So, we'll call the town council meeting
of May 12th, 2026 to order at 70:02.
Jennifer, will you take role?
>> Coun Council member Aberish
>> here.
>> Council member Brown
>> here.
>> Council member Gold. Council member Wall
>> here. Mayor Donowski
>> here. Council member Aberish, will you
lead us in the pledge of allegiance?
under God, indivisible, liberty and
justice for all.
» Thank you, Assan. Appreciate it.
>> And with that, we're going to open up
public comment. So, persons wishing to
address the council on non-aggendaized
items are invited to do so now. Please
note, however, the council cannot
undertake any items that are not on the
agenda. Uh we can refer those to staff
for a future action. Uh this
communication period is limited to five
persons, three minutes each. Any
additional persons wishing to be heard
will be heard at the end of regular
business. And because we have a full
house tonight and a big agenda, we are
going to hold it to those five people at
three minutes each. Are there is there
anybody here that would like to make a
comment on a non-aggendaized item?
Come on up.
Great.
» I really need help from our town
council. We are having a terrible
problem with tick tockers
coming on dirt bikes on Woodside Road
all the way up Kings Mountain. They're
parking everywhere, all over the roads.
There are no restrooms. So, you know
what's going on on the side of the
roads? They're riding through the woods.
They're destroying
the the entire environment and scurrying
all the wildlife down into the flats
down here. I've lived in Skyline for 30
years. I've never seen this kind of
destruction. I need help. Please.
>> Thank you, Bri.
Jean and Melissa, we both sort of
connected, but we didn't reconnect on
this. Is there anything that we would we
can add to uh where we are in terms of
figuring out those trails?
>> Yes, we looked at the photographs that
uh Brie sent in and the portion where
the vehicles are parked are actually um
county and so Lewis, I think you might
have a little bit to add to that.
>> And that's correct. Um we looked at the
map and it looks like um the section on
uh Kings Mountain Row is part of the
county's jurisdiction. um staff will
reach out to the county and we'll work
with work work with them on perhaps
installing some no parking signs along
that stretch
» with me.
>> Okay. Okay, we got you. Um All right.
Any other comments? Public comments on
non-aggendaized items?
» Seeing none, we'll close public comment.
And we have two presentations this
evening. The first is on a historic
preservation award. Welcome.
» Hello. I'm Melanie Olsen, associate
planner with the town of Woodside as
well as the staff lays on to the
Woodside history committee, the
wonderful gals over here. And so
anyways, just kind of wanted to give a
few updates on the committee's been up
to um as well as kind of uh this month
is or with the National uh Trust for
Historic Preservation, they proclaim May
as history month. So
>> at the end, I'd like to read the
proclamation to proclaim the history
month for the town if that's okay. So
>> that's great. So yeah, so the Woodside
history committee uh they've been
encouraging uh exploring the town's
history by participating and promoting
uh
community mus museum walking tours uh
with Sonteo County History Association.
They've been doing it for several years.
They also have a brochure for
self-guided tours. Uh they participated
in the Mayday parade. um they currently
are working on a uh Woodside Fire
Protection District Museum exhibit in
the museum. So hopefully um people in
this room will be interested in checking
that out uh this summer. Um we'll have
more details to follow. And then tonight
earlier we had the Woodside Preservation
Awards. The museum hosted the open
house, gave out two awards uh this year.
Uh first to the Laquesta Winery. Uh the
recipients were Susan McBain and Jay
Patterson. Uh EMTT Ricksford was a San
Francisco attorney. Uh the winery was
established in 1883.
It had 7,000 vines imported from France.
In 1902, they hired a stones mason to
build the winery using the stones that
were found on the property. Um and then
it was later converted into a private
residence. Uh so uh the McBaines have
restored that. And then the second
recipient was the telephone exchange by
uh owned by Sue Pleti and Pat Delgavio
who we know well. Uh it's a Spanish
style building housed a telephone
exchange which was operated by the
Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company
in 1928.
Um, and then also for everyone else in
the room there, uh, we have three
community museums in town. Uh, one right
across the way that's open on the first
and third Saturday, 1 to 3. Admission is
free. Uh, we have the Woodside Store
Museum open on Tuesdays and Thursdays as
well as the weekend, also free. And then
lastly, the Fulier Estate Stable Museum,
um, which is also free on the weekends.
And then uh the community or the history
committee wanted to say how happy they
are uh that the Brisbane Elementary
bought the property um next door. So
we're looking forward to what they're
going to do with that next.
Um so now I'm going to read the pro
proclamation uh uh making this month
history month for the town of Woodside.
Uh whereas historic preservation is an
effective tool for managing sustainable
development, revitalizing neighborhoods,
fostering local pride, and maintaining
comm community character while enhancing
livability. And whereas the historic
preservation is relevant for communities
across the nation, both urban and rural,
and for Americans of all ages, all walks
of life, and all ethnic backgrounds. and
where it is important to celebrate the
role of history in our lives and the
contributions made by dedicated
individuals in helping to preserve the
tangible aspects of the heritage that
has shaped us all as a people. And
whereas in alignment with the ongoing
theme established by the National Trust,
all people are created equal is the
theme of Woodside's preservation month
this year. And lastly, whereas the Town
of Woodside History Committee has
planned events and activities to
celebrate this month through the
promotion of Woodside Town Center
Walking Tour for museum visitors to
explore the Woodside Commercial District
and its buildings in addition to the
annual preservation awards program. It
is in support of general plan policies
to promote historic preservation and
awareness of local history and its
historic resources. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Melanie. Thank you, history
committee.
>> Well, I think Dalia wants to say
something else.
>> I know you're acknowledging the crew
later, but I I just want to add our
thanks for um Eddie and Ignasio and his
crew because they've been very helpful
and responsive when we need help help at
the museum. So, um we we thank them. We
thank you. So,
>> great. Thank you.
Uh, and we also have National Public
Works Week and we have a proclamation.
Lewis, should I just go? I just take it.
Is there anything you would like to say?
>> Go ahead.
>> Okay. Well, I'll just uh obviously uh uh
you know, first off, you guys are all
our unsung heroes from all the
day-to-day to keeping us where we need
to be in the floods and the storms.
Thank you very much.
And we have this proclamation to
recognize National Public Works Week,
which is this week. So whereas public
works professionals focus on
infrastructure, facilities, and services
that are of vital importance to
sustainable and resilient communities,
and to public health, high quality of
life, and well-being of the people of
Woodside. And whereas these
infrastructure facilities and services
could not be provided without the
dedicated efforts of public works
professionals who are engineers,
managers and employees at all level of
government and the private sector who
are responsible for rebuilding,
improving and protecting our nation's
transportation, water supply, water
treatment and solid waste systems,
public buildings and other structures
and facilities essential for our
citizens.
And whereas it is in the public interest
for the citizens, civic leaders, and
children in the town of Woodside to gain
knowledge of and maintain an ongoing
interest and understanding of the
importance of public works and public
works programs in their respective
communities. And whereas the year 2026
marks the 66th year of National Public
Works Week sponsored by the American
Public Works Association. Now therefore,
be it proclaimed on this 12th day of
May, 2026 that I, Brian Dowski, mayor of
the town of Woodside, do hereby
designate the week of May 17 through
23rd 23 as National Public's Work Week.
I urge all citizens to join
representatives of the American Public
Works Association and government
agencies in activities, events, and
ceremonies designed to pay tribute to
our public works professionals,
engineers, managers, and employees, and
to recognize the substantial
contributions they make to protecting
our national health, safety, and
advancing the quality of life for all.
Thank you. We really, really appreciate
everything that you do for us.
And mayor, if I may, um I would like to
um I have our public works staff here
today with me in the audience. I would
like for them to stand to receive this
um honor and recognition. And also, if I
may, um also point out that last Friday,
uh our maintenance supervisor, Ignasio
Hernandez, received an award, operation
of maintenance person of the year award
from the APWA organization. So, I have a
plaque here today and we're going to
present this to him tomorrow. So,
congratulations to the team. We're
really proud of them and of their
service to the town. And um thank you
for your continued support.
>> Thank you.
» Okay. Uh moving right along uh to the
consent agenda. So, all items on the
consent calendar are considered to be
routine and will be approved by one roll
call motion unless a request is made for
an item to be withdrawn or transferred
to the regular agenda. Are there any
items that any council member would like
to pull from the consent calendar?
Are there any items any member of the
public would like to see us pull?
Seeing none and hearing none, uh, we
will entertain a motion for the consent
calendar.
>> I'll make a motion that we approve the
consent calendar.
>> Second. Second.
>> Council member Alberish.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Brown.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Gold.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Wall.
>> Yes.
>> Mayor Domowski.
>> Yes. Thank you. All right. Moving on to
new business. Item A, a resolution
approving outofclass compensation for
the acting town manager.
Corey.
>> Hello. Good evening, town council. I'm
Corey Stalker Pedalino, the um
administrative services director. Um,
I'm bringing forward item agenda item A
for new business related to approving
outofclass acting pay for our acting
town manager. So, since February 19th,
2026, the town council placed U. Melissa
Cardinoli, also known as the acting town
manager, into the acting role and
typically within other municipalities,
what is typically offered is either a 5
to 10% out of class or acting pay as in
she's absorbed the responsibilities from
a higher classification. So, she was
currently the assistant town manager.
She is now serving as the acting town
manager. Therefore, it is recommended
that the town council adopt a 10% um
acting pay to her base salary. And we
would like that to be retroactive to
February 19th of 2026. And I'm happy to
answer any questions.
>> Thank you, Corey. Any questions?
All right. Hearing none. Any comments
from the public on this item?
Seeing none
>> comment.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Um, I actually wasn't planning on saying
anything, but as is my habit, I do. Um,
there's been a, you know, obviously some
unplanned things happened on February
17th, and I just wanted to commend
Melissa, uh, who parachuted in. Um, and
there's been comments made that the town
is in chaos and those sorts of things,
and nothing could be further from the
truth. Um, since you took over, we've
presented audited financials here. We've
had the largest events in our in our
history, the Mayday event, the uh fun
run, the Mayday parade. Um, things have
pretty much come off without a hitch.
This may be tonight one of the largest
uh documents we've ever had before us.
And it's not only to the credit of our
acting town manager, but the entire
staff. And I think that they've done a
fantastic job uh in making sure that the
town runs smoothly under likely the most
adverse circumstances this town may have
ever seen. Um and I just wanted to say I
appreciate it and I thank you for it.
Melissa, you've done an unbelievable job
and um I know that this has the
endorsement of everybody on the town
council. So, thank you.
>> Very nice. Thank you. Uh would you like
to make a motion? I would that we um
authorize item A is it on the um uh on
the calendar tonight.
>> Second that.
>> Council member Alberish.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Brown.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Gold.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Wall.
>> Yes.
>> Mayor Donowski.
>> Yes. Okay. How's that for efficiency to
the main event tonight? Um all right. So
obviously tonight we have a public
hearing on the appeal for 10 Still
Creek. This is item B, public hearing.
Uh before we hand things off, we do want
to acknowledge that we understand this
has been a long process, a multi-year
process, and to acknowledge that uh we
know there's a lot of passion in the
room, and all we're simply asking is
that um we be respectful of our
neighbors and one another. Certainly can
show passion, but if we could be as
respectful as possible, that would be
great. So, the way this works is the
staff will make a report. Uh we'll ask
questions of staff, then we'll open the
public hearing. We'll hear from the
appellant. We'll have public comment and
then we will close the public hearing
and um ideally move to deliberations and
so forth. So, um with that, we will turn
it over to staff to make the report and
it looks by microphone. I'm going to you
Sage.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, council
members. Um so, I'll just give a a real
brief background. uh the the applicant
who is the appellant in this case um
since the beginning has submitted three
projects with variations amongst those
projects. Uh we're looking at the third
project that was reviewed by the ASRB.
Um, and after detailed discussion at the
ASRB meeting, uh, they they make a
recommendation to the town council, I'm
sorry, to the planning commission. And
the ASRB by a 2:1 vote, um, recommended
a denial of the design of the project.
Um, the ASRB does not uh take positions
or make findings on the other
entitlements such as a setback exception
um, and the resident size exception.
Uh so after the ASRB review um they made
their recommendation to the planning
commission. The planning commission
reviewed this project and after a very
detailed discussion a lot of public
comment
the planning commission by a 32 vote um
denied the setback exception by not
being able to make findings one or five
of the setback exception. uh they did
not take action on the formal design
review or resident size exception. Um
with the the vote and not being able to
make those two findings, the setback
exception was denied, therefore denying
the project. You need all of the
entitlements to make the project move
forward. So after that, the um applicant
filed a timely appeal of that decision.
And that brings us to uh the council
meeting tonight. Um this meeting is uh
the appeals are heard denovo. So that
means the uh council can consider all
the information of the record and come
to its own conclusion on the required
entitlements.
The town council will determine if it
can make all of the necessary findings
for approval of the entitlements. Um if
any of the findings cannot be made, the
uh council would state why and would
could deny the project.
Um so I'm just going to briefly go
through um the project overview and you
know there's a lot of information that's
been provided um and if you have any
questions uh you know let me know. But
um I'm just going to do uh quickly run
through the project terms of its
location and elevations.
Okay. So um this is the full site on the
left side. Um it has a net area of a
little over eight acres. Um it is a bit
unique in that it has a private road
bisecting the property. Um and there are
different easements on the property.
