mean I know that there are other

[15:39] locations where such trails start and

[15:43] there's a gate but like in my

[15:46] neighborhood I know that there are

[15:48] certain locations where in 20 years I've

[15:50] never seen vehicles parked but it seemed

[15:52] like out here at the end of the

[15:53] culde-sac that that would be a prime

[15:56] location for the equestrian trail to be

[15:59] blocked by vehicles parked there.

[16:02] >> Yeah. No, that's it's a very good

[16:03] question. We'll definitely follow up

[16:05] with public works to see if some I think

[16:07] some good signage there would be

[16:09] important.

[16:10] >> That is all I had.

[16:17] » Well, a few questions. Um, and we'll

[16:19] probably get into them a bit more when the applicant presents as well, but

[16:24] just interested in the ASRB sort of the

[16:26] context of some of the discussion there.

[16:28] Mhm.

[16:28] >> Um, you know, so I went went to the site

[16:31] earlier and and and looked at it and I

[16:33] mean it's interesting that the mask kind

[16:35] of hits you when you when you go there

[16:37] it's it's uh it's it's sort of oh that's up there kind of turning your

[16:42] head up which is a little bit uh not not

[16:45] super typical in Woodside. Um and I'm

[16:47] sort of interested in in the discussions

[16:49] around you know mass and bulk. saw they

[16:50] had um asked about the the sort of the long or the short ends, right? And and sort of stepping back which um

[17:00] which it looks like was done in a in an

[17:01] iteration. At the same time, there's the

[17:04] longest sort of

[17:06] um lack of a better term sort of slab

[17:09] sides of the twotory structures are, you

[17:12] know, single material,

[17:15] no variation in terms of all of that,

[17:17] which

[17:18] when I look at the design guidelines,

[17:20] mass and bulk, it's it's a little bit

[17:22] different in terms of how that reads

[17:23] versus what I see in the design. I'm

[17:24] just curious, was that discussed in

[17:26] ASRB? because I saw them sort of

[17:28] commending but at the same time some of

[17:29] these pieces seem a little bit different

[17:31] than what we see in the design

[17:32] guidelines.

[17:33] >> Yeah, absolutely. Um I did pull a couple

[17:35] slides um kind of showing the changes um

[17:39] that occurred between conceptual and

[17:42] formal design review. Is that showing up

[17:43] for you guys on the screen? Okay. Down

[17:45] there. Okay, great. Um so actually they

[17:48] did commend the materials pallet

[17:51] especially um and the simple forms of

[17:53] the structure. So those were areas that

[17:55] they actually highlighted some

[17:57] appreciation for um as seen in the CDR

[18:00] action letter. Um their primary concerns

[18:03] as it pertained to the actual structures

[18:06] um and these were matters that were

[18:08] rectified prior to formal design review.

[18:11] You can see here um CDR difference

[18:13] between

[18:14] the fenestration that we see on the

[18:17] south and north elevations. Um they did

[18:20] some substantial decreases um in the

[18:23] amount of windows and glazing on the

[18:25] facades of the buildings uh just because

[18:27] they had expressed concerns regarding

[18:29] light emission. But that was really the

[18:31] central piece of commentary from the

[18:34] architectural and site review board as

[18:35] it pertained to the actual structure

[18:38] designs. Um and they felt as though

[18:41] these modifications as we see on the

[18:43] lower level here had sufficiently

[18:45] rectified those concerns. In all out,

[18:48] they they did discuss the the mass. I I think it'd really at the they they um

[18:54] they kind of looked at the simplicity as

[18:56] a positive and with that, you know, be

[19:00] given the different kind of wings at the

[19:01] end with the lower levels. Uh they

[19:03] didn't have any direction to further

[19:05] break up this larger center mass.

[19:09] You next question is about so about the

[19:11] grading itself. Um so the the finding

[19:15] that it was you're asking about the

[19:17] language of before so finding a where

[19:19] it's talking about essentially

[19:20] constraints on the the grading right uh

[19:25] it does seem like there's removal of

[19:27] trees that are associated with this

[19:30] >> and so can you talk a little bit about

[19:32] maybe take us through some of the

[19:33] details on uh how the specific areas of

[19:37] grading

[19:40] well essentially just how that all ties

[19:42] together, right, in terms of tree

[19:44] removal and grading and relocation of

[19:46] the driveway, etc., etc., etc.

