[0:03] So, we'll call the town council meeting
[0:06] of May 12th, 2026 to order at 70:02.
[0:10] Jennifer, will you take role?
[0:12] >> Coun Council member Aberish
[0:13] >> here.
[0:14] >> Council member Brown
[0:15] >> here.
[0:16] >> Council member Gold. Council member Wall
[0:18] >> here. Mayor Donowski
[0:21] >> here. Council member Aberish, will you
[0:23] lead us in the pledge of allegiance?
[0:37] under God, indivisible, liberty and
[0:40] justice for all.
[0:44] » Thank you, Assan. Appreciate it.
[0:47] >> And with that, we're going to open up
[0:49] public comment. So, persons wishing to
[0:51] address the council on non-aggendaized
[0:53] items are invited to do so now. Please
[0:56] note, however, the council cannot
[0:57] undertake any items that are not on the
[0:59] agenda. Uh we can refer those to staff
[1:01] for a future action. Uh this
[1:04] communication period is limited to five
[1:06] persons, three minutes each. Any
[1:08] additional persons wishing to be heard
[1:10] will be heard at the end of regular
[1:11] business. And because we have a full
[1:13] house tonight and a big agenda, we are
[1:15] going to hold it to those five people at
[1:17] three minutes each. Are there is there
[1:19] anybody here that would like to make a
[1:21] comment on a non-aggendaized item?
[1:28] Come on up.
[1:30] Great.
[1:34] » I really need help from our town
[1:37] council. We are having a terrible
[1:40] problem with tick tockers
[1:43] coming on dirt bikes on Woodside Road
[1:48] all the way up Kings Mountain. They're
[1:50] parking everywhere, all over the roads.
[1:52] There are no restrooms. So, you know
[1:53] what's going on on the side of the
[1:55] roads? They're riding through the woods.
[1:58] They're destroying
[2:01] the the entire environment and scurrying
[2:04] all the wildlife down into the flats
[2:06] down here. I've lived in Skyline for 30
[2:08] years. I've never seen this kind of
[2:10] destruction. I need help. Please.
[2:15] >> Thank you, Bri.
[2:19] Jean and Melissa, we both sort of
[2:21] connected, but we didn't reconnect on
[2:22] this. Is there anything that we would we
[2:24] can add to uh where we are in terms of
[2:26] figuring out those trails?
[2:28] >> Yes, we looked at the photographs that
[2:30] uh Brie sent in and the portion where
[2:32] the vehicles are parked are actually um
[2:35] county and so Lewis, I think you might
[2:38] have a little bit to add to that.
[2:39] >> And that's correct. Um we looked at the
[2:41] map and it looks like um the section on
[2:44] uh Kings Mountain Row is part of the
[2:46] county's jurisdiction. um staff will
[2:49] reach out to the county and we'll work
[2:50] with work work with them on perhaps
[2:52] installing some no parking signs along
[2:54] that stretch
[2:58] » with me.
[2:59] >> Okay. Okay, we got you. Um All right.
[3:02] Any other comments? Public comments on
[3:03] non-aggendaized items?
[3:08] » Seeing none, we'll close public comment.
[3:10] And we have two presentations this
[3:13] evening. The first is on a historic
[3:15] preservation award. Welcome.
[3:21] » Hello. I'm Melanie Olsen, associate
[3:23] planner with the town of Woodside as
[3:26] well as the staff lays on to the
[3:27] Woodside history committee, the
[3:30] wonderful gals over here. And so
[3:32] anyways, just kind of wanted to give a
[3:34] few updates on the committee's been up
[3:36] to um as well as kind of uh this month
[3:40] is or with the National uh Trust for
[3:43] Historic Preservation, they proclaim May
[3:46] as history month. So
[3:48] >> at the end, I'd like to read the
[3:49] proclamation to proclaim the history
[3:52] month for the town if that's okay. So
[3:54] >> that's great. So yeah, so the Woodside
[3:57] history committee uh they've been
[3:59] encouraging uh exploring the town's
[4:02] history by participating and promoting
[4:05] uh
[4:07] community mus museum walking tours uh
[4:10] with Sonteo County History Association.
[4:12] They've been doing it for several years.
[4:14] They also have a brochure for
[4:16] self-guided tours. Uh they participated
[4:19] in the Mayday parade. um they currently
[4:23] are working on a uh Woodside Fire
[4:26] Protection District Museum exhibit in
[4:29] the museum. So hopefully um people in
[4:31] this room will be interested in checking
[4:33] that out uh this summer. Um we'll have
[4:36] more details to follow. And then tonight
[4:40] earlier we had the Woodside Preservation
[4:42] Awards. The museum hosted the open
[4:45] house, gave out two awards uh this year.
[4:48] Uh first to the Laquesta Winery. Uh the
[4:51] recipients were Susan McBain and Jay
[4:54] Patterson. Uh EMTT Ricksford was a San
[4:57] Francisco attorney. Uh the winery was
[5:00] established in 1883.
[5:02] It had 7,000 vines imported from France.
[5:05] In 1902, they hired a stones mason to
[5:09] build the winery using the stones that
[5:10] were found on the property. Um and then
[5:14] it was later converted into a private
[5:16] residence. Uh so uh the McBaines have
[5:19] restored that. And then the second
[5:22] recipient was the telephone exchange by
[5:25] uh owned by Sue Pleti and Pat Delgavio
[5:29] who we know well. Uh it's a Spanish
[5:31] style building housed a telephone
[5:33] exchange which was operated by the
[5:35] Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company
[5:37] in 1928.
[5:39] Um, and then also for everyone else in
[5:43] the room there, uh, we have three
[5:46] community museums in town. Uh, one right
[5:49] across the way that's open on the first
[5:51] and third Saturday, 1 to 3. Admission is
[5:54] free. Uh, we have the Woodside Store
[5:57] Museum open on Tuesdays and Thursdays as
[5:59] well as the weekend, also free. And then
[6:02] lastly, the Fulier Estate Stable Museum,
[6:05] um, which is also free on the weekends.
[6:08] And then uh the community or the history
[6:11] committee wanted to say how happy they
[6:13] are uh that the Brisbane Elementary
[6:16] bought the property um next door. So
[6:19] we're looking forward to what they're
[6:21] going to do with that next.
[6:25] Um so now I'm going to read the pro
[6:27] proclamation uh uh making this month
[6:31] history month for the town of Woodside.
[6:35] Uh whereas historic preservation is an
[6:38] effective tool for managing sustainable
[6:40] development, revitalizing neighborhoods,
[6:43] fostering local pride, and maintaining
[6:46] comm community character while enhancing
[6:48] livability. And whereas the historic
[6:50] preservation is relevant for communities
[6:53] across the nation, both urban and rural,
[6:56] and for Americans of all ages, all walks
[6:59] of life, and all ethnic backgrounds. and
[7:02] where it is important to celebrate the
[7:04] role of history in our lives and the
[7:06] contributions made by dedicated
[7:08] individuals in helping to preserve the
[7:11] tangible aspects of the heritage that
[7:14] has shaped us all as a people. And
[7:16] whereas in alignment with the ongoing
[7:18] theme established by the National Trust,
[7:21] all people are created equal is the
[7:23] theme of Woodside's preservation month
[7:25] this year. And lastly, whereas the Town
[7:28] of Woodside History Committee has
[7:30] planned events and activities to
[7:32] celebrate this month through the
[7:35] promotion of Woodside Town Center
[7:36] Walking Tour for museum visitors to
[7:39] explore the Woodside Commercial District
[7:41] and its buildings in addition to the
[7:43] annual preservation awards program. It
[7:46] is in support of general plan policies
[7:49] to promote historic preservation and
[7:51] awareness of local history and its
[7:53] historic resources. Thank you so much.
[7:56] Thank you, Melanie. Thank you, history
[7:58] committee.
[7:58] >> Well, I think Dalia wants to say
[8:00] something else.
[8:02] >> I know you're acknowledging the crew
[8:04] later, but I I just want to add our
[8:06] thanks for um Eddie and Ignasio and his
[8:09] crew because they've been very helpful
[8:11] and responsive when we need help help at
[8:15] the museum. So, um we we thank them. We
[8:18] thank you. So,
[8:20] >> great. Thank you.
[8:24] Uh, and we also have National Public
[8:27] Works Week and we have a proclamation.
[8:29] Lewis, should I just go? I just take it.
[8:32] Is there anything you would like to say?
[8:35] >> Go ahead.
[8:36] >> Okay. Well, I'll just uh obviously uh uh
[8:39] you know, first off, you guys are all
[8:40] our unsung heroes from all the
[8:42] day-to-day to keeping us where we need
[8:45] to be in the floods and the storms.
[8:46] Thank you very much.
[8:52] And we have this proclamation to
[8:54] recognize National Public Works Week,
[8:57] which is this week. So whereas public
[8:59] works professionals focus on
[9:01] infrastructure, facilities, and services
[9:04] that are of vital importance to
[9:06] sustainable and resilient communities,
[9:07] and to public health, high quality of
[9:09] life, and well-being of the people of
[9:10] Woodside. And whereas these
[9:13] infrastructure facilities and services
[9:15] could not be provided without the
[9:16] dedicated efforts of public works
[9:18] professionals who are engineers,
[9:19] managers and employees at all level of
[9:21] government and the private sector who
[9:23] are responsible for rebuilding,
[9:25] improving and protecting our nation's
[9:27] transportation, water supply, water
[9:29] treatment and solid waste systems,
[9:31] public buildings and other structures
[9:32] and facilities essential for our
[9:34] citizens.
[9:35] And whereas it is in the public interest
[9:37] for the citizens, civic leaders, and
[9:39] children in the town of Woodside to gain
[9:41] knowledge of and maintain an ongoing
[9:43] interest and understanding of the
[9:44] importance of public works and public
[9:46] works programs in their respective
[9:47] communities. And whereas the year 2026
[9:50] marks the 66th year of National Public
[9:54] Works Week sponsored by the American
[9:55] Public Works Association. Now therefore,
[9:58] be it proclaimed on this 12th day of
[10:00] May, 2026 that I, Brian Dowski, mayor of
[10:03] the town of Woodside, do hereby
[10:04] designate the week of May 17 through
[10:07] 23rd 23 as National Public's Work Week.
[10:10] I urge all citizens to join
[10:12] representatives of the American Public
[10:13] Works Association and government
[10:15] agencies in activities, events, and
[10:17] ceremonies designed to pay tribute to
[10:19] our public works professionals,
[10:20] engineers, managers, and employees, and
[10:22] to recognize the substantial
[10:23] contributions they make to protecting
[10:25] our national health, safety, and
[10:27] advancing the quality of life for all.
[10:29] Thank you. We really, really appreciate
[10:31] everything that you do for us.
[10:38] And mayor, if I may, um I would like to
[10:40] um I have our public works staff here
[10:42] today with me in the audience. I would
[10:43] like for them to stand to receive this
[10:45] um honor and recognition. And also, if I
[10:48] may, um also point out that last Friday,
[10:51] uh our maintenance supervisor, Ignasio
[10:53] Hernandez, received an award, operation
[10:55] of maintenance person of the year award
[10:57] from the APWA organization. So, I have a
[11:00] plaque here today and we're going to
[11:01] present this to him tomorrow. So,
[11:03] congratulations to the team. We're
[11:05] really proud of them and of their
[11:06] service to the town. And um thank you
[11:09] for your continued support.
[11:10] >> Thank you.
[11:26] » Okay. Uh moving right along uh to the
[11:29] consent agenda. So, all items on the
[11:31] consent calendar are considered to be
[11:33] routine and will be approved by one roll
[11:35] call motion unless a request is made for
[11:37] an item to be withdrawn or transferred
[11:39] to the regular agenda. Are there any
[11:40] items that any council member would like
[11:43] to pull from the consent calendar?
[11:47] Are there any items any member of the
[11:49] public would like to see us pull?
[11:52] Seeing none and hearing none, uh, we
[11:54] will entertain a motion for the consent
[11:56] calendar.
[11:56] >> I'll make a motion that we approve the
[11:58] consent calendar.
[11:59] >> Second. Second.
[12:01] >> Council member Alberish.
[12:02] >> Yes.
[12:02] >> Council member Brown.
[12:03] >> Yes.
[12:04] >> Council member Gold.
[12:05] >> Yes.
[12:05] >> Council member Wall.
[12:06] >> Yes.
[12:07] >> Mayor Domowski.
[12:09] >> Yes. Thank you. All right. Moving on to
[12:11] new business. Item A, a resolution
[12:13] approving outofclass compensation for
[12:16] the acting town manager.
[12:19] Corey.
[12:20] >> Hello. Good evening, town council. I'm
[12:22] Corey Stalker Pedalino, the um
[12:23] administrative services director. Um,
[12:26] I'm bringing forward item agenda item A
[12:29] for new business related to approving
[12:31] outofclass acting pay for our acting
[12:33] town manager. So, since February 19th,
[12:36] 2026, the town council placed U. Melissa
[12:39] Cardinoli, also known as the acting town
[12:41] manager, into the acting role and
[12:44] typically within other municipalities,
[12:45] what is typically offered is either a 5
[12:47] to 10% out of class or acting pay as in
[12:51] she's absorbed the responsibilities from
[12:53] a higher classification. So, she was
[12:55] currently the assistant town manager.
[12:57] She is now serving as the acting town
[12:59] manager. Therefore, it is recommended
[13:01] that the town council adopt a 10% um
[13:05] acting pay to her base salary. And we
[13:07] would like that to be retroactive to
[13:10] February 19th of 2026. And I'm happy to
[13:12] answer any questions.
[13:14] >> Thank you, Corey. Any questions?
[13:18] All right. Hearing none. Any comments
[13:20] from the public on this item?
[13:24] Seeing none
[13:25] >> comment.
[13:26] >> Yes, sir.
[13:26] >> Um, I actually wasn't planning on saying
[13:28] anything, but as is my habit, I do. Um,
[13:33] there's been a, you know, obviously some
[13:35] unplanned things happened on February
[13:36] 17th, and I just wanted to commend
[13:39] Melissa, uh, who parachuted in. Um, and
[13:43] there's been comments made that the town
[13:46] is in chaos and those sorts of things,
[13:47] and nothing could be further from the
[13:49] truth. Um, since you took over, we've
[13:52] presented audited financials here. We've
[13:54] had the largest events in our in our
[13:56] history, the Mayday event, the uh fun
[13:59] run, the Mayday parade. Um, things have
[14:02] pretty much come off without a hitch.
[14:03] This may be tonight one of the largest
[14:06] uh documents we've ever had before us.
[14:08] And it's not only to the credit of our
[14:10] acting town manager, but the entire
[14:13] staff. And I think that they've done a
[14:14] fantastic job uh in making sure that the
[14:17] town runs smoothly under likely the most
[14:20] adverse circumstances this town may have
[14:22] ever seen. Um and I just wanted to say I
[14:25] appreciate it and I thank you for it.
[14:26] Melissa, you've done an unbelievable job
[14:28] and um I know that this has the
[14:30] endorsement of everybody on the town
[14:31] council. So, thank you.
[14:34] >> Very nice. Thank you. Uh would you like
[14:36] to make a motion? I would that we um
[14:39] authorize item A is it on the um uh on
[14:43] the calendar tonight.
[14:45] >> Second that.
[14:46] >> Council member Alberish.
[14:48] >> Yes.
[14:48] >> Council member Brown.
[14:49] >> Yes.
[14:49] >> Council member Gold.
[14:50] >> Yes.
[14:50] >> Council member Wall.
[14:52] >> Yes.
[14:52] >> Mayor Donowski.
[14:54] >> Yes. Okay. How's that for efficiency to
[14:58] the main event tonight? Um all right. So
[15:01] obviously tonight we have a public
[15:02] hearing on the appeal for 10 Still
[15:04] Creek. This is item B, public hearing.
[15:07] Uh before we hand things off, we do want
[15:09] to acknowledge that we understand this
[15:10] has been a long process, a multi-year
[15:12] process, and to acknowledge that uh we
[15:15] know there's a lot of passion in the
[15:16] room, and all we're simply asking is
[15:18] that um we be respectful of our
[15:21] neighbors and one another. Certainly can
[15:23] show passion, but if we could be as
[15:25] respectful as possible, that would be
[15:26] great. So, the way this works is the
[15:28] staff will make a report. Uh we'll ask
[15:30] questions of staff, then we'll open the
[15:32] public hearing. We'll hear from the
[15:34] appellant. We'll have public comment and
[15:36] then we will close the public hearing
[15:38] and um ideally move to deliberations and
[15:41] so forth. So, um with that, we will turn
[15:45] it over to staff to make the report and
[15:48] it looks by microphone. I'm going to you
[15:50] Sage.
[15:51] >> Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, council
[15:52] members. Um so, I'll just give a a real
[15:56] brief background. uh the the applicant
[16:00] who is the appellant in this case um
[16:03] since the beginning has submitted three
[16:05] projects with variations amongst those
[16:08] projects. Uh we're looking at the third
[16:10] project that was reviewed by the ASRB.
[16:14] Um, and after detailed discussion at the
[16:17] ASRB meeting, uh, they they make a
[16:20] recommendation to the town council, I'm
[16:22] sorry, to the planning commission. And
[16:24] the ASRB by a 2:1 vote, um, recommended
[16:29] a denial of the design of the project.
[16:32] Um, the ASRB does not uh take positions
[16:35] or make findings on the other
[16:37] entitlements such as a setback exception
[16:40] um, and the resident size exception.
[16:43] Uh so after the ASRB review um they made
[16:47] their recommendation to the planning
[16:49] commission. The planning commission
[16:50] reviewed this project and after a very
[16:53] detailed discussion a lot of public
[16:55] comment
[16:57] the planning commission by a 32 vote um
[17:01] denied the setback exception by not
[17:04] being able to make findings one or five
[17:07] of the setback exception. uh they did
[17:10] not take action on the formal design
[17:12] review or resident size exception. Um
[17:15] with the the vote and not being able to
[17:20] make those two findings, the setback
[17:23] exception was denied, therefore denying
[17:25] the project. You need all of the
[17:27] entitlements to make the project move
[17:29] forward. So after that, the um applicant
[17:33] filed a timely appeal of that decision.
[17:36] And that brings us to uh the council
[17:39] meeting tonight. Um this meeting is uh
[17:44] the appeals are heard denovo. So that
[17:47] means the uh council can consider all
[17:50] the information of the record and come
[17:52] to its own conclusion on the required
[17:55] entitlements.
[17:56] The town council will determine if it
[17:59] can make all of the necessary findings
[18:01] for approval of the entitlements. Um if
[18:04] any of the findings cannot be made, the
[18:06] uh council would state why and would
[18:09] could deny the project.
[18:13] Um so I'm just going to briefly go
[18:16] through um the project overview and you
[18:20] know there's a lot of information that's
[18:21] been provided um and if you have any
[18:25] questions uh you know let me know. But
[18:27] um I'm just going to do uh quickly run
[18:30] through the project terms of its
[18:31] location and elevations.
[18:48] Okay. So um this is the full site on the
[18:52] left side. Um it has a net area of a
[18:56] little over eight acres. Um it is a bit
[18:59] unique in that it has a private road
[19:01] bisecting the property. Um and there are
[19:04] different easements on the property.
[19:06] Most notably uh conservation easement
[19:09] that runs through a good portion of the
[19:12] northern side or the left side of the
[19:14] property if you're looking at the
[19:16] screen.
[19:18] On the right side is a zoomedin area of
[19:21] where the proposed development would
[19:23] take place. The applicant is proposing a
[19:28] uh main residence uh with an attached
[19:30] garage
[19:32] area um that has a J AU, a junior ADU on
[19:36] top of that as well as which also
[19:39] attaches to uh an accessory dwelling
[19:42] unit. So, if you see where my cursor is,
[19:45] this is the proposed um location of the
[19:48] main part of the main residence. There's
[19:51] a grove of trees in this area here,
[19:53] which are represented by the black dots.
[19:56] And this piece here is an elevated
[19:59] enclosed bridge or hallway um that
[20:03] connects from the main piece of the
[20:05] residence to an area that includes an
[20:08] elevator um with the JADU on the middle
[20:12] floor and the garage on the lower level.
[20:15] Uh then this attaches to a two-le ADU um
[20:20] just to the north.
[20:22] The property here is access from Still
[20:24] Creek Road. In front of the garage is a
[20:27] proposed driveway uh that would include
[20:29] additional parking for cars um that are
[20:32] outside of the garage. Across the street
[20:36] of Still Creek Road, the applicant is
[20:38] proposing one ADU um and that also has
[20:42] its own parking area um that would be
[20:44] accessed for that ADU.