Most notably uh conservation easement
that runs through a good portion of the
northern side or the left side of the
property if you're looking at the
screen.
On the right side is a zoomedin area of
where the proposed development would
take place. The applicant is proposing a
uh main residence uh with an attached
garage
area um that has a J AU, a junior ADU on
top of that as well as which also
attaches to uh an accessory dwelling
unit. So, if you see where my cursor is,
this is the proposed um location of the
main part of the main residence. There's
a grove of trees in this area here,
which are represented by the black dots.
And this piece here is an elevated
enclosed bridge or hallway um that
connects from the main piece of the
residence to an area that includes an
elevator um with the JADU on the middle
floor and the garage on the lower level.
Uh then this attaches to a two-le ADU um
just to the north.
The property here is access from Still
Creek Road. In front of the garage is a
proposed driveway uh that would include
additional parking for cars um that are
outside of the garage. Across the street
of Still Creek Road, the applicant is
proposing one ADU um and that also has
its own parking area um that would be
accessed for that ADU.
The setback exception that is required
for the project is that the required
setbacks are 50 ft from all the property
lines or in this case the ingress egress
roadway easement boundary lines.
So um what you have here is you can see
this uh it shows the required 50-foot
building setback line that is typically
required and that cuts over into this
area here. Um so the areas that have the
less sleep less steep slopes tend to be
a bit outside of that area. Um so this
uh then also shows the 30-foot building
setback line. That's if the project gets
approval of a setback exception to be
closer than the 30 ft. It would actually
require a variance to the setbacks. Um
so the applicant has ensured that the
proposed development would be at least
30 ft away in all of the areas. This
also shows here um that this corner of
the garage that would encroach past the
50ft setback line and but still would be
uh more than 30 ft away from the
easement line and the side property
line. um the ADU across the street. That
ADU is located in an area um that's just
allowed by ADU law. Um because of the
size of it, per the conditions uh can be
as close as 4T to a side or rear
property line.
Um and so that uh is just the overview
of the location of the project and then
I'll just to show the elevations
um of the project. Uh so there's this is
the main piece of the main residence
that show kind of up the hill furthest
up the hill and then where this little
void space is this is actually where
that bridge um that hallway would
connect to the other part of the
building. So that comes across here and
connects over to this garage portion
with the J AU. So the garage at the
lower level J AU with a small little
room upstairs and this is the elevator.
Um this is the side elevation. Uh and
then this is the front elevation of the
main residence. So this is what faces
the roadway. Um this is the rear of the
main residence, the main piece of it.
And then these are the two side
elevations. And you see again that uh
hallway bridge that connects to the
garage area. Um this is just the back of
the garage JADU portion. Um again this
is that void where that hallway is and
then this is the front of that portion
of the building which is facing the
roadway.
This shows the two side elevations.
This is the portion of the attached ADU.
So this is the one furthest down the
hill um in front of the main portion of
the building. And this is the attached
ADU. Um, it has some decks uh and
balconies on the front and this shows it
from the rear. Um, so it's kind of dug
into the hillside a bit. And then this
shows the two side elevations,
these two. And then this shows the
elevations for the ADU across the
roadway. Uh, this is the elevation from
the roadway. Uh, so it's relatively low
profile, but because of the steep
hillside, it does drop down the hill.
Um, and then I'll just go through here
just briefly. The applicant has provided
some renderings of the project, so it
helps to visualize a little bit more.
And back here is the main portion of the
residence. This is that attached ADU
towards the front.
This is a bit of a different angle
showing the attached ADU. This is the
garage J ADU portion with the main
portion in the rear
and just different angles. This is kind
of the side. So main portion, the
attached ADU with the garage JDU in the
background.
Different views. This shows that hallway
bridge that uh connects the structures
that makes them attached.
Couple of other views just further back
from the road. And then this is the
views shown for the ADU that's across
the roadway. So, it's down the hillside.
Um, it would just actually be a little
bit above the roadway elevation as
viewed from the road. Um, but with that,
I'm happy to answer. Um, well, I just
want to note that you have all of uh
staff's recommended findings for
approval of the three different
entitlements and the attached draft
resolution. Um if you like I can go
through those in detail. Uh otherwise
I'm just happy to answer any questions
that you have. Um and I do want to make
one note that with our recommendation of
approval uh that there is condition 1K
and that is related to requiring a deed
restriction for the JADU. Um so when we
initially put these conditions together
for planning commission that in fact was
the law. Uh although uh just effective
this year, the state says that you can
only require a deed restriction if
there's shared sanitation facilities
with the other portion of the main
residents. Because this JADU would have
its own bathroom, um this condition
would not apply. So if the council does
accept staff's recommendation, we would
uh strike um condition 1K, noting that deed restriction is not required.
Uh but with that, I'm happy to answer
any questions that you have.
>> Okay. Thank you, Sage. Questions for
staff?
>> Um yeah, I my one question I have is has
Woodside Fire looked at the property and
given any opinion regarding whether it's
high or same or no no change in the risk
of fire. Um I don't think they've given
a risk assessment but they have been
involved in the review of the project as
well as you know over the years as the
applicant was developing the different
projects um they did work with the town
to get a permit for what we call a
vegetation management of a property and
actually I was out there with the fire
district. There was at least three
representatives of the fire district. Um
they went around and looked at different
trees and areas that should be cleaned
up. Um and the applicant then obtained a
permit and did a lot of that cleaning up
uh that the fire district recommended.
And then as far as this project goes um
as with all projects uh this gets
reviewed at a preliminary level by the
um Woodside Fire Protection District and
they did approve it with their standard
conditions.
>> Thank you.
>> Other questions?
Oh, I guess it's my turn then. uh is
this or is this not something that is
covered under the housing accountability
act there? A lot of conviction on both
sides of this uh debate right now.
What's our view?
>> It's staff's position this is not
because this is not a project that comes
before you with no request for
exceptions.
>> Okay.
And is the um there's a setback finding
around page 123 to 132 that was
submitted. Um
that something that we have either
verified or that we we believe is a
reasonable analysis or is it sort of
unverified?
It goes through every piece of history
and then every property and potential
setbacks.
So those were um findings that were uh
the applicant put forward. Um what staff
really did was focus on what staff
believe the findings to be made. We
reviewed this information. We viewed the
information from all sides. Um but our
goal is really from our professional
background and we just focused on on
recommended findings based on on how we
determined those findings to be met.
>> Okay.
Any other questions for staff?
Okay. Well, then with that, we are going
to open the public hearing. Uh, and we
welcome the appellant um and any members
of their team to make a presentation if
you would like one. And we'll certainly
going to give you as much time as you
need if you would like to make any
statement.
Good evening. Um, I think our first
speaker is going to be on Zoom, uh,
James Bransky, who, uh, designed the
project. If you could
>> Great.
Uh, okay. Well, welcome, James.
Not sure what happened. I think we just
lost him. Do you see him? There you are.
Hi.
>> Sorry. Yeah. Thank you. Um, if you don't
mind, I'd like to share my screen if
that's okay with everyone.
» I think it's okay. Yeah.
>> Okay. Here we go.
Can you see that image of the
threedimensional rendering of the house?
Is that showing up?
>> We're seeing your email.
>> Oh, my email. Well, that's not
>> Yeah. No, you don't want us to see that.
>> All right.
>> Got enough of that going on right now
around here.
>> Yeah, right. Okay. Hold on a second. Why
would that be happening? Hold on. Let me
try this again.
Um, maybe I can move the
How about Do you see the image now or
still the email? Still the email, right?
>> We don't see really anything. Yeah.
>> Let me Let me try again. I'm sorry.
>> It's okay.
>> Uh, share.
Okay, here we go.
>> There you go.
>> Got it. I see it. Okay.
All right. Um, well, thank you everyone.
I I do appreciate the opportunity to
present this project uh again. Um,
and uh uh I thought it would be uh
useful because it's been going for such
a long time. Um, and there have been so
many permutations that I thought it
would be uh uh useful to go back to the
sort of the basics of why we designed
the house uh the way we did in the first
place. And also in this presentation um
I will address some of the comments from
the report provided by the neighbors uh
forensic architect Mr. French. So I want
to start out and can you see my the the
mouse on the screen? Was I moving it
around?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, good. Okay. So, I wanted to start out by showing a three-dimensional
overview of the site to kind of give you
a a feeling for the challenges that
we've that we faced in designing this
project. Um the uh sage was kind of
pointing out uh in obviously in two
dimensions the site um the size of it um
uh the the challenging topography um and
the main road that goes through it
splits it into into about a third and
two/3 uh with the north side of the
property is the left the downs slope
side and the south side of the property
is the north the ups slope. Um there's
about 390 feet of elevation change uh
from the top of the site to the bottom.
Uh the area in gray on this on this
drawing um is in a conservation easement
and is not buildable. Um the blue fills
uh represent slopes that are over 35%
and the purple fills represent slopes
that are over 50%. Um I it it's a good
time to remember that the guidelines um
uh design guidelines generally restrict
us from building on slopes uh over 35%
and especially slopes over 50%. Um the
light blue area here um is a is an area
that is always wet because of springs
and is unbuildable.
Um the orange line um that you see here
uh that is the 50- foot setback line and
the green line um is the 30foot setback
exception line.
So generally uh what we have um is a
buildable area that's sort of inside
this red box. Um I should mention that
the downs slope area to the left um uh
will be reserved for our septic system
um with the exception of that of the
small corner up here which Sage pointed
out has a detached ADU.
Um, so there are um really really only
three buildable areas uh on the on the
south side of the road, the uphill side
to the right. Um within the 50oot
setback line. Um the first area is that
bench right there. Um the second area is
this small little corner to the north
and to the east. And then the third area
which is closest to the road um uh is
also quite small. Um the three of those
together so this would be the entire
buildable area on the south side of the
road um is 4500 square ft.
Um so that's obviously a very limited
amount of space when you're trying to
build a new home on a on such a large
site. So now if we used the 30foot um
building setback exception um the amount
of space and you can see that goes from
that that area and then up to the
30-foot setback line. Um that amount of
space increases our buildable area up to
7200 square ft. Still not a lot um but
just enough to build on while still
adhering to the regulations governing
steep slopes.
So here once again this is a zoomed out
but there is the three red areas that um
that we're allowed to build on. Um
so we look at at these kinds of
restrictions um as opportunities. Um
it's the tightness of these areas and
their vertical and horizontal
relationship to each other that really
informs the design. U the design
standards ask that we that the buildings
step down the hill with the terrain and
that we preserve steep slopes and trees
and that's what I think we did.
Um the building
so this is this is the design. Now, I'm
doing this without a lot of detail like
you show in the renderings, but just to
give you an idea of the massing of the
buildings. Um, the building the building
is broken down into three components.
Um, each occupying one of the red areas
were allowed to build on from the bench,
which is up here at the top. Um, the
buildings step down the hill and weave
through the trees. Um, and the uh the
main house is connected to the garage
which is which is here.
um via an enclosed bridge that travels
through a stand of redwoods. The two
components that are closest to the road,
that's the garage and then this attached
ADU
present a one-story face to the road. Um
in other words, the one-story section of
those buildings that's closest to the
road and when they step up to two
stories, those areas are further uh up
the hill and further away from the road.
The main house occupies the bench, which
is up here, um, and is elevated on
peers. So, um, we wanted to be able to
get the house to have as big a footprint
as possible in a relatively small area.
Um, like 2700 square f feet is what that
red area is up there. So, we needed to
elevate the house a little and can lever
it in in in multiple directions out over
the slopes that are the 35 and 50% so
that we could have a big enough area in
the house. And it also allowed us then
to have the rainwater
from the uphill slopes go under the
house and then be collected before it
gets down to collected and diverted
before it gets down to um the attached
ADU which is right here.
So I believe this directly addresses uh
finding number five um uh as I think the
structures are subordinate to the
natural environment um you know
responsive certainly to the site
constraints um and compatible with the
rural character of Woodside. And I
should note here that the vocabulary of of the and the materiality of the
design as you see uh in those renderings
that Sage showed you and the first
rendering that I showed you was heavily
influenced by the neighboring 95 Skywood
and 35 Still Creek.
Um it has been suggested by the
neighbors consultant Mr. French uh that
we should move the structures back to
the 50-foot setback line and you can
view that in his report. Um and as you
can see um mostly you know anything uh
beyond that 50oot setback line uh is is
mostly um uh uh a slope of 50% or
greater. So if we move the buildings
back into that 50 foot setback. So now
you can see taking uh the the main house
stays where you know up on the bench but
in order to uh uh meet the the 50oot
setback we'd have to move those
buildings back into the hillside.
Um so moving the house back to this
position will require us to obtain a
grading exception um because the amount
of excavation would be about 1645 yards.
the backs of the attached ADU and the
garage would require about a 14 foot
high retaining wall because we're
further uh into the hillside. It would
also uh unfortunately require us to
remove many mature and healthy redwoods.
All of which I think is inconsistent
with the Woodides design guidelines. And
I think it also directly addresses
finding 1B which is that the uh
available alternatives uh would uh
meaning this one would cause greater
adverse impact on natural features than
the proposed exception.
And also I think finding two which
directs us to cause no significant
impacts to the applicant's property
adjacent properties or surrounding
neighborhood and town and finding four
which directs us to cause the least
amount of disturbance to the site.
to give you a feeling for the massing
from the street. Now again, this is not
a detailed drawing, but purposely so
just to get have you get a feel for the size of the building relative to the
backdrop which is the hillside and the trees. Um so to give you a feel
of that massing um this view um which is
from the street um is which shows the
building that is is currently designed
and situated at the 30-foot setback
line.
