[0:14] Hello and thank you. Uh tonight I'll be

[0:17] presenting the item at 90 Rome please

[0:19] for planning commission review. Uh this

[0:21] is a presentation review and approval

[0:24] conditional approval or denial of a

[0:26] variance to setback requirements for a

[0:28] deck uh extension encroachment into the

[0:31] basic uh required site setbacks. Uh,

[0:34] this application is categorically exempt

[0:37] under the California Environmental

[0:38] Quality Act, SQA guidelines

[0:42] 15301, additions to existing structures,

[0:45] as well as 15303, which are uh new

[0:48] construction of small structures, and

[0:50] there are no desk items at this time.

[0:58] So regarding this property, it is in the

[1:01] SCP 7.5 uh zoning district which

[1:04] requires basic setbacks of 50 ft from

[1:06] all sides. Uh the lot area is

[1:09] approximately 3.38 acres

[1:13] which uh more than 50% of the lot is in

[1:16] slopes that are greater than 35%. Uh the

[1:19] majority of which is also uh in slopes

[1:23] exceeding 50% as well.

[1:29] As far as the deck extension, uh it

[1:32] would be located east of the main

[1:34] residence. The size is approximately 26

[1:38] ft x 42 ft uh and would be composed of

[1:41] similar wood material to what is

[1:43] existing at the site.

[1:52] Um, the municipal code uh does not

[1:53] permit encroachments into setbacks

[1:56] unless explicitly allowed. Uh, while

[1:58] items listed in the municipal code

[2:00] section 153.2207C

[2:04] are allowed within the required

[2:05] setbacks. Uh, decks that are greater

[2:07] than 3 ft above the ground uh may only

[2:10] extend into required sight setback a

[2:12] distance of no more than 3 ft. Um since

[2:15] this uh proposed deck uh encroaches

[2:18] approximately 7.75 feet into the side

[2:21] setback uh approval of a setback uh

[2:23] variance is required

[2:27] and uh this is the elevation detail of

[2:30] the uh proposed deck extension.

[2:33] Uh to quickly summarize uh staff

[2:35] providing recommending findings which

[2:37] you can find in attachment one uh the

[2:39] draft resolution. Uh to quickly

[2:41] summarize, um staff recommends approval

[2:43] of the setback varants uh since uh

[2:46] allowing the encroachment of the

[2:48] proposed deck extension would limit

[2:50] disturbance on woodlands and steep

[2:52] slopes by utilizing previously approved

[2:54] retaining walls as you can see down here

[2:58] and on previously disturbed land. It

[3:00] would not be detrimental to the public

[3:02] welfare as the proposed deck extension

[3:05] are located away from Ran Place and the

[3:08] neighboring residences. And the proposed

[3:11] variance is consistent with the town of

[3:13] Woodside general plan goals, land use

[3:15] 1.1 and land use 1.2, which are goals

[3:18] that discuss high priority to the

[3:20] conservation of natural resources and

[3:23] also to minimize grading, including the

[3:25] downscaling of intensity of land use on

[3:27] steep hillsides. That concludes my

[3:30] presentation. Staff is happy to answer

[3:31] any questions. Uh the applicant is also

[3:34] uh in attendance via Zoom to answer any

[3:36] questions. Thank you.

[3:49] » It's basically the the corner, right?

[3:51] The upper right corner is is the only uh

[3:54] space in the setback. Correct.

[3:56] >> It would be Yes. This corner here. Um

[3:59] >> that corner. Okay.

[4:00] >> Yep.

[4:00] >> Right. The two lines the two parallel

[4:03] lines are the retaining holes. Correct.

[4:06] >> Um that is correct. Yes.

[4:11] >> Okay. Thank you.

[4:23] » Okay. Then uh let's proceed. Would the

[4:26] uh applicant like to make a uh statement

[4:29] or presentation?

[4:31] >> Yeah. So, um I don't have a

[4:33] presentation, but I I do want to uh just

[4:35] kind of give you a brief sum summary of

[4:37] this project, right? So, um as Kgo

[4:41] stated, I'm here to apply for a setback

[4:43] um variance for my deck expansion at 90

[4:46] Rome Place. And uh this project really

[4:49] is to enhance my um outdoor living space

[4:53] and um my property has a a number of

[4:58] constraints and uh the shape of the lot,

[5:01] the buildable area is uh very limited

[5:04] and also

[5:06] I have a uh a big part of the buildable

[5:09] area dedicated to

[5:12] um creating a fire truck turnound per um

[5:16] fire department. uh requirements years

[5:18] ago. So we have very limited usable

[5:22] outdoor space and this project is to

[5:25] enhance our outdoor uh living space

[5:28] because all these constraints that I

[5:30] mentioned um uh you know the the one

[5:33] side of that extended area is going to

[5:36] encroach into the standard 50 ft setback

[5:40] um by

[5:42] a little less than 8 feet. Right? So I

[5:45] do want to point out that as as Keo uh

[5:48] show in diagram,

[5:50] I had a previous setback exception when

[5:55] I built my house uh a number of years

[5:57] ago. And that setback expression uh

[6:00] exception um

[6:04] approved for like 15 ft I believe into

[6:08] the standard setback. Um, so this deck

[6:13] is actually within that um, previously

[6:16] approved exception. So it's not a new

[6:19] encroachment per se. Um, I just want to

[6:22] point that out.

[6:27] Okay. Uh, questions for uh, the

[6:29] applicant.

[6:34] Okay. Uh why don't we go ahead with

[6:36] commissioner uh deliberation and or

[6:38] excuse me I'm sorry any uh members of

[6:40] the public here who would like to speak

[6:42] on this issue

[6:44] is everybody here for the other one we

[6:46] have one raised hand online from bale

[6:49] Oh,

[7:04] Frank

[7:07] pranksters are alive and well tonight.

[7:09] Awesome. Okay. In that case, since after

[7:12] that very substantive comment, uh maybe

[7:14] we can go with commissioner

[7:15] deliberations. Um Erin, do you want to

[7:18] kick off? Yeah. Uh so thank you Mr. Jong

[7:21] for the presentation. Um and uh Mr. Yato

[7:24] for the alo presentation. Uh I did go

[7:27] visit the site. It is very clear that he

[7:30] has a setback that's even further into

[7:32] the 50 foot from a previous line and the

[7:36] other direction of the deck goes into

[7:37] infin infinity uh where there's nothing

[7:40] there. So this seems like a very good

[7:41] use of space to avoid his kid being in

[7:45] the driveway. Um, so I'm all for it.

[7:51] » Um, [clears throat] a little bit more as Darren added, you mentioned that uh

[7:58] the other the other direction goes into

[8:00] infinity into the forest. Is that what

[8:02] you meant?

[8:03] >> There's nothing.

[8:03] >> Yeah, there's nothing there. So, yeah,

[8:05] that's what So, I understand that. No,

[8:07] there's there's nothing for me to add.

[8:08] Thank you.

[8:12] >> Um, I have no problem with making the

[8:14] findings. It is a very constrained lot.

[8:16] So, um, no questions and,

[8:21] um, I'm fine with the draft resolution.

[8:24] Very little to add beyond all of that. I

[8:25] also visited the site looks like

[8:29] agree with Darren's comments. Um,

[8:32] additionally, that I think the point

[8:33] about it being sort of less encroaching

[8:35] than the previous exception is is well

[8:36] stated as well. So, I have no problem

[8:38] making the findings.

[8:42] like to make a motion on this one.

[8:44] >> Uh I'll make a motion to approve the

[8:47] staff resolution for the exception.

[8:50] >> Sorry. Second the motion.

[8:55] >> Chair Gar.

[8:56] >> Yes.

[8:56] >> Commissioner Evans.

[8:57] >> Yes.

[8:58] >> Commissioner Gonko.

[8:59] >> Yes.

[8:59] >> Commissioner Weaver.

[9:00] >> Yes.

[9:04] » All right.

[9:06] And this one says appeals.

[9:09] Yes. Right. There's a a 10-day appeal

[9:12] period. Um, and if anyone would like to

[9:14] appeal, they can see the deputy town

[9:15] clerk.

[9:17] Okay. All right. Well, with that, we

[9:19] will uh move on uh to the uh second/3

[9:25] item, which is 831 Glen Craig Way. Uh

[9:28] so, would staff like to proceed with the

[9:30] uh presentation, please? Uh the order of

[9:31] operations here will be uh staff

[9:33] presentation.

[9:35] We'll have a chance to ask questions of

[9:36] staff. Then it will be the appellet. uh

[9:39] we'll have 10 minutes. The applicant

[9:41] will have 10 minutes uh before we go to

[9:44] public comment. We also do have many

[9:46] people in the room. Uh folks will have

[9:48] uh 3 minutes each for comments. However,

[9:50] at the same time, if we if we do the

[9:52] math, we'll be here a long time. Uh so

[9:54] if you do have, you know, you agree with other comments uh and things like

[9:57] that, it's fine to just state that and

[10:00] um and whatnot. So anyway, with that,

[10:02] why don't we go ahead and uh do the

[10:04] staff presentation.