[20:47] The setback exception that is required
[20:50] for the project is that the required
[20:53] setbacks are 50 ft from all the property
[20:55] lines or in this case the ingress egress
[20:58] roadway easement boundary lines.
[21:02] So um what you have here is you can see
[21:05] this uh it shows the required 50-foot
[21:09] building setback line that is typically
[21:11] required and that cuts over into this
[21:14] area here. Um so the areas that have the
[21:17] less sleep less steep slopes tend to be
[21:21] a bit outside of that area. Um so this
[21:24] uh then also shows the 30-foot building
[21:27] setback line. That's if the project gets
[21:29] approval of a setback exception to be
[21:32] closer than the 30 ft. It would actually
[21:34] require a variance to the setbacks. Um
[21:37] so the applicant has ensured that the
[21:40] proposed development would be at least
[21:43] 30 ft away in all of the areas. This
[21:46] also shows here um that this corner of
[21:49] the garage that would encroach past the
[21:52] 50ft setback line and but still would be
[21:56] uh more than 30 ft away from the
[21:58] easement line and the side property
[22:00] line. um the ADU across the street. That
[22:04] ADU is located in an area um that's just
[22:07] allowed by ADU law. Um because of the
[22:10] size of it, per the conditions uh can be
[22:12] as close as 4T to a side or rear
[22:14] property line.
[22:17] Um and so that uh is just the overview
[22:20] of the location of the project and then
[22:22] I'll just to show the elevations
[22:26] um of the project. Uh so there's this is
[22:30] the main piece of the main residence
[22:33] that show kind of up the hill furthest
[22:35] up the hill and then where this little
[22:37] void space is this is actually where
[22:39] that bridge um that hallway would
[22:42] connect to the other part of the
[22:43] building. So that comes across here and
[22:46] connects over to this garage portion
[22:49] with the J AU. So the garage at the
[22:51] lower level J AU with a small little
[22:54] room upstairs and this is the elevator.
[22:56] Um this is the side elevation. Uh and
[22:59] then this is the front elevation of the
[23:02] main residence. So this is what faces
[23:04] the roadway. Um this is the rear of the
[23:08] main residence, the main piece of it.
[23:10] And then these are the two side
[23:12] elevations. And you see again that uh
[23:15] hallway bridge that connects to the
[23:17] garage area. Um this is just the back of
[23:21] the garage JADU portion. Um again this
[23:24] is that void where that hallway is and
[23:27] then this is the front of that portion
[23:30] of the building which is facing the
[23:31] roadway.
[23:33] This shows the two side elevations.
[23:40] This is the portion of the attached ADU.
[23:43] So this is the one furthest down the
[23:45] hill um in front of the main portion of
[23:47] the building. And this is the attached
[23:50] ADU. Um, it has some decks uh and
[23:53] balconies on the front and this shows it
[23:56] from the rear. Um, so it's kind of dug
[23:58] into the hillside a bit. And then this
[24:01] shows the two side elevations,
[24:05] these two. And then this shows the
[24:08] elevations for the ADU across the
[24:11] roadway. Uh, this is the elevation from
[24:14] the roadway. Uh, so it's relatively low
[24:17] profile, but because of the steep
[24:18] hillside, it does drop down the hill.
[24:21] Um, and then I'll just go through here
[24:24] just briefly. The applicant has provided
[24:26] some renderings of the project, so it
[24:28] helps to visualize a little bit more.
[24:30] And back here is the main portion of the
[24:32] residence. This is that attached ADU
[24:35] towards the front.
[24:38] This is a bit of a different angle
[24:40] showing the attached ADU. This is the
[24:43] garage J ADU portion with the main
[24:46] portion in the rear
[24:51] and just different angles. This is kind
[24:52] of the side. So main portion, the
[24:55] attached ADU with the garage JDU in the
[24:58] background.
[25:02] Different views. This shows that hallway
[25:04] bridge that uh connects the structures
[25:07] that makes them attached.
[25:12] Couple of other views just further back
[25:14] from the road. And then this is the
[25:17] views shown for the ADU that's across
[25:20] the roadway. So, it's down the hillside.
[25:22] Um, it would just actually be a little
[25:24] bit above the roadway elevation as
[25:26] viewed from the road. Um, but with that,
[25:29] I'm happy to answer. Um, well, I just
[25:31] want to note that you have all of uh
[25:33] staff's recommended findings for
[25:35] approval of the three different
[25:36] entitlements and the attached draft
[25:38] resolution. Um if you like I can go
[25:41] through those in detail. Uh otherwise
[25:43] I'm just happy to answer any questions
[25:44] that you have. Um and I do want to make
[25:47] one note that with our recommendation of
[25:49] approval uh that there is condition 1K
[25:54] and that is related to requiring a deed
[25:56] restriction for the JADU. Um so when we
[26:00] initially put these conditions together
[26:02] for planning commission that in fact was
[26:04] the law. Uh although uh just effective
[26:07] this year, the state says that you can
[26:10] only require a deed restriction if
[26:12] there's shared sanitation facilities
[26:15] with the other portion of the main
[26:16] residents. Because this JADU would have
[26:19] its own bathroom, um this condition
[26:21] would not apply. So if the council does
[26:24] accept staff's recommendation, we would
[26:26] uh strike um condition 1K, noting that deed restriction is not required.
[26:32] Uh but with that, I'm happy to answer
[26:34] any questions that you have.
[26:36] >> Okay. Thank you, Sage. Questions for
[26:38] staff?
[26:39] >> Um yeah, I my one question I have is has
[26:43] Woodside Fire looked at the property and
[26:46] given any opinion regarding whether it's
[26:48] high or same or no no change in the risk
[26:51] of fire. Um I don't think they've given
[26:53] a risk assessment but they have been
[26:55] involved in the review of the project as
[26:58] well as you know over the years as the
[27:02] applicant was developing the different
[27:03] projects um they did work with the town
[27:06] to get a permit for what we call a
[27:07] vegetation management of a property and
[27:10] actually I was out there with the fire
[27:12] district. There was at least three
[27:14] representatives of the fire district. Um
[27:16] they went around and looked at different
[27:18] trees and areas that should be cleaned
[27:20] up. Um and the applicant then obtained a
[27:23] permit and did a lot of that cleaning up
[27:25] uh that the fire district recommended.
[27:27] And then as far as this project goes um
[27:29] as with all projects uh this gets
[27:33] reviewed at a preliminary level by the
[27:36] um Woodside Fire Protection District and
[27:38] they did approve it with their standard
[27:40] conditions.
[27:41] >> Thank you.
[27:43] >> Other questions?
[27:48] Oh, I guess it's my turn then. uh is
[27:50] this or is this not something that is
[27:53] covered under the housing accountability
[27:54] act there? A lot of conviction on both
[27:57] sides of this uh debate right now.
[28:00] What's our view?
[28:01] >> It's staff's position this is not
[28:03] because this is not a project that comes
[28:05] before you with no request for
[28:06] exceptions.
[28:08] >> Okay.
[28:10] And is the um there's a setback finding
[28:13] around page 123 to 132 that was
[28:16] submitted. Um
[28:19] that something that we have either
[28:20] verified or that we we believe is a
[28:23] reasonable analysis or is it sort of
[28:25] unverified?
[28:28] It goes through every piece of history
[28:30] and then every property and potential
[28:33] setbacks.
[28:35] So those were um findings that were uh
[28:39] the applicant put forward. Um what staff
[28:42] really did was focus on what staff
[28:45] believe the findings to be made. We
[28:47] reviewed this information. We viewed the
[28:49] information from all sides. Um but our
[28:51] goal is really from our professional
[28:53] background and we just focused on on
[28:56] recommended findings based on on how we
[28:59] determined those findings to be met.
[29:01] >> Okay.
[29:03] Any other questions for staff?
[29:08] Okay. Well, then with that, we are going
[29:10] to open the public hearing. Uh, and we
[29:13] welcome the appellant um and any members
[29:16] of their team to make a presentation if
[29:20] you would like one. And we'll certainly
[29:24] going to give you as much time as you
[29:25] need if you would like to make any
[29:27] statement.
[29:41] Good evening. Um, I think our first
[29:44] speaker is going to be on Zoom, uh,
[29:46] James Bransky, who, uh, designed the
[29:48] project. If you could
[29:49] >> Great.
[29:52] Uh, okay. Well, welcome, James.
[30:00] Not sure what happened. I think we just
[30:02] lost him. Do you see him? There you are.
[30:03] Hi.
[30:04] >> Sorry. Yeah. Thank you. Um, if you don't
[30:06] mind, I'd like to share my screen if
[30:07] that's okay with everyone.
[30:12] » I think it's okay. Yeah.
[30:14] >> Okay. Here we go.
[30:27] Can you see that image of the
[30:30] threedimensional rendering of the house?
[30:31] Is that showing up?
[30:32] >> We're seeing your email.
[30:35] >> Oh, my email. Well, that's not
[30:36] >> Yeah. No, you don't want us to see that.
[30:39] >> All right.
[30:39] >> Got enough of that going on right now
[30:41] around here.
[30:41] >> Yeah, right. Okay. Hold on a second. Why
[30:43] would that be happening? Hold on. Let me
[30:45] try this again.
[30:48] Um, maybe I can move the
[30:52] How about Do you see the image now or
[30:55] still the email? Still the email, right?
[30:58] >> We don't see really anything. Yeah.
[31:00] >> Let me Let me try again. I'm sorry.
[31:02] >> It's okay.
[31:04] >> Uh, share.
[31:10] Okay, here we go.
[31:13] >> There you go.
[31:13] >> Got it. I see it. Okay.
[31:17] All right. Um, well, thank you everyone.
[31:19] I I do appreciate the opportunity to
[31:23] present this project uh again. Um,
[31:26] and uh uh I thought it would be uh
[31:30] useful because it's been going for such
[31:32] a long time. Um, and there have been so
[31:35] many permutations that I thought it
[31:36] would be uh uh useful to go back to the
[31:39] sort of the basics of why we designed
[31:41] the house uh the way we did in the first
[31:43] place. And also in this presentation um
[31:47] I will address some of the comments from
[31:49] the report provided by the neighbors uh
[31:52] forensic architect Mr. French. So I want
[31:56] to start out and can you see my the the
[32:00] mouse on the screen? Was I moving it
[32:02] around?
[32:03] >> Yes.
[32:03] >> Okay, good. Okay. So, I wanted to start out by showing a three-dimensional
[32:09] overview of the site to kind of give you
[32:10] a a feeling for the challenges that
[32:12] we've that we faced in designing this
[32:15] project. Um the uh sage was kind of
[32:18] pointing out uh in obviously in two
[32:21] dimensions the site um the size of it um
[32:24] uh the the challenging topography um and
[32:28] the main road that goes through it
[32:30] splits it into into about a third and
[32:33] two/3 uh with the north side of the
[32:35] property is the left the downs slope
[32:38] side and the south side of the property
[32:40] is the north the ups slope. Um there's
[32:43] about 390 feet of elevation change uh
[32:47] from the top of the site to the bottom.
[32:49] Uh the area in gray on this on this
[32:53] drawing um is in a conservation easement
[32:56] and is not buildable. Um the blue fills
[33:00] uh represent slopes that are over 35%
[33:03] and the purple fills represent slopes
[33:06] that are over 50%. Um I it it's a good
[33:11] time to remember that the guidelines um
[33:14] uh design guidelines generally restrict
[33:17] us from building on slopes uh over 35%
[33:21] and especially slopes over 50%. Um the
[33:25] light blue area here um is a is an area
[33:28] that is always wet because of springs
[33:30] and is unbuildable.
[33:32] Um the orange line um that you see here
[33:36] uh that is the 50- foot setback line and
[33:39] the green line um is the 30foot setback
[33:43] exception line.
[33:45] So generally uh what we have um is a
[33:50] buildable area that's sort of inside
[33:52] this red box. Um I should mention that
[33:56] the downs slope area to the left um uh
[34:00] will be reserved for our septic system
[34:02] um with the exception of that of the
[34:05] small corner up here which Sage pointed
[34:07] out has a detached ADU.
[34:12] Um, so there are um really really only
[34:17] three buildable areas uh on the on the
[34:20] south side of the road, the uphill side
[34:23] to the right. Um within the 50oot
[34:27] setback line. Um the first area is that
[34:31] bench right there. Um the second area is
[34:36] this small little corner to the north
[34:38] and to the east. And then the third area
[34:41] which is closest to the road um uh is
[34:46] also quite small. Um the three of those
[34:48] together so this would be the entire
[34:51] buildable area on the south side of the
[34:54] road um is 4500 square ft.
[35:00] Um so that's obviously a very limited
[35:02] amount of space when you're trying to
[35:04] build a new home on a on such a large
[35:06] site. So now if we used the 30foot um
[35:11] building setback exception um the amount
[35:14] of space and you can see that goes from
[35:17] that that area and then up to the
[35:21] 30-foot setback line. Um that amount of
[35:24] space increases our buildable area up to
[35:28] 7200 square ft. Still not a lot um but
[35:33] just enough to build on while still
[35:35] adhering to the regulations governing
[35:38] steep slopes.
[35:40] So here once again this is a zoomed out
[35:43] but there is the three red areas that um
[35:46] that we're allowed to build on. Um
[35:49] so we look at at these kinds of
[35:52] restrictions um as opportunities. Um
[35:55] it's the tightness of these areas and
[35:58] their vertical and horizontal
[36:00] relationship to each other that really
[36:02] informs the design. U the design
[36:04] standards ask that we that the buildings
[36:07] step down the hill with the terrain and
[36:10] that we preserve steep slopes and trees
[36:13] and that's what I think we did.
[36:16] Um the building
[36:19] so this is this is the design. Now, I'm
[36:21] doing this without a lot of detail like
[36:23] you show in the renderings, but just to
[36:25] give you an idea of the massing of the
[36:26] buildings. Um, the building the building
[36:29] is broken down into three components.
[36:31] Um, each occupying one of the red areas
[36:34] were allowed to build on from the bench,
[36:37] which is up here at the top. Um, the
[36:40] buildings step down the hill and weave
[36:43] through the trees. Um, and the uh the
[36:45] main house is connected to the garage
[36:48] which is which is here.
[36:51] um via an enclosed bridge that travels
[36:54] through a stand of redwoods. The two
[36:57] components that are closest to the road,
[36:59] that's the garage and then this attached
[37:02] ADU
[37:03] present a one-story face to the road. Um
[37:07] in other words, the one-story section of
[37:10] those buildings that's closest to the
[37:11] road and when they step up to two
[37:14] stories, those areas are further uh up
[37:17] the hill and further away from the road.
[37:20] The main house occupies the bench, which
[37:23] is up here, um, and is elevated on
[37:26] peers. So, um, we wanted to be able to
[37:30] get the house to have as big a footprint
[37:32] as possible in a relatively small area.
[37:36] Um, like 2700 square f feet is what that
[37:39] red area is up there. So, we needed to
[37:41] elevate the house a little and can lever
[37:44] it in in in multiple directions out over
[37:47] the slopes that are the 35 and 50% so
[37:51] that we could have a big enough area in
[37:53] the house. And it also allowed us then
[37:55] to have the rainwater
[37:58] from the uphill slopes go under the
[38:00] house and then be collected before it
[38:03] gets down to collected and diverted
[38:05] before it gets down to um the attached
[38:07] ADU which is right here.
[38:10] So I believe this directly addresses uh
[38:14] finding number five um uh as I think the
[38:17] structures are subordinate to the
[38:19] natural environment um you know
[38:21] responsive certainly to the site
[38:23] constraints um and compatible with the
[38:26] rural character of Woodside. And I
[38:28] should note here that the vocabulary of of the and the materiality of the
[38:34] design as you see uh in those renderings
[38:36] that Sage showed you and the first
[38:38] rendering that I showed you was heavily
[38:41] influenced by the neighboring 95 Skywood
[38:44] and 35 Still Creek.
[38:47] Um it has been suggested by the
[38:52] neighbors consultant Mr. French uh that
[38:54] we should move the structures back to
[38:57] the 50-foot setback line and you can
[39:00] view that in his report. Um and as you
[39:04] can see um mostly you know anything uh
[39:08] beyond that 50oot setback line uh is is
[39:11] mostly um uh uh a slope of 50% or
[39:16] greater. So if we move the buildings
[39:20] back into that 50 foot setback. So now
[39:22] you can see taking uh the the main house
[39:25] stays where you know up on the bench but
[39:28] in order to uh uh meet the the 50oot
[39:32] setback we'd have to move those
[39:34] buildings back into the hillside.
[39:36] Um so moving the house back to this
[39:41] position will require us to obtain a
[39:44] grading exception um because the amount
[39:46] of excavation would be about 1645 yards.
[39:51] the backs of the attached ADU and the
[39:54] garage would require about a 14 foot
[39:57] high retaining wall because we're
[39:59] further uh into the hillside. It would
[40:01] also uh unfortunately require us to
[40:04] remove many mature and healthy redwoods.
[40:07] All of which I think is inconsistent
[40:09] with the Woodides design guidelines. And
[40:12] I think it also directly addresses
[40:14] finding 1B which is that the uh
[40:17] available alternatives uh would uh
[40:20] meaning this one would cause greater
[40:21] adverse impact on natural features than
[40:24] the proposed exception.
[40:26] And also I think finding two which
[40:28] directs us to cause no significant
[40:30] impacts to the applicant's property
[40:32] adjacent properties or surrounding
[40:33] neighborhood and town and finding four
[40:36] which directs us to cause the least
[40:37] amount of disturbance to the site.
[40:40] to give you a feeling for the massing
[40:43] from the street. Now again, this is not
[40:45] a detailed drawing, but purposely so
[40:48] just to get have you get a feel for the size of the building relative to the
[40:52] backdrop which is the hillside and the trees. Um so to give you a feel
[40:59] of that massing um this view um which is
[41:02] from the street um is which shows the
[41:05] building that is is currently designed
[41:07] and situated at the 30-foot setback
[41:09] line.
[41:10] This is the same view um but with the
[41:14] building moved to the 50- foot setback.
[41:16] As you can see, the visual difference is pretty minor. However, uh the impact
[41:23] on the site is profound because of the
[41:26] loss of trees and the additional cutting
[41:29] into the 50% slope.
[41:32] Here is another view. This is the view
[41:35] of the rendering that I showed you at
[41:37] the very beginning.
[41:39] um also from the street but from the
[41:41] northwest. This is the 30-foot setback
[41:44] um which the 30- foot setback exception.
[41:48] Here's the same view with the 50-ft
[41:50] setback. Uh again, the visual difference
[41:53] from the road and the impact from the
[41:55] road I I believe is is relatively minor
[41:58] between those two, but again the the
[42:02] site impacts are are are really
[42:05] significant. um and we'd love to avoid
[42:08] that.
[42:10] This I think also addresses finding
[42:11] number three that the proposed exception
[42:15] uh will cause no significant uh adverse
[42:18] impact on the privacy of the neighbors.
[42:20] I I don't think either one of these
[42:22] situations whether the 30-foot or the
[42:24] 50- foot u impact will um will have make
[42:28] any real difference.
[42:31] Um the next set of slides um is in
[42:35] response to uh Mr. French's contention
[42:38] that we've misrepresented
[42:41] the size of our building because our
[42:43] floor plans don't align with our size
[42:46] calculation exhibit. Um so this is um
[42:51] this is Mr. French's figure 50. Um, and
[42:55] just before this in his report, he
[42:58] states, quote, "This shall be granted
[43:02] argument is predicated on the project's
[43:04] total floor area, which might not apply
[43:07] to the a project that provides
[43:09] inaccurate data. Since the floor area
[43:12] calculations do not match the physical
[43:14] geometry of the floor plans, the fact
[43:18] that the project is under 8,800 square
[43:20] feet is unverified.
[43:23] So I I believe that this statement
[43:26] reflects sort of a fundamental
[43:28] misunderstanding and misreading of our
[43:30] floor plans and perhaps the method that
[43:34] Woodside uses to calculate building
[43:36] area. And let me demonstrate if you
[43:38] don't mind. Uh in this figure um Mr.
[43:42] French attempts to align our floor plan
[43:45] with our floor area calculation exhibit.
