We're live. Can you hear me?
All right. Uh, we'll call the meeting to
order. Apologies for the late start. Had
an unexpected urgent care trip. Um,
casual appearance and all that. And
thanks for being with us despite the
World Cup game uh that is going on. Um,
I think just in the interest of time,
we'll probably skip pledge of allegiance
for tonight if that's okay and proceed
to roll call.
>> Chair Gar
>> here,
>> Commissioner Gonko
>> here,
>> Commissioner Weaver
>> here,
>> and Vice Chair Tober and Commissioner
Evans are noted absent.
>> Uh, are there any changes to the agenda
tonight?
>> There are no changes to the agenda.
There is one desk item for item number
three on the agenda and that'll be
explained in the presentation.
>> All right, perfect. Um, all right. Any
public communications? So, if folks have
uh things they would like to raise that
are not on the agenda tonight, now would
be the time to do that. You can approach
the microphone if you have a comment you
would like to make.
>> And for those online, please use the
raise hand feature if you'd like to make
a comment.
And I see no raised hands.
>> In that case, we will move on to the
consent agenda. And the first item being
the approval of the uh of the minutes
from date correct uh from June 3 uh
2026. Does anybody have comments on the
minutes uh before we consider approval?
Um, I move that we approve the consent
calendar, which is approval of the
minutes from June 3rd.
>> I saw a second.
>> Chair Gard,
>> yes.
>> Commissioner Gerero,
>> yes.
>> Commissioner Weaver,
>> yes.
Okay. Uh in that case, we'll move to the second item, which is the public
hearing on 2995 Woodside Road. Uh which
is presentation and approval uh
conditional approval or denial of the uh
conditional use permit. Uh Sage, do you
want to Okay. Uh KO.
» Hello and thank you. Uh tonight I'll be
presenting the project at 2995 Woodside
Road Sweet 100.
It's a presentation and approval,
conditional approval or denial of a
proposal requiring planning commission
review for a new conditional use permit
to allow for a new fitness/pilott
studio. And there are no desk items at
this time. Uh to give a brief
background, uh the town received a
request for approval of a business
license in suite 100 at the Gilbert
Center for a small-scale body studio. Uh
with review of all proposed businesses
located in a fixed location, uh town
staff must determine if the Woodside
Municipal Code allows a proposed use. Uh
in Woodside Municipal Code section
153.107, 107. Um the table outlines the
permitted uses uh with no cup required,
uh conditional uses with a conditional
use permit required and accessory uses
um accessory to permitted or conditional
uses uh allowed in that commercial uh
zoning district. And it also states that
if a specific use is not listed, it may
be uh permitted if the planning
commission determines that the proposed
use is similar to a use listed in the
tables. Uh whereas a fitness and or a
Pilates studio is not explicitly called
out in that code section. uh staff
recommends that the proposed
fitness/pilates
instructional use uh would be most
similar to a uh quote unquote uh music
and dance instruction use uh outlined in
that table. Um however uh that music and
dance instruction uh would require uh
planning commission approval of a cup.
This is the um aerial photograph uh
showing the location of that sweet 100.
It's uh within that detached structure
which I will show in the next slide
here.
And this is the uh these are the images
of the existing building as well as the
uh existing uh parking. Um to clarify um
as you can see with my mouse here um
showing the space where the proposed use
would be taking place. It would be on
the left side of that lower level
and the applicant indicates that um
Pilates again uh is a type of mindbody
exercise uh that classifies as a
recreation facility. Uh the proposed use
would occupy a space with a gross flow
area of approximately 700 square f feet
uh which I will show in that uh floor
plan that the applicant provided. Uh the
applicant also indicated that the space
would undergo minor interior
modifications
uh but there would be no changes to the
existing uh facade of the structure
itself. Um and as far as for parking, um
the existing commercial unit was
previously occupied by an office use. Uh
section uh 153.223
of the Woodside municipal code uh
provides a limited uh list of uses for
parking requirements. Uh one of the
tables in that section indicates that uh
businesses and professional offices
require one parking space for each uh
200 square ft of floor area plus one
space for every three employees. Uh
since the previous use and the proposed
use fall into this general category for
parking requirements, uh staff
determines that the proposed use would
not require any additional parking
spaces. uh therefore complying with the
parking requirements.
And here is the applicant uh floor plan
showing uh the proposed uh spaces um of
the Pilates machine. And um the details
on the legend shows uh where exactly uh
things will be located within this
space.
And again as for the findings um to
quickly summarize the planning
commission may approve the cup if the
following findings can be made and this
is all listed in the staff report and
resolution.
And to summarize the findings by
planning staff uh the proposed use uh is
in the CC zoning district uh which
provides a centralized location for all
residents to access. Uh the proposed use
would occupy an existing commercial unit
and does not require a new construction
of a building and is also consistent
with the general plan. Uh the
fitness/pilott studio use is proposed to
be a wellness focused facility that
would not pose a detriment to the
health, safety or general welfare of
people residing or working in the
vicinity. Uh the proposed use does not
require more parking spaces. Uh the
proposed use will be located in an
existing unit of a commercial building
and the commercial building is currently
served by utilities and services. Um and
the applicant has indicated that no
changes to the existing utilities or
services are required.
Lastly, for the recommendation, uh staff
recommends that the planning commission
uh make the findings to approve the cup
outlined in the draft resolution, uh
including the following conditions of
approval here.
That concludes my presentation. Uh staff
is happy to answer any questions. The
applicant is also in attendance here
tonight to answer any questions. Thank
you.
>> Thank you. Uh commissioners, uh
questions for staff.
>> I have no questions for staff.
do not have any questions.
>> Uh would the applicant like to make a uh
presentation? It's not not required, but
uh you're certainly welcome to
or comments, any anything. Doesn't have
to be formal.
» Okay.
» Works great. Uh grew up in Woodside. All
my clients are in Woodside. Been a
Pilates teacher for seven years. just
the natural progression of things to
open here have been a dream of mine and
uh going to call it Arbor because I grew
up on Arbor Court and Woodside. So would
love to be an addition to the community.
>> Awesome. Okay. Thank you.
>> Any questions?
>> No questions.
» All right. Um thank you. Okay. We'll
move to uh commissioner deliberations
and discussion then. Oh, I'm sorry.
Thank you. Uh public comment. Uh, any members of the public like to make a
statement? And if so, can you please
just Oh, okay. Can we maybe get her the
microphone, please? Thank you.
» Hi. Um, this girl is just stunning and
wonderful and she wants to bring
something happy and healthy to the town.
That's to me as my husband also. We're
the owners of the buildings here and u
that means a lot to us and we just don't
have people coming there and letting
there's a lot of people come and want to
live be in one of our buildings but if
they don't have something to offer to
this town we've been here over 60 years
we're like no you know so this girl is
amazing and she's going to do wonderful
and people will like it and it's a
healthy thing to do and um and she's
beautiful
and so but she has a boyfriend. So,
[laughter]
>> it's all based.
>> So, that's really all I have to say. I'm
just glad that this happened. I couldn't
understand one thing, though, and she
This is not from her. $5,000 to apply
for this. That's a lot of money,
especially for a young girl or young
boy, young anybody or even an old
person. I don't know. I think that's an
awful lot to charge people. It's almost
a deterrent in a way, you know. Uh so
she's hanging in there. So if you if
it's just one of those things where you
have to take a little piece for
something here and there, like do
something for Melanie or something, do
it. But for God's sakes, $5,000 is this
is not her speaking. This is me.
[snorts] And I think it's was wrong to
do that to anybody. Okay. Thanks.
>> Thanks. Any
other public comment on this issue?
>> As a reminder for those online, please
use a raise hand feature if you'd like
to make a comment.
» And no raise hands.
>> I have one question for staff. Is the
5,000 is that a standard cup uh fee or
what what fee are we referring to?
>> Um it's probably a little less than
that, but it is quite still quite high.
Um yes, it's a standard conditional use
permit fee. It's a flat fee. Um and it's
for the processing of the project and
well it goes into flat for any
>> yeah amendments are a little bit cheaper
but for a new CUP. Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> So that fee would not have been any
different if this type of facility had
already been on the approved list.
>> Um so uh what KGO explained is that so
there's two different types of kind like
what's called a permit or principal use.
Um and those do not require conditional
use permit. Um, so they would just come
in straight for a business license. Um,
and so this the use table's quite old.
Um, and it just uh does not have
anything listed like that. The mo things
that typically don't need a use permit
are different retail. They has a long
list of retail uses if it's under a
2,000 ft facility. Um, but because
there's nothing listed like a yoga
studio, Pilates studio, a fitness
facility, nothing like that is listed in
the code. It is some type of
instructional class. And the music and
dance instruction was the closest thing
um to this type of use. And that does
require a conditional use permit.
>> So if it were a music and dance
explicitly facility, would it have
triggered the application fee or is this
because
>> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So, anything
that requires the conditional use permit
triggers this fee to go through the
planning commission process.
>> And the fee is not different based on
whether it's something that's on the
list versus something that's
>> that's that's correct. So, whatever if
it's like an auto body shop, that's just
not like anything on the list and they
just wouldn't be allowed. Um, but we
felt that this was similar enough to
something on the list. It just needed
the cup.
>> Yep.
>> All right. Well, we will now begin uh
commissioner deliberation.
>> Uh I have no objection. Everything's
been spilled out by staff and I agree
with it.
>> Um I can make the findings and vote to
approve the cup.
