[0:03] Hey, it is 7 o'clock, so we're going to

[0:06] call the town council meeting of March

[0:08] 10th, 2026 to order. Jennifer, will you

[0:11] take role?

[0:12] >> Council member Alberish

[0:14] >> here.

[0:14] >> Council member Brown

[0:15] >> here.

[0:15] >> Council member Gold here.

[0:17] >> Council member Wall

[0:18] >> here.

[0:19] >> Mayor Donowski

[0:20] >> here. Thank you. Uh and we'll move on to

[0:24] the pledge of allegiance. Council member

[0:26] Brown, will you lead us in the pledge of

[0:28] allegiance?

[0:38] for it stands nationisy.

[0:49] » Thank you, Dick.

[0:52] Okay, we're going to move on to public

[0:54] comment. So, persons wishing to address

[0:56] the council on non-aggendaized items

[0:59] that are within the jurisdiction of the

[1:00] town are invited to do so. Please note,

[1:03] however, that the council is not able uh

[1:06] we're actually got we have a one speaker

[1:08] to go first just in a moment. Uh we're

[1:11] not able to undertake extended

[1:12] discussions or to act on non-aggendaized

[1:14] items. Such items can be referred to

[1:16] staff for appropriate action which may

[1:18] include placement on a future agenda.

[1:21] This communication period is limited to

[1:22] five persons, three minutes each. Any

[1:25] additional persons will be heard at the

[1:27] end of regular business, and we're going

[1:29] to be sticking to that tonight. We have

[1:30] a lot of people here to talk about the

[1:32] housing element. So, we're going to make

[1:33] sure that we respect everyone uh who is

[1:36] here for an agenda item. So, we're going

[1:38] to take five speakers up front. And uh I

[1:41] am inviting our outside council, Rick

[1:45] Balanos, to speak first. And I'm doing

[1:47] this because we've had some specific

[1:48] requests from the public for an update

[1:50] on the situation with town manager Led

[1:53] Better. Mr. Balanos,

[1:56] welcome.

[1:57] >> Thank you.

[1:58] >> Please.

[2:03] » Very good. Can you hear me?

[2:05] >> Yes.

[2:06] >> Good evening. Good evening, mayor,

[2:07] members of the council, members of the

[2:09] public.

[2:11] My name is Richard Bologanos. I'm a

[2:13] partner with the law firm of Liber

[2:15] Cassidy Whitmore and I serve as outside

[2:17] counsel for the town of Woodside. My

[2:19] office is advising the town on the

[2:22] whistleblower report that was released

[2:24] to the public on February 19th by town

[2:26] manager Jason Ledbet. I wanted to

[2:29] provide a following summary of the

[2:31] events leading up to the publication of

[2:33] Mr. Leadbet's report and also provide a

[2:37] summary of the town's response to that

[2:39] report and the status of this matter.

[2:43] On January 13th of this year, following

[2:46] Mr. Lead Better's performance review,

[2:48] the town council approved an amendment

[2:50] to Mr. Led Better's employment

[2:52] agreement, by which he was given a

[2:55] $15,000 raise, increasing his annual

[2:57] salary to 315,000.

[3:00] On Tuesday, February 17th, Mr. Lead

[3:03] Better made a demand for payment of

[3:05] approximately $400,000 in a lump sum

[3:08] into his bank account. no later than

[3:11] midnight, Sunday, February 22nd.

[3:15] He indicated that if the council did not

[3:17] authorize this payment, he would release

[3:19] a whistleblower report, grind all town

[3:22] business to a halt, and make every

[3:24] public meeting all about the alleged

[3:26] claims in the report.

[3:29] The council met in close session to

[3:31] discuss this matter. In that closed

[3:33] session, Mr. Leb better repeated his

[3:35] demands and moved the payment deadline

[3:38] up to Friday, February 20th.

[3:42] The council rejected Mr. Leb better's

[3:44] demand and although his employment

[3:45] agreement provides for no severance in

[3:48] the event of his resignation,

[3:51] the council offered to work with Mr. Led

[3:53] Better to reach terms for an amicle

[3:55] settlement in accordance with his

[3:57] employment agreement while referring his

[3:59] complaints to the appropriate

[4:01] authorities for investigation.

[4:04] When advised of this, Mr. Leb better

[4:05] released his report to the public. As

[4:08] promised, the council has referred the

[4:10] report and Mr. Leb better's demands to

[4:13] the Santel County District Attorney with

[4:16] a request for investigation.

[4:19] The town staff and council are fully

[4:21] cooperating with the district attorney's

[4:23] office. Mr. Led Better's claims of

[4:25] gender discrimination and harassment

[4:27] have been referred to an independent

[4:28] investigator and that investigation is

[4:31] underway as well. Finally, I understand

[4:35] you will receive a public report tonight

[4:37] regarding the town's progress in meeting

[4:39] the milestones outlined in the town's

[4:42] certified housing element.

[4:44] Mr. Lead Better is currently on paid

[4:46] administrative leave as the above

[4:48] reference investigations are conducted.

[4:51] My office is now reviewing documents to

[4:53] respond to several public records act

[4:55] requests for information and responsive

[4:58] documents will be released as soon as

[5:00] that review is completed.

[5:03] As indicated, the town council and staff

[5:06] are cooperating with all requests from

[5:08] the district attorney's office and the

[5:10] independent investigator.

[5:12] While these inquiries are ongoing, the

[5:14] council has been instructed

[5:16] that no further public comments are to

[5:18] be made and they are respecting that

[5:19] instruction in order to allow for a

[5:22] full, fair, and impartial inquiry to be

[5:24] undertaken. Thank you.

[5:27] >> Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Blanos.

[5:31] With that, uh, next speaker, and we're

[5:34] going to take five and then we're going

[5:35] to the rest are going to go at the end.

[5:37] So,

[5:37] >> Steve, Steve Luben, uh, I I'm distressed

[5:40] to hear the report you just heard. It

[5:43] indicates, you know, further kind of

[5:45] nonpublic investigation into this. Let

[5:49] me go into my statement. Reading the

[5:51] allegations against council members

[5:52] contained in Jason Jason Lebet's

[5:54] whistleblower letter, I am saddened and

[5:57] exasperated. The accusations are serious

[5:59] and not inconsistent with my personal

[6:01] experience. We must find a way to

[6:04] resolve this issue in order to restore

[6:06] the public trust. Right now, people are

[6:08] confused, upset, and trying to figure

[6:10] out the truth. I believe we need a truly

[6:13] independent investigation to clear this

[6:15] up. There should not be any appearance

[6:17] that council members are un unduly

[6:20] influencer interfering with this

[6:22] investigation.

[6:24] Please acknowledge that many people in

[6:26] town do not trust the town government is

[6:28] conducted in an open manner. There is a

[6:31] perception that issues are determined

[6:33] out of the public eye. Jason's letter

[6:36] reinforces this perception. An

[6:38] independent investigation

[6:41] and a really independent investigation

[6:43] is needed to determine the truth.

[6:46] Council members Dumbrosski and Gold

[6:48] should consider recusing themselves from

[6:49] any discussions involving this

[6:51] investigation. An investigation should

[6:54] be selected in a public process, not by

[6:56] the town attorney or the council behind

[6:59] closed doors. Please agendaize action on

[7:02] an independent investigation of these

[7:04] corruption claims at your next meeting.

[7:07] Let's work together to resolve this

[7:09] quickly.

[7:11] >> Okay. And as a reminder, the complaint

[7:13] will be addressed in an appropriate

[7:15] process, and we're here to respect that.

[7:17] >> Hi, Don Pew, a 55 year resident of

[7:20] Woodside.

[7:21] >> We're all aware and reading the news

[7:23] about the political crap that's going on

[7:25] in Washington DC and in Sacramento. But

[7:28] to realize this kind of crap is going on

[7:30] in Woodside is very distressing. Now I

[7:32] got to know Jason and I've worked with

[7:34] him. He's a great guy, very smart, very

[7:37] knowledgeable, very supportive of the

[7:38] things in the town, eager to help and I

[7:41] think he truly loved this town. But I

[7:43] was very distressed to read his

[7:45] complaint, but it follows on to some

[7:47] concerns that I've had for a while. So

[7:50] what brought it on? Political games crap

[7:53] by Brian Dowski and Chris Shaw. Those

[7:56] two people have been dealing this with

[7:58] the crap for a couple years now. This

[8:00] political garbage has been going on. It

[8:02] was apparent with a plan to bulldoze the

[8:04] open space at Kinyatta Corners. Brian,

[8:08] Chris, you were playing political games.

[8:11] Dishonesty, lies, deceit that supported

[8:13] the wealthy owner of the bakery, much to

[8:16] the detriment of the town citizens.

[8:19] Violation of the general plan, Brown Act

[8:21] violations, all goes back. We've been

[8:23] doing this for years now. Now, the issue

[8:26] for Kinyata Corn is still in litigation,

[8:28] but the town is going to lose because

[8:29] they had very shaky grounds to even

[8:32] start this whole thing from. So, Brian,

[8:35] you and Chris, why did you finagle to

[8:38] help a private business increase their

[8:40] profit? This is something I've yet to

[8:42] hopefully get out someday. Now, we need

[8:45] a real independent investigation to

[8:47] determine the allegations that Jason has

[8:51] made to make sure it's truthful. And I

[8:54] don't want anybody with a loyalty to

[8:55] Jean. I know you have got your own ideas

[8:58] and hopefully it can be totally

[9:00] independent to investigate cuz there's

[9:02] some real serious going on in this

[9:04] town and I am very distressed to find

[9:06] it.

[9:08] Thank you for your minutes.

[9:10] >> Thank you. And once again, we are here

[9:13] to respect the process and uh we'll get

[9:15] into specific details when we can. We're

[9:17] going to take one from the Zoom room.

[9:19] Miss New.

[9:26] » Hi, good evening. My name is Kristen

[9:27] New. I live in Grand View. Um, I am

[9:31] echoing the the urgings of others to

[9:36] conduct a thorough investigation into

[9:40] the allegations that were put forth. You

[9:42] know, everyone's innocent until proven

[9:44] guilty. But I really, it was very

[9:47] distressing to me as a as a lifelong

[9:49] resident of Woodside to read this letter

[9:51] and I'm

[9:53] I don't quite know I still don't quite

[9:55] know what to make of it. Um, but thank

[9:57] you very much for, you know, your

[9:59] commitment to having an independent

[10:01] investigation and I I truly hope that will be a very transparent and

[10:05] public process and the results be

[10:07] transparent and public as well. Thank

[10:09] you.

[10:10] >> Thank you, Miss New. Uh we are all

[10:12] committed to a thorough and complete

[10:14] process. Appreciate that.

[10:16] >> Yes sir.

[10:18] >> Um that's great to hear. Um I think the ask that others have voiced and

[10:23] we've talked about is somewhat putting

[10:26] your thumb on the scale to make sure

[10:27] that the public really feels like that

[10:29] is a process that they can trust in. I'm

[10:32] new to the town. I've gotten involved

[10:34] and I've everyone has very differing

[10:36] opinions on things and things I don't

[10:38] know about things that predate me and

[10:41] obviously a lot of the allegations are

[10:42] pretty serious. We're always going to

[10:44] have these like disagreements about like

[10:46] should we do this if we do that then

[10:47] these people are angry if we do that for

[10:49] them then those people are angry. It's

[10:51] tough. So it's really important to have

[10:52] things in the open and restore the

[10:55] public trust and this investigation

[10:57] should be indicative of that. Um, so I

[11:00] would request that you guys um put uh an

[11:03] agenda item on your next meeting that

[11:06] Brian and Paul recuse yourselves. We'll

[11:08] still remain have or we'll still have a

[11:10] quorum and that you guys will elect a

[11:14] independent investigator for the claims

[11:15] specifically to Brian and Paul, not

[11:18] necessarily the independent

[11:20] investigation um uh that were also made

[11:23] in the the whistleblower complaint. So

[11:24] my request is to in the next meeting

[11:27] agendaize uh hiring an independent

[11:29] investigation in addition to the

[11:31] concurrent in independent investigation

[11:33] to res to restore public trust. Um

[11:38] so yeah, thank you. I know it's tough,

[11:41] but it's really important to restore

[11:42] public trust.

[11:43] >> We completely agree. Uh Gan or Rick, do

[11:45] you want to weigh in on the process here

[11:47] a little bit? Jean or No.

[11:53] » As Mr. Mr. Vanos indicated uh the claims

[11:55] have been referred to the district

[11:56] attorney's office. That is a completely

[11:58] independent investigation. Um and

[12:00] through the town's insurance carrier, uh

[12:02] an independent investigator has been

[12:04] assigned to investigate the other

[12:06] claims. Uh no one at a staff level or at

[12:08] a council level uh is involved in that

[12:10] other than if you're asked to be

[12:12] interviewed in that. Um we will comply

[12:14] with those requests.

[12:16] >> Very good. Thank you. And uh we will

[12:18] recognize our fifth and final opening

[12:20] speaker tonight.

[12:22] My name is Martin Walker. I'm a longtime

[12:24] resident of the town.

[12:29] » Excuse me. Um,

[12:32] after I received or after I saw a copy

[12:34] of the town's email relating to Jason's

[12:38] lead better complaint, uh, I noticed I I

[12:42] saw that there were several issues that

[12:43] relate specifically to town governance.

[12:46] And uh and these these issues feed the

[12:49] general perception that the much town

[12:52] business is conducted behind the scenes

[12:54] and this violates the Brown Act of

[12:57] course and and it's my belief that the

[13:00] town should treat the Brown Act as a

[13:02] beacon for good governance and best

[13:04] practices for open meetings

[13:07] and accordingly the town should open an

[13:09] investigation into the possible Brown

[13:12] Act violations including those raised in

[13:15] Jason's complaint and others. And the

[13:17] results of this investigation should

[13:19] include recommendations for best

[13:21] practices in maintaining and regarding

[13:24] open meetings.

[13:26] And in I join uh in and in order to

[13:30] avoid even the appearance of more bad

[13:31] governance, individuals directly

[13:34] implicated in the in these allegations

[13:39] should recuse themselves from the

[13:40] process. and in my view specifically

[13:44] uh council members Dumbrosski and Gold

[13:46] as well as the town attorney. Thank you.

[13:50] >> Thank you very much. We are going to

[13:52] close opening

[13:54] communications and we'll be moving on to

[13:56] the consent calendar.

[13:58] All items on the consent are considered

[14:01] routine will be approved by one roll

[14:03] call motion unless there is an item that

[14:04] any member of council would like to pull

[14:06] for further discussion.

[14:12] Is there any item on the consent agenda

[14:14] that any member of the public would like

[14:15] to have pulled for further discussion?

[14:17] >> Yes, Miss Hansen.

[14:20] >> Number four.

[14:22] Okay. Can we get a motion for items one

[14:25] through three?

[14:27] >> I move that we approve motions one, two,

[14:30] and three.

[14:31] >> Second.

[14:32] >> Council member Alberish.

[14:34] >> Yes.

[14:34] >> Council member Brown.

[14:35] >> Yes.

[14:35] >> Council member Gold.

[14:36] >> Yes.

[14:37] >> Council member Wall.

[14:38] >> Yes. Mayor Donowski.

[14:40] >> Yes. Uh, Miss Hansen, would you like to

[14:42] speak on item four?

[14:51] » Uh, it's it's just a small but important

[14:53] comment. The hyperlinks in that document

[14:55] were not active. So, I don't know how

[14:59] you all could have read the underlying

[15:02] attachments 1A, B, C, and D because they

[15:05] weren't available to the public. nor

[15:07] were um I I also searched the website to

[15:11] try to read those as well. So, the only

[15:13] thing I could find was table one and the

[15:16] executive summary. So, I would urge you

[15:19] not to approve this item unless the

[15:21] public can read the background

[15:23] information. Thank you.

[15:26] >> I I I believe I know the solution to

[15:29] that. Um, so when I selected, when I

[15:32] clicked on it, I found the same issue

[15:34] and then I looked at the actual link and

[15:37] it included uh one of the brackets at

[15:40] the end, I think, for each of them. And

[15:42] so if you delete that and then hit

[15:44] enter, it it would go through.

[15:46] >> Uh, if it's if we can't if we can't find

[15:50] it, you shouldn't approve it. But but

[15:51] thank you for the technical support.

[15:53] >> Sure.

[15:57] » You know, fair enough. We can we can we

[15:59] can re reissue that and

[16:02] >> yes we will move this to the next uh the

[16:04] next meeting.

[16:05] >> Very good. Okay. Thank you.

[16:11] Okay. Moving right along.

[16:15] Oh. Uh we're not going to approve. We're

[16:16] going to we're going to push that to the

[16:18] next. Do we need we need to approve

[16:21] pushing it to the next?

[16:23] >> No.

[16:23] >> We'll take that.

[16:24] >> Okay. Very good. Uh, next up is the

[16:28] acceptance of the 2025 audited financial

[16:31] statements. And I'm handing this off to

[16:33] you, Melissa, although I know we have

[16:35] Mr. Ikler here as the chair of the

[16:37] committee.

[16:37] >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor Dumowski. Uh, it

[16:39] is recommended that the town council

[16:41] accept into public record the audited

[16:43] basic financial statements, GAN

[16:45] Proposition 111 appropriation limit

[16:48] review, measure A and Measure W special

[16:51] revenue fund report, the memorandum on

[16:53] internal control and required

[16:55] communications, and the town manager's

[16:57] report on the town's financial self

[16:59] assessment for 2024 25. And Dave Iikler,

[17:03] chair of the audit committee, is here

[17:04] tonight to give a brief presentation

[17:06] from from the audit committee.

[17:14] Welcome, Mr. Ikler. Thank you. Good

[17:17] evening. Uh, again, my name is Dave

[17:20] Ikler. I am chairman of the town's audit

[17:22] committee. We have two other members on

[17:24] that committee. Dave Burrow, uh, who

[17:27] couldn't be here tonight, and Ron

[17:29] Karpovich, who's here, I believe. Here

[17:31] he is. Thank you.

[17:34] Each of the town council members should

[17:36] have received a copy of the fiscal year

[17:39] 2025 financial statements

[17:42] uh which includes the independent

[17:44] auditor's report footnotes which require

[17:47] which uh provide additional disclosure

[17:49] and information on the count and the

[17:50] town's accounting policies and also

[17:53] details about their investments and the

[17:55] pension plan and so forth. um also

[17:59] supplemental information as well as the

[18:02] uh management discussion analysis of the

[18:04] financial results for fiscal year 25 as

[18:08] well as the financial condition for the

[18:10] town as of June 30th 2025.

[18:14] The audit was successfully completed by

[18:17] our outside independent auditing firm

[18:20] Maize and Associates with the assistance

[18:22] of town staff. Our committee thoroughly

[18:26] reviewed and discussed the financial

[18:28] report with the town staff as well as

[18:31] with the auditors and also we had

[18:34] detailed discussions with the auditors

[18:35] about the audit itself. So the auditor's

[18:38] report which is on page one of the

[18:40] financial document that you have

[18:43] indicates a clean unqualified opinion

[18:47] which in the opinion of the auditors uh

[18:49] indicates that the financial statements

[18:51] prevent fairly in all material aspects

[18:54] in their opinion the financial results

[18:57] for the town as well as the financial

[18:59] condition for the period ending June

[19:01] 30th 2025.

[19:03] The auditors also reported to our

[19:06] committee that there were no material

[19:08] adjustments to any of the numbers that

[19:10] they audited. There were no material

[19:12] weaknesses noted and there were no

[19:14] disagreements with management and there

[19:17] was no indication of any fraud.

[19:23] So in summary, the committee approves

[19:25] the financial uh fiscal 2025 financial

[19:29] statements and recommends the town

[19:31] council do the same. Thank you. Are

[19:33] there any questions? Thank you. Any

[19:35] questions? Yes.

[19:37] >> Um I have a comment, not a question.

[19:41] I'll I'll defer it.

[19:44] >> I ask you the same question every year,

[19:46] which is about our pension liabilities.

[19:48] >> I'm prepared.

[19:48] >> I thank you. We are in a loan, but we've

[19:51] also taken some wonderful steps to

[19:53] address the issue, but can you speak a

[19:55] little bit about our status? It's one of

[19:56] those sort of things that are offbalance

[19:58] sheet a little bit. What our liabilities

[19:59] are versus our asset coverage? Um

[20:03] there's disclosure in footnote 2 on this

[20:07] particular subject

[20:09] uh under our cash and investments.

[20:12] There's also a a comment or summary in

[20:16] the executive summary which appears on

[20:18] page six.

[20:20] So on page six there's a bullet point

[20:23] that says that the town's

[20:26] uh pension liability is 74.4 4% funded

[20:33] as of the end of fiscal 25.

[20:37] Uh as you know, the town has set aside

[20:40] uh money which is now increased by 12.6%

[20:45] this past fiscal year to $3 million.

[20:48] This money was set aside to potentially

[20:51] preund any future pension obligations.

[20:55] So, if that money were used to pay down

[20:58] the unfunded pension liability, which

[21:00] was $5.2 million at the end of uh 20

[21:05] June 30th, 2025,

[21:08] the pension would be funded at a level

[21:10] of 88%.

[21:13] Kalpers, uh, my understanding typically

[21:17] gauges pension contributions from the

[21:19] from various towns and cities at about a

[21:22] 70% level.

[21:24] So even at 74% we're actually doing

[21:26] better than what Kalpers normally uh

[21:29] suggests the towns do. But if the town

[21:32] wanted to pay down that pension

[21:33] liability with that $3 million which was

[21:36] set aside outside of Kalper's uh assets,

[21:40] that pension liability would be 88%

[21:43] funded.

[21:45] >> Does that answer your question?

[21:46] >> It it does perfectly. Thank you. Uh you

[21:49] had a comment

[21:52] first. Well, why don't we

[21:54] >> Okay. Um, so first I'm one of the

[21:58] representatives from the town council to

[22:00] the audit committee and I just wanted to

[22:02] thank Ron

[22:04] Dave Iikler, Dave Burrow, who's not here

[22:06] tonight for their work. I attended every

[22:08] >> and also the staff for the town. Yeah.

[22:09] >> Well, I was going to get to Cindy and

[22:11] the rest of it, but the but um I

[22:13] attended every single meeting. Um

[22:16] probably close to a dozen hours or so

[22:18] spent on that. Um, but I just wanted to

[22:21] point out if if you for those in the

[22:24] audience and on Zoom, uh, the ORB chart

[22:27] is on page 13 of tonight's packet and it

[22:30] shows the audit committee is a very

[22:31] special committee of the town. It's

[22:33] unlike any of the other advisory or

[22:35] volunteer committees. Um, we don't

[22:38] govern them. The town council doesn't

[22:40] and we want that independent audit

[22:41] function. And, um, they actually choose

[22:44] their own members and one of them

[22:46] retires or resigns, they pick their own.