This is the same view um but with the
building moved to the 50- foot setback.
As you can see, the visual difference is pretty minor. However, uh the impact
on the site is profound because of the
loss of trees and the additional cutting
into the 50% slope.
Here is another view. This is the view
of the rendering that I showed you at
the very beginning.
um also from the street but from the
northwest. This is the 30-foot setback
um which the 30- foot setback exception.
Here's the same view with the 50-ft
setback. Uh again, the visual difference
from the road and the impact from the
road I I believe is is relatively minor
between those two, but again the the
site impacts are are are really
significant. um and we'd love to avoid
that.
This I think also addresses finding
number three that the proposed exception
uh will cause no significant uh adverse
impact on the privacy of the neighbors.
I I don't think either one of these
situations whether the 30-foot or the
50- foot u impact will um will have make
any real difference.
Um the next set of slides um is in
response to uh Mr. French's contention
that we've misrepresented
the size of our building because our
floor plans don't align with our size
calculation exhibit. Um so this is um
this is Mr. French's figure 50. Um, and
just before this in his report, he
states, quote, "This shall be granted
argument is predicated on the project's
total floor area, which might not apply
to the a project that provides
inaccurate data. Since the floor area
calculations do not match the physical
geometry of the floor plans, the fact
that the project is under 8,800 square
feet is unverified.
So I I believe that this statement
reflects sort of a fundamental
misunderstanding and misreading of our
floor plans and perhaps the method that
Woodside uses to calculate building
area. And let me demonstrate if you
don't mind. Uh in this figure um Mr.
French attempts to align our floor plan
with our floor area calculation exhibit.
And you can see the lines that he's
connecting between various corners of
one drawing to the other. The issue here
is that he's aligning the wrong corners
of the plan. Um on the far left, he
attempts to align the corner of our
office, which is right here, with the
edge of our exterior uncovered entrance,
uh which is this. So, um,
and the uncovered terrace, I'm sorry,
the exterior and uncovered terrace, that
does not count in the area calculation,
and therefore it's not shown in our
exhibit. He also misaligned the
northwest corner of the attached ADU
here with the exterior and uncovered
terrace in the northwest corner of the
ADU up here. I'm going to show you
those. Those are the terraces in
question. those those terraces do not
have floor uh roofs over them. So they
do not do not count in the floor area
calculation.
So just to sum this up quickly um here
is a a slide showing ADU number two.
This is uh the outline of the parts of
the building that contribute to the area
calculation.
The blue area is the uncovered terrace
with uh terrace which does not
contribute to the area calculation.
This is the area right here of the
garage and Jedu that contribute to the
building area. This is the house. These
are the areas that contribute to the
building area and these are the terraces
that do not.
Here's Mr. French's alignment.
here is the proper alignment. So, um,
and if you go to another slide, kind of
show you that those are the corners that
should be matching up. And then you can
see again that those are properly
aligned. Um, and the exhibits uh are
correct as they were originally drawn.
And therefore, our area calculation is
correct. And we are below the 8,800 foot
cap.
That is all.
>> Okay. Thank you, James.
Any other members of the team?
Yes, sir. Welcome.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm Charles Kissik with Sigma
Prime GeoSciences in Half Moon Bay. Um,
we did all the engineering geologic and
geologic work uh on this project for
several years now. And um I wasn't even
I didn't know I was going to be here
until about two hours ago. So, I have
nothing prepared. So, I'm just going to
have to wing it.
>> Uh, first of all, I I I'm extremely
familiar with the area, having grown up
on Skyway since 1966, so I know the area
very well. And um, the bottom line, I
could go into a lot of detail, but the
bottom line is the site is is stable.
There have been concerns brought up
about slope stability and uh, falting,
but there's no faulting hazard in the
air. the nearest active fault, the San
Andreas fault about a mile away. There's
a secondary
um potentially active fault about 250 ft
down the hill to the um well toward the
east toward you know down the hill and
which has no potential
uh impact on on the project. Um and then
we spent quite a a lot quite a long time
studying the stability of the site,
slope stability, working closely with
the town of Woodside and as well as um
their reviewer Cottonshers and
associates. And after going back and
forth with a lot of field work and lab
work and analyses and aer photo analysis
and all these other things with lidar
between us cottonshite and everybody
involved in this project over the last
several years we've concluded that the
uh slope stability hazard is is low. You
can never say zero in any hills anywhere
but it's very low and not really much of
a concern.
Um like I said, yeah. Um like I said, it
wasn't prepared. I'm trying to think of
what the other concerns were, but bottom
line is uh I have no no concerns
regarding future slope stability,
uh fault rupture across the site
or anything like that. So, I'd be happy
to rebut further comments in the future,
but for now, I'd like to hear what other
people have to say. Okay.
>> Great. Thank you.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Good evening.
>> Thank you so much for your time today.
Uh my name is Ryan Patterson. I'm an
attorney for the project applicants. Um
and I I first want to thank staff for
all the hard work and time that uh they
have put into this project over the
course of years now. Um, it's a lot and
I I just want you to know we appreciate
it. Um, I'm going to be speaking mostly
about the law here and why the town is
required to approve the project as
proposed with the exceptions uh as
requested. Um, to tell you just a bit
about my qualification to speak to that
topic. Um, my practice focuses on uh the
Housing Accountability Act and the new
state housing laws. Um, I believe that I
have litigated more Housing
Accountability Act and state law cases,
state housing law cases probably than
anyone else in the state. Um, and I I
say that because I want to give you my
analysis of this project and its request
for the exception. Um, and I think
you're going to hear a lot of folks
speak about the law and what it means.
uh and they may may be less familiar
with the law. Um so to start the Housing
Accountability Act Government Code
section 65589.5
this is a law that's older than I am but
was recently amended has been amended a
number of times recently to make it
stronger and stronger. Likewise the ADU
law has been amended recently to make it
stronger and stronger and that's the
environment that we're operating in
today. Um the in short the housing
accountability act or HAA requires that
when a project meets the objective
applicable standards it must be approved
at the density proposed. So in this case
you have a single family home and three
accessory units. Um
if the project meets the applicable
objective standards and this project
does. Um, I understand and respect that
staff has taken the position that the
project does not meet all standards
because it is requesting an exception to
the setback rule. But the way this works
under state law is if the project meets
the requirements for the exception,
then the setback rule is no longer
applicable because you qualify for the
exception. This project meets the
applicable requirements for the
exception. And you've heard uh in quite
a bit of written uh briefing from the
architect, you've heard in his uh
presentation just now why it qualifies
for the exception.
Um the project meets all of the
standards. And how do we know that?
Well, first it is deemed compliant by
operation of law. Under the Housing
Accountability Act, uh a city or county
has 30 days to decide and notify the
applicant if the project is compliant or
not compliant after the project is
complete. After the application is
complete, in this case, uh the project
was deemed complete by law on December
9, 2024 and confirmed in writing by
staff. uh the town did not provide an
inconsistency determination
uh within 30 days or by January 9, 2025.
The consequence of this is
final and certain under law the project
does comply with applicable
requirements. Um even if it didn't in
reality, the law says it does, but
thankfully in this case it actually does
meet the requirements. Um, and I note
that many of the standards are not
actually objective. Um, and I'll I'll
speak to that just briefly, but remember
it has to meet the applicable objective
standards here. The requirements for the
exception are largely subjective rather
than objective and therefore not
actually required under law. Um, so for
example, finding number one, no
conforming alternatives or alternatives
will cause greater environmental damage.
Um there's several terms that are not
actually defined in the code um and are
not as state law says quote uniformly
verifiable by reference to an external
and uniform benchmark or criterion
available and knowable by both the
development applicant or proponent and
the public official before submitt.
It's for that reason that a lot of
cities have been moving away from these
types of standards in recent years to
make them more objective, more concrete,
more defined. These are kind of an older
uh relic of the past the way that
they're phrased. And in some cases, they
may still apply to projects, but in this case, not. Uh finding number
two, no objective criteria uh to define
a significant environmental impact. the
applicant can't know if it if it meets
that standard or not in advance. Um,
finding number three, the exception will
cause no significant adverse impact on
the privacy of neighbors. We don't have
objective criteria in the municipal code
to explain what a a significant privacy
act uh impact on neighbors is. Now, this
project does not, for the record, have a
significant privacy impact. Uh, in fact,
this has been designed so that it's
pulled away as far as it can be. It's
through heavily wooded terrain, sloped
terrain. Um, you can't see the neighbors
from this project and the neighbors
cannot see the houses that are proposed
here. There's literally no privacy
impact. Um, you have in your packets a
visual study showing uh line of sight
from the project site to each
surrounding neighbor and all you can see
is trees. you you can't see the
neighboring houses. Um neighbors have
claimed that there will be a privacy
impact because they will drive by the
houses and look at the houses as they
drive by for approximately 5 seconds
that it takes to drive past.
It's not a privacy impact to drive by
and look at someone's home. Um or the possibility that someone sitting in
her house might look out at the road at
just the precise moment someone drives
by. That's not a privacy impact on the
car. and to tell this family that they
can't build a home uh because someone
might drive by and look at them, look at
their house for five seconds as they
drive past.
We all have homes that look at roads uh
and roads that can see our homes as they
go by. That's just not how it works.
Um additionally,
uh I mean some of these things like
consistent with the spirit and intent,
goals and objectives of the general
plan, this is this is textbook
subjective. Um, so these things don't
apply, but we mean it anyway. Um, as you
have at some length briefed in your
packets.
Next, state ADU law actually prohibits
imposing additional setback
requirements. It's a 4-oot setback
requirement. We are well past a 4oot
setback. That's state law. Um, and we're
giving as much setback as possible.
Next, the junior accessory dwelling unit
is being proposed as a with a setback
under disability law. This is a
requested disability accommodation under
the Americans with Disabilities Act and
comparable state law. Um, they have
family members with mobility impairments
who are going to be aging in place here
who need to be cited in this location so
that the garage is accessible from the
road and the building is attached to the
garage. their home has to be accessible
with an elevator from that garage cited
at the road location. Um, this is this
is federal and state law. Uh, it goes
beyond simply the zoning code.
Now, turning back to um kind of the
bigger picture,
the town's housing element
committed in program H6.2 2. C uh by the
end of 2025 to change the setback
requirements. The town is committed to
change uh from the nor the the current
50- foot requirement to the Woodside
Glenn's model uh with reduced setbacks.
It committed to do that by the end of
last year. The town is in violation
currently of its housing element
commitment to the state. And for the
town to then deny an exception that
allows a home to be built in general
conformity with that commitment.
I mean that that's a that's something to
be careful of. uh HCD, the housing and
community development department, has
authority to revoke uh housing element
compliance, which would subject the town
to the builder's remedy, meaning that
none of the local zoning standards apply
and people can build big buildings
basically wherever they want. Uh there
are there are major financial penalties,
monthly, massive financial penalties uh
that could apply loss of funds from the
state and there are a lot of bad things.
We don't we don't want the town to go
out of compliance with the housing
element. So I think for that reason it's
important to show the state that even if
the town has not complied with that
obligation by the date they said they
would, they're at least honoring it in
spirit with I think the first project to
come along to ask uh about that
qualification about that setback
requirement
beyond HCD even to the project
applicants to this family. If the
exception is not granted and the
requirement is you have to build on a
50-ft slope, you have to do massive
amounts of excavation and retaining
walls, you have to cut down significant
redwood trees and a significant number
of significant redwood trees. If that's
what the town is going to tell this
family tonight,
that is infeasible for them to build. If the town is going to tell them they
can't position their their parents'
home, the JADU, in a location that is
accessible to them with mobility
impairments, it's not a feasible
project. And the consequence of denying
a feasible a project, rendering it
infeasible in this way, is significant
financial penalties. If there were a
Housing Accountability Act lawsuit, we
would be looking at $50,000 per unit in
addition to the attorney's fees, which
would probably even dwarf that amount in
addition to the town's own attorney's
fees. Um, so it's, you know, it's it's
not an inconsequential thing. Um, again,
I appreciate staff has really grappled
with these issues and I think found a
good solution. Uh, we we do have some
issues with a couple of the conditions
which you'll hear from the applicant. Uh
but the project itself is a good one and
it is sensitively located to minimize
environmental impact and impact to the
neighbors. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
» Any other members of the team? Kristen
or David?
>> Hi Kristen. Welcome.
>> Yeah.
» Good evening Mayor and council members.
I'm afraid I left the blue hats at home
for the opposing team. I won't take too
much time to speak, particularly on the
technical and legal basis for our
appeal. Indeed, there is a tome of
documents that speaks to that rivaling
my organic chemistry textbook from
college in its length. Instead, I will
speak the same message that I began this
process with in 2019. Put simply, I want
to build a house for my family on my
property, and I want to build housing
for those who could not otherwise afford
to live in the area. The family who
intends to inhabit this house, hopefully
for many years to come, includes my
in-laws, John and Nan. We have all been
living together since 2020, building the
village that people talk about when it
comes time to raise a family. Elements
of the design are specifically there to
accommodate the mobility needs of my
family. They are not optional fat to be
trimmed off on the whims of neighbors.