[10:05] >> Thank you, Chair Gar. Um, so the project

[10:08] you have before you tonight is an appeal

[10:10] of the planning director's decision to

[10:12] approve a stable permit exception uh to

[10:15] allow two horses at A31 Glen Craig Way

[10:19] um where the property is um

[10:22] approximately 19,800 square ft and when

[10:25] 1 acre is required. So the applicant has

[10:28] applied for an exception to have two

[10:30] horses on the site and that process is

[10:34] all of those exceptions are reviewed by

[10:36] the livestock and equestrian heritage

[10:38] committee. On May 27th, 2026, the

[10:42] livestock committee reviewed the

[10:44] proposed exception. Um they went through

[10:48] the various findings uh that are

[10:50] required and the reasoning based um the

[10:53] reasoning to make those findings

[10:55] provided by the applicant. Uh there is a

[10:58] neighbor that spoke um that did not

[11:00] support the project and asked the

[11:03] livestock committee to uh deny the

[11:05] exception primarily related to issues

[11:08] for dust um insects and noise.

[11:13] Um after reviewing the project and um

[11:16] some of members who which did site

[11:18] inspections uh they determined that they

[11:20] could make the findings and recommended

[11:22] approval of the stable exception by

[11:24] unanimous vote. Um then on May 29th, uh

[11:28] myself, the plan director, I took that

[11:30] recommendation and I approved the stable

[11:33] exception.

[11:35] Uh within the 10-day appeal period, the

[11:37] neighbor at 841, Glen Craig Way, filed a

[11:40] timely appeal um and is requesting that

[11:43] the planning commission uh uphold the

[11:46] appeal, which would then deny the stable

[11:49] exception.

[11:51] Given the reasoning provided by the

[11:55] livestock equestrian heritage committee

[11:57] and the required findings that need to

[11:59] be made, staff recommends approval of

[12:02] the project. So it would be to deny the

[12:04] appeal and to uphold the initial

[12:06] decision to approve the project. Um, I

[12:09] do want to note that while the applicant

[12:11] noted five findings in the um in their

[12:16] submitt, uh because they're not asking

[12:19] for more than two horses, only really

[12:21] the first three findings are necessary

[12:23] um to be made. So, if the um planning

[12:27] commission determines that the findings

[12:28] can be made, the commission should deny

[12:31] the appeal and can adopt the draft

[12:33] resolution in attachment one, attachment

[12:35] A. Um, if the commission determines

[12:39] that, uh, one of those findings cannot

[12:42] be made, uh, they should explain why one

[12:45] or more findings cannot be made and

[12:47] reasoning to uphold the appeal and deny

[12:49] the exception. And just to note for the

[12:52] public that any decision of the planning

[12:54] commission uh, can be appealed to the

[12:56] town council. Um, but with that, I'm

[12:59] happy to answer any questions that you

[13:01] may have.

[13:10] wanted to ask if there are members of

[13:12] the uh equestrian uh sorry the livestock

[13:16] equestrian heritage committee here.

[13:20] No one. Yes. Okay. Questions of them?

[13:24] Well, and I I do want to um note that uh

[13:28] >> that they are not in a hearing setting

[13:31] and so they can speak as private

[13:33] residents and not as livestock

[13:35] equestrian heritage committees. So, it's

[13:37] important for any members of the public

[13:38] who do speak who are on committees to

[13:41] know what committee you're on, but that

[13:42] tonight you're entirely speaking as an

[13:44] individual. And it would be up to them

[13:46] if they'd like to speak. They may not

[13:47] choose to speak. Um so, if you do have

[13:50] any questions about the meeting, um you

[13:52] can let me know. uh but we want to make

[13:54] sure that they're not speaking the

[13:56] capacity as a livestock committee member

[13:58] because they cannot speak for the entire

[13:59] committee.

[14:00] >> So uh Sage, I would have a question of

[14:02] you if you're knowledgeable in this in

[14:05] this sphere, right? Um does a town have

[14:08] a process and procedure to ensure new

[14:11] permit application with uh change of

[14:14] ownership of a property?

[14:16] >> Yes. Uh new ownership is supposed to uh

[14:19] obtain a new permit. So the the permits

[14:22] are not transferable. Um there has been

[14:25] times in the past where people have just

[14:27] been sent renewal notices and they have

[14:29] just paid the fee to renew it. It's been

[14:32] automatically renewed. In this

[14:34] particular case, for this application,

[14:37] what we're recommending with the

[14:39] approval of the exception is that the

[14:41] applicant actually apply for a new

[14:44] permit with the new number of horses

[14:46] with an updated waste management plan,

[14:48] insect control plan, and dust control

[14:49] plan. And it will be incumbent upon the

[14:52] applicant to do that, which will then be

[14:54] reviewed by the livestock subcommittee

[14:56] where they'll do an inspection. um and

[14:58] if they find it in compliance with all

[15:00] other aspects of section 115.12

[15:05] um they can approve that stable permit.

[15:08] >> My my question was in in the area of is

[15:14] there actually a u a process uh that is

[15:19] undertaken when ownership changes. So, I

[15:23] understand all those all those things

[15:24] that need to be done,

[15:26] >> but

[15:26] >> we don't know when ownership changes.

[15:28] Um, so, uh, if a renewal is sent out to

[15:32] a previous owner and they do not renew

[15:34] it, it would be up to the new owner to

[15:36] make sure they file an application.

[15:38] >> And when what is the, uh, duration of of

[15:41] a permit?

[15:41] >> It's for one year.

[15:43] >> It's only a year.

[15:45] >> They have to renew their their stable

[15:46] permit every year. They're basically

[15:49] paying fees just to keep horse on the

[15:51] property, which is relatively minimal

[15:53] fee. It's to make sure that they're

[15:55] compliant with that section I noted. Um,

[15:58] and then they if their horses use the

[16:00] trail, they pay trail maintenance fees.

[16:03] >> And I have a follow-up question

[16:05] regarding the one acre rule. So, what is

[16:09] the purpose of um 1 acre minimum to have

[16:13] a horse or two?

[16:14] >> Um, I I don't know exact details of of

[16:16] how that came about. years ago. Um they

[16:19] established a minimum lot size and then

[16:22] they provide this exception process. Uh

[16:24] so I think uh over the years I've been

[16:27] with a town um there are a few

[16:30] exceptions that have been applied for

[16:32] and my understanding for the livestock

[16:34] committee is their primary goal is to

[16:36] look at the safety and adequate space

[16:38] for the horses themselves and the number

[16:39] of horses being proposed. Um, so, uh, so

[16:43] they they primarily look at the health

[16:45] and safety for the horses on the

[16:46] property.

[16:49] >> Can you talk a little bit about the

[16:50] history of of the exceptions? Have they

[16:53] generally been granted? Has it been

[16:55] mixed?

[16:55] >> It's a good question. Um, yes, they have

[16:58] all been granted. And so, we looked back

[17:01] to 2010. Um, they have all been granted.

[17:04] There was one application that just

[17:06] didn't pursue it. Um, their application

[17:08] was deemed incomplete and I believe they

[17:09] moved away from the property. Uh but all

[17:11] of the other exceptions were

[17:14] specifically all for a number of horses.

[17:16] They weren't for any other aspect of the

[17:17] stable requirements and all of those

[17:19] were approved. Is there hard for the lot

[17:22] sizes?

[17:23] >> Um no. There's just a matter of looking

[17:26] at the if the facilities are adequate to

[17:28] serve the number of horses.

[17:29] >> When they make those uh facility

[17:31] assessments, do they look at a sort of

[17:33] minimum square footage per horse?

[17:35] >> Yeah, there there well I wouldn't say

[17:37] that per se. There are minimum

[17:38] requirements in the code that have to be

[17:40] met. So each horse has to have an

[17:42] individual stall. Stall has to be at

[17:44] least 10 by 10. And then they have to

[17:46] have um the code just requires a minimum

[17:49] of 600 square ft of turnout area for all

[17:52] the horses on the property. Um it

[17:54] doesn't define per horse on turnout.

[17:59] » It do we have um codes on uh percent of

[18:03] lot expected to be part of horse or

[18:06] minimum?

[18:06] >> No, that's not required. It's it's I

[18:09] think really, you know, if you had a 5

[18:11] acre site versus a 1acre site, you know,

[18:13] obviously a larger site might might have

[18:15] a much smaller percentage dedicated to

[18:17] horses.

[18:17] >> Um, and then there's are there some

[18:20] basic uh town codes around setbacks on

[18:23] barns and paddics on

[18:25] >> Yeah, good good question. Um, so for

[18:27] barns, um, for new shelters, uh, those

[18:32] have to meet the required setbacks just

[18:33] like a house. Um they have

[18:37] >> front of lot, back of lot, side of lot.