[22:48] we don't have anything to do with it and

[22:50] uh there's a reason for that. We do want

[22:52] the independence. A lot has been made of

[22:53] the word independence tonight already,

[22:55] but uh we feel very strongly about that

[22:57] as far as the fiscal management goes

[22:59] here. And um I will tell you that given

[23:01] the financial expertise of the two Daves

[23:04] and Ron, uh they are all very

[23:07] experienced financial CFOs, CEOs in

[23:10] their companies in in the private

[23:12] sector. You could not buy the expertise

[23:15] that those three gentlemen uh bring to

[23:18] the audit committee in that review which

[23:20] is extraordinarily intensive of the uh

[23:23] from Maize Associates, our auditing firm

[23:25] and from the staff including Cindy and

[23:27] her staff um who who uh uh perform the

[23:32] audit and and keep us in good shape. Uh

[23:34] so I did want to thank everybody for

[23:36] their service on that. It's uh it it

[23:38] it's not fun and um it's very tedious

[23:41] and we do appreciate it. Uh I did want

[23:44] to make one final comment because um

[23:48] uh the mayor made uh he asked about the

[23:51] pension liability and uh Dave Iikler

[23:55] made mention that we're at 74% which is

[23:58] of funding which is already about 5 or

[24:01] 10% over the statewide average of any

[24:04] city or town or any other municipality,

[24:06] county or state. Uh often they're in the

[24:08] 50% range. Uh 70 is kind of like

[24:12] >> pretty high.

[24:12] >> 70% but

[24:13] >> and we're at 74.

[24:14] >> Yeah.

[24:15] >> And the thing that I wanted to point out

[24:17] was the town council and I think it may

[24:19] have been in my first year on this

[24:21] second goround. I'm not sure. It

[24:23] predated me.

[24:24] >> Um the town had extra cash, extra money,

[24:27] extra funds, and we were thinking about

[24:29] what to do with it. and I think it was

[24:32] the mayor, I'm not sure, uh, who's in

[24:34] financial management, um, had

[24:36] recommended that we take a fairly large

[24:40] slug of money and put it aside into a

[24:42] supplemental fund, $3 million, and

[24:44] invested it. That doesn't count. you you

[24:48] I I just I have to sort of translate the

[24:50] financial speak of esteemed neighbor at

[24:53] the microphone, but that $3 million that

[24:56] the council voted on and put aside to

[24:58] fund pension liabilities is not counted

[25:00] in that 74%. I know you explained that

[25:02] before and with that we're in the 80

[25:05] >> 88% almost 90% almost unheard of in any

[25:09] governance anywhere maybe in the country

[25:12] and that was due to the financial

[25:14] management which predated me. Uh but

[25:16] going through the audit committee and

[25:18] attending those meetings, it's nice to

[25:20] see that there's an extra slug of money

[25:22] in there dedicated solely to the

[25:24] pensions of our staff and employees that

[25:26] doesn't even count in the financial

[25:28] statements. We know it's there and it

[25:30] can only be used for that purpose.

[25:31] >> Yes. Under our control. It's not under

[25:32] Kalper's control.

[25:33] >> It's under That's exactly right. And so,

[25:35] um, I just wanted to point that out that

[25:37] financially, um, uh, we are in superb

[25:41] shape and even better shape than I think

[25:43] the financial, uh, audit reveals simply

[25:46] because there is other funds there,

[25:47] significant funds that actually bring us

[25:49] to a standard that's almost unheard of.

[25:51] But anyway, I just wanted to thank you

[25:53] for that and thank you guys for your

[25:54] great service.

[25:55] >> Oh, thank you. Thank you for being on

[25:57] the town council as well. Uh, one other

[26:00] comment, you know, for for towns people,

[26:01] if you're interested in looking at these

[26:02] financial statements, after these are

[26:04] approved by the town council, they do

[26:06] get put on the town's website. So,

[26:09] historically, you can go back 15, 20

[26:11] years, and they're out there still. So,

[26:14] it's under the financial section on the

[26:15] website if you're interested in in

[26:17] learning more about the the town's

[26:19] finances and where the money is being

[26:20] spent.

[26:22] >> Thank you.

[26:23] That's a good segue. Is there

[26:24] any member of the public that would like

[26:26] to comment on the audit?

[26:31] Seeing none, then um on behalf of all of

[26:34] us, please accept our deepest gratitude

[26:37] for your meticulous review of the

[26:38] statements and u the confidence that it

[26:41] inspires in our financials. We really

[26:43] appreciate the work that you do and we

[26:46] are just accepting this report tonight.

[26:47] So there is no vote. We are just

[26:49] accepting and moving forward. Okay, very

[26:51] good. Thank you.

[26:53] >> Thank you.

[26:55] Moving on to new business item B, the

[26:59] annual progress report for the housing

[27:01] element. And this is anformational

[27:03] report. And I'm handing it off to you,

[27:04] Melissa.

[27:05] >> Thank you, Madam Kowski. It is

[27:07] recommended that the town council accept

[27:08] theformational annual progress report

[27:10] for the housing element for 2025 and

[27:13] direct staff to transmit by April 1st

[27:16] the report to the state department of

[27:17] housing and community development and

[27:19] office of planning and research as

[27:21] required by government code section

[27:23] 65400.

[27:25] The report as required contains

[27:27] information on the town's progress

[27:28] toward meeting its regional housing

[27:30] needs or RENA allocation. During 2025,

[27:33] the town issued permits for 23 accessory

[27:36] dwelling units and 11 permits for single

[27:38] family dwellings. Two of the issued

[27:40] permits for new ADUs were voided or put

[27:42] on hold. So, 21 permits for ADUs have

[27:45] been included in the 2025 APR. Of the 21

[27:49] ADUs permitted in 2025, seven ADUs are

[27:52] considered very lowincome units, six as

[27:55] low income units, six as moderate income

[27:58] units, and two as above moderate income

[28:01] units. All 11 single family dwellings

[28:04] permitted in 2025 count as above

[28:06] moderate income units. The town

[28:09] certified housing element also designate

[28:11] designates three properties in town for

[28:14] multifamily projects. First, a 1acre

[28:16] privately owned site at 773 Kinyatta

[28:19] slated to produce a total of 16 moderate

[28:22] income units. The property owner is

[28:24] currently in the process of subdividing

[28:26] the larger 9 acres of land into the 1

[28:29] acre multif family site and the

[28:31] remaining area for single family

[28:33] residential site. Second, a 1 and 1/2

[28:36] acre town-owned site on Rayundo slated

[28:39] to produce a total of 17 units, 12 low

[28:43] and very lowincome units and five

[28:45] moderate income units. Third, a 1acre

[28:49] town-owned site on High Road slated to

[28:51] produce a total of 16 units, 11 low and

[28:54] very lowincome units and five moderate

[28:57] income units. For the two towned sites

[29:00] by September of 2026, the town is

[29:03] required to issue a notice of

[29:05] availability pursuant to the surplus

[29:07] lands act to solicit proposals for

[29:09] development of these two sites. To meet

[29:12] this timeline, the town in September

[29:14] 2025 issued a request for proposals

[29:17] seeking a consultant to prepare a town

[29:19] master sanitary sewer study to analyze

[29:22] existing and needed capacity to serve

[29:24] current residences and anticipated

[29:26] development, including 773 Kinyatta and

[29:29] the town-owned sites. On November 18th,

[29:32] 2025, the town council approved a

[29:35] contract with Frier and Loretta to

[29:37] analyze both the existing sewer

[29:39] infrastructure and contractual capacity

[29:41] for the Town Center Sewer Assessment

[29:43] District, Redwood Creek Sewer Assessment

[29:46] District, and Fair Oaks Sewer

[29:48] Maintenance District. The study is not

[29:50] yet complete. We anticipate the study

[29:52] will be completed later this spring. As

[29:55] the study is being conducted by Frier

[29:56] and Loretta, staff has also been working

[29:59] with Jerry Risa from the law firm of

[30:01] Burke Williams and Sorenson to assist in

[30:03] the development of a timeline and

[30:05] process for the town council to consider

[30:07] as it accepts public input and directs

[30:10] how staff should proceed to solicit

[30:12] proposals for development of the two

[30:14] town owned sites. I am now turning the

[30:16] presentation over to Mr. Risa so that he

[30:18] can outline in general terms next steps

[30:21] once the sewer study is complete.

[30:44] Welcome,

[30:45] >> council members. Can can you hear me?

[30:47] All right,

[30:47] >> we can. The closer it gets for the folks

[30:49] on the Zoom, the better. But

[30:50] >> okay. Um, yeah. Well, thank you again.

[30:54] My name is Jerry Ramsea. I'm a real

[30:56] estate lawyer with the firm of Burke

[30:58] Williams and Sorenson. And back in June

[31:01] of this past year, June of 2025,

[31:04] town attorney Gan Savory reached out to

[31:06] me with a request for assistance um to

[31:10] provide some advice on the proper

[31:13] process that the town ought to go

[31:15] through with respect to the two sites

[31:17] that were mentioned, Raundo and High

[31:19] Road, and how to comply with the State

[31:22] Surplus Land Act. So, since June, I've

[31:26] been working on that project. We've had

[31:29] a number of Zoom calls and phone calls

[31:32] to discuss process and review

[31:34] alternatives.

[31:36] Um, and if you'd like, I can give a

[31:40] little bit of background, a quick

[31:41] summary of the process that's um that

[31:45] the town will need to follow and and

[31:46] broadly speaking the two alternatives.

[31:49] So, the statute that um we're operating

[31:53] under and that the town will need to

[31:55] comply with is the State Surplus Land

[31:58] Act. It's in the government code. It's

[32:00] been in existence for a long time since

[32:02] I think 1968. And for the first 50

[32:05] years, it wasn't that impactful. But

[32:08] several years ago, back in 2019, the

[32:10] state legislature made substantial

[32:12] amendments to the surplus land Act, and

[32:15] they were targeted at the statewide af

[32:18] uh housing shortage, affordable housing

[32:20] issues. It was part of that effort to

[32:23] address the need for affordable housing.

[32:25] And it the result has been really any

[32:29] time a city, a town, a county is

[32:32] entering into long-term leases or

[32:34] looking to sell property to a third

[32:36] party, you have to comply with the State

[32:38] Surplus Land Act. And broadly speaking,

[32:41] there are two ways to do that. The state

[32:44] surplus land act defines a series of

[32:47] exemptions

[32:49] that are um and so property can be

[32:52] declared exempt surplus land if you fit

[32:55] in one of those boxes, one of those

[32:56] exemptions or property can be declared

[32:59] as surplus land and then there's a

[33:01] separate statutory process to go

[33:03] through. So, that's really the first

[33:05] step in the process, deciding whether

[33:08] it's in the town's interest to go down

[33:10] the exempt surplus land uh road or the

[33:14] surplus land route. And in general, um

[33:19] well, let me let me u stop there for a

[33:22] moment. That decision of whether to go

[33:25] surplus land or exempt surplus land,

[33:27] that is a public process. the uh town

[33:30] council would have to adopt a resolution

[33:33] making findings to support an exemption

[33:36] determination or uh concluding that it

[33:39] desires to follow the surplus land

[33:41] process. So there is a is a public step

[33:44] a notice public meeting resolution has

[33:47] to be adopted and that will I anticipate

[33:50] a decision will be presented to the

[33:52] council or recommendation in the coming

[33:55] months. Um,

[33:57] broadly speaking,

[34:00] it's the town has a bit more local

[34:05] control and autonomy if you can proceed

[34:08] under an exempt surplus land

[34:10] determination as opposed to a surplus

[34:12] land determination. So generally

[34:15] speaking, we recommend that communities

[34:19] follow the exempt surplus land route

[34:22] provided the proper findings and

[34:24] determinations can be made and we're

[34:27] pretty close to concluding that they can certainly be made with respect

[34:32] to Rayundo High Road is a little bit of

[34:34] an open question and I'll get into that

[34:36] in a moment. Um, under the the

[34:40] applicable exemption that the town may

[34:43] be able to take advantage of and by

[34:46] declaring the properties, one or both

[34:48] properties exempt surplus land is in um

[34:53] for those interested in reviewing the specific exception, it's in

[34:56] government code section 54221

[35:01] F1A.

[35:03] And that cross references another

[35:05] government code affordable housing

[35:07] provision which is in section 37364.

[35:12] So that particular exemption

[35:15] uh it specifies three criteria that you

[35:19] need to meet in order to follow it. One

[35:22] of the criteria is that at least 80% of

[35:25] the land area of the property in

[35:27] question has to be developed for

[35:28] housing.

[35:30] um at least 40% of the total housing

[35:34] units have to be what I'll just describe

[35:36] as pretty deeply affordable. Um very low

[35:40] at the lower end of low income plus a

[35:44] number of very lowincome units as well.

[35:47] The third requirement is an easy one to

[35:49] meet. There has to be a recorded

[35:50] regulatory agreement for at least 30

[35:52] years. So, so the one here that's a

[35:55] little bit in question with respect to

[35:57] the high road site is that 80% lot

[36:00] coverage requirement. High road, it's a

[36:03] smaller parcel. It's a little bit um the

[36:07] configuration is a little bit odd. It's

[36:09] not a rectangular rectal linear parcel

[36:12] and there's also a PG& easement. So

[36:15] staff has been doing some due diligence

[36:18] to see whether it's realistic the 80%

[36:21] coverage requirement can be can be met.

[36:24] If it can be, I anticipate staff's

[36:27] recommendation to you will be to declare

[36:29] it exempt surplus land. And if that

[36:32] happens, the next step in the process is

[36:35] the town could issue um an RFQ, a

[36:39] request for qualifications or a request

[36:42] for proposals. And then basically you're

[36:45] in the driver's seat to decide to send

[36:47] that out to the world of affordable

[36:49] housing developers. Um, and then you're

[36:53] in a position to select one with a

[36:55] demonstrated track record of success who

[36:58] builds highquality projects you think

[37:00] can meet the town's objectives. And

[37:02] that's why I say you have a little bit

[37:05] more autonomy under the exempt process.

[37:09] Um

[37:11] the the alternative I'll just briefly

[37:14] mention the the alternative which is not

[37:17] pursuing an exemption and just declaring

[37:20] the property to be surplus. If you go

[37:23] that route, it's a it's a it's a little

[37:27] bit of a slower process and it's one

[37:29] that you have a little less control

[37:30] over. It starts with a

[37:33] uh preparation of a notice of

[37:35] availability.

[37:37] That notice gets emailed or sent s via

[37:40] certified mail to a list of 300 plus

[37:45] housing sponsors and other developers

[37:49] statewide who've expressed an interest

[37:52] in learning about the availability of

[37:54] surplus lands. That notice is goes out

[37:58] for 60 days. So, you have 60 days to

[38:01] receive responses from essentially the

[38:03] whole world of potential developers who

[38:06] might be interested in doing affordable

[38:08] housing. Um, at that point, you'll

[38:13] evaluate the responses.

[38:16] You can se you have some discretion to

[38:18] select, but the preference really goes

[38:21] to the responder who's proposing the

[38:25] highest number of units and the deepest

[38:27] affordability.

[38:29] And regardless of whether or not they

[38:31] have a real demonstrated track record or

[38:34] access to financing, etc., you end up

[38:37] having to go through a good faith

[38:39] negotiation process of at least 90 days.

[38:42] The statute doesn't dictate a particular

[38:44] result. You do not have to sell the

[38:47] property to um any developer who

[38:51] responds or the developer who responds

[38:53] with um or that you speak with first.

[38:56] But it does specify a process. So you

[38:59] have to build a record, you you

[39:00] negotiated in good faith, you didn't get

[39:03] to a deal, and then and then, you know,

[39:07] if you received other responses, you'd

[39:09] go through that process. It doesn't

[39:11] necessarily have to be entirely serial.

[39:13] You can have concurrent negotiations,

[39:15] but you'd have to go through that

[39:17] process. You'd have less control over

[39:20] who you might want to work with as a

[39:23] developer for these two sites.

[39:26] Um, if you're ultimately successful

[39:29] through a surplus land act process, you

[39:31] would still enter into

[39:33] a disposition and development agreement

[39:36] of some sort, basically a purchase and

[39:38] sale agreement that has some affirmative

[39:40] development obligations.

[39:42] And that developer, if they performed

[39:45] under the agreement, they'd close

[39:46] escrow, buy the site, and build the

[39:48] project. Um, if you can't find a

[39:52] developer through that process or if no

[39:54] one responds with interest for one

[39:57] reason or another, you have the ability

[40:00] to sell the properties to others who are

[40:02] not interested in developing affordable

[40:04] housing. But you'd be required to record

[40:08] a covenant against the property that uh

[40:12] specifies that if housing is ever

[40:14] developed, at least 15% of those units

[40:18] will have to be uh low lowincome units.

[40:22] Um

[40:24] in this case, I think it would be a

[40:26] little bit hard to do that since the

[40:27] housing element has identified these

[40:29] sites for housing purposes. they're um

[40:32] designated for housing uh uses under the

[40:36] general plan. So um I I don't really

[40:39] view at this point non-housing

[40:42] development alternatives as being

[40:43] practical, but that's what the surplus

[40:45] land specifies.

[40:47] So to just review next steps, there's

[40:52] some due diligence going on. There's a

[40:54] sewer capacity study being done which

[40:56] has already been mentioned tonight. Um

[40:59] that'll be important information for

[41:00] prospective developers. We're also

[41:03] trying to be as certain as we can about

[41:06] that 80% lot coverage um requirement for

[41:11] high road because one desire is to make

[41:13] sure we do it right the first time. We

[41:15] don't want to go down the exempt road

[41:17] and then find out we can't meet it and

[41:19] have to backpedal and restart the

[41:21] process.

[41:23] Um, we've got noticed public meetings

[41:26] ahead and adoption of resolutions

[41:29] where you would uh choose the path

[41:31] that's best for the town, exempt surplus

[41:33] land or surplus land. And um

[41:39] that's uh I think that's the last um

[41:43] information I wanted to share. If you

[41:45] have any questions about the process,

[41:46] I'll be happy to try to answer them.

[41:50] >> Wonderful. Thank you, Mr.

[41:52] Uh, any questions?

[41:54] >> I have a bunch.

[41:55] >> Yeah, you want to go for it?

[41:57] >> Uh, first, Jerry, thank you for that.

[41:59] Um, I wish we had heard that um before

[42:02] we got into the housing element u a

[42:04] couple of years ago because a lot of the

[42:07] questions from the concerned citizens

[42:09] were exactly the things you were talking

[42:10] about. You know, I'm I'm assuming staff

[42:13] and council knew a lot of these things,

[42:15] but we I can only speak for myself. I

[42:17] didn't. I'm assuming a lot of the folks

[42:19] in the public didn't know either. So, I

[42:21] have a few questions to ask you about

[42:24] some of the permutations. So, you said

[42:26] there's two ways to go with Raundo and

[42:28] High Road, which is what we're talking

[42:29] about here. It could be exempt or not

[42:31] exempt, and you gave the reasons for

[42:33] each. So, I just something just

[42:36] triggered in my mind here when you were

[42:37] talking at the very end. Um, so let's

[42:39] say we determine it is 80% on high road.

[42:43] That's the one that's the most

[42:44] problematic as I think we've pointed out

[42:46] in spades here over the past three

[42:48] years. Um, but let's say we determine it

[42:51] is 80%. We make it exempt and then when

[42:54] the developer comes in, they're only

[42:55] going to cover 50%.

[42:59] Yeah, that well that would be a problem

[43:01] because I think the R if you issued an

[43:03] RFP seeking a developer, we would

[43:08] make very clear that this RFP is being

[43:11] issued pursuant to an exemption

[43:13] determination and there are three

[43:15] critical components of that exemption

[43:17] determination. So the town would be

[43:20] seeking a developer who can undertake a

[43:22] project that complies with the

[43:25] exemption.

[43:26] >> Got it. So,

[43:28] >> um, thank you for the clarification. So,

[43:31] when we put this out for a request for a

[43:34] proposal, uh, if it's exempt, we have a

[43:37] lot more control, as you said. We can

[43:38] make sure that they're bonafide

[43:41] developers and they have financial

[43:42] wherewithal and a track record. All

[43:44] pretty good things, of course. Um, there

[43:47] are three possibilities in those

[43:49] responses. One, we could get no

[43:52] responses.

[43:54] And then you said we would be eligible

[43:56] to sell it to somebody else for other

[43:59] reasons provided 15% of the of the any

[44:03] developer any development that's there

[44:05] would be for affordable housing. Did I

[44:07] hear that correctly?

[44:08] >> Well, just um that's mostly right, but

[44:11] there's another step in the process. So

[44:13] if you declared it exempt surplus land,

[44:15] thought you would be successful by

[44:18] pursuing the exemption, and if it turned

[44:20] out that was infeasible, you get no

[44:22] responses,

[44:23] then the next option would be, well,

[44:25] that didn't work. We're going to declare

[44:28] it surplus. And so now you're going

[44:30] through that surplus land process notice

[44:33] to the world of affordable housing

[44:35] developers, 300 plus entities.

[44:38] um

[44:40] wait the 60 days, see who you hear from,

[44:44] start negotiations, negotiate for at

[44:46] least 90 days, you know, hopefully end

[44:49] up with a successful outcome through

[44:51] that process.

[44:53] Um, and if you don't, then okay. Uh, at

[44:58] that point, I suppose you've

[44:59] demonstrated

[45:01] it's not particularly feasible to do

[45:03] housing because you've attempted to find

[45:06] a housing developer and let's just say

[45:08] no one is interested. Then it would be

[45:11] record the co notify the um there's a

[45:15] state agency state department of housing

[45:17] and community development you're

[45:18] probably familiar with because

[45:21] you're um interfacing with them to get

[45:23] housing elements approved but they are

[45:25] the enforcement body and the overseer of

[45:28] this whole surplus land act process. So

[45:31] there are a series of points at which

[45:35] you notify HCD of what you're doing,

[45:38] what your progress is, whether you've

[45:40] been successful, did you negotiate with

[45:43] someone and not have a successful

[45:44] outcome. So that all of that gets

[45:46] reported to HCD.

[45:48] >> So my point is you're leading right down

[45:50] the pathway that I'm saying if and I

[45:52] think that it may be a likely outcome.

[45:54] Nobody's interested or they're not

[45:56] interested at the level that we're

[45:57] specifying in there. We ultimately we

[45:59] have no takers. We can't find anybody.

[46:02] We say we're now it's surplus property.

[46:05] What happens to our reena number? What

[46:07] happens? I mean HC we're telling HCD

[46:09] we're not going to make 394.

[46:10] >> Yeah. I'm going to refer that question

[46:13] to the town attorney because there would

[46:16] be really what I've described is simply

[46:20] this is the the world under the state

[46:23] surplus land act. So there could be

[46:25] other implications if you are

[46:26] unsuccessful through that process.

[46:30] That doesn't mean you're home free.

[46:32] Maybe you're home free under the surplus

[46:33] land act

[46:34] >> or we find something else. But I guess

[46:35] I'll let Jean respond to that town

[46:38] attorney to respond to that.

[46:40] >> So as Jerry's indicated, your housing

[46:41] element designates those those sites and

[46:43] indicates they will be developed at that

[46:45] level of of um affordability. If that

[46:48] can't happen, you will need to start

[46:50] looking for other sites or other ways to

[46:53] incentivize uh folks to come in and

[46:55] produce those housing numbers for you.

[46:57] During that time period, we would try

[46:58] our best to work with HCD so that they

[47:01] don't levy fines or um descertify the

[47:04] housing element. U because when you're

[47:07] descertified, then you find yourself in

[47:09] a very vulnerable position um for

[47:12] builder's remedy projects and additional

[47:14] um fines from the state. And that is not

[47:17] a place any anybody

[47:19] wants to be.

