Hey, it is 7 o'clock, so we're going to
call the town council meeting of March
10th, 2026 to order. Jennifer, will you
take role?
>> Council member Alberish
>> here.
>> Council member Brown
>> here.
>> Council member Gold here.
>> Council member Wall
>> here.
>> Mayor Donowski
>> here. Thank you. Uh and we'll move on to
the pledge of allegiance. Council member
Brown, will you lead us in the pledge of
allegiance?
for it stands nationisy.
» Thank you, Dick.
Okay, we're going to move on to public
comment. So, persons wishing to address
the council on non-aggendaized items
that are within the jurisdiction of the
town are invited to do so. Please note,
however, that the council is not able uh
we're actually got we have a one speaker
to go first just in a moment. Uh we're
not able to undertake extended
discussions or to act on non-aggendaized
items. Such items can be referred to
staff for appropriate action which may
include placement on a future agenda.
This communication period is limited to
five persons, three minutes each. Any
additional persons will be heard at the
end of regular business, and we're going
to be sticking to that tonight. We have
a lot of people here to talk about the
housing element. So, we're going to make
sure that we respect everyone uh who is
here for an agenda item. So, we're going
to take five speakers up front. And uh I
am inviting our outside council, Rick
Balanos, to speak first. And I'm doing
this because we've had some specific
requests from the public for an update
on the situation with town manager Led
Better. Mr. Balanos,
welcome.
>> Thank you.
>> Please.
» Very good. Can you hear me?
>> Yes.
>> Good evening. Good evening, mayor,
members of the council, members of the
public.
My name is Richard Bologanos. I'm a
partner with the law firm of Liber
Cassidy Whitmore and I serve as outside
counsel for the town of Woodside. My
office is advising the town on the
whistleblower report that was released
to the public on February 19th by town
manager Jason Ledbet. I wanted to
provide a following summary of the
events leading up to the publication of
Mr. Leadbet's report and also provide a
summary of the town's response to that
report and the status of this matter.
On January 13th of this year, following
Mr. Lead Better's performance review,
the town council approved an amendment
to Mr. Led Better's employment
agreement, by which he was given a
$15,000 raise, increasing his annual
salary to 315,000.
On Tuesday, February 17th, Mr. Lead
Better made a demand for payment of
approximately $400,000 in a lump sum
into his bank account. no later than
midnight, Sunday, February 22nd.
He indicated that if the council did not
authorize this payment, he would release
a whistleblower report, grind all town
business to a halt, and make every
public meeting all about the alleged
claims in the report.
The council met in close session to
discuss this matter. In that closed
session, Mr. Leb better repeated his
demands and moved the payment deadline
up to Friday, February 20th.
The council rejected Mr. Leb better's
demand and although his employment
agreement provides for no severance in
the event of his resignation,
the council offered to work with Mr. Led
Better to reach terms for an amicle
settlement in accordance with his
employment agreement while referring his
complaints to the appropriate
authorities for investigation.
When advised of this, Mr. Leb better
released his report to the public. As
promised, the council has referred the
report and Mr. Leb better's demands to
the Santel County District Attorney with
a request for investigation.
The town staff and council are fully
cooperating with the district attorney's
office. Mr. Led Better's claims of
gender discrimination and harassment
have been referred to an independent
investigator and that investigation is
underway as well. Finally, I understand
you will receive a public report tonight
regarding the town's progress in meeting
the milestones outlined in the town's
certified housing element.
Mr. Lead Better is currently on paid
administrative leave as the above
reference investigations are conducted.
My office is now reviewing documents to
respond to several public records act
requests for information and responsive
documents will be released as soon as
that review is completed.
As indicated, the town council and staff
are cooperating with all requests from
the district attorney's office and the
independent investigator.
While these inquiries are ongoing, the
council has been instructed
that no further public comments are to
be made and they are respecting that
instruction in order to allow for a
full, fair, and impartial inquiry to be
undertaken. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Blanos.
With that, uh, next speaker, and we're
going to take five and then we're going
to the rest are going to go at the end.
So,
>> Steve, Steve Luben, uh, I I'm distressed
to hear the report you just heard. It
indicates, you know, further kind of
nonpublic investigation into this. Let
me go into my statement. Reading the
allegations against council members
contained in Jason Jason Lebet's
whistleblower letter, I am saddened and
exasperated. The accusations are serious
and not inconsistent with my personal
experience. We must find a way to
resolve this issue in order to restore
the public trust. Right now, people are
confused, upset, and trying to figure
out the truth. I believe we need a truly
independent investigation to clear this
up. There should not be any appearance
that council members are un unduly
influencer interfering with this
investigation.
Please acknowledge that many people in
town do not trust the town government is
conducted in an open manner. There is a
perception that issues are determined
out of the public eye. Jason's letter
reinforces this perception. An
independent investigation
and a really independent investigation
is needed to determine the truth.
Council members Dumbrosski and Gold
should consider recusing themselves from
any discussions involving this
investigation. An investigation should
be selected in a public process, not by
the town attorney or the council behind
closed doors. Please agendaize action on
an independent investigation of these
corruption claims at your next meeting.
Let's work together to resolve this
quickly.
>> Okay. And as a reminder, the complaint
will be addressed in an appropriate
process, and we're here to respect that.
>> Hi, Don Pew, a 55 year resident of
Woodside.
>> We're all aware and reading the news
about the political crap that's going on
in Washington DC and in Sacramento. But
to realize this kind of crap is going on
in Woodside is very distressing. Now I
got to know Jason and I've worked with
him. He's a great guy, very smart, very
knowledgeable, very supportive of the
things in the town, eager to help and I
think he truly loved this town. But I
was very distressed to read his
complaint, but it follows on to some
concerns that I've had for a while. So
what brought it on? Political games crap
by Brian Dowski and Chris Shaw. Those
two people have been dealing this with
the crap for a couple years now. This
political garbage has been going on. It
was apparent with a plan to bulldoze the
open space at Kinyatta Corners. Brian,
Chris, you were playing political games.
Dishonesty, lies, deceit that supported
the wealthy owner of the bakery, much to
the detriment of the town citizens.
Violation of the general plan, Brown Act
violations, all goes back. We've been
doing this for years now. Now, the issue
for Kinyata Corn is still in litigation,
but the town is going to lose because
they had very shaky grounds to even
start this whole thing from. So, Brian,
you and Chris, why did you finagle to
help a private business increase their
profit? This is something I've yet to
hopefully get out someday. Now, we need
a real independent investigation to
determine the allegations that Jason has
made to make sure it's truthful. And I
don't want anybody with a loyalty to
Jean. I know you have got your own ideas
and hopefully it can be totally
independent to investigate cuz there's
some real serious going on in this
town and I am very distressed to find
it.
Thank you for your minutes.
>> Thank you. And once again, we are here
to respect the process and uh we'll get
into specific details when we can. We're
going to take one from the Zoom room.
Miss New.
» Hi, good evening. My name is Kristen
New. I live in Grand View. Um, I am
echoing the the urgings of others to
conduct a thorough investigation into
the allegations that were put forth. You
know, everyone's innocent until proven
guilty. But I really, it was very
distressing to me as a as a lifelong
resident of Woodside to read this letter
and I'm
I don't quite know I still don't quite
know what to make of it. Um, but thank
you very much for, you know, your
commitment to having an independent
investigation and I I truly hope that will be a very transparent and
public process and the results be
transparent and public as well. Thank
you.
>> Thank you, Miss New. Uh we are all
committed to a thorough and complete
process. Appreciate that.
>> Yes sir.
>> Um that's great to hear. Um I think the ask that others have voiced and
we've talked about is somewhat putting
your thumb on the scale to make sure
that the public really feels like that
is a process that they can trust in. I'm
new to the town. I've gotten involved
and I've everyone has very differing
opinions on things and things I don't
know about things that predate me and
obviously a lot of the allegations are
pretty serious. We're always going to
have these like disagreements about like
should we do this if we do that then
these people are angry if we do that for
them then those people are angry. It's
tough. So it's really important to have
things in the open and restore the
public trust and this investigation
should be indicative of that. Um, so I
would request that you guys um put uh an
agenda item on your next meeting that
Brian and Paul recuse yourselves. We'll
still remain have or we'll still have a
quorum and that you guys will elect a
independent investigator for the claims
specifically to Brian and Paul, not
necessarily the independent
investigation um uh that were also made
in the the whistleblower complaint. So
my request is to in the next meeting
agendaize uh hiring an independent
investigation in addition to the
concurrent in independent investigation
to res to restore public trust. Um
so yeah, thank you. I know it's tough,
but it's really important to restore
public trust.
>> We completely agree. Uh Gan or Rick, do
you want to weigh in on the process here
a little bit? Jean or No.
» As Mr. Mr. Vanos indicated uh the claims
have been referred to the district
attorney's office. That is a completely
independent investigation. Um and
through the town's insurance carrier, uh
an independent investigator has been
assigned to investigate the other
claims. Uh no one at a staff level or at
a council level uh is involved in that
other than if you're asked to be
interviewed in that. Um we will comply
with those requests.
>> Very good. Thank you. And uh we will
recognize our fifth and final opening
speaker tonight.
My name is Martin Walker. I'm a longtime
resident of the town.
» Excuse me. Um,
after I received or after I saw a copy
of the town's email relating to Jason's
lead better complaint, uh, I noticed I I
saw that there were several issues that
relate specifically to town governance.
And uh and these these issues feed the
general perception that the much town
business is conducted behind the scenes
and this violates the Brown Act of
course and and it's my belief that the
town should treat the Brown Act as a
beacon for good governance and best
practices for open meetings
and accordingly the town should open an
investigation into the possible Brown
Act violations including those raised in
Jason's complaint and others. And the
results of this investigation should
include recommendations for best
practices in maintaining and regarding
open meetings.
And in I join uh in and in order to
avoid even the appearance of more bad
governance, individuals directly
implicated in the in these allegations
should recuse themselves from the
process. and in my view specifically
uh council members Dumbrosski and Gold
as well as the town attorney. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. We are going to
close opening
communications and we'll be moving on to
the consent calendar.
All items on the consent are considered
routine will be approved by one roll
call motion unless there is an item that
any member of council would like to pull
for further discussion.
Is there any item on the consent agenda
that any member of the public would like
to have pulled for further discussion?
>> Yes, Miss Hansen.
>> Number four.
Okay. Can we get a motion for items one
through three?
>> I move that we approve motions one, two,
and three.
>> Second.
>> Council member Alberish.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Brown.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Gold.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Wall.
>> Yes. Mayor Donowski.
>> Yes. Uh, Miss Hansen, would you like to
speak on item four?
» Uh, it's it's just a small but important
comment. The hyperlinks in that document
were not active. So, I don't know how
you all could have read the underlying
attachments 1A, B, C, and D because they
weren't available to the public. nor
were um I I also searched the website to
try to read those as well. So, the only
thing I could find was table one and the
executive summary. So, I would urge you
not to approve this item unless the
public can read the background
information. Thank you.
>> I I I believe I know the solution to
that. Um, so when I selected, when I
clicked on it, I found the same issue
and then I looked at the actual link and
it included uh one of the brackets at
the end, I think, for each of them. And
so if you delete that and then hit
enter, it it would go through.
>> Uh, if it's if we can't if we can't find
it, you shouldn't approve it. But but
thank you for the technical support.
>> Sure.
» You know, fair enough. We can we can we
can re reissue that and
>> yes we will move this to the next uh the
next meeting.
>> Very good. Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Moving right along.
Oh. Uh we're not going to approve. We're
going to we're going to push that to the
next. Do we need we need to approve
pushing it to the next?
>> No.
>> We'll take that.
>> Okay. Very good. Uh, next up is the
acceptance of the 2025 audited financial
statements. And I'm handing this off to
you, Melissa, although I know we have
Mr. Ikler here as the chair of the
committee.
>> Yes. Thank you, Mayor Dumowski. Uh, it
is recommended that the town council
accept into public record the audited
basic financial statements, GAN
Proposition 111 appropriation limit
review, measure A and Measure W special
revenue fund report, the memorandum on
internal control and required
communications, and the town manager's
report on the town's financial self
assessment for 2024 25. And Dave Iikler,
chair of the audit committee, is here
tonight to give a brief presentation
from from the audit committee.
Welcome, Mr. Ikler. Thank you. Good
evening. Uh, again, my name is Dave
Ikler. I am chairman of the town's audit
committee. We have two other members on
that committee. Dave Burrow, uh, who
couldn't be here tonight, and Ron
Karpovich, who's here, I believe. Here
he is. Thank you.
Each of the town council members should
have received a copy of the fiscal year
2025 financial statements
uh which includes the independent
auditor's report footnotes which require
which uh provide additional disclosure
and information on the count and the
town's accounting policies and also
details about their investments and the
pension plan and so forth. um also
supplemental information as well as the
uh management discussion analysis of the
financial results for fiscal year 25 as
well as the financial condition for the
town as of June 30th 2025.
The audit was successfully completed by
our outside independent auditing firm
Maize and Associates with the assistance
of town staff. Our committee thoroughly
reviewed and discussed the financial
report with the town staff as well as
with the auditors and also we had
detailed discussions with the auditors
about the audit itself. So the auditor's
report which is on page one of the
financial document that you have
indicates a clean unqualified opinion
which in the opinion of the auditors uh
indicates that the financial statements
prevent fairly in all material aspects
in their opinion the financial results
for the town as well as the financial
condition for the period ending June
30th 2025.
The auditors also reported to our
committee that there were no material
adjustments to any of the numbers that
they audited. There were no material
weaknesses noted and there were no
disagreements with management and there
was no indication of any fraud.
So in summary, the committee approves
the financial uh fiscal 2025 financial
statements and recommends the town
council do the same. Thank you. Are
there any questions? Thank you. Any
questions? Yes.
>> Um I have a comment, not a question.
I'll I'll defer it.
>> I ask you the same question every year,
which is about our pension liabilities.
>> I'm prepared.
>> I thank you. We are in a loan, but we've
also taken some wonderful steps to
address the issue, but can you speak a
little bit about our status? It's one of
those sort of things that are offbalance
sheet a little bit. What our liabilities
are versus our asset coverage? Um
there's disclosure in footnote 2 on this
particular subject
uh under our cash and investments.
There's also a a comment or summary in
the executive summary which appears on
page six.
So on page six there's a bullet point
that says that the town's
uh pension liability is 74.4 4% funded
as of the end of fiscal 25.
Uh as you know, the town has set aside
uh money which is now increased by 12.6%
this past fiscal year to $3 million.
This money was set aside to potentially
preund any future pension obligations.
So, if that money were used to pay down
the unfunded pension liability, which
was $5.2 million at the end of uh 20
June 30th, 2025,
the pension would be funded at a level
of 88%.
Kalpers, uh, my understanding typically
gauges pension contributions from the
from various towns and cities at about a
70% level.
So even at 74% we're actually doing
better than what Kalpers normally uh
suggests the towns do. But if the town
wanted to pay down that pension
liability with that $3 million which was
set aside outside of Kalper's uh assets,
that pension liability would be 88%
funded.
>> Does that answer your question?