The additional housing that we can build
is a way to keep valued members of the
community here. People who cannot afford
to purchase a property but nonetheless
are rooted here. Teachers, retirees,
craftsmen, people deserve the
opportunity for and the dignity of
housing. Furthermore, our inclusion of
those units was a response to the town's
directive to create housing through
ADUs, not condominiums.
Fundamentally, we come before the town
council to ask for relief, a difference
of approximately 20 ft from where the
building is cited. This makes no
material difference in how the building
appears from the road. A road which is
private,
which is owned by us, with only two
houses beyond. I find it astonishing
that a family house with additional
allowable units has garnered so much
ugliness and to be sure public comment
for this project might be best described
as a crucifixion in 26x.
The only project that has come before
the town's decision-making bodies for
building that has drawn more commentary
and public input has been Roberts and
Bucks. The burdens of proof put upon us
are magnitudes greater than any
equivalent project. I am grateful that
the council will hear this appeal
tonight examining the facts in front of
them. Denovo, thank you very much.
>> Thank you,
David.
Like the only one that has to adjust the
mic.
Council members, over the last 18
months, some have questioned my
character and others have raised
concerns about my ethics. Facts have been twisted. History has
been revised. Tonight, I ask you to
reflect on my record of service. Trust
is demonstrated through actions, not
just words.
I have taken the oath of office four
times.
to serve both our country and this town.
I have taken the oath of office three
times after 911, during Operation During
Freedom, most recently as a naval
officer.
I swore to serve witside with integrity,
fairness, and transparency, upholding
the general plan and ordinances.
Both both call for true faith and
allegiance, holding me to high standards
of honor and integrity.
I am guided by the Navy's core values,
honor, courage, and commitment. These
values inform all of my decisions and
actions. Sailors are accountable for
their actions and are expected to serve
with integrity, taking full
responsibility, and keeping their word.
That includes my promise of building a
house for Kristen on the property that
our family has owned for over 50 years.
We act in the nation's best interest,
upholding high standards and using
entrusted resources honestly and
efficiently.
My position requires a 10-year
background investigation and continuous
polygraphs.
I strive for positive change and
improvement. That's why I attended every
council hearing on the housing element
to understand the council's goals when
updating the general plan. Tonight, I
appear before you as someone who abides
by the Navy's core values and has earned
the Navy's trust and yours. This council
also unanimously selected me to serve
Woodside by appointing me to the ASRB.
This is who I am. My words and actions,
both here and elsewhere, show my
commitment to service, integrity, and
the trust you have placed in me.
So, trust the words I say and trust the
words of my team.
This project has evolved through
multiple conceptual reviews and design
updates over the past 18 months.
We began initially planning in early
2019 and submitted our first conceptual
review in 2020. Through ongoing
feedback, we updated the designs and
setbacks periodically, making the most
recent revisions in July 2025 to comply
with the town code, town goals, and
state law.
Unfortunately, by pushing the attach as
far back as possible while still staying
out of 35% slopes, we had to give up our
goal of not cutting down any healthy
significant redwood retreats.
Woodside is committed to meet state
housing requirements mainly through ADUs
as specified in the housing element. Our
project four units on 10 acres includes
two ADUs, one JADU aligns with the
town's preference with for low density
ADU focused growth.
I have firsthand experience with fire.
From my time as a volunteer firefighter
and from damage control training in the
Navy. While I was underway, there was a
fire on my ship.
Excuse me, my boat. I was a Submariner.
We are acutely aware of the fire danger
in the area, which is why we developed a
vegetation management plan independent
of this project in 2024 and have gone
above and beyond the requirements of
today's fires safe building code. As Jim
can attest, I have not budged on the
self-imposed requirements, including
exterior walls for the two-hour fire
rating and exterior fire sprinklers, a
system credited with saving over a dozen
homes in the Palisades fire.
Last September, I spoke about our
dedicated staff and noted that only four
positions pay at or above the county
median income for a family of four.
In both the Woodside and Molen Valley
school districts, the pay tables don't
even list the median family income. Many
town staff commute from places like San
Francisco and Half Moon Bay. Our son's
teacher drives in from Hayward every
single day.
If you review the minutes from our first
ASRB meeting hearing in 2020, you'll see
we always discuss bringing affordable
housing to Woodside through this
project. Our goal has always been to
provide homes for fixed income seniors
like my parents, teachers, first
responders, students, veterans, and
others who serve our community through a
missing middle housing project because
that's what this is. We specifically
designed two units to be accessible for
those with dis with with disabilities.
Our project is listed first as an
affordable housing pipeline project in
the housing element on page G10
adding two units of very lowincome
housing. This proposal achieves the
outcome described in the adopted housing
element. When the, as Kristen said, when
the town approved four ADUs on large
parcels, we included two more ADUs in
our master plan, which the ASB had
already approved in 2021
as we and we were preparing for formal
design review. We did this because we
felt it was our civic duty to help the
town achieve its housing goals through
ADUs rather than multifamily buildings.
Despite the approved part of the project
having no material changes, which is the
part ironically you are looking at for a
setback exception,
submitting the master plan for the
property as the town encourages started
a second conceptual review process over
a year ago. The detached ADUs are at
that we added aren't even up for
discussion since they are only part of
the application for ministerial review.
Unfortunately, when the town passed the
ordinance relaxing the downhill plate
height for ADUs on downhill slopes, we
did not we I include myself in that. I
was at those meetings did not account
for a split level structure with two
ADUs in the same footprint.
Something that is achievable on a
downhill slope while maintaining the
one-story uphill plate height. So to
eliminate the variance that that second
ADU would require, we removed it.
Ryan talked about the housing program
that we have failed to accomplish.
We are in this meeting today in 2026
because
we didn't do it and that delay has force
applicants like us to seek hearings like
this and relief that should already be
handled administratively.
Our project would comply with the town's
30-foot setback requirement for Woodside
Glenns, but it was not adopted in the
Western Hills promise.
There's a question about whether the HA
applies in a single family home. Staff
has an opinion. Ryan has an opinion with
a quote from the HCD technical advisory
in their FAQ section. Does the Housing
Accountability Act apply to an
application that includes both single
family resident residence and an
accessory dwelling unit? Yes, since an
application for both a single family
residence and an ADU includes more than
one residential unit, the HAA applies.
As such, it is protected from denial
unless a preponderance of evidence shows
that a specific adverse health or safety
impact cannot be mitigated, and there's
none that exists for our project.
Some have argued that our project does
not meet local objective standards
because the zoning code requires us to
request an exception. However, the
zoning code does not match the general
plan. In other words, it is not
vertically consistent with the general
plan, a situation considered in the
housing accountability act. Our housing
element calls for updating the western
hills outdated rules to align with the
Woodside Glenn template. Before
incorporation, the western hills were
subject to San Antonio County's much
more relaxed setback standards of 25
feet in the front, five feet on the
sides, and 20 feet in the back.
And that's why most of the Western Hill
properties don't meet today's standards,
including those in the vicinity of Still
Creek. These differences show
why vertical consistency in the housing
accountability act matters. Local
decisions much must match local policy.
housing goals and state law. This
protects the housing goals you set in
the general plan.
Our project is located on a private road
that we own and over which our neighbors
have easements. These properties, three
properties have rightway easements
across our land and building site, while
others have implied easements on parts
of Sopre Road that do not cross the
building site. And none of the HOA
members behind me have easements on that
road.
We have held multiple Zoom calls,
sitewalks, and kitchen meetings to
discuss the project with Still Creek
neighbors. Despite contrary claims, many
Skyrimacres neighbors have expressed
concern about this project. But those
concerns only emerged after our Steel
Creek neighbors determined, as quoted
from an ASRB meeting, that their private
forest should remain undisturbed.
Project opponents argue we should have
reached out to them because they reside
in the surrounding area. Yet, they
argued Skyward Acres wasn't the
surrounding area. At the planning
commission meeting,
the planning commission decided that the
surrounding area consisted only of the
homes on the parcel map for Still Creek
Road, not all those in Skyward acres.
But this is the first time across the
entire 17-year record of the current way
we grant setback resolutions that a
project was redefined
based on the recorded parcel map as a
reference to exclude identically zone
adjacent lots. the first time.
If the planning commission had accepted
the surrounding area encompassed by
Skyward Acres as it as it has
historically by looking at properties
within a quarter mile radius, Finding 1C
would have been supported by the pattern
of development as many of the homes in
Skyward Acres do not comply with the
current 5ft setback requirements because
they were built when they were part of
the county.
But looking at Steel Creek on its own,
every house has some nonconformity,
whether it's setbacks, slopes, or
variances. 105 Sunrise, three Still
Creek, 35 Steel Creek, and 95 Skyward
all have setbacks that are less than 50
ft. 95 Skyward is built in the slopes
greater than 50% slope.
I never found the variance for that.
Seven and 45 Still Creek have driveway
exceptions and 45 Still Creek was built
on an active landslide.
Our request is consistent with
long-standing precedent in the area. The
question before you is simple. Are we
entitled to build our house in the front
step? Are we entitled to some relief for
our challenging lot like our neighbors
have enjoyed relief? It's a question of
entitlements. It's that simple.
Given all this, denying our project over
setbacks would be unfair and counter to
the goals of the housing element that we
set in our housing element. Our proposal
fits the neighborhood is supported by
the housing element and request relief
only for setbacks. If the town had
already updated setback standards as
planned as promised to HCD, no exception
would be needed.
This room behind
the crowd behind me reminds me of the
crowd that you had during the housing
element and the upzoning meetings we had
for the three high density areas in
town. As a veteran and current naval
officer, I have always looked for ways
to serve our community as a civilian.
Tonight, our shared mission is to turn
the town's housing vision into action.
This project fulfills those values and
advances our commitment to the public
and the state. I urge you to stand by
your promises and approve this project
tonight and allow us to provide much
needed housing for our community.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, David.
Does that conclude? Okay. Thank you. Uh
any questions for the appellent?
» Sir,
>> this one is for um Mr. Patterson. Thank
you for your presentation. and it was uh
very helpful.
>> Um can you go over the um
the state ADU and setback you you had
referenced it there that some new and
it's highly relevant to this project of
course. Could you go through that again?
I want to make sure I heard you
correctly.
>> So
» thank you. I'm not that tall. Uh thank
you. Yes. I I believe I mentioned that
state ADU law has gotten more and more
restrictive over the last few years. Um
specifically with regard to setbacks, it
is a 4-foot setback side and rear
setback. Uh towns are not allowed to
require greater than a 4ft setback. U
and that's that's the law on ADUs.
So talk. So how so okay and obviously in
this particular case it's greater than
four feet this the setback. So is that
the position you're standing on on this
one? I mean there's other rationale that
you've mentioned too.
>> Right. Well there there are a number of
different reasons why uh the applicant
is entitled to a setback exception. Uh
but as it relates to ADUs uh those
setbacks should not apply at all. So it should be a 4 foot setback
requirement.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah. Thank you.
>> I wondered if I had heard it correctly
and I did. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Any other questions?
>> Just one technical one. Uh for me, how wide is the uh the front ADU uh the
main ADU along Still Creek Road and
trying to think about that relative to
the side the length of the property
line.
trying to think of the relative
encroachment if you will. Uh
>> give me one second.
>> I'm sorry to probably should have
>> the length of the length.
>> Yeah, length.
>> I can give you that, David.
>> Perfect. Shame down to it.
>> Yeah. So, give me one second here.
So the length of that ADU overall length
is
um
48 foot 9 in
um
from left from uh east to west.
Yeah.
>> So
>> and would you would you happen to know
the length of the property line along
Still Creek? Well, the overall length of
the property line on Steel Creek, I can
give you a general feel for the length
of that. Um, hold on a second. Let me
just get to the right file here or the
right spot.
Uh, overall that dimension across there
is about 422 feet.
>> Okay,
>> it's actually longer than that, but that
that's a straight shot. Um, left to uh
east uh west to east 422 ft.
>> Okay. Yes,
>> Jim. Does that include the panhandle
road frontage?
» Oh, you mean all the way up the road?
No, that doesn't include that. That's
just the that's just the main part of
the lot.
>> Okay. Other questions?
Um, and just just out of curiosity, um,
if if you were to be pushed back to the
50 ft, the grading, the tree removal,
the retention wall, the design cost,
what do you have a general sense for
what that what is the cost in in in
dollars and time? Would you have a sense
for that?
Maybe I'm looking at you, Jim, probably
as the expert.
>> Okay. Um,
well, it's multiple tens of thousands of
dollars. Um, not to mention the fact
that we lose uh trees that we will never
recover, obviously. Um and uh and you
know and we're you know philosophically
we're we're you know we're kind of
destroying parts of the site that we we
would we would prefer to um to preserve.
>> Um so but yeah I mean it would be you
know in in the upper tens of thousands
of dollars I'm sure.
>> Okay.
>> Well there's a better estimate.
>> Okay.
Um yeah, as as a a engineering geologist
who gets who's involved in construction
quite a bit, considering uh 14t
retaining walls, all the extra cubic
yardage, the trees, everything else,
there's always a wide range, but the
number that came to me would be $250,000
because
>> these tall retainable walls get very expensive.
>> Right. Okay.
>> Thanks, Charles.
Architects always underestimate.
» Good moment of levity. Uh any other any
other questions from uh councel?