[18:39] >> Correct. And that so you what you might

[18:40] find and and may be in the case in this

[18:42] property, older barns may have been

[18:45] built prior to the current setback

[18:46] requirements just like older buildings

[18:49] um may not meet current setback

[18:50] requirements. So those can always remain

[18:51] in place, be repaired or even replaced.

[18:54] Um and then it's also a good question to

[18:56] note that turnout areas can go right up

[18:58] to a property line. Uh when I first

[19:01] started in 2008, they had just uh

[19:03] changed the the stable ordinance right

[19:06] before I started. And previously, there

[19:08] was a 10- foot setback um from turnout

[19:10] areas, except when they made that

[19:12] ordinance change almost 20 years ago, um

[19:15] they directly removed that and so horses

[19:18] could go right up to the property line

[19:19] on all sides.

[19:20] >> Correct.

[19:23] with the uh nontransferability of

[19:27] permits and I believe also ex that

[19:30] applies to the exceptions as well.

[19:32] >> That's correct.

[19:32] >> So I guess what has been the history if

[19:35] any of

[19:37] situations like what we're looking at

[19:38] today, right, which which presumably

[19:40] infrastructure built under the guise of

[19:43] an exception, right, that's granted i.e.

[19:46] x number of stalls that exceeds the sort

[19:48] of baseline capacity of the of the

[19:51] house. Has there been any any precedent

[19:52] with that in terms of

[19:54] >> um not that I'm aware of. Um the know

[19:59] each each exception is different. You

[20:01] know, they've ranged from being less

[20:03] than an acre to having, you know, more

[20:05] than seven horses on three acres. Um so

[20:09] they kind of range mo most of them we

[20:11] see have been around two to three horses

[20:14] on a property um that just don't meet

[20:16] that minimum lot size to accommodate

[20:18] those by the code.

[20:20] Thank you.

[20:22] >> One more question. So, uh, as far as a

[20:25] permitting, yearly permitting, so anyone

[20:27] that has a horse has to renew their

[20:30] permit yearly. That correct?

[20:32] >> That's correct.

[20:33] >> And that means that there needs to be an

[20:35] inspection by

[20:36] >> No, they they don't get inspections

[20:38] every year at this point. Once they get

[20:40] their permit and it has been inspected,

[20:43] then they just pay the fees to renew

[20:45] each year. And it should be flagged by

[20:47] the finance department that if anyone

[20:49] increases the number of horses that that

[20:51] person first talks to the planning

[20:53] department.

[20:55] >> So in this case uh the neighbor at 841

[20:59] um Glen Craig

[21:02] uh his biggest uh objection was that the

[21:05] fact that his fence was being used as

[21:08] part of the corral, part of the paddic,

[21:10] right? Uh so my previous question was

[21:13] relating to why was offense not mandated

[21:18] for the actual horse owner for

[21:22] >> I don't know when you know when they

[21:23] issued that license it's a matter of

[21:26] sometimes the finance department was

[21:28] just accepting renewals um I'm not 100%

[21:31] sure um but uh it is something that they

[21:34] should have a horse turnout fence in

[21:37] which they have since installed

[21:42] » so Sage I had a couple of questions for

[21:45] In reviewing the staff report and the

[21:48] findings we were asked to make, there

[21:50] were a couple things that showed

[21:51] themselves in the in the municipal code.

[21:54] Um, typically for residential properties

[21:57] for human use, if we grant an exception

[22:01] or a variance for building height or

[22:06] um construction within a setback, part

[22:09] of the boilerplate is that we are

[22:11] required to make a finding that the

[22:14] granting of the exception does not

[22:16] represent a special privilege and also

[22:19] that the granting of the exception

[22:22] is not out of character with the rest of

[22:25] the neighborhood. Now, looking at the

[22:28] list of findings we are being asked to

[22:30] make tonight, we have no requirement to

[22:33] make a finding that this does not

[22:36] represent a special privilege.

[22:39] Um, correct?

[22:40] >> That is correct. Yeah, the findings that

[22:42] are listed in the report are the only

[22:44] findings that need to be made for the

[22:45] exception. And we do not need to make a

[22:47] finding that

[22:52] granting the exception is still within

[22:54] the character of the neighborhood.

[22:57] >> That's correct. Yeah. Even just briefly

[22:59] just for the uh benefit of the public.

[23:01] Um the three findings that need to be

[23:03] made is one, the exception shall not

[23:05] impair the health, safety or welfare of

[23:07] the livestock maintained on the site.

[23:09] Number two, the exception will not

[23:11] result in any adverse health, safety,

[23:13] noise, traffic, or visual impacts on

[23:15] surrounding properties and roadways. And

[23:17] number three, the proposed the proposed

[23:20] use complies with all other standards of

[23:22] section 115.12

[23:26] regarding private stables. And that

[23:28] section of the code is all the other

[23:30] requirements such as um the the stable

[23:33] size, the turnout area, the location of

[23:35] a hose bib, um things of that nature.

[23:38] So, all of those have been shown to be

[23:40] in compliance. In this case, it's just a

[23:42] number of horses.

[23:44] >> And just to get this for context on the

[23:47] record, um you folks did pull the

[23:50] exemptions that have occurred uh for

[23:53] stable since 2010 and there were eight

[23:56] of them. And then looking at the um

[24:01] those and turning those eight exemptions

[24:04] into horses per acre, the highest horse

[24:08] density I could find was a exemption for

[24:13] three horses on 1.17 acres, which was

[24:17] 2.6 horses per acre. And here we're

[24:20] talking about two horses on 045 acres,

[24:23] which is greater than four horses per

[24:25] acre.

[24:27] >> That's correct. This is the the densest

[24:29] that we Okay. So, this is denser than

[24:32] anything we've done in the last 15

[24:34] years.

[24:34] >> Yes.

[24:35] >> Okay.

[24:37] >> No further questions for staff.

[24:43] » Anyone else?

[24:44] >> Um, just one more question. So, the part

[24:46] of the

[24:49] Uh Mr. Clark's appeal talks about some

[24:52] sort of drainage and some other items.

[24:54] Was that was that investigated by the

[24:56] town?

[24:56] >> Uh it I believe there was a inquiry

[24:59] related to the drainage that's being

[25:01] looked at by the um engineering

[25:03] department. So if someone has if there

[25:06] is drainage install that needs permits

[25:08] um that's something that the engineering

[25:09] department will be looking into. Um it's

[25:12] not necessarily a subject of the

[25:13] exception tonight. Uh but uh they that

[25:16] stuff goes through code enforcement if

[25:18] necessary.

[25:19] >> Is is it standard to have to

[25:22] creating a paddic or or a stable to have

[25:25] met standard drainage requirements prior

[25:28] to use?

[25:28] >> I I think it just varies based on

[25:30] stables. Um there's not a requirement um

[25:34] that says someone must install drainage

[25:36] to a certain standard. Um, so I think

[25:38] people uh they have all different types

[25:40] of riding arenas and turnouts and uh

[25:44] round pins. Um, and so some sites may

[25:48] need more adequate range than others.

[25:53] » One other question on on historical

[25:55] context, which is uh in reading a number

[25:57] of the desk items, it seemed like there

[25:58] was a history of two horses on the site

[26:01] were here in 2026. We weren't here in

[26:03] prior years. What what what has changed?

[26:06] right that that we are now here was it

[26:08] previous exceptions that were granted

[26:11] etc.

[26:12] >> Yeah. Um I I don't know the the direct

[26:16] answer in general terms there was a

[26:19] point in which stable permits were not

[26:20] required and maybe some of the people

[26:23] who just had historically had horses

[26:25] never ended up getting a permit. Um

[26:29] you know some people just didn't renew

[26:31] permits. New owners maybe didn't know

[26:33] they needed a permit. I mean there could

[26:35] be a variety of reasons. Uh it's

[26:38] something that's being followed up on

[26:40] more and the plan department continues

[26:42] to speak with administration uh

[26:45] administration department to make sure

[26:47] things are being followed correctly.

[26:48] >> Essentially triggering event being the

[26:50] >> uh the application for the exception.

[26:52] >> Yeah. And you know really focusing on

[26:54] the exception that's before us tonight.

[26:56] So they are asking for the two horses on

[26:58] this property. um if that is granted

[27:00] that should really be the main focus um

[27:02] as opposed to what maybe should have or

[27:05] could have happened in the past.

[27:08] So thank you.

[27:14] All right. Well then we will move on to

[27:16] the uh presentation by the appellant. Uh

[27:20] keep it to 10 minutes

[27:22] this point.

[27:24] >> Have a couple displays. Is there a place

[27:25] I can put those

[27:28] here?

[27:35] » You can I mean what? Yeah, whatever you

[27:37] think works best. You can leave it

[27:38] against our

[27:45] » uh I can there in case

[27:46] >> I can scoot over.