>> It it does perfectly. Thank you. Uh you
had a comment
first. Well, why don't we
>> Okay. Um, so first I'm one of the
representatives from the town council to
the audit committee and I just wanted to
thank Ron
Dave Iikler, Dave Burrow, who's not here
tonight for their work. I attended every
>> and also the staff for the town. Yeah.
>> Well, I was going to get to Cindy and
the rest of it, but the but um I
attended every single meeting. Um
probably close to a dozen hours or so
spent on that. Um, but I just wanted to
point out if if you for those in the
audience and on Zoom, uh, the ORB chart
is on page 13 of tonight's packet and it
shows the audit committee is a very
special committee of the town. It's
unlike any of the other advisory or
volunteer committees. Um, we don't
govern them. The town council doesn't
and we want that independent audit
function. And, um, they actually choose
their own members and one of them
retires or resigns, they pick their own.
we don't have anything to do with it and
uh there's a reason for that. We do want
the independence. A lot has been made of
the word independence tonight already,
but uh we feel very strongly about that
as far as the fiscal management goes
here. And um I will tell you that given
the financial expertise of the two Daves
and Ron, uh they are all very
experienced financial CFOs, CEOs in
their companies in in the private
sector. You could not buy the expertise
that those three gentlemen uh bring to
the audit committee in that review which
is extraordinarily intensive of the uh
from Maize Associates, our auditing firm
and from the staff including Cindy and
her staff um who who uh uh perform the
audit and and keep us in good shape. Uh
so I did want to thank everybody for
their service on that. It's uh it it
it's not fun and um it's very tedious
and we do appreciate it. Uh I did want
to make one final comment because um
uh the mayor made uh he asked about the
pension liability and uh Dave Iikler
made mention that we're at 74% which is
of funding which is already about 5 or
10% over the statewide average of any
city or town or any other municipality,
county or state. Uh often they're in the
50% range. Uh 70 is kind of like
>> pretty high.
>> 70% but
>> and we're at 74.
>> Yeah.
>> And the thing that I wanted to point out
was the town council and I think it may
have been in my first year on this
second goround. I'm not sure. It
predated me.
>> Um the town had extra cash, extra money,
extra funds, and we were thinking about
what to do with it. and I think it was
the mayor, I'm not sure, uh, who's in
financial management, um, had
recommended that we take a fairly large
slug of money and put it aside into a
supplemental fund, $3 million, and
invested it. That doesn't count. you you
I I just I have to sort of translate the
financial speak of esteemed neighbor at
the microphone, but that $3 million that
the council voted on and put aside to
fund pension liabilities is not counted
in that 74%. I know you explained that
before and with that we're in the 80
>> 88% almost 90% almost unheard of in any
governance anywhere maybe in the country
and that was due to the financial
management which predated me. Uh but
going through the audit committee and
attending those meetings, it's nice to
see that there's an extra slug of money
in there dedicated solely to the
pensions of our staff and employees that
doesn't even count in the financial
statements. We know it's there and it
can only be used for that purpose.
>> Yes. Under our control. It's not under
Kalper's control.
>> It's under That's exactly right. And so,
um, I just wanted to point that out that
financially, um, uh, we are in superb
shape and even better shape than I think
the financial, uh, audit reveals simply
because there is other funds there,
significant funds that actually bring us
to a standard that's almost unheard of.
But anyway, I just wanted to thank you
for that and thank you guys for your
great service.
>> Oh, thank you. Thank you for being on
the town council as well. Uh, one other
comment, you know, for for towns people,
if you're interested in looking at these
financial statements, after these are
approved by the town council, they do
get put on the town's website. So,
historically, you can go back 15, 20
years, and they're out there still. So,
it's under the financial section on the
website if you're interested in in
learning more about the the town's
finances and where the money is being
spent.
>> Thank you.
That's a good segue. Is there
any member of the public that would like
to comment on the audit?
Seeing none, then um on behalf of all of
us, please accept our deepest gratitude
for your meticulous review of the
statements and u the confidence that it
inspires in our financials. We really
appreciate the work that you do and we
are just accepting this report tonight.
So there is no vote. We are just
accepting and moving forward. Okay, very
good. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Moving on to new business item B, the
annual progress report for the housing
element. And this is anformational
report. And I'm handing it off to you,
Melissa.
>> Thank you, Madam Kowski. It is
recommended that the town council accept
theformational annual progress report
for the housing element for 2025 and
direct staff to transmit by April 1st
the report to the state department of
housing and community development and
office of planning and research as
required by government code section
65400.
The report as required contains
information on the town's progress
toward meeting its regional housing
needs or RENA allocation. During 2025,
the town issued permits for 23 accessory
dwelling units and 11 permits for single
family dwellings. Two of the issued
permits for new ADUs were voided or put
on hold. So, 21 permits for ADUs have
been included in the 2025 APR. Of the 21
ADUs permitted in 2025, seven ADUs are
considered very lowincome units, six as
low income units, six as moderate income
units, and two as above moderate income
units. All 11 single family dwellings
permitted in 2025 count as above
moderate income units. The town
certified housing element also designate
designates three properties in town for
multifamily projects. First, a 1acre
privately owned site at 773 Kinyatta
slated to produce a total of 16 moderate
income units. The property owner is
currently in the process of subdividing
the larger 9 acres of land into the 1
acre multif family site and the
remaining area for single family
residential site. Second, a 1 and 1/2
acre town-owned site on Rayundo slated
to produce a total of 17 units, 12 low
and very lowincome units and five
moderate income units. Third, a 1acre
town-owned site on High Road slated to
produce a total of 16 units, 11 low and
very lowincome units and five moderate
income units. For the two towned sites
by September of 2026, the town is
required to issue a notice of
availability pursuant to the surplus
lands act to solicit proposals for
development of these two sites. To meet
this timeline, the town in September
2025 issued a request for proposals
seeking a consultant to prepare a town
master sanitary sewer study to analyze
existing and needed capacity to serve
current residences and anticipated
development, including 773 Kinyatta and
the town-owned sites. On November 18th,
2025, the town council approved a
contract with Frier and Loretta to
analyze both the existing sewer
infrastructure and contractual capacity
for the Town Center Sewer Assessment
District, Redwood Creek Sewer Assessment
District, and Fair Oaks Sewer
Maintenance District. The study is not
yet complete. We anticipate the study
will be completed later this spring. As
the study is being conducted by Frier
and Loretta, staff has also been working
with Jerry Risa from the law firm of
Burke Williams and Sorenson to assist in
the development of a timeline and
process for the town council to consider
as it accepts public input and directs
how staff should proceed to solicit
proposals for development of the two
town owned sites. I am now turning the
presentation over to Mr. Risa so that he
can outline in general terms next steps
once the sewer study is complete.
Welcome,
>> council members. Can can you hear me?
All right,
>> we can. The closer it gets for the folks
on the Zoom, the better. But
>> okay. Um, yeah. Well, thank you again.
My name is Jerry Ramsea. I'm a real
estate lawyer with the firm of Burke
Williams and Sorenson. And back in June
of this past year, June of 2025,
town attorney Gan Savory reached out to
me with a request for assistance um to
provide some advice on the proper
process that the town ought to go
through with respect to the two sites
that were mentioned, Raundo and High
Road, and how to comply with the State
Surplus Land Act. So, since June, I've
been working on that project. We've had
a number of Zoom calls and phone calls
to discuss process and review
alternatives.
Um, and if you'd like, I can give a
little bit of background, a quick
summary of the process that's um that
the town will need to follow and and
broadly speaking the two alternatives.
So, the statute that um we're operating
under and that the town will need to
comply with is the State Surplus Land
Act. It's in the government code. It's
been in existence for a long time since
I think 1968. And for the first 50
years, it wasn't that impactful. But
several years ago, back in 2019, the
state legislature made substantial
amendments to the surplus land Act, and
they were targeted at the statewide af
uh housing shortage, affordable housing
issues. It was part of that effort to
address the need for affordable housing.
And it the result has been really any
time a city, a town, a county is
entering into long-term leases or
looking to sell property to a third
party, you have to comply with the State
Surplus Land Act. And broadly speaking,
there are two ways to do that. The state
surplus land act defines a series of
exemptions
that are um and so property can be
declared exempt surplus land if you fit
in one of those boxes, one of those
exemptions or property can be declared
as surplus land and then there's a
separate statutory process to go
through. So, that's really the first
step in the process, deciding whether
it's in the town's interest to go down
the exempt surplus land uh road or the
surplus land route. And in general, um
well, let me let me u stop there for a
moment. That decision of whether to go
surplus land or exempt surplus land,
that is a public process. the uh town
council would have to adopt a resolution
making findings to support an exemption
determination or uh concluding that it
desires to follow the surplus land
process. So there is a is a public step
a notice public meeting resolution has
to be adopted and that will I anticipate
a decision will be presented to the
council or recommendation in the coming
months. Um,
broadly speaking,
it's the town has a bit more local
control and autonomy if you can proceed
under an exempt surplus land
determination as opposed to a surplus
land determination. So generally
speaking, we recommend that communities
follow the exempt surplus land route
provided the proper findings and
determinations can be made and we're
pretty close to concluding that they can certainly be made with respect
to Rayundo High Road is a little bit of
an open question and I'll get into that
in a moment. Um, under the the
applicable exemption that the town may
be able to take advantage of and by
declaring the properties, one or both
properties exempt surplus land is in um
for those interested in reviewing the specific exception, it's in
government code section 54221
F1A.
And that cross references another
government code affordable housing
provision which is in section 37364.
So that particular exemption
uh it specifies three criteria that you
need to meet in order to follow it. One
of the criteria is that at least 80% of
the land area of the property in
question has to be developed for
housing.
um at least 40% of the total housing
units have to be what I'll just describe
as pretty deeply affordable. Um very low
at the lower end of low income plus a
number of very lowincome units as well.
The third requirement is an easy one to
meet. There has to be a recorded
regulatory agreement for at least 30
years. So, so the one here that's a
little bit in question with respect to
the high road site is that 80% lot
coverage requirement. High road, it's a
smaller parcel. It's a little bit um the
configuration is a little bit odd. It's
not a rectangular rectal linear parcel
and there's also a PG& easement. So
staff has been doing some due diligence
to see whether it's realistic the 80%
coverage requirement can be can be met.
If it can be, I anticipate staff's
recommendation to you will be to declare
it exempt surplus land. And if that
happens, the next step in the process is
the town could issue um an RFQ, a
request for qualifications or a request
for proposals. And then basically you're
in the driver's seat to decide to send
that out to the world of affordable
housing developers. Um, and then you're
in a position to select one with a
demonstrated track record of success who
builds highquality projects you think
can meet the town's objectives. And
that's why I say you have a little bit
more autonomy under the exempt process.
Um
the the alternative I'll just briefly
mention the the alternative which is not
pursuing an exemption and just declaring
the property to be surplus. If you go
that route, it's a it's a it's a little
bit of a slower process and it's one
that you have a little less control
over. It starts with a
uh preparation of a notice of
availability.
That notice gets emailed or sent s via
certified mail to a list of 300 plus
housing sponsors and other developers
statewide who've expressed an interest
in learning about the availability of
surplus lands. That notice is goes out
for 60 days. So, you have 60 days to
receive responses from essentially the
whole world of potential developers who
might be interested in doing affordable
housing. Um, at that point, you'll
evaluate the responses.
You can se you have some discretion to
select, but the preference really goes
to the responder who's proposing the
highest number of units and the deepest
affordability.
And regardless of whether or not they
have a real demonstrated track record or
access to financing, etc., you end up
having to go through a good faith
negotiation process of at least 90 days.
The statute doesn't dictate a particular
result. You do not have to sell the
property to um any developer who
responds or the developer who responds
with um or that you speak with first.
But it does specify a process. So you
have to build a record, you you
negotiated in good faith, you didn't get
to a deal, and then and then, you know,
if you received other responses, you'd
go through that process. It doesn't
necessarily have to be entirely serial.
You can have concurrent negotiations,
but you'd have to go through that
process. You'd have less control over
who you might want to work with as a
developer for these two sites.
Um, if you're ultimately successful
through a surplus land act process, you
would still enter into
a disposition and development agreement
of some sort, basically a purchase and
sale agreement that has some affirmative
development obligations.
And that developer, if they performed
under the agreement, they'd close
escrow, buy the site, and build the
project. Um, if you can't find a
developer through that process or if no
one responds with interest for one
reason or another, you have the ability
to sell the properties to others who are
not interested in developing affordable
housing. But you'd be required to record
a covenant against the property that uh
specifies that if housing is ever
developed, at least 15% of those units
will have to be uh low lowincome units.
Um
in this case, I think it would be a
little bit hard to do that since the
housing element has identified these
sites for housing purposes. they're um
designated for housing uh uses under the
general plan. So um I I don't really
view at this point non-housing
development alternatives as being
practical, but that's what the surplus
land specifies.
So to just review next steps, there's
some due diligence going on. There's a
sewer capacity study being done which
has already been mentioned tonight. Um
that'll be important information for
prospective developers. We're also
trying to be as certain as we can about
that 80% lot coverage um requirement for
high road because one desire is to make
sure we do it right the first time. We
don't want to go down the exempt road
and then find out we can't meet it and
have to backpedal and restart the
process.
Um, we've got noticed public meetings
ahead and adoption of resolutions
where you would uh choose the path
that's best for the town, exempt surplus
land or surplus land. And um
that's uh I think that's the last um
information I wanted to share. If you
have any questions about the process,
I'll be happy to try to answer them.
>> Wonderful. Thank you, Mr.
Uh, any questions?
>> I have a bunch.
>> Yeah, you want to go for it?
>> Uh, first, Jerry, thank you for that.
Um, I wish we had heard that um before
we got into the housing element u a
couple of years ago because a lot of the
questions from the concerned citizens
were exactly the things you were talking
about. You know, I'm I'm assuming staff
and council knew a lot of these things,
but we I can only speak for myself. I
didn't. I'm assuming a lot of the folks
in the public didn't know either. So, I
have a few questions to ask you about
some of the permutations. So, you said
there's two ways to go with Raundo and
High Road, which is what we're talking
about here. It could be exempt or not
exempt, and you gave the reasons for
each. So, I just something just
triggered in my mind here when you were
talking at the very end. Um, so let's
say we determine it is 80% on high road.
That's the one that's the most
problematic as I think we've pointed out
in spades here over the past three
years. Um, but let's say we determine it
is 80%. We make it exempt and then when
the developer comes in, they're only
going to cover 50%.
Yeah, that well that would be a problem
because I think the R if you issued an
RFP seeking a developer, we would
make very clear that this RFP is being
issued pursuant to an exemption
determination and there are three
critical components of that exemption
determination. So the town would be
seeking a developer who can undertake a
project that complies with the
exemption.
>> Got it. So,
>> um, thank you for the clarification. So,
when we put this out for a request for a
proposal, uh, if it's exempt, we have a
lot more control, as you said. We can
make sure that they're bonafide
developers and they have financial
wherewithal and a track record. All
pretty good things, of course. Um, there
are three possibilities in those
responses. One, we could get no
responses.
And then you said we would be eligible
to sell it to somebody else for other
reasons provided 15% of the of the any
developer any development that's there
would be for affordable housing. Did I
hear that correctly?