[47:20] >> Okay. Got it. So before I go to the

[47:22] other two possibilities,

[47:25] Jerry, the you know, we talked about one

[47:26] if there is no response or they're

[47:28] insufficient responses, what we do in

[47:30] that event. But before I go down the

[47:32] other two possibilities, which is

[47:34] somebody responds perfectly or somebody

[47:35] responds with a kind of a medium warm

[47:39] result, I did want to ask you a question

[47:40] because you brought this up. You said we

[47:42] would have to uh put a covenant against

[47:44] the property. in the first pathway

[47:46] dedicating 15% to affordable housing.

[47:49] Can you describe what a covenant is and

[47:50] how you reverse it?

[47:54] » Well, it's it you you wouldn't be able

[47:58] to reverse it. So it would be a covenant

[48:00] that and really what it contemplates is

[48:05] in most instances under the surplus land

[48:07] act if you offer the site to affordable

[48:10] housing developers and they take a pass

[48:13] and then let's say you sell for a

[48:15] commercial development that's really the

[48:17] purpose of the covenant. The covenant is

[48:19] this site has just been sold to a third

[48:23] party for a nonaffordable housing use.

[48:27] And if it turns out that third party

[48:29] decides, no, I'm not going to do my

[48:30] commercial project after all. I want to

[48:32] do a luxury town home project, well, 15%

[48:36] of the residential units that are

[48:38] developed will have to be um uh low

[48:42] income.

[48:42] >> So essentially, a a covenant is a

[48:44] restrictive deed. It's filed with this

[48:47] clerk, right? With the town with a

[48:49] county clerk.

[48:50] >> Correct. It runs with the land.

[48:51] >> Runs with the land in perpetuity as I

[48:53] understand.

[48:53] >> Binding on successors.

[48:55] That particular covenant that fall back

[48:58] 15% if you're unsuccessful. I don't

[49:01] believe it has an expiration date,

[49:03] >> but it there's no mechanism to have it

[49:05] undone except by agreement of the

[49:06] parties.

[49:08] >> Uh, correct.

[49:10] >> Got it. Thank you. I'm just appreciate

[49:12] that clarification because that came up

[49:14] three years ago. Um, and I just I

[49:16] appreciate your ex. You're the town's

[49:18] expert in this area and I was very glad

[49:20] to hear that. So, let's talk about the

[49:22] other two avenues that you could go

[49:23] down. Um, it's real easy. If if a

[49:26] developer comes back and says, "Hey, 16

[49:28] units at High Road, 80% coverage. We got

[49:31] this. Here's the proposal." We'll get to

[49:33] that in a second. But suppose somebody

[49:35] comes back and says, "This is a really

[49:37] awkward parcel. I can put on four town

[49:39] homes. That's the most I could do." What

[49:42] do we do if that's maybe that's the best

[49:45] proposal we get?

[49:48] >> Well, the for purposes of the there may

[49:51] be other implications under the housing

[49:53] element, but for purposes of the surplus

[49:55] land act requirement is 40%

[50:01] of

[50:02] >> yeah, I'm not even talking about

[50:03] affordability. Suppose they meet all of

[50:05] that, but they just don't. They can't

[50:06] put 16. They could put 10 or eight or

[50:10] six. So they can meet the 80% lot

[50:12] coverage. Yeah. If 40% of those are

[50:15] affordable to households earning 75%

[50:19] of the maximum income of lower income

[50:22] households, that's the lower end of

[50:23] maximum and at least half of those are

[50:26] affordable to very low-income households

[50:28] >> and they would have met the requirement

[50:30] under the surplus land act.

[50:33] >> So uh the 16 units on high road, the 17

[50:35] units on Raundo are not necessarily cast

[50:38] in stone. if the developers if the the

[50:40] requests for proposals come back at less

[50:43] than those numbers.

[50:44] >> Yeah. Not cast in stone under the

[50:46] surplus land act but could be other

[50:48] implications under the housing elements.

[50:51] >> Got it. Thank you. Very helpful. Okay.

[50:53] So now let's talk about the last one.

[50:54] Sorry for taking all the time but I

[50:56] think these questions I assume are on

[50:58] people's minds or they should be. Um, so

[51:01] let's talk for a second about we put out

[51:04] a request for quote for Raundo and we

[51:06] puted one out for High Road and they

[51:08] come back perfectly. It's a qualified

[51:10] developer and everything else. So now

[51:13] comes the question,

[51:16] how do we sell the property? Do we you said something about 30-year

[51:20] minimums and things like that? I think I

[51:21] heard that number. Um, but do we have to

[51:24] sell the parcel outright? Could we lease

[51:26] it for 99 years? Could we sell it for a

[51:30] dollar? Do we Does it have to be market

[51:32] rate? I mean, these are going to be

[51:34] condominiums. These are supposed to be

[51:35] owner occupied. Um, and I have a

[51:37] follow-up question to that one, too, but

[51:39] I'll let you handle that first.

[51:40] >> Well, you could sell it for a dollar.

[51:42] Um, you know, you presumably you would

[51:44] only do that if there was a demonstrated

[51:47] feasibility gap in the financing and it

[51:49] was required to make the project

[51:51] feasible. there's no obligation to write

[51:54] down the value of the land to make make

[51:57] the project feasible. So, um sometimes

[52:01] when local agencies are selling surplus

[52:03] property, one of the requirements they

[52:05] put in is the expectation is we're

[52:07] selling it for full fair market value.

[52:09] So, don't expect a discount. Um you're

[52:12] not required to do that, but and

[52:13] similarly, you're not required to write

[52:15] down the value of the land. I mentioned

[52:17] that 30-year um regulatory agreement

[52:19] that that's just another example.

[52:21] Recorded covenant runs with the land

[52:24] binding on both the initial developer

[52:27] grantee of the property as well as

[52:29] successors and assigns.

[52:32] >> Okay. So,

[52:34] um

[52:37] we have somebody who comes back and

[52:40] they're going to develop this property.

[52:41] Everything looks fine. They may come

[52:44] back and say, "We need you to sell us

[52:45] the property for a dollar to make the

[52:47] finances work for us because the cost of

[52:49] developing these properties, it's going

[52:50] to be expensive." One of them has a $2.5

[52:52] million sewer that's required. I mean, I

[52:54] can see the the cost really running up

[52:56] here, and they may need a cheap price on

[52:58] the land to make this work,

[53:01] but the town can determine that we don't

[53:03] want to sell it for less than fair

[53:05] market value. Is that what you just

[53:06] said?

[53:08] >> Correct. You don't You're not obligated

[53:10] to to down the value of the land.

[53:12] >> Got it. Thank you. Um and the last thing

[53:14] I wanted to ask you about um

[53:21] during these deliberations of

[53:25] that took place about three years ago,

[53:27] this was a pretty contentious the room

[53:28] had actually more people in it than it

[53:30] has tonight. Um,

[53:35] one of the things that came up was that

[53:37] um to, this is my word, to appease the

[53:41] public. Um, we told them that there

[53:43] would be several more opportunities down

[53:45] the road to oppose these the development

[53:48] of these parcels. It's certainly their

[53:49] right. We, you know, we have a first

[53:52] amendment right to speak against these

[53:53] the development. Um,

[53:57] but one of the things that that kind of

[53:59] came up in in opposing them was the

[54:01] council and I believe council member

[54:03] Wall was the mayor at the time. I'm not

[54:05] positive. She can correct me if if I'm

[54:07] wrong. Um, a lot of the neighbors came

[54:10] forward and said, "We would like to have

[54:11] a neighborhood committee to meet and it

[54:14] was going to be I think it was at the

[54:16] time it was going to be the mayor and I

[54:18] think the planning director and the town

[54:21] manager and a few members of those

[54:23] areas,

[54:24] Raundo Road area and High Road would be

[54:27] two separate neighborhood committees to

[54:29] discuss the very issues that you and I

[54:31] are talking about right now. Is this

[54:32] going to be sold for how much?" you

[54:35] know, a lot of the issues not not

[54:37] covered in the in the environmental

[54:39] reviews and the site reviews that we did

[54:41] at that time, but the other issues that

[54:44] are there like where are people going to

[54:45] park and how, you know, how are we going

[54:47] the 80% coverage you were just talking

[54:48] about? Are we going to sell the land?

[54:50] Are we going to lease it? You know, for

[54:51] how much? At the time, I think the

[54:53] council came out and they said they

[54:54] wanted them to be owner occupied, that

[54:56] is condominiums. And importantly, at

[54:59] least for me, was how is the appreciated

[55:04] value, if these are condominiums, going

[55:07] to vest

[55:09] with the purchasers of these properties

[55:11] over time. And I recall giving this very

[55:15] example. Suppose some teacher from

[55:17] Woodside Elementary School buys one of

[55:19] these condominiums for below market

[55:21] rate. I'll throw out a number, half a

[55:23] million dollars. The real market is a

[55:25] million and a half for that same unit.

[55:27] So he or she buys it for a half a

[55:29] million dollars and a year later wants

[55:31] to sell it at fair market value a

[55:34] million and a half bucks. Is that

[55:35] million-doll gain go to the teacher?

[55:38] >> Does it go to the town or is it going to

[55:40] vest over time? And I actually brought

[55:42] this up and I thought I actually I think

[55:44] I wrote an email if I'm not mistaken to

[55:47] then town manager Kevin Bryant that

[55:49] maybe vesting it I'm very familiar with

[55:51] stock options. maybe vesting it over 20

[55:53] years where they get 120th it every year

[55:55] over 20 years and at the end if they

[55:57] live there 20 years they should get the

[55:59] full appreciated value but if they sell

[56:00] it after a year maybe they keep 120th of

[56:02] it and the town keeps 1920th of it

[56:06] something like that is that the kind of

[56:07] paradigm that people use in um uh owner

[56:11] occupied uh reselling a below market

[56:14] value condominium

[56:16] >> yeah there there are there are different

[56:18] models um but The important thing is

[56:22] that the unit has to remain affordable

[56:26] for the required time period to the next

[56:29] purchaser, right? So, it's not going to

[56:33] be possible. You have to find a a

[56:36] solution to that. So often times what

[56:39] happens is the the the uh local

[56:42] jurisdiction, the town in this case

[56:45] might buy the unit back from the initial

[56:49] purchaser and then be a conduit to get

[56:52] that unit to the next homeowner

[56:55] >> at some agreed pre a prior agreed price

[56:57] >> at a at a some formula

[56:59] >> which likely will be high a higher price

[57:02] than what the initial purchaser your hypothetical teacher in the example

[57:07] paid because as a you know what's has

[57:11] been the trend over time is area median

[57:13] incomes increase. Therefore the income

[57:17] levels for very low income and low

[57:19] income go up and then that drives the

[57:22] formula for what's known as the

[57:23] affordable housing cost which is

[57:25] basically the purchase price. What

[57:27] purchase price is affordable to that

[57:29] particular income level. So it tends to

[57:31] go up over time. maybe tracking

[57:34] inflation but not housing prices. Um so

[57:38] >> Jerry, thank you. This is exactly what

[57:40] the neighbor committee was supposed to

[57:43] address. It was we didn't know at the

[57:45] time and I think it was that very issue

[57:46] that we were saying if this actually

[57:48] runs with the property the affordability

[57:50] for ever essentially how do we capture

[57:54] that and um that was actually part of

[57:57] what the neighborhood committee was

[57:58] supposed to be discussing to work that

[58:00] out in advance of the RFPs.

[58:03] Can I just address that? Of

[58:04] >> course.

[58:05] >> So, the ba baseline information we need

[58:07] in order to have a meaningful discussion

[58:09] with the public and with you is the

[58:11] sewer study and so staff heard very

[58:13] clearly about public input and and

[58:16] subcommittees. However, the council

[58:18] wanted to um direct those be composed.

[58:20] That has not been lost. We just don't

[58:23] have the sewer capacity study anal

[58:25] analyzed yet. And once that happens,

[58:27] then that process can begin.

[58:29] >> I agree with you there. And and I didn't

[58:31] want to put that aside. The sewer study

[58:32] to me is a binary gating study about

[58:35] what we could do, but all of the issues

[58:37] we're talking about now flow, no pun

[58:39] intended, from the flu sewer study with

[58:41] you.

[58:43] >> I agree.

[58:44] >> Thank you.

[58:45] >> Okay, Council Member Wall, I saw your

[58:47] hand up.

[58:49] >> Yeah, thanks. Um, yeah, just building

[58:52] off of some of the comments that Paul

[58:54] made. you know, I do recall, just in the

[58:57] spirit of transparency, Paul, I do

[58:59] recall,

[59:00] um, the council being very focused on

[59:03] neighborhood input. Um, which, um,

[59:05] actually my question for you, Jerry,

[59:07] when I get there is I'm curious to hear

[59:09] kind of you describe in more detail how

[59:12] residents will be able to offer their

[59:13] input going forward. Um I don't I don't

[59:16] have the same recollection that you do,

[59:18] Paul, around um you know, obligating um

[59:22] making any binding obligations around

[59:23] forming a neighborhood committee. That

[59:25] doesn't I don't think really matter. I

[59:26] think the spirit is there that we

[59:28] absolutely want to solicit as much

[59:30] resident input as possible. Um, so

[59:34] Jerry, do you think and apologies if you

[59:36] mentioned this in your report already,

[59:37] but can you kind of just walk us through

[59:38] now that you have presented to the

[59:40] council sort of the process

[59:43] um to determine whether the sites are

[59:47] state surplus land or exempt surplus

[59:50] land? Um, what are the different moments

[59:52] where the council will be able to hear

[59:56] resident input or or uh what are the

[59:58] opportunities for residents to offer

[1:00:00] their input?

[1:00:02] Um, sure. I'll be happy to answer that.

[1:00:04] The the first I think opportunity

[1:00:08] um will be when a determin determination

[1:00:11] is made. Does the town council want to

[1:00:14] declare each of the sites exempt surplus

[1:00:16] land or surplus land? So if that happens

[1:00:19] for both sites at the same meeting,

[1:00:21] that'll be a key point in time at which

[1:00:23] the you know the community can weigh in

[1:00:25] about the wisdom of or not of pursuing

[1:00:29] one of those two paths. And then of

[1:00:31] course the next major opportunity is if

[1:00:36] a developer is selected through

[1:00:38] whichever process you follow and you

[1:00:42] want to choose a developer for a

[1:00:44] particular site or one developer for

[1:00:46] both sites to whether it's to ground

[1:00:48] lease or to purchase the site.

[1:00:52] That agreement with that developer will

[1:00:54] be presented at a council meeting.

[1:00:56] There'll be a staff report presumably

[1:00:58] there's an analysis of the financial

[1:01:00] terms of the deal. Um some analysis of

[1:01:04] the viability of the development

[1:01:06] project. Why staff and the c why staff

[1:01:10] um in its team of advisors believe the

[1:01:14] development project is viable and likely

[1:01:16] to be successful.

[1:01:18] And then that agreement would have

[1:01:21] remedies typically including rights of

[1:01:24] reverter or some option to get the

[1:01:27] property back if you sell choose a

[1:01:29] developer you think they're going to

[1:01:31] they're terrific and they have a great

[1:01:32] plan but they're unable to perform. So

[1:01:36] usually we try to mitigate the risk of

[1:01:39] failure by delaying the conveyance until

[1:01:42] the developer has all their ducks in a

[1:01:44] row. They've got their financing lined

[1:01:46] up. they're ready to pull a building

[1:01:47] permit, but there's always an outside

[1:01:49] chance that something goes south after

[1:01:51] that. And so we we'd even build into the

[1:01:54] agreement, you know, remedies at that

[1:01:56] point. But th those are the two key

[1:01:58] opportunities for the public to weigh in

[1:02:00] on the process.

[1:02:02] >> Can I just add one more? And I think

[1:02:04] this is Jerry doesn't have the benefit

[1:02:06] of having sat through all the previous

[1:02:07] meetings. You've also instructed that

[1:02:09] before any RFP gets issued, you want the

[1:02:12] public to be involved in looking at um

[1:02:14] what that RFP would contain. Now, we we

[1:02:17] the only thing so far is what's shown in

[1:02:20] your housing element, the number of

[1:02:21] units, but there's a lot more detail

[1:02:23] that you want would want to be issuing

[1:02:25] when you go out looking for someone to

[1:02:27] partner with um to develop those sites.

[1:02:29] And that's when the public input will be

[1:02:32] extremely important so that you can

[1:02:34] weigh all of their concerns and requests

[1:02:37] and make sure that you can accommodate

[1:02:39] um as many of those as possible.

[1:02:44] » Other questions? Yeah, Council Member

[1:02:47] Aberish,

[1:02:49] >> thank you. Uh

[1:02:51] so thank you for walking us through the

[1:02:54] process of, you know, all the different

[1:02:56] options. Um, and I'm guessing that you

[1:02:58] have some idea, you know, of because

[1:03:00] right now it just sounds like there's

[1:03:02] all these different options and it's,

[1:03:04] you know, we could end up in any one of

[1:03:06] them, including, you know, private sale.

[1:03:08] Um, so I I was hoping to walk through

[1:03:10] them and just getting from your

[1:03:11] experience which, you know, what's the

[1:03:13] most likely outcome here? And I won't

[1:03:16] hold you, you know, I don't I don't

[1:03:17] expect you to, you know, predict exactly

[1:03:19] what's going to happen, but um do you

[1:03:22] have any thoughts on the likelihood that

[1:03:23] we'll be able to find a solution to get

[1:03:26] 80% development for housing on on that

[1:03:29] property

[1:03:30] >> on High Road? I really don't because I

[1:03:33] think one of the things we we need and

[1:03:36] um it's possible Sage is is may have

[1:03:39] done some of this work, but I would want

[1:03:40] to see a plotted easement map of that

[1:03:44] PG& easement. Going to assume you're not

[1:03:46] going to be able to put housing in the

[1:03:48] PG& easement area. So, one of the key

[1:03:52] considerations would be plot that

[1:03:54] easement and calculate what percentage

[1:03:57] of the site is encumbered by that. And

[1:03:59] we know that's off limits. And is it

[1:04:01] more or less than 20% of the site?

[1:04:06] And then hopefully it's considerably

[1:04:08] less than 20% because for any

[1:04:10] development, you know, you're not going

[1:04:12] to do very likely a zero lot line

[1:04:16] development and put a building and just

[1:04:18] fill every square inch of the site.

[1:04:22] Great. Thank you. And then um so if we

[1:04:25] go down the other path or sorry if we do

[1:04:28] if we are able to get the the 80% there

[1:04:31] um do you have experience on what the

[1:04:34] likelihood is that we would actually be

[1:04:36] able to like if we put it out to um a

[1:04:39] bid or to you know a request the term

[1:04:42] you used request for qualifications

[1:04:45] proposals

[1:04:46] >> qualifications or proposals it's or or

[1:04:48] perhaps a hybrid between the two.

[1:04:51] What's your experience on do we do they

[1:04:53] do you get many? Do you get some? Does

[1:04:54] it is it just kind of a crapshoot?

[1:04:57] >> It it's a little bit of a crapshoot

[1:04:59] there. One of the things that can make

[1:05:01] sites more or less attractive to the

[1:05:04] affordable housing developer community

[1:05:07] is proximity to things like transit

[1:05:12] services, grocery stores.

[1:05:15] And there's a complex scoring formula

[1:05:19] for allocation of tax credits which are

[1:05:22] often used for affordable housing

[1:05:23] projects that makes that improves the it's a low cost of financing, lower

[1:05:30] cost than private market. So it makes

[1:05:33] projects that will generate limited

[1:05:37] rental income because they're affordable

[1:05:39] more financially viable if you can tap

[1:05:42] into those sorts of funding. Also, state

[1:05:46] bond monies sometimes are available. So,

[1:05:49] um I don't know how this particular site

[1:05:52] would score. There are people who could

[1:05:54] tell us that. Um if if there is a

[1:05:58] possibility of doing a tax credit

[1:06:00] project, there's a good chance that your

[1:06:04] prospective developers may propose an

[1:06:07] even more affordable project or a

[1:06:10] project that has more affordable units

[1:06:12] than the 40% I mentioned because they

[1:06:14] may need to do that to tap into those

[1:06:17] other financing sources. So, it's a

[1:06:19] little bit of a counterintuitive

[1:06:21] results. You would think more affordable

[1:06:24] units would make it less financially

[1:06:26] viable, but that's not always the case

[1:06:27] if it enables you to tap into um good

[1:06:31] sources of lowcost financing.

[1:06:34] >> Thank you. And then if we have to go the

[1:06:36] other route, the surplus

[1:06:39] uh route um

[1:06:43] do you have any um when you send it out

[1:06:45] to the 300 plus uh developers, do you

[1:06:48] usually do you have an any experience on

[1:06:50] how frequently you you know you come up

[1:06:53] short and have to find a private buyer

[1:06:54] or Yeah, I would think you would get

[1:06:58] responses if you were to send it out to

[1:07:01] 300 groups. I don't know whether those

[1:07:05] responses would come from

[1:07:08] the the group of, you know, well-

[1:07:11] reggarded housing affordable housing

[1:07:13] developers that you see up and down the

[1:07:15] peninsula that have a track record of

[1:07:17] success. Hopefully, you would you would

[1:07:20] receive um responses

[1:07:23] from one or more of those if you went

[1:07:25] the surplus land act, the the surplus

[1:07:28] land process.

[1:07:30] But uh but as I mentioned earlier, I

[1:07:33] think you have a little bit more control

[1:07:34] under the the exempt surplus land

[1:07:36] process.

[1:07:38] >> Great. Thank you.

[1:07:41] » You're good.

[1:07:43] >> Yeah. A lot of grounds been covered. Um

[1:07:46] maybe one thing that we didn't fully

[1:07:49] consider

[1:07:51] uh is the first step to all this is

[1:07:54] the sewer capacity that we have to

[1:07:56] support density in that area. and we

[1:07:58] wound up putting a fair bit of our

[1:08:01] required density in basically one square

[1:08:04] mile on the north side of town that's

[1:08:06] serviced by this sewer. So I guess the

[1:08:09] question is uh and we'll know more. I

[1:08:11] think this study comes out in about a

[1:08:13] month, right? That's when we got about a

[1:08:14] month. What happens if there's limited

[1:08:18] capacity or not enough capacity? We have

[1:08:21] a couple of competing projects in that

[1:08:23] area.

[1:08:26] Who gets the capacity? Is it first come

[1:08:28] first serve? Is it what happens if if we

[1:08:31] are limited or we are capacity

[1:08:33] constrained on sewer because we need

[1:08:34] that to support density.

[1:08:39] » Yeah, it's tough one. But

[1:08:41] >> well, if the study comes back and shows

[1:08:42] you have a limited capacity, then we

[1:08:45] will be back here in front of you, in

[1:08:47] front of the public um daylighting that

[1:08:49] and asking how you wish to proceed. Um

[1:08:51] whether that is to try and figure out

[1:08:53] how to get additional capacity or not.

[1:08:56] um what the cost of that would be, h how

[1:08:58] that could be accomplished. Um you know,

[1:09:00] you don't run your own sewer plant here.