[19:48] >> Yeah, absolutely. And the applicant can

[19:50] speak in a little bit more detail. Um,

[19:52] are you specifically concerned with the

[19:54] ASRB's initial comments regarding

[19:56] grading and topography um relative to

[19:59] this constraint or um more so to the

[20:02] constraint itself relative to the final

[20:04] site condition? I mean really trying to

[20:05] understand if if if we can make the

[20:07] finding as contingent on you know those

[20:09] constraints not being there. So I'm just

[20:12] trying to get get a sort of more

[20:14] intuition for the degree to which things

[20:17] like the trees etc are potential

[20:19] constraints. Does that make sense?

[20:21] >> Okay, perfect. Sounds great. Um so

[20:23] here's a brief overview of the

[20:25] comprehensive site plan. Um we can see

[20:28] in here tree removal marked in the small

[20:31] red X's. Um, and as you can see

[20:34] throughout the site, um, these bubbled

[20:38] areas are representative of existing

[20:41] tree canopies that exist on the

[20:43] property. Um, so much like with other

[20:45] woodside properties, we're operating

[20:47] under a condition that there are some

[20:50] substantial quantities of trees out

[20:51] there. Um, and the code does allow for

[20:55] tree removal in conjunction with

[20:58] approved development permits. Um, in

[21:01] reading the applicants narratives

[21:05] regarding their grading selection and

[21:07] the locations in which they've chosen to

[21:09] orient their structures, um, one of the

[21:11] primary goals that they had highlighted

[21:13] was retaining the most significant

[21:14] amount of trees possible, especially as

[21:17] it came to um, balancing site grading.

[21:20] Typically, you'd be wanting to balance

[21:22] those quantities per the requirements of

[21:24] the code. um they are doing um an

[21:27] exception to balancing to avoid

[21:29] potential impacts and fill and cut uh

[21:32] regarding to those existing on-site

[21:34] trees. Um a lot of this orientation of

[21:38] the site is centered around existing

[21:41] development to the greatest extent

[21:43] possible. We can kind of see as

[21:44] mentioned earlier we do have the dashed

[21:47] existing structure. this lawn area does

[21:50] have a significant degree of overlap

[21:52] with the existing flat topography on the

[21:55] property. Um so there are areas in which

[21:58] tree removal is being done in

[22:00] conjunction with the proposed

[22:02] improvements. However, uh given that the

[22:05] site is heavily vegetated um to some

[22:09] degree the tweaking kind of runs us up

[22:11] against that problem regardless. Um but

[22:15] I think the applicant can speak in

[22:17] greater detail if there's anything uh

[22:19] regarding specific tree removal

[22:21] specifications.

[22:23] Um but they did highlight that that was

[22:26] essential part of their grading design

[22:28] was um minimizing impact on those

[22:30] existing trees as much as possible

[22:32] especially as it pertained to balancing

[22:34] fill on site. And yeah, I'll just add as Jillian's noted the the tree removal

[22:39] are some of the smaller trees and

[22:41] they're in the areas of the proposed

[22:42] development for primarily the structures

[22:46] um but some with the autoc court and

[22:48] then they you know they've chose to

[22:51] redirect the driveway um but they're

[22:54] also trying to be careful of avoiding

[22:56] those larger trees in the front. That's

[22:58] part of some of the grading that

[23:00] occurred for the driveway. And then per

[23:02] the ASRB's recommendations as well,

[23:04] we'll ensure that there's an arborist uh

[23:06] report completed um and that the they

[23:10] have an arborist on site specifically

[23:12] with any of the grading around the

[23:13] trees.

[23:17] » Okay. Can you help point out on this

[23:19] diagram

[23:22] it looks like it's the red

[23:27] » Sorry if the resolution's a little bad.

[23:29] Pull up the site plan. So, um, we have

[23:33] this is kind of showing the development

[23:34] on the lower half of the property. I'll

[23:36] scroll up whenever you're ready. Um,

[23:38] just that you can see kind of the tree

[23:40] removal on the upper portion.

[23:42] >> You'll see the one in the autoc court

[23:44] and then couple in the footprint of the

[23:46] buildings. So, that's the ADU and then

[23:49] that's the main residence and then

[23:51] there's some more um kind of near right

[23:54] near the other accessory structures and

[23:57] the pool area.