Okay. Thank you. Um so we're going to
move to public comment and we all did
have a chance to watch the planning
commission meeting. Uh and we understand
that there's an accepted parliamentary
procedure that you'll be using tonight
to sequentially link your argument. And
uh we have been told that we will be
honoring that tonight. Um the only rule
that we have is that you can seed your
time to the next person, but it it
doesn't aggregate. So uh you can give
the time you have left to the next
person, but there's no sort of
aggregation at the end, if you will, to
say we still have 12 minutes or
something. We're going to try our best
to keep up with what's going on. Um, and
also we've received literally hundreds
of pages in the last 24 hours and a lot
of it in the last two hours. So if
you've submitted a comment, we want to
hear from you tonight. So make sure that
you do speak to this tonight if you have
if you're one of the many people that
have submitted from that that book. And
um the other thing we're going to do
just before we start, we're going to go
to the Zoom room first because we know
when we start the sequential thing, it's
going to be like an hour long. So, um,
we do have one hand raised in the Zoom
room. So, uh, Jordan Grimes. We're going
to ask if you'd like to make a comment.
>> Oh, great. Thank you so much. Uh, good
evening everyone. My name is Jordan
Grimes. I'm a member of Peninsula for
everyone. We are a, uh, grassroots
housing advocacy group here, uh, in Sano
and Santa Clara County. We wanted to
speak in support of the project this
evening. Um, I think the project
applicants did a tremendous job of
articulating the benefits of the project
and and the concerns. Um, sort of
dispelling the the issues around it. Um,
I guess I'll just say this. Woodside has quite obviously been in the news uh
a lot over the last couple years uh with
regard to housing, particularly around
the housing element, uh particularly
around uh its creative interpretations
of state law and how it applies to the
town. Um I, you know, would suggest
that you maybe not take the path that
you have pursued previously.
um in creatively interpreting state law.
I think the law pretty clearly here uh
allows this project. Um the housing
accountability act is is clear. Uh the
ADU laws are clear. Um and
it would be it would behoove you not to
challenge um uh the effectiveness and
the applicability of state laws the way
that you have in the past. um they do
apply. Uh they, you know, there's nothing that would preclude them
from applying in the town of Woodside.
Um I also just want to say as a lifelong
resident of this county, um and as
someone who will never ever be able to
afford to live in Woodside, um you have
people that you need uh who cannot
afford to live in your town. You have
teachers, uh you have store clerks, uh
you have many other people who will
never be able to afford to live in Woodb
um if not for projects like this that
provide units uh that would allow them
to do so. Um when you choose not to
build housing for those people, you put
that burden directly on nearby
communities like Redwood City, San
Mateo, uh Menllo Park, etc. Um, I would
encourage you to do your duty to do what
I think all of you know is right um and
approve the project uh and allow more
people to live in Woodside. Thank you so
much for your time.
>> Okay, thank you Jordan. Any other
comments from the Zoom room before we go
to Independence Hall for the a bit?
Okay, seeing none, uh we are open for
public comment at Independence Hall.
» Good evening. Welcome.
>> Uh my name is Bruce Bastl
and uh I my wife and I, Patricia, live
at uh 105 Sunrise Drive at the
intersection of Still Creek. We have for
50 years and we count on u uh Kristen's
mom and dad as friends and neighbors. Uh
I'm
transmitting to you uh some comments
from a concerned neighbor specifically
related to the recent submissions that
you have here. So
the comments are good evening before the
council reaches the merits we need to
make a process record. Applicants have
submitted 342 pages today. If I can
repeat that applicant has res submitted
342 pages today literally on the day of
the hearing. After 5 years of
proceedings that kind of lastm minute
filing is not fair process. It
deprivives the public, the neighbors,
and frankly the council itself from
meaningful opportunity to review and
respond. We would like a decision
tonight. Let me be clear about that.
More than 50 families have lived under
this dispute for years. We are entitled
not only to finality, but to a response.
The current design remains
non-compliant, dangerous, and
unresolved. It continues to threaten our
safety, our neighborhood, and even the
insurability of our homes. So, we are
not asking for delay as a tactic. But
finality must be fair finality.
If the council cannot disregard the
applicant's last minute filing or
determine that it does not change the
required findings, then the council
should proceed tonight. affirm the
planning commission and deny the appeal.
But if the council members believe the
applicant's 342page
submission may matter or believes it
must be digested before deciding, then
fairness requires a continuence. The
public cannot be ambushed on the day of
the hearing and then told that its
silence or incomplete response means the
new material is accepted. The code
requires the council to decide whether
every required finding can be made. That
decision should be based on a fair
record, not a document dump at the last
minute. So our position is
straightforward. Decide tonight if the
council can do so on the existing record
and deny the appeal, but do not reward
the applicant's ambush by re relying on
same day materials and the community has
had no meaningful chance to review. If
the town proceeds while crediting these
materials, it should be clear in the
record that the public was denied a fair
opportunity to respond. Thank you for
your consideration.
>> Thank you.
For the record, is that from David
Madrid?
That letter?
>> No.
>> Who's who's the letter from that you're
reading?
>> Yeah.
David M.
>> Yeah, that's a thought. Okay, thank you.
» Yes, John.
>> Yeah, go on,
>> please.
» Thank you. Can you hear me? Okay.
>> Yes.
>> My name is Joan Maine and I live at
Seven Still Creek.
We are not here tonight, nor is anyone
here with a yellow hat on or not, to ask
you to deny housing or deny ADUs or even
for the right to Kristen and David to
build on their on their property. We
know that is the case and we support
that. Here's what we are asking. There
are more than 60 individuals in this
neighborhood now who are concerned about
the same things we'll present tonight.
We ask that you in fact ask the
applicants to follow the same codes we
all are not only asked to follow but
embrace as residents of Woodside. We are
here because we love Woodside. It's a
special and unique place. So is Still
Creek. Still Creek is a very special
place.
Now, why are we here? Over five years of
review, the ASRB found the applicants
did not adequately address their
recommendations.
The planning commission agreed.
I supported this at the ASRB in 2020 or
2021
before all the differences were made to
the project and the exceptions were
required.
So each failed finding is important.
Even one is a requirement for denial.
Tonight, an experienced forensic
architect and a wildland urban interface
fire expert will present their
independent conclusions and a Stanford
geoysicist's findings will be shared.
Point one, there are feasible conforming
options.
Perhaps they'd have to make something a
little smaller.
That's an option. That's not what
architect French will present because we
didn't ask that he redesign their
project. We asked the simple question,
can this be made to conform with the
50-foot setbacks and the town's code?
Point two, these same code and policies
that were asked to follow ask all of us
to subordinate our projects to our land.
The land in question is fragile.
Point three, the site sits on
geologically unstable land and we will
share the fire experts findings of the
implications of the setback. Point four,
we believe the law allows you to do this
because of public danger. I'm running
out of time, so let me finish and say
thank you very much for your time. We do
not ask you to deni deny housing. We do
not ask you to deny ADUs. We ask you to
support the decisions of the planning
commission.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Sorry to go over.
>> That's okay. Thank you. Well,
>> really you're trying hard.
>> I appreciate it. Yeah.
No.
>> And also just a just a minor point, but
just if the comments can be directed to
council and not to anyone else in the
room, that would be appreciated.
» Good evening, Mayor Donowski and council
members. My name is Hance Mine and I
live at Seven Still Creek Road. I'd like
to introduce Adam French, an experienced
local architect with over 30 years of
experience. He's a member of the
American Institute of Architects and
holds certification from the National
Council of Architectural Registration
Boards. His practice includes
conception, detailing, coordination, and
construction of structures as well as
forensic architecture and ex expert
witness testimony. He has been retained
to investigate construction defects,
premises liability incidents, property
damage, and code compliance issues. He
will address one of the key elements
related to the propo proposed plans at
Ten Still Creek, the feasible that
feasible conforming alternatives exist.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Adam.
>> So, you're seating your time to Adam. 2
minutes 18 seconds.
» Welcome. Good evening, Mayor Dumbowski
and council members. My name is Adam
French. I'm an architect AIA and ENARB
certified and I prepared uh what is
referred to as attachment A. That would
be my report. Conforming alternatives
exist for this site and I'm here to tell
you tonight about that. I developed
alternatives using the applicant's
drawings. I did not need to invent
anything new. Based on the applicant's
drawings, I identified feasible options
that comply with Woodside's 50-foot
setback requirements.
The applicant's central claim is that
the site's topography necessitates
encroachments into the setback. It does
not. The proposed encroachments are not
unavoidable site constraints. They are
design choices. When a preferred design
fits only by violating the setback
rules, the design must yield to the
code. The code does not have to yield to
the design. The applicant has not
justified the requested exception. The
record contains no comparative analysis
study, no infeasibility analysis, no
cost documentation.
You cannot claim compliance is
impossible without showing the numbers.
Assertion is not evidence. My report
also raises a material question
regarding the floor area calculations
for the lower level of ADU number two,
which must be resolved before any
maximum resident size exception can be
granted. I'm not here to say the
applicant can't build. The applicant can
build. I'm here to show you that the
applicant can build within the required
setbacks using the feasible options I've
developed in my report. The required
findings cannot be made because feasible
options do exist. The site has limited
capacity. The proposed design exceeds
it. Applicants have not shown and cannot
show that compliance is infeasible. And
for those reasons, I respectfully
recommend the council deny the appeal
and require a conforming design. Now,
there's been a few things that have
happened since this morning or the big
binder that we all got. We're not I'm
not here saying you can't build
anything. What I'm here saying is that
after following the planning director's
recommendations for years that the
findings can't be made, that all of a
sudden the applicant shows up and pushes
an example into a grove of redwoods. And
that's not the case. I didn't come here
to draw all five findings mysteriously
unable to be proven all in one go. So I
request that you take a look at my
report the way that I've drawn the
buildings redesign move back into the
setback and I believe that you'll find
that they do comply with the existing
rules without the need for any
exceptions or special pleading or moving
the goalposts.
>> Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
Hi. Uh, good evening, Mayor Dumbowski.
Uh,
>> we can just go with mayor the rest of
the night. Don't worry about it. Mayor's
and the rest of the council members. My
name is Terry Bronstein. Terry
Bronstein. And I've lived at 150 Sunrise
Drive adjacent uh to this area for 47
years. For most of those years, I have
regularly walked Still Creek Road. It's
the road to the redwoods. In fact,
that's where the redwoods start. Um,
what I see as I walk down that road
today is a mass of yellowtory poles. How
many of you have actually seen the site,
gone to the physical site?
You've all gone. Okay. then you know
that what we have shown uh as as
drawings just a few minutes ago of the
site don't resemble the actual site
among other things the site is the the
drawings are obscured by heavy shade
there is no shade the trees are gone
you've just heard architect French's ex
expert testimony that conform conforming
alternatives exist the al the applicants
have had 5 years to pursue them. They
have said no. Their design is a personal
preference to to actually to imitate the
architecture of 95 Skywood. Uh not the
only option the site allows. The their
latest um rationale
um for refusing to comply is they cannot
move the attached ADU without removing a
protected redwood tree. That statement
is extremely disingenuous. Why? Because
in August 2024, the applicants received
a permit to remove some dead and dying
trees uh on the site. They also
requested approval for 26 additional
trees to be removed and I'm quoting
directly from their application
facilitate the site's future
development. that tree removal permit
conditioned no development related trees
shall be removed without an issued
building permit.
Okay. They weren't allowed to cut down
any more trees. However, 3 months later
in November 2024,
a logging crew removed more than 40
trees, including numerous large, healthy
redwood trees. That's why there's no
shade.
exactly where the applicants plan to
build the main residence and the garage
and tower and the JADU and the elevated
bridge and all the rest. That permit
condition has not been met. That was
actually an act of disrespect
intentional.
When asked, the applicants told the ASRB
it was a spontaneous neighborly gesture
to remove fire risk for the neighbors,
but no neighbors home is anywhere near
this.
The properties are large. They're
measured in acres, not feet. They all
have dense redwood forests on their own
land, thousands of trees. Um, the
applicants themselves have most of the
Anyway,
>> yes.
>> Um, that's just not credible. 10 months
later at the November 25,
>> we got we got we got to hold you to the
unfortunately. I'm sorry.
>> It's the laws, but I I appreciate it. We
know where you're going. My name is AJ
Cost. I live at 130 Sunrise Drive.
>> Yes.
>> And I'd like to relinquish my time to
Terry said.
>> There you go.
>> Thank you.
>> So articulate.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> Hard.
>> Yep.
So, uh, 10 months later at the November
25 ASRB meeting, applicant submission
stated the project would preserve all
existing trees on the site after the
unauthorized removal had already taken
place. It's actually disrespect.
This afternoon, hours before the
hearing, too little time to even begin
to read the 342 pages, the applicants
offered a third justification for the
same tree removal, coordination with the
Woodside Fire Protection District. In
2024, their permit application cited
future development. At the ASRB, they
cited neighborly concern for fire risk.
This afternoon, it's the fire district
coordination. There are three different
justifications,
three occasions, each one different from
the last. Which one's true?
The required findings cannot be made on
a record built of misrepresentation.
I ask the council to deny the setback
exception, deny the maximum resident
size exception, and hold the planning
commission's decision and uphold the
rest of this this Woodside government
that supports you.
Thank you.
Anyone else in Independence Hall? All
right.
» Good evening, Mayor and Council members.