[1:09:02] We you know, you you have lines that run

[1:09:04] through town, but but that's transferred

[1:09:07] elsewhere and we don't process that. Um

[1:09:10] so it's a it's a complicated issue and

[1:09:11] that's why uh you indicated that we

[1:09:14] needed the master sewer study to

[1:09:16] indicate what the capacity is not only

[1:09:19] for um new development, but for existing

[1:09:21] homes, those homes that may end up with

[1:09:23] a a failed septic system. um you you

[1:09:26] really wanted to understand what is the

[1:09:28] capacity for the town as it currently is

[1:09:30] developed and for future development

[1:09:35] » right and then the next part of that is

[1:09:38] say one project gets you know the green

[1:09:41] light before another they are the first

[1:09:43] ones I guess to gobble up whatever's

[1:09:45] left of the capacity is that what winds

[1:09:47] up happening then another project might

[1:09:48] end up not having

[1:09:51] any ability to connect to sewer and

[1:09:53] therefore becomes a dead project and now

[1:09:54] we have different issue, I guess, on our

[1:09:56] hands. We're running around trying to

[1:09:57] find new units somewhere else.

[1:10:00] >> That's right. But, but since these are

[1:10:02] both town-owned sites, you control when

[1:10:04] and if you you issue the RFPs and when

[1:10:08] and is when and if you approve a

[1:10:10] developer and how you move forward. So,

[1:10:12] you have more control over these two

[1:10:14] sites and uh than you do if a private

[1:10:17] developer comes forward and wants to put

[1:10:18] up a project.

[1:10:21] >> Okay.

[1:10:23] in building out sewer in a constrained

[1:10:26] cost environment for the town. How would

[1:10:29] we how would we fund that even if we

[1:10:31] could get the sewer capacity from the

[1:10:34] provider?

[1:10:36] >> Well, that's a question you'd have to

[1:10:38] address after you get a full analysis. I know often um infrastructure projects

[1:10:43] are bond measures that need to go to the

[1:10:45] voters and if it's approved by the

[1:10:47] voters, then there's funding for those

[1:10:49] infrastructure improvements. Um if there

[1:10:52] if it's not approved, there's no funding

[1:10:54] for them.

[1:10:55] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:10:57] >> Yes. Another question.

[1:10:58] >> One quick followup, I promise. Uh so

[1:11:00] Jerry, you're your expertise sounds like

[1:11:04] is in surplus property, you know,

[1:11:06] whether it's exempt or not exempt. Land

[1:11:08] use, I guess, in general.

[1:11:09] >> Yeah, I'd say public private partnership

[1:11:12] development projects. So, usually

[1:11:14] involving a public agency and a

[1:11:16] developer

[1:11:18] working to develop some challenging site

[1:11:21] or another.

[1:11:22] >> Very timely because I suspect a lot of

[1:11:23] the people here are going to talk about

[1:11:25] some surplus property. So, I I do have a

[1:11:27] question for you just to kind of tee

[1:11:29] that up and that is is there any

[1:11:31] obligation of the town to acquire

[1:11:35] surplus lands if we don't have any to

[1:11:38] build properties on? I mean, we're we're

[1:11:40] down to really our last few here with

[1:11:42] High Road and Raundo. We have a few

[1:11:44] others, but they're far more awkward

[1:11:47] than High Road. Is there any obligation

[1:11:49] for us to acquire lands uh affirmatively

[1:11:52] to go seek them out?

[1:11:54] >> Yeah, that is something that is

[1:11:56] completely not addressed by the surplus

[1:11:59] land act. It's really more, I think,

[1:12:02] relevant to the housing element question

[1:12:05] and how you meet your arena numbers. And

[1:12:08] >> so, it's a political decision. And it's

[1:12:09] not a policy decision. I mean, it's not

[1:12:11] a uh requirement.

[1:12:13] >> It's not a surplus. The surplus land act

[1:12:15] just deals with disposition of

[1:12:18] properties that

[1:12:20] >> a local agency owns and concludes it no

[1:12:22] longer needs for its own use.

[1:12:24] >> I assume that would apply to the state

[1:12:26] disposing of its surplus lands too.

[1:12:28] >> State agency state the um

[1:12:32] counties,

[1:12:33] special districts,

[1:12:36] the state. I don't know that state

[1:12:39] agencies are subject to that act to um

[1:12:43] they may have some independent

[1:12:44] requirements.

[1:12:46] >> Thank you.

[1:12:48] >> Okay, we know we got a lot of people

[1:12:50] here that want to comment on the uh

[1:12:52] item. So, uh we welcome your input and

[1:12:55] um they'll be captured for the record as

[1:12:58] we move forward through what I think

[1:12:59] will I suspect is going to be a series

[1:13:01] of public meetings on this. But, uh

[1:13:04] public comment is open. Would anybody

[1:13:06] like to kick us off?

[1:13:09] Miss Pleti.

[1:13:18] » Hi, I'm Sue Pleti, a 37year resident of

[1:13:22] Raundo. And now we've identified two

[1:13:25] town sites. Now, we must evaluate

[1:13:28] whether these sites can actually be

[1:13:30] developed once physical constraints and

[1:13:32] life safety regulations are examined

[1:13:35] more closely. At a meeting attended by

[1:13:37] several of us, the town attorney uh

[1:13:40] explained that there was no fire code

[1:13:41] violation for the Raundo site because

[1:13:43] there's no project. I understand that

[1:13:46] interpretation. Typically, the fire code

[1:13:48] is enforced at the building site, the

[1:13:50] building permit stage. Simply listing a

[1:13:53] site in the housing element does not

[1:13:54] itself create a fire code violation. But

[1:13:56] the absence of a violation today does

[1:13:58] not mean the site is feasible.

[1:14:00] Feasibility is the real question. Runny

[1:14:03] Rabundo is a narrow single access

[1:14:05] dead-end road that already serves more

[1:14:07] than 30 dwellings. The campfires is an

[1:14:10] example of why the fire code access

[1:14:12] requires uh requirements exist.

[1:14:16] There was gridlock and 85 people lost

[1:14:18] their lives. Some of them burned to

[1:14:19] death sitting in their cars. Fire code

[1:14:22] D107 mandates that once a road serves

[1:14:24] more than 30 dwelling units. Any

[1:14:26] additional development requires a

[1:14:28] separate secondary fire apparatus access

[1:14:31] road so residents and firefighters are

[1:14:33] not forced to rely on a single road.

[1:14:36] Given the physical constraints of the

[1:14:37] Raundo site, it is not clear how a

[1:14:41] compliant secondary access road could be

[1:14:44] provided. The housing element identifies

[1:14:46] sites that are available for potential

[1:14:48] housing, but it does not guarantee that

[1:14:51] every site can be ultimately built. When

[1:14:54] a site later proves unable to comply

[1:14:56] with life safety laws, such as the fire

[1:14:59] code, towns commonly replace that site

[1:15:01] with another location that can

[1:15:03] physically or realistically meet both

[1:15:05] the housing and life safety

[1:15:07] requirements. For that reason, before

[1:15:10] issuing an RFP for the Raundo parcel,

[1:15:13] I've asked a in a separate later letter letter dated March 6 to provide

[1:15:17] residents with a written determination

[1:15:19] for the town council as well as the fire

[1:15:22] code official regarding whether the site

[1:15:24] is safe, will not worsen life safety,

[1:15:28] and can physically comply with fire code

[1:15:30] sections D107 and D103.

[1:15:33] If a com compliant secondary fire

[1:15:37] apparatus access road cannot be

[1:15:38] provided, the site is infeasible for

[1:15:42] additional development. Proceeding with

[1:15:44] an RFP for a site that is not buildable

[1:15:47] would mislead prospective developers and

[1:15:50] expend public resources on a proposal

[1:15:53] that cannot meet life safety standards

[1:15:56] or life safety mandates for that matter,

[1:15:58] particularly in a very high fire hazard

[1:16:01] severity zone. We must ensure that the

[1:16:03] sites are physically capable of meeting

[1:16:06] the fire code in order to protect the

[1:16:07] town, potential developers,

[1:16:10] firefighters, existing and future

[1:16:12] residents. If further analysis confirms

[1:16:14] that the Raundo site parcel cannot meet

[1:16:16] D107, the town can evaluate alternative

[1:16:20] sites while still meeting its housing

[1:16:22] obligations. Addressing this question

[1:16:24] now would allow one sec. Addressing this

[1:16:28] question now would allow the town to

[1:16:30] refine its housing site inventory based

[1:16:32] on phys feasibility without undermining

[1:16:34] its commitment to state housing goals.

[1:16:36] Housing policy policy should

[1:16:38] >> I got to cut you at three.

[1:16:40] >> One second. I'm almost finished. Housing

[1:16:42] policy should never ask us to choose

[1:16:44] between building homes and protecting

[1:16:46] lives. Before issuing an RFP, the town

[1:16:48] should first answer a simple question.

[1:16:50] Can this site legally and safely be

[1:16:52] built? If the answer is no, we should

[1:16:55] identify a site that can, I respectfully

[1:16:57] ask the council to pause the RFP and

[1:16:59] choose a housing site that can safely

[1:17:01] meet the fire code. Thank you for your

[1:17:02] time.

[1:17:03] >> Thank you, Sue. Thank you. And we're

[1:17:04] going to we really need to respect the

[1:17:06] three minutes just because I know there

[1:17:08] are a lot of people that are here to

[1:17:09] talk, but thank you, Sue. I know we've

[1:17:11] worked on this for three or four years

[1:17:12] together.

[1:17:15] Uh, next public comment member. Thank

[1:17:18] you. Hi,

[1:17:20] Welcome.

[1:17:21] >> Okay, so I'm gonna go in a totally

[1:17:22] different direction. I think it hasn't

[1:17:24] been brought up this evening, but um it

[1:17:26] needs to be brought up. Thank you. Yeah.

[1:17:30] Awesome. Um my name is Danielle Dearborn

[1:17:33] and I want to object to the town's

[1:17:36] consideration of acquisition of the 22

[1:17:39] acre Calr site along the east side of

[1:17:42] Interstate 280. Uh first, the proposed

[1:17:45] area is the only open space left on the

[1:17:47] east side within the town's

[1:17:49] jurisdiction.

[1:17:50] Furthermore, it is a recognized

[1:17:53] California wildflower preserve and a

[1:17:56] protected monarch butterfly habitat and

[1:17:59] thus must not be paved over with a

[1:18:01] parking lot or constructed with a hotel,

[1:18:03] homes, offices, or structures of any

[1:18:05] kind. In addition, when the town

[1:18:08] dedicated Barkley Field, with which we

[1:18:10] are its most proximate and impacted

[1:18:13] residents, the town made a commitment

[1:18:15] that this land would never be developed

[1:18:17] for any reason. Second, the town council

[1:18:20] continues to look almost exclusively at

[1:18:23] areas in Woodside east of 280 as the

[1:18:26] solution for the town's land needs.

[1:18:29] Those of us living there have been told

[1:18:31] repeatedly that other parts of Woodside,

[1:18:33] specifically near our downtown, would be

[1:18:35] considered for future projects. And yet,

[1:18:38] here we are again asking you to make

[1:18:40] good on past promises. Third, at the

[1:18:43] very least, continuing to pursue this

[1:18:45] will alienate both the town's east side

[1:18:48] residents and our neighbors. And while

[1:18:50] you each represent your respective

[1:18:52] districts, you personally and the town

[1:18:55] as a whole look unprofessional and even

[1:18:59] entitled every time you go back on your

[1:19:01] word. Finally, related to the above,

[1:19:04] it's disconcerting at best that until

[1:19:07] now there haven't been any public

[1:19:09] hearings seeking public comment about

[1:19:11] the town acquiring this land. When it

[1:19:14] appears our elected officials do things

[1:19:16] in secret, trust and confidence erode.

[1:19:20] In closing, I urge you to reiterate your

[1:19:23] prior promise to us and remove any and

[1:19:26] all Calrans land acquisition from

[1:19:29] consideration. As well, I ask that you

[1:19:31] do whatever is in within your power and

[1:19:34] ability and influence to ensure once and

[1:19:37] for all we will never see future

[1:19:38] development of any kind in this

[1:19:40] sensitive, protected area. Thank you.

[1:19:44] >> Thank you. Yes.

[1:19:47] And then we got we'll go to Zoom room

[1:19:49] next, but after Thank you.

[1:19:51] >> Yeah. Um some similar comments on the

[1:19:53] same 22 acre parcel.

[1:19:54] >> Yep.

[1:19:55] >> Um again, you know, as as was just

[1:19:58] mentioned, it's you know, the

[1:19:59] development seems to keep going east of

[1:20:01] 280 versus west of 280. um that

[1:20:05] particular location, you know, that

[1:20:08] particular location has the highway.

[1:20:10] Obviously, you know, even in the um

[1:20:12] public health guidelines by the

[1:20:13] California Air Resource Board, it says

[1:20:15] don't put housing within 500 ft of a

[1:20:17] highway and you're going to put high

[1:20:19] density units within that area of the

[1:20:21] highway. It's right on the pipeline. So,

[1:20:24] it's on the pipeline, it's right on the

[1:20:25] highway, and it's also got a hillside

[1:20:27] that's going to keep whatever pollution

[1:20:28] in right there. So it's a very unfe in

[1:20:31] addition to the you know destroying the

[1:20:33] natural habitat it also is pretty

[1:20:36] unhealthy place to put high you know

[1:20:37] high density housing. Um

[1:20:41] the other element is 280. I mean as you

[1:20:44] go up and down 280 everybody on the

[1:20:46] whole peninsula enjoys you know the

[1:20:48] scenic views. That is something that has

[1:20:51] been preserved in every community along 280 and that would completely

[1:20:55] disregard that whole you know whole

[1:20:57] original intent around 280. So I'd again

[1:21:00] ask and very well said in terms of you

[1:21:02] know not developing that land. We had

[1:21:05] the agreement when Barkley Park was done

[1:21:07] that that would not be developed and

[1:21:09] even in this uh meeting it's like the

[1:21:12] thing that doesn't exist but everybody

[1:21:14] knows it exists right so it's been in

[1:21:15] the San Francisco paper that you're

[1:21:17] looking to buy it but there's no public

[1:21:19] hearing there's no public discussion on

[1:21:21] it. So I would expect that there would

[1:21:24] if you do plan on proceeding at all that

[1:21:26] you would have a public process for it

[1:21:28] so that people could besides myself um

[1:21:31] could come out and you know give the

[1:21:32] issues with it. Thank you.

[1:21:34] >> It's great. Just because that's come up

[1:21:36] twice. Let me just say that um we

[1:21:38] reported out a month ago that any

[1:21:41] initial response when the town is

[1:21:43] offered real property starts in close

[1:21:45] session for one session and we committed

[1:21:48] to any other session should there be any

[1:21:50] response. Of course, it would be a

[1:21:51] public process. I just want people to be

[1:21:53] clear about that. So, thank you though.

[1:21:55] Appreciate the comment.

[1:21:58] Other comments? We'll go to the Zoom

[1:22:00] room. Um, Mr. Middleman.

[1:22:05] >> Uh, good evening. Uh, David Middleman,

[1:22:07] 280 Grand View up in the Western Hills.

[1:22:10] Um, you mentioned earlier that, you

[1:22:12] know, two of these sites are adding

[1:22:14] density in one square mile on the north

[1:22:16] end of town. And uh part of the

[1:22:19] discussion three years ago was about

[1:22:20] spreading development throughout the

[1:22:21] town. With all due respect to our

[1:22:24] planning director, I feel that some I

[1:22:27] feel that the report is missing some

[1:22:28] important details. The report lacks a

[1:22:31] geographic representation of development

[1:22:34] which would be useful for guiding

[1:22:36] further policy changes toward this goal.

[1:22:38] for example, are the programs that we've

[1:22:40] already implemented fulfilling that goal

[1:22:43] of adding density throughout the town or

[1:22:45] is it still focused on certain areas of

[1:22:48] town?

[1:22:49] Secondly, while the report includes

[1:22:51] progress in terms of units, it does not

[1:22:53] include progress on the promised

[1:22:55] programs. For example, one such program

[1:22:58] I am aware that we have failed to

[1:23:00] complete is program H6 6.2. C the mod

[1:23:04] evaluation modification of development

[1:23:06] standards in the Western Hills. Using

[1:23:09] the model developed in the Glenns,

[1:23:11] evaluate opportunities to relax

[1:23:13] development standards, including minimum

[1:23:14] lot sizes to provide property owners

[1:23:17] with more development flexibility, which

[1:23:19] will remove barriers for the

[1:23:20] construction of new residential units

[1:23:22] and additions or remodels to existing

[1:23:25] units. complete this review and adopt an

[1:23:28] ordinance to modify development

[1:23:30] standards in the western hills

[1:23:31] neighborhoods by the end of 2025. I

[1:23:33] quote to that from the housing element.

[1:23:36] We should report progress to HCB on both

[1:23:38] unit numbers and program development.

[1:23:40] Without doing so feels as if we are

[1:23:42] hiding the areas where we are falling

[1:23:44] short. Thank you very much.

[1:23:47] >> Thank you David.

[1:23:49] >> Yeah, you want great.

[1:23:50] >> Sure. Um the numbers in the housing

[1:23:53] element particularly some of the due

[1:23:55] dates were set many years ago. Um when

[1:23:58] we were in the very prolonged period of

[1:24:01] review by HCD, we asked them if we could

[1:24:05] come up with more realistic time frames

[1:24:07] uh for exactly this program being one of

[1:24:10] them because the due date for um uh

[1:24:13] adopting new standards of Western Hills

[1:24:14] was established long ago and the delay

[1:24:17] by HCD um pushed everything back. They

[1:24:21] refused to allow additional time for

[1:24:23] that. Um it is on the work plan but um

[1:24:27] we have a actually have a call with HCD

[1:24:29] tomorrow to discuss that with them. Um

[1:24:32] and I will assure you staff is moving as

[1:24:34] quickly as it can. I mean during this

[1:24:36] time period you've had a change in

[1:24:37] managers. You had a change in public

[1:24:39] works directors. Um you've lost your

[1:24:42] administrative service director. Um

[1:24:44] there there's

[1:24:46] feel like I need to defend the plan of

[1:24:47] staff here. There's only so much people

[1:24:49] can do um if they're working as hard as

[1:24:52] they can work. and we will be assuring

[1:24:54] HCD that we intend to get to this as

[1:24:56] quickly as possible.

[1:24:58] >> Thank you. And Sage, you I just want to

[1:24:59] add that um the report does go through

[1:25:02] all of the programs. Um so it's a

[1:25:04] requirement as as each annual progress

[1:25:07] report. I forget exactly which table it

[1:25:09] is. Um but it requires that we go

[1:25:11] through each of the programs and report

[1:25:13] the status. So that is included in the

[1:25:15] report. I mean, and I will note we a

[1:25:17] planner that helps us a lot with housing

[1:25:19] issues has been on extended leave. We

[1:25:21] thought it'd be 3 months. It's kind of

[1:25:23] going on eight months. So, we're just

[1:25:24] we're it's on our plan. Just want to

[1:25:26] reiterate that.

[1:25:27] >> Thank you very much. Please.

[1:25:30] >> Hello. Good evening. My name is Stacy

[1:25:32] Harris. I stood here a couple of years

[1:25:35] ago um speaking to most of the same of

[1:25:37] you in the room. So, good evening

[1:25:39] council members Burish Brown Gold Wall,

[1:25:42] Mayor Dowski, and town staff. Before I

[1:25:45] begin, I want to acknowledge the

[1:25:47] leadership this council showed a few

[1:25:49] years ago regarding the Farm Hill site.

[1:25:51] When it became clear that exploring a

[1:25:53] reasonzoning there would conflict with

[1:25:54] the original intent of the land

[1:25:56] donation, the council finally withdrew

[1:25:58] support. I want to give a special call

[1:26:01] out to Council Member Wall. You

[1:26:03] ultimately led that effort to honor the

[1:26:05] town's legal obligations to the Woodhill

[1:26:08] Estate's neighbors and why that land was

[1:26:10] donated to Barkley Park.

[1:26:12] Many of us remember that evening and I

[1:26:14] sure hope we're going to see the same

[1:26:16] leadership again with this decision for

[1:26:18] you guys to stand back from exploring

[1:26:20] the 22 acre parcel owned by Calrans not

[1:26:24] for sale and that you have no obligation

[1:26:27] from which to develop.

[1:26:32] Danielle Dearborn and Bob Regusa were

[1:26:34] here. They already shared all the things

[1:26:36] that you know about this beautiful open

[1:26:38] space that it sits on top of a PG&I pip

[1:26:41] PG& pipeline that there are species that

[1:26:44] are to be protected.

[1:26:47] But we should also point out that

[1:26:49] Stanford has protected 8,000 acres of

[1:26:52] its rolling hills and that Woods

[1:26:54] science's own Lawler Creek or some kind

[1:26:58] of area that you'll all know about was

[1:27:00] sold as private land 92 acres and it

[1:27:05] wasn't even allowed to be developed on.

[1:27:08] But yet somehow someone in this room or

[1:27:12] maybe prior to this room thought it was

[1:27:14] appropriate to have a senator get on his

[1:27:17] side and bring forward a plan to donate

[1:27:21] uninhabitable, undevelopable land

[1:27:24] without anybody knowing, without any

[1:27:26] community input, and without any people

[1:27:29] wanting it. And so that's all been done.

[1:27:32] Now, it's up to all of you to make the

[1:27:34] same good promises that you've been

[1:27:36] elected to make, which is to make the

[1:27:38] right decision and squash this

[1:27:40] possibility now. Thank you very much.

[1:27:44] >> Thank you. And we'll go to the Zoom room

[1:27:47] for Wendy.

[1:27:51] » Good evening.

[1:27:54] >> My name is Wendy Buckley. Can you hear

[1:27:56] me?

[1:27:56] >> Yes.

[1:27:57] >> Great. Uh, I've lived for 29 years on

[1:28:00] Ridgeway Road in Woodside Hills. I

[1:28:03] currently serve as the president of the

[1:28:05] Woodside Hills Homes Association. I'm

[1:28:08] sorry not to be there in person, but I

[1:28:09] am in Southern California, so I

[1:28:11] appreciate this option to join via Zoom.

[1:28:14] Um, I'm joining tonight to say that I am

[1:28:17] shocked that the council is even

[1:28:19] discussing the possible acquisition of

[1:28:22] the CALR land on the east side of 280.

[1:28:25] Woodside has an approved housing element

[1:28:28] already contentious,

[1:28:30] but this plan already disproportionately

[1:28:32] burdens Eastern Woodside, which

[1:28:35] represents about 20% of the acreage of

[1:28:37] the town with 75 to 90% of the proposed

[1:28:42] multifamily housing units in the plan if

[1:28:45] you include Kinyatta College.

[1:28:48] We were told that this was unavoidable

[1:28:50] because the town owns some of the

[1:28:52] parcels in the plan and therefore the

[1:28:54] state can force us to build on them. So

[1:28:58] why would you even think of buying more

[1:29:01] land? Particularly this land. It is the

[1:29:05] last open space in Woodside Hills. I

[1:29:08] wonder does open space only have value

[1:29:10] in western Woodside?

[1:29:13] We've also been told recently that the

[1:29:15] TCAP update process would possibly add

[1:29:18] some housing units in the downtown area,

[1:29:21] which makes total sense. Now, suddenly,

[1:29:24] this new piece of land is on the table

[1:29:26] and mysteriously being presented as

[1:29:29] nearly a done deal in the press. Where

[1:29:32] did this come from? Who in this room

[1:29:35] wants this? From what I've read, the

[1:29:38] idea seems to have come from two people,

[1:29:40] Chris Shaw and Josh Becker. neither of

[1:29:43] whom is on the council. And Mr. Becker

[1:29:46] doesn't even live here. Do we have an

[1:29:48] unelected shadow council in Woodside? I

[1:29:52] hope not. And this is a wild guess, but

[1:29:54] I am betting that Mr. Shaw lives on the

[1:29:57] western side of 280.