[43:48] And you can see the lines that he's
[43:50] connecting between various corners of
[43:53] one drawing to the other. The issue here
[43:56] is that he's aligning the wrong corners
[43:58] of the plan. Um on the far left, he
[44:01] attempts to align the corner of our
[44:04] office, which is right here, with the
[44:07] edge of our exterior uncovered entrance,
[44:10] uh which is this. So, um,
[44:14] and the uncovered terrace, I'm sorry,
[44:17] the exterior and uncovered terrace, that
[44:19] does not count in the area calculation,
[44:22] and therefore it's not shown in our
[44:23] exhibit. He also misaligned the
[44:26] northwest corner of the attached ADU
[44:28] here with the exterior and uncovered
[44:32] terrace in the northwest corner of the
[44:34] ADU up here. I'm going to show you
[44:37] those. Those are the terraces in
[44:39] question. those those terraces do not
[44:42] have floor uh roofs over them. So they
[44:44] do not do not count in the floor area
[44:46] calculation.
[44:49] So just to sum this up quickly um here
[44:53] is a a slide showing ADU number two.
[44:57] This is uh the outline of the parts of
[45:00] the building that contribute to the area
[45:02] calculation.
[45:04] The blue area is the uncovered terrace
[45:07] with uh terrace which does not
[45:08] contribute to the area calculation.
[45:12] This is the area right here of the
[45:14] garage and Jedu that contribute to the
[45:17] building area. This is the house. These
[45:20] are the areas that contribute to the
[45:22] building area and these are the terraces
[45:25] that do not.
[45:27] Here's Mr. French's alignment.
[45:31] here is the proper alignment. So, um,
[45:35] and if you go to another slide, kind of
[45:38] show you that those are the corners that
[45:40] should be matching up. And then you can
[45:42] see again that those are properly
[45:44] aligned. Um, and the exhibits uh are
[45:49] correct as they were originally drawn.
[45:51] And therefore, our area calculation is
[45:54] correct. And we are below the 8,800 foot
[45:57] cap.
[46:00] That is all.
[46:03] >> Okay. Thank you, James.
[46:06] Any other members of the team?
[46:09] Yes, sir. Welcome.
[46:11] >> Yeah, I'm I'm Charles Kissik with Sigma
[46:14] Prime GeoSciences in Half Moon Bay. Um,
[46:16] we did all the engineering geologic and
[46:18] geologic work uh on this project for
[46:21] several years now. And um I wasn't even
[46:26] I didn't know I was going to be here
[46:27] until about two hours ago. So, I have
[46:28] nothing prepared. So, I'm just going to
[46:29] have to wing it.
[46:31] >> Uh, first of all, I I I'm extremely
[46:33] familiar with the area, having grown up
[46:35] on Skyway since 1966, so I know the area
[46:38] very well. And um, the bottom line, I
[46:44] could go into a lot of detail, but the
[46:45] bottom line is the site is is stable.
[46:49] There have been concerns brought up
[46:51] about slope stability and uh, falting,
[46:55] but there's no faulting hazard in the
[46:58] air. the nearest active fault, the San
[46:59] Andreas fault about a mile away. There's
[47:02] a secondary
[47:05] um potentially active fault about 250 ft
[47:09] down the hill to the um well toward the
[47:13] east toward you know down the hill and
[47:16] which has no potential
[47:19] uh impact on on the project. Um and then
[47:23] we spent quite a a lot quite a long time
[47:27] studying the stability of the site,
[47:29] slope stability, working closely with
[47:31] the town of Woodside and as well as um
[47:34] their reviewer Cottonshers and
[47:35] associates. And after going back and
[47:38] forth with a lot of field work and lab
[47:40] work and analyses and aer photo analysis
[47:43] and all these other things with lidar
[47:46] between us cottonshite and everybody
[47:49] involved in this project over the last
[47:51] several years we've concluded that the
[47:53] uh slope stability hazard is is low. You
[47:56] can never say zero in any hills anywhere
[47:59] but it's very low and not really much of
[48:02] a concern.
[48:03] Um like I said, yeah. Um like I said, it
[48:09] wasn't prepared. I'm trying to think of
[48:11] what the other concerns were, but bottom
[48:14] line is uh I have no no concerns
[48:20] regarding future slope stability,
[48:25] uh fault rupture across the site
[48:28] or anything like that. So, I'd be happy
[48:30] to rebut further comments in the future,
[48:32] but for now, I'd like to hear what other
[48:34] people have to say. Okay.
[48:36] >> Great. Thank you.
[48:39] >> Yes, sir.
[48:40] >> Good evening.
[48:42] >> Thank you so much for your time today.
[48:44] Uh my name is Ryan Patterson. I'm an
[48:46] attorney for the project applicants. Um
[48:49] and I I first want to thank staff for
[48:51] all the hard work and time that uh they
[48:54] have put into this project over the
[48:55] course of years now. Um, it's a lot and
[48:59] I I just want you to know we appreciate
[49:01] it. Um, I'm going to be speaking mostly
[49:05] about the law here and why the town is
[49:08] required to approve the project as
[49:10] proposed with the exceptions uh as
[49:13] requested. Um, to tell you just a bit
[49:17] about my qualification to speak to that
[49:19] topic. Um, my practice focuses on uh the
[49:23] Housing Accountability Act and the new
[49:26] state housing laws. Um, I believe that I
[49:29] have litigated more Housing
[49:31] Accountability Act and state law cases,
[49:33] state housing law cases probably than
[49:35] anyone else in the state. Um, and I I
[49:38] say that because I want to give you my
[49:39] analysis of this project and its request
[49:42] for the exception. Um, and I think
[49:45] you're going to hear a lot of folks
[49:46] speak about the law and what it means.
[49:49] uh and they may may be less familiar
[49:51] with the law. Um so to start the Housing
[49:55] Accountability Act Government Code
[49:56] section 65589.5
[49:59] this is a law that's older than I am but
[50:01] was recently amended has been amended a
[50:04] number of times recently to make it
[50:06] stronger and stronger. Likewise the ADU
[50:09] law has been amended recently to make it
[50:11] stronger and stronger and that's the
[50:13] environment that we're operating in
[50:14] today. Um the in short the housing
[50:18] accountability act or HAA requires that
[50:20] when a project meets the objective
[50:23] applicable standards it must be approved
[50:26] at the density proposed. So in this case
[50:28] you have a single family home and three
[50:30] accessory units. Um
[50:34] if the project meets the applicable
[50:36] objective standards and this project
[50:37] does. Um, I understand and respect that
[50:40] staff has taken the position that the
[50:42] project does not meet all standards
[50:44] because it is requesting an exception to
[50:46] the setback rule. But the way this works
[50:50] under state law is if the project meets
[50:52] the requirements for the exception,
[50:55] then the setback rule is no longer
[50:57] applicable because you qualify for the
[50:59] exception. This project meets the
[51:01] applicable requirements for the
[51:03] exception. And you've heard uh in quite
[51:06] a bit of written uh briefing from the
[51:08] architect, you've heard in his uh
[51:11] presentation just now why it qualifies
[51:13] for the exception.
[51:16] Um the project meets all of the
[51:19] standards. And how do we know that?
[51:20] Well, first it is deemed compliant by
[51:23] operation of law. Under the Housing
[51:26] Accountability Act, uh a city or county
[51:29] has 30 days to decide and notify the
[51:32] applicant if the project is compliant or
[51:34] not compliant after the project is
[51:37] complete. After the application is
[51:38] complete, in this case, uh the project
[51:42] was deemed complete by law on December
[51:44] 9, 2024 and confirmed in writing by
[51:47] staff. uh the town did not provide an
[51:51] inconsistency determination
[51:53] uh within 30 days or by January 9, 2025.
[51:57] The consequence of this is
[52:00] final and certain under law the project
[52:03] does comply with applicable
[52:05] requirements. Um even if it didn't in
[52:08] reality, the law says it does, but
[52:10] thankfully in this case it actually does
[52:12] meet the requirements. Um, and I note
[52:15] that many of the standards are not
[52:16] actually objective. Um, and I'll I'll
[52:19] speak to that just briefly, but remember
[52:21] it has to meet the applicable objective
[52:23] standards here. The requirements for the
[52:25] exception are largely subjective rather
[52:27] than objective and therefore not
[52:30] actually required under law. Um, so for
[52:34] example, finding number one, no
[52:35] conforming alternatives or alternatives
[52:38] will cause greater environmental damage.
[52:40] Um there's several terms that are not
[52:43] actually defined in the code um and are
[52:45] not as state law says quote uniformly
[52:48] verifiable by reference to an external
[52:51] and uniform benchmark or criterion
[52:54] available and knowable by both the
[52:56] development applicant or proponent and
[52:58] the public official before submitt.
[53:02] It's for that reason that a lot of
[53:03] cities have been moving away from these
[53:05] types of standards in recent years to
[53:07] make them more objective, more concrete,
[53:10] more defined. These are kind of an older
[53:14] uh relic of the past the way that
[53:16] they're phrased. And in some cases, they
[53:19] may still apply to projects, but in this case, not. Uh finding number
[53:24] two, no objective criteria uh to define
[53:28] a significant environmental impact. the
[53:30] applicant can't know if it if it meets
[53:33] that standard or not in advance. Um,
[53:36] finding number three, the exception will
[53:38] cause no significant adverse impact on
[53:40] the privacy of neighbors. We don't have
[53:43] objective criteria in the municipal code
[53:45] to explain what a a significant privacy
[53:48] act uh impact on neighbors is. Now, this
[53:51] project does not, for the record, have a
[53:53] significant privacy impact. Uh, in fact,
[53:56] this has been designed so that it's
[53:57] pulled away as far as it can be. It's
[54:00] through heavily wooded terrain, sloped
[54:02] terrain. Um, you can't see the neighbors
[54:06] from this project and the neighbors
[54:08] cannot see the houses that are proposed
[54:10] here. There's literally no privacy
[54:12] impact. Um, you have in your packets a
[54:15] visual study showing uh line of sight
[54:18] from the project site to each
[54:20] surrounding neighbor and all you can see
[54:22] is trees. you you can't see the
[54:24] neighboring houses. Um neighbors have
[54:26] claimed that there will be a privacy
[54:28] impact because they will drive by the
[54:30] houses and look at the houses as they
[54:32] drive by for approximately 5 seconds
[54:35] that it takes to drive past.
[54:37] It's not a privacy impact to drive by
[54:39] and look at someone's home. Um or the possibility that someone sitting in
[54:44] her house might look out at the road at
[54:46] just the precise moment someone drives
[54:48] by. That's not a privacy impact on the
[54:50] car. and to tell this family that they
[54:53] can't build a home uh because someone
[54:55] might drive by and look at them, look at
[54:57] their house for five seconds as they
[54:58] drive past.
[55:00] We all have homes that look at roads uh
[55:02] and roads that can see our homes as they
[55:04] go by. That's just not how it works.
[55:08] Um additionally,
[55:11] uh I mean some of these things like
[55:13] consistent with the spirit and intent,
[55:15] goals and objectives of the general
[55:17] plan, this is this is textbook
[55:19] subjective. Um, so these things don't
[55:22] apply, but we mean it anyway. Um, as you
[55:24] have at some length briefed in your
[55:27] packets.
[55:29] Next, state ADU law actually prohibits
[55:32] imposing additional setback
[55:34] requirements. It's a 4-oot setback
[55:36] requirement. We are well past a 4oot
[55:38] setback. That's state law. Um, and we're
[55:42] giving as much setback as possible.
[55:45] Next, the junior accessory dwelling unit
[55:48] is being proposed as a with a setback
[55:51] under disability law. This is a
[55:53] requested disability accommodation under
[55:55] the Americans with Disabilities Act and
[55:57] comparable state law. Um, they have
[56:00] family members with mobility impairments
[56:02] who are going to be aging in place here
[56:04] who need to be cited in this location so
[56:07] that the garage is accessible from the
[56:09] road and the building is attached to the
[56:11] garage. their home has to be accessible
[56:14] with an elevator from that garage cited
[56:17] at the road location. Um, this is this
[56:20] is federal and state law. Uh, it goes
[56:23] beyond simply the zoning code.
[56:30] Now, turning back to um kind of the
[56:34] bigger picture,
[56:36] the town's housing element
[56:39] committed in program H6.2 2. C uh by the
[56:44] end of 2025 to change the setback
[56:47] requirements. The town is committed to
[56:50] change uh from the nor the the current
[56:53] 50- foot requirement to the Woodside
[56:55] Glenn's model uh with reduced setbacks.
[56:58] It committed to do that by the end of
[57:00] last year. The town is in violation
[57:02] currently of its housing element
[57:04] commitment to the state. And for the
[57:07] town to then deny an exception that
[57:09] allows a home to be built in general
[57:12] conformity with that commitment.
[57:14] I mean that that's a that's something to
[57:17] be careful of. uh HCD, the housing and
[57:20] community development department, has
[57:22] authority to revoke uh housing element
[57:25] compliance, which would subject the town
[57:28] to the builder's remedy, meaning that
[57:30] none of the local zoning standards apply
[57:32] and people can build big buildings
[57:35] basically wherever they want. Uh there
[57:37] are there are major financial penalties,
[57:40] monthly, massive financial penalties uh
[57:43] that could apply loss of funds from the
[57:45] state and there are a lot of bad things.
[57:47] We don't we don't want the town to go
[57:49] out of compliance with the housing
[57:50] element. So I think for that reason it's
[57:52] important to show the state that even if
[57:54] the town has not complied with that
[57:57] obligation by the date they said they
[57:59] would, they're at least honoring it in
[58:01] spirit with I think the first project to
[58:04] come along to ask uh about that
[58:06] qualification about that setback
[58:08] requirement
[58:11] beyond HCD even to the project
[58:13] applicants to this family. If the
[58:17] exception is not granted and the
[58:19] requirement is you have to build on a
[58:22] 50-ft slope, you have to do massive
[58:23] amounts of excavation and retaining
[58:25] walls, you have to cut down significant
[58:28] redwood trees and a significant number
[58:30] of significant redwood trees. If that's
[58:32] what the town is going to tell this
[58:33] family tonight,
[58:36] that is infeasible for them to build. If the town is going to tell them they
[58:40] can't position their their parents'
[58:43] home, the JADU, in a location that is
[58:46] accessible to them with mobility
[58:48] impairments, it's not a feasible
[58:50] project. And the consequence of denying
[58:53] a feasible a project, rendering it
[58:56] infeasible in this way, is significant
[58:58] financial penalties. If there were a
[59:00] Housing Accountability Act lawsuit, we
[59:03] would be looking at $50,000 per unit in
[59:07] addition to the attorney's fees, which
[59:08] would probably even dwarf that amount in
[59:11] addition to the town's own attorney's
[59:12] fees. Um, so it's, you know, it's it's
[59:15] not an inconsequential thing. Um, again,
[59:19] I appreciate staff has really grappled
[59:20] with these issues and I think found a
[59:22] good solution. Uh, we we do have some
[59:25] issues with a couple of the conditions
[59:27] which you'll hear from the applicant. Uh
[59:29] but the project itself is a good one and
[59:32] it is sensitively located to minimize
[59:34] environmental impact and impact to the
[59:36] neighbors. Thank you very much.
[59:38] >> Thank you.
[59:42] » Any other members of the team? Kristen
[59:45] or David?
[59:46] >> Hi Kristen. Welcome.
[59:50] >> Yeah.
[59:54] » Good evening Mayor and council members.
[59:56] I'm afraid I left the blue hats at home
[59:59] for the opposing team. I won't take too
[1:00:01] much time to speak, particularly on the
[1:00:03] technical and legal basis for our
[1:00:05] appeal. Indeed, there is a tome of
[1:00:07] documents that speaks to that rivaling
[1:00:10] my organic chemistry textbook from
[1:00:12] college in its length. Instead, I will
[1:00:14] speak the same message that I began this
[1:00:16] process with in 2019. Put simply, I want
[1:00:19] to build a house for my family on my
[1:00:22] property, and I want to build housing
[1:00:24] for those who could not otherwise afford
[1:00:26] to live in the area. The family who
[1:00:28] intends to inhabit this house, hopefully
[1:00:30] for many years to come, includes my
[1:00:32] in-laws, John and Nan. We have all been
[1:00:35] living together since 2020, building the
[1:00:37] village that people talk about when it
[1:00:39] comes time to raise a family. Elements
[1:00:41] of the design are specifically there to
[1:00:43] accommodate the mobility needs of my
[1:00:45] family. They are not optional fat to be
[1:00:48] trimmed off on the whims of neighbors.
[1:00:50] The additional housing that we can build
[1:00:52] is a way to keep valued members of the
[1:00:54] community here. People who cannot afford
[1:00:57] to purchase a property but nonetheless
[1:00:59] are rooted here. Teachers, retirees,
[1:01:02] craftsmen, people deserve the
[1:01:05] opportunity for and the dignity of
[1:01:07] housing. Furthermore, our inclusion of
[1:01:09] those units was a response to the town's
[1:01:11] directive to create housing through
[1:01:13] ADUs, not condominiums.
[1:01:16] Fundamentally, we come before the town
[1:01:18] council to ask for relief, a difference
[1:01:20] of approximately 20 ft from where the
[1:01:22] building is cited. This makes no
[1:01:25] material difference in how the building
[1:01:26] appears from the road. A road which is
[1:01:29] private,
[1:01:30] which is owned by us, with only two
[1:01:33] houses beyond. I find it astonishing
[1:01:35] that a family house with additional
[1:01:37] allowable units has garnered so much
[1:01:39] ugliness and to be sure public comment
[1:01:42] for this project might be best described
[1:01:44] as a crucifixion in 26x.
[1:01:47] The only project that has come before
[1:01:48] the town's decision-making bodies for
[1:01:50] building that has drawn more commentary
[1:01:53] and public input has been Roberts and
[1:01:55] Bucks. The burdens of proof put upon us
[1:01:58] are magnitudes greater than any
[1:02:00] equivalent project. I am grateful that
[1:02:02] the council will hear this appeal
[1:02:04] tonight examining the facts in front of
[1:02:06] them. Denovo, thank you very much.
[1:02:09] >> Thank you,
[1:02:12] David.
[1:02:25] Like the only one that has to adjust the
[1:02:26] mic.
[1:02:33] Council members, over the last 18
[1:02:35] months, some have questioned my
[1:02:37] character and others have raised
[1:02:38] concerns about my ethics. Facts have been twisted. History has
[1:02:47] been revised. Tonight, I ask you to
[1:02:50] reflect on my record of service. Trust
[1:02:52] is demonstrated through actions, not
[1:02:54] just words.
[1:02:56] I have taken the oath of office four
[1:02:58] times.
[1:02:59] to serve both our country and this town.
[1:03:02] I have taken the oath of office three
[1:03:03] times after 911, during Operation During
[1:03:06] Freedom, most recently as a naval
[1:03:08] officer.
[1:03:10] I swore to serve witside with integrity,
[1:03:12] fairness, and transparency, upholding
[1:03:14] the general plan and ordinances.
[1:03:18] Both both call for true faith and
[1:03:20] allegiance, holding me to high standards
[1:03:22] of honor and integrity.
[1:03:25] I am guided by the Navy's core values,
[1:03:27] honor, courage, and commitment. These
[1:03:29] values inform all of my decisions and
[1:03:31] actions. Sailors are accountable for
[1:03:33] their actions and are expected to serve
[1:03:35] with integrity, taking full
[1:03:37] responsibility, and keeping their word.
[1:03:39] That includes my promise of building a
[1:03:41] house for Kristen on the property that
[1:03:43] our family has owned for over 50 years.
[1:03:48] We act in the nation's best interest,
[1:03:49] upholding high standards and using
[1:03:51] entrusted resources honestly and
[1:03:53] efficiently.
[1:03:55] My position requires a 10-year
[1:03:57] background investigation and continuous
[1:03:59] polygraphs.
[1:04:02] I strive for positive change and
[1:04:04] improvement. That's why I attended every
[1:04:06] council hearing on the housing element
[1:04:08] to understand the council's goals when
[1:04:11] updating the general plan. Tonight, I
[1:04:13] appear before you as someone who abides
[1:04:16] by the Navy's core values and has earned
[1:04:18] the Navy's trust and yours. This council
[1:04:22] also unanimously selected me to serve
[1:04:24] Woodside by appointing me to the ASRB.
[1:04:27] This is who I am. My words and actions,
[1:04:30] both here and elsewhere, show my
[1:04:32] commitment to service, integrity, and
[1:04:33] the trust you have placed in me.
[1:04:36] So, trust the words I say and trust the
[1:04:39] words of my team.
[1:04:43] This project has evolved through
[1:04:44] multiple conceptual reviews and design
[1:04:46] updates over the past 18 months.
[1:04:48] We began initially planning in early
[1:04:50] 2019 and submitted our first conceptual
[1:04:52] review in 2020. Through ongoing
[1:04:55] feedback, we updated the designs and
[1:04:57] setbacks periodically, making the most
[1:04:59] recent revisions in July 2025 to comply
[1:05:02] with the town code, town goals, and
[1:05:04] state law.