Um, I'm Art Mirror. I live at 70 Skywood
Way and I'm the team Firewise team lead
for Skywood Acres. And tonight, I'd like
to introduce Mr. Keith Parker. He's a
forensic fire expert, a wildland uh
urban interface fire expert, and he's
the founder of Parker Fire Services
Consulting. He's a uh retired fire
marshall from Marin County uh with 33
years of service and his firm has
investigated over 300 fires including
the campfire and the Maui wildfires. He
was retained by the Still Creek Road
residents uh to assess the project's
fire and safety uh implications. And
having read his report, I share his
concerns about the fire danger that this
project poses to our broader community.
For those of you who want to know where
his report is, it's it's attachment B in
your your desk packet. And uh I would
like to turn the rest of my balance of
time over to Mr. Parker.
Good evening, mayor and and council
members. Um, my name is Keith Parker. I
founded Parker Fire Services Consulting
and I primarily do forensic fire
investigations and I'm also a forensic
researcher in the wildland uh fires and
investigations.
As mentioned, I uh my 33y year career, I
spent five years as a county fire
marshal. I'm familiar with all the
issues that are being raised here and I
understand this is a very emotional
issue for all the parties involved and
what I hope to bring is some independent
um observations and thoughts that my
training and education and experiences
uh have allowed me to analyze in this in
this situation and I understand that the
council is getting a lot of advice on
what they must do. I'm not going to do
that. I understand that you're trying to
reach a balance here and it's very
difficult uh in a situation like this.
So when I look at projects like this,
when I start evaluating them, I often
look at it from the point of view I'm on
my fire engine responding to emergency
and I'm getting off the fire engine.
What is being presented to me from this
project? What does this add to the
complexities of a incident?
My report is probably a little overly
detailed. It's fairly lengthy and I went
into all these issues in depth. So, just
to summarize, there's really three key
areas of concern here. One is is that
there's four independent parking spaces.
And by that, I mean, if you look at the
plans, there's only four spaces that you
can park off the road that are
guaranteed you can get your car and
leave. All the rest are dependent upon
those four spaces being um vacated to be
able to egress. My experience is is that
things such as parties, whether it's a
summer party, holiday party, you're
going to end up with people parking on
the street. And I don't think anybody
doubts the fact that that street cannot
support uh vehicles parked along the
sides of the road and still provide for
emergency access. This is not just a
fire issue. This is an issue that arises
all the time in these types of areas.
for a simple emergency medical aid where
you can't get through, you have to get
out and walk to the houses past and then
it also forces you to back to a point to
turn around.
Um such a large project will also
increase the complexities of uh fire
attack both initial structure and
wildland fire attack and it will also um
impact the ability to evacuate people
and get emergency
uh response into an area should a
wildfire a significant wildfire move
through the area.
um the changes that result from this
essentially large uh development on a
very small 4500 to 7200 square foot um
project. I'm sorry. Is that
>> No, you still have two minutes. Keep
going.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay.
Um
so below the below grade structure also
is close enough to the road that if it's
involved in fire is likely going to
block the road from the thermal effects
of the fire.
So we and the fire service had known
since the 1980s we started talking about
what we call the expansion into the
urban wildland and we knew these
problems were coming and we really saw
it come to fruition in 1991 in the
Oakland Hills and in the decades since
then we've seen the problem explode to
where we're at today.
The in this particular area we're
looking at some really severe
circumstances. We've already talked
about how steep the terrain is. There's
a major drainage that runs up to the
street and then as it moves forward it
splits into three drainages going up to
the communities above. We also have had
fire exclusion, no fire through the area
that and the logging and poor logging
practices that have allowed for a
massive accumulation of fire fuels. So
our redwood forest is very significantly
altered in the area. And then we have
climate pattern changes that are
providing for longer periods of hot dry
weather that are increasing our numbers
of days when we can have severe fire um
conditions.
So
there's there's really no reasonable
claim. This is not an extreme or very
high fire hazard area and this isn't the
average place that we need to look at
mitigating these fire threats.
um granting the setback exceptions are
definitely going to make any kind of
mitigations very difficult if not
impossible for um many of the reasons
I've been talking about. But one of the
most significant ones is the parking,
the closeness of a burning structure to
the road. And the third would be the
inability to have enough room to create
adequate defensible space to both
prevent transition of a fire from the
structure into the wildland and also
support
>> uh
>> like that's it.
>> Fire protection.
>> I lost my Is that it?
>> That's it. Unless unless we have a
parliamentary
>> folks. Good evening. I'm Vivian Sham at
90 Stylers Way on many for much
appreciation for everyone being here
tonight. I seed my time to Mr. Keith
Barber.
>> Okay.
Thank you very much. I'm not going to
need much. I'm sorry. I lost the the
clock dropped up there, so I I lost
that. Um, just listening to some of the
other comments I think is really
important here is we're talking about
the only alternative is to grant these
uh exceptions to setback rules, but the
other possibility is downsizing the
totality of the project to work into it.
At the end of the day, what we're
really talking about here is we're
trying to squeeze a seven pound loaf
into a 5B bread box. And that causes a
lot of challenges that, as I've talked
about and are detailed in the report
regarding the the specific fire, life
safety hazards that a project that's
really oversized for the footprint
available to build on this property. And
I'll be staying I'll be here through the
meeting. If you have if anybody has any
questions, I'd obviously be happy to
answer them for you.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Burgerer.
» Good evening, mayor and council members.
Uh, my name is Jendi Sue and I live at
45 Sto Creek Road at the end of the
culde-sac. U, my husband, Aaron, and I
have one way out. To evacuate, we must
pass directly in front of 10 Steel Creek
Road and reach the Skywood Way, Sunrise
Drive, Still Creek Road intersection.
That is our only exit. It's everyone's
only exit who lives on that road. One of
the required funding findings before
this council is that the proposed
project will not create significant
public health and safety risks. That
finding cannot be made and we know this
in part because applicants themselves
have already admitted it. Applicants
have acknowledged in their own
submissions that this project would
create substantially increased traffic
affecting not just Skil not just Still
Creek Road but the surrounding Skywood
area. Those are their words, not ours.
Consider what that means. Still Creek
Road is a narrow private road 18 feet or
less in many locations. It is the sole
access point for the proposed
development.
It already fails three mandatory
statewide fire access standards, lane
width, loadbearing capacity, and
turnaround diameter. The town has
refused to accept it as a public road
for more than 50 years precisely because
of these constraints.
Now applicants propose to add four
structures and up to 20 parking spaces
where none currently exist. More
vehicles, more residents, more
evacuation demand on a road that already
cannot meet minimum safety standards.
Every additional vehicle from this
development is one more obstacle between
my family and every Skywood family and
safety.
Every additional second of delay matters
when fire moves upheld through chimney
terrain.
The road cannot be widened by a permit
condition. Its load rating cannot be
improved by a condition. A second access
point cannot be created by a condition.
The public safety finding cannot be
made. I ask the council to deny this
appeal. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Well, nobody in the Zoom room with a
question. So, welcome, sir.
>> Uh, good evening, mayor and council
members. Uh, my name is Royal Copro and
I live at 35 Still Creek Road. Let me
bring the mic up for you just for the
people online.
>> How's that?
>> Perfect.
>> I live at 35 Still Creek Road. Um I'm
presenting on behalf of Simon Cleer
who's a professor of geoysics at
Stanford University. He apologizes that he cannot be here
tonight. He has a prior commitment for a
lecture at Cambridge. Uh Professor Cler
has lived at three Still Creek Road
across from this site for 25 years. His
analysis is documented in attachment C
and it identifies three overlapping
geological hazards. First, the proposing
the proposed building footprint sits
directly on active and dormant landslide
deposits. The town's own general plan
acknowledges that these deposits can be
reactivated under present conditions.
Second, the United States Geological
Survey maps the Pillar's fault running
directly through the project site. Dr.
Clamper has personally observed repeated
ruptures of buried water pipes at the
fault crossing, indicators of ongoing
fault creek. The applicant proposes to
build on and across this fault. Third,
the site has limited carrying capacity.
The proposed 4-unit compound exceeds it.
Findings four and five cannot be made
for these reasons. Still Creek Road is a
private road. The town is repeated, as
we've heard, the town has repeatedly
declined to accept it as public. The co
the town's own subdivision code WMC
152.005
and following requires that roads um
serving developments be physically
suitable, protect against geological
hazards and support fire protection and
safety equipment access and the roads
capacity is limited in those respects.
The town's refusal reflects both those
fa physical and safety standards, not
just a fiscal preference alone. A road
failure on this stretch cost hundreds of
thousands of dollars to repair just over
seven years ago. And yet the same steep
channels continue to carry water and
debris across and down this hillside
feeding under the road through drainage
culverts and into Alen Beak Creek. In
the last seven years, there have been
repeated debris flows um from the
hillside which have blocked culverts and
threatened the road stability. This
demonstrates the land's carrying
capacity and it's the same land where
the applicant proposes to build a 4-unit
compound. I respect I respectfully ask
that you deny this proposal. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Yes, sir.
Good evening. Uh my name is Aaron Amy.
Uh I live with my wife Ji Sue at 45 Soul
Creek Road. You've now heard from
architects, fire investigators,
geoysicists, and neighbors. Uh the
record before you is clear. I just want
to address two more topics uh for your
consideration. Um the staff uh issued
recommendations on the eve of this uh of
this hearing uh approximately 6 months
after the planning commission's uh
denial. Um those recommendations deserve
some mention and some scrutiny. Um when
staff prepared their report, they did
not have the expert findings uh that are
now before this council. They didn't
have architect French's demonstration
that conforming alternatives exist. They
were unaware of the fire safety hazards
identified by fire fire marshal Parker.
Uh and they did not have Professor
Clumper's uh geological hazard
testimony. Uh the expert record now
before you directly repeatedly and
authoritatively contradicts uh the
staff's conclusion. Uh as you know uh
staff's recommendations are advisory.
The ASRB and the planning commission are
the townmandated citizen bodies
specifically charged with this review.
Both uh including the one that Mr.
middleman serves on uh conducted
thorough independent reviews and both
reached the same conclusion uh that the
application should be denied. Uh their
work deserves greater weight than a
staff report based on incomplete
information uh as do the expert analyses
uh that staff uh did not consider uh
because they didn't have them. Second,
the state law. Uh applicants have cited
multiple state housing statutes as if
they compel approval and even
helicoptered in a couple of lawyers to
issue threats and and uh try to bully uh
to you. I trust that you're not swayed
by that kind of behavior. Um
and and also that you would consider the
liability that would be created um by
increasing uh the development on Silk
Creek Road beyond its its carry-in
capacity. Um,
you heard from the the the town attorney
uh that this is not uh falling under
HAA. Uh, but even if it was, uh,
California's HAA allows denial where
expert evidence documents specific
public health and safety impacts based
on objective written standards. Fire
Marshall Parker's expert report does
exactly that, documenting three specific
fire access failures against three
objective mandatory written standards. I
agree with staff's assessment that
applicants arguments uh on this subject
have no merit. Um they're requesting
discretionary exceptions to approve
their non-compliant design choices
despite the existence of compliant
alternatives. Um the law gives the
authority to say no and the record gives
you ample reason to. Uh denying this
appeal does not prevent applicants from
building. They can still build a home
with ADUs at 10 Still Creek Road within
the required setbacks within the code
consistent with ASRB guidelines and
without special treatment like every
other Woodside resident. 5 years of ASRB
review, a recommendation to deny,
planning commission denial, three
independent expert reports, serious
safety concerns, a community unified in
opposition, state law that preserves
this council's authority, the record
supports denial, the law supports
denial, and we respectfully ask you to
deny this appeal. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Lifeline not needed.
>> Um, other comments.
Yes, sir.
» Hi.
>> How's this?
It's great. Does that work?
>> Big rocks and little rocks. Perfect.
Three points today. First, Woodside was
incorporated in 1956 for one reason, to
preserve our character. Central to that
character is a culture of volunteerism,
citizen- le government, and a basic code
of trust, even when we disagree.
Three of you, three of you have had your
personal and professional lives appended
this year. In Teddy Roosevelt's words,
the credit belongs to the man or the
woman who is actually in the arena.
whose face is marred by dust and sweat
and blood. Who at the worst if he or she
fails at least fails while daring while
daring greatly so that his or her place
shall never be with those cold and timid
souls who neither know victory nor
defeat. What happened to you is an
aberration of our culture.
I'm sorry for the sleepless nights and
the personal and professional anguish
you have endured. That is the burden of
volunteerism and leadership.
Thank you for your service and please
don't be deterred by the arrows from the
folks in the seats. This case Ten Still
Creek
has also been inconsistent with our
culture. In 2023, I was asked by Mr.
Middleman to secure In 2023, I was asked
by Mr. Middleman to secure planning
commission votes in the applicant's
favor.
When that failed after the planning
commission vote, I w a ethics complaint
was filed publicly against me by the
middleman's. I suggest you read the
ethics complaint and its findings to get
an idea for the applicant's ethics.
And most recently, we were all served
with public records request, a clear
signal that honey wasn't working and
vinegar was coming from Costco.
And today you heard a litany of threats
that the town would be subjected against
by their attorney who has litigated the
most cases ever in the state of
California.
This comes down to one thing, character.
Cave in bullying becomes an acceptable
way to do business in this town. Today
the applicant's making a bet and the bet
is that with everything the town has
gone through this year, the town does
not want a lawsuit.
So their application will be granted.
My second point, the applicant has had
every advantage.