>> Well, just um that's mostly right, but
there's another step in the process. So
if you declared it exempt surplus land,
thought you would be successful by
pursuing the exemption, and if it turned
out that was infeasible, you get no
responses,
then the next option would be, well,
that didn't work. We're going to declare
it surplus. And so now you're going
through that surplus land process notice
to the world of affordable housing
developers, 300 plus entities.
um
wait the 60 days, see who you hear from,
start negotiations, negotiate for at
least 90 days, you know, hopefully end
up with a successful outcome through
that process.
Um, and if you don't, then okay. Uh, at
that point, I suppose you've
demonstrated
it's not particularly feasible to do
housing because you've attempted to find
a housing developer and let's just say
no one is interested. Then it would be
record the co notify the um there's a
state agency state department of housing
and community development you're
probably familiar with because
you're um interfacing with them to get
housing elements approved but they are
the enforcement body and the overseer of
this whole surplus land act process. So
there are a series of points at which
you notify HCD of what you're doing,
what your progress is, whether you've
been successful, did you negotiate with
someone and not have a successful
outcome. So that all of that gets
reported to HCD.
>> So my point is you're leading right down
the pathway that I'm saying if and I
think that it may be a likely outcome.
Nobody's interested or they're not
interested at the level that we're
specifying in there. We ultimately we
have no takers. We can't find anybody.
We say we're now it's surplus property.
What happens to our reena number? What
happens? I mean HC we're telling HCD
we're not going to make 394.
>> Yeah. I'm going to refer that question
to the town attorney because there would
be really what I've described is simply
this is the the world under the state
surplus land act. So there could be
other implications if you are
unsuccessful through that process.
That doesn't mean you're home free.
Maybe you're home free under the surplus
land act
>> or we find something else. But I guess
I'll let Jean respond to that town
attorney to respond to that.
>> So as Jerry's indicated, your housing
element designates those those sites and
indicates they will be developed at that
level of of um affordability. If that
can't happen, you will need to start
looking for other sites or other ways to
incentivize uh folks to come in and
produce those housing numbers for you.
During that time period, we would try
our best to work with HCD so that they
don't levy fines or um descertify the
housing element. U because when you're
descertified, then you find yourself in
a very vulnerable position um for
builder's remedy projects and additional
um fines from the state. And that is not
a place any anybody
wants to be.
>> Okay. Got it. So before I go to the
other two possibilities,
Jerry, the you know, we talked about one
if there is no response or they're
insufficient responses, what we do in
that event. But before I go down the
other two possibilities, which is
somebody responds perfectly or somebody
responds with a kind of a medium warm
result, I did want to ask you a question
because you brought this up. You said we
would have to uh put a covenant against
the property. in the first pathway
dedicating 15% to affordable housing.
Can you describe what a covenant is and
how you reverse it?
» Well, it's it you you wouldn't be able
to reverse it. So it would be a covenant
that and really what it contemplates is
in most instances under the surplus land
act if you offer the site to affordable
housing developers and they take a pass
and then let's say you sell for a
commercial development that's really the
purpose of the covenant. The covenant is
this site has just been sold to a third
party for a nonaffordable housing use.
And if it turns out that third party
decides, no, I'm not going to do my
commercial project after all. I want to
do a luxury town home project, well, 15%
of the residential units that are
developed will have to be um uh low
income.
>> So essentially, a a covenant is a
restrictive deed. It's filed with this
clerk, right? With the town with a
county clerk.
>> Correct. It runs with the land.
>> Runs with the land in perpetuity as I
understand.
>> Binding on successors.
That particular covenant that fall back
15% if you're unsuccessful. I don't
believe it has an expiration date,
>> but it there's no mechanism to have it
undone except by agreement of the
parties.
>> Uh, correct.
>> Got it. Thank you. I'm just appreciate
that clarification because that came up
three years ago. Um, and I just I
appreciate your ex. You're the town's
expert in this area and I was very glad
to hear that. So, let's talk about the
other two avenues that you could go
down. Um, it's real easy. If if a
developer comes back and says, "Hey, 16
units at High Road, 80% coverage. We got
this. Here's the proposal." We'll get to
that in a second. But suppose somebody
comes back and says, "This is a really
awkward parcel. I can put on four town
homes. That's the most I could do." What
do we do if that's maybe that's the best
proposal we get?
>> Well, the for purposes of the there may
be other implications under the housing
element, but for purposes of the surplus
land act requirement is 40%
of
>> yeah, I'm not even talking about
affordability. Suppose they meet all of
that, but they just don't. They can't
put 16. They could put 10 or eight or
six. So they can meet the 80% lot
coverage. Yeah. If 40% of those are
affordable to households earning 75%
of the maximum income of lower income
households, that's the lower end of
maximum and at least half of those are
affordable to very low-income households
>> and they would have met the requirement
under the surplus land act.
>> So uh the 16 units on high road, the 17
units on Raundo are not necessarily cast
in stone. if the developers if the the
requests for proposals come back at less
than those numbers.
>> Yeah. Not cast in stone under the
surplus land act but could be other
implications under the housing elements.
>> Got it. Thank you. Very helpful. Okay.
So now let's talk about the last one.
Sorry for taking all the time but I
think these questions I assume are on
people's minds or they should be. Um, so
let's talk for a second about we put out
a request for quote for Raundo and we
puted one out for High Road and they
come back perfectly. It's a qualified
developer and everything else. So now
comes the question,
how do we sell the property? Do we you said something about 30-year
minimums and things like that? I think I
heard that number. Um, but do we have to
sell the parcel outright? Could we lease
it for 99 years? Could we sell it for a
dollar? Do we Does it have to be market
rate? I mean, these are going to be
condominiums. These are supposed to be
owner occupied. Um, and I have a
follow-up question to that one, too, but
I'll let you handle that first.
>> Well, you could sell it for a dollar.
Um, you know, you presumably you would
only do that if there was a demonstrated
feasibility gap in the financing and it
was required to make the project
feasible. there's no obligation to write
down the value of the land to make make
the project feasible. So, um sometimes
when local agencies are selling surplus
property, one of the requirements they
put in is the expectation is we're
selling it for full fair market value.
So, don't expect a discount. Um you're
not required to do that, but and
similarly, you're not required to write
down the value of the land. I mentioned
that 30-year um regulatory agreement
that that's just another example.
Recorded covenant runs with the land
binding on both the initial developer
grantee of the property as well as
successors and assigns.
>> Okay. So,
um
we have somebody who comes back and
they're going to develop this property.
Everything looks fine. They may come
back and say, "We need you to sell us
the property for a dollar to make the
finances work for us because the cost of
developing these properties, it's going
to be expensive." One of them has a $2.5
million sewer that's required. I mean, I
can see the the cost really running up
here, and they may need a cheap price on
the land to make this work,
but the town can determine that we don't
want to sell it for less than fair
market value. Is that what you just
said?
>> Correct. You don't You're not obligated
to to down the value of the land.
>> Got it. Thank you. Um and the last thing
I wanted to ask you about um
during these deliberations of
that took place about three years ago,
this was a pretty contentious the room
had actually more people in it than it
has tonight. Um,
one of the things that came up was that
um to, this is my word, to appease the
public. Um, we told them that there
would be several more opportunities down
the road to oppose these the development
of these parcels. It's certainly their
right. We, you know, we have a first
amendment right to speak against these
the development. Um,
but one of the things that that kind of
came up in in opposing them was the
council and I believe council member
Wall was the mayor at the time. I'm not
positive. She can correct me if if I'm
wrong. Um, a lot of the neighbors came
forward and said, "We would like to have
a neighborhood committee to meet and it
was going to be I think it was at the
time it was going to be the mayor and I
think the planning director and the town
manager and a few members of those
areas,
Raundo Road area and High Road would be
two separate neighborhood committees to
discuss the very issues that you and I
are talking about right now. Is this
going to be sold for how much?" you
know, a lot of the issues not not
covered in the in the environmental
reviews and the site reviews that we did
at that time, but the other issues that
are there like where are people going to
park and how, you know, how are we going
the 80% coverage you were just talking
about? Are we going to sell the land?
Are we going to lease it? You know, for
how much? At the time, I think the
council came out and they said they
wanted them to be owner occupied, that
is condominiums. And importantly, at
least for me, was how is the appreciated
value, if these are condominiums, going
to vest
with the purchasers of these properties
over time. And I recall giving this very
example. Suppose some teacher from
Woodside Elementary School buys one of
these condominiums for below market
rate. I'll throw out a number, half a
million dollars. The real market is a
million and a half for that same unit.
So he or she buys it for a half a
million dollars and a year later wants
to sell it at fair market value a
million and a half bucks. Is that
million-doll gain go to the teacher?
>> Does it go to the town or is it going to
vest over time? And I actually brought
this up and I thought I actually I think
I wrote an email if I'm not mistaken to
then town manager Kevin Bryant that
maybe vesting it I'm very familiar with
stock options. maybe vesting it over 20
years where they get 120th it every year
over 20 years and at the end if they
live there 20 years they should get the
full appreciated value but if they sell
it after a year maybe they keep 120th of
it and the town keeps 1920th of it
something like that is that the kind of
paradigm that people use in um uh owner
occupied uh reselling a below market
value condominium
>> yeah there there are there are different
models um but The important thing is
that the unit has to remain affordable
for the required time period to the next
purchaser, right? So, it's not going to
be possible. You have to find a a
solution to that. So often times what
happens is the the the uh local
jurisdiction, the town in this case
might buy the unit back from the initial
purchaser and then be a conduit to get
that unit to the next homeowner
>> at some agreed pre a prior agreed price
>> at a at a some formula
>> which likely will be high a higher price
than what the initial purchaser your hypothetical teacher in the example
paid because as a you know what's has
been the trend over time is area median
incomes increase. Therefore the income
levels for very low income and low
income go up and then that drives the
formula for what's known as the
affordable housing cost which is
basically the purchase price. What
purchase price is affordable to that
particular income level. So it tends to
go up over time. maybe tracking
inflation but not housing prices. Um so
>> Jerry, thank you. This is exactly what
the neighbor committee was supposed to
address. It was we didn't know at the
time and I think it was that very issue
that we were saying if this actually
runs with the property the affordability
for ever essentially how do we capture
that and um that was actually part of
what the neighborhood committee was
supposed to be discussing to work that
out in advance of the RFPs.
Can I just address that? Of
>> course.
>> So, the ba baseline information we need
in order to have a meaningful discussion
with the public and with you is the
sewer study and so staff heard very
clearly about public input and and
subcommittees. However, the council
wanted to um direct those be composed.
That has not been lost. We just don't
have the sewer capacity study anal
analyzed yet. And once that happens,
then that process can begin.
>> I agree with you there. And and I didn't
want to put that aside. The sewer study
to me is a binary gating study about
what we could do, but all of the issues
we're talking about now flow, no pun
intended, from the flu sewer study with
you.
>> I agree.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay, Council Member Wall, I saw your
hand up.
>> Yeah, thanks. Um, yeah, just building
off of some of the comments that Paul
made. you know, I do recall, just in the
spirit of transparency, Paul, I do
recall,
um, the council being very focused on
neighborhood input. Um, which, um,
actually my question for you, Jerry,
when I get there is I'm curious to hear
kind of you describe in more detail how
residents will be able to offer their
input going forward. Um I don't I don't
have the same recollection that you do,
Paul, around um you know, obligating um
making any binding obligations around
forming a neighborhood committee. That
doesn't I don't think really matter. I
think the spirit is there that we
absolutely want to solicit as much
resident input as possible. Um, so
Jerry, do you think and apologies if you
mentioned this in your report already,
but can you kind of just walk us through
now that you have presented to the
council sort of the process
um to determine whether the sites are
state surplus land or exempt surplus
land? Um, what are the different moments
where the council will be able to hear
resident input or or uh what are the
opportunities for residents to offer
their input?
Um, sure. I'll be happy to answer that.
The the first I think opportunity
um will be when a determin determination
is made. Does the town council want to
declare each of the sites exempt surplus
land or surplus land? So if that happens
for both sites at the same meeting,
that'll be a key point in time at which
the you know the community can weigh in
about the wisdom of or not of pursuing
one of those two paths. And then of
course the next major opportunity is if
a developer is selected through
whichever process you follow and you
want to choose a developer for a
particular site or one developer for
both sites to whether it's to ground
lease or to purchase the site.
That agreement with that developer will
be presented at a council meeting.
There'll be a staff report presumably
there's an analysis of the financial
terms of the deal. Um some analysis of
the viability of the development
project. Why staff and the c why staff
um in its team of advisors believe the
development project is viable and likely
to be successful.
And then that agreement would have
remedies typically including rights of
reverter or some option to get the
property back if you sell choose a
developer you think they're going to
they're terrific and they have a great
plan but they're unable to perform. So
usually we try to mitigate the risk of
failure by delaying the conveyance until
the developer has all their ducks in a
row. They've got their financing lined
up. they're ready to pull a building
permit, but there's always an outside
chance that something goes south after
that. And so we we'd even build into the
agreement, you know, remedies at that
point. But th those are the two key
opportunities for the public to weigh in
on the process.
>> Can I just add one more? And I think
this is Jerry doesn't have the benefit
of having sat through all the previous
meetings. You've also instructed that
before any RFP gets issued, you want the
public to be involved in looking at um
what that RFP would contain. Now, we we
the only thing so far is what's shown in
your housing element, the number of
units, but there's a lot more detail
that you want would want to be issuing
when you go out looking for someone to
partner with um to develop those sites.
And that's when the public input will be
extremely important so that you can
weigh all of their concerns and requests
and make sure that you can accommodate
um as many of those as possible.
» Other questions? Yeah, Council Member
Aberish,
>> thank you. Uh
so thank you for walking us through the
process of, you know, all the different
options. Um, and I'm guessing that you
have some idea, you know, of because
right now it just sounds like there's
all these different options and it's,
you know, we could end up in any one of
them, including, you know, private sale.
Um, so I I was hoping to walk through
them and just getting from your
experience which, you know, what's the
most likely outcome here? And I won't
hold you, you know, I don't I don't
expect you to, you know, predict exactly
what's going to happen, but um do you
have any thoughts on the likelihood that
we'll be able to find a solution to get
80% development for housing on on that
property
>> on High Road? I really don't because I
think one of the things we we need and
um it's possible Sage is is may have
done some of this work, but I would want
to see a plotted easement map of that
PG& easement. Going to assume you're not
going to be able to put housing in the
PG& easement area. So, one of the key
considerations would be plot that
easement and calculate what percentage
of the site is encumbered by that. And
we know that's off limits. And is it
more or less than 20% of the site?
And then hopefully it's considerably
less than 20% because for any
development, you know, you're not going
to do very likely a zero lot line
development and put a building and just
fill every square inch of the site.
Great. Thank you. And then um so if we
go down the other path or sorry if we do
if we are able to get the the 80% there
um do you have experience on what the
likelihood is that we would actually be
able to like if we put it out to um a
bid or to you know a request the term
you used request for qualifications
proposals
>> qualifications or proposals it's or or
perhaps a hybrid between the two.
What's your experience on do we do they
do you get many? Do you get some? Does
it is it just kind of a crapshoot?
>> It it's a little bit of a crapshoot
there. One of the things that can make
sites more or less attractive to the
affordable housing developer community
is proximity to things like transit
services, grocery stores.