>> Yeah, I can make the findings as as
well. I think it's I mean to to I think
both uh both comments. I think it's
great to have more um small local
businesses serving the community. So,
it's that's great. Um, it's it's nice to
be able to do things besides mail a
letter uh and and whatnot. So, it's it's
awesome to find uh more coming into the
to the center. So, would anyone like to
make a motion?
>> I would make a motion that we approve
the draft resolution to approve the cup.
>> And I second.
» Chair Gar.
>> Yes.
>> Commissioner Gonerko.
>> Yes.
>> Commissioner Weaver.
>> Yes.
>> Awesome. and good luck with the
business. It's It's going to be great.
Looking forward to uh to seeing it.
Okay. I guess that's me.
All right. Well, we will move on to the
next uh item which is
uh which is 301 Olive Hill. And Melanie
presentation.
Yes, I have a presentation.
» Okay. Good evening, commissioners. I'll
be introducing the project at 301 Olive
Hill Lane which is requesting a variance
to the side setback for a proposed
swimming pool, emergency generator and
pool equipment. There is one desk item
from the applicant and it's providing uh
details for pool equipment enclosure uh
that'll reduce the sound in output.
Okay. Uh the property is approximately
3.4 4 acres in the RR zone district. The
closest structures are shown on the
southern southern side at around 200 to
300 ft away from the location of the
proposed swimming pool location.
The property has an existing one-story
main residence on a parcel that requires
septic. The main residence sits closest
to the southwest uh corner of the
property. Majority of the property is
heavily wooded and has slopes greater
than 35% and in some places greater than
50%.
Um there includes an existing
oval-shaped pool and pool equipment.
However, those have been recently
demolished.
Uh the proposed swim swimming pool pool
equipment
and generator are shown in in similar
locations as the existing
uh let me get to a better one. Here we
go. Uh so here we see that the existing
pool equipment uh is shown in dashed
blue here and then the existing
ovalshaped pool or pear-shaped pool is
shown here with the dashed blue uh
indicating that the uh applicant
proposed the new generator pool
equipment in the similar locations.
Uh the proposed swimming pool equipment
and emergency generator would be uh once
again located nearest there. Uh the
property requires 50 foot se side
setbacks for as well as front and rear.
Uh the applicant is requesting a
variance for the swimming pool uh due to
uh pool equipment and emergency
generator due to steep slopes wooded
areas and the presence of septic
required. The swimming pool would be
about 26 ft from the side property line.
The generator would be about 37 ft and
the pool equipment would be about 46 ft.
For this project to be considered, it
needs to meet the findings in the M
Woodside Municipal Code uh 153.94
uh 949 which reflect that because of
special circumstances such as property
size, shape, and topography that the
strict application of the chapter would
deprive the applicant of privileges
enjoyed by other properties within the
vicinity.
The variance would not constitute a
special privilege and would be
consistent with the objectives of the
chapter. The granting of the variance
would not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injuries to other properties
in the vicinity and the granting of the
variance would would be consistent with
the general plan and its objectives.
Um please see attachment A that has been
provided to you um to the staff report
that shows the draft resolution which
states the findings um that staff
recommends approval.
That concludes my presentation. The
applicant and property owners are here
in person as well as online
um and
they are going to give a presentation of
themselves. Um but staff's here for
questions. Thank you so much.
>> Okay. Uh questions for staff.
>> Uh what is behind um behind the uh
property?
That large area there?
>> The large area.
>> Um the one that doesn't seem to be
subdivided into lots.
So below the picture. Yeah, right there.
Um, these should be residential main
residences, but maybe the applicant can
talk to that specifically, but it should
be a a structure associated with the
main residence.
>> Yeah, I believe this is uh the Green
Gables property. Um, and so it's a very
large property. It's old historic site.
There's multiple buildings out there.
Um, so this is one of the accessory
structures that is nearest, but it's
about uh, you know, 290 ft away. And
then the other closest structure is at
303 Olive Hill.
» Other questions for staff?
>> I had no further questions for staff.
>> I do not either. So um why don't we move
on to the applicant or applicant
presentation please?
Can you hear me? Okay,
cool. Um so I guess I'll start by
introducing myself. My name is Max
Pedoya and I'm here on behalf of myself
as the property owner as well as my wife
Nina who is currently at home with our
daughter Jane. Um
I uh I want to talk a little bit about
why we ended up choosing this property
and and Woodside as a place to make our
home. So, uh, my wife and I were
previously living in Puerto Rico, and
about two and a half years ago, when we
first found out that she was pregnant
with our daughter, we decided that it
was time for us to find our forever
home, as we call it. Um, so we went on
kind of this like long exhaustive search
of a bunch of places all around the US.
Uh, we looked at the Pacific Northwest,
which is where I'm originally from. We
looked at many different places within
the Bay Area. We looked at Southern
California, Florida, North Carolina. Uh,
and we actually flew out to a bunch of
these places and and uh toured houses
and tried to get a sense of what it
would feel like to live there. And I
think after all of that searching, we
found that there was just something
really special about Woodside that made
it feel very unique in the sense that I
don't really know that there's anywhere
else in the world where you can be
driving distance from all of the like
dynamic industry of Silicon Valley, but
when you're actually here in the town
and in your neighborhood, you feel so
kind of surrounded by and ensconcconced
by this natural beauty. And I think that was just like a really amazing
thing for us. Um, and it's something
that when we talk more about like the uh
the project itself, it's something that
we've really tried to emphasize as we've
been doing this renovation and uh the
landscaping design. Um, we also really
appreciated just the um kind of the
tight-knit community and the sense of
belonging that we found when we got
here. I think it was really cool just,
you know, we we love to get coffee at
the Village Hub or to go to Bucks and
it's just we're constantly running into
people that we know and that feels very
welcoming to us. Um so I think those two
things together really just felt like
something we wouldn't get anywhere else.
for this particular property. Um,
one of the things that we love about it
is the it kind of accentuates that
natural beauty that we that first
attracted us to Woodside. As I think uh
Melanie had mentioned, there's a lot of
mature trees all throughout the
property. Um, and it's also quite hilly,
which is, you know, inconvenient for
building things, but it creates this feeling of being kind of on the
mountain or in the woods. It it it
really is a a very serene property to be
on. Uh and I think we we're trying to
preserve that as part of our remodeling
project and make it so that the house is
not the main event of the property. It's
just kind of nestled into all of the
natural surroundings. Um
I think uh so yeah in terms of our
overall design goals basically one of
the design goals that we have is we want
to preserve the the like natural beauty
of the property and not like override it
with the work that we're doing. And the
second thing is that this house, it was
originally built in the '7s. And uh it's
even though it's an older house, it has
a really like charming character to it.
And so we were particularly excited
about this house because rather than it
being like an older property that needed
to be torn down and rebuilt, it was a
property that we could build on top of
and try to preserve and add to the
existing character rather than
overwriting it. And so that's been uh
you know the the object of a lot of our
effort and attention over the last
couple years is figuring out how to make
this house the best version of itself
that it could be rather than just making
like a new house. Um and so um so I
guess now I'll talk about the specific
uh issue that we're here for today which
is the swimming pool. So, um, as Melanie
mentioned, there was an existing
swimming pool on the property when we
purchased it, and, uh, that pool was a
kind of kidney-shaped pool, and we felt
that it was important to replace the
pool, not just because it was in poor
condition, having been built in the 70s
and not maintained very well, but also
because uh, from a safety perspective,
it's it's much harder to to provide the
proper safety features like an automatic
cover when you have one of those like
awkwardly shaped pools. And for us, you
know, because we have one daughter and
we have more kids that we're uh planning
for in the future, I think that pool
safety is very important and that's kind
of the the driving calculus that we're
using when we think about how to uh
where to put the pool and how to design
it. So, um so that was the the biggest
reason for for needing to demolish the
old pool, but as Melanie mentioned,
we're basically putting the new pool in
the same spot. We're just reshaping it
and modernizing it. Obviously, it's
going to have like a heat pump rather
than the old heating system. Like, we're uh we're making the pool more
functional and more safe than it would
have been previously.
Um, and I think that's everything that I
have to say. I'm happy to answer
questions to the best of my ability, but
we also have the architect Peter here,
um, who can answer more detailed
questions if I don't know how to
respond.
>> All right. Thank you. Uh, Peter, did you
want to present anything um before
questions or Okay, thank you.
» Uh, Peter Mason, Mason Architects. Um,
what you see behind what you see on the
screen is the um renderings
uh of the house. I think the thing to
point out is is kind of the relationship
of the house and the areas within it.
So, this is the uh kitchen area and the
family room. And then this is their
outdoor d dining dining and family
entertainment zone. And it has a very
it's the same relationship as the old
pool, but it's a little bit more um
adjusted and sophisticated in terms of
what's there and how to get the the
thing to integrate together. So, um,
one of the big thing we wanted to talk
about and what what we've done similar
to what we did on a project we came in
here last year for, which was how to
mitigate the noise from the generator
and the pumps that are u there. So, this
is off to the side. There's a detail on
this on the um,
Shangri, you want to go to the last
thing? Okay. So, uh, what we're doing is
we're building an enclosure that has a
sound attenuation around the outside of
it, so it cuts it down substantially.
And then we've chosen, like we did
before, we've gotten the quietest pumps
possible.
And the same thing with the generator.
It's a it's a um
it's a very quiet one. Uh, and I think
that I think that mitigates whatever 200
feet away, you're not going to hear a
thing.
So, that's I think the rest of it is
pretty self-explanatory and that, but um
I'm going to point that out. Do you have
any other questions?
>> Uh I do not
>> I do not have further questions.
>> Um no question. Just uh not not even a
comment. Uh have has the uh owner
actually done any remodeling on the
home?