[1:29:59] Frankly, I think this CALR land is a

[1:30:02] bright shiny object meant to distract

[1:30:04] from the work of the TECAP process to

[1:30:07] more equitably share the allocation of

[1:30:10] multifamily housing around Woodside.

[1:30:13] Lastly, I find it incredible that the

[1:30:16] council member who represents Woodside

[1:30:18] Hills is being excluded from the

[1:30:21] discussions on this topic because he

[1:30:23] lives in Woodside Hills. So, who is

[1:30:26] representing me and my other eastern

[1:30:29] Woodside neighbors in your closed door

[1:30:31] sessions? You have just disenfranchised

[1:30:35] one quarter of the town's residents.

[1:30:37] This is the most significant issue

[1:30:39] affecting this area in decades, and we

[1:30:42] have no voice at the table. That is

[1:30:45] wrong. So, I am asking the rest of the

[1:30:48] council, please just say no to this

[1:30:52] terrible idea. Thank you.

[1:31:03] Wendy, and welcome.

[1:31:12] Uh, good evening, mayor, council

[1:31:14] members, and residents. Um, I uh come up

[1:31:18] here tonight uh along with many of my

[1:31:20] fellow residents to rise in strong

[1:31:22] opposition to the 22 acre uh CALR parcel

[1:31:27] uh being acquired by the town. Um,

[1:31:30] Woodside's uh identity rests on

[1:31:33] preserving our open space and uh

[1:31:36] beautiful character. And as an eastern

[1:31:38] Woodside resident and father of two

[1:31:40] young children, uh it's of utmost

[1:31:42] importance to me that that character is

[1:31:45] maintained. It's a major part of why we

[1:31:46] moved to this town in the first place.

[1:31:49] um acquiring this parcel and adding it

[1:31:51] to our in inventory as has been said um

[1:31:55] at a time when the RN RHNA mandates uh

[1:31:59] and is pressuring us to uh develop

[1:32:02] existing town- owned sites uh is not

[1:32:04] only unnecessary but uh is something

[1:32:07] that could impact um others uh who have

[1:32:10] young families like myself and and

[1:32:12] anyone else with a long-term outlook for

[1:32:14] Woodside uh for generations. even small

[1:32:17] moves forward could have reverberations

[1:32:19] that uh we believe uh my family and and

[1:32:24] um others that I've spoken with in the

[1:32:25] town believe uh are extremely detrime

[1:32:29] detrimental to the character of Woodside

[1:32:31] and that we want to stand strongly in

[1:32:34] opposition to. Um, it's been said before

[1:32:36] about the public hearings and lack

[1:32:39] thereof for this and and I look forward

[1:32:41] to returning for any public hearings

[1:32:43] that would take place, but I hope and

[1:32:45] urge uh the council to halt any and all

[1:32:48] negotiations um for this space. Um, we

[1:32:52] should preserve this open space for all

[1:32:53] of Woodside, both us Eastern residents

[1:32:56] and the rest of the town. It's a

[1:32:57] beautiful uh beautiful space uh and

[1:33:00] prioritize our shared values over

[1:33:02] unnecessary expansion. Thank you. Thank

[1:33:04] you. You know, Jean, is it worth I mean,

[1:33:07] I think because of the article and

[1:33:09] there's some

[1:33:11] starting to feel a little bit more

[1:33:13] advanced than perhaps actually where we

[1:33:16] are. Could you comment a little bit

[1:33:18] about the fact that we were reached out

[1:33:21] to and we just were wanted to know what

[1:33:24] they were thinking and that's kind of

[1:33:25] where we are.

[1:33:26] >> I can communicate to you what I I know.

[1:33:28] This was a process that was being um led

[1:33:30] by um town manager led better during his

[1:33:33] time period here. So here's what I

[1:33:35] understand. My understanding is that

[1:33:37] Calrans reached out. I can't I don't

[1:33:40] have any information on other than what

[1:33:42] I've also read in the press why that

[1:33:43] occurred, but Calrans reached out

[1:33:45] indicated they were going to market the

[1:33:46] property and indicated that they were

[1:33:49] interested in knowing if Woodside would

[1:33:51] like to enter into discussions with them

[1:33:54] um about a potential acquisition. Um, we

[1:33:56] scheduled one close session uh as

[1:33:58] allowed under the Brown Act to ask that

[1:34:00] question. And although the council was

[1:34:02] not obligated at the end of that session

[1:34:04] to report out, you did. And what you

[1:34:06] reported out is that this there was

[1:34:08] interested in finding out from Calr what their plans were for the site and what the terms for acquisition would

[1:34:14] be. There's been um one follow-up

[1:34:17] meeting which I attended. Um uh town

[1:34:20] manager Lead Better was supposed to

[1:34:22] attend but he declined to do so. Um and

[1:34:25] CALR just in confirmed yes they are

[1:34:28] going to market the property and um

[1:34:29] indicated that if we were were serious

[1:34:32] about looking at it uh they'd like us to

[1:34:34] get back to them and I've done nothing

[1:34:35] further.

[1:34:36] >> Mhm. And also as I recall it would be a

[1:34:41] fair market price which would be un

[1:34:44] unattainable for the town of Woods.

[1:34:46] >> Sorry but I don't have any information

[1:34:48] other than that one question that was

[1:34:49] asked.

[1:34:50] >> I'm not going to lead that. I got to

[1:34:51] take one from the Zoom room quick. Um,

[1:34:53] Kendra,

[1:35:00] » Kendra, you could unmute yourself.

[1:35:09] » Andrew, you might be on mute.

[1:35:15] I think we'll come back. Um, we're going

[1:35:18] to come back to you. Um

[1:35:21] and we'll we'll go we'll go here. Thank

[1:35:23] you.

[1:35:26] » Okay. Thank

[1:35:28] >> it's always a little tough.

[1:35:30] >> Thank you Martin Martin Dunsby. Um

[1:35:32] firstly on on the Calrans having worked

[1:35:35] with Calr that sounds astonishingly

[1:35:37] proactive of Calrans to reach out and

[1:35:40] offer us 22 acres. I I can't conceive of

[1:35:45] Calr independently and and and just

[1:35:48] doing that. But anyway, the point that I

[1:35:49] wanted to make is we all know that we've

[1:35:51] got significant um traffic and parking

[1:35:54] problems uh here in the town. And if we

[1:35:56] put housing, particularly new multif

[1:35:59] family housing in places that are kind

[1:36:01] of effectively isolated with only a

[1:36:04] single road access, which both the

[1:36:05] parcels suffer from that. We're going to

[1:36:08] force every resident in those houses to

[1:36:10] go get in their cars for anything that

[1:36:12] they need and drive here and park in our

[1:36:15] scarce parking spaces. Um we've got a

[1:36:18] phenomenal set of infrastructure here in

[1:36:20] the town center, schools,

[1:36:23] um bars, hotels, the the uh um

[1:36:27] supermarket, uh the library, um lots of

[1:36:30] jobs for people. We need people to fill

[1:36:32] the jobs. We should be building multif

[1:36:34] family housing here in the town center

[1:36:37] where people can walk to those things.

[1:36:39] Freeing up our spaces, reducing the

[1:36:41] traffic, helping support the merchants

[1:36:43] in our community, putting their kids

[1:36:46] through our schools, participating in

[1:36:48] these kinds of offerings. It's crazy to

[1:36:50] go put these people in fields in the

[1:36:51] middle of nowhere when we can build

[1:36:53] maybe not 16 lots in one one homes in

[1:36:57] one lot, but we've got space here. This

[1:36:59] is where we should be building

[1:37:00] community, building our town center into

[1:37:04] the center.

[1:37:05] >> Excellent. Thank you.

[1:37:11] We'll try Karen in the Zoom room.

[1:37:15] >> Yeah. Hi. Um Karen Schultz.

[1:37:18] >> Hi. Um I uh applaud um that uh response

[1:37:23] there. I also would just like to ask um

[1:37:26] regarding the the parcel off of high of

[1:37:29] um high road. Will those residents have

[1:37:32] be where were the where were their

[1:37:34] children be allowed to go to elementary

[1:37:36] school?

[1:37:37] >> Would they which school districts will

[1:37:40] those

[1:37:40] >> I wrote I believe is Redwood City School

[1:37:43] District.

[1:37:44] >> Okay. So again, you've chosen the most

[1:37:47] eastern part of Woodside that will not

[1:37:50] uh have any effect on your public

[1:37:52] schools, on your school systems, and I

[1:37:55] think that's a very interesting uh

[1:37:58] choice and something that we're

[1:38:00] considered now that we're considered

[1:38:01] part of Woodside because you need the

[1:38:03] land, but we're not allowed to

[1:38:04] participate in in the school districts

[1:38:07] and the the elementary schools of your

[1:38:10] that that are fine that Woodside has. So

[1:38:13] I just wanted to make that point. again

[1:38:15] on the eastern side being used for land

[1:38:18] versus um the western side.

[1:38:23] >> Thank you.

[1:38:28] Uh we'll jump to Harpit.

[1:38:36] » Yes, thank you very much. Uh this is

[1:38:38] Harprit and Nina from um the Woodridge

[1:38:42] area. Um we were heavily involved in the

[1:38:44] discussions three years ago um when we

[1:38:46] were talking about the farm hill u land.

[1:38:49] The the the town did the right thing

[1:38:51] then and we would urge you again to do

[1:38:53] the right thing. This is a very

[1:38:56] important piece of land for us to enjoy

[1:38:59] the outdoors. You see many people there

[1:39:01] with their families with their pets. Um,

[1:39:04] I would really I won't repeat what my

[1:39:06] neighbors have said, but I would urge

[1:39:07] you to not buy land um that you haven't

[1:39:10] looked into the traffic flow, the

[1:39:12] environmental concerns, and the safety

[1:39:14] concerns on what is on that land and is

[1:39:17] it safe for uh humans to habit it and

[1:39:20] build housing on it. Um, this seems like

[1:39:23] um I agree with the person before me who

[1:39:25] said that Cal Trains came forward to try

[1:39:28] and sell the land. I'm very surprised

[1:39:30] that they would. um this feels like

[1:39:32] there is something going on internally

[1:39:34] in an backdoor attempt to try and bring

[1:39:36] this area back in for the housing

[1:39:39] consideration. Um please don't do this.

[1:39:41] We enjoy the land. Um and uh and you

[1:39:45] kept your promises. You you you honored

[1:39:47] the covenants 3 years ago. Don't turn

[1:39:49] your back on legal agreements,

[1:39:51] covenants. It it uh it it makes a

[1:39:54] mockery of all of the legal

[1:39:55] documentation that surrounds this area.

[1:39:57] Um please go back and look at your

[1:39:59] notes. you did say you would explore the

[1:40:01] downtown area. Please go back and do

[1:40:03] that because that is really where folks

[1:40:05] that that need uh uh this type of

[1:40:09] housing, find jobs, and making them

[1:40:11] commute and use public system

[1:40:13] transportation systems isn't the right

[1:40:15] answer. They should be able to work walk

[1:40:17] to their jobs and find transportation

[1:40:20] that gets them to their jobs relatively

[1:40:22] easily without having to own cars as

[1:40:24] well.

[1:40:26] >> Very good. Thank you.

[1:40:28] >> Thank you.

[1:40:30] Hi

[1:40:32] to drop.

[1:40:34] >> Sage has got you covered.

[1:40:36] >> Thank you so much. Hi everyone. Um I am

[1:40:39] Well, that almost went too low. I'm uh

[1:40:42] my name is Donna How. Um I'm a Woodside

[1:40:45] resident uh speaking in support of

[1:40:48] preserving the 22 acre Calrans parcel,

[1:40:52] also known as Flax Hill by some of us as

[1:40:55] open space and as an active wildlife

[1:40:57] corridor. This parcel sits immediately

[1:41:00] adjacent to the wildlife passage under

[1:41:02] Interstate 280. Monitoring by the Fela

[1:41:06] Day Conservation Fund um through camera

[1:41:10] traps and scat um collection has already

[1:41:14] documented multiple species using this

[1:41:17] crossing including bobcat, mule deer,

[1:41:20] and coyote with mountain lions observed

[1:41:22] in the surrounding area. These

[1:41:25] observations are part of a much larger

[1:41:28] scientific effort. File day operates a

[1:41:30] regional network of more than 150

[1:41:33] wildlife cameras across the Bay Area to

[1:41:37] understand how animals move through

[1:41:39] landscapes increasingly affected by

[1:41:41] development. This location was selected

[1:41:44] specifically because it sits next to

[1:41:47] highquality habitat connected to the

[1:41:49] Santa Cruz Mountains and the protected

[1:41:52] watershed lands of Crystal Springs

[1:41:54] Reservoir. Highways like Interstate 280

[1:41:57] are major barriers for wildlife.

[1:42:01] For wide ranging species such as the

[1:42:03] mountain lion, highways can effectively

[1:42:05] function as walls unless unless safe

[1:42:09] crossing points exist. But wildlife

[1:42:12] crossings only work if the surrounding

[1:42:14] land remains natural. When development

[1:42:17] occurs immediately adjacent to these

[1:42:19] crossings, animals will often avoid them

[1:42:22] entirely. Protecting the land around the

[1:42:25] crossing is just as important as the

[1:42:28] crossing itself. This area also supports

[1:42:31] native grassland habitat and rare plant

[1:42:34] species that are increasingly uncommon

[1:42:36] on the peninsula. Once landscapes like

[1:42:39] this are fragmented, they're extremely

[1:42:42] difficult to restore. There is also an

[1:42:45] important planning context. Under

[1:42:47] California Assembly Bill 1889,

[1:42:50] I'd love to hear more about that. Cities

[1:42:52] and counties must incorporate wildlife

[1:42:55] and habitat connectivity into the

[1:42:57] conservation element of their general

[1:43:00] plans by 2028.

[1:43:03] Protecting known wildlife corridors like

[1:43:05] this one will help Woodside meet those

[1:43:07] planning goals. I recognize the

[1:43:10] seriousness of the housing challenges

[1:43:12] facing our town. This 22 acre parcel of

[1:43:16] land is not appropriate for development.

[1:43:19] Land that functions as a documented

[1:43:21] wildlife corridor deserves careful

[1:43:24] consideration. If the town does pursue

[1:43:26] acquisition of this property or if the

[1:43:29] property is given to the town, I

[1:43:32] strongly encourage the council to

[1:43:34] prioritize preserving it as open space

[1:43:36] and protecting this functioning wildlife

[1:43:38] corridor. Wildlife crossings across

[1:43:40] major highways are rare. Woodside could

[1:43:43] protect one that

[1:43:46] >> Thank you for your time and

[1:43:47] consideration.

[1:43:48] >> Thank you.

[1:43:50] Uh we'll try again Kendra in the Zoom

[1:43:52] room.

[1:43:55] Sorry about that. My phone kicked me

[1:43:57] off. Okay.

[1:44:00] My name is Kendra Bllandelle and I'm a

[1:44:02] third generation Woodside resident. My

[1:44:04] children are now fourth generation here.

[1:44:07] I'm sure that everyone who read about

[1:44:09] Mr. Lebr's report had some thoughts

[1:44:11] about what might have happened. However,

[1:44:13] anyone who's ever been involved with a

[1:44:15] board or a council and who's had to

[1:44:17] undergo legal action knows that there

[1:44:19] could easily be all sorts of details

[1:44:20] that are not public. So no one should

[1:44:23] jump to conclusions.

[1:44:25] For that reason, I don't have formed

[1:44:27] opinions on what must have happened

[1:44:28] between the name mend. Conclusions will

[1:44:30] be drawn in time with attorneys. What

[1:44:32] concerns me is that this issue could

[1:44:34] taint the plight that I have earnestly

[1:44:37] been fighting for ever since the

[1:44:39] beginning of this housing element having

[1:44:41] been started. I believe to my core that

[1:44:44] Roundo Drive should not be added to the

[1:44:46] list of places for building highdensity

[1:44:48] housing. I've been arguing this for

[1:44:50] years now in writing in person over Zoom

[1:44:53] with council's members themselves.

[1:44:55] Someone said tonight the issue is that

[1:44:57] all the residents of this town don't

[1:44:59] have trust in the town council after

[1:45:00] this report. I lost mine a long time

[1:45:03] ago. Much like Don Hugh mentioned

[1:45:05] earlier, it was much more obvious that

[1:45:07] the council was concerned not even with

[1:45:09] the requirements of the housing element,

[1:45:11] but who they wanted to make happy or not

[1:45:13] make angry by sites or plans that were

[1:45:15] already struck down.

[1:45:17] There were other options that made much

[1:45:19] more sense that got taken away not

[1:45:21] because of the land, but because of the

[1:45:22] people involved. And that's not right or

[1:45:25] fair or appropriate. And that's what

[1:45:27] breaks trust with the public. You're

[1:45:29] asking about resident input. Well, that

[1:45:32] seems a little disingenuous. Here's my

[1:45:34] repeated input. Roundo Drive is not an

[1:45:37] appropriate place to build. And if you

[1:45:40] gave me the next 15 minutes to debate

[1:45:41] it, I could go on in detail. That site

[1:45:44] should not be used as highdensity

[1:45:46] housing. I think the council should go

[1:45:48] with the option that was offered tonight

[1:45:50] to sell it to be kept open. We are a

[1:45:52] long deadend road.

[1:45:55] We're against open space which is a

[1:45:57] particular fire hazard. You want to talk

[1:45:59] about woodside identity. We're an

[1:46:02] equestrian community. You know, I ride

[1:46:03] woodside. Raundo is part of that

[1:46:05] heritage. We're part of the trail

[1:46:07] system. We have access to Hutter Park.

[1:46:09] We have many, many people who trailer

[1:46:11] here to ride their horses from here.

[1:46:13] Even people who aren't owners on this

[1:46:15] land. We have our own ecoin therapy

[1:46:17] center, NCFT on our road. We have high

[1:46:20] density pedestrian and horse traffic.

[1:46:22] There's so many joggers and walkers who

[1:46:24] come here. It's not a conducive place to

[1:46:27] have more traffic and congestion, but

[1:46:29] you want to put another 17 units that'll

[1:46:31] put dozens or more cars onto the road.

[1:46:35] And as been mentioned before, all these

[1:46:37] product projects that you're talking

[1:46:38] about let out into the same small area

[1:46:40] of Kinyatta on the north end of

[1:46:42] Woodside. It's not ideal. We don't have

[1:46:45] public transit. We're not walking

[1:46:46] distance from the center of town. We're

[1:46:47] not near any amenities.

[1:46:50] None of this makes sense. Please remove

[1:46:52] from your plans and find a new, more

[1:46:54] appropriate site. Thank you.

[1:47:02] >> Hi. Uh, I guess Okay, Steve.

[1:47:07] >> I I think

[1:47:08] >> Oh, I didn't Yeah, Stephanie is next.

[1:47:11] Yeah, I didn't I didn't realize the line

[1:47:12] was all the way. Yeah, Stephanie. Hi.

[1:47:18] » Um, I just have a quick question. At the

[1:47:20] beginning of the report, you mentioned

[1:47:22] that there are 16 lowincome units at 773

[1:47:26] Kenyatta being proposed. How are you

[1:47:29] going to show the state that those are

[1:47:30] low-inccome units?

[1:47:33] >> Would you be able to respond?

[1:47:38] >> Right now, the housing element has a

[1:47:39] target of 16 moderate income units.

[1:47:43] That's a target and it will pan out to

[1:47:45] see what gets built there. Um, so at

[1:47:48] this point, we don't have a project uh

[1:47:50] proposed other than the subdivision.

[1:47:52] >> Well, okay. But it was at the beginning

[1:47:54] of the report. Am I wrong? Did you say

[1:47:55] that there was 16 low-inccome units?

[1:48:00] No. Uh, what we indicated was exactly

[1:48:02] what the planning directors just said.

[1:48:04] We were quoting from the housing element

[1:48:05] what what is shown as projections in the

[1:48:07] housing element.

[1:48:09] >> Oh, only shown as projections. Well, I'm

[1:48:12] not sure how you're going to prove that

[1:48:14] there's any low-income housing. If you if you want to put low-income

[1:48:17] housing at 773, it's becoming a problem

[1:48:20] because I don't know how you're going to

[1:48:21] prove to the state that it's actually 16

[1:48:24] units are going to be low-income housing

[1:48:25] at 773. How do you prove that to the

[1:48:28] state if if they were going to be

[1:48:29] low-income housing?

[1:48:34] » A project has different mechanisms in

[1:48:36] which they can record different income

[1:48:38] levels. So, just to reiterate, the

[1:48:41] housing element has a target of 16

[1:48:43] moderate income housing units at that

[1:48:45] site. Um,

[1:48:46] >> so it's moderate.

[1:48:47] >> That's what it's always been, just to be

[1:48:49] clear. It's in the housing element. 16

[1:48:51] moderate income housing. Uh, 16 moderate

[1:48:54] income units. is a target to be met at

[1:48:58] that site. These are targets that the

[1:49:00] town will try to meet.

[1:49:02] >> Okay. So, so now that's meeting. Okay.

[1:49:04] Thank you.

[1:49:05] >> You

[1:49:07] uh yeah, hi. Of course, back toback

[1:49:10] makes sense. I think in this case,

[1:49:12] >> uh David Disher, I've been here many

[1:49:15] times talking about 773. Um page three

[1:49:18] talks about the remaining nine acres

[1:49:21] being uh reszoned. Um, when we talk to

[1:49:24] our neighbors about this project over

[1:49:26] the years, um, a lot of them say, "Well,

[1:49:30] um, the owner is a big-time property

[1:49:33] developer and builder, very rich, lives

[1:49:37] in Woodside, very influential. He knows

[1:49:41] how to influence."

[1:49:43] I say to them, "I've met with each of

[1:49:46] you except for Council Member Brown.

[1:49:48] Some of you more than once." And I say

[1:49:50] to them, I found them very forthright.

[1:49:52] Have some faith.

[1:49:56] You are going to have an incredibly

[1:49:58] important discretionary decision when

[1:50:00] these

[1:50:02] nine acres come to you eventually

[1:50:05] to reszone from SR1 to R1.

[1:50:10] Something that is very, very unusual.

[1:50:15] I've asked Kevin Bryant. I've asked

[1:50:17] Jason Led Better. I've asked Sage, "What

[1:50:19] are the criteria

[1:50:21] to make this decision?"

[1:50:24] Completely subjective.

[1:50:27] So when my neighbors read what was in

[1:50:31] that report

[1:50:33] and they understand what I just said,

[1:50:38] some of them just give up

[1:50:42] and I I try and say, "Have some faith."

[1:50:45] Um

[1:50:49] I in my job I have become aware of how

[1:50:54] lobbying works.

[1:50:57] Former politicians become lobbyists and

[1:51:01] they use their personal relationships

[1:51:03] with other politicians

[1:51:05] on behalf of their clients.

[1:51:08] Unfortunately, that's

[1:51:11] one of the allegations in this

[1:51:12] whistleblower report.