[24:02] Okay, sounds good. Yeah. Do we do we

[24:06] have in the plans the the details of

[24:08] those?

[24:12] » Yeah, I can there

[24:14] >> pull it up real quick. I'm going to get

[24:17] the higher resolution up so we can

[24:18] actually read.

[24:50] Oh, was sorry didn't switch over.

[24:53] looking at something completely

[24:54] different than you guys.

[25:30] So, um, not clearly xed out on here, but

[25:34] you can see some of the labeling here. 6

[25:38] in oaks, 10 inch oaks.

[25:42] Within the footprint, you have 10.1

[25:46] by one.

[25:52] » They're significant trees or I'm looking

[25:55] here. It doesn't look like they're

[25:57] >> Yeah, there. So, so I'd have to remember

[25:59] the certain sizes. Um, some of those are

[26:02] close to significant or maybe like that

[26:04] 14-inch oak be a significant tree. Um,

[26:07] yeah, I think a 13 inch once you get to

[26:09] the 10 in and below, um, those would not

[26:11] be significant trees. Um, just a

[26:14] reminder to us all when you say 13-inch

[26:16] tree, is that diameter or circumference?

[26:18] >> Very good question. That's diameter.

[26:36] to

[26:50] » good evening. Jim, Toby, Liam Braves

[26:52] Engineering, um with Civil Engineers on

[26:53] the project. And as um Julian and Sage

[26:56] are showing you here, you can see a lot

[26:57] of the trees, they're um kind of xed

[26:59] out. But um as the architect and the um

[27:03] design team all together tried to figure

[27:05] out what we can do out here, we really

[27:07] tried to make sure that some of the more

[27:08] major trees, if you kind of go to the

[27:10] next page, Julian, if you would please,

[27:11] in 2.2, you can see like for instance on

[27:14] the left hand side, kind of between the

[27:16] driveways over to the left more where

[27:18] your cursor is, you see some pretty

[27:20] significant trees. Um there's a lot of

[27:22] significant trees that have been worked

[27:23] around like those are 25 in 24in oak

[27:26] trees pretty nicer oak trees than some

[27:28] of the ones we're saving also in the

[27:30] driveway. Um sorry go back to the other

[27:32] page you were just at C 2.1 you can kind

[27:35] of see right there you exactly right

[27:38] there you can see there's some

[27:38] significant trees that that are being

[27:40] worked around lit the driveway is

[27:42] literally being moved around so it works

[27:44] around those existing larger oaks um

[27:47] trying to make this work. Um, in terms

[27:49] of a lot of the grading on there, you

[27:50] know, one of the big things that

[27:51] Woodside requires or tries to push on us

[27:54] is to try to balance grading. Um, the

[27:57] way the code reads in Woodside is that

[27:58] the balance, it's the site grading, not

[28:00] so much the the foundation and the

[28:02] basement grading, but you're trying to

[28:03] balance the site grading. And we're

[28:05] actually pretty darn close on that based

[28:06] on what we're trying to make work. You

[28:08] know, it is a big site, but there's a

[28:10] lot of constraints in the way. We have

[28:11] trees, we have septic, um we have a lot

[28:14] of the required items such as firet

[28:16] truck access, firet truck turnarounds.

[28:19] Um we have to provide a retention pond

[28:21] for storm water quality. So there's a

[28:23] lot that goes into all this and when you

[28:25] start to add all those various things

[28:28] together, that's where you start to get

[28:29] some of these what look like bigger

[28:30] numbers of grading. Um so we really

[28:33] tried to do our best to try to balance

[28:34] that as much as we could and try to work

[28:36] around some of the more grand trees out

[28:38] there. Yes, there's some trees that are

[28:40] going to be going, but they're more of

[28:41] the smaller trees for the most part and

[28:43] trying to work around everything. So,

[28:46] um, and trying to take all of those

[28:47] various things into consideration. Um,

[28:51] we have a 3acre plus site here. Um, we

[28:53] have a lot of requirements that we have

[28:55] to work around and that's how we kind of

[28:56] came up with some of the numbers we did,

[28:58] but we did our best to try to balance as

[29:00] much as we could on the property.

[29:03] So, if you have any questions, I'm happy

[29:05] to answer them.