[1:05:06] Unfortunately, by pushing the attach as
[1:05:09] far back as possible while still staying
[1:05:11] out of 35% slopes, we had to give up our
[1:05:14] goal of not cutting down any healthy
[1:05:17] significant redwood retreats.
[1:05:19] Woodside is committed to meet state
[1:05:21] housing requirements mainly through ADUs
[1:05:23] as specified in the housing element. Our
[1:05:25] project four units on 10 acres includes
[1:05:28] two ADUs, one JADU aligns with the
[1:05:31] town's preference with for low density
[1:05:34] ADU focused growth.
[1:05:37] I have firsthand experience with fire.
[1:05:40] From my time as a volunteer firefighter
[1:05:42] and from damage control training in the
[1:05:44] Navy. While I was underway, there was a
[1:05:46] fire on my ship.
[1:05:48] Excuse me, my boat. I was a Submariner.
[1:05:52] We are acutely aware of the fire danger
[1:05:54] in the area, which is why we developed a
[1:05:56] vegetation management plan independent
[1:05:58] of this project in 2024 and have gone
[1:06:01] above and beyond the requirements of
[1:06:03] today's fires safe building code. As Jim
[1:06:06] can attest, I have not budged on the
[1:06:08] self-imposed requirements, including
[1:06:10] exterior walls for the two-hour fire
[1:06:12] rating and exterior fire sprinklers, a
[1:06:16] system credited with saving over a dozen
[1:06:18] homes in the Palisades fire.
[1:06:25] Last September, I spoke about our
[1:06:26] dedicated staff and noted that only four
[1:06:29] positions pay at or above the county
[1:06:31] median income for a family of four.
[1:06:35] In both the Woodside and Molen Valley
[1:06:36] school districts, the pay tables don't
[1:06:38] even list the median family income. Many
[1:06:41] town staff commute from places like San
[1:06:43] Francisco and Half Moon Bay. Our son's
[1:06:46] teacher drives in from Hayward every
[1:06:49] single day.
[1:06:51] If you review the minutes from our first
[1:06:53] ASRB meeting hearing in 2020, you'll see
[1:06:56] we always discuss bringing affordable
[1:06:58] housing to Woodside through this
[1:06:59] project. Our goal has always been to
[1:07:02] provide homes for fixed income seniors
[1:07:03] like my parents, teachers, first
[1:07:05] responders, students, veterans, and
[1:07:08] others who serve our community through a
[1:07:09] missing middle housing project because
[1:07:11] that's what this is. We specifically
[1:07:14] designed two units to be accessible for
[1:07:16] those with dis with with disabilities.
[1:07:19] Our project is listed first as an
[1:07:22] affordable housing pipeline project in
[1:07:24] the housing element on page G10
[1:07:27] adding two units of very lowincome
[1:07:29] housing. This proposal achieves the
[1:07:32] outcome described in the adopted housing
[1:07:34] element. When the, as Kristen said, when
[1:07:37] the town approved four ADUs on large
[1:07:39] parcels, we included two more ADUs in
[1:07:41] our master plan, which the ASB had
[1:07:44] already approved in 2021
[1:07:47] as we and we were preparing for formal
[1:07:49] design review. We did this because we
[1:07:51] felt it was our civic duty to help the
[1:07:53] town achieve its housing goals through
[1:07:54] ADUs rather than multifamily buildings.
[1:07:58] Despite the approved part of the project
[1:08:00] having no material changes, which is the
[1:08:02] part ironically you are looking at for a
[1:08:06] setback exception,
[1:08:08] submitting the master plan for the
[1:08:09] property as the town encourages started
[1:08:12] a second conceptual review process over
[1:08:15] a year ago. The detached ADUs are at
[1:08:18] that we added aren't even up for
[1:08:20] discussion since they are only part of
[1:08:22] the application for ministerial review.
[1:08:25] Unfortunately, when the town passed the
[1:08:27] ordinance relaxing the downhill plate
[1:08:29] height for ADUs on downhill slopes, we
[1:08:32] did not we I include myself in that. I
[1:08:34] was at those meetings did not account
[1:08:36] for a split level structure with two
[1:08:38] ADUs in the same footprint.
[1:08:41] Something that is achievable on a
[1:08:42] downhill slope while maintaining the
[1:08:44] one-story uphill plate height. So to
[1:08:47] eliminate the variance that that second
[1:08:48] ADU would require, we removed it.
[1:08:54] Ryan talked about the housing program
[1:08:57] that we have failed to accomplish.
[1:08:59] We are in this meeting today in 2026
[1:09:02] because
[1:09:04] we didn't do it and that delay has force
[1:09:07] applicants like us to seek hearings like
[1:09:09] this and relief that should already be
[1:09:10] handled administratively.
[1:09:12] Our project would comply with the town's
[1:09:14] 30-foot setback requirement for Woodside
[1:09:16] Glenns, but it was not adopted in the
[1:09:18] Western Hills promise.
[1:09:22] There's a question about whether the HA
[1:09:24] applies in a single family home. Staff
[1:09:26] has an opinion. Ryan has an opinion with
[1:09:29] a quote from the HCD technical advisory
[1:09:32] in their FAQ section. Does the Housing
[1:09:35] Accountability Act apply to an
[1:09:36] application that includes both single
[1:09:38] family resident residence and an
[1:09:41] accessory dwelling unit? Yes, since an
[1:09:44] application for both a single family
[1:09:46] residence and an ADU includes more than
[1:09:49] one residential unit, the HAA applies.
[1:09:54] As such, it is protected from denial
[1:09:56] unless a preponderance of evidence shows
[1:09:58] that a specific adverse health or safety
[1:10:01] impact cannot be mitigated, and there's
[1:10:04] none that exists for our project.
[1:10:08] Some have argued that our project does
[1:10:09] not meet local objective standards
[1:10:11] because the zoning code requires us to
[1:10:13] request an exception. However, the
[1:10:16] zoning code does not match the general
[1:10:18] plan. In other words, it is not
[1:10:20] vertically consistent with the general
[1:10:22] plan, a situation considered in the
[1:10:25] housing accountability act. Our housing
[1:10:28] element calls for updating the western
[1:10:30] hills outdated rules to align with the
[1:10:32] Woodside Glenn template. Before
[1:10:34] incorporation, the western hills were
[1:10:35] subject to San Antonio County's much
[1:10:37] more relaxed setback standards of 25
[1:10:40] feet in the front, five feet on the
[1:10:41] sides, and 20 feet in the back.
[1:10:44] And that's why most of the Western Hill
[1:10:46] properties don't meet today's standards,
[1:10:49] including those in the vicinity of Still
[1:10:51] Creek. These differences show
[1:10:56] why vertical consistency in the housing
[1:10:58] accountability act matters. Local
[1:11:00] decisions much must match local policy.
[1:11:03] housing goals and state law. This
[1:11:05] protects the housing goals you set in
[1:11:08] the general plan.
[1:11:17] Our project is located on a private road
[1:11:19] that we own and over which our neighbors
[1:11:22] have easements. These properties, three
[1:11:25] properties have rightway easements
[1:11:26] across our land and building site, while
[1:11:28] others have implied easements on parts
[1:11:30] of Sopre Road that do not cross the
[1:11:32] building site. And none of the HOA
[1:11:34] members behind me have easements on that
[1:11:36] road.
[1:11:38] We have held multiple Zoom calls,
[1:11:40] sitewalks, and kitchen meetings to
[1:11:41] discuss the project with Still Creek
[1:11:43] neighbors. Despite contrary claims, many
[1:11:46] Skyrimacres neighbors have expressed
[1:11:48] concern about this project. But those
[1:11:50] concerns only emerged after our Steel
[1:11:52] Creek neighbors determined, as quoted
[1:11:53] from an ASRB meeting, that their private
[1:11:56] forest should remain undisturbed.
[1:12:00] Project opponents argue we should have
[1:12:02] reached out to them because they reside
[1:12:03] in the surrounding area. Yet, they
[1:12:05] argued Skyward Acres wasn't the
[1:12:07] surrounding area. At the planning
[1:12:09] commission meeting,
[1:12:11] the planning commission decided that the
[1:12:13] surrounding area consisted only of the
[1:12:14] homes on the parcel map for Still Creek
[1:12:16] Road, not all those in Skyward acres.
[1:12:20] But this is the first time across the
[1:12:22] entire 17-year record of the current way
[1:12:24] we grant setback resolutions that a
[1:12:27] project was redefined
[1:12:30] based on the recorded parcel map as a
[1:12:33] reference to exclude identically zone
[1:12:35] adjacent lots. the first time.
[1:12:39] If the planning commission had accepted
[1:12:41] the surrounding area encompassed by
[1:12:43] Skyward Acres as it as it has
[1:12:45] historically by looking at properties
[1:12:47] within a quarter mile radius, Finding 1C
[1:12:50] would have been supported by the pattern
[1:12:51] of development as many of the homes in
[1:12:54] Skyward Acres do not comply with the
[1:12:55] current 5ft setback requirements because
[1:12:58] they were built when they were part of
[1:12:59] the county.
[1:13:02] But looking at Steel Creek on its own,
[1:13:04] every house has some nonconformity,
[1:13:06] whether it's setbacks, slopes, or
[1:13:08] variances. 105 Sunrise, three Still
[1:13:11] Creek, 35 Steel Creek, and 95 Skyward
[1:13:14] all have setbacks that are less than 50
[1:13:17] ft. 95 Skyward is built in the slopes
[1:13:20] greater than 50% slope.
[1:13:24] I never found the variance for that.
[1:13:27] Seven and 45 Still Creek have driveway
[1:13:29] exceptions and 45 Still Creek was built
[1:13:31] on an active landslide.
[1:13:33] Our request is consistent with
[1:13:35] long-standing precedent in the area. The
[1:13:38] question before you is simple. Are we
[1:13:40] entitled to build our house in the front
[1:13:42] step? Are we entitled to some relief for
[1:13:45] our challenging lot like our neighbors
[1:13:48] have enjoyed relief? It's a question of
[1:13:50] entitlements. It's that simple.
[1:13:56] Given all this, denying our project over
[1:13:58] setbacks would be unfair and counter to
[1:14:01] the goals of the housing element that we
[1:14:04] set in our housing element. Our proposal
[1:14:06] fits the neighborhood is supported by
[1:14:08] the housing element and request relief
[1:14:10] only for setbacks. If the town had
[1:14:13] already updated setback standards as
[1:14:15] planned as promised to HCD, no exception
[1:14:18] would be needed.
[1:14:19] This room behind
[1:14:21] the crowd behind me reminds me of the
[1:14:24] crowd that you had during the housing
[1:14:26] element and the upzoning meetings we had
[1:14:28] for the three high density areas in
[1:14:30] town. As a veteran and current naval
[1:14:33] officer, I have always looked for ways
[1:14:35] to serve our community as a civilian.
[1:14:38] Tonight, our shared mission is to turn
[1:14:40] the town's housing vision into action.
[1:14:42] This project fulfills those values and
[1:14:44] advances our commitment to the public
[1:14:46] and the state. I urge you to stand by
[1:14:49] your promises and approve this project
[1:14:51] tonight and allow us to provide much
[1:14:53] needed housing for our community.
[1:14:55] Thank you.
[1:14:57] >> Thank you, David.
[1:15:01] Does that conclude? Okay. Thank you. Uh
[1:15:05] any questions for the appellent?
[1:15:11] » Sir,
[1:15:12] >> this one is for um Mr. Patterson. Thank
[1:15:15] you for your presentation. and it was uh
[1:15:17] very helpful.
[1:15:19] >> Um can you go over the um
[1:15:22] the state ADU and setback you you had
[1:15:25] referenced it there that some new and
[1:15:28] it's highly relevant to this project of
[1:15:30] course. Could you go through that again?
[1:15:32] I want to make sure I heard you
[1:15:33] correctly.
[1:15:35] >> So
[1:15:39] » thank you. I'm not that tall. Uh thank
[1:15:42] you. Yes. I I believe I mentioned that
[1:15:45] state ADU law has gotten more and more
[1:15:47] restrictive over the last few years. Um
[1:15:50] specifically with regard to setbacks, it
[1:15:54] is a 4-foot setback side and rear
[1:15:56] setback. Uh towns are not allowed to
[1:16:00] require greater than a 4ft setback. U
[1:16:04] and that's that's the law on ADUs.
[1:16:07] So talk. So how so okay and obviously in
[1:16:11] this particular case it's greater than
[1:16:13] four feet this the setback. So is that
[1:16:16] the position you're standing on on this
[1:16:18] one? I mean there's other rationale that
[1:16:20] you've mentioned too.
[1:16:21] >> Right. Well there there are a number of
[1:16:23] different reasons why uh the applicant
[1:16:25] is entitled to a setback exception. Uh
[1:16:28] but as it relates to ADUs uh those
[1:16:32] setbacks should not apply at all. So it should be a 4 foot setback
[1:16:37] requirement.
[1:16:39] >> Thank you.
[1:16:40] >> Yeah. Thank you.
[1:16:41] >> I wondered if I had heard it correctly
[1:16:42] and I did. Okay.
[1:16:43] >> Okay.
[1:16:44] >> Any other questions?
[1:16:48] >> Just one technical one. Uh for me, how wide is the uh the front ADU uh the
[1:16:54] main ADU along Still Creek Road and
[1:16:56] trying to think about that relative to
[1:16:58] the side the length of the property
[1:17:00] line.
[1:17:03] trying to think of the relative
[1:17:04] encroachment if you will. Uh
[1:17:08] >> give me one second.
[1:17:10] >> I'm sorry to probably should have
[1:17:12] >> the length of the length.
[1:17:14] >> Yeah, length.
[1:17:15] >> I can give you that, David.
[1:17:18] >> Perfect. Shame down to it.
[1:17:19] >> Yeah. So, give me one second here.
[1:17:24] So the length of that ADU overall length
[1:17:28] is
[1:17:30] um
[1:17:33] 48 foot 9 in
[1:17:36] um
[1:17:38] from left from uh east to west.
[1:17:42] Yeah.
[1:17:43] >> So
[1:17:43] >> and would you would you happen to know
[1:17:45] the length of the property line along
[1:17:46] Still Creek? Well, the overall length of
[1:17:49] the property line on Steel Creek, I can
[1:17:51] give you a general feel for the length
[1:17:53] of that. Um, hold on a second. Let me
[1:17:56] just get to the right file here or the
[1:17:58] right spot.
[1:18:04] Uh, overall that dimension across there
[1:18:08] is about 422 feet.
[1:18:12] >> Okay,
[1:18:13] >> it's actually longer than that, but that
[1:18:14] that's a straight shot. Um, left to uh
[1:18:17] east uh west to east 422 ft.
[1:18:20] >> Okay. Yes,
[1:18:23] >> Jim. Does that include the panhandle
[1:18:25] road frontage?
[1:18:29] » Oh, you mean all the way up the road?
[1:18:32] No, that doesn't include that. That's
[1:18:34] just the that's just the main part of
[1:18:36] the lot.
[1:18:39] >> Okay. Other questions?
[1:18:45] Um, and just just out of curiosity, um,
[1:18:50] if if you were to be pushed back to the
[1:18:52] 50 ft, the grading, the tree removal,
[1:18:56] the retention wall, the design cost,
[1:18:59] what do you have a general sense for
[1:19:01] what that what is the cost in in in
[1:19:04] dollars and time? Would you have a sense
[1:19:06] for that?
[1:19:11] Maybe I'm looking at you, Jim, probably
[1:19:12] as the expert.
[1:19:13] >> Okay. Um,
[1:19:16] well, it's multiple tens of thousands of
[1:19:18] dollars. Um, not to mention the fact
[1:19:20] that we lose uh trees that we will never
[1:19:24] recover, obviously. Um and uh and you
[1:19:28] know and we're you know philosophically
[1:19:31] we're we're you know we're kind of
[1:19:33] destroying parts of the site that we we
[1:19:35] would we would prefer to um to preserve.
[1:19:39] >> Um so but yeah I mean it would be you
[1:19:42] know in in the upper tens of thousands
[1:19:45] of dollars I'm sure.
[1:19:46] >> Okay.
[1:19:48] >> Well there's a better estimate.
[1:19:51] >> Okay.
[1:19:53] Um yeah, as as a a engineering geologist
[1:19:57] who gets who's involved in construction
[1:20:00] quite a bit, considering uh 14t
[1:20:03] retaining walls, all the extra cubic
[1:20:05] yardage, the trees, everything else,
[1:20:08] there's always a wide range, but the
[1:20:10] number that came to me would be $250,000
[1:20:14] because
[1:20:15] >> these tall retainable walls get very expensive.
[1:20:18] >> Right. Okay.
[1:20:20] >> Thanks, Charles.
[1:20:22] Architects always underestimate.
[1:20:27] » Good moment of levity. Uh any other any
[1:20:30] other questions from uh councel?
[1:20:34] Okay. Thank you. Um so we're going to
[1:20:37] move to public comment and we all did
[1:20:39] have a chance to watch the planning
[1:20:41] commission meeting. Uh and we understand
[1:20:43] that there's an accepted parliamentary
[1:20:45] procedure that you'll be using tonight
[1:20:46] to sequentially link your argument. And
[1:20:49] uh we have been told that we will be
[1:20:51] honoring that tonight. Um the only rule
[1:20:54] that we have is that you can seed your
[1:20:55] time to the next person, but it it
[1:20:57] doesn't aggregate. So uh you can give
[1:20:59] the time you have left to the next
[1:21:01] person, but there's no sort of
[1:21:03] aggregation at the end, if you will, to
[1:21:05] say we still have 12 minutes or
[1:21:06] something. We're going to try our best
[1:21:07] to keep up with what's going on. Um, and
[1:21:11] also we've received literally hundreds
[1:21:14] of pages in the last 24 hours and a lot
[1:21:17] of it in the last two hours. So if
[1:21:20] you've submitted a comment, we want to
[1:21:22] hear from you tonight. So make sure that
[1:21:24] you do speak to this tonight if you have
[1:21:26] if you're one of the many people that
[1:21:28] have submitted from that that book. And
[1:21:32] um the other thing we're going to do
[1:21:33] just before we start, we're going to go
[1:21:34] to the Zoom room first because we know
[1:21:36] when we start the sequential thing, it's
[1:21:38] going to be like an hour long. So, um,
[1:21:39] we do have one hand raised in the Zoom
[1:21:41] room. So, uh, Jordan Grimes. We're going
[1:21:44] to ask if you'd like to make a comment.
[1:21:46] >> Oh, great. Thank you so much. Uh, good
[1:21:49] evening everyone. My name is Jordan
[1:21:50] Grimes. I'm a member of Peninsula for
[1:21:53] everyone. We are a, uh, grassroots
[1:21:56] housing advocacy group here, uh, in Sano
[1:22:00] and Santa Clara County. We wanted to
[1:22:02] speak in support of the project this
[1:22:04] evening. Um, I think the project
[1:22:07] applicants did a tremendous job of
[1:22:10] articulating the benefits of the project
[1:22:12] and and the concerns. Um, sort of
[1:22:15] dispelling the the issues around it. Um,
[1:22:20] I guess I'll just say this. Woodside has quite obviously been in the news uh
[1:22:25] a lot over the last couple years uh with
[1:22:28] regard to housing, particularly around
[1:22:30] the housing element, uh particularly
[1:22:33] around uh its creative interpretations
[1:22:37] of state law and how it applies to the
[1:22:40] town. Um I, you know, would suggest
[1:22:46] that you maybe not take the path that
[1:22:48] you have pursued previously.
[1:22:51] um in creatively interpreting state law.
[1:22:54] I think the law pretty clearly here uh
[1:22:57] allows this project. Um the housing
[1:22:59] accountability act is is clear. Uh the
[1:23:03] ADU laws are clear. Um and
[1:23:07] it would be it would behoove you not to
[1:23:10] challenge um uh the effectiveness and
[1:23:15] the applicability of state laws the way
[1:23:16] that you have in the past. um they do
[1:23:20] apply. Uh they, you know, there's nothing that would preclude them
[1:23:24] from applying in the town of Woodside.