[1:51:14] Um,

[1:51:16] I'm going to keep my faith in you. I've

[1:51:19] met you individually.

[1:51:21] Um,

[1:51:23] but I've got to tell you, there is a

[1:51:26] shaking of confidence,

[1:51:29] especially with what's going on with

[1:51:30] 773.

[1:51:33] Um, because it is so discretionary.

[1:51:38] Um,

[1:51:39] I don't know how the investigation will

[1:51:43] get at the some of these issues that

[1:51:46] relate to somebody who's not a public

[1:51:48] official anymore.

[1:51:51] And that concerns me.

[1:51:53] Um, I've talked about one of the most

[1:51:57] important parts of this project is the

[1:51:59] road and you've listened to me and

[1:52:02] that's now part not part of the plan and

[1:52:05] that I'm I'm very happy about that.

[1:52:08] Um, but the neighbors are still

[1:52:10] incredibly concerned

[1:52:12] about this reszoning, what it means for

[1:52:16] the community, what it means for

[1:52:17] Woodside at large. Thank you.

[1:52:20] >> Thank you.

[1:52:24] Uh, we'll go back to the Zoom room for

[1:52:26] Alexandra.

[1:52:32] » Yes. Hello. My name is Alexandra

[1:52:34] Nimovski. I'm a resident of Woodside

[1:52:37] Hills on Crest Road.

[1:52:40] >> Uh, we have lived there for since 2002.

[1:52:45] >> Quarter of century. And um I just

[1:52:51] I mean I I'm sure if we were to do a

[1:52:54] survey of all of the residents, all of

[1:52:57] 250ome

[1:52:59] households of Woodside Hills, not one of

[1:53:03] them would be in favor of developing the

[1:53:06] cult parcel. But I wanted to speak on a

[1:53:11] positive note and just draw a picture

[1:53:16] that makes most sense to me. Uh we are

[1:53:21] obligated by the state to build

[1:53:23] affordable housing units. We have our

[1:53:27] town workers, our firefighters, our

[1:53:31] teachers,

[1:53:34] and we are a fairly welloff town. So why

[1:53:39] do we need to sell our surplus lands to

[1:53:43] the developer and then god knows who

[1:53:47] will move into those units. If we could

[1:53:50] just take

[1:53:52] a parcel downtown when teachers can walk to the school uh when uh the town

[1:54:00] workers could walk to town, the

[1:54:03] firefighters are right there and develop

[1:54:06] maybe a smaller number of units, maybe

[1:54:09] not, you know, 15, maybe 10 units, but

[1:54:13] we wouldn't have to sell that land. We

[1:54:16] would just hire a builder and build 10

[1:54:21] or 12 affordable units and make our

[1:54:25] special program for our people and meet

[1:54:28] the state requirements at the same time.

[1:54:31] Tell me why it is not possible. Thank

[1:54:34] you.

[1:54:38] » Thank you.

[1:54:39] I think we tried some zoning overlays in

[1:54:41] the downtown in the last cycle and uh we

[1:54:44] couldn't get private property owners

[1:54:46] interested, but it's a great idea. We

[1:54:48] certainly support it.

[1:54:50] >> Hi, Miss Hansen.

[1:54:52] >> Uh I'm Kim Hansen, live on Ray Mundo.

[1:54:55] I've been coming to talk to you all

[1:54:57] about this for the almost maybe every

[1:55:00] meeting, but tonight was real. I've got

[1:55:02] so much to say, but tonight was so

[1:55:05] different because of attorney Jerry. We

[1:55:09] I think that everyone has come here with

[1:55:11] the best intentions to deal with the

[1:55:13] pressures from the state to try to sol

[1:55:16] to represent our constituents and to try

[1:55:19] to solve the problems that's been put

[1:55:21] upon us by the state. But we in all of

[1:55:25] these discussions there was no talk

[1:55:27] about selling the land. There was no

[1:55:29] talk about leasing the land. We were

[1:55:32] going to partner with a developer. And

[1:55:34] now for the first time I'm hearing that

[1:55:37] the land may change hands. Um I'm also

[1:55:40] hearing for the first time that it would

[1:55:43] have these permanent covenants that we

[1:55:46] would actually change like all of this

[1:55:49] is new. So even with the best intentions

[1:55:52] at what point did you guys say holy

[1:55:54] we need somebody who knows what's going

[1:55:56] on? What when did that happen? the we

[1:56:00] were told relax you know once we

[1:56:04] identify these sites we have to do this

[1:56:06] by the state we'll just reszone them and

[1:56:09] see what happens we'll see what

[1:56:11] developers come up and make a proposal

[1:56:13] we'll partner with them we weren't told

[1:56:15] they would be designated as surplus land

[1:56:18] forever and forever determined and

[1:56:20] they're not surplus land surplus land is

[1:56:22] land you don't need the land on Rayundo

[1:56:26] is land we've been using And I've got so

[1:56:29] much to say, but I'm going to I'm going

[1:56:30] to pivot. So for so if the state is

[1:56:34] saying that we have to present an RFP

[1:56:37] under their timeline, then we need to

[1:56:40] define this like who's going to write

[1:56:42] the RFP? Is it going to be a lease? Are

[1:56:44] we going to sell it? Are the residents

[1:56:47] going to have to pay for everything? Is

[1:56:49] town going to own it? What is the price?

[1:56:52] Will town subsidize or partner? Are you

[1:56:54] going to ask citizens to pay for this as

[1:56:57] well as any modifications to comply with

[1:57:00] fire code? Are we going to have to pay

[1:57:02] for the new fire engine that we don't

[1:57:03] have for three-story buildings? Now,

[1:57:06] I've heard from Attorney Jerry that 80%

[1:57:10] has to be developed. Does that mean

[1:57:12] we're going to put high high density

[1:57:13] with only like a little strip of

[1:57:15] concrete or maybe some annual plants

[1:57:18] planted? I mean, if and do we have to

[1:57:21] wait for our families to burn while we

[1:57:23] borrow a fire truck and we're stuck and

[1:57:25] can't defend or evacuate? I mean, who pays for this compliance? Also, we

[1:57:31] have no sewer no sewer for the the

[1:57:34] Rayundo site. So, who's going to pay for

[1:57:37] the $3 million infrastructure that's put

[1:57:39] in as well as increased sewer rates and

[1:57:42] any town and downstream structure? I

[1:57:45] don't want to pay for that. And then if

[1:57:47] my 73y old house, if the septic fails,

[1:57:51] then I don't get to I don't get to

[1:57:53] shower, and shave. I just have to let

[1:57:55] the apartment down the street with 17

[1:57:57] units do their thing and I do nothing.

[1:57:59] Thank you.

[1:58:01] >> Thanks, Kim.

[1:58:08] » Steve Luben again. Um, I I think a lot

[1:58:11] of the comments tonight have pointed out

[1:58:13] really the folly of the way the town

[1:58:15] approached the housing element in the

[1:58:17] first place by going out and trying to

[1:58:19] make deals with individual property

[1:58:21] owners. You only succeeded with one of

[1:58:23] those and that ended up in our backyard.

[1:58:26] Um, but it should have been there should

[1:58:29] have been comprehensive planning looking

[1:58:31] at the carrying capacity, looking where

[1:58:32] there's transportation, looking where

[1:58:34] there's sewage and and and it should

[1:58:36] have been approached from a planning

[1:58:38] point of view. and then uh then created

[1:58:40] zoning that allowed private people to

[1:58:42] develop properties on a smaller scale,

[1:58:45] more missing middle sort of things. We

[1:58:47] can still do that. Um it's uh as far as 773 Kinyatta Road, it's uh there's

[1:58:56] currently a parcel map before the town

[1:58:58] that has 20 units on that. I actually

[1:59:00] think that might, you know, it's more

[1:59:03] than the 16, but they're smaller and and

[1:59:06] more compact, which I think is a better

[1:59:08] design. I don't know if it's going to

[1:59:09] end up with that many, but maybe they

[1:59:10] could be cheaper. Um, but how then with

[1:59:14] a private developer, do you I think Sage

[1:59:17] has asked for this from the developer,

[1:59:19] but how do you see that those continue

[1:59:22] to be affordable? Uh, that's a a huge

[1:59:26] issue with that. As far as the 22 acres,

[1:59:28] it's it's really suspicious that Chris

[1:59:31] Shaw and our senator come or first, you

[1:59:34] know, talked to the chronicle about this

[1:59:36] and it it there it is. And then all of a

[1:59:39] sudden, you all know I've been, you

[1:59:40] know, 1976, I was on the Wildflower

[1:59:43] Committee. I drew a map showing

[1:59:45] controlled access and and andformational

[1:59:48] signage for that site. the town asked

[1:59:51] Calrans to maintain that site as a

[1:59:53] wildflower reservation when Calrans

[1:59:56] wanted to sell it after 280 was built.

[1:59:58] Uh that it that it appears in the

[2:00:00] chronicle and then all of a sudden while

[2:00:02] I'm trying to work through the open

[2:00:04] space committee to get the general plan

[2:00:06] modified for this site, the town has a

[2:00:12] non-public hearing about it. This, you

[2:00:14] know, you can only imagine how surprised

[2:00:16] I was. And my last comment is is about

[2:00:21] unpermitted ADUs. Uh a little over a

[2:00:24] year ago, there was a state legislation

[2:00:26] that uh required ADUs, unpermitted ABUS

[2:00:31] to be legalized only meeting health and

[2:00:34] safety codes, not meeting local

[2:00:36] ordinances or uh planning codes. Uh we

[2:00:40] have a client who came into the town and

[2:00:43] the the uh planning the uh building

[2:00:46] department came up with a very expensive

[2:00:48] list of stuff for them to do. I've been

[2:00:50] trying to work with Sage who says yes

[2:00:52] this is this is the law and we're now

[2:00:55] trying to convince the building

[2:00:56] department to get with a program and

[2:00:59] make it easier for people to legalize

[2:01:01] ADUs. And I hope you support that e

[2:01:04] effort.

[2:01:06] >> Great. Thank you.

[2:01:08] We'll do one more and then we'll jump to

[2:01:09] the Zoom.

[2:01:11] >> Am I the last?

[2:01:12] >> Well, so far the night is young.

[2:01:15] >> Uh good evening. My name is Rick Dalton.

[2:01:17] Uh my wife and I and our family uh moved

[2:01:21] to Woodside Hills about a little live

[2:01:23] over 30 years ago and we enjoy and love

[2:01:25] our community. We love our neighbors and all the things about Woodside. Um

[2:01:31] and I might say at the outset that uh

[2:01:34] you guys have a hard job. I think we all

[2:01:36] understand that. I for one appreciate

[2:01:38] that. Um before I launch into some

[2:01:41] complaints,

[2:01:43] let me at least say thank you. Um

[2:01:46] listen, yeah.

[2:01:49] Uh

[2:01:50] listen, it's is and by the way, one of

[2:01:52] the sentiments you've heard earlier that

[2:01:54] those of us who live on the east side,

[2:01:56] frankly, it's a little frustrating. You

[2:01:57] know, I mentioned my kids. I had to I

[2:01:59] wasn't able to take them to Woodside

[2:02:01] schools. I had to find other schooling

[2:02:04] for them. Uh so there's a little it's a

[2:02:07] little uncomfortable frankly living on

[2:02:10] the east side and always having issues

[2:02:12] come down against and if you have a

[2:02:15] problem squish it over to the other side

[2:02:16] of 280 it is a little frustrating. Um

[2:02:20] however

[2:02:22] there are serious issues related to the

[2:02:25] two parcels that you've pegged and I

[2:02:28] know you understand that. I'm sure the

[2:02:29] town uh management understands that. But

[2:02:32] there are serious issues that we who

[2:02:34] live there and are concerned about the

[2:02:36] safety issues. We're concerned about the

[2:02:38] fire issues. We're concerned about the

[2:02:40] grading issues and the traffic issues.

[2:02:42] We would like to have a voice in this.

[2:02:45] And I would just I for one would plead

[2:02:48] with you ask you please respect your

[2:02:50] neighbors on the east side. Allow us a

[2:02:53] voice before you go out to an RFP. allow

[2:02:57] this a neighborhood committee of some

[2:02:58] form to at least express and have a

[2:03:02] voice in some of these issues. We

[2:03:04] understand that housing is important. We

[2:03:06] understand it needs to happen. If it's

[2:03:09] going to happen in our neighborhood, not

[2:03:11] your neighborhood, in our neighborhood,

[2:03:14] please give us the time, give us the

[2:03:18] opportunity to voice our concerns. Thank

[2:03:22] you for what you're doing. I appreciate

[2:03:23] it sincerely and thanks for the time.

[2:03:26] >> Thank you.

[2:03:30] » Okay,

[2:03:30] >> I just want to take like one minute left

[2:03:33] of my first question. How are you going

[2:03:34] to prove moderate?

[2:03:36] >> I'm going to take somebody from the

[2:03:38] >> Zoom room and then

[2:03:39] >> uh we'll see if we can do second bites

[2:03:41] or not. Um so this is iPad 67.

[2:03:51] » You're muted. You could unmute yourself.

[2:04:01] » iPad 67, you appear to be muted.

[2:04:07] Okay. Well, um, is there another public

[2:04:10] comment? Uh, yes. Hi, Alia.

[2:04:14] >> Hi. I have three three things. I I you

[2:04:19] heard Steve's anger about Flax Hill and

[2:04:22] he has been working on it since 1976 and

[2:04:25] um he he not many people know this but

[2:04:27] he was instrumental in getting um Calran

[2:04:32] stopped by going to the PU from

[2:04:35] >> Hijin sorry 80 foot swath when you know

[2:04:39] how wide is a truck to get in and so we

[2:04:43] managed to get them to reduce the size

[2:04:45] of the swath and then We had Craig

[2:04:47] Draymond who's been working on Kite Hill

[2:04:50] to help with the restoration. It's a

[2:04:52] beautiful site. Pretty soon, if not

[2:04:55] right now, the wild flowers are

[2:04:56] spectacular. So, I encourage you all to

[2:04:58] go out there. There's a hole in the

[2:05:00] fence next to Barkley Fields and you can

[2:05:02] get through. Um, second 773, the the

[2:05:06] plan as currently proposed is really

[2:05:09] bad. It's horrible. We accept that it

[2:05:13] will be developed, but it's got to be

[2:05:14] done smartly. and the current plan uh

[2:05:19] violates so many

[2:05:22] you know aesthetic design guideline

[2:05:25] general plan uh issues. So I hope it

[2:05:28] will have a proper review. And lastly, I

[2:05:32] did not know this during the housing

[2:05:34] meetings and we only found out recently

[2:05:36] and we Sage now knows about it about if

[2:05:41] a structure was built before 2020 AB2533

[2:05:46] says you don't have to bring it up to

[2:05:48] code. And I brought this to you in our

[2:05:51] discussions. I said, "If this takes the

[2:05:54] pressure off your numbers and helps with

[2:05:57] the overall requirement,

[2:05:59] I would like the town to put out some

[2:06:02] kind of a notice or a letter. I can

[2:06:04] bring you 15 ADUs tomorrow if these

[2:06:08] people know they don't have to spend 20

[2:06:10] or $30,000 to upgrade them.

[2:06:14] They exist." We joke about, we used to

[2:06:16] joke when Steve was on the planning

[2:06:17] commission, I was on the ASRB about all

[2:06:19] these granny units. And I said, "Well,

[2:06:20] how many granny's are visiting

[2:06:22] Woodside?" But, um, they're out there

[2:06:25] and it it might help with your numbers,

[2:06:28] but I I not a lot of people know about

[2:06:30] it. The staff only found out about it

[2:06:32] about what, year and a half ago. Um, I

[2:06:34] think, you know, it's not a well-known

[2:06:37] fact, but AB 2533 says we can do this.

[2:06:43] And I I encourage the council to look

[2:06:46] into this and maybe somehow make it

[2:06:48] public cuz people may come out of the

[2:06:50] woodwork.

[2:06:51] >> Yeah. Interesting. Thank you.

[2:06:56] » Uh yes.

[2:07:00] >> Oh, this is good. Um Teresa Sephick, a

[2:07:03] new time resident of Woodside Hills. Um,

[2:07:06] I have just I've been listening to the

[2:07:09] proceedings and everyone's committed to

[2:07:12] transparency, but the only time and

[2:07:14] please excuse my naivee for how these

[2:07:17] things happen, but the only time that

[2:07:20] I've heard anything that's talked about

[2:07:22] a vote is when Gan was talking about the

[2:07:24] infrastructure for the sewer and that might have to go to a bond and then

[2:07:28] there would be a vote. I've heard um

[2:07:30] committees asked to be formed. I've

[2:07:33] heard a lot of impassion speeches and

[2:07:36] I've heard yes we're committed to

[2:07:37] transparency and yes we'll have public

[2:07:39] hearings and yes there will be processes

[2:07:42] points in the process where you can be

[2:07:44] heard. There's being heard and there's

[2:07:48] having teeth and I've heard nowhere

[2:07:51] along these lines where we have any

[2:07:52] teeth. We can be heard and that's great

[2:07:57] and that's wonderful but I mean when do we have teeth? It seems like

[2:08:02] there's been a lot of talk about

[2:08:04] representation that really wasn't voted

[2:08:07] for or perhaps approved ahead of time.

[2:08:10] So, I'm just curious as to where's our

[2:08:13] teeth.

[2:08:15] >> Thank you. Uh I think what we're doing

[2:08:17] tonight is

[2:08:20] trying to incorporate what we're hearing

[2:08:21] and um not that we can give direction

[2:08:24] tonight because this is anformational

[2:08:25] report out. Uh but uh it's certainly

[2:08:28] helping us form what we think we're

[2:08:30] going to need to do in order to engage

[2:08:32] with the public to get all the input

[2:08:34] that needs to go into this process. So

[2:08:37] um we're trying.

[2:08:40] >> Hi Stephanie for your extra minute. You

[2:08:42] said

[2:08:42] >> thank you. It's important it's important

[2:08:43] that we know what number where the

[2:08:45] numbers are coming from. So, if we have

[2:08:46] this private land owner developing this

[2:08:50] um up to 20 acre at 773 and we're going

[2:08:54] to designated it as multif family as um

[2:08:56] medium income

[2:08:58] >> and we're going to designate it as

[2:09:00] medium income, then he either has to

[2:09:03] deed restrict or he has to turn in a lot

[2:09:05] of paperwork. The owners have to turn in

[2:09:07] a lot of paperwork. It affects how much

[2:09:08] he can make on the property. Is he

[2:09:11] willing to do that?

[2:09:15] There's no development project on the

[2:09:16] table. We don't have an application to

[2:09:18] develop the property.

[2:09:19] >> The application have been turned in.

[2:09:20] >> It is just to subdivide the property.

[2:09:22] That's all we have been proposed so far.

[2:09:25] Okay.

[2:09:25] >> When someone proposes to develop it,

[2:09:27] we'd have to go through all those

[2:09:28] details.

[2:09:28] >> It So, the third way that you can prove

[2:09:32] moant

[2:09:33] income is by the town writing an

[2:09:35] analysis. with this number of houses on

[2:09:38] this piece of property built and

[2:09:40] constructed this way, it has to be

[2:09:42] medium income. Does the town feel that

[2:09:44] they could justify an analysis to the

[2:09:46] housing limit?

[2:09:48] >> We're not anywhere close to that

[2:09:49] analysis. We're simply processing a

[2:09:51] subdivision map at this time.

[2:09:53] >> All right. Well, it seems very hard to

[2:09:54] believe that a private land owner would

[2:09:56] designate it his his own property as

[2:10:00] median income without some kind of

[2:10:02] incentives. And those incentives were

[2:10:04] never talked about when this site was

[2:10:06] chosen. And I just don't think that you

[2:10:09] can count it as median income.

[2:10:12] >> It's just a target. So, we'll see what

[2:10:13] project comes before us.

[2:10:15] >> Okay.

[2:10:15] >> Thank you. Okay. We're going to try iPad

[2:10:19] 67 one more time.

[2:10:23] >> I think that's me. Is that it? Can you

[2:10:25] hear me?

[2:10:25] >> We can.

[2:10:26] >> Oh, hi. My name is Tony Donaldson and I

[2:10:29] live on High Road and I've been

[2:10:31] listening to all the comments and I feel

[2:10:33] like I'm back three years ago listening

[2:10:35] to the same things over and over. And

[2:10:38] when you talk about public opinion and

[2:10:41] inputting things, it's very frustrating

[2:10:44] for me because we try we've tried for

[2:10:48] three years to give public opinion and

[2:10:50] input and show up at meetings and try to

[2:10:53] present, you know, objections to things

[2:10:56] and it just doesn't seem to go anywhere

[2:10:58] other than the one parcel that you did

[2:11:01] take off because it had already been

[2:11:03] promised that it would never be used for

[2:11:05] building. So the issues that you're

[2:11:08] looking at on Ramondo and on High Road,

[2:11:11] which is the fi the fire issues, they're

[2:11:13] both streets that you go into and then

[2:11:16] you you there's one way in and one way

[2:11:18] out. You know, on High Road there's

[2:11:22] traffic, a horrible traffic in the

[2:11:24] morning on Woodside Road coming off of

[2:11:27] Hyde Road and in the afternoon we've got

[2:11:29] a high school across the street. We've

[2:11:31] got people coming off of 280 that backs

[2:11:34] up for 20 minutes. Now, between now and

[2:11:37] May, you can't even drive down High Road

[2:11:40] most of the time except on the weekends

[2:11:42] because they're working on the road and

[2:11:44] it's closed off. So, we have to go all

[2:11:47] the way almost from two high roadside

[2:11:51] all the way up to Alamita to get

[2:11:53] anywhere. That's another 10 minutes in,

[2:11:56] another 10 minutes out. You do that a

[2:11:58] couple of times a day and you've put an

[2:12:00] extra hour onto whatever you're doing

[2:12:03] during the day. It these things that

[2:12:06] they're you're talking about traffic

[2:12:07] patterns and fire hazards and PG&

[2:12:11] easements and sewer issues. Shouldn't

[2:12:14] those have been looked at before these parcels were actually put on a

[2:12:19] housing element? I mean, what happens if

[2:12:22] on high road the the sewer issue is a is

[2:12:25] a they can't build on it or the PG&

[2:12:28] easement takes up too much of the

[2:12:29] parcel? I mean, shouldn't these things

[2:12:32] have been looked at before they were put

[2:12:34] on there? And all of these sites being

[2:12:36] again, you know, on this side of the

[2:12:39] freeway

[2:12:40] where the people that are going to be

[2:12:42] living in these lowincome units are not

[2:12:45] going to have Woodside services. They're

[2:12:47] not going to be able to go to Woodside

[2:12:49] schools. They're not going to be within

[2:12:51] walking distance of going downtown and

[2:12:53] eating or going to Roberts or anything

[2:12:56] else. So, it it doesn't seem fair. And

[2:13:00] we feel like, and I know that many of my

[2:13:03] neighbors, we feel like secondass

[2:13:05] citizens. We pay taxes. We live here,

[2:13:08] but we don't have the same benefits that

[2:13:10] the rest of the people in Woodside on

[2:13:12] the other side of the freeway have. and

[2:13:14] you're going to be taking away our only

[2:13:16] open space around here and making it

[2:13:19] even more congested than it really is.

[2:13:21] And quite honestly, I I feel like nobody

[2:13:24] really cares. We've been talking about

[2:13:25] this for three years. Nothing has

[2:13:27] changed. Nothing.