>> Oh, yeah. We've we've got permits for
that. They've done they're doing an
expansion on one of the other wings
>> to add bedrooms for their family and
family other family spaces and they're
remodeling the entire inside.
>> So that's ongoing or
>> it's ongoing and someday it'll be done.
[laughter]
>> Right.
» No further questions.
>> Uh any members of the public uh that
would like to comment on this?
No.
>> You would you be able to approach the
mic, please?
My name's Bill Gilbert. I live at 500
Olive Hill Lane. I would like to know
where
>> Oh, where that house
is in relation to mine
cuz my our numbers are off. I'm 500. I'm
at the corner of Albon and Olive Hill.
» Are you my neighbor? I so so [laughter]
we we'll pull up the map and I'll I'll
show the the location here.
>> So
>> 566 feet away. [laughter]
>> So uh
>> you're in the next county per per Google
Earth.
>> This is it's it's as you go into where
the private road is on Olive Hill. So
once you pass the uh pylons that are
right there, you're driving into the
private road portion. It's behind that.
>> And so Melanie will show it here. So,
oh, you're between
>> the white
pillars.
>> You see there on the map?
>> You drive through the pillars and where
the house.
>> Oh, okay.
>> No problem. Okay. Thank you.
» Hill.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Uh any any other public comments?
» Okay. Um so if there's anyone online
would like to speak, please use the
raise hand function.
Seeing none.
All right. Well, then we'll move to
deliberation. Uh Lyle, do you want to do
the honors?
Um I visited the property on Monday
and it was pretty clear that both the
uh uh um from the report and then
looking at the site that the old pool um
was inside the side set back as is the
new pool. Um, in this particular case,
it's it is apparently not an issue for
the neighbors because the neighboring
property is the Green Gables estate and
the nearest structure is on the order of
like 250 or 300 ft away. So, they're not
intruding into anyone else's backyard.
and it seems to be the logical thing to
do since the site is already uh
disturbed and I have no problem making
the findings and approving this.
» Yeah, I I agree with uh everything
there. Just make a comment that probably
the old pool equipment was noisier than
the new pool equipment. So So it's uh
it's a benefit if anything. And then the
safety issue with the uh automatic cover
for the pool is another plus. So I
agree.
>> Yeah, I don't have too much further to
add on the the substance of it. I think
I mean it's in the same location as the
old one. Uh actually recently moved to a
place with a kidneyshaped pool as well.
So we're going through the same thought
process on on covers. Um so your
bedroom's not adjacent to it, but not
having frogs in there will save you a
lot of sound.
because there's 70 dB in our bedroom at
night. Uh, not that you all care about
that, but no, I mean, in general, I
think the other thing I just want to say
is kind of commending you all for uh for finding that house and and improving
it in place. We see a lot of similar
structures that kind of face the
wrecking ball. So, it's it's cool to see
one of the the kind of older rambling um
type of houses kind of survive the
transfer of ownership. So, I just think
that's that's cool. Um, as well, but I
have no problem making the findings uh
either.
Would anyone like to make a motion?
>> A motion to approve the draft resolution
uh for allowing the new pool within the
setback for 301 Olive Hill Lane.
>> And I would second that motion.
>> Chair Gar.
>> Yes.
>> Commissioner Gerko.
>> Yes. Commissioner Weaver.
>> Yes.
>> Right. Um, congratulations. Uh, with
that, we have an appeal on this one.
>> Yeah. So, there there's a 10-day appeal
period. Um, so anyone who would like to
file an appeal would contact the deputy
town clerk.
>> All right. Thank you. Okay. We will move
on to the fourth and final item, which
is one Montalina Court.
Uh and Sage I believe that's you
>> is me. Thank you. Um so
uh
yes just to explain the process for the
public I'll give a brief presentation.
There'll be questions of staff. The
applicant will have an opportunity and
then any members of the public who would
like to speak can speak. Um so let's
provide a brief presentation.
Okay. Um, so, uh, just give a little
brief background. Back in 1986, the
properties were subdivided, um, from a
previous property owner. Uh, the
multiple easements were, um, included
with the parcel map that was approved
and recorded, um, approved by the town
and recorded at the county. the
property. One of the easements is a
conservation easement that's 80 feet
wide along the frontage of parcel one
which is one Montilena Lane and then
parcel 3 which is two Montelena Lane. Um
those two parcels have the conservation
easement. I do want to note that um
beyond these properties on either side
there are no connecting conservation
easements.
>> Um and uh even this these two
conservation easements actually don't
adjoin each other. They're split
bisected by Montilena Corps. Um the
applicant
uh is um has been pursuing uh a desire
to install an ADU on the property and uh
this property is unique in that it does
have different constraints. Although
it's over a little over 3 acres, um the
property has the easement constraints
and part of one of those easement
constraints is what's called a storm
drain easement. Uh but it's a kind of a
mixture of a drainage ditch and some
underground pipes. Um so you can see
that kind of weaving through the
property in this location where my
cursor is. Um so that bicts uh from the kind of the western part of the
property where the conservation easement
is uh from kind of the eastern part of
the property. And the you'll notice that
there's the main residence already
constructed. There's a barn that's
already constructed. Um, and then a
riding arena and turnout area for the
horses. Um, there's a driveway with a
turnaround on that. Um, and in order to
make an ADU work on this property, it's
likely it really has to be located in
the area where this conservation
easement is today.
um because uh it's not only the building
itself but the other uh thing that comes
with the building is septic system and
um that often takes a very large area of
land. So you'll see that this is a
percolation test that the applicant is
pursuing
um if the easement can be formally
abandoned and then they can come in with
their permits for an ADU or potentially
two ADUs if they can fit. it would be up
to them uh but they would have that
potential. So in removing this this
process is to uh it's two steps. So the
first step is what we are uh doing
tonight and that is to look for
conformance with the general plan and
really a better way to kind of think
about that is does this proposal
conflict with anything in the general
plan? Is this specific conservation
easement called out for some specific
use in the general plan? Um and it is
not uh it is you know there are policies
about retaining open space and
conservation areas. Um as outlined in
the staff report this is immediately
adjacent to highway 84. There is no
connectivity to other uh conservation or
open space easements. um it does not
provide any significant habitat value
and we do have now as many are aware uh
much more interest and mandates from the
state to increase housing numbers um
given the other constraints on this
property. Uh staff has kind of weighed
the different policies of the general
plan and we do have determined that this
proposal is consistent with the general
plan. Uh we do recommend approval of the
project. And one thing I forgot to note
is I do want to also note that there is
this what's called a multi-safety trail
easement. Um it's not currently active,
but that's immediately adjacent to
Woodside Road. That would not be removed
as part of this. I just want to clarify
that. And on that parcel map, um it's
actually quite common. You'll see on
parcel maps that are adjacent to a very
busy road, uh they have these little
dash marks. I can even show you. Um, and
these uh little hatch marks here are
indicating that it's non-access. Um, so
this would not be considered the front
property line. Uh, giving it enough
space for the ADU. The Montelina Court
is considered the front property line.
Uh, so they would just have to stay
further away from Montelina Court, but
still have the ability to place one or
more ADUs in this area of the property
as well as the septic system. Um so
again to clarify staff does recommend
approval of this and if the planning
commission finds that um it can uh that
this project is in conformance with the
general plan then it will go to the town
council on July 28th and they can take
formal action um to approve the
abandonment if they make the findings.
That concludes my presentation.
Only question I have. So in this in this
diagram the the 15 MSTE is the two
remains. So it's really not 80 that's
going
>> they overlap, right? So the the easement
is 80 ft and then trail easement is 15
ft within that 80 ft
>> but effectively there's 65 ft that are
coming out of the
>> uh Yeah. Right. So they wouldn't be able
to put a building in the easement.
>> Um so anything would still I'm sorry and
to clarify that trail easement.
>> Okay. Then the setbacks will still be
from Woodside Road.
>> It will be it'll be from Woodside Road.
It's a side property line. So, as we
note that there are reduced setbacks for
ADUs on side property lines, but they
will have to stay outside of the trail
easement. Um, and they'll still need to
meet the front setback.
>> And how will that usually with ADUs it
can be as low as four with the So,
that's from the property line. So, they
could get because of this 15 ft, they
would already meet that. Um, so the ADU
could theoretically be as close as on
the
>> it could be adjacent to the trail
easement. Um, and uh I should note that
you know
up to 800 square f feet of that would be
the case.
>> Okay, that's all the questions I have.
Um, Sage, um, if the staff has looked at
this and is of the opinion that the only
place to put an ADU on this property
would be within the conservation
easement. Where does this property stand
right now with respect to reaching its
maximum amount of hardscape and
developed area?
>> That's a good question. haven't analyzed
the details of the hardscape. Um,
eyeballing it there, you know, all of
the the Ryan arenas, those are all
exempt. Um, it doesn't have a lot of
paved area other than the driveway
itself, which a good portion of that
gets exempt. Uh, the turnaround gets
exempt. Uh, so we're kind of really
looking at the back patio and pool
areas. uh they definitely have uh I have
looked at I don't know the exact numbers
but they have more than enough room from
a floor area standpoint as well as we
have some exemptions for floor area on
ADUs. Um so you know it's one the ADU
but also two what needs to accompany
that ADU the with the utilities meaning
the septic system
uh then we can move on to the applicant
presentation.
Uh, Rebecca, would you like to do a
presentation? It's up to you. Um,
» a big difference.
>> Okay.