And there's a complex scoring formula
for allocation of tax credits which are
often used for affordable housing
projects that makes that improves the it's a low cost of financing, lower
cost than private market. So it makes
projects that will generate limited
rental income because they're affordable
more financially viable if you can tap
into those sorts of funding. Also, state
bond monies sometimes are available. So,
um I don't know how this particular site
would score. There are people who could
tell us that. Um if if there is a
possibility of doing a tax credit
project, there's a good chance that your
prospective developers may propose an
even more affordable project or a
project that has more affordable units
than the 40% I mentioned because they
may need to do that to tap into those
other financing sources. So, it's a
little bit of a counterintuitive
results. You would think more affordable
units would make it less financially
viable, but that's not always the case
if it enables you to tap into um good
sources of lowcost financing.
>> Thank you. And then if we have to go the
other route, the surplus
uh route um
do you have any um when you send it out
to the 300 plus uh developers, do you
usually do you have an any experience on
how frequently you you know you come up
short and have to find a private buyer
or Yeah, I would think you would get
responses if you were to send it out to
300 groups. I don't know whether those
responses would come from
the the group of, you know, well-
reggarded housing affordable housing
developers that you see up and down the
peninsula that have a track record of
success. Hopefully, you would you would
receive um responses
from one or more of those if you went
the surplus land act, the the surplus
land process.
But uh but as I mentioned earlier, I
think you have a little bit more control
under the the exempt surplus land
process.
>> Great. Thank you.
» You're good.
>> Yeah. A lot of grounds been covered. Um
maybe one thing that we didn't fully
consider
uh is the first step to all this is
the sewer capacity that we have to
support density in that area. and we
wound up putting a fair bit of our
required density in basically one square
mile on the north side of town that's
serviced by this sewer. So I guess the
question is uh and we'll know more. I
think this study comes out in about a
month, right? That's when we got about a
month. What happens if there's limited
capacity or not enough capacity? We have
a couple of competing projects in that
area.
Who gets the capacity? Is it first come
first serve? Is it what happens if if we
are limited or we are capacity
constrained on sewer because we need
that to support density.
» Yeah, it's tough one. But
>> well, if the study comes back and shows
you have a limited capacity, then we
will be back here in front of you, in
front of the public um daylighting that
and asking how you wish to proceed. Um
whether that is to try and figure out
how to get additional capacity or not.
um what the cost of that would be, h how
that could be accomplished. Um you know,
you don't run your own sewer plant here.
We you know, you you have lines that run
through town, but but that's transferred
elsewhere and we don't process that. Um
so it's a it's a complicated issue and
that's why uh you indicated that we
needed the master sewer study to
indicate what the capacity is not only
for um new development, but for existing
homes, those homes that may end up with
a a failed septic system. um you you
really wanted to understand what is the
capacity for the town as it currently is
developed and for future development
» right and then the next part of that is
say one project gets you know the green
light before another they are the first
ones I guess to gobble up whatever's
left of the capacity is that what winds
up happening then another project might
end up not having
any ability to connect to sewer and
therefore becomes a dead project and now
we have different issue, I guess, on our
hands. We're running around trying to
find new units somewhere else.
>> That's right. But, but since these are
both town-owned sites, you control when
and if you you issue the RFPs and when
and is when and if you approve a
developer and how you move forward. So,
you have more control over these two
sites and uh than you do if a private
developer comes forward and wants to put
up a project.
>> Okay.
in building out sewer in a constrained
cost environment for the town. How would
we how would we fund that even if we
could get the sewer capacity from the
provider?
>> Well, that's a question you'd have to
address after you get a full analysis. I know often um infrastructure projects
are bond measures that need to go to the
voters and if it's approved by the
voters, then there's funding for those
infrastructure improvements. Um if there
if it's not approved, there's no funding
for them.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yes. Another question.
>> One quick followup, I promise. Uh so
Jerry, you're your expertise sounds like
is in surplus property, you know,
whether it's exempt or not exempt. Land
use, I guess, in general.
>> Yeah, I'd say public private partnership
development projects. So, usually
involving a public agency and a
developer
working to develop some challenging site
or another.
>> Very timely because I suspect a lot of
the people here are going to talk about
some surplus property. So, I I do have a
question for you just to kind of tee
that up and that is is there any
obligation of the town to acquire
surplus lands if we don't have any to
build properties on? I mean, we're we're
down to really our last few here with
High Road and Raundo. We have a few
others, but they're far more awkward
than High Road. Is there any obligation
for us to acquire lands uh affirmatively
to go seek them out?
>> Yeah, that is something that is
completely not addressed by the surplus
land act. It's really more, I think,
relevant to the housing element question
and how you meet your arena numbers. And
>> so, it's a political decision. And it's
not a policy decision. I mean, it's not
a uh requirement.
>> It's not a surplus. The surplus land act
just deals with disposition of
properties that
>> a local agency owns and concludes it no
longer needs for its own use.
>> I assume that would apply to the state
disposing of its surplus lands too.
>> State agency state the um
counties,
special districts,
the state. I don't know that state
agencies are subject to that act to um
they may have some independent
requirements.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay, we know we got a lot of people
here that want to comment on the uh
item. So, uh we welcome your input and
um they'll be captured for the record as
we move forward through what I think
will I suspect is going to be a series
of public meetings on this. But, uh
public comment is open. Would anybody
like to kick us off?
Miss Pleti.
» Hi, I'm Sue Pleti, a 37year resident of
Raundo. And now we've identified two
town sites. Now, we must evaluate
whether these sites can actually be
developed once physical constraints and
life safety regulations are examined
more closely. At a meeting attended by
several of us, the town attorney uh
explained that there was no fire code
violation for the Raundo site because
there's no project. I understand that
interpretation. Typically, the fire code
is enforced at the building site, the
building permit stage. Simply listing a
site in the housing element does not
itself create a fire code violation. But
the absence of a violation today does
not mean the site is feasible.
Feasibility is the real question. Runny
Rabundo is a narrow single access
dead-end road that already serves more
than 30 dwellings. The campfires is an
example of why the fire code access
requires uh requirements exist.
There was gridlock and 85 people lost
their lives. Some of them burned to
death sitting in their cars. Fire code
D107 mandates that once a road serves
more than 30 dwelling units. Any
additional development requires a
separate secondary fire apparatus access
road so residents and firefighters are
not forced to rely on a single road.
Given the physical constraints of the
Raundo site, it is not clear how a
compliant secondary access road could be
provided. The housing element identifies
sites that are available for potential
housing, but it does not guarantee that
every site can be ultimately built. When
a site later proves unable to comply
with life safety laws, such as the fire
code, towns commonly replace that site
with another location that can
physically or realistically meet both
the housing and life safety
requirements. For that reason, before
issuing an RFP for the Raundo parcel,
I've asked a in a separate later letter letter dated March 6 to provide
residents with a written determination
for the town council as well as the fire
code official regarding whether the site
is safe, will not worsen life safety,
and can physically comply with fire code
sections D107 and D103.
If a com compliant secondary fire
apparatus access road cannot be
provided, the site is infeasible for
additional development. Proceeding with
an RFP for a site that is not buildable
would mislead prospective developers and
expend public resources on a proposal
that cannot meet life safety standards
or life safety mandates for that matter,
particularly in a very high fire hazard
severity zone. We must ensure that the
sites are physically capable of meeting
the fire code in order to protect the
town, potential developers,
firefighters, existing and future
residents. If further analysis confirms
that the Raundo site parcel cannot meet
D107, the town can evaluate alternative
sites while still meeting its housing
obligations. Addressing this question
now would allow one sec. Addressing this
question now would allow the town to
refine its housing site inventory based
on phys feasibility without undermining
its commitment to state housing goals.
Housing policy policy should
>> I got to cut you at three.
>> One second. I'm almost finished. Housing
policy should never ask us to choose
between building homes and protecting
lives. Before issuing an RFP, the town
should first answer a simple question.
Can this site legally and safely be
built? If the answer is no, we should
identify a site that can, I respectfully
ask the council to pause the RFP and
choose a housing site that can safely
meet the fire code. Thank you for your
time.
>> Thank you, Sue. Thank you. And we're
going to we really need to respect the
three minutes just because I know there
are a lot of people that are here to
talk, but thank you, Sue. I know we've
worked on this for three or four years
together.
Uh, next public comment member. Thank
you. Hi,
Welcome.
>> Okay, so I'm gonna go in a totally
different direction. I think it hasn't
been brought up this evening, but um it
needs to be brought up. Thank you. Yeah.
Awesome. Um my name is Danielle Dearborn
and I want to object to the town's
consideration of acquisition of the 22
acre Calr site along the east side of
Interstate 280. Uh first, the proposed
area is the only open space left on the
east side within the town's
jurisdiction.
Furthermore, it is a recognized
California wildflower preserve and a
protected monarch butterfly habitat and
thus must not be paved over with a
parking lot or constructed with a hotel,
homes, offices, or structures of any
kind. In addition, when the town
dedicated Barkley Field, with which we
are its most proximate and impacted
residents, the town made a commitment
that this land would never be developed
for any reason. Second, the town council
continues to look almost exclusively at
areas in Woodside east of 280 as the
solution for the town's land needs.
Those of us living there have been told
repeatedly that other parts of Woodside,
specifically near our downtown, would be
considered for future projects. And yet,
here we are again asking you to make
good on past promises. Third, at the
very least, continuing to pursue this
will alienate both the town's east side
residents and our neighbors. And while
you each represent your respective
districts, you personally and the town
as a whole look unprofessional and even
entitled every time you go back on your
word. Finally, related to the above,
it's disconcerting at best that until
now there haven't been any public
hearings seeking public comment about
the town acquiring this land. When it
appears our elected officials do things
in secret, trust and confidence erode.
In closing, I urge you to reiterate your
prior promise to us and remove any and
all Calrans land acquisition from
consideration. As well, I ask that you
do whatever is in within your power and
ability and influence to ensure once and
for all we will never see future
development of any kind in this
sensitive, protected area. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Yes.
And then we got we'll go to Zoom room
next, but after Thank you.
>> Yeah. Um some similar comments on the
same 22 acre parcel.
>> Yep.
>> Um again, you know, as as was just
mentioned, it's you know, the
development seems to keep going east of
280 versus west of 280. um that
particular location, you know, that
particular location has the highway.
Obviously, you know, even in the um
public health guidelines by the
California Air Resource Board, it says
don't put housing within 500 ft of a
highway and you're going to put high
density units within that area of the
highway. It's right on the pipeline. So,
it's on the pipeline, it's right on the
highway, and it's also got a hillside
that's going to keep whatever pollution
in right there. So it's a very unfe in
addition to the you know destroying the
natural habitat it also is pretty
unhealthy place to put high you know
high density housing. Um
the other element is 280. I mean as you
go up and down 280 everybody on the
whole peninsula enjoys you know the
scenic views. That is something that has
been preserved in every community along 280 and that would completely
disregard that whole you know whole
original intent around 280. So I'd again
ask and very well said in terms of you
know not developing that land. We had
the agreement when Barkley Park was done
that that would not be developed and
even in this uh meeting it's like the
thing that doesn't exist but everybody
knows it exists right so it's been in
the San Francisco paper that you're
looking to buy it but there's no public
hearing there's no public discussion on
it. So I would expect that there would
if you do plan on proceeding at all that
you would have a public process for it
so that people could besides myself um
could come out and you know give the
issues with it. Thank you.
>> It's great. Just because that's come up
twice. Let me just say that um we
reported out a month ago that any
initial response when the town is
offered real property starts in close
session for one session and we committed
to any other session should there be any
response. Of course, it would be a
public process. I just want people to be
clear about that. So, thank you though.
Appreciate the comment.
Other comments? We'll go to the Zoom
room. Um, Mr. Middleman.
>> Uh, good evening. Uh, David Middleman,
280 Grand View up in the Western Hills.
Um, you mentioned earlier that, you
know, two of these sites are adding
density in one square mile on the north
end of town. And uh part of the
discussion three years ago was about
spreading development throughout the
town. With all due respect to our
planning director, I feel that some I
feel that the report is missing some
important details. The report lacks a
geographic representation of development
which would be useful for guiding
further policy changes toward this goal.
for example, are the programs that we've
already implemented fulfilling that goal
of adding density throughout the town or
is it still focused on certain areas of
town?
Secondly, while the report includes
progress in terms of units, it does not
include progress on the promised
programs. For example, one such program
I am aware that we have failed to
complete is program H6 6.2. C the mod
evaluation modification of development
standards in the Western Hills. Using
the model developed in the Glenns,
evaluate opportunities to relax
development standards, including minimum
lot sizes to provide property owners
with more development flexibility, which
will remove barriers for the
construction of new residential units
and additions or remodels to existing
units. complete this review and adopt an
ordinance to modify development
standards in the western hills
neighborhoods by the end of 2025. I
quote to that from the housing element.
We should report progress to HCB on both
unit numbers and program development.
Without doing so feels as if we are
hiding the areas where we are falling
short. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you David.
>> Yeah, you want great.
>> Sure. Um the numbers in the housing
element particularly some of the due
dates were set many years ago. Um when
we were in the very prolonged period of
review by HCD, we asked them if we could
come up with more realistic time frames
uh for exactly this program being one of
them because the due date for um uh
adopting new standards of Western Hills
was established long ago and the delay
by HCD um pushed everything back. They
refused to allow additional time for
that. Um it is on the work plan but um
we have a actually have a call with HCD
tomorrow to discuss that with them. Um
and I will assure you staff is moving as
quickly as it can. I mean during this
time period you've had a change in
managers. You had a change in public
works directors. Um you've lost your
administrative service director. Um
there there's
feel like I need to defend the plan of
staff here. There's only so much people
can do um if they're working as hard as
they can work. and we will be assuring
HCD that we intend to get to this as
quickly as possible.
>> Thank you. And Sage, you I just want to
add that um the report does go through
all of the programs. Um so it's a
requirement as as each annual progress
report. I forget exactly which table it
is. Um but it requires that we go
through each of the programs and report
the status. So that is included in the
report. I mean, and I will note we a
planner that helps us a lot with housing
issues has been on extended leave. We
thought it'd be 3 months. It's kind of
going on eight months. So, we're just
we're it's on our plan. Just want to
reiterate that.
>> Thank you very much. Please.
>> Hello. Good evening. My name is Stacy
Harris. I stood here a couple of years
ago um speaking to most of the same of
you in the room. So, good evening
council members Burish Brown Gold Wall,
Mayor Dowski, and town staff. Before I
begin, I want to acknowledge the
leadership this council showed a few
years ago regarding the Farm Hill site.
When it became clear that exploring a
reasonzoning there would conflict with
the original intent of the land
donation, the council finally withdrew
support. I want to give a special call
out to Council Member Wall. You
ultimately led that effort to honor the
town's legal obligations to the Woodhill
Estate's neighbors and why that land was
donated to Barkley Park.
Many of us remember that evening and I
sure hope we're going to see the same
leadership again with this decision for
you guys to stand back from exploring
the 22 acre parcel owned by Calrans not
for sale and that you have no obligation
from which to develop.
Danielle Dearborn and Bob Regusa were
here. They already shared all the things
that you know about this beautiful open
space that it sits on top of a PG&I pip
PG& pipeline that there are species that
are to be protected.