[29:15] I mean this distinction between smaller

[29:17] trees and and you referred to them as

[29:20] grand trees or we've talked about

[29:21] significant trees. Can you talk a little

[29:24] bit about the

[29:26] smaller trees that you're taking out and

[29:32] >> how big are they? just an idea versus

[29:36] this [clears throat] what we call

[29:37] significant trees or you refer to as the

[29:38] grand trees.

[29:39] >> You can see a lot of those trees right

[29:40] there. We're talking about, you know,

[29:42] >> I would say typically if I'm of all the

[29:44] projects I've worked on Woodside and in

[29:46] the greater Bay Area, the trees that

[29:48] people seem to be most concerned about

[29:50] are oak trees and we're trying to

[29:51] preserve a lot of those oak trees. So,

[29:53] we have some sycamore trees, we have

[29:54] some smaller oak trees there. It's

[29:56] really the bigger trees, the 24, the 36

[29:59] inch trees. We're refer to them a lot of

[30:01] times as heritage trees. Those are the

[30:04] grand trees that you see. We're trying

[30:05] to preserve those. Those are the kind of

[30:06] the what give you the grand view, but

[30:09] also the the the feeling that you're

[30:11] really in part of nature still. So,

[30:13] we're trying to work around those and

[30:15] preserve those as much as we can. So,

[30:17] given the that how many trees there are

[30:19] and trying to do, you know, the all the

[30:22] requirements we're trying to do, you can

[30:23] see that this kind of weird dash that's

[30:25] in the background right there, that's

[30:27] the required fire truck turnaround. Um

[30:29] there's a lot of things we do that take

[30:31] up a lot of room that are required. Um,

[30:33] septic's a good example as well as the

[30:34] firet truck turnaround. We're trying to

[30:37] work within all those rules and confines

[30:39] and just pure nature of the beast. We

[30:42] there are definitely some of the smaller

[30:44] trees that we're going to have to get

[30:45] rid of.

[30:46] >> And how big are they in diameter?

[30:48] >> Um, well, they're they're um if they're

[30:50] a 10-in tree, so we I would have to do

[30:52] the calculations, but you know, you're

[30:54] going you would have to go 2 pi r. So,

[30:56] whatever the radius is, half the radius.

[30:58] So 5 in tree 2 * 5 * pi would be you

[31:02] know 30 in something like that 30 in

[31:07] around for a 10-in tree.

[31:08] >> Yeah. And that's the circumference. I

[31:10] think he was just asking about the

[31:11] diameter. I

[31:11] >> was asking about

[31:13] >> Oh diameter is um

[31:14] >> that's what's shown on the plants.

[31:15] >> Yeah, that's right there. 10inch tree is

[31:16] the diameter.

[31:19] >> Most of the trees that you're cutting

[31:21] are less than 14 inch in diameter.

[31:23] >> I'd say the majority of them. Yes.

[31:25] They're they're between 10 and 14 in. We

[31:28] really trying to save some of the bigger

[31:29] ones. You can see that's 10. That's 13.

[31:32] Um, you can go around the plants.

[31:33] There's a bunch of different sheets

[31:35] there that go around the plants.

[31:36] Anywhere you have an X around that,

[31:38] that's um, you know, smaller tree.

[31:41] That's a 5-in Japanese maple right

[31:42] there. So, you know, we prioritize the

[31:46] bigger trees. That's always what we're

[31:47] trying to do and trying to work around

[31:48] those. And that's, you know, gives the

[31:50] not only the grand look of the site, but

[31:53] also preserves what are more of the more

[31:55] significant trees to nature. You're not

[31:57] cutting any trees above 20 in?

[31:59] >> I don't believe so.

[32:01] >> And you mentioned you mentioned a

[32:03] working around other constraints. You

[32:05] mentioned sewer. You mentioned can you

[32:08] just highlight the other constraints and

[32:09] how you've worked around them.

[32:11] >> Yeah. So, um being where we are in

[32:14] Woodside, we're nowhere near a sewer

[32:15] system. So, we are on septic. Um septic

[32:18] takes up a fair amount of room. Um

[32:20] Jillian, if you want to go back to that,

[32:22] there's actually at the end of the civil

[32:24] plan set, there's a there's a um SUIC

[32:26] plan. I can kind of show you how much

[32:28] room that really takes up. There we go.