State density mandates, full planning
department support, unlimited
presentation time. You've witnessed it
today,
and the full win behind their backs at
every point. Yet they cannot get a
favorable vote. Why?
because demanding a variance while
making zero effort
to work with the affected neighbors
and and the more time goes by doubling
down on threats at every turn.
Let me repeat that.
>> We got just do the parliamentary thing
here for a second, Alex.
>> Please. Thank you.
>> Um good evening. My name is Barbara
Costa and I would like I live at um 130
Sunrise Drive and I would like to donate
my time. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> I'm going to repeat this again. The
applicant has had every advantage, state
density mandates, full planning
department support, unlimited
presentation time every time, and full
win behind their backs at every point.
Yet, they cannot get a favorable vote.
Why? Look at the yellow caps here. Zero
input into this project and at every
turn doubling down on threats.
Exhibit A myself.
Third, let's be clear about one thing.
No one is denying their right to build.
No one is suppressing housing units.
We are denying a variance request.
They can revise their plans. They can
stay within their building envelope
and still get everything they need.
The message in this room is
unmistakable.
Vote our way and we'll vote our way or
we'll sue.
You've heard the many disguised threats
tonight
and you've been subjected to these
disguised threats earlier this year.
Vote our way or we'll sue.
That's who we are. No,
I did not serve in the armed forces. I
became a US citizen.
And for everybody that knows me, I am a
representation of what America is.
We deserve better.
Thank you.
Alex.
No need for Yes, sir. Welcome.
Where's the
» My name is Jeffrey Pel. I grew up here
and have lived just up the street on
Miramontes Road for over 20 years,
almost my whole life.
But it's like this that makes me
embarrassed to say that I'm from
Woodside because we have shown ourselves
to consistently be part of the problem,
not the solution. We are the town that
tried to declare itself a mountain lion
sanctuary to get out of building housing
in a housing crisis. That is who we are
to the rest of California.
This project is the top pipeline project
in our housing element. And a no vote
here is the sort of thing that gets
elements descertified and cities
subjected to builder's remedy. But more
importantly, to deny this project is to
harm someone for the benefit of almost
no one. I've never needed to drive down
Still Creek Road. And the same is
probably true for the vast majority of
other residents in town. You've heard
from a lot of people who claim that the
project would be unsafe, impinge on
their privacy, and so on and so forth.
Some of the arguments given tonight
would apply equally well to any house
anywhere. In reality, the cost we're
struggling with is that a small handful
of neighbors would be subjected to the
occasional and brief view while driving
of a house. If they wanted that land to
stay empty, any of them could have made
an offer. As far as I'm aware, they
didn't. Instead, they're trying to abuse
the machinery of government to assert a
property right over land that isn't
theirs. That is not what the planning
process is for. That's not what
government is for. And I don't believe
this council should reward it. Time is
money for the applicants as well as for
the Peninsula Housing Market as a whole.
To vote no tonight would be to continue
to impose an unjust loss on a family
with their roots here, like myself, like
many others here, who wants to raise
their kids here, like many others in
this room, who've been dragged through a
Kafka-esque nightmare of our own
creation for years for trying. Building
houses is not contrary to the character
of the town. Those who do vote no should
be ashamed. This is not a difficult
decision. I ask the council to do the
right thing, accept staff's
recommendation, and approve the project.
Thank you.
Jeffrey.
Others.
Okay. Well, nobody has got there.
Anybody on? There we go. Uh,
wonderful suggestion. Thank you. Uh,
Caroline Caroline, welcome.
>> Hi. Yes. Thank you. I'm here to speak in
support of the applicant and the
proposed project at 10 Still Creek. My
name is Caroline New. I'm Kristen's
sister. I'm also a resident of Woodside.
As you've heard, Kristen and David, my
brother-in-law, have been pursuing this
project for 5 and a half years on land
that our dad purchased in the 70s.
And they intend to build this
multi-generational residence and provide
affordable housing to help satisfy
Woodside's housing element. As was just
mentioned in the town's certified
housing element plan for 2023 to 2031,
this property 10 Still Creek is listed
as the first pipeline project on that
chart. The proposed building site lies
on 2/10 of an acre of the 9.6 acre
property located among hundreds of
redwood trees with no neighbors in
sight. Our neighbors have expressed
concerns in the past that have not been
said out loud tonight. During previous
town meetings, neighbors voiced their
concerns about who would be living in
the affordable housing units, saying the
project doesn't belong in, is not
appropriate for Woodside, and describing
it as an apartment complex.
This is elitism and classism at best,
discrimination at worst.
As a reminder, in 2021, the ASRB
approved the application to proceed to
formal design review, but when Kristen
and David decided to add a third ADU to
house an additional community member, it
had to go back to square one.
We've seen that many neighboring
properties in Skywood Acres have at
least one setback that does not match
the town of Woodid's current zoning
because the neighborhood was annexed
into Woodside
um decades ago and until that point
setbacks were under the purview of the
county which did allow for setbacks of
25 ft in the front. So increasing the
setback, not granting this exception
that they've requested.
If they were to go back to the drawing
board and redesign has been suggested,
increasing that setback would require
more excavation to level the hill,
increase the number of trees that need
to be removed. And Kristen and David,
but especially Kristen, has always
wanted to respect the woods, the natural
terrain, and disturb the land as little
as possible because she respects this
land more than anyone I know. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Caroline.
>> Yes. Welcome.
I'm also a Caroline, but mine is
Carolina Blake and I live at 60 Ranch
Road Skywood Acres and I was a firewise
leader for Skywood and Steel Creek for
the past five years. I just turned that
over to Art
um and he will continue with that. The
town of Woodside for the last 50 years
has refused to make Steel Creek into a
public road because the land does not
have the capacity to support such a
development.
Therefore, the town now wants to approve
such a heavy development on the same
land by making an exception for the
benefit of only two people, one family
that increases the fire risk for the
entire community. The code must be
applied equally to everyone so we can
all be safe.
The appeal is asking that the town
treats these applicants differently by
granting an extension only for them.
You just have heard from Fire Marshall
Parker and a lot of other people that
extending the extension will endanger
not only the other residents in Still
Creek, but also our neighborhood, which
is adjacent Skyward Acres, adjacent with
75 homes and approximately
200 people.
If you grant this extension and place
our community at a great risk of losing
our homes or insuranceances,
is the town also going to consider today
to be accountable and put in place
measures that protect us?
Is the town going to set aside a fund to
help us rebuild our homes? Is the town
going to get us insurance where our
current insurance get cancelled? Is the
town going to pay for the difference for
a much more expensive insurance that we
will need to pay to secure our
community? If the answer to these
questions is no, the town must deny the
exception and must deny the appeal.
State housing law does not override
California's state fire safety code and
regulations in particular in the areas
of very high fire severity zones as
defined by the California government
code. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Other comments? Anyone in the Zoom room?
Anyone
in independence hall?
Okay, then we will close uh well before
we close public comment. Are there any
questions of any of the public speakers
by any member of the council?
Just I have one uh I'm sorry. Let me um
I don't know who directed it at so maybe
I'll go to you Mr. Parker. Um
this is this
heard it repeatedly tonight, but it's
this issue of Oh, and hi Jen. We'll go
to Jen next. Um
the idea of a it's a tipping point
argument that of all the houses, this
next one is going to be the one that's
going to cause fire risk and safe public
safety risk. Why is this project versus
any other house in the neighborhood now
that why would we consider it the
tipping point project? I mean, this is a
case that's being made by by a lot of
people here tonight,
>> right? I I believe I understand the
question is we're talking about what
what's the the true increased level of
risk and in the report I I describe it
as uh we can't we need to do we do what
we can with existing homes and going and
make with the firewise programs and and
trying to deal with them. The key is
we've got to stop adding to the problem.
And I started in the 1980s trying to
convince uh many of us that we we've got
to stop adding to the problem
incrementally. So whether this is a a
catastrophic issue in a wildfire um is a small percentage, but it's adding
to the piece. It's very likely a piece.
it's going to cause blocked roads and uh
at times and that enters into the
overall fire life safety and there's
ways of it from what I see there's ways
of mitigating the increased risk to a
level to where it's close it's so
minuscule or so small it wouldn't um
really enter into this but as it's uh
exists right now a very large project
very small uh footprint to build on uh
close to the roads not allowing adequate
defensible space. Its own plan calls for
100 ft. It can't reach that. So, it's
just it's again it's just too much in in
a small area and it can be mitigated uh
by downsizing and meeting existing
standards.
>> Okay. Thank you. Council member Wall
have a question.
>> Yeah. Um actually have a question for
staff. Um procedurally, is that okay if
I direct another question towards staff
based on what I just heard?
Yeah.
>> Okay. Um, so I heard at least two but
maybe more um folks comment on this
notion that the town has refused to turn
Still Silk Creek Road um or convert it
into a public road. I don't know if this
is a question for Sage or maybe Jean.
Could one of you just sort of give us
some additional context there? Has have
there been, you know, applications for
that? what is what what can you tell us
about that topic?
» So, there's an attachment in your um
staff packet which gives the history of
this, but um this was um required to be
a private road uh way back in the 70s
when the subdivision was approved.
There's a road maintenance agreement in
place. It's been in place since that
time which obligates the owners along
that road uh to maintain the road. um if
they do not, the town has options to um
encourage and or force that maintenance,
but it is a private road. Has always
been intended to be a private road based
on the original subdivision.
>> Thanks, Jean. Maybe just a quick
follow-up question. So, have has has
there been an effort on behalf of the
residents that are um a part of that
road maintenance agreement to convert
the road into a a a non-private road?
I think I recall um several occasions
where um um at least Mr. Middleman has asked that the town consider that.
If I'm incorrect, he can he can correct
me. Um, but I don't recall anyone else
uh coming before the council and making
that request, nor nor would staff um
recommend that.
» Um, I'd like to re uh recognize
Christine new to also speak on this
issue.
» Sorry, just to add two things. So, one
um my husband David Middleman brought
that proposal to the town actually with
support of neighbors at that time to
make the town public. Um part of that
was that one of the arguments was that
Sunrise Drive is a public road yet at
dead ends with no access to anything.
Whereas Still Creek Road is the only
access for example to Wonderlick Park
between the main entrance and skyline.
Um it also is the access point for the
slack lines which pose a fire hazard to
the area. Um and then the last thing you
had mentioned a road maintenance
agreement that was not a road
maintenance agreement. It was a covenant
that was made between the owners that
followed the owners not the properties
and it was um dissolved actually by the
residents of 45 Still Creek upon their
purchase of the property uh a number of
years ago. Um, and so that is no longer
there is no agreement, covenant,
whatever you want to call it. There is
nothing like that in existence for that
road.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you for correcting my my memory of
the the um request to to uh turn it into
a public. I would disagree with one
thing uh that Miss N just said. Uh there
were some CCNRs that were in place.
Those were rescended years ago, but
those specifically indicated that the
road maintenance agreement remained in
place and it did not um transform this
into a public street. It is a private
road.
>> Okay. We still have public comment open.
So, if you want to this is a second bite
of the apple, but
>> Miss New just mentioned the residents of
45 Silk Creek Road as the the people in
question. Uh I I concur that that that
road maintenance agreement was not was
not dissolved uh as part of the the the
transaction there. It was rather um as
uh Miss Savvery or is it Savari Savory
has said that was the the CCNRS. Um but
I I would also just point out one of the
big concerns we have here uh is the
where that's going to happen on the
road. Um it's a safety issue as has
already been highlighted to you. It's
also a cost issue. We spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars just a few years
ago when the the road's not in good
condition. It was it was wiped out uh in
one small section. Um and the applicants
have refused to to uh accept a
responsibility for damage to the road
during construction. And you know, we
have a a lot of concerns around that for
that. So, if the town considers
approving something like this, I hope
you would also take responsibility for
the road because I think it's going to
create a lot of cost and liability for all of us who own the road. Thank
you.
>> Okay.
Um before we close the public
hearing, just want to make sure we have
all the comments uh particularly any
comments that were submitted today. Um
so, those are all in the record.
I'm going to give you a final statement
in a second. I'm going to allow
rebuttal. Same thing.
>> Yes, I am.
» Okay. Then we're going to close public
comment, but we're also going to have a
final statement and rebuttal uh period
for um the appellant, and we can ask any
final questions of the appellent at that
time.
» Welcome, Ryan. Thank you very much. Um I
will try to be brief and I think we'll
have a couple brief statements from a
couple members of our team as well.
>> Uh first
the legal standard here uh at the end of
the day you're making a decision. That
decision has a standard that it's held
to. that standard is under the HAA.
Could a reasonable person find that the
project meets the applicable objective
standards? And if so, then under the
law, it does meet those standards.
So, it's not a a substantial evidence
council gets the benefit of the doubt
standard anymore. the law in 2018 under
legislation I contributed to changed
that standard so that if any reasonable
person could find that it meets the
applicable standards than it does by
operation of law.
Um
I'd like to speak to the fire issue. Um
I I respect the community's concern
about fire. However, the state has been
clear on this. Uh, state law forbids
fire hazard severity zone from being
used as a basis to deny ad use. Um,
Calire office of the state fire marshall
information bulletin 25-004
from March 3rd, 2025 is unambiguous. It
says, quote, fire hazard severity zones
should not restrict the development of
accessory dwelling units. End quote.