But we should also point out that
Stanford has protected 8,000 acres of
its rolling hills and that Woods
science's own Lawler Creek or some kind
of area that you'll all know about was
sold as private land 92 acres and it
wasn't even allowed to be developed on.
But yet somehow someone in this room or
maybe prior to this room thought it was
appropriate to have a senator get on his
side and bring forward a plan to donate
uninhabitable, undevelopable land
without anybody knowing, without any
community input, and without any people
wanting it. And so that's all been done.
Now, it's up to all of you to make the
same good promises that you've been
elected to make, which is to make the
right decision and squash this
possibility now. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. And we'll go to the Zoom room
for Wendy.
» Good evening.
>> My name is Wendy Buckley. Can you hear
me?
>> Yes.
>> Great. Uh, I've lived for 29 years on
Ridgeway Road in Woodside Hills. I
currently serve as the president of the
Woodside Hills Homes Association. I'm
sorry not to be there in person, but I
am in Southern California, so I
appreciate this option to join via Zoom.
Um, I'm joining tonight to say that I am
shocked that the council is even
discussing the possible acquisition of
the CALR land on the east side of 280.
Woodside has an approved housing element
already contentious,
but this plan already disproportionately
burdens Eastern Woodside, which
represents about 20% of the acreage of
the town with 75 to 90% of the proposed
multifamily housing units in the plan if
you include Kinyatta College.
We were told that this was unavoidable
because the town owns some of the
parcels in the plan and therefore the
state can force us to build on them. So
why would you even think of buying more
land? Particularly this land. It is the
last open space in Woodside Hills. I
wonder does open space only have value
in western Woodside?
We've also been told recently that the
TCAP update process would possibly add
some housing units in the downtown area,
which makes total sense. Now, suddenly,
this new piece of land is on the table
and mysteriously being presented as
nearly a done deal in the press. Where
did this come from? Who in this room
wants this? From what I've read, the
idea seems to have come from two people,
Chris Shaw and Josh Becker. neither of
whom is on the council. And Mr. Becker
doesn't even live here. Do we have an
unelected shadow council in Woodside? I
hope not. And this is a wild guess, but
I am betting that Mr. Shaw lives on the
western side of 280.
Frankly, I think this CALR land is a
bright shiny object meant to distract
from the work of the TECAP process to
more equitably share the allocation of
multifamily housing around Woodside.
Lastly, I find it incredible that the
council member who represents Woodside
Hills is being excluded from the
discussions on this topic because he
lives in Woodside Hills. So, who is
representing me and my other eastern
Woodside neighbors in your closed door
sessions? You have just disenfranchised
one quarter of the town's residents.
This is the most significant issue
affecting this area in decades, and we
have no voice at the table. That is
wrong. So, I am asking the rest of the
council, please just say no to this
terrible idea. Thank you.
Wendy, and welcome.
Uh, good evening, mayor, council
members, and residents. Um, I uh come up
here tonight uh along with many of my
fellow residents to rise in strong
opposition to the 22 acre uh CALR parcel
uh being acquired by the town. Um,
Woodside's uh identity rests on
preserving our open space and uh
beautiful character. And as an eastern
Woodside resident and father of two
young children, uh it's of utmost
importance to me that that character is
maintained. It's a major part of why we
moved to this town in the first place.
um acquiring this parcel and adding it
to our in inventory as has been said um
at a time when the RN RHNA mandates uh
and is pressuring us to uh develop
existing town- owned sites uh is not
only unnecessary but uh is something
that could impact um others uh who have
young families like myself and and
anyone else with a long-term outlook for
Woodside uh for generations. even small
moves forward could have reverberations
that uh we believe uh my family and and
um others that I've spoken with in the
town believe uh are extremely detrime
detrimental to the character of Woodside
and that we want to stand strongly in
opposition to. Um, it's been said before
about the public hearings and lack
thereof for this and and I look forward
to returning for any public hearings
that would take place, but I hope and
urge uh the council to halt any and all
negotiations um for this space. Um, we
should preserve this open space for all
of Woodside, both us Eastern residents
and the rest of the town. It's a
beautiful uh beautiful space uh and
prioritize our shared values over
unnecessary expansion. Thank you. Thank
you. You know, Jean, is it worth I mean,
I think because of the article and
there's some
starting to feel a little bit more
advanced than perhaps actually where we
are. Could you comment a little bit
about the fact that we were reached out
to and we just were wanted to know what
they were thinking and that's kind of
where we are.
>> I can communicate to you what I I know.
This was a process that was being um led
by um town manager led better during his
time period here. So here's what I
understand. My understanding is that
Calrans reached out. I can't I don't
have any information on other than what
I've also read in the press why that
occurred, but Calrans reached out
indicated they were going to market the
property and indicated that they were
interested in knowing if Woodside would
like to enter into discussions with them
um about a potential acquisition. Um, we
scheduled one close session uh as
allowed under the Brown Act to ask that
question. And although the council was
not obligated at the end of that session
to report out, you did. And what you
reported out is that this there was
interested in finding out from Calr what their plans were for the site and what the terms for acquisition would
be. There's been um one follow-up
meeting which I attended. Um uh town
manager Lead Better was supposed to
attend but he declined to do so. Um and
CALR just in confirmed yes they are
going to market the property and um
indicated that if we were were serious
about looking at it uh they'd like us to
get back to them and I've done nothing
further.
>> Mhm. And also as I recall it would be a
fair market price which would be un
unattainable for the town of Woods.
>> Sorry but I don't have any information
other than that one question that was
asked.
>> I'm not going to lead that. I got to
take one from the Zoom room quick. Um,
Kendra,
» Kendra, you could unmute yourself.
» Andrew, you might be on mute.
I think we'll come back. Um, we're going
to come back to you. Um
and we'll we'll go we'll go here. Thank
you.
» Okay. Thank
>> it's always a little tough.
>> Thank you Martin Martin Dunsby. Um
firstly on on the Calrans having worked
with Calr that sounds astonishingly
proactive of Calrans to reach out and
offer us 22 acres. I I can't conceive of
Calr independently and and and just
doing that. But anyway, the point that I
wanted to make is we all know that we've
got significant um traffic and parking
problems uh here in the town. And if we
put housing, particularly new multif
family housing in places that are kind
of effectively isolated with only a
single road access, which both the
parcels suffer from that. We're going to
force every resident in those houses to
go get in their cars for anything that
they need and drive here and park in our
scarce parking spaces. Um we've got a
phenomenal set of infrastructure here in
the town center, schools,
um bars, hotels, the the uh um
supermarket, uh the library, um lots of
jobs for people. We need people to fill
the jobs. We should be building multif
family housing here in the town center
where people can walk to those things.
Freeing up our spaces, reducing the
traffic, helping support the merchants
in our community, putting their kids
through our schools, participating in
these kinds of offerings. It's crazy to
go put these people in fields in the
middle of nowhere when we can build
maybe not 16 lots in one one homes in
one lot, but we've got space here. This
is where we should be building
community, building our town center into
the center.
>> Excellent. Thank you.
We'll try Karen in the Zoom room.
>> Yeah. Hi. Um Karen Schultz.
>> Hi. Um I uh applaud um that uh response
there. I also would just like to ask um
regarding the the parcel off of high of
um high road. Will those residents have
be where were the where were their
children be allowed to go to elementary
school?
>> Would they which school districts will
those
>> I wrote I believe is Redwood City School
District.
>> Okay. So again, you've chosen the most
eastern part of Woodside that will not
uh have any effect on your public
schools, on your school systems, and I
think that's a very interesting uh
choice and something that we're
considered now that we're considered
part of Woodside because you need the
land, but we're not allowed to
participate in in the school districts
and the the elementary schools of your
that that are fine that Woodside has. So
I just wanted to make that point. again
on the eastern side being used for land
versus um the western side.
>> Thank you.
Uh we'll jump to Harpit.
» Yes, thank you very much. Uh this is
Harprit and Nina from um the Woodridge
area. Um we were heavily involved in the
discussions three years ago um when we
were talking about the farm hill u land.
The the the town did the right thing
then and we would urge you again to do
the right thing. This is a very
important piece of land for us to enjoy
the outdoors. You see many people there
with their families with their pets. Um,
I would really I won't repeat what my
neighbors have said, but I would urge
you to not buy land um that you haven't
looked into the traffic flow, the
environmental concerns, and the safety
concerns on what is on that land and is
it safe for uh humans to habit it and
build housing on it. Um, this seems like
um I agree with the person before me who
said that Cal Trains came forward to try
and sell the land. I'm very surprised
that they would. um this feels like
there is something going on internally
in an backdoor attempt to try and bring
this area back in for the housing
consideration. Um please don't do this.
We enjoy the land. Um and uh and you
kept your promises. You you you honored
the covenants 3 years ago. Don't turn
your back on legal agreements,
covenants. It it uh it it makes a
mockery of all of the legal
documentation that surrounds this area.
Um please go back and look at your
notes. you did say you would explore the
downtown area. Please go back and do
that because that is really where folks
that that need uh uh this type of
housing, find jobs, and making them
commute and use public system
transportation systems isn't the right
answer. They should be able to work walk
to their jobs and find transportation
that gets them to their jobs relatively
easily without having to own cars as
well.
>> Very good. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Hi
to drop.
>> Sage has got you covered.
>> Thank you so much. Hi everyone. Um I am
Well, that almost went too low. I'm uh
my name is Donna How. Um I'm a Woodside
resident uh speaking in support of
preserving the 22 acre Calrans parcel,
also known as Flax Hill by some of us as
open space and as an active wildlife
corridor. This parcel sits immediately
adjacent to the wildlife passage under
Interstate 280. Monitoring by the Fela
Day Conservation Fund um through camera
traps and scat um collection has already
documented multiple species using this
crossing including bobcat, mule deer,
and coyote with mountain lions observed
in the surrounding area. These
observations are part of a much larger
scientific effort. File day operates a
regional network of more than 150
wildlife cameras across the Bay Area to
understand how animals move through
landscapes increasingly affected by
development. This location was selected
specifically because it sits next to
highquality habitat connected to the
Santa Cruz Mountains and the protected
watershed lands of Crystal Springs
Reservoir. Highways like Interstate 280
are major barriers for wildlife.
For wide ranging species such as the
mountain lion, highways can effectively
function as walls unless unless safe
crossing points exist. But wildlife
crossings only work if the surrounding
land remains natural. When development
occurs immediately adjacent to these
crossings, animals will often avoid them
entirely. Protecting the land around the
crossing is just as important as the
crossing itself. This area also supports
native grassland habitat and rare plant
species that are increasingly uncommon
on the peninsula. Once landscapes like
this are fragmented, they're extremely
difficult to restore. There is also an
important planning context. Under
California Assembly Bill 1889,
I'd love to hear more about that. Cities
and counties must incorporate wildlife
and habitat connectivity into the
conservation element of their general
plans by 2028.
Protecting known wildlife corridors like
this one will help Woodside meet those
planning goals. I recognize the
seriousness of the housing challenges
facing our town. This 22 acre parcel of
land is not appropriate for development.
Land that functions as a documented
wildlife corridor deserves careful
consideration. If the town does pursue
acquisition of this property or if the
property is given to the town, I
strongly encourage the council to
prioritize preserving it as open space
and protecting this functioning wildlife
corridor. Wildlife crossings across
major highways are rare. Woodside could
protect one that
>> Thank you for your time and
consideration.
>> Thank you.
Uh we'll try again Kendra in the Zoom
room.
Sorry about that. My phone kicked me
off. Okay.
My name is Kendra Bllandelle and I'm a
third generation Woodside resident. My
children are now fourth generation here.
I'm sure that everyone who read about
Mr. Lebr's report had some thoughts
about what might have happened. However,
anyone who's ever been involved with a
board or a council and who's had to
undergo legal action knows that there
could easily be all sorts of details
that are not public. So no one should
jump to conclusions.
For that reason, I don't have formed
opinions on what must have happened
between the name mend. Conclusions will
be drawn in time with attorneys. What
concerns me is that this issue could
taint the plight that I have earnestly
been fighting for ever since the
beginning of this housing element having
been started. I believe to my core that
Roundo Drive should not be added to the
list of places for building highdensity
housing. I've been arguing this for
years now in writing in person over Zoom
with council's members themselves.
Someone said tonight the issue is that
all the residents of this town don't
have trust in the town council after
this report. I lost mine a long time
ago. Much like Don Hugh mentioned
earlier, it was much more obvious that
the council was concerned not even with
the requirements of the housing element,
but who they wanted to make happy or not
make angry by sites or plans that were
already struck down.
There were other options that made much
more sense that got taken away not
because of the land, but because of the
people involved. And that's not right or
fair or appropriate. And that's what
breaks trust with the public. You're
asking about resident input. Well, that
seems a little disingenuous. Here's my
repeated input. Roundo Drive is not an
appropriate place to build. And if you
gave me the next 15 minutes to debate
it, I could go on in detail. That site
should not be used as highdensity
housing. I think the council should go
with the option that was offered tonight
to sell it to be kept open. We are a
long deadend road.
We're against open space which is a
particular fire hazard. You want to talk
about woodside identity. We're an
equestrian community. You know, I ride
woodside. Raundo is part of that
heritage. We're part of the trail
system. We have access to Hutter Park.
We have many, many people who trailer
here to ride their horses from here.
Even people who aren't owners on this
land. We have our own ecoin therapy
center, NCFT on our road. We have high
density pedestrian and horse traffic.
There's so many joggers and walkers who
come here. It's not a conducive place to
have more traffic and congestion, but
you want to put another 17 units that'll
put dozens or more cars onto the road.
And as been mentioned before, all these
product projects that you're talking
about let out into the same small area
of Kinyatta on the north end of
Woodside. It's not ideal. We don't have
public transit. We're not walking
distance from the center of town. We're
not near any amenities.
None of this makes sense. Please remove
from your plans and find a new, more
appropriate site. Thank you.
>> Hi. Uh, I guess Okay, Steve.
>> I I think
>> Oh, I didn't Yeah, Stephanie is next.
Yeah, I didn't I didn't realize the line
was all the way. Yeah, Stephanie. Hi.
» Um, I just have a quick question. At the
beginning of the report, you mentioned
that there are 16 lowincome units at 773
Kenyatta being proposed. How are you
going to show the state that those are
low-inccome units?
>> Would you be able to respond?
>> Right now, the housing element has a
target of 16 moderate income units.
That's a target and it will pan out to
see what gets built there. Um, so at
this point, we don't have a project uh
proposed other than the subdivision.
>> Well, okay. But it was at the beginning
of the report. Am I wrong? Did you say
that there was 16 low-inccome units?
No. Uh, what we indicated was exactly
what the planning directors just said.
We were quoting from the housing element
what what is shown as projections in the
housing element.
>> Oh, only shown as projections. Well, I'm
not sure how you're going to prove that
there's any low-income housing. If you if you want to put low-income
housing at 773, it's becoming a problem
because I don't know how you're going to
prove to the state that it's actually 16
units are going to be low-income housing
at 773. How do you prove that to the
state if if they were going to be
low-income housing?
» A project has different mechanisms in
which they can record different income
levels. So, just to reiterate, the
housing element has a target of 16
moderate income housing units at that
site. Um,
>> so it's moderate.