[27:53] » Hi everybody.

[28:05] I don't need that. Or do you want me to

[28:07] use it?

[28:08] >> Uh, yes, you do need to folks online

[28:09] can't hear unless you're speaking into

[28:11] the mic.

[28:12] Can

[28:13] >> I just quickly point out we don't have a

[28:15] separate timer, so we'll be doing a

[28:16] threeminut timer three times just so

[28:18] everyone's not confused.

[28:21] >> Okay.

[28:23] Good evening. Uh, my name is John Clark.

[28:25] My wife, Linda, and I have owned our

[28:26] property at 841 Glen Craig for 30 years.

[28:30] Tonight, I ask you to reverse the

[28:31] livestock committee's decision allowing

[28:33] two horses on a lot that is half the

[28:35] minimum size required for even one

[28:37] horse. To be clear, I have no objection

[28:39] to horses. As a child, we spent summer

[28:41] in Colorado and Wyoming. I learned to

[28:43] ride at the Razles ranch where every day

[28:45] we played capture the flag on horseback.

[28:47] Our daughters were active members at

[28:49] Junior Riders. For many years, I owned a

[28:51] 108acre ranch that was part of a 135,000

[28:54] acre co-op ranch in Santa Barbara Cel

[28:56] County where we ran cattle and herded

[28:58] them on horseback. Polar ponies need to

[29:01] be exercised regularly, and my father

[29:02] kept aid at home. It was hard to keep up

[29:04] their exercise schedule, so whenever I

[29:06] went to visit, I knew what I was in for.

[29:08] I was expected to help out. Polar ponies

[29:11] have two speeds: stop and full speed.

[29:15] This is of course uh exhilarating, but

[29:17] it can also be exhausting. And when they

[29:19] did finally tire out, dad just brought

[29:21] me the next one. So to the neighbors who

[29:23] wrote letters referring to me as

[29:24] non-horse people, well, you got me.

[29:27] There have been moments in my life where

[29:28] the last thing I wanted to see was

[29:30] another polar pony. This is not about

[29:32] horses. It's not about me. It's about

[29:35] whether town rules and laws are

[29:37] followed. Of course, I don't have any

[29:39] authority and will not be making any

[29:40] decisions tonight. were not here because

[29:42] of me, but due to an invitation from the

[29:44] town to participate, because of a

[29:47] request by my neighbor. You are the only

[29:49] ones with any authority here tonight."

[29:52] The owner's response letter disputes

[29:53] many issues I never raised, yet avoids

[29:56] the key ones. He never explains why no

[29:59] lotsize exception or stable permit

[30:01] applications were submitted in 2015

[30:03] because he knows they were not. He never

[30:06] addresses the fence built on my property

[30:08] because he knows it is. He never

[30:11] mentions the unpermitted French drain

[30:13] discharging into the creek or the

[30:14] unpermitted fill placed against that

[30:16] creek or even the existence of that

[30:18] creek. Why not? He had the opportunity

[30:21] to. With this in mind, I've simplified

[30:23] my presentation to focus on just one of

[30:25] the reasons why the livestock committee

[30:27] decision should be reversed. They simply

[30:30] did not know what they were approving.

[30:32] In many cases, because the applicant

[30:34] concealed it. In other cases, because

[30:35] they didn't care to ask. But they should

[30:38] have. That's their job. Tonight, this is

[30:40] your job. Ask the questions. Get the

[30:42] answers for yourself. Everything I

[30:45] discussed comes back to one fact. 831

[30:47] Glen Craig is too small for two horses.

[30:49] Under Woodside Municipal Code, Chapter

[30:51] 115, a 1acre minimum is required for one

[30:54] horse. This property is only 045 acres,

[30:57] less than half that requirement.

[30:59] Approving this sets a dangerous

[31:00] precedent. Does the town allow houses

[31:03] more than double the square footage

[31:04] limit? No. Or double the height? Of

[31:07] course not. When the applicant purchased

[31:09] the property in 2015, the existing

[31:11] stable permit could not legal legally

[31:13] transfer. The transfer disclosure states

[31:16] the equestrian boarding was

[31:17] non-conforming and the stable permits

[31:20] could not be assigned to the new owner.

[31:21] Per Woodside Municipal Code 115, stable

[31:24] permits are non-transferable. Sage,

[31:28] because the lot is under one acre, a lot

[31:30] size exception was required before any

[31:32] stable permit could be considered. Yet,

[31:34] no lots size exception or stable permit

[31:37] application was submitted or approved in

[31:39] 2015, and no records exist showing who

[31:42] issued the permit, how or why. The town

[31:45] will tell you they have no idea how this

[31:47] happened or who did it. In fact, per the

[31:50] canceled meeting notice of November 20

[31:53] uh on November 18, 2015, this should

[31:55] have been impossible. The property was

[31:57] purchased on November 7 and no further

[32:00] meetings were held in 2015. It's not

[32:02] possible that any applications were

[32:04] submitted and approved. So, this never

[32:06] happened. And the livestock committee

[32:08] knew this when they approved a second

[32:10] horse on May 27 this year. They knew it,

[32:13] but they didn't care. Those missing

[32:15] applications required disclosure of

[32:17] fencing, nearby creeks, drainage

[32:18] facilities, and other site conditions,

[32:21] drainage facilities.

[32:23] None of that information was reviewed in

[32:25] 2015, and the livestock committee asked

[32:27] for none of it on May 27 of 26. Woodside

[32:31] also requires drainage documentation,

[32:34] addressing concentrated flows, drainage

[32:36] changes, and water quality impacts.

[32:38] Sanonteo County has far stricter

[32:40] regulations. None of this was ever

[32:42] submitted or evaluated by the town or

[32:44] county. So, as the next door neighbor,

[32:46] fully aware of this, what did I do about

[32:48] it? How did I respond? Who did I report

[32:51] this to? Nobody. I did nothing. I

[32:56] ignored what I saw. I minded my own

[32:58] business for 10 years.

[33:03] Only after the town invited public

[33:05] comment on this new application did I

[33:07] raise any concerns. Strangely enough,

[33:09] the new application finally requires

[33:11] compliance with today's regulations. As

[33:13] Julie confirmed in an email yesterday,

[33:15] because the exception was approved, a

[33:17] new stable permit is required. The

[33:18] property must be inspected and the owner

[33:20] must comply with all current chapter 15

[33:23] requirements. That means previously

[33:25] undisclosed conditions must now be

[33:27] reviewed. The owner will have to

[33:28] disclose the extensive French drain

[33:30] system installed throughout the paddic

[33:31] and turnout area. Those photographs show

[33:34] that work in progress. A French drain is

[33:36] something you might recall the drainage

[33:38] requirements form describes as a

[33:40] concentrated flow. There are hundreds of

[33:42] feet of French drain installed with no

[33:44] permit. The livestock committee also

[33:46] required completion of the turnout

[33:48] fencing. It was finally built just

[33:50] before the hearing, but they built it on

[33:52] my property despite repeating warnings

[33:54] not to do so. The committee also notes

[33:57] that the owner never requested a final

[33:58] inspection for it. So, the committee

[34:00] never learned that the fence encroaches

[34:02] onto my land before approving this. How

[34:04] often are woods are projects in Woodside

[34:06] considered finished and occupancy

[34:08] approved before the final is signed off?

[34:10] None. Never. But this one was. The owner

[34:13] knew his fence was on my land and

[34:15] clearly didn't want an inspection to

[34:16] reveal this before the meeting. That's

[34:18] why there was no inspection. The

[34:20] applications also asked whether any

[34:22] immediate health and safety hazards

[34:24] exist. In my opinion, one absolutely

[34:26] does. Yet, it was never disclosed. Just

[34:29] feet from the turnout is a vernal creek

[34:31] head leading to Kinyatta Road and Bear

[34:33] Golts Creek. And that French drain is

[34:35] deposited straight into it. Why is the

[34:38] applicant never disclosed this? Because

[34:40] this is effectively a septic system for

[34:42] the horse facility and it's being dumped

[34:44] into our local creek. This is water I

[34:47] collected from that area just a few days

[34:49] ago.

[34:54] This is a clear adverse health impact

[34:57] and Sanonteo County has already begun

[34:59] investigating. According to information

[35:02] provided by the town, county ordinance

[35:04] 4913 prohibits non-storm water discharge

[35:06] into the storm drain system and water

[35:08] courses and prohibits concealing such

[35:11] violations. The owner never disclosed

[35:13] this drainage system to the town, county

[35:15] or livestock committee despite

[35:17] application requirements.

