[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.