Uh Woodside Fire Protection District,
the agency the state has delegated to
enforce fire safety in Woodside, has
already engaged with this project. Um it
will be responsible for ensuring fire
safety.
The hazard designation for this site is
not unique to this site. Uh Ten Still
Creek Road sits in the same very high
fires hazard severity zone as
essentially the entire western hills of
Woodside. It is not unique
and the applicant's engineered fire
safety package equals or exceeds every
applicable code. self-imposed two-hour
fire rating, steel structural framing,
metal cladding, class A roof,
pebblestone non-combustible zone zero,
100 ft lean, clean green defensible
space, mandatory NFPA 13D interior
sprinklers, plus exterior wildfire
defense sprinklers of the kind credited
with saving homes in the 2025 Palisades
fire. Cal Water Hydrant Fire with 600 ft
confirmed by staff. building cited
within 150 ft of the road. So no
apparatus turnaround is required and on
engineering this is simply one of the
most fire hardened projects imaginable
um that probably ever brought to the
town
and a formal vegetation management plan
while not required is being provided.
The exception
is what is being considered here today,
not the fire risk of the project. And
the exception does not increase fire
risk. So there may be concerns about
building in urban wild fire wildlands
interfaces,
but the thing before the council tonight
is the exception and the exception is
not implicated by those concerns. the
exception of having this much setback or
this much setback is it's a marginal
difference and it does not actually
impact fire risk
under the state law. If the council were
to deny the project or condition it in a
manner that renders it infeasible,
renders it impossible to to feasibly
build. Um the standard there is that
there is no alternative uh that it it
violates an accepted quote objective
identified written public health or
safety standard policy or conditions at
the as they existed on the date the
application was deemed complete. So
while there are concerns generally about
building in urban wildland interface
areas, there is no objective quantified
standard that has been implicated here.
There is no standard that we can point
to and say this is violated by the
project. It imposes a health and safety
risk of this standard of this quantified
magnitude and therefore that cannot be
used to deny the exception to deny the
project. State law does not allow that.
And
the the likely impact of that if this
were to go into an argument at the next
level about this, we've already said
it's it's five $50,000 per unit tonight
plus the attorney's fees. We're looking
at probably a million dollar bill to the
city to the town if it goes that way.
So, we don't want that. I'm not here to
threaten the town. I haven't been asked
by my clients certainly to threaten the
town. I'm here trying to explain why the
state law requires approval of the
project and approval of the exception.
Um there was one uh item that the
engineer I think wanted to add the
actual cost. If the exception were
denied, we have to build into the
hillside excavate dramatically more
soil. The offhaul cost, Charles, can you
speak to that? the additional cost of
offhaul.
>> Uh the architect said I think it was
1,400 cubic yards additional excavation.
Is that correct?
If Jim's listening,
>> it is it is um about 1,600,
1645 total yards would have to be.
>> Okay. I had earlier I had forgotten
about I was thinking the construction
cost but there's the offhaul to the
landfill
and that alone would be in the
neighborhood of $200 to $300,000
and probably 350
maybe more truck trips dump truck trips
through Woodside up to the property down
Sil Creek Road and back out Still Creek
Road through Woodside to 280.
So, um, if I were a neighbor there, I
don't think I would like that. And I
wanted to say something else, but I
guess I'll I'll let this part of it wrap
up first. I Okay, I'll finish. Uh,
someone else said that um
Dr. Clamper said there's a he suggested
there's an active fault going right
through the site. That's not true. The
nearest active fault is a mile away. The
Pillar's fault is considered potentially
active. this the state the California
Geological Survey does not even have it
on their map as an active fault or
special study zone or it would never
even came up in our geotech report
because it's just not an issue. It's 250
or 300 ft down the hill from the site.
It trends up toward the intersection of
Still Creek Road, uh, Sunrise Drive, and
Skywood Way, right under that house at
the corner there, and very close to
number three, Still Creek Road.
And the site is also not on an active
landslide. It's on a dormant landslide.
And that's why we did an extensive study
after which we determined that it is re
it is stable at this time.
Thank you. I believe architect Jim
Baronssky is going to address the
alternatives that were profered by the
neighbors architect. Thank you.
>> Thank you, James.
>> Yeah, I I'd just like to point out that
uh Mr. French's alternative relies on
these areas that are within the 50oot
setback. Um the area uh the area that is
closest to the road uh that is not
encroached upon by a 35% slope or 50%
slope is 771 square ft. And that's a
misshapen 771 square ft. That means that
to even get a just a a rectangular
box that would fit in there that would
not have to encroach in the in the 50
foot setback or 50% slope area would be
467 square ft. Um and I'm you know uh
maybe that's an alternative but it's
certainly not a feasible one. And then
with respect to the area that is to the
north and the east, that whole area is
1,54
square ft that is not encroached upon by
the 35% slope or the 50% slope. If I
wanted to put in a rectangular box that
did not encroach, it could be 443 square
ft, which is not even large enough for a
twocar garage. So, I just don't
understand how that's feasible unless we
encroach into the 50 50% um uh slope
area, which frankly we're not really
allowed to do, nor do we want to do. Um,
and then I I stand by my analysis on the
uh on the size of the building um and uh
the mis uh misreading of Mr. French's or
Mr. French's misreading of our plans um
uh and uh uh of the uh maybe the
guidelines uh for uh calculating um a
building area for for Woodside. So I
know our calculation is correct.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> And David,
» thank you. Something that has been
glossed over tonight is this
conversation is about the setback. Once
the setback has been decided with an
exception or not, if we if we choose
when we choose to move forward with the
project, we have to comply with all the
codes that currently sit in California
to build a house. That includes chapter
7A,
which is the fire requirements for a
house. Not one of the houses in Skywood
Acres was built to that standard. And
part of what Mr. Parker glazed over in
those reports from Lahina and Palisades
is that houses built to 7A survived. If
any of you remember the CBS story of
that one house in the one neighborhood
in Palisades that seemed to be unburned,
it's because it was built to 7A.
Additionally, the access in the road the
road code, there's three structures
after that section of road. And the code
requires that for three structures that
the road have a minimum width of 14 ft.
And it's been accepted by everybody in
this room that the road is at least 18
ft and wider in some places.
regarding the road maintenance and the
public private.
This all started in 2019 when California
amended their civil code 845.
We had a road maintenance agreement
between four property owners with
accordments.
That code changed to say that in the
absence of a road maintenance agreement,
each property owner was responsible for
the road maintenance proportional to
their use of the road. And we had four
other properties on the road that have
implied easements that aren't recorded.
105 Sunrise. This driveway comes out. It
has a 20 foot set back to the the
garage. Three Still Creek, Seven Still
Creek, and 95 Skyward second driveway.
After multiple attempts of trying to get
everybody to sit down at the table and
agree, I was encouraged to come to the
town and push for public acceptance of
the road for a lot of the reasons that
Kristen spouted, but also because the
town has a equestrian trails easement
that goes down the road. And we actually
went to the equestrian trails committee
at the very beginning as well as county
parks, the fulier estate and the town
because those conservation easements on
10 Steel Creek.
The easement says the town shall
maintain that conservation easement, not
us.
which means that you have an implied
easement on the road to get to our
property to maintain the conservation
easement.
We have never denied that we're going to
repair the road, but we have to agree on
what the quality and the state of the
road is so we can repair it back to that
state. It's unfair
to put a whole new road in if we don't actually do that
much damage to the road by not hauling
1643
cubic yards of dirt out of the property.
And it's been talked about how the moan
washed out. The moon washed out on the
property of 45 Steel Creek beyond where
this site is. It washed out not because
of geotechnical issues but because of a
lack of the property owner's
responsibility.
Poppy owner's fulfillment of his
responsibility to clear his own covert
that created overflow which is the same
reason why 84 washed out.
He failed to mention that the estate
of the news paid tens of thousands of
dollars towards that repair. And if you
remember the first meeting of January
2023, I came in here hot to tell you
about how this road needed to be public
is me, Kristen, and my 70 plus year old
father went and cleared that covert
because he was in Tahoe on on New Year's
Eve of 2022. So, we didn't do that
again. And we don't even live on the
road yet.
Again, that's part of the road beyond
the project and would be unaffected
by construction.
Yeah, I think that's all I wanted to
say.
>> Thank you. Any questions from councel
for the appellent?
The applicant?
Okay. Well,
uh,
what can I get opinion on if we if we've
closed public comment?
>> You did indicate you had already closed
public comment and you were doing a
rebuttal for the appellant.
>> Yeah. So, yeah, public comment is
closed. Um, and so we are closing public
comment and we are closing the public
hearing. Um,
so, uh, I want to make a suggestion.
It's probably not going to make a lot of
people thrilled. Uh, but David Madrid's
letter is actually correct. The opening
letter we heard tonight, which is we
need this to be a fair process, and we
on the council have not had a chance to
digest about 400 pages that came from
the applicant and the neighbors today.
Uh so Jennifer did the best job she
could to copy that for everybody. Um uh
not all of us are present with a
physical copy but none of us have had a
chance to really digest this and so uh
this process in order to have validity
needs us to be able to do that. Um so
what I'd like to do is suggest a
continuation and we will commit to a
timely response here. We're I know we're
starting to stack extra meetings in
June. So hopefully we can get this in
May or early June, but um I would
suggest that that's what we need to do
in order to digest this to make sure
that we've we've given this everything
it it it deserves after 5 years. Uh so I
would like to make that motion uh
tonight. I don't know if there's a
second or interest. We can also continue
tonight.
>> You agree?
>> Agree.
>> I agree with that suggestion. I have not
had an opportunity to read all those
either.
>> Council member Wall, where are you on
this?
>> Yeah, I I agree. I think um I think it's
important that we have the time to
review the materials that were submitted
today. So, I would second your motion.
>> Okay. Thank you. For planning purposes,
can we pick a day right now? Can we pick
the second?
>> I was going to ask if the council could
um pick a date certain so we didn't have
to renotice the hearing.
>> Yeah. So if um your options would be May
26th or June 9th I think it is.
>> I think we owe it to everybody to be as
fast as we can on the turnaround. So May
26th
>> May 26th.
>> Okay. May
>> May 26th. Okay.
>> And uh yeah, we'll commit. We're going
to open at that point in deliberation.
So there will be no further public
comment. We have closed public comment.
Um so we will just be deliberating and
then making a decision at that time. So
um
so with that we will close this item for
tonight. It's continued to May 22nd
where we will open
>> 26.
>> Thank you. May 26 where we will open
with council deliberation and get
everybody on the road. Uh
okay David one last
>> just one question so we don't end up in
the same position at the continuence.
For clarification, are you accepting
desk items or not from that continuance?
>> We've been told no. The public hearing
is open.
>> Thank you.
>> The main thrust of David Madrid's letter
was that we hadn't had a chance to
respond to this massive submission yet.
So, there needs to be some mechanism for
us to respond to it or it's pointless to
continue.
>> Jean,
>> logic that one.
>> Well, it it it seems incredibly unfair.
So, so I think
>> the applicant gets to rebut and we have
none.
>> Hold on, please.
>> So, I think what I heard you say is that
you you've heard all the public comment
um and you need time to take a look at
additional information that's been
provided to you. What I would suggest is
that if you think there are additional
questions you need to pose as a result
of that, you could do that at the next
meeting. Um but you've already indicated
that you're you're closing the public
hearing.
>> You know, I um and I appreciate that. I
would it be okay if we said we can take
public responses to anything in these
400 pages?
>> Um you can say that but if you if you
are going to do that I think you should
be clear with the people who are here
are you saying you will take written
comments
>> written? Yep. Written.
>> And then if you could please indicate by
which date you would like those to be
submitted so that you don't end up in
the same situation which is things
coming in two hours before
>> uh you hear it on May 26th.
>> I don't have a calendar in front of me.
What's one week from today?
>> One week from today is May 9 Tuesday May
19th.
>> Okay. We will take any written
communication in response to the items
that are in that have been submitted
today uh by May 19th.
in writing. Correct.
>> In writing.
>> Yeah. And I'm sorry that this seems like
a little jarring moment, but we don't we
just can't we can't process this
information tonight. So,
>> understood. The neighbors also submitted
new materials today that we would like a
chance to respond to.
>> Fair enough. Yes. Yep.
>> And I also want to note for the record,
this was the fifth hearing.
>> So, there is a state law issue there as
well.
>> Well, we're it's a staff table. We would
>> Yeah. So, we're continuing in uh a
current meeting is the way I think we
would look at that, but um we're doing
our best on this. All right. We want to
make sure everybody gets a fair a fair
hearing on this.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Everything writing within one week. Yep.
>> Nothing after that.
>> Sounds we open up at deliberations.
>> At deliberation.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> You know, we we had a we had a vote. We
had a motion in a second, but we didn't
take that vote. Do we need to take a
vote for continuation? Yes.
>> So, I'll make a motion.
>> Yep.
>> That we continue this item
uh
to May 26th.
Um and we open at deliberations and any
comment either pro or con from the
appellants or the uh neighbors
um should be made within one week from
today in writing only and they will not
be accepted after that date.
>> Second.
>> Council member Alish.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Brown.
>> Yes. Council member Gold.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Wall.
>> Yes.
>> Mayor Donowski.
>> Yes.
Thank you.
Appreciate your time and all of your
inputs.
Uh reports, volunteer,
>> no report.
>> Council communication.
» All right. Hearing none. Uh 9:44 we'll
call the meeting.