>> That's what it's always been, just to be
clear. It's in the housing element. 16
moderate income housing. Uh, 16 moderate
income units. is a target to be met at
that site. These are targets that the
town will try to meet.
>> Okay. So, so now that's meeting. Okay.
Thank you.
>> You
uh yeah, hi. Of course, back toback
makes sense. I think in this case,
>> uh David Disher, I've been here many
times talking about 773. Um page three
talks about the remaining nine acres
being uh reszoned. Um, when we talk to
our neighbors about this project over
the years, um, a lot of them say, "Well,
um, the owner is a big-time property
developer and builder, very rich, lives
in Woodside, very influential. He knows
how to influence."
I say to them, "I've met with each of
you except for Council Member Brown.
Some of you more than once." And I say
to them, I found them very forthright.
Have some faith.
You are going to have an incredibly
important discretionary decision when
these
nine acres come to you eventually
to reszone from SR1 to R1.
Something that is very, very unusual.
I've asked Kevin Bryant. I've asked
Jason Led Better. I've asked Sage, "What
are the criteria
to make this decision?"
Completely subjective.
So when my neighbors read what was in
that report
and they understand what I just said,
some of them just give up
and I I try and say, "Have some faith."
Um
I in my job I have become aware of how
lobbying works.
Former politicians become lobbyists and
they use their personal relationships
with other politicians
on behalf of their clients.
Unfortunately, that's
one of the allegations in this
whistleblower report.
Um,
I'm going to keep my faith in you. I've
met you individually.
Um,
but I've got to tell you, there is a
shaking of confidence,
especially with what's going on with
773.
Um, because it is so discretionary.
Um,
I don't know how the investigation will
get at the some of these issues that
relate to somebody who's not a public
official anymore.
And that concerns me.
Um, I've talked about one of the most
important parts of this project is the
road and you've listened to me and
that's now part not part of the plan and
that I'm I'm very happy about that.
Um, but the neighbors are still
incredibly concerned
about this reszoning, what it means for
the community, what it means for
Woodside at large. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Uh, we'll go back to the Zoom room for
Alexandra.
» Yes. Hello. My name is Alexandra
Nimovski. I'm a resident of Woodside
Hills on Crest Road.
>> Uh, we have lived there for since 2002.
>> Quarter of century. And um I just
I mean I I'm sure if we were to do a
survey of all of the residents, all of
250ome
households of Woodside Hills, not one of
them would be in favor of developing the
cult parcel. But I wanted to speak on a
positive note and just draw a picture
that makes most sense to me. Uh we are
obligated by the state to build
affordable housing units. We have our
town workers, our firefighters, our
teachers,
and we are a fairly welloff town. So why
do we need to sell our surplus lands to
the developer and then god knows who
will move into those units. If we could
just take
a parcel downtown when teachers can walk to the school uh when uh the town
workers could walk to town, the
firefighters are right there and develop
maybe a smaller number of units, maybe
not, you know, 15, maybe 10 units, but
we wouldn't have to sell that land. We
would just hire a builder and build 10
or 12 affordable units and make our
special program for our people and meet
the state requirements at the same time.
Tell me why it is not possible. Thank
you.
» Thank you.
I think we tried some zoning overlays in
the downtown in the last cycle and uh we
couldn't get private property owners
interested, but it's a great idea. We
certainly support it.
>> Hi, Miss Hansen.
>> Uh I'm Kim Hansen, live on Ray Mundo.
I've been coming to talk to you all
about this for the almost maybe every
meeting, but tonight was real. I've got
so much to say, but tonight was so
different because of attorney Jerry. We
I think that everyone has come here with
the best intentions to deal with the
pressures from the state to try to sol
to represent our constituents and to try
to solve the problems that's been put
upon us by the state. But we in all of
these discussions there was no talk
about selling the land. There was no
talk about leasing the land. We were
going to partner with a developer. And
now for the first time I'm hearing that
the land may change hands. Um I'm also
hearing for the first time that it would
have these permanent covenants that we
would actually change like all of this
is new. So even with the best intentions
at what point did you guys say holy
we need somebody who knows what's going
on? What when did that happen? the we
were told relax you know once we
identify these sites we have to do this
by the state we'll just reszone them and
see what happens we'll see what
developers come up and make a proposal
we'll partner with them we weren't told
they would be designated as surplus land
forever and forever determined and
they're not surplus land surplus land is
land you don't need the land on Rayundo
is land we've been using And I've got so
much to say, but I'm going to I'm going
to pivot. So for so if the state is
saying that we have to present an RFP
under their timeline, then we need to
define this like who's going to write
the RFP? Is it going to be a lease? Are
we going to sell it? Are the residents
going to have to pay for everything? Is
town going to own it? What is the price?
Will town subsidize or partner? Are you
going to ask citizens to pay for this as
well as any modifications to comply with
fire code? Are we going to have to pay
for the new fire engine that we don't
have for three-story buildings? Now,
I've heard from Attorney Jerry that 80%
has to be developed. Does that mean
we're going to put high high density
with only like a little strip of
concrete or maybe some annual plants
planted? I mean, if and do we have to
wait for our families to burn while we
borrow a fire truck and we're stuck and
can't defend or evacuate? I mean, who pays for this compliance? Also, we
have no sewer no sewer for the the
Rayundo site. So, who's going to pay for
the $3 million infrastructure that's put
in as well as increased sewer rates and
any town and downstream structure? I
don't want to pay for that. And then if
my 73y old house, if the septic fails,
then I don't get to I don't get to
shower, and shave. I just have to let
the apartment down the street with 17
units do their thing and I do nothing.
Thank you.
>> Thanks, Kim.
» Steve Luben again. Um, I I think a lot
of the comments tonight have pointed out
really the folly of the way the town
approached the housing element in the
first place by going out and trying to
make deals with individual property
owners. You only succeeded with one of
those and that ended up in our backyard.
Um, but it should have been there should
have been comprehensive planning looking
at the carrying capacity, looking where
there's transportation, looking where
there's sewage and and and it should
have been approached from a planning
point of view. and then uh then created
zoning that allowed private people to
develop properties on a smaller scale,
more missing middle sort of things. We
can still do that. Um it's uh as far as 773 Kinyatta Road, it's uh there's
currently a parcel map before the town
that has 20 units on that. I actually
think that might, you know, it's more
than the 16, but they're smaller and and
more compact, which I think is a better
design. I don't know if it's going to
end up with that many, but maybe they
could be cheaper. Um, but how then with
a private developer, do you I think Sage
has asked for this from the developer,
but how do you see that those continue
to be affordable? Uh, that's a a huge
issue with that. As far as the 22 acres,
it's it's really suspicious that Chris
Shaw and our senator come or first, you
know, talked to the chronicle about this
and it it there it is. And then all of a
sudden, you all know I've been, you
know, 1976, I was on the Wildflower
Committee. I drew a map showing
controlled access and and andformational
signage for that site. the town asked
Calrans to maintain that site as a
wildflower reservation when Calrans
wanted to sell it after 280 was built.
Uh that it that it appears in the
chronicle and then all of a sudden while
I'm trying to work through the open
space committee to get the general plan
modified for this site, the town has a
non-public hearing about it. This, you
know, you can only imagine how surprised
I was. And my last comment is is about
unpermitted ADUs. Uh a little over a
year ago, there was a state legislation
that uh required ADUs, unpermitted ABUS
to be legalized only meeting health and
safety codes, not meeting local
ordinances or uh planning codes. Uh we
have a client who came into the town and
the the uh planning the uh building
department came up with a very expensive
list of stuff for them to do. I've been
trying to work with Sage who says yes
this is this is the law and we're now
trying to convince the building
department to get with a program and
make it easier for people to legalize
ADUs. And I hope you support that e
effort.
>> Great. Thank you.
We'll do one more and then we'll jump to
the Zoom.
>> Am I the last?
>> Well, so far the night is young.
>> Uh good evening. My name is Rick Dalton.
Uh my wife and I and our family uh moved
to Woodside Hills about a little live
over 30 years ago and we enjoy and love
our community. We love our neighbors and all the things about Woodside. Um
and I might say at the outset that uh
you guys have a hard job. I think we all
understand that. I for one appreciate
that. Um before I launch into some
complaints,
let me at least say thank you. Um
listen, yeah.
Uh
listen, it's is and by the way, one of
the sentiments you've heard earlier that
those of us who live on the east side,
frankly, it's a little frustrating. You
know, I mentioned my kids. I had to I
wasn't able to take them to Woodside
schools. I had to find other schooling
for them. Uh so there's a little it's a
little uncomfortable frankly living on
the east side and always having issues
come down against and if you have a
problem squish it over to the other side
of 280 it is a little frustrating. Um
however
there are serious issues related to the
two parcels that you've pegged and I
know you understand that. I'm sure the
town uh management understands that. But
there are serious issues that we who
live there and are concerned about the
safety issues. We're concerned about the
fire issues. We're concerned about the
grading issues and the traffic issues.
We would like to have a voice in this.
And I would just I for one would plead
with you ask you please respect your
neighbors on the east side. Allow us a
voice before you go out to an RFP. allow
this a neighborhood committee of some
form to at least express and have a
voice in some of these issues. We
understand that housing is important. We
understand it needs to happen. If it's
going to happen in our neighborhood, not
your neighborhood, in our neighborhood,
please give us the time, give us the
opportunity to voice our concerns. Thank
you for what you're doing. I appreciate
it sincerely and thanks for the time.
>> Thank you.
» Okay,
>> I just want to take like one minute left
of my first question. How are you going
to prove moderate?
>> I'm going to take somebody from the
>> Zoom room and then
>> uh we'll see if we can do second bites
or not. Um so this is iPad 67.
» You're muted. You could unmute yourself.
» iPad 67, you appear to be muted.
Okay. Well, um, is there another public
comment? Uh, yes. Hi, Alia.
>> Hi. I have three three things. I I you
heard Steve's anger about Flax Hill and
he has been working on it since 1976 and
um he he not many people know this but
he was instrumental in getting um Calran
stopped by going to the PU from
>> Hijin sorry 80 foot swath when you know
how wide is a truck to get in and so we
managed to get them to reduce the size
of the swath and then We had Craig
Draymond who's been working on Kite Hill
to help with the restoration. It's a
beautiful site. Pretty soon, if not
right now, the wild flowers are
spectacular. So, I encourage you all to
go out there. There's a hole in the
fence next to Barkley Fields and you can
get through. Um, second 773, the the
plan as currently proposed is really
bad. It's horrible. We accept that it
will be developed, but it's got to be
done smartly. and the current plan uh
violates so many
you know aesthetic design guideline
general plan uh issues. So I hope it
will have a proper review. And lastly, I
did not know this during the housing
meetings and we only found out recently
and we Sage now knows about it about if
a structure was built before 2020 AB2533
says you don't have to bring it up to
code. And I brought this to you in our
discussions. I said, "If this takes the
pressure off your numbers and helps with
the overall requirement,
I would like the town to put out some
kind of a notice or a letter. I can
bring you 15 ADUs tomorrow if these
people know they don't have to spend 20
or $30,000 to upgrade them.
They exist." We joke about, we used to
joke when Steve was on the planning
commission, I was on the ASRB about all
these granny units. And I said, "Well,
how many granny's are visiting
Woodside?" But, um, they're out there
and it it might help with your numbers,
but I I not a lot of people know about
it. The staff only found out about it
about what, year and a half ago. Um, I
think, you know, it's not a well-known
fact, but AB 2533 says we can do this.
And I I encourage the council to look
into this and maybe somehow make it
public cuz people may come out of the
woodwork.
>> Yeah. Interesting. Thank you.
» Uh yes.
>> Oh, this is good. Um Teresa Sephick, a
new time resident of Woodside Hills. Um,
I have just I've been listening to the
proceedings and everyone's committed to
transparency, but the only time and
please excuse my naivee for how these
things happen, but the only time that
I've heard anything that's talked about
a vote is when Gan was talking about the
infrastructure for the sewer and that might have to go to a bond and then
there would be a vote. I've heard um
committees asked to be formed. I've
heard a lot of impassion speeches and
I've heard yes we're committed to
transparency and yes we'll have public
hearings and yes there will be processes
points in the process where you can be
heard. There's being heard and there's
having teeth and I've heard nowhere
along these lines where we have any
teeth. We can be heard and that's great
and that's wonderful but I mean when do we have teeth? It seems like
there's been a lot of talk about
representation that really wasn't voted
for or perhaps approved ahead of time.
So, I'm just curious as to where's our
teeth.
>> Thank you. Uh I think what we're doing
tonight is
trying to incorporate what we're hearing
and um not that we can give direction
tonight because this is anformational
report out. Uh but uh it's certainly
helping us form what we think we're
going to need to do in order to engage
with the public to get all the input
that needs to go into this process. So
um we're trying.
>> Hi Stephanie for your extra minute. You
said
>> thank you. It's important it's important
that we know what number where the
numbers are coming from. So, if we have
this private land owner developing this
um up to 20 acre at 773 and we're going
to designated it as multif family as um
medium income
>> and we're going to designate it as
medium income, then he either has to
deed restrict or he has to turn in a lot
of paperwork. The owners have to turn in
a lot of paperwork. It affects how much
he can make on the property. Is he
willing to do that?
There's no development project on the
table. We don't have an application to
develop the property.
>> The application have been turned in.
>> It is just to subdivide the property.
That's all we have been proposed so far.
Okay.
>> When someone proposes to develop it,
we'd have to go through all those
details.
>> It So, the third way that you can prove
moant
income is by the town writing an
analysis. with this number of houses on
this piece of property built and
constructed this way, it has to be
medium income. Does the town feel that
they could justify an analysis to the
housing limit?
>> We're not anywhere close to that
analysis. We're simply processing a
subdivision map at this time.
>> All right. Well, it seems very hard to
believe that a private land owner would
designate it his his own property as
median income without some kind of
incentives. And those incentives were
never talked about when this site was
chosen. And I just don't think that you
can count it as median income.
>> It's just a target. So, we'll see what
project comes before us.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. Okay. We're going to try iPad
67 one more time.
>> I think that's me. Is that it? Can you
hear me?
>> We can.
>> Oh, hi. My name is Tony Donaldson and I
live on High Road and I've been
listening to all the comments and I feel
like I'm back three years ago listening
to the same things over and over. And
when you talk about public opinion and
inputting things, it's very frustrating
for me because we try we've tried for
three years to give public opinion and
input and show up at meetings and try to
present, you know, objections to things
and it just doesn't seem to go anywhere
other than the one parcel that you did
take off because it had already been
promised that it would never be used for
building. So the issues that you're
looking at on Ramondo and on High Road,
which is the fi the fire issues, they're
both streets that you go into and then
you you there's one way in and one way
out. You know, on High Road there's
traffic, a horrible traffic in the
morning on Woodside Road coming off of
Hyde Road and in the afternoon we've got
a high school across the street. We've
got people coming off of 280 that backs
up for 20 minutes. Now, between now and
May, you can't even drive down High Road
most of the time except on the weekends
because they're working on the road and
it's closed off. So, we have to go all
the way almost from two high roadside
all the way up to Alamita to get
anywhere. That's another 10 minutes in,
another 10 minutes out. You do that a
couple of times a day and you've put an
extra hour onto whatever you're doing
during the day. It these things that
they're you're talking about traffic
patterns and fire hazards and PG&
easements and sewer issues. Shouldn't
those have been looked at before these parcels were actually put on a
housing element? I mean, what happens if
on high road the the sewer issue is a is
a they can't build on it or the PG&
easement takes up too much of the
parcel? I mean, shouldn't these things
have been looked at before they were put
on there? And all of these sites being
again, you know, on this side of the
freeway
where the people that are going to be
living in these lowincome units are not
going to have Woodside services. They're
not going to be able to go to Woodside
schools. They're not going to be within
walking distance of going downtown and
eating or going to Roberts or anything
else. So, it it doesn't seem fair. And
we feel like, and I know that many of my
neighbors, we feel like secondass
citizens. We pay taxes. We live here,
but we don't have the same benefits that
the rest of the people in Woodside on
the other side of the freeway have. and
you're going to be taking away our only
open space around here and making it
even more congested than it really is.