[2:13:32] » Thank you.

[2:13:34] >> Hi.

[2:13:35] >> Yes, please.

[2:13:40] » Good evening to you all. Thank you for

[2:13:43] your service in those long nights and

[2:13:46] long days. I'm Karen Offen. I live on

[2:13:49] Raymond and I'd like to seed my three

[2:13:51] minutes to Sue Pleti because she's got

[2:13:53] more to say.

[2:13:55] >> Okay. Thank you. Welcome back, Sue.

[2:13:59] >> Thank you. I need to take this off

[2:14:01] because I get nervous.

[2:14:05] >> Can you restart her for three minutes?

[2:14:07] >> Oh,

[2:14:08] >> are you restarting it?

[2:14:09] >> I'm going to give you the three. Well,

[2:14:10] I'm actually speaking for Karen and for

[2:14:13] several other neighbors on Ramanda who

[2:14:15] were unable to attend tonight, but asked

[2:14:16] that I share their concerns. We want to

[2:14:19] address the existing neighborhood

[2:14:21] argument that may be raised. The idea

[2:14:23] that the California Fire Code D107 only

[2:14:26] applies to new developments and not to

[2:14:28] established neighborhoods like ours. Our

[2:14:31] neighborhood tracked 567 Raundo Rancho

[2:14:34] Kenyatta is an old development and the

[2:14:37] fire code evolves as risks change. Even

[2:14:40] if D107 was originally written with new

[2:14:42] developments in mind, the life safety

[2:14:45] purpose of the code does not change. The

[2:14:47] basic problem is this. One road serving

[2:14:50] more than 30 dwellings becomes a single

[2:14:52] point of failure for evacuation and

[2:14:54] emergency access. That is why D7

[2:14:57] requires two access roads whenever a

[2:15:01] single road serves more than 30

[2:15:02] dwellings. The purpose is simple and

[2:15:04] critical. To provide a backup access, a

[2:15:06] second way in and out in case one road

[2:15:09] is blocked. If this Raondo RFP adds 17

[2:15:12] to 30 additional units, the total number

[2:15:15] of dwellings served by this single road

[2:15:17] would increase to approximately 47 to 60

[2:15:20] dwellings. That's far beyond the code's

[2:15:22] threshold. And it would occur on our

[2:15:24] street bordered by more than 20,000

[2:15:26] acres of wildfire fuel where evacuations

[2:15:29] matter most. Adding more units increases

[2:15:32] the number of dwellings dependent on a

[2:15:34] single road, which directly impacts the

[2:15:36] life safety for both residents and

[2:15:38] firefighters. And importantly, the code

[2:15:39] counts the number of dwellings served,

[2:15:43] not just the new units being proposed.

[2:15:45] The life safety purpose of the code,

[2:15:47] redundant emergency access is triggered

[2:15:50] whenever increased occupancy increases

[2:15:52] the risk. Courts have also held agencies

[2:15:55] cannot ignore life safety standards

[2:15:57] simply because a neighborhood predates

[2:15:59] the code. The mission of the California

[2:16:01] Fire Code under section 101.1 is clear.

[2:16:05] To protect life and liberty from fire,

[2:16:07] to ensure firefighters can safely access

[2:16:09] structures, and to minimize risk during

[2:16:11] evacuation. Every provision in the code,

[2:16:14] including D107, exists to serve that

[2:16:17] single overriding purpose, life safety.

[2:16:20] And life safety does not depend on when

[2:16:22] a neighborhood was built. I've got 52

[2:16:25] seconds less. We can widen Raundo Runny

[2:16:27] me. We can add turnouts. We can double

[2:16:29] the size of the culde-sac. But there's

[2:16:32] one law existing still. No matter how

[2:16:36] much mitigation, we need a second

[2:16:38] separate fire apparatus access code a

[2:16:41] road to that new development. Thank you

[2:16:43] for your time.

[2:16:44] >> Thank you, Sue. And um you know remember

[2:16:48] because of your advocacy and the

[2:16:49] advocacy of your neighbors we did add a

[2:16:51] second egress zoning overlay at the time

[2:16:54] we did the sequel review. Um but so it

[2:16:57] is in there and that would be part of

[2:16:59] presumably part of an RFP process.

[2:17:04] » Hi.

[2:17:06] My name is Janet Estep. I've lived

[2:17:10] on Raundo for over 50 years. I was here

[2:17:13] in 1956

[2:17:16] when this town was incorporated

[2:17:20] at the end of Raondo where it's rounded

[2:17:23] off to go on to running me that was made

[2:17:27] round because it was not deemed in the

[2:17:31] 1960s

[2:17:33] safe enough for a school bus to go up

[2:17:36] Raundo. So all the children had to go

[2:17:39] down to that corner and wait for the bus

[2:17:42] and it was enlarged and made in a circle

[2:17:45] so that the bus could turn around

[2:17:47] safely. You also have over 50 horses

[2:17:52] that would have to be evacuated from not

[2:17:56] just running me but from the private

[2:17:59] homes on Raundo which are 35 driveways.

[2:18:04] Each of them do not have a horse now.

[2:18:08] They did when I first lived there. But

[2:18:12] that does not mean that there is less

[2:18:14] traffic. It just means there are less

[2:18:17] horses.

[2:18:20] have the right of way

[2:18:23] over people and vehicles.

[2:18:29] any horse that is being transported down

[2:18:32] has a rideway before anybody else can

[2:18:35] evacuate.

[2:18:37] But I also raised the point that those

[2:18:40] people coming down are also going to be

[2:18:44] blocking the first responders that are

[2:18:48] going up

[2:18:50] a mile and a half. That's how long it is

[2:18:53] a run from up to the culasac which is

[2:18:58] undized

[2:18:59] and cannot establish a turnabout for the

[2:19:04] existing fire trucks that now service

[2:19:08] this town. Thank you.

[2:19:11] >> Thank you.

[2:19:18] » Any other public comments?

[2:19:22] Okay, hearing none, we'll close

[2:19:25] comments. I know this is anformational

[2:19:27] report, but is are there any additional

[2:19:29] thoughts or deliberations by council

[2:19:31] members?

[2:19:34] >> Yes, sir.

[2:19:35] >> Um, first I wanted to thank everybody

[2:19:37] for showing up tonight. Um, message

[2:19:39] sent, message received. It I can only

[2:19:41] speak for myself. Um, I've been saying

[2:19:44] pretty much the same message for the

[2:19:46] last four years. Um, I did want to give

[2:19:49] just at the I I um I think it's

[2:19:52] important to know why we're here tonight

[2:19:54] and what we can do and what we can't do.

[2:19:57] So, this is the annual report to HCD.

[2:20:01] Just where are we on our housing

[2:20:04] element? We have to do it every single

[2:20:06] year. Is that correct? Yeah. And this is

[2:20:08] the annual report. Um, by the way, it's

[2:20:11] Woodside is going to be one of the few

[2:20:12] towns and cities in the state that's

[2:20:15] going to come even close to making our

[2:20:17] number, which is kind of interesting.

[2:20:20] We're going to do that because we have a

[2:20:21] lot of ADUs and there's a lot of

[2:20:22] interest in ADUs. Um, we're, you know,

[2:20:25] not like Redwood City or some of the

[2:20:27] other cities. Uh, this is, if I'm not

[2:20:29] mistaken, yesterday's Daily Journal.

[2:20:31] There was an article in here about

[2:20:33] Foster City lags.

[2:20:36] Every city in town is doing what we're

[2:20:38] doing tonight. They're doing it right

[2:20:39] now uh because it's the annual report

[2:20:41] that they have to give. Foster City um

[2:20:44] is is currently at 2% of its target.

[2:20:48] That's actually a pretty high number for

[2:20:50] San Monteo and Santa Clara counties. um

[2:20:53] they go through some detail here and

[2:20:55] I'll spare you a lot of the detail but I

[2:20:57] think some of it is important and that

[2:20:59] is so far the city has completed 11 very

[2:21:03] lowincome units out of the required

[2:21:07] 520

[2:21:09] uh 14 low-income units out of 299

[2:21:15] uh and 11 moderate income units out of

[2:21:17] 300 and uh the above was there's 37 out

[2:21:23] of 777.

[2:21:25] So when you look at these numbers, this

[2:21:27] is a pipe dream from Sacramento that

[2:21:29] we're going to make these numbers. I'm

[2:21:32] going to repeat again what I've said. I

[2:21:34] can probably see the groans on people's

[2:21:36] some people's faces. What this is all

[2:21:38] about.

[2:21:39] Every eight years there's a housing

[2:21:41] cycle. We start over again. And the

[2:21:43] state in its wisdom says we're going to

[2:21:45] make so many houses over the next eight

[2:21:48] years. This is the sixth cycle. We've

[2:21:50] been doing this for 40 however that is

[2:21:52] six time 36 years I guess and uh so

[2:21:55] we're in the middle of the sixth cycle.

[2:21:56] The number statewide for this sixth

[2:21:59] cycle we're in the second or third year

[2:22:01] I think of this 8year cycle is 2.4

[2:22:04] million homes that Sacramento says we're

[2:22:07] going to build in the state over eight

[2:22:09] years.

[2:22:11] The math is pretty easy. You've heard me

[2:22:12] say this before. 2.4 million divided by

[2:22:15] 8 is 300,000 homes residences a year.

[2:22:20] Right? I mean, that's not tough math. We

[2:22:23] have to do that every single year for

[2:22:25] eight years to make 2.4 million. Just to

[2:22:28] put that 300,000 into perspective, in

[2:22:31] our state's very best year,

[2:22:34] 1956, I think, remember, millions of

[2:22:37] people moving into the state, not like

[2:22:39] today, where people are moving out of

[2:22:41] the state. Low, the mortgage rates were

[2:22:45] low. Today, they're skyhigh.

[2:22:47] um building, labor, all those other

[2:22:50] things. Back then it was just a field

[2:22:51] day. People were moving in like crazy.

[2:22:53] We we built all of these, you know, Los

[2:22:55] Altos was built in the 1950s almost from

[2:22:58] scratch.

[2:22:59] In the best years, we did 150,000. And

[2:23:03] yet Sacramento says we're going to do

[2:23:05] 300,000 every year for eight straight

[2:23:08] years. So you want to know how many we

[2:23:09] did in the first year of this cycle?

[2:23:11] 60,000. We missed the 300,000 by just a

[2:23:14] smidge. The next year we did 70,000.

[2:23:17] This year we're going to do about 70,000

[2:23:20] again. We'll be lucky if we do 800,000

[2:23:23] during the 8-year cycle out of the 2.4

[2:23:25] million that Sacramento thinks we're

[2:23:28] going to do. So most most cities and

[2:23:31] residents uh municipalities are going to

[2:23:34] miss their number by a real big number.

[2:23:36] We're actually, as I said, we're going

[2:23:37] to come close because of the ADUs that

[2:23:40] we have. Lots of people who like to

[2:23:41] build ADUs. So, um, tonight we're only

[2:23:46] here to accept the report and send it

[2:23:48] in. We're not taking parcels off. I hate

[2:23:51] to disappoint you. We're not going to

[2:23:52] scratch High Road. We're not going to

[2:23:54] take off from Mundo. We're not going to

[2:23:56] the 773, which by the way is a private

[2:23:58] property. We don't have much control of

[2:24:00] it as as you've heard that's owned by

[2:24:02] another gentleman, not not the town.

[2:24:04] It's the town owned properties that are

[2:24:06] the problem because we own them. We

[2:24:08] control them. We're the ones who have to

[2:24:11] solicit developers. And you heard that

[2:24:13] tonight from I think they called you

[2:24:15] attorney um Jerry, right? That's a nice

[2:24:18] name. Um I've heard worse. So, um we're

[2:24:23] not going to make any changes. We live

[2:24:24] with this. But we are looking at the

[2:24:26] housing cycle. The next the seventh

[2:24:28] housing cycle begins in 2031 and in

[2:24:31] 2029. 20 sounds like a long ways off. I

[2:24:34] may not even be here. Hopefully, I won't

[2:24:35] be here. Um that uh we're going to start

[2:24:38] all over again. and wipe the slate clean

[2:24:40] and and and start this over again, which

[2:24:42] is one reason why this parcel that a lot

[2:24:44] of people have been talking about um is

[2:24:46] a big concern. So, I did want to mention

[2:24:49] specifically the parcels. So, uh the

[2:24:53] point was made, Tony Donaldson made it

[2:24:55] toward the end there. She lives on High

[2:24:57] Road. She's been in this room several

[2:24:59] times and she made the point, this is

[2:25:01] such a horrible pro. I mean, it's a

[2:25:03] terribly awkward parcel. It's got a

[2:25:05] footprint of.7 acres that's buildable.

[2:25:08] It's got easements. You heard um

[2:25:10] Attorney Jen Jerry say tonight that it's

[2:25:13] going to be difficult to get the 80%

[2:25:15] coverage that's required. Um I just

[2:25:17] remember that I was sitting there for

[2:25:19] the first night. This was about three

[2:25:21] years ago. And I brought up the fact

[2:25:22] that there's a PG& gas transmission line

[2:25:27] 22 in big enough to crawl through. It's

[2:25:29] the same one that goes up to San Bruno

[2:25:31] that blew up and killed a bunch of

[2:25:32] people that runs through that area. And

[2:25:34] nobody seemed to know about it. I

[2:25:36] remember the the then town manager.

[2:25:39] Nobody seemed to know anything about it.

[2:25:42] And I was like, you did all this

[2:25:44] research on on High Road and nobody knew

[2:25:46] there was a PG&E gas transmission line

[2:25:49] running through the property. Then we

[2:25:50] argued about whether it's on the

[2:25:52] property or it's off the property or

[2:25:53] whatever else. We were promised a lot of

[2:25:55] things. We never got them and it was put

[2:25:57] on the schedule. So, it's on the

[2:25:58] schedule today. Now we find out and I

[2:26:01] think uh Kim Hansen made the point that

[2:26:04] I wish we knew all the stuff that

[2:26:05] attorney Jerry had told us tonight back

[2:26:08] then because this is the this is the

[2:26:10] procedure. We didn't know. I didn't know

[2:26:12] for sure. A lot of this I heard for the

[2:26:14] first time tonight. But had we known it, may certainly have affected what was

[2:26:17] on the schedule. Now we just have to

[2:26:18] live with it. And I will tell you

[2:26:20] something. I think that these are really

[2:26:22] problematic parcels. Raundo is High Road

[2:26:25] is. I can't comment on the private

[2:26:26] parcel at 773. owned by somebody, not

[2:26:29] the town. But I think they're going to

[2:26:30] be very difficult to build on and

[2:26:32] they're going to be difficult for

[2:26:33] developers. And to be perfectly honest

[2:26:35] with you, I hope they are difficult.

[2:26:36] I've said this before. Um, that is my I just think these are really

[2:26:40] problematic. Uh, the point came up about

[2:26:43] zoning that somebody brought up and how

[2:26:46] uh arbitrary it is and how it just seems

[2:26:48] to be very subjective. And I think the

[2:26:51] point was made that we're going to go

[2:26:52] Oh, David said said it. I think when we

[2:26:54] go from SR1 to R1, right? And how do we

[2:26:58] do that? David, this council changed

[2:27:02] open space for the preservation of

[2:27:04] natural resources, our most restrictive

[2:27:06] zoning

[2:27:08] to multifamily

[2:27:10] with up to 20 units per acre. The most

[2:27:13] permissive zone. We went from like A to

[2:27:16] Z in one night sitting right here. And

[2:27:19] it is it's completely capriccious. And

[2:27:21] it really bothered me because if if I've

[2:27:26] always thought zoning was this sacred

[2:27:27] thing and that, you know, when you buy a

[2:27:29] parcel and it's zoned a certain way, it

[2:27:32] take he'll never get it changed. And we

[2:27:34] seem to be changing it just like that. I

[2:27:36] mean, we just changed the, you know, the

[2:27:38] most sensitive property in all of

[2:27:40] Woodside to build high-rise condominiums

[2:27:43] on. I mean, just go figure. It just

[2:27:44] makes no sense to me. So, I think you're

[2:27:46] exactly right. Um it was it was a really

[2:27:49] good point that I thought you brought

[2:27:51] up. Um

[2:27:53] I think that um I kept count uh uh by

[2:27:57] the way there were as many as 110 people

[2:28:00] in this room and on Zoom tonight. This

[2:28:02] is a big issue and I hope the message

[2:28:04] was received at least about the the the parcel. Um it was in a close

[2:28:09] session. There was one I think there

[2:28:10] were three members of the public who

[2:28:12] actually spoke before the meeting. I was

[2:28:15] one of them and cautioned the council

[2:28:16] not to go forward with it. Um I was

[2:28:18] speaking as a member of the public, not

[2:28:19] a member of the council because I was

[2:28:21] recused from that and I don't want to go

[2:28:23] too far because I don't want to step on

[2:28:24] any toes and violate any regulations

[2:28:26] here. But um the point was made that I

[2:28:28] think the council could have killed that

[2:28:30] 22 acres that night simply by not

[2:28:32] authorizing it. And I hope uh the point

[2:28:34] was made that this council actually did

[2:28:38] kill the farmill parcel in its wisdom.

[2:28:40] That was a smart move. Um, and we heard

[2:28:42] tonight that that covenant that we kept

[2:28:45] was waving before our face that you, you

[2:28:46] know, that was completely reversible.

[2:28:48] No, it's not completely reversible. You

[2:28:51] can't undo it. That was another some

[2:28:54] misinformation. I'll be polite about it.

[2:28:56] But you can't change a covenant. And

[2:28:58] that Farmhill parcel had a covenant that

[2:29:00] said in perpetuity it had to be open

[2:29:03] space. And we sat in the in this room on

[2:29:05] the other side before I was elected and

[2:29:07] people told us we were crazy and that

[2:29:08] they could change it if they wanted to.

[2:29:11] No, you can't. And so again, um there's

[2:29:15] been a lot of I think

[2:29:20] there's been a lot of I'll just say

[2:29:21] misinformation and and and I think that

[2:29:23] now we are where we are. We're with

[2:29:25] these parcels. Um we're going to we're

[2:29:27] going to send out RFPs and we're going

[2:29:29] to see what happens with them. And I

[2:29:31] really hope that, you know, we'll end up

[2:29:32] with something smaller and more that's

[2:29:35] more reasonable and more appropriate or

[2:29:37] maybe nothing at all. And uh it seems

[2:29:40] like we are stuck where we are. But I

[2:29:42] want to congratulate and thank the

[2:29:43] people in this room, many of whom were

[2:29:45] here four years ago and three years ago

[2:29:47] and two years ago, and gave this exact

[2:29:50] same warning. And we said, "We're going

[2:29:52] to end up right here." And guess what?

[2:29:55] We're we're here again with these

[2:29:56] problematic parcels that never should

[2:29:58] have been part of it. But they are now.

[2:30:00] They're not going away. We'll just see

[2:30:01] what happens with them when they get

[2:30:02] here. Um, but again, I listened and so

[2:30:07] far I remember I kept count three years

[2:30:08] ago and I think the count was it was a

[2:30:11] little over 300 people. I think it was

[2:30:13] 307 people spoke during all the public

[2:30:16] hearings we had. Nobody spoke in fa

[2:30:20] nobody spoke in favor of any of the

[2:30:23] parcels. One person just said we need

[2:30:26] more affordable housing in Woodside.

[2:30:27] Well, guess what? We we all agree with

[2:30:29] that. But nobody spoke in favor of any

[2:30:31] of the parcels. Not Farm Armhill, not

[2:30:34] Raundo, not High Road, not 77. Nobody

[2:30:37] spoke in favor of any of them. Tonight,

[2:30:39] the count was 26 to zero if I counted

[2:30:42] correctly. It seems to me like the only

[2:30:45] people in this town who are in favor of

[2:30:47] this are sitting here.

[2:30:50] It's It's the most amazing thing. I was

[2:30:52] elected to represent the people in my

[2:30:54] district, and I'm going to represent

[2:30:55] them. And you know, I may go down with

[2:30:57] the ship, but I'm going to represent

[2:30:59] those people. And uh it's not out of any

[2:31:01] great sense of pride. It's that they're

[2:31:02] counting on me. That's it. I I asked to

[2:31:04] run and they elected me and I think I'm

[2:31:06] charged with a responsibility here and

[2:31:08] we need to do it. And um I I you know it

[2:31:12] was pointed out that council me actually

[2:31:14] yeah council member Wall actually was

[2:31:16] the first person when I was standing

[2:31:17] back there with Stacy and we were

[2:31:19] speaking who said you know something I

[2:31:21] can no longer support the farm hill.

[2:31:22] That was just the farm hill parcel. It

[2:31:24] just doesn't make sense. We made a

[2:31:26] promise and we need to keep our word.

[2:31:27] And I I we were very appreciative and

[2:31:30] then the dominoes began to fall and

[2:31:31] everybody at Farm Hill went away. And I

[2:31:34] think that this should happen tonight

[2:31:35] too with this parcel that we're talking

[2:31:37] about along the 280. It's nobody wants

[2:31:39] this. In fact, it's the only person I

[2:31:41] think who wants it is an elected

[2:31:43] official anymore. And and so hopefully

[2:31:46] we're getting the message and we can

[2:31:47] make this thing go away. I certainly

[2:31:49] would if I could cast a vote on it. Uh

[2:31:51] which I can't, but I would certainly

[2:31:53] make it go away if I could. And uh

[2:31:55] again, we're going to accept the I I

[2:31:59] believe we're going to accept the

[2:32:00] report. It's going to go in. We are

[2:32:02] where we are on this thing. Uh we're

[2:32:04] going to continue and let's just uh do

[2:32:06] everything we can. I take every comment

[2:32:08] that was made to heart and we're going

[2:32:09] to do what we can to make sure that we

[2:32:11] end up in the right place on this thing

[2:32:12] and we're going to do it in the public.

[2:32:13] We're going to do it in the sunshine.

[2:32:15] Thank you.

[2:32:21] » Thank you. Um anyone else? Yes.

[2:32:25] >> Yeah. I just wanted to talk about the

[2:32:28] CALR property for a second. Um the first

[2:32:31] we heard about it on the council when it

[2:32:33] came to us as information that CALR has

[2:32:36] brought forward a proposal period. We

[2:32:38] did not discuss it at any length. In

[2:32:41] fact, the question I asked was what

[2:32:43] happens if we don't do anything?

[2:32:46] And that's the question I think

[2:32:47] everybody needs to ask in this room when

[2:32:48] you when you talk about okay if we don't

[2:32:50] move what if somebody else comes in

[2:32:52] there and says we're going to develop

[2:32:53] that property. It's not it's not owned

[2:32:56] by the town. It's owned by the state.

[2:32:59] Then we have no control over it. So I

[2:33:01] mean I'm not saying that that's what I

[2:33:02] want to do but I'm just saying that was

[2:33:04] the decision we had to make at the time

[2:33:06] was do we just ignore it and hope it

[2:33:08] goes away or do we at least try to find

[2:33:10] out more about what are the implications

[2:33:13] if we act or don't act. Simple as that.

[2:33:19] Any applause?

[2:33:24] Any other comments from council?

[2:33:29] » Okay. Uh, hearing none then.

[2:33:31] >> No, I No, sorry.

[2:33:32] >> Oh, hi Jen. Sorry, Council Member Wall.