[1:23:27] Um I also just want to say as a lifelong
[1:23:30] resident of this county, um and as
[1:23:32] someone who will never ever be able to
[1:23:34] afford to live in Woodside, um you have
[1:23:37] people that you need uh who cannot
[1:23:39] afford to live in your town. You have
[1:23:40] teachers, uh you have store clerks, uh
[1:23:43] you have many other people who will
[1:23:46] never be able to afford to live in Woodb
[1:23:48] um if not for projects like this that
[1:23:51] provide units uh that would allow them
[1:23:53] to do so. Um when you choose not to
[1:23:57] build housing for those people, you put
[1:23:59] that burden directly on nearby
[1:24:01] communities like Redwood City, San
[1:24:03] Mateo, uh Menllo Park, etc. Um, I would
[1:24:07] encourage you to do your duty to do what
[1:24:10] I think all of you know is right um and
[1:24:13] approve the project uh and allow more
[1:24:18] people to live in Woodside. Thank you so
[1:24:21] much for your time.
[1:24:24] >> Okay, thank you Jordan. Any other
[1:24:26] comments from the Zoom room before we go
[1:24:27] to Independence Hall for the a bit?
[1:24:31] Okay, seeing none, uh we are open for
[1:24:35] public comment at Independence Hall.
[1:24:43] » Good evening. Welcome.
[1:24:44] >> Uh my name is Bruce Bastl
[1:24:47] and uh I my wife and I, Patricia, live
[1:24:51] at uh 105 Sunrise Drive at the
[1:24:54] intersection of Still Creek. We have for
[1:24:57] 50 years and we count on u uh Kristen's
[1:25:03] mom and dad as friends and neighbors. Uh
[1:25:06] I'm
[1:25:09] transmitting to you uh some comments
[1:25:12] from a concerned neighbor specifically
[1:25:15] related to the recent submissions that
[1:25:18] you have here. So
[1:25:21] the comments are good evening before the
[1:25:23] council reaches the merits we need to
[1:25:26] make a process record. Applicants have
[1:25:29] submitted 342 pages today. If I can
[1:25:33] repeat that applicant has res submitted
[1:25:36] 342 pages today literally on the day of
[1:25:40] the hearing. After 5 years of
[1:25:42] proceedings that kind of lastm minute
[1:25:44] filing is not fair process. It
[1:25:47] deprivives the public, the neighbors,
[1:25:50] and frankly the council itself from
[1:25:52] meaningful opportunity to review and
[1:25:55] respond. We would like a decision
[1:25:58] tonight. Let me be clear about that.
[1:26:01] More than 50 families have lived under
[1:26:04] this dispute for years. We are entitled
[1:26:07] not only to finality, but to a response.
[1:26:10] The current design remains
[1:26:13] non-compliant, dangerous, and
[1:26:14] unresolved. It continues to threaten our
[1:26:18] safety, our neighborhood, and even the
[1:26:21] insurability of our homes. So, we are
[1:26:24] not asking for delay as a tactic. But
[1:26:28] finality must be fair finality.
[1:26:31] If the council cannot disregard the
[1:26:33] applicant's last minute filing or
[1:26:35] determine that it does not change the
[1:26:37] required findings, then the council
[1:26:40] should proceed tonight. affirm the
[1:26:43] planning commission and deny the appeal.
[1:26:47] But if the council members believe the
[1:26:49] applicant's 342page
[1:26:52] submission may matter or believes it
[1:26:55] must be digested before deciding, then
[1:26:58] fairness requires a continuence. The
[1:27:01] public cannot be ambushed on the day of
[1:27:04] the hearing and then told that its
[1:27:06] silence or incomplete response means the
[1:27:10] new material is accepted. The code
[1:27:13] requires the council to decide whether
[1:27:15] every required finding can be made. That
[1:27:19] decision should be based on a fair
[1:27:21] record, not a document dump at the last
[1:27:25] minute. So our position is
[1:27:27] straightforward. Decide tonight if the
[1:27:29] council can do so on the existing record
[1:27:33] and deny the appeal, but do not reward
[1:27:36] the applicant's ambush by re relying on
[1:27:41] same day materials and the community has
[1:27:45] had no meaningful chance to review. If
[1:27:48] the town proceeds while crediting these
[1:27:51] materials, it should be clear in the
[1:27:53] record that the public was denied a fair
[1:27:56] opportunity to respond. Thank you for
[1:27:58] your consideration.
[1:28:00] >> Thank you.
[1:28:05] For the record, is that from David
[1:28:06] Madrid?
[1:28:07] That letter?
[1:28:09] >> No.
[1:28:11] >> Who's who's the letter from that you're
[1:28:13] reading?
[1:28:16] >> Yeah.
[1:28:17] David M.
[1:28:18] >> Yeah, that's a thought. Okay, thank you.
[1:28:23] » Yes, John.
[1:28:24] >> Yeah, go on,
[1:28:24] >> please.
[1:28:29] » Thank you. Can you hear me? Okay.
[1:28:32] >> Yes.
[1:28:33] >> My name is Joan Maine and I live at
[1:28:36] Seven Still Creek.
[1:28:38] We are not here tonight, nor is anyone
[1:28:41] here with a yellow hat on or not, to ask
[1:28:44] you to deny housing or deny ADUs or even
[1:28:48] for the right to Kristen and David to
[1:28:51] build on their on their property. We
[1:28:54] know that is the case and we support
[1:28:56] that. Here's what we are asking. There
[1:28:59] are more than 60 individuals in this
[1:29:03] neighborhood now who are concerned about
[1:29:05] the same things we'll present tonight.
[1:29:08] We ask that you in fact ask the
[1:29:12] applicants to follow the same codes we
[1:29:15] all are not only asked to follow but
[1:29:18] embrace as residents of Woodside. We are
[1:29:22] here because we love Woodside. It's a
[1:29:24] special and unique place. So is Still
[1:29:27] Creek. Still Creek is a very special
[1:29:30] place.
[1:29:32] Now, why are we here? Over five years of
[1:29:36] review, the ASRB found the applicants
[1:29:40] did not adequately address their
[1:29:43] recommendations.
[1:29:45] The planning commission agreed.
[1:29:49] I supported this at the ASRB in 2020 or
[1:29:54] 2021
[1:29:56] before all the differences were made to
[1:29:58] the project and the exceptions were
[1:30:01] required.
[1:30:03] So each failed finding is important.
[1:30:07] Even one is a requirement for denial.
[1:30:10] Tonight, an experienced forensic
[1:30:13] architect and a wildland urban interface
[1:30:17] fire expert will present their
[1:30:20] independent conclusions and a Stanford
[1:30:23] geoysicist's findings will be shared.
[1:30:27] Point one, there are feasible conforming
[1:30:31] options.
[1:30:33] Perhaps they'd have to make something a
[1:30:36] little smaller.
[1:30:38] That's an option. That's not what
[1:30:40] architect French will present because we
[1:30:43] didn't ask that he redesign their
[1:30:46] project. We asked the simple question,
[1:30:50] can this be made to conform with the
[1:30:52] 50-foot setbacks and the town's code?
[1:30:56] Point two, these same code and policies
[1:31:00] that were asked to follow ask all of us
[1:31:04] to subordinate our projects to our land.
[1:31:07] The land in question is fragile.
[1:31:11] Point three, the site sits on
[1:31:14] geologically unstable land and we will
[1:31:17] share the fire experts findings of the
[1:31:21] implications of the setback. Point four,
[1:31:26] we believe the law allows you to do this
[1:31:29] because of public danger. I'm running
[1:31:31] out of time, so let me finish and say
[1:31:34] thank you very much for your time. We do
[1:31:37] not ask you to deni deny housing. We do
[1:31:41] not ask you to deny ADUs. We ask you to
[1:31:45] support the decisions of the planning
[1:31:47] commission.
[1:31:48] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:31:49] >> Sorry to go over.
[1:31:50] >> That's okay. Thank you. Well,
[1:31:52] >> really you're trying hard.
[1:31:54] >> I appreciate it. Yeah.
[1:32:01] No.
[1:32:02] >> And also just a just a minor point, but
[1:32:05] just if the comments can be directed to
[1:32:07] council and not to anyone else in the
[1:32:09] room, that would be appreciated.
[1:32:15] » Good evening, Mayor Donowski and council
[1:32:17] members. My name is Hance Mine and I
[1:32:19] live at Seven Still Creek Road. I'd like
[1:32:22] to introduce Adam French, an experienced
[1:32:24] local architect with over 30 years of
[1:32:26] experience. He's a member of the
[1:32:28] American Institute of Architects and
[1:32:30] holds certification from the National
[1:32:32] Council of Architectural Registration
[1:32:34] Boards. His practice includes
[1:32:36] conception, detailing, coordination, and
[1:32:40] construction of structures as well as
[1:32:42] forensic architecture and ex expert
[1:32:44] witness testimony. He has been retained
[1:32:47] to investigate construction defects,
[1:32:49] premises liability incidents, property
[1:32:51] damage, and code compliance issues. He
[1:32:54] will address one of the key elements
[1:32:55] related to the propo proposed plans at
[1:32:57] Ten Still Creek, the feasible that
[1:33:00] feasible conforming alternatives exist.
[1:33:03] Thank you.
[1:33:05] >> Thank you, Adam.
[1:33:06] >> So, you're seating your time to Adam. 2
[1:33:08] minutes 18 seconds.
[1:33:19] » Welcome. Good evening, Mayor Dumbowski
[1:33:21] and council members. My name is Adam
[1:33:23] French. I'm an architect AIA and ENARB
[1:33:25] certified and I prepared uh what is
[1:33:27] referred to as attachment A. That would
[1:33:29] be my report. Conforming alternatives
[1:33:32] exist for this site and I'm here to tell
[1:33:34] you tonight about that. I developed
[1:33:36] alternatives using the applicant's
[1:33:38] drawings. I did not need to invent
[1:33:40] anything new. Based on the applicant's
[1:33:43] drawings, I identified feasible options
[1:33:45] that comply with Woodside's 50-foot
[1:33:47] setback requirements.
[1:33:50] The applicant's central claim is that
[1:33:51] the site's topography necessitates
[1:33:53] encroachments into the setback. It does
[1:33:56] not. The proposed encroachments are not
[1:33:59] unavoidable site constraints. They are
[1:34:01] design choices. When a preferred design
[1:34:04] fits only by violating the setback
[1:34:05] rules, the design must yield to the
[1:34:07] code. The code does not have to yield to
[1:34:10] the design. The applicant has not
[1:34:13] justified the requested exception. The
[1:34:15] record contains no comparative analysis
[1:34:18] study, no infeasibility analysis, no
[1:34:20] cost documentation.
[1:34:22] You cannot claim compliance is
[1:34:23] impossible without showing the numbers.
[1:34:26] Assertion is not evidence. My report
[1:34:29] also raises a material question
[1:34:31] regarding the floor area calculations
[1:34:32] for the lower level of ADU number two,
[1:34:35] which must be resolved before any
[1:34:37] maximum resident size exception can be
[1:34:39] granted. I'm not here to say the
[1:34:41] applicant can't build. The applicant can
[1:34:44] build. I'm here to show you that the
[1:34:46] applicant can build within the required
[1:34:49] setbacks using the feasible options I've
[1:34:52] developed in my report. The required
[1:34:54] findings cannot be made because feasible
[1:34:56] options do exist. The site has limited
[1:34:59] capacity. The proposed design exceeds
[1:35:02] it. Applicants have not shown and cannot
[1:35:04] show that compliance is infeasible. And
[1:35:06] for those reasons, I respectfully
[1:35:08] recommend the council deny the appeal
[1:35:10] and require a conforming design. Now,
[1:35:12] there's been a few things that have
[1:35:13] happened since this morning or the big
[1:35:15] binder that we all got. We're not I'm
[1:35:18] not here saying you can't build
[1:35:20] anything. What I'm here saying is that
[1:35:22] after following the planning director's
[1:35:25] recommendations for years that the
[1:35:27] findings can't be made, that all of a
[1:35:28] sudden the applicant shows up and pushes
[1:35:30] an example into a grove of redwoods. And
[1:35:34] that's not the case. I didn't come here
[1:35:35] to draw all five findings mysteriously
[1:35:39] unable to be proven all in one go. So I
[1:35:42] request that you take a look at my
[1:35:43] report the way that I've drawn the
[1:35:45] buildings redesign move back into the
[1:35:47] setback and I believe that you'll find
[1:35:49] that they do comply with the existing
[1:35:51] rules without the need for any
[1:35:53] exceptions or special pleading or moving
[1:35:55] the goalposts.
[1:35:58] >> Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
[1:36:05] Hi. Uh, good evening, Mayor Dumbowski.
[1:36:10] Uh,
[1:36:11] >> we can just go with mayor the rest of
[1:36:12] the night. Don't worry about it. Mayor's
[1:36:15] and the rest of the council members. My
[1:36:16] name is Terry Bronstein. Terry
[1:36:18] Bronstein. And I've lived at 150 Sunrise
[1:36:22] Drive adjacent uh to this area for 47
[1:36:26] years. For most of those years, I have
[1:36:28] regularly walked Still Creek Road. It's
[1:36:32] the road to the redwoods. In fact,
[1:36:34] that's where the redwoods start. Um,
[1:36:38] what I see as I walk down that road
[1:36:40] today is a mass of yellowtory poles. How
[1:36:45] many of you have actually seen the site,
[1:36:49] gone to the physical site?
[1:36:52] You've all gone. Okay. then you know
[1:36:55] that what we have shown uh as as
[1:36:58] drawings just a few minutes ago of the
[1:37:00] site don't resemble the actual site
[1:37:04] among other things the site is the the
[1:37:07] drawings are obscured by heavy shade
[1:37:10] there is no shade the trees are gone
[1:37:14] you've just heard architect French's ex
[1:37:17] expert testimony that conform conforming
[1:37:20] alternatives exist the al the applicants
[1:37:23] have had 5 years to pursue them. They
[1:37:26] have said no. Their design is a personal
[1:37:28] preference to to actually to imitate the
[1:37:32] architecture of 95 Skywood. Uh not the
[1:37:35] only option the site allows. The their
[1:37:39] latest um rationale
[1:37:42] um for refusing to comply is they cannot
[1:37:45] move the attached ADU without removing a
[1:37:47] protected redwood tree. That statement
[1:37:50] is extremely disingenuous. Why? Because
[1:37:54] in August 2024, the applicants received
[1:37:57] a permit to remove some dead and dying
[1:37:59] trees uh on the site. They also
[1:38:03] requested approval for 26 additional
[1:38:06] trees to be removed and I'm quoting
[1:38:08] directly from their application
[1:38:10] facilitate the site's future
[1:38:12] development. that tree removal permit
[1:38:15] conditioned no development related trees
[1:38:19] shall be removed without an issued
[1:38:21] building permit.
[1:38:24] Okay. They weren't allowed to cut down
[1:38:26] any more trees. However, 3 months later
[1:38:30] in November 2024,
[1:38:32] a logging crew removed more than 40
[1:38:35] trees, including numerous large, healthy
[1:38:39] redwood trees. That's why there's no
[1:38:41] shade.
[1:38:43] exactly where the applicants plan to
[1:38:45] build the main residence and the garage
[1:38:47] and tower and the JADU and the elevated
[1:38:49] bridge and all the rest. That permit
[1:38:52] condition has not been met. That was
[1:38:55] actually an act of disrespect
[1:38:58] intentional.
[1:38:59] When asked, the applicants told the ASRB
[1:39:03] it was a spontaneous neighborly gesture
[1:39:05] to remove fire risk for the neighbors,
[1:39:08] but no neighbors home is anywhere near
[1:39:11] this.
[1:39:12] The properties are large. They're
[1:39:14] measured in acres, not feet. They all
[1:39:17] have dense redwood forests on their own
[1:39:19] land, thousands of trees. Um, the
[1:39:23] applicants themselves have most of the
[1:39:26] Anyway,
[1:39:27] >> yes.
[1:39:27] >> Um, that's just not credible. 10 months
[1:39:30] later at the November 25,
[1:39:33] >> we got we got we got to hold you to the
[1:39:36] unfortunately. I'm sorry.
[1:39:38] >> It's the laws, but I I appreciate it. We
[1:39:40] know where you're going. My name is AJ
[1:39:42] Cost. I live at 130 Sunrise Drive.
[1:39:44] >> Yes.
[1:39:45] >> And I'd like to relinquish my time to
[1:39:46] Terry said.
[1:39:47] >> There you go.
[1:39:48] >> Thank you.
[1:39:50] >> So articulate.
[1:39:51] >> Okay.
[1:39:51] >> Thank you.
[1:39:53] >> Hard.
[1:39:54] >> Yep.
[1:39:55] So, uh, 10 months later at the November
[1:39:58] 25 ASRB meeting, applicant submission
[1:40:01] stated the project would preserve all
[1:40:04] existing trees on the site after the
[1:40:07] unauthorized removal had already taken
[1:40:09] place. It's actually disrespect.
[1:40:12] This afternoon, hours before the
[1:40:14] hearing, too little time to even begin
[1:40:17] to read the 342 pages, the applicants
[1:40:20] offered a third justification for the
[1:40:22] same tree removal, coordination with the
[1:40:25] Woodside Fire Protection District. In
[1:40:28] 2024, their permit application cited
[1:40:30] future development. At the ASRB, they
[1:40:33] cited neighborly concern for fire risk.
[1:40:35] This afternoon, it's the fire district
[1:40:38] coordination. There are three different
[1:40:40] justifications,
[1:40:42] three occasions, each one different from
[1:40:44] the last. Which one's true?
[1:40:48] The required findings cannot be made on
[1:40:50] a record built of misrepresentation.
[1:40:53] I ask the council to deny the setback
[1:40:56] exception, deny the maximum resident
[1:40:58] size exception, and hold the planning
[1:41:01] commission's decision and uphold the
[1:41:04] rest of this this Woodside government
[1:41:06] that supports you.
[1:41:09] Thank you.
[1:41:12] Anyone else in Independence Hall? All
[1:41:14] right.
[1:41:18] » Good evening, Mayor and Council members.
[1:41:21] Um, I'm Art Mirror. I live at 70 Skywood
[1:41:24] Way and I'm the team Firewise team lead
[1:41:26] for Skywood Acres. And tonight, I'd like
[1:41:28] to introduce Mr. Keith Parker. He's a
[1:41:31] forensic fire expert, a wildland uh
[1:41:35] urban interface fire expert, and he's
[1:41:37] the founder of Parker Fire Services
[1:41:39] Consulting. He's a uh retired fire
[1:41:43] marshall from Marin County uh with 33
[1:41:47] years of service and his firm has
[1:41:48] investigated over 300 fires including
[1:41:51] the campfire and the Maui wildfires. He
[1:41:54] was retained by the Still Creek Road
[1:41:56] residents uh to assess the project's
[1:41:58] fire and safety uh implications. And
[1:42:01] having read his report, I share his
[1:42:03] concerns about the fire danger that this
[1:42:05] project poses to our broader community.
[1:42:07] For those of you who want to know where
[1:42:08] his report is, it's it's attachment B in
[1:42:11] your your desk packet. And uh I would
[1:42:13] like to turn the rest of my balance of
[1:42:15] time over to Mr. Parker.
[1:42:22] Good evening, mayor and and council
[1:42:24] members. Um, my name is Keith Parker. I
[1:42:28] founded Parker Fire Services Consulting
[1:42:30] and I primarily do forensic fire
[1:42:32] investigations and I'm also a forensic
[1:42:36] researcher in the wildland uh fires and
[1:42:40] investigations.
[1:42:41] As mentioned, I uh my 33y year career, I
[1:42:44] spent five years as a county fire
[1:42:46] marshal. I'm familiar with all the
[1:42:48] issues that are being raised here and I
[1:42:51] understand this is a very emotional
[1:42:53] issue for all the parties involved and
[1:42:55] what I hope to bring is some independent
[1:42:58] um observations and thoughts that my
[1:43:00] training and education and experiences
[1:43:04] uh have allowed me to analyze in this in
[1:43:08] this situation and I understand that the
[1:43:10] council is getting a lot of advice on
[1:43:12] what they must do. I'm not going to do
[1:43:13] that. I understand that you're trying to
[1:43:16] reach a balance here and it's very
[1:43:18] difficult uh in a situation like this.
[1:43:22] So when I look at projects like this,
[1:43:25] when I start evaluating them, I often
[1:43:28] look at it from the point of view I'm on
[1:43:30] my fire engine responding to emergency
[1:43:32] and I'm getting off the fire engine.
[1:43:34] What is being presented to me from this
[1:43:38] project? What does this add to the
[1:43:40] complexities of a incident?
[1:43:44] My report is probably a little overly
[1:43:47] detailed. It's fairly lengthy and I went
[1:43:49] into all these issues in depth. So, just
[1:43:51] to summarize, there's really three key
[1:43:53] areas of concern here. One is is that
[1:43:56] there's four independent parking spaces.