And quite honestly, I I feel like nobody
really cares. We've been talking about
this for three years. Nothing has
changed. Nothing.
» Thank you.
>> Hi.
>> Yes, please.
» Good evening to you all. Thank you for
your service in those long nights and
long days. I'm Karen Offen. I live on
Raymond and I'd like to seed my three
minutes to Sue Pleti because she's got
more to say.
>> Okay. Thank you. Welcome back, Sue.
>> Thank you. I need to take this off
because I get nervous.
>> Can you restart her for three minutes?
>> Oh,
>> are you restarting it?
>> I'm going to give you the three. Well,
I'm actually speaking for Karen and for
several other neighbors on Ramanda who
were unable to attend tonight, but asked
that I share their concerns. We want to
address the existing neighborhood
argument that may be raised. The idea
that the California Fire Code D107 only
applies to new developments and not to
established neighborhoods like ours. Our
neighborhood tracked 567 Raundo Rancho
Kenyatta is an old development and the
fire code evolves as risks change. Even
if D107 was originally written with new
developments in mind, the life safety
purpose of the code does not change. The
basic problem is this. One road serving
more than 30 dwellings becomes a single
point of failure for evacuation and
emergency access. That is why D7
requires two access roads whenever a
single road serves more than 30
dwellings. The purpose is simple and
critical. To provide a backup access, a
second way in and out in case one road
is blocked. If this Raondo RFP adds 17
to 30 additional units, the total number
of dwellings served by this single road
would increase to approximately 47 to 60
dwellings. That's far beyond the code's
threshold. And it would occur on our
street bordered by more than 20,000
acres of wildfire fuel where evacuations
matter most. Adding more units increases
the number of dwellings dependent on a
single road, which directly impacts the
life safety for both residents and
firefighters. And importantly, the code
counts the number of dwellings served,
not just the new units being proposed.
The life safety purpose of the code,
redundant emergency access is triggered
whenever increased occupancy increases
the risk. Courts have also held agencies
cannot ignore life safety standards
simply because a neighborhood predates
the code. The mission of the California
Fire Code under section 101.1 is clear.
To protect life and liberty from fire,
to ensure firefighters can safely access
structures, and to minimize risk during
evacuation. Every provision in the code,
including D107, exists to serve that
single overriding purpose, life safety.
And life safety does not depend on when
a neighborhood was built. I've got 52
seconds less. We can widen Raundo Runny
me. We can add turnouts. We can double
the size of the culde-sac. But there's
one law existing still. No matter how
much mitigation, we need a second
separate fire apparatus access code a
road to that new development. Thank you
for your time.
>> Thank you, Sue. And um you know remember
because of your advocacy and the
advocacy of your neighbors we did add a
second egress zoning overlay at the time
we did the sequel review. Um but so it
is in there and that would be part of
presumably part of an RFP process.
» Hi.
My name is Janet Estep. I've lived
on Raundo for over 50 years. I was here
in 1956
when this town was incorporated
at the end of Raondo where it's rounded
off to go on to running me that was made
round because it was not deemed in the
1960s
safe enough for a school bus to go up
Raundo. So all the children had to go
down to that corner and wait for the bus
and it was enlarged and made in a circle
so that the bus could turn around
safely. You also have over 50 horses
that would have to be evacuated from not
just running me but from the private
homes on Raundo which are 35 driveways.
Each of them do not have a horse now.
They did when I first lived there. But
that does not mean that there is less
traffic. It just means there are less
horses.
have the right of way
over people and vehicles.
any horse that is being transported down
has a rideway before anybody else can
evacuate.
But I also raised the point that those
people coming down are also going to be
blocking the first responders that are
going up
a mile and a half. That's how long it is
a run from up to the culasac which is
undized
and cannot establish a turnabout for the
existing fire trucks that now service
this town. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
» Any other public comments?
Okay, hearing none, we'll close
comments. I know this is anformational
report, but is are there any additional
thoughts or deliberations by council
members?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Um, first I wanted to thank everybody
for showing up tonight. Um, message
sent, message received. It I can only
speak for myself. Um, I've been saying
pretty much the same message for the
last four years. Um, I did want to give
just at the I I um I think it's
important to know why we're here tonight
and what we can do and what we can't do.
So, this is the annual report to HCD.
Just where are we on our housing
element? We have to do it every single
year. Is that correct? Yeah. And this is
the annual report. Um, by the way, it's
Woodside is going to be one of the few
towns and cities in the state that's
going to come even close to making our
number, which is kind of interesting.
We're going to do that because we have a
lot of ADUs and there's a lot of
interest in ADUs. Um, we're, you know,
not like Redwood City or some of the
other cities. Uh, this is, if I'm not
mistaken, yesterday's Daily Journal.
There was an article in here about
Foster City lags.
Every city in town is doing what we're
doing tonight. They're doing it right
now uh because it's the annual report
that they have to give. Foster City um
is is currently at 2% of its target.
That's actually a pretty high number for
San Monteo and Santa Clara counties. um
they go through some detail here and
I'll spare you a lot of the detail but I
think some of it is important and that
is so far the city has completed 11 very
lowincome units out of the required
520
uh 14 low-income units out of 299
uh and 11 moderate income units out of
300 and uh the above was there's 37 out
of 777.
So when you look at these numbers, this
is a pipe dream from Sacramento that
we're going to make these numbers. I'm
going to repeat again what I've said. I
can probably see the groans on people's
some people's faces. What this is all
about.
Every eight years there's a housing
cycle. We start over again. And the
state in its wisdom says we're going to
make so many houses over the next eight
years. This is the sixth cycle. We've
been doing this for 40 however that is
six time 36 years I guess and uh so
we're in the middle of the sixth cycle.
The number statewide for this sixth
cycle we're in the second or third year
I think of this 8year cycle is 2.4
million homes that Sacramento says we're
going to build in the state over eight
years.
The math is pretty easy. You've heard me
say this before. 2.4 million divided by
8 is 300,000 homes residences a year.
Right? I mean, that's not tough math. We
have to do that every single year for
eight years to make 2.4 million. Just to
put that 300,000 into perspective, in
our state's very best year,
1956, I think, remember, millions of
people moving into the state, not like
today, where people are moving out of
the state. Low, the mortgage rates were
low. Today, they're skyhigh.
um building, labor, all those other
things. Back then it was just a field
day. People were moving in like crazy.
We we built all of these, you know, Los
Altos was built in the 1950s almost from
scratch.
In the best years, we did 150,000. And
yet Sacramento says we're going to do
300,000 every year for eight straight
years. So you want to know how many we
did in the first year of this cycle?
60,000. We missed the 300,000 by just a
smidge. The next year we did 70,000.
This year we're going to do about 70,000
again. We'll be lucky if we do 800,000
during the 8-year cycle out of the 2.4
million that Sacramento thinks we're
going to do. So most most cities and
residents uh municipalities are going to
miss their number by a real big number.
We're actually, as I said, we're going
to come close because of the ADUs that
we have. Lots of people who like to
build ADUs. So, um, tonight we're only
here to accept the report and send it
in. We're not taking parcels off. I hate
to disappoint you. We're not going to
scratch High Road. We're not going to
take off from Mundo. We're not going to
the 773, which by the way is a private
property. We don't have much control of
it as as you've heard that's owned by
another gentleman, not not the town.
It's the town owned properties that are
the problem because we own them. We
control them. We're the ones who have to
solicit developers. And you heard that
tonight from I think they called you
attorney um Jerry, right? That's a nice
name. Um I've heard worse. So, um we're
not going to make any changes. We live
with this. But we are looking at the
housing cycle. The next the seventh
housing cycle begins in 2031 and in
2029. 20 sounds like a long ways off. I
may not even be here. Hopefully, I won't
be here. Um that uh we're going to start
all over again. and wipe the slate clean
and and and start this over again, which
is one reason why this parcel that a lot
of people have been talking about um is
a big concern. So, I did want to mention
specifically the parcels. So, uh the
point was made, Tony Donaldson made it
toward the end there. She lives on High
Road. She's been in this room several
times and she made the point, this is
such a horrible pro. I mean, it's a
terribly awkward parcel. It's got a
footprint of.7 acres that's buildable.
It's got easements. You heard um
Attorney Jen Jerry say tonight that it's
going to be difficult to get the 80%
coverage that's required. Um I just
remember that I was sitting there for
the first night. This was about three
years ago. And I brought up the fact
that there's a PG& gas transmission line
22 in big enough to crawl through. It's
the same one that goes up to San Bruno
that blew up and killed a bunch of
people that runs through that area. And
nobody seemed to know about it. I
remember the the then town manager.
Nobody seemed to know anything about it.
And I was like, you did all this
research on on High Road and nobody knew
there was a PG&E gas transmission line
running through the property. Then we
argued about whether it's on the
property or it's off the property or
whatever else. We were promised a lot of
things. We never got them and it was put
on the schedule. So, it's on the
schedule today. Now we find out and I
think uh Kim Hansen made the point that
I wish we knew all the stuff that
attorney Jerry had told us tonight back
then because this is the this is the
procedure. We didn't know. I didn't know
for sure. A lot of this I heard for the
first time tonight. But had we known it, may certainly have affected what was
on the schedule. Now we just have to
live with it. And I will tell you
something. I think that these are really
problematic parcels. Raundo is High Road
is. I can't comment on the private
parcel at 773. owned by somebody, not
the town. But I think they're going to
be very difficult to build on and
they're going to be difficult for
developers. And to be perfectly honest
with you, I hope they are difficult.
I've said this before. Um, that is my I just think these are really
problematic. Uh, the point came up about
zoning that somebody brought up and how
uh arbitrary it is and how it just seems
to be very subjective. And I think the
point was made that we're going to go
Oh, David said said it. I think when we
go from SR1 to R1, right? And how do we
do that? David, this council changed
open space for the preservation of
natural resources, our most restrictive
zoning
to multifamily
with up to 20 units per acre. The most
permissive zone. We went from like A to
Z in one night sitting right here. And
it is it's completely capriccious. And
it really bothered me because if if I've
always thought zoning was this sacred
thing and that, you know, when you buy a
parcel and it's zoned a certain way, it
take he'll never get it changed. And we
seem to be changing it just like that. I
mean, we just changed the, you know, the
most sensitive property in all of
Woodside to build high-rise condominiums
on. I mean, just go figure. It just
makes no sense to me. So, I think you're
exactly right. Um it was it was a really
good point that I thought you brought
up. Um
I think that um I kept count uh uh by
the way there were as many as 110 people
in this room and on Zoom tonight. This
is a big issue and I hope the message
was received at least about the the the parcel. Um it was in a close
session. There was one I think there
were three members of the public who
actually spoke before the meeting. I was
one of them and cautioned the council
not to go forward with it. Um I was
speaking as a member of the public, not
a member of the council because I was
recused from that and I don't want to go
too far because I don't want to step on
any toes and violate any regulations
here. But um the point was made that I
think the council could have killed that
22 acres that night simply by not
authorizing it. And I hope uh the point
was made that this council actually did
kill the farmill parcel in its wisdom.
That was a smart move. Um, and we heard
tonight that that covenant that we kept
was waving before our face that you, you
know, that was completely reversible.
No, it's not completely reversible. You
can't undo it. That was another some
misinformation. I'll be polite about it.
But you can't change a covenant. And
that Farmhill parcel had a covenant that
said in perpetuity it had to be open
space. And we sat in the in this room on
the other side before I was elected and
people told us we were crazy and that
they could change it if they wanted to.
No, you can't. And so again, um there's
been a lot of I think
there's been a lot of I'll just say
misinformation and and and I think that
now we are where we are. We're with
these parcels. Um we're going to we're
going to send out RFPs and we're going
to see what happens with them. And I
really hope that, you know, we'll end up
with something smaller and more that's
more reasonable and more appropriate or
maybe nothing at all. And uh it seems
like we are stuck where we are. But I
want to congratulate and thank the
people in this room, many of whom were
here four years ago and three years ago
and two years ago, and gave this exact
same warning. And we said, "We're going
to end up right here." And guess what?
We're we're here again with these
problematic parcels that never should
have been part of it. But they are now.
They're not going away. We'll just see
what happens with them when they get
here. Um, but again, I listened and so
far I remember I kept count three years
ago and I think the count was it was a
little over 300 people. I think it was
307 people spoke during all the public
hearings we had. Nobody spoke in fa
nobody spoke in favor of any of the
parcels. One person just said we need
more affordable housing in Woodside.
Well, guess what? We we all agree with
that. But nobody spoke in favor of any
of the parcels. Not Farm Armhill, not
Raundo, not High Road, not 77. Nobody
spoke in favor of any of them. Tonight,
the count was 26 to zero if I counted
correctly. It seems to me like the only
people in this town who are in favor of
this are sitting here.
It's It's the most amazing thing. I was
elected to represent the people in my
district, and I'm going to represent
them. And you know, I may go down with
the ship, but I'm going to represent
those people. And uh it's not out of any
great sense of pride. It's that they're
counting on me. That's it. I I asked to
run and they elected me and I think I'm
charged with a responsibility here and
we need to do it. And um I I you know it
was pointed out that council me actually
yeah council member Wall actually was
the first person when I was standing
back there with Stacy and we were
speaking who said you know something I
can no longer support the farm hill.
That was just the farm hill parcel. It
just doesn't make sense. We made a
promise and we need to keep our word.
And I I we were very appreciative and
then the dominoes began to fall and
everybody at Farm Hill went away. And I
think that this should happen tonight
too with this parcel that we're talking
about along the 280. It's nobody wants
this. In fact, it's the only person I
think who wants it is an elected
official anymore. And and so hopefully
we're getting the message and we can
make this thing go away. I certainly
would if I could cast a vote on it. Uh
which I can't, but I would certainly
make it go away if I could. And uh
again, we're going to accept the I I
believe we're going to accept the
report. It's going to go in. We are
where we are on this thing. Uh we're
going to continue and let's just uh do
everything we can. I take every comment
that was made to heart and we're going
to do what we can to make sure that we
end up in the right place on this thing
and we're going to do it in the public.
We're going to do it in the sunshine.
Thank you.
» Thank you. Um anyone else? Yes.
>> Yeah. I just wanted to talk about the
CALR property for a second. Um the first
we heard about it on the council when it
came to us as information that CALR has
brought forward a proposal period. We
did not discuss it at any length. In
fact, the question I asked was what
happens if we don't do anything?