[2:33:34] I didn't see the hand go up.

[2:33:36] >> Yes. Um,

[2:33:38] so first off, I just want to thank

[2:33:41] everybody that came tonight and offered

[2:33:43] their comments. Um these nights where we

[2:33:47] have housing element on the agenda are,

[2:33:49] you know, transparently they're they're

[2:33:51] the hardest nights. Um because this is

[2:33:53] just such a difficult topic. Um you

[2:33:56] know, and as a council member, you know,

[2:33:59] you want to look out for the the

[2:34:01] interests of your district, but we're

[2:34:03] also here to look out for the interests

[2:34:05] of Woodside as a whole, including

[2:34:07] everybody that lives in the in the

[2:34:08] districts around us. And so I just I

[2:34:11] want to assure everybody that I really

[2:34:12] do hear and take all of your comments to

[2:34:15] heart. Um you know we've been living

[2:34:18] with this current iteration of the

[2:34:21] housing element for three plus years. Um

[2:34:25] you know it it's been you know long

[2:34:28] meetings, long long uh sessions of of

[2:34:33] public comment. Um and it, you know,

[2:34:35] it's just it's a it's a very difficult

[2:34:37] issue because we want to we want to

[2:34:39] react. We want to make everybody happy.

[2:34:41] At the same time, um we also have to

[2:34:43] comply with our with our legal

[2:34:46] obligations to to uh not only submit a

[2:34:49] housing element that HCD could certify

[2:34:51] um but also to pursue the programs and

[2:34:55] the development that we committed to in

[2:34:57] the housing element. Um, so it's a it's

[2:35:00] a very very nuanced and and difficult

[2:35:03] issue and we really are just trying to

[2:35:05] do our best. Um, I wanted to thank the

[2:35:08] staff. You know, we really appreciated

[2:35:10] hearing about all the efforts that have

[2:35:12] been happening at the staff level to

[2:35:14] pursue our housing element programs. Um,

[2:35:17] that's a lot of work and we we really

[2:35:19] appreciate all the work and and effort

[2:35:21] that you're doing at the staff level.

[2:35:23] Um, and Jerry, thank you for being here

[2:35:25] tonight. Um, I definitely appreciated

[2:35:27] um, hearing the nuances of the of the

[2:35:30] surplus land process and exemptions. Um,

[2:35:33] I think council member Gold had

[2:35:35] suggested maybe the council had been

[2:35:37] privy to that information before this

[2:35:39] evening, but it we had not. Um, so that

[2:35:41] was very enlightening for me to hear.

[2:35:43] Um, let's see. I wanted to just touch on

[2:35:46] a couple couple topics in addition to

[2:35:48] just kind of, you know, acknowledging

[2:35:51] what a difficult, you know, issue the

[2:35:53] housing element is.

[2:35:54] um on public input. Um we very much

[2:36:00] appreciate and and and want to encourage

[2:36:03] as much public input as possible. And so

[2:36:06] um and you know in addition to to

[2:36:08] showing up at um meetings and and

[2:36:11] offering public comment um when housing

[2:36:13] element is on the agenda um I'm very

[2:36:16] supportive of looking into ways to um

[2:36:19] offer opportunities for public input in

[2:36:21] addition to that. Um, so that's

[2:36:24] something that I'll commit to speaking

[2:36:26] with other council members or in our

[2:36:28] town attorney in the background to see

[2:36:30] if there are other mechanisms to um to

[2:36:34] bring um the public to the table and

[2:36:36] solicit your input

[2:36:38] um on the it was mentioned a couple

[2:36:41] times. I mean, I I you know, my heart

[2:36:43] goes out the the comments made about the

[2:36:45] east side and feeling like um you know,

[2:36:48] they're treated differently. Um that

[2:36:50] it's absolutely not the intent. Um

[2:36:53] specifically, a couple people raised the

[2:36:56] topic of the school district, and I just

[2:36:57] want to I I think most people know this,

[2:36:59] but you know, the town council has no

[2:37:02] input or or um bearing on the school

[2:37:06] district boundaries. that's not

[2:37:07] something that we have any um any

[2:37:10] connection to. So, I just wanted to to

[2:37:12] make sure that everybody understood that um that's a that's something that's

[2:37:16] completely controlled by um Woodside

[2:37:19] Elementary and if we wanted to change

[2:37:21] the boundaries, you know, in one

[2:37:22] direction or another, that's not

[2:37:24] something that we would have any any

[2:37:25] impact over. Um and it's already been

[2:37:29] said, but you know, on the topic of the

[2:37:30] CALR property, um I do sense that there

[2:37:33] is a fair amount of misinformation

[2:37:35] circulating. Um, so I'd say to those

[2:37:38] that are receiving information about the the CALR property, I'd say receive

[2:37:44] it with a grain of salt. Um, you know,

[2:37:46] it's it it's exactly the case as uh the

[2:37:49] town attorney stated that uh CALR

[2:37:52] approached the town. Um, the town was

[2:37:54] obligated to um hear about that in a

[2:37:57] closed session. Um, and we authorized

[2:38:00] town staff to talk to Calrans more.

[2:38:02] That's literally it. It hasn't gone

[2:38:03] beyond that. Um, and I absolutely

[2:38:05] appreciate hearing all of the input

[2:38:07] tonight about um, how folks feel about

[2:38:10] that. And I'll certainly take that into

[2:38:12] account as I to the extent this

[2:38:14] continues to be something that comes

[2:38:16] before the town council. That input is

[2:38:17] very valuable. So, thank you. Um, I know

[2:38:20] it's getting late this evening, so I'll

[2:38:22] pass it back to Mayor Donowski and just

[2:38:24] see if any other council member has any

[2:38:26] uh, further deliberation.

[2:38:28] >> Thank you, Council Member Wall. Yes,

[2:38:29] Council Member Eper.

[2:38:31] >> I'll be quick. Um, again, thank you.

[2:38:33] all for coming. Uh I think

[2:38:35] this is the most packed I've seen this

[2:38:37] and been on the council for just about a

[2:38:39] year. Uh so I caught the very tail end

[2:38:42] of this. I I really appreciate all of

[2:38:45] you coming sharing your thoughts on

[2:38:46] including online and I really take it to

[2:38:49] heart. Uh and I I anyone who's asked to

[2:38:52] meet with me. I know um a number of you

[2:38:54] I've met with in person. Um and I care

[2:38:57] even though it's not in my this isn't in

[2:38:59] is not in my district. Uh, but I

[2:39:02] understand how important it is to all of

[2:39:03] you and I I can appreciate it and I I

[2:39:06] feel the same. I share some of the same

[2:39:09] issues that you do. I I'm uh represent

[2:39:11] District 5 which is in the Western Hills

[2:39:14] and um our kids don't go to we're not

[2:39:17] district as well for Woodside Elementary

[2:39:20] and we so we we have to um go to

[2:39:22] different schools even though it's

[2:39:23] closer to go to Woodside. Um, but and I can appreciate all the things

[2:39:29] you're all the issues you're raising.

[2:39:31] Um, and I I really do think about it and

[2:39:34] I' I haven't been reached out to by any

[2:39:36] land developers. So, I'm not sure um if

[2:39:38] I'm just excluded from these meetings

[2:39:40] that are happening, but um or if they're

[2:39:42] just, you know, if they're not happening

[2:39:43] or but um I, you know, I have no

[2:39:46] personal agenda here. I I really want to

[2:39:48] do what's best for the town, what's best

[2:39:49] for the people here. Um,

[2:39:52] and you know, and for the uh the

[2:39:55] property by the the freeway, um, I I

[2:39:59] would second what, uh, Council Member

[2:40:02] Brown said. You know, no decision was

[2:40:04] made. I think we have an obligation on

[2:40:07] the town council to look into, you know,

[2:40:09] something like this if it comes to us.

[2:40:12] Um, instead of saying, you know, no,

[2:40:13] we're not going to do it and let's, you

[2:40:16] know, let's see what they do with it.

[2:40:17] that if they're going to sell it to some

[2:40:18] private developer and build 100 units or

[2:40:21] something like that, um I think we have

[2:40:22] a responsibility to ensure that we avoid

[2:40:26] anything like that. But um yeah,

[2:40:28] absolutely no decisions been made and

[2:40:30] I'm not I um yeah, thank you. Thank you.

[2:40:37] Uh so maybe just back well, first off,

[2:40:39] I'll just add my thanks for the comments

[2:40:41] tonight and back to brass tax. This is

[2:40:43] anformational only item. Um

[2:40:46] that said, we do want to get as much

[2:40:48] citizen input as possible. So, uh once

[2:40:51] we get the sewer study back next month,

[2:40:54] I think we'll have some more direction

[2:40:56] and from there we can put together some

[2:40:58] study sessions uh that engage everybody

[2:41:01] uh to get some directional feedback. Um

[2:41:05] so, we know that's a followup. Uh we

[2:41:07] know there's followup on Raundo and um

[2:41:10] we've had a lot of uh feedback tonight

[2:41:13] on Farm Hill and uh Duly noted and a

[2:41:16] message received. So thank you on that

[2:41:18] as well. So I'm just here to acknowledge

[2:41:20] the feedback and thank you for it.

[2:41:22] There's no formal action other than to

[2:41:24] acknowledge that this is the uh mandated

[2:41:26] report that's going to go up to the

[2:41:27] state. Um, and unless there's anyone

[2:41:31] here that does not want to accept this

[2:41:33] report to go, um, we will be proving it.

[2:41:36] I'm not seeing anybody. Um, so we're

[2:41:40] accepting the report.

[2:41:43] So, thank you all. We're going to take a

[2:41:44] fivem minute recess. Uh, so, um,

[2:41:48] appreciate it and we'll be back in 5

[2:41:49] minutes. We're going to reconvene

[2:41:52] and we have, um, item C, volunteer

[2:41:55] committee updates. Any, listen? Uh the

[2:41:58] only thing I have is that uh Mayday fund

[2:42:00] run registration is going to be um

[2:42:03] opening soon, probably in the next two

[2:42:06] to three weeks. So keep an eye out for

[2:42:08] that.

[2:42:09] >> Thank you.

[2:42:12] And council communications item D. Any

[2:42:16] items?

[2:42:17] uh March 21 this month this building

[2:42:21] that's a Saturday 10 to 12 we're having

[2:42:24] a I guess it's and good timing a memory

[2:42:29] seminar for seniors um so we can

[2:42:32] remember what was and was not said but

[2:42:35] it uh it starts on on the 21st at 10:00

[2:42:39] and then there'll be a followup for a

[2:42:41] second element of that on April 25th

[2:42:45] here also and we're working on this

[2:42:47] together with Athetherton, Orto Valley,

[2:42:49] and Woodside.

[2:42:52] >> Wonderful. Thank you, Council Member

[2:42:53] Brown.

[2:42:54] And then we will reopen communications.

[2:42:57] This is for public speakers on

[2:42:59] non-aggendaized items that were not

[2:43:01] given a chance to speak at the beginning

[2:43:02] of the meeting. Alia, oh, you got a

[2:43:05] handout. Thank you.

[2:43:12] » Can we help you?

[2:43:15] Here

[2:43:23] I am. Fal lube and history committee.

[2:43:25] I'm sure you all have my book. Um

[2:43:30] so um

[2:43:32] 3215 Woodside Road is right next to the

[2:43:36] tennis courts

[2:43:38] uh and the school and it is 100 years

[2:43:41] old. It's been in the same family

[2:43:44] continuously. They were sawmill owners

[2:43:46] and other

[2:43:49] jobs in Woodside. Um, it is now going up

[2:43:53] for sale

[2:43:55] and it's almost 3 and 1/2 acres

[2:43:59] and you know I have crazy ideas.

[2:44:03] I would like the town or the school to

[2:44:06] buy it.

[2:44:08] The front part with the historic house

[2:44:10] could be broken off on one acre

[2:44:13] resulting in two and a half acres behind

[2:44:15] it. I will offer Steve and I to design

[2:44:19] this if the town for free. If the town

[2:44:22] will build, if we can build 20 on one

[2:44:24] acre, think of what we can do on two and

[2:44:27] a half. The teachers could walk to

[2:44:28] school. The firefighters could walk to

[2:44:30] school. long time ago before this

[2:44:32] housing thing came up. I went to Kevin

[2:44:34] when the the red house that just got

[2:44:36] torn down next to Robert's parking lot.

[2:44:38] I said, "Kevin, we should buy this for

[2:44:40] housing." This is because I'm always

[2:44:42] thinking about affordable housing. Yeah.

[2:44:44] Now the town then the property across

[2:44:47] the street behind the fish came up for

[2:44:49] sale.

[2:44:52] Let's let's get this.

[2:44:54] Let's make it happen.

[2:44:57] two and a half acre and it's if the

[2:44:58] history committee visited the site when

[2:45:01] Elwood Velicette was still alive and we

[2:45:03] gave him a preservation award, but it's

[2:45:05] absolutely gorgeous. It's down it goes

[2:45:07] all the way down to the creek. It's

[2:45:09] almost an Lshape. So, it it kind of you

[2:45:12] go straight back and there's kind of a

[2:45:14] bit of an orchard and then there's a

[2:45:15] whole tongue by the creek.

[2:45:20] » I'm sorry.

[2:45:21] >> Is it listed?

[2:45:22] >> Mhm.

[2:45:24] >> It's a real estate listing. Yeah. Uh,

[2:45:26] it's coming up really fast and not

[2:45:28] available yet.

[2:45:31] >> Is it nine?

[2:45:32] >> So, you break off the first first acre

[2:45:34] with a historic house. You sell it for a

[2:45:36] lot of money and then the town or the

[2:45:39] school develops the rest. I mean, I'm

[2:45:41] thinking outside the box here. That's a

[2:45:43] lot of affordable housing.

[2:45:46] >> Yeah.

[2:45:47] >> So, I can I can let you all know when

[2:45:49] it's open for viewing it. They did a

[2:45:51] great restoration of the house itself.

[2:45:53] And when Elwood was still alive, some of

[2:45:55] you may remember he had the most

[2:45:57] beautiful rose garden out in front. And

[2:45:59] unfortunately, his daughter hasn't kept

[2:46:01] it up, but um

[2:46:04] >> thinking creatively,

[2:46:05] >> you know, um it's a great idea and um

[2:46:09] I've presented twice to the school board

[2:46:11] and then met with foundation and um uh

[2:46:16] school board members about teacher

[2:46:18] housing in some of these different

[2:46:19] spots. And I will say that

[2:46:23] this is going back a year. I did hear

[2:46:26] the property we're really interested in

[2:46:28] is this one.

[2:46:31] >> So I would suggest maybe um I think the

[2:46:35] school board would be an interesting

[2:46:37] place for you to present

[2:46:38] >> them presentation

[2:46:39] >> and the foundation.

[2:46:40] >> Yeah. And and to Dick's point about the

[2:46:43] CALR property, I just want to add if we

[2:46:45] can get $2 million donations for strip

[2:46:49] in the middle of Woodside Road. We could

[2:46:51] certainly come up with somebody to help

[2:46:54] us buy an undevelopable land at Flax

[2:46:59] Hill.

[2:47:00] >> Yeah. Very good. Thank you. Okay. Any

[2:47:03] other public comments from anyone that

[2:47:05] didn't?

[2:47:06] >> I just like to make a comment on the on

[2:47:08] the uh uh statement that that Calrans

[2:47:13] came to Woodside with an offer for the

[2:47:16] 22 acres. I think that's really

[2:47:17] disingenuous that I've been trying to

[2:47:19] work I've been trying to get Paul to to

[2:47:22] support the idea of the town acquiring

[2:47:24] it as open space for a long time. He

[2:47:26] didn't like the idea because that would

[2:47:28] make it housing. But uh all of a sudden

[2:47:32] uh you know Chris and our senator show

[2:47:34] up in the newspaper and then Woodside

[2:47:36] comes to uh you know that Calrans comes

[2:47:38] to Woodside make an offer. I don't

[2:47:40] believe it for a second.

[2:47:44] Okay.

[2:47:44] >> And hi

[2:47:47] Uh as one one thing I uh as a followup

[2:47:51] from my original comment, I noticed you

[2:47:54] guys stated that um in response to or

[2:47:57] like you characterize in your public

[2:47:58] statement that Jason effectively

[2:48:00] extorted the town and then I think um

[2:48:03] the attorney said that

[2:48:06] um the town was negotiating a severance

[2:48:10] package that would include I don't know

[2:48:13] how how much time, 6 months with a

[2:48:15] commitment to investigate. And when I

[2:48:18] first read when I first read the

[2:48:21] statement from the town about the

[2:48:22] extortion, I was shocked. I mean, I

[2:48:24] think everyone was there was no mention

[2:48:27] of effectively a failed severance

[2:48:30] discussion. And I understand this

[2:48:31] conversation was private. Um,

[2:48:36] and there's not there's only so much

[2:48:38] that you can say, but again to the

[2:48:39] appearance of trust, it seems very weird

[2:48:43] and striking that now we find that it

[2:48:45] was kind of a failed severance

[2:48:47] negotiation,

[2:48:49] but it was characterized as extortion.

[2:48:52] And I don't really know what is true.

[2:48:55] Um,

[2:48:57] and I again I just would ask I don't

[2:49:00] think the district attorney has

[2:49:01] committed to actually a formal

[2:49:03] investigation,

[2:49:05] but the town can elect or you know uh

[2:49:09] find a third party investigator for the

[2:49:10] claims specific

[2:49:13] uh that were specifically outlined in

[2:49:14] the whistleblower report and I think

[2:49:16] that would help restore public trust. I

[2:49:18] have I'm not I have no idea what to

[2:49:20] believe. I have my own personal

[2:49:22] experience with Jason like many of you

[2:49:24] do and was incredibly impressed. I stood

[2:49:26] up here I think month and a half ago

[2:49:28] attesting to that fact you know um I

[2:49:31] don't

[2:49:33] I think having a process to really

[2:49:35] daylight what is true and I just found

[2:49:37] it very interesting just about the uh

[2:49:40] the comment about the failed uh

[2:49:42] severance discussion. So, yeah,

[2:49:48] » looks like um I've got a I've got a

[2:49:50] question about the town center area

[2:49:51] plan. Um

[2:49:54] if I read it correctly, we haven't had

[2:49:57] an update from them since last year,

[2:49:59] since December meeting and they had made

[2:50:04] some promises to us that they would

[2:50:06] involve the public more, do some

[2:50:07] surveys. I feel like I' I've I've been

[2:50:10] disappointed by the process and also

[2:50:12] kind of gossmacked by the million-dollar

[2:50:15] price tag that they put on this. And I

[2:50:17] also, you can correct me if I'm wrong,

[2:50:18] but I think the only deliverable that we

[2:50:21] have for the housing element is to do a

[2:50:23] town center area plan. I don't think we

[2:50:26] have to do anything else. So, I feel

[2:50:28] like we've overspent on that. And also

[2:50:30] looking at the notes from those

[2:50:31] meetings, I I see more discussion about

[2:50:35] gathering places than I do about

[2:50:37] actually identifying different types of

[2:50:39] housing in town center.

[2:50:46] » Okay, thank you. Um Kristen New, we're

[2:50:50] going back to you.

[2:50:55] » Thank you very much. Um my comment is

[2:50:57] actually on um a advocating for a

[2:51:03] version of the TCAP but for four corners

[2:51:07] which is up uh at the highways 84 and 35

[2:51:11] junction. I realize that this is on the

[2:51:14] fringe of Woodside. It's right on the

[2:51:17] border, but I this is a very important

[2:51:21] place not just for woodsiders but for

[2:51:24] people all over. And it is an important

[2:51:25] place for woodsiders to recreate even

[2:51:28] though there's not a lot of us who live

[2:51:30] up here. But there, as you are pro, as

[2:51:33] you are well aware, there was a very

[2:51:35] tragic accident last year of a cyclist.

[2:51:38] There have been numerous incidents, not

[2:51:42] some of them fatal, traffic incidents.

[2:51:44] It is a busy place. It has equestrians.

[2:51:48] It has hikers. It has bicyclists. It has

[2:51:52] motorcyclists. It has car drivers, not

[2:51:55] just normal commuters, but lots of

[2:51:57] people working in the areas with big

[2:52:00] chipper trucks and we have sports car

[2:52:03] enthusiasts mostly on the weekend. It's

[2:52:05] a very busy place. It is something that

[2:52:08] the town really should consider taking a

[2:52:11] more active part in and engaging not

[2:52:14] just the citizens who live up here but

[2:52:16] all the citizens of Woodside because of

[2:52:19] the recreation that this area offers and

[2:52:21] this important corridor. So I would urge

[2:52:24] the town council to consider creating

[2:52:27] you know yes there is a TCAP committee

[2:52:31] but there should be a committee for four

[2:52:33] corners as well. Thank you very much.

[2:52:37] >> Thank you.

[2:52:40] Are there any other comments?

[2:52:47] I'm confused. I see a hand up, but I

[2:52:49] don't see a hand up. Do we have a hand

[2:52:52] up?

[2:52:53] >> Kendra, are did you want to talk again?

[2:52:57] >> Yes, thank you. I actually had a

[2:52:58] follow-up question on a comment.

[2:53:03] Okay. So, my question follows the

[2:53:07] comment about the three acres that's

[2:53:12] directly next

[2:53:15] to the Woodside school because my

[2:53:19] question is it was said that perhaps the

[2:53:22] better place to address that too would

[2:53:25] be the school itself.

[2:53:27] that seems like it

[2:53:30] addresses a bunch of the issues that a

[2:53:32] lot of us including myself had, which is

[2:53:34] it's the center of town. It's close to

[2:53:36] amenities. It addresses perhaps the

[2:53:38] population we're actually trying to

[2:53:40] target. It answers some of the housing

[2:53:42] element issues. It's not on the north

[2:53:44] side, etc. I won't go on, but my

[2:53:47] question is this. If say the school

[2:53:52] town, would that still qualify towards,

[2:53:58] you know, the the town's numbers?

[2:54:03] » Yeah. Sage, you want to take that?

[2:54:08] » There's a there's a couple different

[2:54:10] things to look at. Whenever housing

[2:54:12] permits get issued, they count towards

[2:54:14] the housing numbers. There's a target.

[2:54:17] There's certain target sites, certain

[2:54:19] target programs to be met in the housing

[2:54:22] element cycle. Should the town look for

[2:54:25] other alternatives? It would be

[2:54:26] something that have to open up the

[2:54:28] housing element to determine if they're

[2:54:30] going to make changes to that those

[2:54:32] particular goals. Something else in

[2:54:34] addition to those goals occurs that may

[2:54:37] occur. It's totally fine. It would still

[2:54:39] be counted. Um it's just a matter of

[2:54:42] still carrying out the goals and targets

[2:54:43] that are in the housing element.

[2:54:47] it all over it like they would if they

[2:54:50] were bought it.

[2:54:51] >> Yes, it would have to be reszoned.

[2:54:55] >> Oh, we've proven that can happen.

[2:54:58] >> You can make wildlife multif family.

[2:54:59] >> Okay. I think they're they don't know.

[2:55:01] They're still talking. Um, okay. Any

[2:55:05] other comments?

[2:55:08] Okay. Seeing none, we're going to call

[2:55:10] this at 10 p.m. Uh, and uh, thank you

[2:55:13] everyone.

Town Council Meeting - March 10, 2026

Transcript