[32:31] Um and you can see here there's two

[32:33] different color lines. There's um the

[32:34] blue lines are purple and the green

[32:36] lines. And what you're required to do in

[32:38] Woodside is is provide two sets of

[32:40] lines. You provide primary septic system

[32:42] lines and you provide expansions. You're

[32:45] really only installing the primary

[32:47] expansion, the primary lines. the

[32:48] expansion's there in case there's ever a

[32:50] problem, which I don't think I've ever

[32:52] seen in my lifetime, you know, any sites

[32:55] that really need that. I I wouldn't

[32:57] expect in the next hundred years that

[32:58] those those expansion lines would need

[33:00] to be used, but nonetheless, we have to

[33:03] provide for them by county code and for

[33:04] health and safety reasons. Um there's a

[33:07] whole bunch of places we're trying to

[33:08] work. We're trying to use the natural

[33:10] topography. You know, there's also a

[33:12] bunch of trees that are in that area

[33:13] we're maintaining and working around,

[33:16] but we decided that, you know, try to

[33:17] use the topography that's there. Try to

[33:19] use the existing where the existing

[33:21] house is now. Try to use where a lot of

[33:24] the developments happened and where we

[33:26] have more of a sloped area. That's where

[33:27] we're putting the septic. So, once the

[33:30] septic is installed, you'll never know

[33:32] it's there. It's all underground. But,

[33:34] we're trying to prioritize trees as well

[33:36] in those septic areas so that we work

[33:38] around them.

[33:40] Um, some of the other constraints are

[33:42] obviously the driveway. You know, fire

[33:44] department has very strict requirements

[33:45] as far as the how wide the driveway is,

[33:48] how steep it is, and at the end of the driveway, we have to

[33:52] put a fairly large fire truck turnound.

[33:54] So, we're making sure that's installed

[33:56] in there. So, between that and then

[33:59] also, if you can go to I think it's 31,

[34:03] you can go real quickly. Yeah. See up

[34:06] there in the top there's this what's

[34:07] called a bio retention area. This is

[34:09] something that's used for storm water

[34:10] quality. It's um think of it as kind of

[34:13] depressed planted area. Um general way

[34:16] to think about it is if you were to

[34:18] accidentally open your car door, you're

[34:20] a nice person, you care about the

[34:21] environment, you accidentally your

[34:23] Starbucks wrapper falls out. Um your car

[34:25] leaks a little oil, you don't even

[34:26] realize it. When it rains, that all gets

[34:29] picked up. And when what we do is we

[34:31] grab all that, you know, water that

[34:34] might have some hydrocarbons in it or

[34:36] might have some trash in it. It goes to

[34:38] this this bio retention area.

[34:40] Essentially, it acts as a filter. Any

[34:42] major trash gets stuck at the top.

[34:44] Anything that's kind of in in this in

[34:46] the water goes through kind of a planted

[34:49] area where the plants actually help

[34:50] decompose some of that um nasty water

[34:53] and stuff like that. And what goes out

[34:54] is more of a clean water. That's a

[34:56] requirement that's all throughout

[34:58] California now. So, but you can see just

[34:59] by the look of it, it takes up a fair

[35:02] amount of room. So, that's also a site

[35:03] consideration that we have to be careful

[35:05] of. And so we looked at try to find a

[35:08] area of the site that was kind of out of

[35:10] the way, wasn't going to um impact

[35:12] trees, wasn't going to cause a

[35:14] significant grading concern. And that's

[35:15] kind of how we end up where we did

[35:20] » question. It's a little bit difficult in

[35:22] the drawings to understand the specific

[35:25] cut bill areas.

[35:26] >> Can can we maybe would you be able to

[35:28] take us through that?

[35:30] >> Yeah. So, um, you can kind of see right

[35:33] here that the the var let's go down one

[35:35] page. We'll get the overall picture.

[35:37] There we go. Nope. The overall There we

[35:38] go. So, um, what we're doing here is

[35:42] we're trying to say, you know, the

[35:44] driveway comes in. We're keeping the

[35:46] kind of more sloped areas that are off

[35:48] to the right as you drive in or more top

[35:49] of the page, top right of the page

[35:51] there. Trying to keep that area natural.