[35:20] The county the or the owner as county

[35:22] ordinance 4913 defines this concealed

[35:26] it. Sage saw this area when he came out

[35:28] to confirm the new fence was built on my

[35:30] land. He knew about the leech field and

[35:32] the fill area. He saw it for himself. He

[35:34] saw the brown stinky water foaming in

[35:36] the creature ditch. He shrugged. The

[35:38] livestock made their decision. They

[35:40] approved it. In 2015, the town performed

[35:43] no oversight and failed to require the

[35:45] live standard application processes that

[35:48] were mandatory. In 2026, the livestock

[35:51] committee did it again and approved a

[35:53] second horse without ever considering

[35:55] Woodside Municipal Code 115, and they

[35:57] missed a lot of things. Some of these

[35:59] were very important. This one was

[36:01] extremely important. But there's more.

[36:04] When 831 Glen Craig was for sale in

[36:06] 2015, I made an offer and received the

[36:09] transfer disclosures. Those documents

[36:11] state septic field is not operating

[36:12] correctly. Pat Dempsey reported this

[36:15] system would not take water. Air and

[36:17] septic the effluent level was above the

[36:19] outlet and not draining. If that septic

[36:21] system is failing and a French drain has

[36:23] since been installed above it, waste

[36:25] water could be redirected into the

[36:26] adjacent creek. That possibility should

[36:29] have been disclosed and evaluated.

[36:32] But the life's Dr. Marty

[36:35] never had the opportunity to consider

[36:36] these facts because they were never

[36:38] presented. It seems obvious why the

[36:40] applicant never addressed these issues

[36:42] in his response letter to my appeal. He

[36:44] knows exactly what he did and he did it

[36:46] all because his property is too small

[36:47] for two horses. There's simply not

[36:49] enough space for the turnout to drain on

[36:51] its own. And because the septic system

[36:53] under it is failing, there's a moisture

[36:55] problem. If I did not before, I hope I

[36:57] now have your attention. I hope you now

[36:59] understand why I said that the livestock

[37:01] committee did not know what they were

[37:03] approving. They knew nothing about any

[37:05] of this and of course they didn't want

[37:07] to know. I've invested significant time

[37:09] and expense to bring these issues before

[37:11] the planning commission because I

[37:12] believe they deserve careful review.

[37:14] It's time for these matters to be

[37:16] addressed properly, preferably beginning

[37:18] with the removal of the fence that's on

[37:20] my property. I respectfully ask you to

[37:22] reverse the approval of the second

[37:24] horse. Thank you.

[37:27] Any questions?

[37:33] No. All right. Thank you.

[37:40] » All right. We'll proceed to the uh

[37:42] presentation by the Apple.

[37:50] » Boy, it's uh really tough to stand here

[37:51] and not scream.

[37:54] My name is Manish Monroe. I live at 831

[37:56] Glen Craig Way. I'm here tonight to

[37:58] respectfully ask that the planning

[38:00] commission deny Mr. Clark's appeal and

[38:02] uphold the stable exception approval

[38:04] recommended by the livestock committee.

[38:06] Mr. Clark paid $1,000 to contest the

[38:10] livestock committee's recommendation.

[38:12] That gave him the right to appeal, and I

[38:15] respect that process, but it did not

[38:18] give him a license to turn a narrow,

[38:21] stable exception issue into a platform

[38:24] of unrelated

[38:26] grievances. The question before you this

[38:29] evening is not to resolve Mr. Clark's

[38:31] long list of grievances, disputes,

[38:34] frustrations, and across the board

[38:36] complaints. The question before you

[38:38] tonight is narrow. Can two horses be

[38:41] kept responsibly at 831 Glen Craig Way

[38:45] under the town stable exception

[38:47] standards and conditions that would be

[38:49] imposed by the town? And is that

[38:52] consistent with the Woodside general

[38:56] plan? Based on the actual record, I

[38:58] believe the answer is yes. prior to the

[39:00] unanimous 5 to zero vote to recommend

[39:03] approval to livestock committee members

[39:05] visited our property for inspection.

[39:07] Additionally, the minutes from the

[39:09] meeting state that the facilities were

[39:11] more than adequate for the horses health

[39:14] and safety, that the stalls, turnouts,

[39:16] and paddics were all well constructed

[39:18] and maintained and that sufficient

[39:20] measures were in place to manage manure

[39:22] and control dust. And the most

[39:25] importantly, the minutes state the

[39:27] overall lot size did not affect the area

[39:30] dedicated to the horse facilities. That

[39:33] record should matter. This exception is

[39:36] also within the spirits Woodside within

[39:38] the spirit of Woodside's general plan

[39:40] pol uh general plan policy CL4.1

[39:44] which states that the town should

[39:46] promote and protect its equestrian

[39:48] heritage by encouraging equestrian

[39:50] facilities supporting equestrian events

[39:53] programs and organizations and creating

[39:56] incentives for horsekeeping including

[40:00] streamlined permits for barns and

[40:02] corral.

[40:04] Now, as to any suggestion that our

[40:06] horses are not happy, our veterinarian

[40:08] is on record saying that the horses

[40:10] consistently appear calm, comfortable,

[40:12] healthy, and well cared for, and that

[40:15] she has not observed any signs of undue

[40:18] stress.

[40:22] Another important record is that the

[40:24] property has an existing oversized two

[40:27] stall barn and a substantial portion of

[40:30] the un the usable property is dedicated

[40:32] to horses. Multiple members of the

[40:35] Woodside horse community have emailed

[40:37] the town confirming that 831 Glen Craig

[40:39] pre uh previously supported two horses

[40:42] without known issue. That record

[40:44] directly undercuts the suggestion that

[40:46] two horses are new, unusual or

[40:50] unsustainable on this property. I also

[40:53] want to address the practical concerns

[40:55] raised about manure, flies, odor, dust

[40:59] and noise, and Mr. Clark's property

[41:02] value. Our horses live about 10 feet

[41:05] from our bedroom window. So minimizing

[41:07] flies, odor, dust, and noise is not just

[41:10] about our neighbors well-being. It's

[41:12] also crucial to our quality of life. We

[41:15] manage manure, flies, dust, noise

[41:17] aggressively. Manure is picked up

[41:19] multiple times a day, placed in closed

[41:22] covered bins, and removed every Friday

[41:24] by green waste. There is no open manure

[41:27] pile. We use crushed granite instead of

[41:29] sand in the runs to reduce dust. We also

[41:32] use multiple fly control measures

[41:34] including simplify fly traps and fly

[41:37] predators.

[41:40] Flies can come from many sources and the

[41:43] presence of flies at a neighboring home

[41:45] does not prove that they came from our

[41:48] property. The same is true for dust. The

[41:51] appeal refers to the horses kicking

[41:53] buckets and water troughs, but that does

[41:56] not match our setup. We don't own water

[41:58] troughs and that we don't use buckets at

[42:01] home. We have automatic water dispensers

[42:03] bolted to the fence and use a slow

[42:05] feeder box and two rubber bowls for

[42:08] supplements. If the slow feeder creates

[42:11] a specific noise concern, I am willing

[42:13] to secure pad modify or replace it. That

[42:16] is a manageable issue, not a reason to

[42:19] overturn the stable exception. If there

[42:22] is a reoccurring noise issue, it should

[42:24] be documented with a date, time, and

[42:26] recording so it can be compared against

[42:28] our security system to determine if

[42:30] there is a correlation. The appeal also

[42:33] raises property value concerns, but it

[42:36] provides no appraisals, comparable sales

[42:39] analysis, or market evidence. So when

[42:42] you look at the actual facts, the horse

[42:44] care, the facilities, the prior

[42:46] two-horse use, the manure system, the

[42:47] fly controls, the dust controls, a noise

[42:50] issue that has not been proven, and a

[42:52] lack of property value evidence, the

[42:54] record supports approval. That brings me

[42:58] to the spirit of the appeal itself.

[43:02] I believe the appeal should be be viewed

[43:04] for what it is. First, it raises broad

[43:07] claims about the property slice, flies,

[43:10] odor, dust, noise, porch welfare, town

[43:13] permit issues, and property value.

[43:15] Second, Mr. Clark's appeal moves away

[43:17] from the stable exception criteria and

[43:19] into personal commentary, unsupported

[43:22] allegations, unrelated history, and old

[43:25] grievances. It includes private private

[43:27] commentary about a neighbor's financial

[43:30] privacy after suggesting that privacy

[43:32] should be respected. It re visits new

[43:35] and old fence issues, tree property line

[43:38] issues. It questions motives and raises

[43:40] prior frustrations with neighbors,

[43:42] community members, the town's permit

[43:44] process. The appeal also questions the

[43:48] judgment of the LEC.

[43:50] It discusses reputations and speculates

[43:53] about who may hold the grudge and why.

[43:56] Mr. Clark even claims he knows that our

[43:58] horses learned to ask to be fed or

[44:01] watered by kicking water troughs that

[44:04] don't exist.

[44:06] And this appeal goes so far as to state

[44:08] that a crime was committed when the

[44:10] second horse was introduced. That is a

[44:13] serious allegation.

[44:16] One moment, please.