[1:43:58] And by that, I mean, if you look at the
[1:43:59] plans, there's only four spaces that you
[1:44:02] can park off the road that are
[1:44:04] guaranteed you can get your car and
[1:44:05] leave. All the rest are dependent upon
[1:44:08] those four spaces being um vacated to be
[1:44:11] able to egress. My experience is is that
[1:44:14] things such as parties, whether it's a
[1:44:16] summer party, holiday party, you're
[1:44:18] going to end up with people parking on
[1:44:19] the street. And I don't think anybody
[1:44:21] doubts the fact that that street cannot
[1:44:23] support uh vehicles parked along the
[1:44:26] sides of the road and still provide for
[1:44:28] emergency access. This is not just a
[1:44:31] fire issue. This is an issue that arises
[1:44:33] all the time in these types of areas.
[1:44:35] for a simple emergency medical aid where
[1:44:37] you can't get through, you have to get
[1:44:39] out and walk to the houses past and then
[1:44:41] it also forces you to back to a point to
[1:44:44] turn around.
[1:44:46] Um such a large project will also
[1:44:49] increase the complexities of uh fire
[1:44:52] attack both initial structure and
[1:44:54] wildland fire attack and it will also um
[1:44:58] impact the ability to evacuate people
[1:45:00] and get emergency
[1:45:02] uh response into an area should a
[1:45:05] wildfire a significant wildfire move
[1:45:06] through the area.
[1:45:10] um the changes that result from this
[1:45:14] essentially large uh development on a
[1:45:17] very small 4500 to 7200 square foot um
[1:45:23] project. I'm sorry. Is that
[1:45:25] >> No, you still have two minutes. Keep
[1:45:26] going.
[1:45:27] >> Okay. Thank you. Okay.
[1:45:29] Um
[1:45:32] so below the below grade structure also
[1:45:36] is close enough to the road that if it's
[1:45:37] involved in fire is likely going to
[1:45:39] block the road from the thermal effects
[1:45:42] of the fire.
[1:45:44] So we and the fire service had known
[1:45:45] since the 1980s we started talking about
[1:45:47] what we call the expansion into the
[1:45:50] urban wildland and we knew these
[1:45:51] problems were coming and we really saw
[1:45:54] it come to fruition in 1991 in the
[1:45:56] Oakland Hills and in the decades since
[1:45:59] then we've seen the problem explode to
[1:46:01] where we're at today.
[1:46:05] The in this particular area we're
[1:46:07] looking at some really severe
[1:46:09] circumstances. We've already talked
[1:46:11] about how steep the terrain is. There's
[1:46:14] a major drainage that runs up to the
[1:46:17] street and then as it moves forward it
[1:46:19] splits into three drainages going up to
[1:46:21] the communities above. We also have had
[1:46:24] fire exclusion, no fire through the area
[1:46:26] that and the logging and poor logging
[1:46:29] practices that have allowed for a
[1:46:32] massive accumulation of fire fuels. So
[1:46:34] our redwood forest is very significantly
[1:46:37] altered in the area. And then we have
[1:46:39] climate pattern changes that are
[1:46:41] providing for longer periods of hot dry
[1:46:43] weather that are increasing our numbers
[1:46:45] of days when we can have severe fire um
[1:46:49] conditions.
[1:46:53] So
[1:46:57] there's there's really no reasonable
[1:46:58] claim. This is not an extreme or very
[1:47:01] high fire hazard area and this isn't the
[1:47:03] average place that we need to look at
[1:47:05] mitigating these fire threats.
[1:47:08] um granting the setback exceptions are
[1:47:11] definitely going to make any kind of
[1:47:13] mitigations very difficult if not
[1:47:15] impossible for um many of the reasons
[1:47:18] I've been talking about. But one of the
[1:47:20] most significant ones is the parking,
[1:47:22] the closeness of a burning structure to
[1:47:24] the road. And the third would be the
[1:47:26] inability to have enough room to create
[1:47:29] adequate defensible space to both
[1:47:31] prevent transition of a fire from the
[1:47:34] structure into the wildland and also
[1:47:36] support
[1:47:37] >> uh
[1:47:37] >> like that's it.
[1:47:39] >> Fire protection.
[1:47:41] >> I lost my Is that it?
[1:47:42] >> That's it. Unless unless we have a
[1:47:44] parliamentary
[1:47:47] >> folks. Good evening. I'm Vivian Sham at
[1:47:49] 90 Stylers Way on many for much
[1:47:51] appreciation for everyone being here
[1:47:53] tonight. I seed my time to Mr. Keith
[1:47:55] Barber.
[1:47:56] >> Okay.
[1:47:58] Thank you very much. I'm not going to
[1:47:59] need much. I'm sorry. I lost the the
[1:48:01] clock dropped up there, so I I lost
[1:48:03] that. Um, just listening to some of the
[1:48:06] other comments I think is really
[1:48:07] important here is we're talking about
[1:48:08] the only alternative is to grant these
[1:48:11] uh exceptions to setback rules, but the
[1:48:15] other possibility is downsizing the
[1:48:18] totality of the project to work into it.
[1:48:21] At the end of the day, what we're
[1:48:23] really talking about here is we're
[1:48:24] trying to squeeze a seven pound loaf
[1:48:25] into a 5B bread box. And that causes a
[1:48:29] lot of challenges that, as I've talked
[1:48:31] about and are detailed in the report
[1:48:33] regarding the the specific fire, life
[1:48:36] safety hazards that a project that's
[1:48:39] really oversized for the footprint
[1:48:40] available to build on this property. And
[1:48:43] I'll be staying I'll be here through the
[1:48:45] meeting. If you have if anybody has any
[1:48:47] questions, I'd obviously be happy to
[1:48:48] answer them for you.
[1:48:50] >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Burgerer.
[1:49:06] » Good evening, mayor and council members.
[1:49:08] Uh, my name is Jendi Sue and I live at
[1:49:11] 45 Sto Creek Road at the end of the
[1:49:13] culde-sac. U, my husband, Aaron, and I
[1:49:16] have one way out. To evacuate, we must
[1:49:20] pass directly in front of 10 Steel Creek
[1:49:22] Road and reach the Skywood Way, Sunrise
[1:49:25] Drive, Still Creek Road intersection.
[1:49:28] That is our only exit. It's everyone's
[1:49:31] only exit who lives on that road. One of
[1:49:34] the required funding findings before
[1:49:36] this council is that the proposed
[1:49:39] project will not create significant
[1:49:41] public health and safety risks. That
[1:49:44] finding cannot be made and we know this
[1:49:47] in part because applicants themselves
[1:49:49] have already admitted it. Applicants
[1:49:51] have acknowledged in their own
[1:49:53] submissions that this project would
[1:49:55] create substantially increased traffic
[1:49:58] affecting not just Skil not just Still
[1:50:00] Creek Road but the surrounding Skywood
[1:50:03] area. Those are their words, not ours.
[1:50:08] Consider what that means. Still Creek
[1:50:10] Road is a narrow private road 18 feet or
[1:50:14] less in many locations. It is the sole
[1:50:18] access point for the proposed
[1:50:20] development.
[1:50:22] It already fails three mandatory
[1:50:24] statewide fire access standards, lane
[1:50:28] width, loadbearing capacity, and
[1:50:31] turnaround diameter. The town has
[1:50:34] refused to accept it as a public road
[1:50:37] for more than 50 years precisely because
[1:50:40] of these constraints.
[1:50:43] Now applicants propose to add four
[1:50:46] structures and up to 20 parking spaces
[1:50:49] where none currently exist. More
[1:50:52] vehicles, more residents, more
[1:50:55] evacuation demand on a road that already
[1:50:58] cannot meet minimum safety standards.
[1:51:02] Every additional vehicle from this
[1:51:04] development is one more obstacle between
[1:51:07] my family and every Skywood family and
[1:51:10] safety.
[1:51:12] Every additional second of delay matters
[1:51:15] when fire moves upheld through chimney
[1:51:17] terrain.
[1:51:19] The road cannot be widened by a permit
[1:51:22] condition. Its load rating cannot be
[1:51:25] improved by a condition. A second access
[1:51:29] point cannot be created by a condition.
[1:51:33] The public safety finding cannot be
[1:51:35] made. I ask the council to deny this
[1:51:38] appeal. Thank you.
[1:51:39] >> Thank you.
[1:51:44] Well, nobody in the Zoom room with a
[1:51:46] question. So, welcome, sir.
[1:51:50] >> Uh, good evening, mayor and council
[1:51:52] members. Uh, my name is Royal Copro and
[1:51:54] I live at 35 Still Creek Road. Let me
[1:51:57] bring the mic up for you just for the
[1:51:58] people online.
[1:51:59] >> How's that?
[1:52:00] >> Perfect.
[1:52:00] >> I live at 35 Still Creek Road. Um I'm
[1:52:03] presenting on behalf of Simon Cleer
[1:52:05] who's a professor of geoysics at
[1:52:07] Stanford University. He apologizes that he cannot be here
[1:52:11] tonight. He has a prior commitment for a
[1:52:13] lecture at Cambridge. Uh Professor Cler
[1:52:16] has lived at three Still Creek Road
[1:52:18] across from this site for 25 years. His
[1:52:20] analysis is documented in attachment C
[1:52:23] and it identifies three overlapping
[1:52:25] geological hazards. First, the proposing
[1:52:28] the proposed building footprint sits
[1:52:30] directly on active and dormant landslide
[1:52:32] deposits. The town's own general plan
[1:52:34] acknowledges that these deposits can be
[1:52:36] reactivated under present conditions.
[1:52:39] Second, the United States Geological
[1:52:41] Survey maps the Pillar's fault running
[1:52:43] directly through the project site. Dr.
[1:52:45] Clamper has personally observed repeated
[1:52:47] ruptures of buried water pipes at the
[1:52:49] fault crossing, indicators of ongoing
[1:52:52] fault creek. The applicant proposes to
[1:52:54] build on and across this fault. Third,
[1:52:57] the site has limited carrying capacity.
[1:52:59] The proposed 4-unit compound exceeds it.
[1:53:02] Findings four and five cannot be made
[1:53:04] for these reasons. Still Creek Road is a
[1:53:06] private road. The town is repeated, as
[1:53:08] we've heard, the town has repeatedly
[1:53:09] declined to accept it as public. The co
[1:53:12] the town's own subdivision code WMC
[1:53:15] 152.005
[1:53:17] and following requires that roads um
[1:53:20] serving developments be physically
[1:53:21] suitable, protect against geological
[1:53:24] hazards and support fire protection and
[1:53:26] safety equipment access and the roads
[1:53:28] capacity is limited in those respects.
[1:53:30] The town's refusal reflects both those
[1:53:32] fa physical and safety standards, not
[1:53:35] just a fiscal preference alone. A road
[1:53:37] failure on this stretch cost hundreds of
[1:53:39] thousands of dollars to repair just over
[1:53:41] seven years ago. And yet the same steep
[1:53:43] channels continue to carry water and
[1:53:45] debris across and down this hillside
[1:53:47] feeding under the road through drainage
[1:53:49] culverts and into Alen Beak Creek. In
[1:53:51] the last seven years, there have been
[1:53:52] repeated debris flows um from the
[1:53:54] hillside which have blocked culverts and
[1:53:56] threatened the road stability. This
[1:53:58] demonstrates the land's carrying
[1:54:00] capacity and it's the same land where
[1:54:02] the applicant proposes to build a 4-unit
[1:54:04] compound. I respect I respectfully ask
[1:54:07] that you deny this proposal. Thank you.
[1:54:10] >> Thank you.
[1:54:15] Yes, sir.
[1:54:22] Good evening. Uh my name is Aaron Amy.
[1:54:24] Uh I live with my wife Ji Sue at 45 Soul
[1:54:28] Creek Road. You've now heard from
[1:54:30] architects, fire investigators,
[1:54:32] geoysicists, and neighbors. Uh the
[1:54:34] record before you is clear. I just want
[1:54:37] to address two more topics uh for your
[1:54:39] consideration. Um the staff uh issued
[1:54:43] recommendations on the eve of this uh of
[1:54:45] this hearing uh approximately 6 months
[1:54:47] after the planning commission's uh
[1:54:48] denial. Um those recommendations deserve
[1:54:51] some mention and some scrutiny. Um when
[1:54:54] staff prepared their report, they did
[1:54:56] not have the expert findings uh that are
[1:54:58] now before this council. They didn't
[1:54:59] have architect French's demonstration
[1:55:01] that conforming alternatives exist. They
[1:55:02] were unaware of the fire safety hazards
[1:55:04] identified by fire fire marshal Parker.
[1:55:07] Uh and they did not have Professor
[1:55:08] Clumper's uh geological hazard
[1:55:10] testimony. Uh the expert record now
[1:55:13] before you directly repeatedly and
[1:55:15] authoritatively contradicts uh the
[1:55:17] staff's conclusion. Uh as you know uh
[1:55:19] staff's recommendations are advisory.
[1:55:21] The ASRB and the planning commission are
[1:55:24] the townmandated citizen bodies
[1:55:26] specifically charged with this review.
[1:55:28] Both uh including the one that Mr.
[1:55:30] middleman serves on uh conducted
[1:55:33] thorough independent reviews and both
[1:55:35] reached the same conclusion uh that the
[1:55:38] application should be denied. Uh their
[1:55:40] work deserves greater weight than a
[1:55:42] staff report based on incomplete
[1:55:43] information uh as do the expert analyses
[1:55:46] uh that staff uh did not consider uh
[1:55:49] because they didn't have them. Second,
[1:55:51] the state law. Uh applicants have cited
[1:55:54] multiple state housing statutes as if
[1:55:56] they compel approval and even
[1:55:59] helicoptered in a couple of lawyers to
[1:56:00] issue threats and and uh try to bully uh
[1:56:03] to you. I trust that you're not swayed
[1:56:06] by that kind of behavior. Um
[1:56:09] and and also that you would consider the
[1:56:11] liability that would be created um by
[1:56:14] increasing uh the development on Silk
[1:56:16] Creek Road beyond its its carry-in
[1:56:18] capacity. Um,
[1:56:20] you heard from the the the town attorney
[1:56:23] uh that this is not uh falling under
[1:56:25] HAA. Uh, but even if it was, uh,
[1:56:28] California's HAA allows denial where
[1:56:30] expert evidence documents specific
[1:56:33] public health and safety impacts based
[1:56:35] on objective written standards. Fire
[1:56:37] Marshall Parker's expert report does
[1:56:39] exactly that, documenting three specific
[1:56:42] fire access failures against three
[1:56:44] objective mandatory written standards. I
[1:56:47] agree with staff's assessment that
[1:56:48] applicants arguments uh on this subject
[1:56:50] have no merit. Um they're requesting
[1:56:54] discretionary exceptions to approve
[1:56:56] their non-compliant design choices
[1:56:58] despite the existence of compliant
[1:56:59] alternatives. Um the law gives the
[1:57:02] authority to say no and the record gives
[1:57:03] you ample reason to. Uh denying this
[1:57:05] appeal does not prevent applicants from
[1:57:07] building. They can still build a home
[1:57:08] with ADUs at 10 Still Creek Road within
[1:57:10] the required setbacks within the code
[1:57:12] consistent with ASRB guidelines and
[1:57:14] without special treatment like every
[1:57:15] other Woodside resident. 5 years of ASRB
[1:57:18] review, a recommendation to deny,
[1:57:20] planning commission denial, three
[1:57:21] independent expert reports, serious
[1:57:23] safety concerns, a community unified in
[1:57:25] opposition, state law that preserves
[1:57:27] this council's authority, the record
[1:57:29] supports denial, the law supports
[1:57:30] denial, and we respectfully ask you to
[1:57:32] deny this appeal. Thank you.
[1:57:34] >> Thank you.
[1:57:37] Lifeline not needed.
[1:57:41] >> Um, other comments.
[1:57:45] Yes, sir.
[1:57:55] » Hi.
[1:57:57] >> How's this?
[1:57:59] It's great. Does that work?
[1:58:01] >> Big rocks and little rocks. Perfect.
[1:58:03] Three points today. First, Woodside was
[1:58:07] incorporated in 1956 for one reason, to
[1:58:10] preserve our character. Central to that
[1:58:13] character is a culture of volunteerism,
[1:58:16] citizen- le government, and a basic code
[1:58:18] of trust, even when we disagree.
[1:58:22] Three of you, three of you have had your
[1:58:24] personal and professional lives appended
[1:58:26] this year. In Teddy Roosevelt's words,
[1:58:29] the credit belongs to the man or the
[1:58:31] woman who is actually in the arena.
[1:58:35] whose face is marred by dust and sweat
[1:58:38] and blood. Who at the worst if he or she
[1:58:41] fails at least fails while daring while
[1:58:43] daring greatly so that his or her place
[1:58:47] shall never be with those cold and timid
[1:58:49] souls who neither know victory nor
[1:58:50] defeat. What happened to you is an
[1:58:53] aberration of our culture.
[1:58:56] I'm sorry for the sleepless nights and
[1:58:58] the personal and professional anguish
[1:58:59] you have endured. That is the burden of
[1:59:02] volunteerism and leadership.
[1:59:04] Thank you for your service and please
[1:59:06] don't be deterred by the arrows from the
[1:59:08] folks in the seats. This case Ten Still
[1:59:12] Creek
[1:59:13] has also been inconsistent with our
[1:59:15] culture. In 2023, I was asked by Mr.
[1:59:19] Middleman to secure In 2023, I was asked
[1:59:22] by Mr. Middleman to secure planning
[1:59:24] commission votes in the applicant's
[1:59:25] favor.
[1:59:27] When that failed after the planning
[1:59:29] commission vote, I w a ethics complaint
[1:59:32] was filed publicly against me by the
[1:59:35] middleman's. I suggest you read the
[1:59:38] ethics complaint and its findings to get
[1:59:40] an idea for the applicant's ethics.
[1:59:44] And most recently, we were all served
[1:59:46] with public records request, a clear
[1:59:49] signal that honey wasn't working and
[1:59:50] vinegar was coming from Costco.
[1:59:54] And today you heard a litany of threats
[1:59:56] that the town would be subjected against
[1:59:58] by their attorney who has litigated the
[2:00:00] most cases ever in the state of
[2:00:02] California.
[2:00:04] This comes down to one thing, character.
[2:00:07] Cave in bullying becomes an acceptable
[2:00:09] way to do business in this town. Today
[2:00:12] the applicant's making a bet and the bet
[2:00:15] is that with everything the town has
[2:00:17] gone through this year, the town does
[2:00:19] not want a lawsuit.
[2:00:21] So their application will be granted.
[2:00:24] My second point, the applicant has had
[2:00:27] every advantage.
[2:00:29] State density mandates, full planning
[2:00:32] department support, unlimited
[2:00:34] presentation time. You've witnessed it
[2:00:36] today,
[2:00:38] and the full win behind their backs at
[2:00:40] every point. Yet they cannot get a
[2:00:43] favorable vote. Why?
[2:00:48] because demanding a variance while
[2:00:49] making zero effort
[2:00:53] to work with the affected neighbors
[2:00:57] and and the more time goes by doubling
[2:01:00] down on threats at every turn.
[2:01:04] Let me repeat that.
[2:01:06] >> We got just do the parliamentary thing
[2:01:07] here for a second, Alex.
[2:01:10] >> Please. Thank you.
[2:01:11] >> Um good evening. My name is Barbara
[2:01:14] Costa and I would like I live at um 130
[2:01:16] Sunrise Drive and I would like to donate
[2:01:18] my time. Thank you.
[2:01:21] >> Thank you.
[2:01:24] >> I'm going to repeat this again. The
[2:01:25] applicant has had every advantage, state
[2:01:28] density mandates, full planning
[2:01:30] department support, unlimited
[2:01:32] presentation time every time, and full
[2:01:35] win behind their backs at every point.
[2:01:36] Yet, they cannot get a favorable vote.
[2:01:40] Why? Look at the yellow caps here. Zero
[2:01:44] input into this project and at every
[2:01:47] turn doubling down on threats.
[2:01:50] Exhibit A myself.
[2:01:53] Third, let's be clear about one thing.
[2:01:56] No one is denying their right to build.
[2:02:00] No one is suppressing housing units.
[2:02:03] We are denying a variance request.
[2:02:07] They can revise their plans. They can
[2:02:10] stay within their building envelope
[2:02:12] and still get everything they need.
[2:02:15] The message in this room is
[2:02:17] unmistakable.
[2:02:19] Vote our way and we'll vote our way or
[2:02:22] we'll sue.