[35:54] Everything else in the areas that have

[35:56] already been developed, those are the

[35:57] areas we're trying to do grading in. So

[35:59] you have things such as the roadway

[36:01] itself as you come in off the off Fox

[36:03] Hollow. You're having to dig down to put

[36:05] a roadway base in there. So you uh you

[36:07] know typical roadway, you know, you

[36:10] can't just drive on the dirt. You have

[36:11] to put down asphalt. You have to put on

[36:13] rock underneath it. All that gets

[36:15] contributed to how much grading you're

[36:17] doing. We're trying to match the

[36:19] existing grades as much as possible. But

[36:21] even when we're matching existing

[36:22] grades, we have to dig down to put the

[36:25] appropriate materials. Um, as you go

[36:27] around the property, you know, we've got

[36:29] in the backyard there the the the law

[36:31] the lawn area, which is basically taking

[36:33] up the area where the old original house

[36:35] was. We're going to be filling in the

[36:37] foundations for that original house.

[36:39] We're going to be filling that area a

[36:41] little bit in so that it's a little more

[36:42] level, a little more more usable area.

[36:45] And then, of course, the house itself

[36:46] has a basement, has a a driveway that

[36:49] goes down to the bottom level. All that

[36:51] is sight grading that we're using, but

[36:53] we're trying to minimize that. I would

[36:55] say in this case it's not so much we're

[36:56] taking a huge one small area and doing a

[36:59] massive amount of cut or fill or

[37:01] anything like that, but we're kind of

[37:02] spreading it out through most of the

[37:03] site to kind of just balance things out.

[37:09] » Can you maybe highlight the fill areas?

[37:11] >> The what?

[37:12] >> The fill areas.

[37:13] are going to be kind of

[37:14] over toward the left where the ADU is

[37:15] and the fire truck turn around and then

[37:18] also in the area in the back where the

[37:20] um we have a routine wall in the back um

[37:21] where the lawn is. That's along the the kind of large square back there.

[37:25] Yeah, right around there. That's got a

[37:27] couple feet of fill. Um, again, the

[37:30] driveway itself is cutting out and we're

[37:32] trying to place that fill somewhere. So,

[37:33] we're trying to balance. So, we're

[37:35] trying to do that kind of magical, you

[37:37] know, let's take some from over here and

[37:39] place it over here. So, those are the

[37:41] kind of the main areas. The driveway

[37:42] takes up a huge amount of it and we're

[37:44] using that kind of backyard to kind of

[37:46] place it still so that we can kind of,

[37:48] you know, balance that out. But by

[37:49] balancing it out, it also kind of makes

[37:51] a usable area for the client to be able

[37:52] to utilize and have what they would like

[37:55] to do, you know, to have they can enjoy

[37:57] their property.

[37:58] >> And when you fill there, how does that

[38:00] sort of look relative to the natural?

[38:04] >> Well, again, that whole area is an area

[38:06] that's already kind of flattened out.

[38:09] So, it kind of raises and falls where

[38:11] the old house was, where old landscape

[38:13] was and everything like that. And we're

[38:15] just kind of leveling it out. So, it's

[38:16] not an area that was already very hilly

[38:19] that we're cutting in or filling in or

[38:21] making it so it's unnatural. We're kind

[38:23] of just spreading it out and leveling

[38:25] that area out a little bit.

[38:30] uh with respect to the bio retention

[38:32] area when all the grading is complete

[38:36] and the site is developed what sort of

[38:39] square footage is that retention area um

[38:43] u um draining essentially

[38:48] >> I don't have that number exactly in

[38:49] front of me but it's several hundred

[38:50] cubic yards of grading um you can

[38:52] imagine that that area right there you

[38:54] know I would say that area is probably

[38:56] about 50 by 70 ft and What we have to do

[39:00] there is we have to dig down about 5 ft

[39:02] straight down and replace that that dirt

[39:06] that we took out. And then what gets

[39:07] replaced with is a combination of

[39:10] gravel. I have like 18 inches of gravel.

[39:13] Then we have what's called a bio

[39:14] retention mix. It's kind of a special

[39:16] soil that's just good for the

[39:19] environment, good for um filtering storm

[39:21] water. We have to import that soil

[39:23] because it's not the soil that's on

[39:24] site. the site, the soil that's on site

[39:27] is fairly clayy and we're looking for

[39:29] something that's kind of a combination

[39:31] of mulch and sand and everything that

[39:33] water can permeate through but also

[39:35] plants can grow in. Um and that that's a

[39:38] again that's that takes up a fair amount

[39:40] of grading just that one entity that's a

[39:42] requirement of the state to be able to

[39:44] put that in.