[44:27] None of that helps answer the actual

[44:29] question before the commission, but it

[44:31] raises a fair question.

[44:34] Is this appeal about one additional

[44:37] horse, or is it an attempt to use this

[44:40] appeal to reopen every complaint Mr.

[44:42] Clark has had about horses, neighbors,

[44:45] the town, and 831 Glen Craig? And more

[44:48] importantly, is there a pattern here?

[44:50] That question matters because Mr.

[44:53] Clark's own appeal states that when he

[44:55] bought his property, he knew that there

[44:57] were horses next door. He could hear

[44:59] them, smell them, and notic his flies

[45:02] and and noticed flies and dusks and was

[45:05] okay with that. These are his words in

[45:07] his appeal. Yet, the relief he seeks

[45:11] would effectively take away our ability

[45:13] to keep both horses. He says the second

[45:16] horse is totally unacceptable. asks the

[45:20] town to limit our property to one horse

[45:22] and then turns around and challenges the

[45:25] existing of the first horse permit as

[45:28] well.

[45:30] I want to address the practical effect

[45:32] of Mr. Clark's appeal if it is approved.

[45:35] Removing a horse from the property would

[45:37] take away an important part of how our

[45:39] family participates in the Woodside

[45:42] community. These horses are how we take part in the

[46:03] Mayday parade, the Redwood City Fourth

[46:05] of July parade, day of the horse junior

[46:07] rodeo, and other events where Woodside

[46:10] is represented. Would that really be in

[46:12] the best interest of the Woodside

[46:13] community? Does anyone here

[46:17] actually believe that removing one horse

[46:20] out of two will reduce flies, remove

[46:22] odor, increase Mr. Clark's property

[46:25] value, make both horses happier and

[46:27] healthier, make it quieter and less

[46:29] dusty, and will solve all the issues

[46:31] that Mr. Clark raised. Look, I

[46:35] understand that living next to horses

[46:37] can raise concerns for a neighbor who

[46:40] does not have horses, but in a healthy

[46:42] community, any concern should start with

[46:45] a neighborly conversation before

[46:47] becoming formal complaints that use town

[46:50] time and taxpayer resources. While I

[46:53] can't speak on behalf of the entire

[46:55] horse community, many of us believe that

[46:58] being a good neighbor, contributing to

[47:00] the community, and raising healthy,

[47:02] happy horses responsibly are not

[47:05] mutually exclusive.

[47:08] If there's a genuine concern, talk to

[47:10] us. We want to be part of the solution.

[47:15] School members of the planning

[47:17] commission, the question before you is

[47:18] simple. Can two horses be responsibly

[47:20] kept at 831 Glen Craig under the town

[47:23] stable exception standards, the town's

[47:25] conditions, and is that in line with

[47:27] Woodside's general plan? The actual

[47:30] report records approval, and I

[47:32] respectfully ask the planning commission

[47:34] to deny the appeal and uphold the stable

[47:37] accession approval for 831 Clank

[47:40] Craigway.

[47:50] All right. So, uh we now have an

[47:52] opportunity to ask questions of the uh

[47:54] applicant.

[48:01] Uh for the app the apple

[48:10] » I I have one which is so we we heard

[48:12] about the fence uh and the and the fence

[48:14] line and and whatnot. I'm looking at

[48:16] this um at the map here and so from what

[48:19] I can see it looks like you know again

[48:23] knowing that what we're deciding really

[48:25] is is is focused on um health and safety

[48:28] of of livestock is one of the findings.

[48:30] Right. So, we heard about that fence

[48:33] potentially moving.

[48:34] >> I can tell you,

[48:35] >> sorry, just two questions. One is, you

[48:37] know, have there been surveys done? And

[48:38] then two, uh, do we know that the delta

[48:42] from where it is? And then, is that have

[48:44] a material impact on the square foot?

[48:46] >> I'll share that with you. So, ever since

[48:47] we moved into the property, Mr. Clark

[48:50] complained that he owned four feet on

[48:52] our side. There were two metal rods, and

[48:54] he kept pointing to them, saying, "Nope,

[48:56] this is this is my property here." He

[48:59] knew that there was a a marker in the

[49:02] property that marked the corner of the

[49:04] property, but he did not share that with

[49:06] us. So, we ended up spending about

[49:08] $7,000 because we knew he was going to

[49:10] be an issue.

[49:12] And we got the property surveyed. We had

[49:16] a fence put in. And as you know, the

[49:19] concrete that goes in the fence, I

[49:21] believe a little bit of that concrete

[49:23] post is on his side. He can have that

[49:26] concrete. we can get that concrete cut.

[49:29] The fence is not on his side. Now, if

[49:32] there was an error made by the

[49:34] contractor, Mr. Clark now has a

[49:36] responsibility to prove that the fence

[49:39] is on his side. And once that proof is

[49:41] made, we will take steps. We will take

[49:45] all of the necessary steps to conform to

[49:48] the law, to what this commission

[49:50] dictates, to what the overall uh rules

[49:55] are. But we cannot come in here and

[49:58] start talking about that our family

[50:01] sewer is going into the creek. That's

[50:04] absurd.

[50:06] That is absurd.

[50:16] Um, question for the applicant. Where on

[50:18] the property is your septic tank leech

[50:21] field?

[50:22] >> It's on the driveway. Um, please step up

[50:25] microphone.

[50:27] >> I believe it's on the driveway

[50:31] underneath the the front of the

[50:32] property. You s I think when you came

[50:34] by, you saw the septic tank. The septic

[50:36] tank, I believe, when the house was

[50:38] built. Uh, the septic tank might have

[50:41] been outside, but there was a garage put

[50:42] over it. So, that septic tank is there.

[50:45] Um, and that leech field is underneath

[50:48] that

[50:50] um the front of the house, I believe.

[50:53] >> Under the paved area,

[50:54] >> I believe so.

[50:57] >> Um, could the planning director speak on

[51:00] whether that's code or not?

[51:01] >> Um, I I don't know. This is the Sonteo

[51:04] County. I don't believe they would

[51:06] permit new uh paved areas over septic.

[51:10] I'm not sure if it's in the dirt

[51:11] semicircle area in the front, but um

[51:14] it's yeah, it's a Sonteo County health

[51:16] issue. Definitely for new systems. I

[51:18] know that's being looked at.

[51:20] >> You know, Mr. Clark's already called the

[51:21] Sonteo uh county at one point. Uh we're

[51:25] just waiting for like the DEA, the FBI

[51:27] to show up. It's okay. The police, these

[51:30] guys are going to keep coming and that's

[51:31] okay. We will keep addressing these

[51:34] issues, but they have come before.

[51:37] Sonteo came and checked our uh our

[51:42] septic tank. They said that there was

[51:44] some sort of smell coming. Somebody made

[51:46] a complaint. They came in, they checked

[51:48] it. If you'd like, I can get back to the

[51:49] commission on who that was. I don't know

[51:51] if I have any records of that, but that

[51:52] did happen.

[52:00] » Thank you.

[52:03] I'm making we're gonna if if you don't

[52:06] mind, we're we're almost to the public

[52:08] comment uh period. So, if you don't mind

[52:09] just holding the comment

[52:11] >> and if we do not have further questions

[52:14] of the applicant or appellent, we will

[52:15] go ahead and

[52:17] getting anything uh we will go ahead and

[52:20] open uh open public hearing. So, uh

[52:23] again just the way this is this works is

[52:26] a few things. So, one please do approach

[52:28] and speak into the microphone. That's

[52:30] important so that folks can uh hear if

[52:32] they're participating online or for the

[52:34] record. Uh there is a red uh button on

[52:37] there to be able to slide it up and

[52:38] down. So just push that and go up and

[52:40] down. Uh please state your name and if

[52:42] you're comfortable uh your residence and

[52:45] there is a limit of 3 minutes uh per

[52:47] person. Uh again just to reiterate also

[52:49] we do have a lot of folks here. So don't

[52:50] feel like you need to use all three

[52:52] minutes or if you agree with something

[52:53] else, you know, it's fine to state the

[52:55] agreement. uh but you are also free to

[52:57] uh to use the three minutes as you like.

[53:00] So with that we will go ahead and open

[53:02] uh public comments and uh and do we have

[53:04] Julia are there folks on the Zoom and if

[53:06] so we'll we'll probably switch back and

[53:07] forth a bit.

[53:09] >> Just a reminder for those online to use

[53:10] the raise hand feature if you'd want to

[53:12] make a comment.

[53:13] >> So what we'll do is if there folks on

[53:14] Zoom we'll we'll sort of alternate back

[53:16] and forth uh and uh and go that way. So

[53:19] why don't we open up with anyone in the

[53:21] room like to uh make a comment uh now

[53:22] would be the time. And I just want to

[53:24] note that our timer that usually usually

[53:27] shows up on our screen is not working,

[53:29] but our deputy town

[53:30] >> I actually reached out to Jen while we

[53:32] were talking and we've got it fixed. So,

[53:33] >> thank you.