[2:02:24] You've heard the many disguised threats
[2:02:26] tonight
[2:02:28] and you've been subjected to these
[2:02:29] disguised threats earlier this year.
[2:02:32] Vote our way or we'll sue.
[2:02:37] That's who we are. No,
[2:02:42] I did not serve in the armed forces. I
[2:02:45] became a US citizen.
[2:02:47] And for everybody that knows me, I am a
[2:02:50] representation of what America is.
[2:02:53] We deserve better.
[2:02:56] Thank you.
[2:02:58] Alex.
[2:03:04] No need for Yes, sir. Welcome.
[2:03:09] Where's the
[2:03:13] » My name is Jeffrey Pel. I grew up here
[2:03:16] and have lived just up the street on
[2:03:18] Miramontes Road for over 20 years,
[2:03:21] almost my whole life.
[2:03:23] But it's like this that makes me
[2:03:26] embarrassed to say that I'm from
[2:03:28] Woodside because we have shown ourselves
[2:03:31] to consistently be part of the problem,
[2:03:34] not the solution. We are the town that
[2:03:36] tried to declare itself a mountain lion
[2:03:38] sanctuary to get out of building housing
[2:03:40] in a housing crisis. That is who we are
[2:03:42] to the rest of California.
[2:03:44] This project is the top pipeline project
[2:03:46] in our housing element. And a no vote
[2:03:48] here is the sort of thing that gets
[2:03:49] elements descertified and cities
[2:03:51] subjected to builder's remedy. But more
[2:03:54] importantly, to deny this project is to
[2:03:56] harm someone for the benefit of almost
[2:03:58] no one. I've never needed to drive down
[2:04:01] Still Creek Road. And the same is
[2:04:02] probably true for the vast majority of
[2:04:04] other residents in town. You've heard
[2:04:07] from a lot of people who claim that the
[2:04:09] project would be unsafe, impinge on
[2:04:11] their privacy, and so on and so forth.
[2:04:14] Some of the arguments given tonight
[2:04:15] would apply equally well to any house
[2:04:18] anywhere. In reality, the cost we're
[2:04:21] struggling with is that a small handful
[2:04:23] of neighbors would be subjected to the
[2:04:25] occasional and brief view while driving
[2:04:27] of a house. If they wanted that land to
[2:04:30] stay empty, any of them could have made
[2:04:32] an offer. As far as I'm aware, they
[2:04:34] didn't. Instead, they're trying to abuse
[2:04:36] the machinery of government to assert a
[2:04:38] property right over land that isn't
[2:04:40] theirs. That is not what the planning
[2:04:42] process is for. That's not what
[2:04:43] government is for. And I don't believe
[2:04:45] this council should reward it. Time is
[2:04:47] money for the applicants as well as for
[2:04:49] the Peninsula Housing Market as a whole.
[2:04:51] To vote no tonight would be to continue
[2:04:53] to impose an unjust loss on a family
[2:04:56] with their roots here, like myself, like
[2:04:58] many others here, who wants to raise
[2:05:00] their kids here, like many others in
[2:05:01] this room, who've been dragged through a
[2:05:03] Kafka-esque nightmare of our own
[2:05:05] creation for years for trying. Building
[2:05:08] houses is not contrary to the character
[2:05:10] of the town. Those who do vote no should
[2:05:12] be ashamed. This is not a difficult
[2:05:14] decision. I ask the council to do the
[2:05:16] right thing, accept staff's
[2:05:18] recommendation, and approve the project.
[2:05:20] Thank you.
[2:05:21] Jeffrey.
[2:05:27] Others.
[2:05:33] Okay. Well, nobody has got there.
[2:05:36] Anybody on? There we go. Uh,
[2:05:39] wonderful suggestion. Thank you. Uh,
[2:05:42] Caroline Caroline, welcome.
[2:05:44] >> Hi. Yes. Thank you. I'm here to speak in
[2:05:48] support of the applicant and the
[2:05:50] proposed project at 10 Still Creek. My
[2:05:52] name is Caroline New. I'm Kristen's
[2:05:54] sister. I'm also a resident of Woodside.
[2:05:57] As you've heard, Kristen and David, my
[2:05:59] brother-in-law, have been pursuing this
[2:06:01] project for 5 and a half years on land
[2:06:03] that our dad purchased in the 70s.
[2:06:06] And they intend to build this
[2:06:08] multi-generational residence and provide
[2:06:10] affordable housing to help satisfy
[2:06:12] Woodside's housing element. As was just
[2:06:15] mentioned in the town's certified
[2:06:17] housing element plan for 2023 to 2031,
[2:06:22] this property 10 Still Creek is listed
[2:06:24] as the first pipeline project on that
[2:06:26] chart. The proposed building site lies
[2:06:30] on 2/10 of an acre of the 9.6 acre
[2:06:35] property located among hundreds of
[2:06:38] redwood trees with no neighbors in
[2:06:40] sight. Our neighbors have expressed
[2:06:44] concerns in the past that have not been
[2:06:46] said out loud tonight. During previous
[2:06:49] town meetings, neighbors voiced their
[2:06:52] concerns about who would be living in
[2:06:54] the affordable housing units, saying the
[2:06:56] project doesn't belong in, is not
[2:06:59] appropriate for Woodside, and describing
[2:07:02] it as an apartment complex.
[2:07:04] This is elitism and classism at best,
[2:07:07] discrimination at worst.
[2:07:11] As a reminder, in 2021, the ASRB
[2:07:15] approved the application to proceed to
[2:07:17] formal design review, but when Kristen
[2:07:20] and David decided to add a third ADU to
[2:07:22] house an additional community member, it
[2:07:25] had to go back to square one.
[2:07:28] We've seen that many neighboring
[2:07:30] properties in Skywood Acres have at
[2:07:32] least one setback that does not match
[2:07:35] the town of Woodid's current zoning
[2:07:38] because the neighborhood was annexed
[2:07:40] into Woodside
[2:07:42] um decades ago and until that point
[2:07:45] setbacks were under the purview of the
[2:07:48] county which did allow for setbacks of
[2:07:52] 25 ft in the front. So increasing the
[2:07:56] setback, not granting this exception
[2:07:59] that they've requested.
[2:08:02] If they were to go back to the drawing
[2:08:03] board and redesign has been suggested,
[2:08:06] increasing that setback would require
[2:08:09] more excavation to level the hill,
[2:08:12] increase the number of trees that need
[2:08:14] to be removed. And Kristen and David,
[2:08:17] but especially Kristen, has always
[2:08:20] wanted to respect the woods, the natural
[2:08:23] terrain, and disturb the land as little
[2:08:26] as possible because she respects this
[2:08:29] land more than anyone I know. Thank you.
[2:08:35] >> Thank you, Caroline.
[2:08:38] >> Yes. Welcome.
[2:08:42] I'm also a Caroline, but mine is
[2:08:45] Carolina Blake and I live at 60 Ranch
[2:08:49] Road Skywood Acres and I was a firewise
[2:08:54] leader for Skywood and Steel Creek for
[2:08:56] the past five years. I just turned that
[2:08:59] over to Art
[2:09:02] um and he will continue with that. The
[2:09:05] town of Woodside for the last 50 years
[2:09:08] has refused to make Steel Creek into a
[2:09:11] public road because the land does not
[2:09:14] have the capacity to support such a
[2:09:16] development.
[2:09:18] Therefore, the town now wants to approve
[2:09:22] such a heavy development on the same
[2:09:25] land by making an exception for the
[2:09:28] benefit of only two people, one family
[2:09:32] that increases the fire risk for the
[2:09:35] entire community. The code must be
[2:09:38] applied equally to everyone so we can
[2:09:42] all be safe.
[2:09:46] The appeal is asking that the town
[2:09:48] treats these applicants differently by
[2:09:51] granting an extension only for them.
[2:09:54] You just have heard from Fire Marshall
[2:09:56] Parker and a lot of other people that
[2:09:59] extending the extension will endanger
[2:10:03] not only the other residents in Still
[2:10:05] Creek, but also our neighborhood, which
[2:10:08] is adjacent Skyward Acres, adjacent with
[2:10:13] 75 homes and approximately
[2:10:17] 200 people.
[2:10:20] If you grant this extension and place
[2:10:22] our community at a great risk of losing
[2:10:25] our homes or insuranceances,
[2:10:27] is the town also going to consider today
[2:10:30] to be accountable and put in place
[2:10:33] measures that protect us?
[2:10:38] Is the town going to set aside a fund to
[2:10:40] help us rebuild our homes? Is the town
[2:10:44] going to get us insurance where our
[2:10:46] current insurance get cancelled? Is the
[2:10:49] town going to pay for the difference for
[2:10:52] a much more expensive insurance that we
[2:10:54] will need to pay to secure our
[2:10:56] community? If the answer to these
[2:10:59] questions is no, the town must deny the
[2:11:02] exception and must deny the appeal.
[2:11:06] State housing law does not override
[2:11:09] California's state fire safety code and
[2:11:13] regulations in particular in the areas
[2:11:16] of very high fire severity zones as
[2:11:20] defined by the California government
[2:11:22] code. Thank you.
[2:11:25] >> Thank you.
[2:11:30] Other comments? Anyone in the Zoom room?
[2:11:34] Anyone
[2:11:37] in independence hall?
[2:11:40] Okay, then we will close uh well before
[2:11:44] we close public comment. Are there any
[2:11:46] questions of any of the public speakers
[2:11:49] by any member of the council?
[2:11:55] Just I have one uh I'm sorry. Let me um
[2:11:59] I don't know who directed it at so maybe
[2:12:00] I'll go to you Mr. Parker. Um
[2:12:04] this is this
[2:12:06] heard it repeatedly tonight, but it's
[2:12:07] this issue of Oh, and hi Jen. We'll go
[2:12:09] to Jen next. Um
[2:12:11] the idea of a it's a tipping point
[2:12:14] argument that of all the houses, this
[2:12:16] next one is going to be the one that's
[2:12:18] going to cause fire risk and safe public
[2:12:21] safety risk. Why is this project versus
[2:12:24] any other house in the neighborhood now
[2:12:26] that why would we consider it the
[2:12:28] tipping point project? I mean, this is a
[2:12:30] case that's being made by by a lot of
[2:12:33] people here tonight,
[2:12:36] >> right? I I believe I understand the
[2:12:38] question is we're talking about what
[2:12:40] what's the the true increased level of
[2:12:42] risk and in the report I I describe it
[2:12:45] as uh we can't we need to do we do what
[2:12:48] we can with existing homes and going and
[2:12:50] make with the firewise programs and and
[2:12:52] trying to deal with them. The key is
[2:12:54] we've got to stop adding to the problem.
[2:12:56] And I started in the 1980s trying to
[2:12:59] convince uh many of us that we we've got
[2:13:01] to stop adding to the problem
[2:13:03] incrementally. So whether this is a a
[2:13:05] catastrophic issue in a wildfire um is a small percentage, but it's adding
[2:13:11] to the piece. It's very likely a piece.
[2:13:13] it's going to cause blocked roads and uh
[2:13:15] at times and that enters into the
[2:13:19] overall fire life safety and there's
[2:13:21] ways of it from what I see there's ways
[2:13:24] of mitigating the increased risk to a
[2:13:26] level to where it's close it's so
[2:13:28] minuscule or so small it wouldn't um
[2:13:32] really enter into this but as it's uh
[2:13:35] exists right now a very large project
[2:13:37] very small uh footprint to build on uh
[2:13:41] close to the roads not allowing adequate
[2:13:43] defensible space. Its own plan calls for
[2:13:45] 100 ft. It can't reach that. So, it's
[2:13:47] just it's again it's just too much in in
[2:13:49] a small area and it can be mitigated uh
[2:13:52] by downsizing and meeting existing
[2:13:55] standards.
[2:13:56] >> Okay. Thank you. Council member Wall
[2:14:00] have a question.
[2:14:01] >> Yeah. Um actually have a question for
[2:14:03] staff. Um procedurally, is that okay if
[2:14:06] I direct another question towards staff
[2:14:08] based on what I just heard?
[2:14:12] Yeah.
[2:14:13] >> Okay. Um, so I heard at least two but
[2:14:17] maybe more um folks comment on this
[2:14:21] notion that the town has refused to turn
[2:14:24] Still Silk Creek Road um or convert it
[2:14:28] into a public road. I don't know if this
[2:14:30] is a question for Sage or maybe Jean.
[2:14:33] Could one of you just sort of give us
[2:14:35] some additional context there? Has have
[2:14:37] there been, you know, applications for
[2:14:38] that? what is what what can you tell us
[2:14:40] about that topic?
[2:14:46] » So, there's an attachment in your um
[2:14:48] staff packet which gives the history of
[2:14:50] this, but um this was um required to be
[2:14:53] a private road uh way back in the 70s
[2:14:56] when the subdivision was approved.
[2:14:58] There's a road maintenance agreement in
[2:14:59] place. It's been in place since that
[2:15:01] time which obligates the owners along
[2:15:04] that road uh to maintain the road. um if
[2:15:07] they do not, the town has options to um
[2:15:11] encourage and or force that maintenance,
[2:15:13] but it is a private road. Has always
[2:15:15] been intended to be a private road based
[2:15:17] on the original subdivision.
[2:15:21] >> Thanks, Jean. Maybe just a quick
[2:15:22] follow-up question. So, have has has
[2:15:24] there been an effort on behalf of the
[2:15:28] residents that are um a part of that
[2:15:31] road maintenance agreement to convert
[2:15:33] the road into a a a non-private road?
[2:15:39] I think I recall um several occasions
[2:15:41] where um um at least Mr. Middleman has asked that the town consider that.
[2:15:48] If I'm incorrect, he can he can correct
[2:15:51] me. Um, but I don't recall anyone else
[2:15:53] uh coming before the council and making
[2:15:55] that request, nor nor would staff um
[2:15:57] recommend that.
[2:16:01] » Um, I'd like to re uh recognize
[2:16:04] Christine new to also speak on this
[2:16:06] issue.
[2:16:12] » Sorry, just to add two things. So, one
[2:16:17] um my husband David Middleman brought
[2:16:19] that proposal to the town actually with
[2:16:22] support of neighbors at that time to
[2:16:24] make the town public. Um part of that
[2:16:28] was that one of the arguments was that
[2:16:30] Sunrise Drive is a public road yet at
[2:16:32] dead ends with no access to anything.
[2:16:34] Whereas Still Creek Road is the only
[2:16:36] access for example to Wonderlick Park
[2:16:38] between the main entrance and skyline.
[2:16:40] Um it also is the access point for the
[2:16:43] slack lines which pose a fire hazard to
[2:16:46] the area. Um and then the last thing you
[2:16:49] had mentioned a road maintenance
[2:16:50] agreement that was not a road
[2:16:51] maintenance agreement. It was a covenant
[2:16:53] that was made between the owners that
[2:16:54] followed the owners not the properties
[2:16:56] and it was um dissolved actually by the
[2:17:00] residents of 45 Still Creek upon their
[2:17:02] purchase of the property uh a number of
[2:17:04] years ago. Um, and so that is no longer
[2:17:07] there is no agreement, covenant,
[2:17:09] whatever you want to call it. There is
[2:17:10] nothing like that in existence for that
[2:17:12] road.
[2:17:13] >> Okay.
[2:17:15] >> Yeah.
[2:17:17] >> Thank you for correcting my my memory of
[2:17:18] the the um request to to uh turn it into
[2:17:21] a public. I would disagree with one
[2:17:23] thing uh that Miss N just said. Uh there
[2:17:26] were some CCNRs that were in place.
[2:17:28] Those were rescended years ago, but
[2:17:30] those specifically indicated that the
[2:17:32] road maintenance agreement remained in
[2:17:33] place and it did not um transform this
[2:17:36] into a public street. It is a private
[2:17:38] road.
[2:17:38] >> Okay. We still have public comment open.
[2:17:41] So, if you want to this is a second bite
[2:17:43] of the apple, but
[2:17:45] >> Miss New just mentioned the residents of
[2:17:46] 45 Silk Creek Road as the the people in
[2:17:49] question. Uh I I concur that that that
[2:17:52] road maintenance agreement was not was
[2:17:54] not dissolved uh as part of the the the
[2:17:57] transaction there. It was rather um as
[2:17:59] uh Miss Savvery or is it Savari Savory
[2:18:04] has said that was the the CCNRS. Um but
[2:18:07] I I would also just point out one of the
[2:18:10] big concerns we have here uh is the
[2:18:13] where that's going to happen on the
[2:18:15] road. Um it's a safety issue as has
[2:18:18] already been highlighted to you. It's
[2:18:19] also a cost issue. We spent hundreds of
[2:18:21] thousands of dollars just a few years
[2:18:23] ago when the the road's not in good
[2:18:25] condition. It was it was wiped out uh in
[2:18:27] one small section. Um and the applicants
[2:18:30] have refused to to uh accept a
[2:18:32] responsibility for damage to the road
[2:18:34] during construction. And you know, we
[2:18:36] have a a lot of concerns around that for
[2:18:37] that. So, if the town considers
[2:18:40] approving something like this, I hope
[2:18:42] you would also take responsibility for
[2:18:43] the road because I think it's going to
[2:18:45] create a lot of cost and liability for all of us who own the road. Thank
[2:18:49] you.
[2:18:50] >> Okay.
[2:18:52] Um before we close the public
[2:18:54] hearing, just want to make sure we have
[2:18:56] all the comments uh particularly any
[2:18:58] comments that were submitted today. Um
[2:19:01] so, those are all in the record.
[2:19:04] I'm going to give you a final statement
[2:19:05] in a second. I'm going to allow
[2:19:06] rebuttal. Same thing.
[2:19:08] >> Yes, I am.
[2:19:12] » Okay. Then we're going to close public
[2:19:15] comment, but we're also going to have a
[2:19:17] final statement and rebuttal uh period
[2:19:19] for um the appellant, and we can ask any
[2:19:23] final questions of the appellent at that
[2:19:25] time.
[2:19:34] » Welcome, Ryan. Thank you very much. Um I
[2:19:38] will try to be brief and I think we'll
[2:19:39] have a couple brief statements from a
[2:19:41] couple members of our team as well.
[2:19:44] >> Uh first
[2:19:46] the legal standard here uh at the end of
[2:19:49] the day you're making a decision. That
[2:19:51] decision has a standard that it's held
[2:19:52] to. that standard is under the HAA.
[2:19:56] Could a reasonable person find that the
[2:19:58] project meets the applicable objective
[2:20:00] standards? And if so, then under the
[2:20:04] law, it does meet those standards.
[2:20:07] So, it's not a a substantial evidence
[2:20:10] council gets the benefit of the doubt
[2:20:12] standard anymore. the law in 2018 under
[2:20:16] legislation I contributed to changed
[2:20:18] that standard so that if any reasonable
[2:20:21] person could find that it meets the
[2:20:22] applicable standards than it does by
[2:20:24] operation of law.
[2:20:27] Um
[2:20:29] I'd like to speak to the fire issue. Um
[2:20:32] I I respect the community's concern
[2:20:34] about fire. However, the state has been
[2:20:37] clear on this. Uh, state law forbids
[2:20:40] fire hazard severity zone from being
[2:20:42] used as a basis to deny ad use. Um,
[2:20:46] Calire office of the state fire marshall
[2:20:49] information bulletin 25-004
[2:20:53] from March 3rd, 2025 is unambiguous. It
[2:20:56] says, quote, fire hazard severity zones
[2:20:59] should not restrict the development of
[2:21:01] accessory dwelling units. End quote.
[2:21:04] Uh Woodside Fire Protection District,
[2:21:06] the agency the state has delegated to
[2:21:08] enforce fire safety in Woodside, has
[2:21:11] already engaged with this project. Um it
[2:21:14] will be responsible for ensuring fire
[2:21:16] safety.
[2:21:17] The hazard designation for this site is
[2:21:21] not unique to this site. Uh Ten Still
[2:21:24] Creek Road sits in the same very high
[2:21:27] fires hazard severity zone as
[2:21:29] essentially the entire western hills of
[2:21:31] Woodside. It is not unique
[2:21:34] and the applicant's engineered fire
[2:21:36] safety package equals or exceeds every
[2:21:39] applicable code. self-imposed two-hour
[2:21:42] fire rating, steel structural framing,
[2:21:44] metal cladding, class A roof,
[2:21:46] pebblestone non-combustible zone zero,
[2:21:49] 100 ft lean, clean green defensible
[2:21:51] space, mandatory NFPA 13D interior
[2:21:55] sprinklers, plus exterior wildfire
[2:21:58] defense sprinklers of the kind credited
[2:22:00] with saving homes in the 2025 Palisades
[2:22:03] fire. Cal Water Hydrant Fire with 600 ft
[2:22:07] confirmed by staff. building cited
[2:22:10] within 150 ft of the road. So no
[2:22:12] apparatus turnaround is required and on
[2:22:15] engineering this is simply one of the
[2:22:17] most fire hardened projects imaginable
[2:22:21] um that probably ever brought to the
[2:22:23] town
[2:22:25] and a formal vegetation management plan
[2:22:27] while not required is being provided.