Well, I want to thank you for giving me
an opportunity to address the town on
the issues blocking the path to our ADU
permitting. I'm going to go into things
that are going to be pretty hardedged
and I don't mean to, but we were very
shocked and dismayed by our
representation in the report and we need
to clarify a lot of um situations.
So, first I need to address the number
of fallacies and inaccuracies in this
report as well as explain the situation
over the years since the report is not
completely accurate and puts us in a
negative light. The quote conservation
easement end quote was never created
properly or legally. No reason was ever
given for having a conservation easement
and literally no one knows why it was
ever needed nor what it conserves. A
note on the plat does not constitute a
contract. A contract has six legal
requirements and this note does not meet
any of them. Thus, it is it has no legal
standing as a contract. And I don't know
if you've even gone over Sage, do they
know that the only reference to a
conservation easement is that one note
on the plat map?
>> Yes, the the e it's been explained that
the easement is from the subdivision
map.
>> Okay. Um
a contract must be drawn between two
willing legal parties who can sign and
perform the responsibilities of the same
contract. This conservation easement was
dedicated to quote the residents of
Woodside and their guests end quote.
That group is not a legal entity that
can be party to a contract. Who would
sign it? Who would be responsible out of
the, you know, residents of Woodside and
their guests. Thus, this platmap note
does not constitute a contract. Further,
conservation easements can only be
legally dedicated to three entities:
civic organizations, conservation
groups, or tribes. Quote, "The residents
of Woodside and their guests," end
quote, is none of these, and thus they
cannot receive, hold, or administer a
conservation easement. Thus, this
conservation easement is not dedicated
to any legal holder. Additionally, there
are only two documents with reference to
this easement. the plat map note and a
mention in minutes of a meeting of
acceptance in which the town accepts the
easement. It's uh council resolution
1984-4130
something. I'm sorry I didn't write it
down here. A different entity cannot
usurp and take over a dedication made to
another group. The plat conservation
easement was dedicated to the residents
of Woodside and their guests, not to the
town of Woodside.
As Joan Gallow, our attorney at the
time, stated in her email of uh 12 of
December 10th, 2007, without a proper
instrument of conveyance, the town is
not free to guess at its purpose or to
whom it was dedicated. Thus, with no
purpose, no legal contract, and no
dedication to the town itself, the town
cannot claim this easement. Thus, again,
the town has no conservation easement.
Finally, creating a conservation
easement is a complex process with many
specific requirements, none of which is
met by this uh map note. First, it must
define the conservation purpose. It must
draw up a contract clearly stating what
is to be protected and why. Then, an
appraisal of the land is needed. Then,
remuneration or benefit must be given. A
baseline study of the conserved items is
required. and annual reports on same are
needed as proof of responsible
stewardship.
The holder of the conservation easement
must always defend it and if changes are
needed a formal amendment process must
be followed. Not one of these
requirements is met by this plat mapap
note. Thus again there is no properly
created conservation easement. When
these legal findings were presented to
the town in 2007 and 2008 by Joan Gallow
Esquire, the town recognized the
validity of her legal analysis and
abandoned the conservation easement
through acquiescence.
This was demonstrated by a number of
actions and facts, mainly that the town
allowed construction of fencing and
horse shelters without a conservation
easement amendment, as would have been
necessary if a conservation easement
were actually in place. Instead, the
town issued over-the-counter permits to
us with payment of $900 paid by check
number 1217 dated March 27, 2008, which
I hand delivered to Joanne Kurts at the
building counter that same day. I have
photocopies of the check
to prove that I can leave with you.
Actually,
um
the fact that Joanne or whomever did may
not have recorded the permits properly
in the town files may be a simple
oversight error, but we have proof of
payment for the fencing and the permit
shelters and and the shelter permits,
which brings me to the wrongful
accusations in this report. On page
three, there's a statement that says,
quote, "Over the past several years, the
current owner, that's us, has created a
horse turnout area with fencing and
small structures which has not been
permitted by the town." End quote. We
were permitted by the town. We don't
have the permits, but we paid for them
and they and I kept talking to Hope
because it took a long time for them to
deliver the permits and we were not able
to put the shelters up until the permits
came through. That is completely untrue
that we have that it was not permitted
and that we use that space without
permits.
Uh
our check shows the record of that. The
report goes on to say, quote, "The honor
the owner insists that the town should
not have created conservation easement
when the prior owner subdivided the land
and therefore has continued to use the
area for a horse turnout.
[clears throat] This is also not an
accurate depiction. Our point is that
there is no legally created conservation
easement dedicated to the town. So the
town never has had a legal conservation
easement as a town agreed and
demonstrated by its actions of
acquiescence in 2008. We only use the
area as fenced and sheltered turnout
after getting permission from the town
and the permits from the town in 2008
when the town acknowledged that there
was no legal conservation easement and
allowed fencing and shelters to be built
in that area with no amendment. just the
over-the-counter permits paid by us on
March 27th, 2008. The report continues
with more falsehoods. Quote, "The town
has requested the removal of the horse
turnout area and restoration of the
conservation easement without success."
End quote. We have never received any
request like that from the town. So, I
request that the town please supply
evidence of such a request and any
denial from us that it ever received
there because none exists. These false
and inaccurate statements paint us as
rogue citizens when we are anything but.
These statements also rise to the level
of liel since they are untrue. They are
printed and they are publicly shared
with third parties. These statements not
only hurt our personal reputations, but
they extend to damaging my reputation as
a boarding stable owner and manager. And
given that, we demand that the town
either show evidentiary proof to back up
these statements or failing that, issue
a public apology and retraction since
this is by legal definition defamation.
I have already had to defend myself to a
neighbor who called about this report
last night. The damage is done since
this report is already in the public
domain. We have no way of knowing how
many read it and believe it and how much
damage it will create to us personally
and professionally. This is not a small
matter to us, nor should it be to the
town and the citizens of Woodside.
According to Sage Sha, he received the
above inaccurate information from the
town attorney, Jean Sabie, who was on
duty in 2008 and thus knows those
statements are not true.
Further, in 2021, that same town
attorney told the town council that we
had threatened to sue the town. Another
point she she knows not to be true since
she had been assured in two different
emails from Joan Gallow at the time
which I have provided for you. One from
10:01 a.m. on December 10th, 2007. And
the second email marked 1:57 p.m. on
December 10th, 2007, that we were not
latigious and were actually trying to
protect the town from possible
additional erosion of easement if others
may have been quote created in the same
improper manner. Her action of telling
the town council that we were
threatening suit kept us from being
allowed to present our side of the issue
to the town council in their closed
session meeting on the easement. that
intentional misleading constitutes a
violation of the Brown Act and giving
false information to a third party is
also a breach of lawyer ethics as stated
by the California State Bar.
Additionally, in 2008, the town
attorney, Miss Savvere, contacted Joan
Gallow inquiring, since the Plat Map
conservation easement was not valid as
she recognized, would the widows be
interested in creating a new one that
would meet our own needs? We declined
that offer. We do not want a
conservation easement on our property.
It takes up almost threequarters of an
acre of our property. Makes it unusable.
But again, that shows that Miss Savi
recognized the invalid status of the
Plat Map conservation easement and the
need for a valid one to be drawn up.
This report also mentions the MST
easement noted on the plat map on our
property and on that of our neighbor
Bill Butler.
That easement across the Butler property
to the Howard Boone Trail and on into
Wonderlick Park was directed by the
trails committee to be open for safety
of equestrians in 2014 and $5,000 was
allocated by the town for trail
development. However, that project was
preemptively shut down by Mr. Butler
simply saying no and not allowing the
town on his property. Thus, the town
once again decided not to defend an
invalid easement and abandoned it
through acquiescence,
allowing Mr. Butler to refuse town
action due to no legal easement with no
consequence, yet insisting that our
property remain encumbered by bogus
easements that are no more than
contractually empty notes on a plat
of double standard discrimination.
We are thankful that the town attorney
and the planning department staff now
recognize that quote given that the
conservation easement is only 80 ft wide
adjacent to a state highway does not
provide suitable wildlife habitat or
connectivity to other conservation
easements. The abandonment of the
subject conservation easement at one
Montelena lane and it's it's Montilena
court. So if you could correct that in
all the records will not conflict with
the general plan.
So this conservation easement serves no
purpose or benefit and they recommend
abandonment. We are also relieved that
no sequel review is necessary. However,
since we have brought forth evidence
that no conservation easement was ever
properly and legally created,
abandonment is actually a moot point
since no conservation easement exists to
abandoned.
That conservation easement was
determined not to be legally extent in
2008 and was given up by the town
through its acquiescence through its
acquiescent actions. And now it is also
determined to serve no public benefit
and not be necessary at all since there
never was a purpose given for it. Proper
League or prop process was not followed
and no reason for it exists even now. We
now ask that the new building
restrictions this report seeks to impose
on our property be dropped since there
is no legal justification for the town
imposing any new restrictions on our
property rights. The town's actions have
been done have done enough financial and
emotional damage to us by ministerally
blocking the ADU process for five years
with a legally untenable opinion that
there is a conservation easement
belonging to the town on our property
exhibiting discrimination against us
through double standard actions and now
causing additional harm by publishing
lielist fallacies about us personally
and professionally.
Over the years, we have asked the town
repeatedly to provide evidence of
illegal conservation easement and have
had two um Freedom of Information Act
searches done as well as searches at our
title company. The town simply does not
have any legal evidence of a properly
created conservation easement. We
however have provided evidence and now
ask the town to provide actual evidence
of their claims, not just opinion, false
accusations, and dictim. Enough is
enough. It's time to return ethics and
propriety to the town of Woodside. And
finally,
while my husband and I have been truly
blessed all our lives with vitality and
good health, the last four weeks has
handed us, excuse me, a huge dose of
reality.