[53:37] » My name is Janet Estep. I've lived in

[53:39] Woodside off and on for since 1956 when

[53:43] we incorporated it as a horse community.

[53:47] Okay.

[53:48] And the area that Sue uh my friend lived

[53:53] in the house that you were talking about

[53:55] was in county all the time until I guess

[53:59] you'd call it recently the Woodside took

[54:02] an interest in it. But the regulations

[54:06] that first of all I've had a uh permit

[54:11] for over 50 years in Woodside on Raundo

[54:15] and I resent the fact that they state

[54:19] that nobody comes out and looks at your

[54:22] barn. Nobody cares about your manure.

[54:25] Nobody cares about the scent. They do. I

[54:28] had the flu one year and I couldn't

[54:30] clean my corral. I got three notices. I

[54:34] was sick for three weeks. Every week I

[54:36] got a notice, okay? And we took care of

[54:39] it. We had we haul manure away. We cover

[54:43] it up with dirt. We do whatever we

[54:45] don't. And I don't have horses now, but

[54:48] I renew my permit because I don't ever

[54:52] want to give it up because when you do,

[54:56] you have problems. Now Sue died

[55:00] and now we have problems for the new

[55:02] owner who we're trying to welcome into a

[55:06] horse community.

[55:09] This is still a horse community. I was

[55:12] here. I know the men that put this town

[55:16] together and it was put together to be a

[55:19] horse community. Now we've been under

[55:22] attack after the war. We were under

[55:25] attack in the 60s. the 70s, we've seen

[55:29] barns torn down and tennis courts put in

[55:34] and swimming pools put in and even

[55:37] soccer fields put in. And that's fine.

[55:40] Those are the people they want to do

[55:42] that. But in the meantime, we're still

[55:45] here. The horses are still here. There's

[55:47] not many of us. When I was younger,

[55:50] there were 5,000 in town. Now

[55:53] probablyund and something, I think. you

[55:56] know, it's gone, but we're on our way

[55:59] out. But Sue had a good house with two

[56:03] horses, maintained the the grounds, and

[56:07] she had that guy as her neighbor for 30

[56:12] years.

[56:13] Give us a chance with the new and don't

[56:17] tell me that we do not regulate the

[56:21] horse community. The horse community has

[56:23] been regulated almost out of town. You

[56:27] took away our commercial barns. You took

[56:30] away the commercial permits on Kenyatta

[56:33] long before you guys were here because

[56:35] that happened in the 70s.

[56:38] Thank you.

[56:39] >> Thank you.

[56:46] » All right.

[56:48] >> I'm Ricky Benadetti. Uh, I'm also on the

[56:50] trails committee of the town. I'm not

[56:52] here speaking from the trails committee.

[56:54] I'm here just as a resident.

[56:57] Any other disclosures I have to give you

[56:59] or I

[57:00] >> think you're good.

[57:00] >> Okay. Um, we purchased the property at

[57:04] 833 Canata Road back in 1983.

[57:08] That's 43 years ago. There's always been

[57:11] horses looking through the window

[57:14] towards Glen Craig.

[57:17] We are here today to determine is the

[57:20] site really large enough to have two

[57:22] horses on it per the Woodside code. In

[57:26] my viewpoint, I think it's important to

[57:29] know why this all came up. Going back

[57:33] into the 60s, 70s, and 80s

[57:37] during the winter rains, there were a

[57:41] lot of landslides up on Oak Hill, Summit

[57:44] Springs, Partition, Patrol Road, and it

[57:48] turned out that through the various

[57:52] inspections, it was from horses being

[57:54] kept on hillsides,

[57:56] and they were just constantly churning

[57:58] things up, mixing it up, making it

[58:00] slippery, and washing out. They came up

[58:04] with a plan to say, "Okay, let's only

[58:07] have horses on one acre and larger."

[58:10] Well, that's fine except that that was

[58:14] for the hillsides, but it's a uniform

[58:18] code throughout the town. So, there has

[58:21] to be exceptions. You're looking at a

[58:23] site at 831

[58:26] Glen Craig that is relatively flat. The

[58:30] soil is very compacted.

[58:33] There's good drainage on it. So, there's

[58:37] really no reason not to approve the

[58:41] exception of horses on less than an

[58:45] acre.

[58:49] » Thank you.

[58:56] » U my name is Bill Man. I live and own

[58:59] the property at 823 Glen Craig Way,

[59:03] which is directly adjacent to 8 uh 31.

[59:08] Um, in fact, my property almost

[59:10] surrounds his property. It has uh his

[59:13] complete um sideyard run and then his

[59:18] complete rear. So, I I'm very very close

[59:20] to him. Um the I purchased the property

[59:24] in and moved in in 1975

[59:27] and there were horses there. It was a

[59:29] mess. There was a a creek that went

[59:31] through it. Um there was four horses on

[59:34] the property all the time and it was

[59:36] really poorly kept. Uh that was the uh

[59:41] an owner, the first owner. Uh then uh a

[59:46] girl named Suzian uh purchased a

[59:48] property and started working cleaning it

[59:50] up trying to uh rellandscape it and a

[59:55] large portion of this property is

[59:57] dedicated to horses. There's not a lot

[59:59] of other stuff on it. Okay. Anyway, she

[1:00:02] uh uh and then

[1:00:06] the new owners have come in and cleaned

[1:00:08] it up. And I'll tell you, I'm right

[1:00:10] behind it and beside it. I have three

[1:00:12] horses on my property. Um, and

[1:00:16] there this year has been exceptional.

[1:00:18] There are no flies. In fact, um, on my

[1:00:22] place, it's amazing. Horses attract

[1:00:24] flies, but um, I have out a lot of fly

[1:00:27] control stuff. The new owner has out all

[1:00:30] kinds of stuff. There's, in fact, people

[1:00:32] have com commented when they come to,

[1:00:34] they go, "You don't have any flies as

[1:00:36] far as the noise or the dust." Um, you

[1:00:39] know, um, I I don't notice anything. I

[1:00:43] mean, you hear a horse winning now and

[1:00:44] then, but, um, I don't see any problem

[1:00:47] whatsoever with them having two horses

[1:00:50] there. They're good neighbors, and they

[1:00:52] have greatly improved the property, and

[1:00:54] if you've been out there and saw it,

[1:00:56] it's immaculate. I mean, it it it is

[1:00:58] really what it should be. So, anyway,

[1:01:00] thank you for your consideration. Thank

[1:01:03] you.

[1:01:11] Hi, I'm Karen Flores at 185 Hobart's

[1:01:14] Heights in Woodside and I just want to

[1:01:17] speak about this. Mr. Manro went to the

[1:01:20] livestock committee and presented his

[1:01:22] exception request which is what we

[1:01:25] should all do. He put in place all the

[1:01:27] necessary requirements for fly control,

[1:01:30] sufficient and safe space for the two

[1:01:32] horses, sufficient shelter, drainage,

[1:01:35] etc. And he was approved for the two

[1:01:37] horses by the committee. In my opinion,

[1:01:40] he handled this in the proper way and he

[1:01:42] went through the proper channels. I walk

[1:01:44] in that area routinely and I had noticed

[1:01:47] how nicely fixed up the property was

[1:01:49] after the new family had purchased it. I

[1:01:52] did not know who they were, but I was

[1:01:54] very impressed with what they had done.

[1:01:56] I saw the horse and now horses

[1:01:58] frequently when I was on my walks. They

[1:02:01] are clean. They're well cared for. I do

[1:02:03] not notice dust, odor, or flies.

[1:02:07] Woodside is a town known for its horses,

[1:02:10] and it is part of our overall town

[1:02:12] charter. It was the main reason I moved

[1:02:14] here 35 years ago. There is a process in

[1:02:17] place by the town to asssure that

[1:02:19] stables meet certain requirements for a

[1:02:21] residential area and Mr. Manra followed

[1:02:24] that process and was approved for his

[1:02:26] exception. I strongly support the permit

[1:02:29] exception to allow the two horses to

[1:02:31] remain on the property. Thank you.

[1:02:43] My name is uh Dan Flores and I've lived

[1:02:46] here the same number of years as my wife

[1:02:49] and we do live in the same house.