[39:45] >> Right. So that's included in the grading

[39:46] total now.

[39:47] >> Oh absolutely.

[39:48] >> Okay.

[39:48] >> Yeah. And then final question um the

[39:52] size of that retention basin that is

[39:54] sized for some nominal event is that

[39:57] sized for like a 5year rainfall event or

[40:00] 20 year or

[40:01] >> No, it's actually a little different

[40:02] than that. So um the way it works is you

[40:04] are required to provide a bio retention

[40:06] area that essentially 4% of the

[40:09] impervious areas on site that's driveway

[40:12] roof stuff like that. It's a little

[40:14] different than when you're talking about

[40:15] storm drainage when you're like get

[40:16] these events. Bio retention, ironically,

[40:19] is made for smaller rainfalls. So, we

[40:21] call it the first flush. You have the

[40:23] entire summer where it hasn't rained and

[40:26] that's where you can get stuff on the

[40:27] ground. You get gunk from your car that

[40:29] might fall out. You get trash that might

[40:31] fall out. You don't even realize it.

[40:34] It's that very first rainfall you get of

[40:35] the season that picks up the most

[40:37] dirtiest water and that gets

[40:39] transferred. Once the rains start, the

[40:42] vast majority of the um rain is clean

[40:45] because that's we've already got that

[40:46] first gunk. It's usually like the first

[40:48] rain, even if it is January and it's

[40:50] been raining all season, it's the first

[40:52] couple hours that rain that's really

[40:54] picking up the most and that's what

[40:55] we're trying to take with that. So, if

[40:57] we get an absolutely huge storm, it'll

[40:59] actually have a bypass that it goes

[41:01] right beyond that. it should go through

[41:03] pretty well, but when you get a really

[41:04] huge storm, then it goes on to what's

[41:06] called the retention system, which is

[41:08] another storm drain device we have to

[41:10] work on at Woodside that um basically

[41:13] retains the water. So, because we're

[41:15] changing the amount of impervious

[41:17] surface on the site, we're not able to

[41:19] let that water percolate into the ground

[41:20] as much. We don't want to exasperate the

[41:23] creeks. Creek creeks right down by

[41:24] closest to Woodside Road. There's that's

[41:26] where Bear Gold Creek is. um that's

[41:29] where we're going to be basically reme

[41:30] metering the storm water and releasing

[41:32] it at a slower rate. So we're kind of

[41:34] doing double duty and that also gets

[41:36] included in that calculation. We have to

[41:38] put these fairly large pipes in the

[41:40] ground. That also gets calculated in

[41:42] that that calculation so we can make

[41:43] sure that we're accounting for that for

[41:45] the amount of dirt we're moving around.

[41:47] So there's a lot of requirements just

[41:49] not only what the client wants to see

[41:50] out there but with all the regulations

[41:52] that either the town has or state of

[41:55] California has imposed on the town and

[41:56] we have to follow.

[42:00] » Thank you.

[42:01] >> You're welcome.

[42:05] Got

[42:12] » Hi, my name is Ken Lindstead. I'm the

[42:14] architect for the project. Um,

[42:15] Commissioner Gar, I think you asked

[42:17] about the the um the massing and you saw

[42:20] a twotory story polling that seemed

[42:23] large. Um, I wanted to say that the

[42:25] break up of a mass, it's something that

[42:27] I've employed on other projects, is to

[42:29] actually break up the building into

[42:31] several component parts so you're not

[42:32] looking at one massive structure. So,

[42:35] the idea is to have gaps between

[42:37] buildings. There is one twotory element.

[42:40] Um, I always think story polls look a

[42:42] little more um alarming than they will

[42:44] be in in kind of built form, but the the idea was to do simple forms but

[42:50] break up to several buildings. So, I

[42:52] just wanted to point out that it's not

[42:53] necessarily changing materials in the

[42:56] facade, but to just break up the

[42:58] buildings as separate masses. And then

[43:00] the other point I wanted to make is that

[43:03] um I think the intent around uh

[43:05] Woodsides kind of like trying to limit

[43:07] the grading is so that you don't reshape

[43:09] a site from its natural state into

[43:11] something else. And we are really doing

[43:13] almost all of our grading as I've looked

[43:16] at Jim's numbers in that central area.