[2:22:31] The exception
[2:22:33] is what is being considered here today,
[2:22:35] not the fire risk of the project. And
[2:22:37] the exception does not increase fire
[2:22:40] risk. So there may be concerns about
[2:22:43] building in urban wild fire wildlands
[2:22:46] interfaces,
[2:22:47] but the thing before the council tonight
[2:22:49] is the exception and the exception is
[2:22:52] not implicated by those concerns. the
[2:22:54] exception of having this much setback or
[2:22:57] this much setback is it's a marginal
[2:23:00] difference and it does not actually
[2:23:02] impact fire risk
[2:23:04] under the state law. If the council were
[2:23:07] to deny the project or condition it in a
[2:23:09] manner that renders it infeasible,
[2:23:12] renders it impossible to to feasibly
[2:23:15] build. Um the standard there is that
[2:23:20] there is no alternative uh that it it
[2:23:23] violates an accepted quote objective
[2:23:27] identified written public health or
[2:23:29] safety standard policy or conditions at
[2:23:32] the as they existed on the date the
[2:23:34] application was deemed complete. So
[2:23:36] while there are concerns generally about
[2:23:38] building in urban wildland interface
[2:23:42] areas, there is no objective quantified
[2:23:46] standard that has been implicated here.
[2:23:48] There is no standard that we can point
[2:23:50] to and say this is violated by the
[2:23:52] project. It imposes a health and safety
[2:23:54] risk of this standard of this quantified
[2:23:57] magnitude and therefore that cannot be
[2:24:00] used to deny the exception to deny the
[2:24:03] project. State law does not allow that.
[2:24:06] And
[2:24:08] the the likely impact of that if this
[2:24:11] were to go into an argument at the next
[2:24:14] level about this, we've already said
[2:24:16] it's it's five $50,000 per unit tonight
[2:24:19] plus the attorney's fees. We're looking
[2:24:21] at probably a million dollar bill to the
[2:24:22] city to the town if it goes that way.
[2:24:25] So, we don't want that. I'm not here to
[2:24:28] threaten the town. I haven't been asked
[2:24:30] by my clients certainly to threaten the
[2:24:32] town. I'm here trying to explain why the
[2:24:34] state law requires approval of the
[2:24:36] project and approval of the exception.
[2:24:39] Um there was one uh item that the
[2:24:41] engineer I think wanted to add the
[2:24:43] actual cost. If the exception were
[2:24:46] denied, we have to build into the
[2:24:48] hillside excavate dramatically more
[2:24:50] soil. The offhaul cost, Charles, can you
[2:24:54] speak to that? the additional cost of
[2:24:57] offhaul.
[2:24:58] >> Uh the architect said I think it was
[2:25:00] 1,400 cubic yards additional excavation.
[2:25:03] Is that correct?
[2:25:05] If Jim's listening,
[2:25:07] >> it is it is um about 1,600,
[2:25:12] 1645 total yards would have to be.
[2:25:14] >> Okay. I had earlier I had forgotten
[2:25:16] about I was thinking the construction
[2:25:18] cost but there's the offhaul to the
[2:25:19] landfill
[2:25:21] and that alone would be in the
[2:25:24] neighborhood of $200 to $300,000
[2:25:26] and probably 350
[2:25:29] maybe more truck trips dump truck trips
[2:25:34] through Woodside up to the property down
[2:25:36] Sil Creek Road and back out Still Creek
[2:25:38] Road through Woodside to 280.
[2:25:41] So, um, if I were a neighbor there, I
[2:25:44] don't think I would like that. And I
[2:25:47] wanted to say something else, but I
[2:25:48] guess I'll I'll let this part of it wrap
[2:25:50] up first. I Okay, I'll finish. Uh,
[2:25:53] someone else said that um
[2:25:56] Dr. Clamper said there's a he suggested
[2:25:58] there's an active fault going right
[2:26:00] through the site. That's not true. The
[2:26:02] nearest active fault is a mile away. The
[2:26:04] Pillar's fault is considered potentially
[2:26:08] active. this the state the California
[2:26:10] Geological Survey does not even have it
[2:26:12] on their map as an active fault or
[2:26:14] special study zone or it would never
[2:26:16] even came up in our geotech report
[2:26:18] because it's just not an issue. It's 250
[2:26:21] or 300 ft down the hill from the site.
[2:26:23] It trends up toward the intersection of
[2:26:25] Still Creek Road, uh, Sunrise Drive, and
[2:26:29] Skywood Way, right under that house at
[2:26:32] the corner there, and very close to
[2:26:33] number three, Still Creek Road.
[2:26:37] And the site is also not on an active
[2:26:40] landslide. It's on a dormant landslide.
[2:26:42] And that's why we did an extensive study
[2:26:45] after which we determined that it is re
[2:26:48] it is stable at this time.
[2:26:53] Thank you. I believe architect Jim
[2:26:55] Baronssky is going to address the
[2:26:58] alternatives that were profered by the
[2:26:59] neighbors architect. Thank you.
[2:27:02] >> Thank you, James.
[2:27:03] >> Yeah, I I'd just like to point out that
[2:27:07] uh Mr. French's alternative relies on
[2:27:11] these areas that are within the 50oot
[2:27:13] setback. Um the area uh the area that is
[2:27:18] closest to the road uh that is not
[2:27:21] encroached upon by a 35% slope or 50%
[2:27:26] slope is 771 square ft. And that's a
[2:27:29] misshapen 771 square ft. That means that
[2:27:34] to even get a just a a rectangular
[2:27:38] box that would fit in there that would
[2:27:41] not have to encroach in the in the 50
[2:27:43] foot setback or 50% slope area would be
[2:27:47] 467 square ft. Um and I'm you know uh
[2:27:52] maybe that's an alternative but it's
[2:27:54] certainly not a feasible one. And then
[2:27:56] with respect to the area that is to the
[2:27:58] north and the east, that whole area is
[2:28:02] 1,54
[2:28:04] square ft that is not encroached upon by
[2:28:07] the 35% slope or the 50% slope. If I
[2:28:11] wanted to put in a rectangular box that
[2:28:13] did not encroach, it could be 443 square
[2:28:16] ft, which is not even large enough for a
[2:28:18] twocar garage. So, I just don't
[2:28:22] understand how that's feasible unless we
[2:28:25] encroach into the 50 50% um uh slope
[2:28:30] area, which frankly we're not really
[2:28:33] allowed to do, nor do we want to do. Um,
[2:28:36] and then I I stand by my analysis on the
[2:28:39] uh on the size of the building um and uh
[2:28:44] the mis uh misreading of Mr. French's or
[2:28:48] Mr. French's misreading of our plans um
[2:28:52] uh and uh uh of the uh maybe the
[2:28:55] guidelines uh for uh calculating um a
[2:29:00] building area for for Woodside. So I
[2:29:03] know our calculation is correct.
[2:29:06] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:29:08] >> And David,
[2:29:14] » thank you. Something that has been
[2:29:17] glossed over tonight is this
[2:29:20] conversation is about the setback. Once
[2:29:22] the setback has been decided with an
[2:29:24] exception or not, if we if we choose
[2:29:27] when we choose to move forward with the
[2:29:29] project, we have to comply with all the
[2:29:32] codes that currently sit in California
[2:29:36] to build a house. That includes chapter
[2:29:38] 7A,
[2:29:40] which is the fire requirements for a
[2:29:43] house. Not one of the houses in Skywood
[2:29:45] Acres was built to that standard. And
[2:29:48] part of what Mr. Parker glazed over in
[2:29:51] those reports from Lahina and Palisades
[2:29:53] is that houses built to 7A survived. If
[2:29:58] any of you remember the CBS story of
[2:30:00] that one house in the one neighborhood
[2:30:02] in Palisades that seemed to be unburned,
[2:30:04] it's because it was built to 7A.
[2:30:10] Additionally, the access in the road the
[2:30:13] road code, there's three structures
[2:30:16] after that section of road. And the code
[2:30:19] requires that for three structures that
[2:30:21] the road have a minimum width of 14 ft.
[2:30:23] And it's been accepted by everybody in
[2:30:25] this room that the road is at least 18
[2:30:27] ft and wider in some places.
[2:30:32] regarding the road maintenance and the
[2:30:35] public private.
[2:30:37] This all started in 2019 when California
[2:30:40] amended their civil code 845.
[2:30:46] We had a road maintenance agreement
[2:30:49] between four property owners with
[2:30:50] accordments.
[2:30:53] That code changed to say that in the
[2:30:55] absence of a road maintenance agreement,
[2:30:57] each property owner was responsible for
[2:31:01] the road maintenance proportional to
[2:31:03] their use of the road. And we had four
[2:31:07] other properties on the road that have
[2:31:10] implied easements that aren't recorded.
[2:31:13] 105 Sunrise. This driveway comes out. It
[2:31:16] has a 20 foot set back to the the
[2:31:18] garage. Three Still Creek, Seven Still
[2:31:21] Creek, and 95 Skyward second driveway.
[2:31:26] After multiple attempts of trying to get
[2:31:28] everybody to sit down at the table and
[2:31:30] agree, I was encouraged to come to the
[2:31:33] town and push for public acceptance of
[2:31:36] the road for a lot of the reasons that
[2:31:38] Kristen spouted, but also because the
[2:31:41] town has a equestrian trails easement
[2:31:44] that goes down the road. And we actually
[2:31:45] went to the equestrian trails committee
[2:31:47] at the very beginning as well as county
[2:31:51] parks, the fulier estate and the town
[2:31:55] because those conservation easements on
[2:31:57] 10 Steel Creek.
[2:32:00] The easement says the town shall
[2:32:02] maintain that conservation easement, not
[2:32:04] us.
[2:32:06] which means that you have an implied
[2:32:08] easement on the road to get to our
[2:32:10] property to maintain the conservation
[2:32:12] easement.
[2:32:16] We have never denied that we're going to
[2:32:20] repair the road, but we have to agree on
[2:32:24] what the quality and the state of the
[2:32:26] road is so we can repair it back to that
[2:32:30] state. It's unfair
[2:32:33] to put a whole new road in if we don't actually do that
[2:32:38] much damage to the road by not hauling
[2:32:40] 1643
[2:32:42] cubic yards of dirt out of the property.
[2:32:48] And it's been talked about how the moan
[2:32:49] washed out. The moon washed out on the
[2:32:52] property of 45 Steel Creek beyond where
[2:32:54] this site is. It washed out not because
[2:32:58] of geotechnical issues but because of a
[2:33:01] lack of the property owner's
[2:33:02] responsibility.
[2:33:04] Poppy owner's fulfillment of his
[2:33:06] responsibility to clear his own covert
[2:33:09] that created overflow which is the same
[2:33:11] reason why 84 washed out.
[2:33:14] He failed to mention that the estate
[2:33:20] of the news paid tens of thousands of
[2:33:23] dollars towards that repair. And if you
[2:33:26] remember the first meeting of January
[2:33:28] 2023, I came in here hot to tell you
[2:33:32] about how this road needed to be public
[2:33:35] is me, Kristen, and my 70 plus year old
[2:33:39] father went and cleared that covert
[2:33:42] because he was in Tahoe on on New Year's
[2:33:45] Eve of 2022. So, we didn't do that
[2:33:48] again. And we don't even live on the
[2:33:51] road yet.
[2:33:54] Again, that's part of the road beyond
[2:33:57] the project and would be unaffected
[2:34:01] by construction.
[2:34:05] Yeah, I think that's all I wanted to
[2:34:07] say.
[2:34:09] >> Thank you. Any questions from councel
[2:34:11] for the appellent?
[2:34:14] The applicant?
[2:34:17] Okay. Well,
[2:34:19] uh,
[2:34:22] what can I get opinion on if we if we've
[2:34:25] closed public comment?
[2:34:26] >> You did indicate you had already closed
[2:34:28] public comment and you were doing a
[2:34:30] rebuttal for the appellant.
[2:34:32] >> Yeah. So, yeah, public comment is
[2:34:35] closed. Um, and so we are closing public
[2:34:38] comment and we are closing the public
[2:34:40] hearing. Um,
[2:34:44] so, uh, I want to make a suggestion.
[2:34:47] It's probably not going to make a lot of
[2:34:48] people thrilled. Uh, but David Madrid's
[2:34:52] letter is actually correct. The opening
[2:34:55] letter we heard tonight, which is we
[2:34:56] need this to be a fair process, and we
[2:34:59] on the council have not had a chance to
[2:35:00] digest about 400 pages that came from
[2:35:03] the applicant and the neighbors today.
[2:35:06] Uh so Jennifer did the best job she
[2:35:09] could to copy that for everybody. Um uh
[2:35:12] not all of us are present with a
[2:35:13] physical copy but none of us have had a
[2:35:16] chance to really digest this and so uh
[2:35:19] this process in order to have validity
[2:35:21] needs us to be able to do that. Um so
[2:35:25] what I'd like to do is suggest a
[2:35:26] continuation and we will commit to a
[2:35:29] timely response here. We're I know we're
[2:35:32] starting to stack extra meetings in
[2:35:33] June. So hopefully we can get this in
[2:35:35] May or early June, but um I would
[2:35:38] suggest that that's what we need to do
[2:35:39] in order to digest this to make sure
[2:35:41] that we've we've given this everything
[2:35:43] it it it deserves after 5 years. Uh so I
[2:35:46] would like to make that motion uh
[2:35:48] tonight. I don't know if there's a
[2:35:50] second or interest. We can also continue
[2:35:53] tonight.
[2:35:54] >> You agree?
[2:35:56] >> Agree.
[2:35:57] >> I agree with that suggestion. I have not
[2:35:59] had an opportunity to read all those
[2:36:00] either.
[2:36:02] >> Council member Wall, where are you on
[2:36:03] this?
[2:36:05] >> Yeah, I I agree. I think um I think it's
[2:36:08] important that we have the time to
[2:36:10] review the materials that were submitted
[2:36:12] today. So, I would second your motion.
[2:36:15] >> Okay. Thank you. For planning purposes,
[2:36:18] can we pick a day right now? Can we pick
[2:36:20] the second?
[2:36:21] >> I was going to ask if the council could
[2:36:23] um pick a date certain so we didn't have
[2:36:25] to renotice the hearing.
[2:36:26] >> Yeah. So if um your options would be May
[2:36:28] 26th or June 9th I think it is.
[2:36:32] >> I think we owe it to everybody to be as
[2:36:34] fast as we can on the turnaround. So May
[2:36:36] 26th
[2:36:36] >> May 26th.
[2:36:38] >> Okay. May
[2:36:39] >> May 26th. Okay.
[2:36:41] >> And uh yeah, we'll commit. We're going
[2:36:43] to open at that point in deliberation.
[2:36:45] So there will be no further public
[2:36:46] comment. We have closed public comment.
[2:36:48] Um so we will just be deliberating and
[2:36:50] then making a decision at that time. So
[2:36:54] um
[2:36:55] so with that we will close this item for
[2:36:58] tonight. It's continued to May 22nd
[2:37:00] where we will open
[2:37:02] >> 26.
[2:37:02] >> Thank you. May 26 where we will open
[2:37:06] with council deliberation and get
[2:37:09] everybody on the road. Uh
[2:37:12] okay David one last
[2:37:14] >> just one question so we don't end up in
[2:37:16] the same position at the continuence.
[2:37:18] For clarification, are you accepting
[2:37:21] desk items or not from that continuance?
[2:37:23] >> We've been told no. The public hearing
[2:37:26] is open.
[2:37:26] >> Thank you.
[2:37:29] >> The main thrust of David Madrid's letter
[2:37:30] was that we hadn't had a chance to
[2:37:33] respond to this massive submission yet.
[2:37:34] So, there needs to be some mechanism for
[2:37:36] us to respond to it or it's pointless to
[2:37:38] continue.
[2:37:39] >> Jean,
[2:37:42] >> logic that one.
[2:37:44] >> Well, it it it seems incredibly unfair.
[2:37:47] So, so I think
[2:37:48] >> the applicant gets to rebut and we have
[2:37:49] none.
[2:37:50] >> Hold on, please.
[2:37:51] >> So, I think what I heard you say is that
[2:37:53] you you've heard all the public comment
[2:37:56] um and you need time to take a look at
[2:37:58] additional information that's been
[2:38:00] provided to you. What I would suggest is
[2:38:03] that if you think there are additional
[2:38:05] questions you need to pose as a result
[2:38:07] of that, you could do that at the next
[2:38:08] meeting. Um but you've already indicated
[2:38:11] that you're you're closing the public
[2:38:13] hearing.
[2:38:13] >> You know, I um and I appreciate that. I
[2:38:16] would it be okay if we said we can take
[2:38:19] public responses to anything in these
[2:38:21] 400 pages?
[2:38:23] >> Um you can say that but if you if you
[2:38:25] are going to do that I think you should
[2:38:27] be clear with the people who are here
[2:38:28] are you saying you will take written
[2:38:30] comments
[2:38:31] >> written? Yep. Written.
[2:38:33] >> And then if you could please indicate by
[2:38:35] which date you would like those to be
[2:38:37] submitted so that you don't end up in
[2:38:39] the same situation which is things
[2:38:41] coming in two hours before
[2:38:43] >> uh you hear it on May 26th.
[2:38:45] >> I don't have a calendar in front of me.
[2:38:46] What's one week from today?
[2:38:48] >> One week from today is May 9 Tuesday May
[2:38:50] 19th.
[2:38:51] >> Okay. We will take any written
[2:38:53] communication in response to the items
[2:38:55] that are in that have been submitted
[2:38:57] today uh by May 19th.
[2:39:03] in writing. Correct.
[2:39:04] >> In writing.
[2:39:06] >> Yeah. And I'm sorry that this seems like
[2:39:07] a little jarring moment, but we don't we
[2:39:10] just can't we can't process this
[2:39:12] information tonight. So,
[2:39:13] >> understood. The neighbors also submitted
[2:39:15] new materials today that we would like a
[2:39:16] chance to respond to.
[2:39:18] >> Fair enough. Yes. Yep.
[2:39:19] >> And I also want to note for the record,
[2:39:21] this was the fifth hearing.
[2:39:23] >> So, there is a state law issue there as
[2:39:25] well.
[2:39:25] >> Well, we're it's a staff table. We would
[2:39:28] >> Yeah. So, we're continuing in uh a
[2:39:31] current meeting is the way I think we
[2:39:32] would look at that, but um we're doing
[2:39:34] our best on this. All right. We want to
[2:39:35] make sure everybody gets a fair a fair
[2:39:37] hearing on this.
[2:39:40] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:39:42] >> Everything writing within one week. Yep.
[2:39:44] >> Nothing after that.
[2:39:46] >> Sounds we open up at deliberations.
[2:39:48] >> At deliberation.
[2:39:49] >> Okay.
[2:39:51] >> Thank you.
[2:39:52] >> You know, we we had a we had a vote. We
[2:39:54] had a motion in a second, but we didn't
[2:39:56] take that vote. Do we need to take a
[2:39:58] vote for continuation? Yes.
[2:40:01] >> So, I'll make a motion.
[2:40:03] >> Yep.
[2:40:04] >> That we continue this item
[2:40:07] uh
[2:40:09] to May 26th.
[2:40:11] Um and we open at deliberations and any
[2:40:16] comment either pro or con from the
[2:40:19] appellants or the uh neighbors
[2:40:24] um should be made within one week from
[2:40:26] today in writing only and they will not
[2:40:29] be accepted after that date.
[2:40:31] >> Second.
[2:40:33] >> Council member Alish.
[2:40:34] >> Yes.
[2:40:34] >> Council member Brown.
[2:40:35] >> Yes. Council member Gold.
[2:40:36] >> Yes.
[2:40:37] >> Council member Wall.
[2:40:38] >> Yes.
[2:40:39] >> Mayor Donowski.
[2:40:40] >> Yes.
[2:40:42] Thank you.
[2:40:45] Appreciate your time and all of your
[2:40:47] inputs.
[2:40:49] Uh reports, volunteer,
[2:40:51] >> no report.
[2:40:52] >> Council communication.
[2:40:57] » All right. Hearing none. Uh 9:44 we'll
[2:41:00] call the meeting.