My husband, who would have been here to
stand with me tonight, I'm sorry,
has suffered two life-threatening
situations demanding immediate emergency
operations, all within 10 days time. one
for a brain bleed that rendered to him a
phasia and another for a seriously huge
pulmonary emblem that literally took his
breath away and weakened him to the
point of not being able to walk more
than 10 ft at a time. I'm sorry.
Thankfully, during due to miraculous
medical techniques, he is in recovery,
but the need for this ADU is more urgent
than ever. We cannot afford to let this
town obstruct the ADU process any
longer. We need to get the ADU built so
that we may peacefully age in place on
our beloved property. This ADU will also
help the town meet its quarter
requirements of the state.
And that is an immediate public benefit.
The personal benefits will give us a
place to age and place in a more
medically appropriate home. There is no
detriment to the town by advancing the
ADU permitting process for this project.
Only good will come of it. We've already
lost 5 years to the town's ministerial
obstructions. While our time on this
earth is rapidly running out. Given all
those facts and findings, we request
that the conservation easement be
declared null and void, that no more
incumbrances be put on our property and
that the ADU permitting process be
allowed to begin immediately. Thank you
for your attention, for your valuable
voluntary service to our town, and for
being caring civil stewards working to
restore ethics and propriety to the town
of Woodside. And I'm happy to answer any
questions. And I I do also want to
mention that the MST easement is 15 ft
um into our property. We're planning the
ADU will be 25 to 30 feet set set back
from the side and 50 feet from the more
than 50 feet actually from the
courtyard. And it's literally the only
place we have to put it
due to leech fields and other
construction on the property. And I'm
sorry I lost
got emotional. Anyway, if you
>> comprehensive
>> any questions on anything?
I would love it if you could correct the reports.
>> So, ma'am, you said that um a permit was
issued, but you do not have the physical
permit.
>> I did not have the physical permit
because I believe one, it took months
for them to get it to us. I have emails
back and forth with Hope Sullivan, who
was um here at the time, saying,
"Where's our permit? Where is our
permit?" And when it finally arrived,
um, and the reason we knew, we didn't
even know we needed permits because
these are units that are less than 120
ft or 140 ft. What is it, Sage?
120 ft. These are just gazebo type um,
open-sided things. And Hope had said
because they were under that, we didn't
need a permit. And so we went ahead and
ordered them and got them were getting
them installed. when Joanne Curts came
by and red tagged us, which scared the
hell out of me. I have never been red
tagged and I didn't know what it meant
and I was upset and she said, "Oh, don't
worry. You know, you just need to get
permits." Um, and so I called Hope and I
said, "You told me we didn't need
permits." And she said, "No, you don't
need to go to ASRB. You just need to get
an over-the-counter permit for them." So
that's when on May on March 27th I went
down and Joanne was at the counter and I
laughed because again I I lost it with
her uh because I thought we were doing
something really wrong and we're not
that type of people. Um and so we
laughed about my reaction to her red tag
all of that. Um and and then we finally
did get the permits, but the permits
were left with a you know this um they
weren't put on our house or anything. I
think they tacked one to the tree where
they were doing the work and I just
didn't save it. I didn't know it was
necessary to save it. The town makes
mistakes. Um the fact that they I went
down and I actually looked for the
permit. I also looked for a neighbor's
permit one time and could they couldn't
find it either, but he had built the
prop the uh the uh it was a it's a
little shed at the edge of our driveway
and the town couldn't find his permit
either. Um but he had one. He's a
contractor. I know he doesn't do it
without permits. Um it was Bill Butler.
So, um, and we owned a property on
Barrett and, uh, that was supposedly
not, um, applicable for horses because
it had been voted in a meeting that
horses weren't going to be allowed in
that part of Woodside Hills, but the
town never recorded it. So, we were able
to keep horses there. So, the town makes
mistakes. We all make mistakes, but we
have the proof. The town has not given
any proof other than opinion. And the
opinion of Jean Savvere has been proven
by two three other lawyers. Now we've
had three lawyers look at this not to
sue but to give us advice.
>> Um we are not latigious. We know better
than to go up against a town that has
unlimited funds and it's not any
individual's funds and the way things
work they can bleed you dry. So we do
not do that. Um, we try to work amicably
and we were very shocked and dismayed at
uh the portrayal of us in this report
and we need to either have evidentary
um, you know, if we forgotten something,
hey, we're almost 80 years old. We may
have forgotten something, but I don't
think we'd forget the town coming to us
and say, "Tear out the horse shelters,
tear out the fencing, and return it to a
conservation easement that did not
exist."
So, all of that needs to be um
uh apologized for and recanted.
And if you have any more questions, I'm
happy to answer them.
And I don't mean this this is not
anything. I'm giving more information
probably than I need to here, but it had
to come out when I saw that report and
how we were portrayed and the falsities
of it and that it again is coming from
Jean Savvery who has been the one. I
don't know what her what her problem is.
Uh she knows that in 2008 this was all
taken care of. Unfortunately, again, had
I kept a permit in 2008, had we insisted
that they take this off the record, you
know, we don't deal with this every day
and we just don't know.
You know, we're we're not dumb, but
we're not experienced in everything. So
you
» I have a question for Sage. Um
so as as a uh in a larger scope when
easements are created uh are
does a town have many easements with u
no justifications and things that are
put on properties when they request
subdivision things like that. How are
they different from uh let's say a
proper easement where uh it talks about
the reason for the easement etc etc.
>> Um I can't speak to allegations of
non-justification. There's uh it went
through a subdivision process that went
through public hearings. The subdivision
was recorded and on the recorded map it
had the town accepting the easements.
I can answer that or I can add to that
because Joan Galla was a lawyer who
worked on a a situation at 2000 Porto
Road evidently at the time in the early
to mid80s.
I don't know if it was common in other
towns, but it was evidently common in
Woodside that when they did
subdivisions, they made the land owners
give them things. Um
I don't want to use the word extortion
but it applies and um they were called
up short on it. Ga Joan Gallow actually
litigated the 2000 Porto road and it's
in one of her emails to Jean Savvere
that um the town used to do this and
then they were told to cease and desist
doing that. And I know when I was on the
trails committee, we were told um by
Rick de Benadetti that often times one
of the things that they would ask for is
equestrian trail access across a
property. And he said, "But we, you
know, we're very limited now. We can't
always do that. We can request it, but
we can't demand it." And so there was at
that time um if you want a subdivision,
you're going to have to do this. And
there's also um a note
here
that um
that okay
and this is from I don't know town of
Woodside inter office memo from December
3rd 1979
and I it just said the former access to
wood it says conservation easements are
not offered so they're looking for
conservation easements at that at that
time and um But again, that's not a
terribly legal thing to be to be to be
doing at that time or or after.
So,
I don't have any specific questions. I
think what I wanted to mention, I mean,
it sounds like there's a lot of of
history here, right?
>> A lot of history.
>> And also, I want to keep us us focused
on what planning commission is is sort
of reviewing, right? So I don't believe
it's or appreciate you sharing all of
all the history at the same time.
>> I wanted to get it into the record. If
you have to go to town council, I want
this in the record from the beginning.
>> Right. And I think our our job is to
determine is this consistent with
general plan and can we make the the
recommendations
on the abandonment rather than the the
full legal history, which I don't think
we're in a position to do. Um w with
that I think just our discussion should
focus on can we make these final those
issues
>> me to stay or sit down?
>> Uh you you can you can sit down. We're
going to do uh public if there's anyone
who do that and then we'll do
deliberation and we can call you back up
if needed.
>> Are there any members of the public who
make a statement on this issue?
>> For those online, please use the raise
hand feature if you'd like to make a
comment.
And there are no raised hands.
>> Okay. Then we can move on to uh
deliberation.
>> Richard, do you want to pick someone?
Um,
so based on staff's recommendations and
specifically Jean's recommendations,
uh, legally it seems that, uh, the town
wants to make this this decision and,
uh, the other factors as far as it being
next to the road, a large road. Um and
that whole most of that area is going to
be used as a leech field in addition to
the building which will fairly keep it
fairly natural. Uh I really don't have
any objection in in saying that uh the
we should the town should abandon the
easement.
Um,
in some ways, um, my own thoughts are in
agreement with Richards and I like the
way that he's thinking on this.
At the same time,
um,
we're being asked here to sort of
unilaterally
abandon the entire easement
in the context of the fact that the a
projected future not yet designed ADU in
Leechfield is going to take up the
entire portion of the property. And I'm
just concerned about what sort of
precedent that would set
for other properties where
properties have been subdivided in the
past. The person subdividing the
property accepted the existence of the
easements and the current owners
inherited that when they purchased the
property.
And
my concern would be setting the
precedent that whenever someone says
they want I'd like to build an ADU
that they can just go and based on this
example we just give up the entire
conservation easement. It's sort of when
we do a variance where
um further development on a property has
to intrude into a setback,
the project is usually more fully
defined and we have
definitive circumstances which which
explain
why there has to be an intrusion into
the setback.
And if
they're and that if the only way to
accomplish a positive goal for the town
or the owners is to intrude into a
setback
and to deny them that would be a
hardship
where there's no reasonable alternative.
Then that's fine. But it seems like the
burden would have to be on the owners to
present more details on why the only
possible alternative is for the town to
give up the easement.
Um I'm not absolutely wedded to that one
way or the other and I'm happy to have
you guys push my thinking one direction
or the other.