[43:18] We're filling in a big hole where the

[43:20] current house is. But I think it when

[43:22] it's all done it's going to be more

[43:23] restorative to the original topography

[43:26] before the last remodel was done. So

[43:29] those are my comments.

[43:39] » Thank you.

[43:46] » Are there if there's any members of the

[43:48] public?

[43:49] >> Yes. Public comments. Um are there

[43:51] anyone in the anyone in the room or on

[43:53] Zoom who would like to comment on the

[43:56] project?

[43:58] There are no members of the public on

[43:59] Zoom.

[44:10] » Great. Okay. Then we will close the

[44:12] public hearing and we will move to

[44:13] commission discussion.

[44:16] >> Would you like to

[44:17] >> um

[44:19] Yes. Um, I mean, based on what we've

[44:22] heard tonight and with the revisions in

[44:26] the draft resolution,

[44:28] um, I can make the findings and have no

[44:31] problem with this project.

[44:36] » I'm in the same boat.

[44:41] » Okay. Um, yeah, I believe I can make the

[44:44] findings as well. The the one that I was

[44:48] eventually concerned about was the tree

[44:49] removal. It seems like that is not the

[44:52] significant trees. I mean, frankly, that 42 in oak is just like that. I

[44:59] mean, that's like a heritage tree. So,

[45:00] if that were going, that would be

[45:01] another story. Um, but I think that's

[45:04] been that's been effectively balanced.

[45:07] um

[45:08] yeah I mean we talked through the the

[45:10] design guidelines um

[45:13] sort of defer to both the ASRB and the

[45:16] architect on the the massing strategy be

[45:19] a personal choice but at the same time

[45:20] it's um you know from a making the

[45:22] findings standpoint and with that want

[45:25] to respect their decisions at the ASRB

[45:27] level and so with that I believe I could

[45:30] also make the findings for this

[45:34] anyone like to any further discussion or

[45:36] do we want to make a motion?

[45:40] » Um, I would move that we approve the

[45:43] amended res um draft resolution as

[45:46] provided to us this evening by staff.

[45:51] » Seconded.

[45:54] » Chair Gar.

[45:55] >> Yes.

[45:56] >> Vice Chair Tober.

[45:57] >> Yes.

[45:57] >> Commissioner Weaver.

[45:59] >> Yes.

[46:01] Okay. Um,

[46:04] the decision of a planning commission

[46:07] may be appealed to the town council. Uh,

[46:10] there is a 10-day calendar appeal period

[46:12] and additional information will be

[46:13] obtained by staff.

[46:16] With that, uh, good luck with the

[46:17] project and, um, thanks for your time

[46:19] tonight.

[46:28] » Yeah. And sorry

[46:32] and s are there any I don't see any

[46:34] reports on the agenda but is there

[46:35] anything that you

[46:36] >> No there's nothing further um we will I

[46:39] just want to update the exact date um

[46:43] the ADU ordinance that you all looked at

[46:46] uh we will be bringing that to the town

[46:49] council on

[46:53] speak um

[46:56] it will be on June June,

[47:00] I think June 28th. Um, so I just wanted

[47:03] to report that.

[47:04] >> Sorry, it's going to town

[47:05] >> to to town council on June 28th.

[47:08] >> And that's all I have to report at this

[47:10] time. And then, um, Sage, I've been out

[47:13] of the loop for a while. I perhaps

[47:14] missed it. Has the judge made any ruling

[47:18] on the litigation surrounding the

[47:20] parking lot expansion at Kinyatta

[47:22] Corners or is that still being

[47:24] >> There there is there was a um

[47:28] a decision no Jean if you're online if

[47:30] maybe

[47:31] >> yes I am there was a tenative um ruling

[47:34] issued and the parties are further

[47:37] briefing and so there is no final ruling

[47:39] yet.

[47:41] >> Is thank you. Is the tenative ruling

[47:43] public information?

[47:45] >> The the tenative ruling indicated that

[47:47] the town needed to um abandon the entire

[47:52] easement as opposed to a portion of the

[47:54] easement on on the back of the property.

[47:58] Uh and that is what's being further

[47:59] briefed at this point.

[48:02] All SE I'm sorry, all squa um challenges

[48:05] were rejected by the judge.

[48:09] » Okay. Thank you.

[48:11] >> You're welcome.

[48:14] >> So, that's all I have.

Planning Commission Regular Meeting - June 3, 2026

Transcript