And that's the question I think
everybody needs to ask in this room when
you when you talk about okay if we don't
move what if somebody else comes in
there and says we're going to develop
that property. It's not it's not owned
by the town. It's owned by the state.
Then we have no control over it. So I
mean I'm not saying that that's what I
want to do but I'm just saying that was
the decision we had to make at the time
was do we just ignore it and hope it
goes away or do we at least try to find
out more about what are the implications
if we act or don't act. Simple as that.
Any applause?
Any other comments from council?
» Okay. Uh, hearing none then.
>> No, I No, sorry.
>> Oh, hi Jen. Sorry, Council Member Wall.
I didn't see the hand go up.
>> Yes. Um,
so first off, I just want to thank
everybody that came tonight and offered
their comments. Um these nights where we
have housing element on the agenda are,
you know, transparently they're they're
the hardest nights. Um because this is
just such a difficult topic. Um you
know, and as a council member, you know,
you want to look out for the the
interests of your district, but we're
also here to look out for the interests
of Woodside as a whole, including
everybody that lives in the in the
districts around us. And so I just I
want to assure everybody that I really
do hear and take all of your comments to
heart. Um you know we've been living
with this current iteration of the
housing element for three plus years. Um
you know it it's been you know long
meetings, long long uh sessions of of
public comment. Um and it, you know,
it's just it's a it's a very difficult
issue because we want to we want to
react. We want to make everybody happy.
At the same time, um we also have to
comply with our with our legal
obligations to to uh not only submit a
housing element that HCD could certify
um but also to pursue the programs and
the development that we committed to in
the housing element. Um, so it's a it's
a very very nuanced and and difficult
issue and we really are just trying to
do our best. Um, I wanted to thank the
staff. You know, we really appreciated
hearing about all the efforts that have
been happening at the staff level to
pursue our housing element programs. Um,
that's a lot of work and we we really
appreciate all the work and and effort
that you're doing at the staff level.
Um, and Jerry, thank you for being here
tonight. Um, I definitely appreciated
um, hearing the nuances of the of the
surplus land process and exemptions. Um,
I think council member Gold had
suggested maybe the council had been
privy to that information before this
evening, but it we had not. Um, so that
was very enlightening for me to hear.
Um, let's see. I wanted to just touch on
a couple couple topics in addition to
just kind of, you know, acknowledging
what a difficult, you know, issue the
housing element is.
um on public input. Um we very much
appreciate and and and want to encourage
as much public input as possible. And so
um and you know in addition to to
showing up at um meetings and and
offering public comment um when housing
element is on the agenda um I'm very
supportive of looking into ways to um
offer opportunities for public input in
addition to that. Um, so that's
something that I'll commit to speaking
with other council members or in our
town attorney in the background to see
if there are other mechanisms to um to
bring um the public to the table and
solicit your input
um on the it was mentioned a couple
times. I mean, I I you know, my heart
goes out the the comments made about the
east side and feeling like um you know,
they're treated differently. Um that
it's absolutely not the intent. Um
specifically, a couple people raised the
topic of the school district, and I just
want to I I think most people know this,
but you know, the town council has no
input or or um bearing on the school
district boundaries. that's not
something that we have any um any
connection to. So, I just wanted to to
make sure that everybody understood that um that's a that's something that's
completely controlled by um Woodside
Elementary and if we wanted to change
the boundaries, you know, in one
direction or another, that's not
something that we would have any any
impact over. Um and it's already been
said, but you know, on the topic of the
CALR property, um I do sense that there
is a fair amount of misinformation
circulating. Um, so I'd say to those
that are receiving information about the the CALR property, I'd say receive
it with a grain of salt. Um, you know,
it's it it's exactly the case as uh the
town attorney stated that uh CALR
approached the town. Um, the town was
obligated to um hear about that in a
closed session. Um, and we authorized
town staff to talk to Calrans more.
That's literally it. It hasn't gone
beyond that. Um, and I absolutely
appreciate hearing all of the input
tonight about um, how folks feel about
that. And I'll certainly take that into
account as I to the extent this
continues to be something that comes
before the town council. That input is
very valuable. So, thank you. Um, I know
it's getting late this evening, so I'll
pass it back to Mayor Donowski and just
see if any other council member has any
uh, further deliberation.
>> Thank you, Council Member Wall. Yes,
Council Member Eper.
>> I'll be quick. Um, again, thank you.
all for coming. Uh I think
this is the most packed I've seen this
and been on the council for just about a
year. Uh so I caught the very tail end
of this. I I really appreciate all of
you coming sharing your thoughts on
including online and I really take it to
heart. Uh and I I anyone who's asked to
meet with me. I know um a number of you
I've met with in person. Um and I care
even though it's not in my this isn't in
is not in my district. Uh, but I
understand how important it is to all of
you and I I can appreciate it and I I
feel the same. I share some of the same
issues that you do. I I'm uh represent
District 5 which is in the Western Hills
and um our kids don't go to we're not
district as well for Woodside Elementary
and we so we we have to um go to
different schools even though it's
closer to go to Woodside. Um, but and I can appreciate all the things
you're all the issues you're raising.
Um, and I I really do think about it and
I' I haven't been reached out to by any
land developers. So, I'm not sure um if
I'm just excluded from these meetings
that are happening, but um or if they're
just, you know, if they're not happening
or but um I, you know, I have no
personal agenda here. I I really want to
do what's best for the town, what's best
for the people here. Um,
and you know, and for the uh the
property by the the freeway, um, I I
would second what, uh, Council Member
Brown said. You know, no decision was
made. I think we have an obligation on
the town council to look into, you know,
something like this if it comes to us.
Um, instead of saying, you know, no,
we're not going to do it and let's, you
know, let's see what they do with it.
that if they're going to sell it to some
private developer and build 100 units or
something like that, um I think we have
a responsibility to ensure that we avoid
anything like that. But um yeah,
absolutely no decisions been made and
I'm not I um yeah, thank you. Thank you.
Uh so maybe just back well, first off,
I'll just add my thanks for the comments
tonight and back to brass tax. This is
anformational only item. Um
that said, we do want to get as much
citizen input as possible. So, uh once
we get the sewer study back next month,
I think we'll have some more direction
and from there we can put together some
study sessions uh that engage everybody
uh to get some directional feedback. Um
so, we know that's a followup. Uh we
know there's followup on Raundo and um
we've had a lot of uh feedback tonight
on Farm Hill and uh Duly noted and a
message received. So thank you on that
as well. So I'm just here to acknowledge
the feedback and thank you for it.
There's no formal action other than to
acknowledge that this is the uh mandated
report that's going to go up to the
state. Um, and unless there's anyone
here that does not want to accept this
report to go, um, we will be proving it.
I'm not seeing anybody. Um, so we're
accepting the report.
So, thank you all. We're going to take a
fivem minute recess. Uh, so, um,
appreciate it and we'll be back in 5
minutes. We're going to reconvene
and we have, um, item C, volunteer
committee updates. Any, listen? Uh the
only thing I have is that uh Mayday fund
run registration is going to be um
opening soon, probably in the next two
to three weeks. So keep an eye out for
that.
>> Thank you.
And council communications item D. Any
items?
uh March 21 this month this building
that's a Saturday 10 to 12 we're having
a I guess it's and good timing a memory
seminar for seniors um so we can
remember what was and was not said but
it uh it starts on on the 21st at 10:00
and then there'll be a followup for a
second element of that on April 25th
here also and we're working on this
together with Athetherton, Orto Valley,
and Woodside.
>> Wonderful. Thank you, Council Member
Brown.
And then we will reopen communications.
This is for public speakers on
non-aggendaized items that were not
given a chance to speak at the beginning
of the meeting. Alia, oh, you got a
handout. Thank you.
» Can we help you?
Here
I am. Fal lube and history committee.
I'm sure you all have my book. Um
so um
3215 Woodside Road is right next to the
tennis courts
uh and the school and it is 100 years
old. It's been in the same family
continuously. They were sawmill owners
and other
jobs in Woodside. Um, it is now going up
for sale
and it's almost 3 and 1/2 acres
and you know I have crazy ideas.
I would like the town or the school to
buy it.
The front part with the historic house
could be broken off on one acre
resulting in two and a half acres behind
it. I will offer Steve and I to design
this if the town for free. If the town
will build, if we can build 20 on one
acre, think of what we can do on two and
a half. The teachers could walk to
school. The firefighters could walk to
school. long time ago before this
housing thing came up. I went to Kevin
when the the red house that just got
torn down next to Robert's parking lot.
I said, "Kevin, we should buy this for
housing." This is because I'm always
thinking about affordable housing. Yeah.
Now the town then the property across
the street behind the fish came up for
sale.
Let's let's get this.
Let's make it happen.
two and a half acre and it's if the
history committee visited the site when
Elwood Velicette was still alive and we
gave him a preservation award, but it's
absolutely gorgeous. It's down it goes
all the way down to the creek. It's
almost an Lshape. So, it it kind of you
go straight back and there's kind of a
bit of an orchard and then there's a
whole tongue by the creek.
» I'm sorry.
>> Is it listed?
>> Mhm.
>> It's a real estate listing. Yeah. Uh,
it's coming up really fast and not
available yet.
>> Is it nine?
>> So, you break off the first first acre
with a historic house. You sell it for a
lot of money and then the town or the
school develops the rest. I mean, I'm
thinking outside the box here. That's a
lot of affordable housing.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I can I can let you all know when
it's open for viewing it. They did a
great restoration of the house itself.
And when Elwood was still alive, some of
you may remember he had the most
beautiful rose garden out in front. And
unfortunately, his daughter hasn't kept
it up, but um
>> thinking creatively,
>> you know, um it's a great idea and um
I've presented twice to the school board
and then met with foundation and um uh
school board members about teacher
housing in some of these different
spots. And I will say that
this is going back a year. I did hear
the property we're really interested in
is this one.
>> So I would suggest maybe um I think the
school board would be an interesting
place for you to present
>> them presentation
>> and the foundation.
>> Yeah. And and to Dick's point about the
CALR property, I just want to add if we
can get $2 million donations for strip
in the middle of Woodside Road. We could
certainly come up with somebody to help
us buy an undevelopable land at Flax
Hill.
>> Yeah. Very good. Thank you. Okay. Any
other public comments from anyone that
didn't?
>> I just like to make a comment on the on
the uh uh statement that that Calrans
came to Woodside with an offer for the
22 acres. I think that's really
disingenuous that I've been trying to
work I've been trying to get Paul to to
support the idea of the town acquiring
it as open space for a long time. He
didn't like the idea because that would
make it housing. But uh all of a sudden
uh you know Chris and our senator show
up in the newspaper and then Woodside
comes to uh you know that Calrans comes
to Woodside make an offer. I don't
believe it for a second.
Okay.
>> And hi
Uh as one one thing I uh as a followup
from my original comment, I noticed you
guys stated that um in response to or
like you characterize in your public
statement that Jason effectively
extorted the town and then I think um
the attorney said that
um the town was negotiating a severance
package that would include I don't know
how how much time, 6 months with a
commitment to investigate. And when I
first read when I first read the
statement from the town about the
extortion, I was shocked. I mean, I
think everyone was there was no mention
of effectively a failed severance
discussion. And I understand this
conversation was private. Um,
and there's not there's only so much
that you can say, but again to the
appearance of trust, it seems very weird
and striking that now we find that it
was kind of a failed severance
negotiation,
but it was characterized as extortion.
And I don't really know what is true.
Um,
and I again I just would ask I don't
think the district attorney has
committed to actually a formal
investigation,
but the town can elect or you know uh
find a third party investigator for the
claims specific
uh that were specifically outlined in
the whistleblower report and I think
that would help restore public trust. I
have I'm not I have no idea what to
believe. I have my own personal
experience with Jason like many of you
do and was incredibly impressed. I stood
up here I think month and a half ago
attesting to that fact you know um I
don't
I think having a process to really
daylight what is true and I just found
it very interesting just about the uh
the comment about the failed uh
severance discussion. So, yeah,
» looks like um I've got a I've got a
question about the town center area
plan. Um
if I read it correctly, we haven't had
an update from them since last year,
since December meeting and they had made
some promises to us that they would
involve the public more, do some
surveys. I feel like I' I've I've been
disappointed by the process and also
kind of gossmacked by the million-dollar
price tag that they put on this. And I
also, you can correct me if I'm wrong,
but I think the only deliverable that we
have for the housing element is to do a
town center area plan. I don't think we
have to do anything else. So, I feel
like we've overspent on that. And also
looking at the notes from those
meetings, I I see more discussion about
gathering places than I do about
actually identifying different types of
housing in town center.
» Okay, thank you. Um Kristen New, we're
going back to you.
» Thank you very much. Um my comment is
actually on um a advocating for a
version of the TCAP but for four corners
which is up uh at the highways 84 and 35
junction. I realize that this is on the
fringe of Woodside. It's right on the
border, but I this is a very important
place not just for woodsiders but for
people all over. And it is an important
place for woodsiders to recreate even
though there's not a lot of us who live
up here. But there, as you are pro, as
you are well aware, there was a very
tragic accident last year of a cyclist.
There have been numerous incidents, not
some of them fatal, traffic incidents.
It is a busy place. It has equestrians.
It has hikers. It has bicyclists. It has
motorcyclists. It has car drivers, not
just normal commuters, but lots of
people working in the areas with big
chipper trucks and we have sports car
enthusiasts mostly on the weekend. It's
a very busy place. It is something that
the town really should consider taking a
more active part in and engaging not
just the citizens who live up here but
all the citizens of Woodside because of
the recreation that this area offers and
this important corridor. So I would urge
the town council to consider creating
you know yes there is a TCAP committee
but there should be a committee for four
corners as well. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
Are there any other comments?
I'm confused. I see a hand up, but I
don't see a hand up. Do we have a hand
up?
>> Kendra, are did you want to talk again?
>> Yes, thank you. I actually had a
follow-up question on a comment.
Okay. So, my question follows the
comment about the three acres that's
directly next
to the Woodside school because my
question is it was said that perhaps the
better place to address that too would
be the school itself.
that seems like it
addresses a bunch of the issues that a
lot of us including myself had, which is
it's the center of town. It's close to
amenities. It addresses perhaps the
population we're actually trying to
target. It answers some of the housing
element issues. It's not on the north
side, etc. I won't go on, but my
question is this. If say the school
town, would that still qualify towards,
you know, the the town's numbers?
» Yeah. Sage, you want to take that?
» There's a there's a couple different
things to look at. Whenever housing
permits get issued, they count towards
the housing numbers. There's a target.
There's certain target sites, certain
target programs to be met in the housing
element cycle. Should the town look for
other alternatives? It would be
something that have to open up the
housing element to determine if they're
going to make changes to that those
particular goals. Something else in
addition to those goals occurs that may
occur. It's totally fine. It would still
be counted. Um it's just a matter of
still carrying out the goals and targets
that are in the housing element.
it all over it like they would if they
were bought it.
>> Yes, it would have to be reszoned.
>> Oh, we've proven that can happen.
>> You can make wildlife multif family.
>> Okay. I think they're they don't know.
They're still talking. Um, okay. Any
other comments?
Okay. Seeing none, we're going to call
this at 10 p.m. Uh, and uh, thank you
everyone.