>> Yeah. Uh yeah. No, [clears throat] it's
getting a little
>> Okay, we we'll continue discussion and
then we can we can proceed with
questions if if needed. Um yeah, I think
I mean you raised an interesting point,
Lyall, on on that. And because I I I
look at this and I think
so easement aside, this feels very much
like the type of project where
um like if there if this were a setback
variance, for example, it it feels like
a very clear-cut situation where
um I don't even think we'd be in this
position because the state would
probably have the the the the um
the mandate with the four feet setbacks
and whatnot. Yeah. So, you know, it
>> it feels like we wouldn't even, you
know, be here if the easement well, we
wouldn't be here if the easement weren't
in place.
>> I when I look at the site, I mean, I
think the frame of reference that we
usually think through. So, maybe I'll
just use setbacks for the the typical
let's assume this was a build in a
setback variance, maybe not an ADU and
the state weren't, you know, involved.
uh in that situation we would be looking
at
um you know can we make the findings on
there's not a good alternative place on
the site is it consistent with the
general plan and from that vantage and
then we're talking about is the easement
abandonment consistent with general plan
right it it feels like I would have zero
problems making the findings in a
setback variance in this case which I
know is not the legally binding thing
here which is why this one gets
confusing Um, but I think it's worth
kind of thinking through that.
>> Well, could you elaborate on the
statement that it's not legally binding?
>> Uh,
the which the the easement which piece?
>> Well, there seems to be a point of issue
between the property owners and the town
as to whether the easement is legal or
not.
>> Uh, no, sorry, I wasn't trying to make a
statement piece. what I was was saying
is more like from the perspective of
general plan conformance.
>> This feels like it would be a a a
variance that that I would certainly be
inclined to approve and it feels
consistent with the ones that we have in
the past. So I think I mean I think
that's where we want personally not even
personally I I feel like the the correct
outcome here is that the ADU can be
constructed. Now whether legally that's
or I mean I don't want to say legally
procedurally whatever the case is how we
get there right could be a full
abandonment of the easement or it could
also be something like an exemption made
for this particular project and that's
really fully understand all the issues
and transparency but I think this is
maybe where
>> well I'm truly on the fence on this
because we have other properties that
have been um I mean um looked at such as
the uh you know Putinham property up on
Kenyatta where they have 1acre lots
where you have the main residence and
you have two detached ADUs
on that 1acre footprint
and this property they have a barn, they
have a horse turnout area, they have a
main residence, they have a pool.
It just seems like the
um
the concern would be
just l unilaterally as soon as the
concept of an ADU or additional housing
gets thrown up, the town would be
willing to abandon the entire easement
um without additional information that
says that this is really the only way to
get an ADU on this property.
Um
» and
>> but I'm not hard and fast on that
either.
>> Yeah.
I think my question is what other
means do we have here also right like if
what what precedents exist right with
respect to
construction within within easements or
I don't know partial relinquishment of
easements etc like what can you help us
with this [clears throat] space a bit I
>> I think part of it is you know this
easement is of limited size um and you
know it was discussed
at at the staff level
that you know cutting you know putting a
building it has to be set back for
Montilena Court um you know you start to
now further biseect this easement of
limited size and to understand what
value it would hold would be
significantly diminished
>> um and also you know there's also maybe
an opportunity for another ADU um if
some this owner or future owner wanted
to to do that as well. So the purpose
that we're looking at for general plan
conformance is related to the housing
goals and the housing element goals
policies. Um and so that's why we added
that condition of approval and to ensure
that it would be used for housing. Um
[clears throat] so there would be
something recorded along with the
abandonment that indicates this area to
be used for housing and its ancillary
uses such as walkways, patios and
utilities like the subject system.
>> Yeah.
would it be reasonable? And um of course
affordable housing is important, ADUs
are important.
Um,
throwing out the suggestion, would
it be possible to tweak
the recommendation to council such that
the abandonment,
the potential abandonment of the
conservation easement is contingent on a
building permit for an ADU within that
easement being issued. within a certain
period of time and that if circumstances
change for the owners and that ADU
ultimately does um their plans change and they choose
not to pursue the ADU that we're just
not unilaterally giving up that um
easement without getting an ADU out of
it.
>> So you can explore that option. Um I
think you know the goal that we are
trying to set at the staff level is even
if someone submits for a permit obtains
a permit you know we would have to make
sure that that easement gets abandoned
prior to issuing that permit. Um so that
would have to occur and what we're
proposing is cuz sometimes people obtain
permits and then for whatever reasons
things just don't get built. Um so we
felt that the the condition as it's
written that would ensure whether they
submit for an ADU now or in 7 years from
now that it would be for housing um and
only allowed for housing and that would
then also complete the process of the
abandonment up front.
>> So question so [snorts]
excuse me. So Sage uh what mechanism is
there to do exactly what you just said
going forward if this property gets
sold? So the the easement abandonment
gets recorded at the county and this
would be an additional document recorded
at the same time
>> without an easement.
>> So yes, correct. It would it would be
just indicating the area to be used for
housing and so this would something that
would run with the land.
>> So it would it would be saying
specifically it would it would be saying
that this 80 foot easement
would it would be a statement that says
that can only be used for housing or
ADUs or what would the specific I I just
leave it at housing. Um, you know, you
could have multiple ADUs. Um, you know,
someone could redevelop the property.
Uh, that puts ADUs in a different
location, a main residence here. I think
the main goal is more housing units.
>> Yeah. And and what would that mean with
respect to things like the existing um
uh horse facilities? It's it's not
something that would be explicitly
allowed in that um the uh something that
could be contemplated
>> and those are still the town's position
is still that it wants the horse
facilities removed.
>> Uh at this time I'm not sure exactly
where the town has ended with that part
of the process. Uh it's just matter of
we I have looked in the system permits
were applied for nothing was issued. Um
and so this is just how we're pursuing
uh this process. then the applicant has
applied for this um abandonment and this
is the steps that we're taking.
» So in in in trying to conform to the
state's requirements regarding housing
uh for the past several years we've been
uh making accommodations and deviating a
little bit from the town's general plan.
Um so we we haven't been following it to
the letter but we we've been trying to
uh uh follow the spirit. So in in this
case I feel it is uh the site is such
that um if we consider as an exception
and compare it to other sites that also
have easements uh we could uh consider
them as they come. And in this case,
it's going to be used for housing and
also for a percolation field. So, it'll
be essentially bare except for the the
housing and the mitigations for
screening and things like that, I'm
sure, are are going to be required. Uh
so, I would uh I would be in favor of
passing and abandoning the easement. Um
granted that uh like Sage said going
into the future uh there would be
documents uh that would be restricting
its use. So in essence it would still
stay partially as a conservation
easement because of those restrictions
and if we consider other properties that
also have easements um maybe these
circum you know the circumstances are
different and we can't reach the same
conclusion. So those are my thoughts. I
think I might add on on general plan.
It's so part of the reason I was pushing
on the the horse facilities also is in
general plan and residential design
guidelines both point to honoring
equestrian heritage of the town and so
much so that you're supposed to like the
general plan would actually tell us
approve this for horse facilities before
you approve it for housing right state
aside because it would say things like
you're supposed to uh you know enhance
the vis visibility of equestrian
facilities while you know diminishing
the presence of human facilities, right?
So, I mean from that perspective, I mean
it seems like there's a con I say
contentious or it's the right way to say
unresolved discussion on the status of
these permits. But I mean my perspective
on this would be if we're if we're
saying housing and if there are existing
horse facilities and if we are you know
continuing to try to enhance equestrian
nature of the town which you know is
generally on the decline. Um, I would
actually advocate for also adding that
to the conditions, right? So maybe it's,
you know, you're not building,
forgive me, but like a warehouse there.
You're not building like you you're
building either housing or maybe I would
probably add equestrian facilities to it
as well, given that these have been
there for it sounds like 20 odd years.
Um, that would be consistent with the
general plan. And frankly, I think that as people are driving down 84,
there are a number of horse facilities
that that abut it already. And that
frankly kind of continues that
um
feel slash supports equestrian heritage.
>> Yeah. And that's what I've seen driving
by that property. It's you see the
horses and the corral there.
>> Yes. That's the main
I think we're frozen here. It seems like
based on a straw poll here, we're two to
one. Um,
my main concern about this
is
not setting a precedent or trying to
develop some additional criteria
that would
not allow this to become sort of an
open-ended door that
as soon as you throw down the affordable
housing card that we just abandon the
conservation easement from the
standpoint of just
this particular
parcel. I do not have a problem if we
end up with a split vote on this as a
recommendation to council. I won't lose
any sleep over it. But I would note when
this goes on to council that my sole
concern about it was just
trying to set some sort of criteria or
threshold
where
um affordable housing is a goal, the
desire of the owners to have an ADU on
the property is a goal. Um, but we need
to weigh that against the reason that
when the subdivisions occurred, the
conservation easements were asked for.
And it seems like that that just rather
than preemptively abandoning the
easement, we need to have some sort of
policy or criteria worked out.
>> So, I'll just leave it at that.
>> I think that's well stated. Um, and we I
mean we have variance processes and
findings that we are supposed to make in
many different cases. I don't know if
anything's written down about easement
abandonment, but it strikes me that that
could also be something that we could
request,
>> you know, consideration of language
around that says
here are the findings that need to be
made because I think if we had those
findings that would address your
concern.
>> Yes, that would address my concern.
>> Yeah. So findings like for example to
advance just brainstorming but like to
advance housing you know goals in cases
where there's no uh as with this site in cases where there's no sort of better
uh site where you know it create undue
hardship. I think there's a lot of that
language that could
>> usually when we grant like a setback
exception, we have something a little
bit more definite than
>> what we have here tonight. And that's
not anyone's fault, per se, because the
recommendation was just to abandon it,
>> but it seems like
just to not make it a totally open-ended
process that we need some sort of
criteria. Yeah, I think I mean we in in
the interest of continued maybe
amendments to what we would recommend to
town council. I think in in in this case
I think we could put something sage keep
is on us that that essentially also
recommends that that they
you know I think town council would need
to request this if we want to create a
formal you know variant/acception
process for easements that would be
something town council would need to
request you all to consider.
>> That's correct. Yeah. So you you could
provide that as a recommendation. Town
council right
>> consider that and it would be a little a
bit separate from this action. Um but uh
>> be separate from this action, but we
could
>> we could still include when this
>> Right. I mean, if you're asking us to
change the code before action takes
>> No, no, no, no, no, no. But but when our recommendation goes to the town
council, I would feel more comfortable
if it is Well, so my my two things that
I would change are are number one,
>> including the equestrian piece.
And then number two, requesting the um
development of a exception variance
process.
>> Yes, we can include that if that's part
of your motion.
>> Yeah. Okay. And the applicants been
trying to say something for right
sometime. Why don't you go ahead and
approach the mic, please?
>> I would appreciate being educated as to
why you think there is a conservation
easement there. There is no contract. I
went through the whole thing. We've had
three legal
um advisors
and the town acquiesced and gave it gave
up any claim to it. You have to have
process and the process for conservation
easements is very clear and it is very
complicated. It is not a a note on a
plat map giving to an amorphous group
that cannot even sign a contract. So
where do you get that there is a
conservation easement in place?
» If there were a conservation in place,
there would be a different this would be
a different story. I agree.
>> Yeah. I just
>> there is none.
>> I just want to be careful because I
don't I don't think planning commission
is
uh relevant to that specific question.
Right.
>> That's why Lyall is saying he doesn't
want to um vote for this. Well, I think
what what I hear
what I what I hear you saying is
predicated on a
legal assumption of if there is a valid
easement, right? But we are not I don't
think we are making judgment on the
validity of the easement. That's more of
a legal sash town council question. But
I I think Lyle's point is is well stated
in that in the presence of an easement
which is legal which here may or may not
be the case but I don't think it matters
for our decision
>> in the framework that we work.
>> Well I'm sorry I don't understand why it
wouldn't matter because
let me just finish. Lyall is saying that
it would set a precedent
>> and it doesn't set a precedent for any
legal conservation easements. This is an
exception because this is not a
conservation ement.
>> We are not making a decision on the
validity of the conservation easement.
That's that's not our how can you how
can you decide whether to abandon it if
you don't know whether it exists or not?
>> That it's in my mind it's a separate
legal issue. Right? So if if there
continues to be you know a legal
distinction slash potential litigation
on the validity of the easement that's
another thing. But our job is we are
presented with a you know a body of
facts that assumes the easement exists.
And I'm I'm not saying it does or
doesn't but in the context of I think
what Lyall is saying it's words in your
mouth but if there are legal easements
we just want to make sure that there is
a process where they're not all handed
over to
>> housing. We were trying to protect the
town from that too. I mean that's
exactly there were emails where we've
discussed it with our lawyer. How can we
protect the town from you know having
all these illegal easements come to come
to to mind? But if they do they're
illegal
>> and the town the town can't defend
illegal easements.
>> But no [clears throat] due respect this
is outside the scope of our disc.
>> Well that's this is going to be a legal
issue. I' I'd like to move on to the
actual decision we're making. Okay. So,
um and then one other question for Sage.
As far as the exemptions
on the are the restrictions you're
putting on the property if you if an ADU
is built, we can't have a garage. We
can't have a barn. We can't have
anything that somebody moving to
Woodside might want to have. And why
would that why would that be a
restriction?
>> So, two things on course. Agent. So, if
it's housing, housing typically includes
the associated garages. No.
>> If they had an attached garage to this,
those to serve the ADU.
>> Yeah.
>> What if it's a detached garage? We don't
have room for an attached garage.
» We we were planning a detached garage.
» I don't understand why why the town is
putting restrictions on it at all other
than housing. I mean, I could understand
that. But a barn in Woodside, you're refusing that a barn might be put
up. I mean, or a garage.
No, I mean, I don't understand. So,
could you explain, Sage, why those
restrictions are put in here?
[clears throat]
>> If it's up to the count uh commission,
you want me to respond or questions?
>> Well, who who puts those restrictions on
the property? I think I again I I want
>> I'm trying to educate myself.
>> Look, I want to move us past the
discussion on the validity of the
easement is not for us to decide. That
is for
>> Okay, but I'm not talking about that.
I'm now talking about the restrictions
you're imposing on the property if this
even goes to an AD if it can go to an
ADU.
>> Now, we can't have a garage and if I
wanted to have a small barn or small
poultry thing or something
>> in Woodside, we can't even do that,
>> right? So look, I this this decision
hasn't been made. So I think let's
return please to to commissioner
deliberation. So we have a
recommendation from yeah
>> town staff which is house which is to
allow housing only.
>> Yeah.
>> And I think now we'll return to we we
need a little bit of of space for the
three of us to to debate those
conditions.
>> So you can go ahead and sit down.
>> Thank you.
Okay. So I I think I mean
right so again the just to sort of
re-encor us we're not deciding on the
legal status of this number. So I just
want to be clear
>> and on the record that
>> sorry what I say um
we the decision we are going to make is
predicated on the fact or the
>> on the assumption right that that is put
the the assumption put in front of us is
that it's legal.
>> Yes
>> we're not deciding on that that can be
decided in other forums by lawyers etc.
Uh I think the one remaining thing is
it sounds like to try to synthesize
where we are. If we are recommending a
variance a formal variance
uh exception process
uh then so I guess A are be unanimous on
that and then B would be what
restrictions if any we want to have on
the usage
of the
>> assumed easement [laughter]
right which again uh town staff's
recommendation is housing only
uh my position is extending that to
include equestrian would be would be
good. Uh and then it it sounds like a
garage a detached garage is is
potentially another uh item to discuss.
So maybe we can make the rounds on where
we feel on the on that issue.
>> We're not going to hit all the points.
We're not going to hit uh we're not
going to have all those different things
that you can have associated with
housing necessarily in this meeting. I I don't know if we can. I mean a garage.
Sure. I think Well, I So my
understanding would be I mean we c we
can amend the recommendation any way
we'd like or sorry we can recommend to
town council any recommendations. So
it's currently housing. Uh my position
would be to add equestrian in this case.
>> Whether we want to make a statement on a garage or not. Um I mean the attached
garage is already allowed and valid.
>> It is allowed. Yeah.
>> So that that's already valid. I think
>> the the applicant's question is you know
do we want to or would we also put
something in there to for example enable
a dec
isn't that part of the application
process for the ADU? it's to be
deliberated by staff.
>> So, if I may, you know, the primary
recommendation is based on the housing
goals. And so, that's what that was put.
In terms of um certain types of
equestrian uses that are out there
today, that could be something that's
ancillary to that housing. Um but to not
build housing in just a barn, that would
be a different question. Um so, you
know, I just think that's important to
look at when we're looking at the
general plan conformance.
So, we're all agreed that we would make
a recommendation to council that
criteria be established in the in the
municipal code for this sort of thing
going forward.
>> Going forward. Mhm.
>> And that is and that would be subject
probably to a study session or vetting
through the planning commission and then
ultimately council would deal with that
as a matter of policy what they decide
they want to do.
>> Okay.
We're all agreed on that. So we
can make that I mean presumably treating
this as a straw pole we would uh you
know make that a three to zero
recommendation
on the draft resolution here
whatever you guys decide to make it it's
going to be a 2:1 split with
and the
and I'm just trying to make clear for
the record that my reason for voting no
would the
just
we don't want to make abandonment of
these easements totally unilateral
>> and and unilateral in your view includes
this process we're going through
tonight.
>> Yes. in that we don't have I mean when
we grant a setback variance [snorts]
we have some technical data or some
explanations about why the only
alternative for this property is to put
the ADU in this area and that may very
well be the case but this hasn't been
really engineered or looked at and
absent that I'm unable to make findings
to just say let's just go ahead and
abandon it up front.
>> Well, hasn't staff um hasn't staffed
looked at this in detail and uh
concluded that in your recommendation to
pass this bas you know indicating that
other areas are not feasible. They've
already researched this. In this case,
>> you've analyzed the site plan. Um it'd
be very difficult given the setback
requirements and the ditch and the storm
drain easement. Uh those are the primary
factors.
>> All right. So staff is going to say the
only place you could put an ADU on this
property is in that easement.
>> We're looking at the potential for an
easement to fit in this area. Um you
could I don't know the details of septic
suitability. Um this is where they're
proposing a septic system. There's very
limited areas that septic could go. It
cannot go under driveways. It cannot go
under paved surfaces. Um, and you look
at where and then there's an open
drainage ditch and there's further
setback requirements for septic uh for
those. And they not only have to provide
septic, they have to provide a 100%
expansion area as well. Um, and all of
those areas would need to perk and be
available.
» Yeah.
>> Okay. Perhaps I didn't read the staff
report diligently enough, but if you
know given that assertion,
um
I could make that recommendation now at
this point, but it would be for housing
only.
» No question.
» Well, I mean that's the justification for
giving up the easement.
Right. Well, right. So, this the staff
recommendation is to Sage's point as as
he mentioned is is based on the housing
element being a stated goal of town.
>> Y
>> the the added thing that that I put in
because or that that I asserted is based
on you my general reading of the general
plan,
>> right, which is we we live in a
>> Yeah. you know, in in a town that is we are sworn to uphold the general plan,
which does have quite a bit of things
around equestrian, right? Um when we
moved to Remundo about 9 months ago and
our neighbors found out we were horse
people and we were going to tear down
the somewhat, you know, not dilapidated
but older barn from the 50s, it was like
awesome, right? Like this is not being
demolished and every time we see one of
these properties turn over, it's it's
the loss of facilities. So that that's
my rationale in in in recommending that
we add equestrian to it. Uh because I do
think like that seems in in my mind is more important than
this easement which again I really I I
am sympathetic to the argument of what
are we actually conserving here right
like it's it's adjacent to the road
it's not like
>> well what if we add equestrian and the
owner's plans change or successive
owners come in and the new owners or
whomever. Um, there's only equestrian in
there and there's no ADU in the front.
>> So, essentially with the justification
for housing, we've abandoned the
conservation easement
and then we ended up with just
equestrian stuff.
>> I would have no problem. I I feel like
that's consistent with general plan. So,
I don't I don't have a problem with that
as an outcome.
>> It's it's the issue when we've been
looking at is the the public good in
removing these easements. That's one of
the findings of the planning uh town
council will be looking at and that's
why we extended that to the housing
goals
>> um added by the general plan. uh if you
want to it maybe some middle ground is
looking at that the primary use has to
be housing and if there's any ancillary
turnout areas um small shelters of 120
ft or less um you know those are kinds
of things that kind of provide maybe
that middle ground of making that the
primary has to be housing and that if
there's ancillary something similar to
out there what's out there now um that
could in support of general plan
policies.
>> Yeah. Right. I mean, but I I do think
frankly I I I feel like the
um
I acknowledge I'm the one pushing on the
equestrian hardest, right? But the
reasons I'm doing that just to voice
them are we're talking about public good
in a town where we have equestrian
heritage that we all asserted that we
would uphold, right? And so like the
fact of the matter is this also does
have public boarding facilities. Like
there are not a lot of options for folks
to join the equestrian community if they
don't have a gated property in Woodside.
Right. This is something my my wife and
I talk about all the time. Like most
facilities are fully private. There's no
kids riding. You know, the uh parent
teacher conferences we have for for EIE.
you know, our our teacher says she's
like a throwback kid because she's
actually playing around with horses and
has dirt under her fingernails when she
comes to school, right? So, like that
all of that like it's not in the like
look I I I acknowledge it's not in these
documents, right? But it is something
that I am asserting as a principle that
it's actually a good outcome for the
town to uphold the general plan to have
equestrian facilities there.
>> Okay.
If you guys want to go that way, that's
fine by me. I'm not coming along with
that. Um, but I would be I mean, given
Sage's comments on the restrictions
about the leechfield and the septic
lines not crossing any paved surface and
the other constraints, if it's staff's
opinion that the only place to put an
ADU
in this conservation easement, then I
could go along with the original
resolution. If you want to mod um modify
it to add equestri you're welcome to do
so I won't lose any sleep over it so
however you guys want to go
>> good okay so where where I would come is
uh so to restate right the first we are
going to request the town council looks
at the exception process
>> just I gonna make this in a motion so if
this is a motion
>> yeah we can we can I make a motion, Mr. Chair?
>> You can make a motion. Y
>> All right, I will go ahead and make the
motion then. Um, so the motion would be
to uh approve the uh staff
recommendation with uh with two uh
amendments. Number one uh would be
adding equestrian
to the approved use beyond housing.
Um, the housing would include, and this
is not part of the motion, but just to
maybe restate, the housing already
includes uh garage facilities that would
serve the ADU that could be connected.
So, just I want to have that on the
record. And uh the second piece is that
we would be requesting that town council
uh direct staff to uh develop language
slash a process for variances andor
exceptions whatever the right term is
for aim
anytime an easement abandonment or
change of use is considered.
» Can I clarify something or question?
Yeah. regarding the equestrian. So it
would be not an or situation. It would
be first housing and then the
possibility of equestrian also. Well, it
in other words, we're not going to
abandon easements because we want to
make that land for equestrian use
without the housing. Right.
Well, I think that would be in the
process town council would devel or
would request development of would be
independent of
what we decide here.
That make sense? So, we're not going to
follow Sage's recommendation as far as
housing first primary and then we can
add on equestrian.
But housing is the reason for
abandonment, not the equestrian.
>> Yes, I I agree with that.
>> Okay. And I agree.
>> Right. Okay. So, the way we would state
that is
>> I'm struggling tonight.
>> So, the the housing I think what I what
I stated earlier is that the housing
would be the has to be there first
>> um in order to have ancillary
strain uses in that area.
>> Okay. My only issue there is what
happens given there's a existing
equestion facilities there. That becomes
another issue.
>> It's another issue I believe. You know,
we're committed to I know the applicant
wants to move as quickly as possible on
this. Um you know, we're committed to
keep this process going. They can get
in. I mean, part of what's holding this
up is the perk tests. We're not able to
move forward um until the the easement
issue has been taken care of. And so,
um, you know, the
owners are moving forward with this
process and we'd continue to move
forward that quickly. We wouldn't need
to immediately take any action. Well,
okay. Right.
Um, so I agree, Richard, with what
you're saying, which is the reason we're
moving forward with this is the housing
piece in this specific site, given that
there's like I I I what I what I just
what I'm trying to solve for without
making a precedent is like this existing
equestrian facilities that seems very
consistent with general plan. If the
town is out like trying to make all that
get ripped out, I disagree with that.
>> Yeah. No, it's just a matter, you know,
the site has significant equestrian
facilities on it. It is accommodated.
Um, and to make further accommodation, I
think the housing piece is important.
[snorts]
>> You're saying that exists or that's
something we
>> Yeah. No, no, there's already riding
there's a riding arena, there's a
turnout area, there's a barn. So, the
site already
>> outside of the ement
>> outside of
>> on the other side of the ditch, right?
>> And so, the I think the housing piece
is, you know, the key component here.
and uh to extend that area beyond the
housing with equestrian is something
that
be more appropriate with regards to the
general plan.
>> So so in this case we already have
equestrian different area.
>> So I mean that the motion was being
worked on.
So the equestrian can be added to the uh
council's recommendations for criteria
going forward with other easements
in the future that can be part of it
with respect to question.
>> Yeah, I think that's something that yeah
could be debated and discussed in that
process. Yes.
Okay. Good.
Okay. Does the motion
is this now consistent with where we are
and
So the
>> I'm just struggling with the language. I
understand what what uh makes sense, but
the language is is a struggle for me
right now to be honest.
>> And
do do you two feel like the equestrian
There's already equestrian structures in
the easement,
>> right?
>> Well, the horses are there and the
corral is there. I I saw it. Yeah.
>> In in the easement physically. Yes,
>> currently
>> it's correct,
>> right?
>> It's not something that
has in shown in the permit system, there
was not permits for those that were
issued in the in the system, although
that's disputed as we've learned here
tonight. Um,
>> well, can't we say that um we make a motion to to pass the uh draft
uh resolution uh for the purposes of
housing uh and allowing the existing
equestrian facilities to also be
accommodated
on the ease on the former easement. I
think yes and I think there is a you
know with respect to the permitting
status of that
it seems like it needs to be looked into
right if there are checks written
>> it has been it has been looked into
thoroughly I've called back every box on
the property went through the permit
system and went through the old permit
system um nothing shows the issuance of
those permits
okay
so housing yes we're unanimous there or
at least for Two out of three there.
And what do you do? Equestrian, yes or
no?
>> Yes.
>> Allowing it. Yeah. Okay. To stay
>> that doesn't have a permit right now.
Existing facilities.
>> What I'm hearing is the it would be the
housing plus what the existing
equestrian uses that are currently on
the site with regards to the shelters
and the turnouts.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. So, we did it. I think so. Do we
need to restate the motion?
>> No. Uh I have is a motion to approve the
resolution um with adding uh in the the
looking at the restriction of the area
is for housing and um in addition to
also allowing the existing structures
and turnouts for horses uh that are on
the property. Um uh to clarify that a
garage connected to the ADU to serve the
ADU is acceptable. And that third piece
is recommending to the town council um
to consider uh modifying the municipal
code uh to outline a process for the
abandonment of such easements.
» Is there a second?
>> Sage.
» Uh second motion.
>> Chair Gar.
>> Yes.
>> Commissioner Gonerko.
>> Yes.
>> Commissioner Weaver.
>> No.
>> So the motion passes. There is no
appeal. This is just a recommendation to
the town council and the town council
will hear project on July 28th.
>> Right. Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh Sage, is there anything
we have any other reports tonight? Uh
blank.
>> No, I have nothing further to report
tonight.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Well, in that case,
>> well, sorry. One thing I'll just report
is um it's not his last meeting, but I
do want to note that Commissioner Kerkco
has resigned from the planning
commission. And just for anyone
listening that we have put out ads uh in
multiple locations um seeking for uh
somebody who may want to participate on
the planning commission and if we get
applications, the town council will make
that consideration on July 28th.
>> And that's effective. Is this your last?
>> I'm staying on until
>> he's going to help us out through the
through through this month. So, we have
one more we have one more meeting on
July 15th.
>> It's I I think we won't need that
meeting. We're just looking at the July
15th meeting. Okay.
>> All right.
>> Sure.
>> Okay. Well, with that, we will go ahead
and and adjourn. Thank you, everybody.
>> Thank you.