[1:02:53] >> Um

[1:02:55] I just want to say something interesting

[1:02:57] that struck me. I had some things

[1:02:59] written down but something that really

[1:03:01] struck me is Mr. Clark opened his

[1:03:05] comments by trying to convey the idea

[1:03:08] that he didn't dislike horses, that as a

[1:03:11] child or as a youngster, he had ridden

[1:03:14] horses and worked on horses. And yet,

[1:03:17] when I heard his comments,

[1:03:20] I didn't come away from that thinking,

[1:03:22] this is a guy who likes horses. If

[1:03:25] anything, it struck me as somebody that

[1:03:27] kind of resented horses and resented all

[1:03:30] the work that he had to do when he was

[1:03:32] growing up with horses. So, I'm not sure

[1:03:36] that any of that can be used to justify

[1:03:39] any of the decisions that the members

[1:03:40] here have to make. [clears throat] The

[1:03:42] other thing is that there have been a

[1:03:44] lot of comments about property values,

[1:03:47] and that's certainly important. We all

[1:03:48] live in Woodside. We certainly know what

[1:03:50] property values are all about, but

[1:03:53] there's all kinds of things that you

[1:03:54] could list that might impact your

[1:03:56] property values. It might be a barking

[1:03:59] dog. It might be an old car parked in

[1:04:01] front. Yes, there might be some dust. I

[1:04:03] mean, we could sit here all evening and

[1:04:05] just list all the things that might be

[1:04:07] impacting somebody's property value.

[1:04:11] To me, what is more important is the

[1:04:14] character of this community. And if we

[1:04:17] as a community and the members here

[1:04:19] accept and want to support the character

[1:04:22] of this community and one of the

[1:04:24] characters of this community is that it

[1:04:26] is a horse community. And even though

[1:04:28] there aren't as many people now who ride

[1:04:31] horses, absolutely it is absolutely one

[1:04:34] of the things that makes this community

[1:04:35] so charming. When people look around,

[1:04:38] there are some people that want to live

[1:04:39] in a more sterile environment like

[1:04:41] PaloAlto. And I love PaloAlto. I don't

[1:04:43] say that in a negative way. They want to

[1:04:45] live in a condo or something like that

[1:04:47] and that's good. But there are other

[1:04:49] people that are attracted to more of a

[1:04:52] outdoor type of community. I mean a lot

[1:04:54] of neighbors you walk through the town

[1:04:56] you see people have chickens. Wow. We

[1:04:58] raise eggs. You see kids on kinata

[1:05:00] selling eggs that have come from their

[1:05:03] chickens. It's part of the overall

[1:05:06] character that makes this community so

[1:05:08] incredibly unique and beautiful. And I

[1:05:12] really believe that we need to support

[1:05:14] that and continue to support that. And I

[1:05:17] think one of the ways that we can do

[1:05:18] that is by supporting the request of Mr.

[1:05:22] Monroe here. Now, does a neighbor have

[1:05:26] the right to say you need to maintain

[1:05:29] your property with your horses?

[1:05:31] Absolutely. Nobody wants to live in an

[1:05:34] area where somebody brings in 20 horses

[1:05:36] and cleans up the horsemen once a month.

[1:05:38] That is a very fair request.

[1:05:40] Does somebody have the right to look

[1:05:42] over and say, "Man, your horses should

[1:05:44] be well taken care of. It looks like

[1:05:47] they're never fed." That's not an issue

[1:05:48] at all here.

[1:05:51] He is meeting, matching, and surpassing

[1:05:54] every request and need that a reasonable

[1:05:58] horse owner would expect for their

[1:06:00] horses above and beyond the call of

[1:06:02] duty. You walk on the street as a final

[1:06:05] comment. Oh, we're over time. Do you

[1:06:07] mind just wrapping up?

[1:06:08] >> Thank you very much for your time.

[1:06:09] >> Thank you. Appreciate it.

[1:06:15] Good evening and thank you for your

[1:06:16] time. My name is Sarah Monroe. I'm 16

[1:06:19] years old and I live at 831 Glen

[1:06:20] Craigway. My family and I moved to

[1:06:23] Woodside for one specific reason, to be

[1:06:25] closer to the equestrian community and

[1:06:27] my horses. During August of 2024, I

[1:06:30] moved Bling, my first horse, over to 831

[1:06:32] Glen Craig Way, and one of my friends

[1:06:34] had her horse on the property for a

[1:06:36] short period of time. Mr. Clark filed no

[1:06:38] complaint about two horses during that

[1:06:40] time. As soon as my friend's horse left,

[1:06:43] Bling was left alone. Now, if you've had

[1:06:45] experience around horses, you would know

[1:06:47] that horses are herd animals. Having two

[1:06:50] horses that get along is going to make

[1:06:52] sure both horses are quieter, calmer,

[1:06:54] and happier. Having one horse by itself

[1:06:57] is simply cruel, and is the recipe for

[1:06:59] an unhappy horse. In Mr. Clark's appeal,

[1:07:02] he mentions that the livestock committee

[1:07:04] members one did not listen and two made

[1:07:07] up their own mind based upon their own

[1:07:08] ideas that had no basis in fact.

[1:07:11] However, the meeting lasted one and a

[1:07:12] half hours. They did listen and two of

[1:07:15] the members spoke about how they spent

[1:07:16] some time by the horse area observing

[1:07:18] the horses and from their own experience

[1:07:21] and knowledge concluded the horses are

[1:07:23] well cared for and there was enough room

[1:07:25] for them. Another claim that was made

[1:07:27] was the fly amount had increased. When I

[1:07:30] read this, two things came to mind. One,

[1:07:32] manure gets picked up multiple times a

[1:07:34] day into closed bins and leaves the

[1:07:36] property weekly. And according to the

[1:07:38] fly life cycle, it simply reduces the

[1:07:40] chances of an extensive amount of flies

[1:07:42] to be born. The claim that there are

[1:07:44] more flies is subjective. No objective

[1:07:46] measurements were provided to

[1:07:48] demonstrate that there had been an

[1:07:49] unusual increase or that is related to

[1:07:51] our property and specifically our

[1:07:53] horses. These are just two examples

[1:07:55] throughout the letter where I noticed an

[1:07:56] assumption or baseless statement without

[1:07:58] evidence to support it. In the summer of

[1:08:01] 2025, my family bought Billy the second

[1:08:04] horse. Both of these horses are my best

[1:08:06] friends, and I couldn't imagine living

[1:08:07] without them. In fact, me and my family

[1:08:10] purposely didn't hire anyone to take

[1:08:12] care of them so I could have the full

[1:08:13] responsibility and get the full

[1:08:15] equestrian experience. I have skipped

[1:08:17] multiple hangouts with friends, school

[1:08:19] activities, and events to make sure they

[1:08:21] get the best quality of life and enjoy

[1:08:23] living with us. For us, getting rid of

[1:08:26] one horse would simply mean getting rid

[1:08:27] of both, as it's not fair to keep one by

[1:08:29] itself. Woodside already has an extreme

[1:08:32] decrease in horse properties and horses

[1:08:34] as a whole. Please don't let your

[1:08:35] decision today contribute to the

[1:08:37] continued loss of the equestrian

[1:08:39] community that has been a long defining

[1:08:40] part of Woodside's identity. Thank you.

[1:08:43] >> Thank you.

[1:08:55] Good evening. I'm Maggie Ma. I'm a

[1:08:57] member of the trails committee. I'm here

[1:08:59] um um as a resident, but I would like to

[1:09:03] address the issue of um question of

[1:09:07] stable permits. Um I have uh a lot of

[1:09:10] personal experience with this. I'm a

[1:09:12] horse owner. I moved here 30 years ago.

[1:09:15] Um, there was an existing stable permit

[1:09:17] and I I knew about it because the old

[1:09:20] permit was stuck up on the barn. Um, and

[1:09:23] I was I had boarded horses down here at

[1:09:25] another spot. So, I knew there was

[1:09:27] stable permits permitted. However, a lot

[1:09:30] of people don't, as Sage said, um, there

[1:09:34] is really no mechanism within the town

[1:09:37] to allow to alert the town that

[1:09:39] properties change hands. So, um, uh, as

[1:09:43] a member of the trails committee, we

[1:09:45] work with the town to issue the stable

[1:09:48] permit invoices every year. Um, we have

[1:09:51] a budget that comes from the trail user

[1:09:55] fees that people pay according to how

[1:09:57] many horses they have that regularly

[1:09:59] ride the trails.

[1:10:01] Um, and that makes up half our budget.

[1:10:05] And that goes into repairing trails. So,

[1:10:07] we keep a close eye or we try to keep a

[1:10:09] close eye on the stable permit. I will

[1:10:12] tell you this and it's been going on for

[1:10:14] years that the town I'm sorry Sage, but

[1:10:17] the town has been has never had good

[1:10:20] records about stable permits.

[1:10:23] Uh, at one point, um, so what happens is

[1:10:28] the the property changes hands. Um, the

[1:10:31] invoice goes out it and it goes to the

[1:10:34] former the former owner, right? So the

[1:10:37] current owner will look at that and he

[1:10:38] goes, "Well, that's just for somebody

[1:10:40] else." Maybe they'll forwarded it, maybe

[1:10:42] they won't, but the but the previous

[1:10:44] owner is going to go, "Well, I don't

[1:10:45] live there anymore. Why should I have

[1:10:47] this?" Right? So you can imagine. So

[1:10:49] when a when a stable permit invoice goes

[1:10:52] unpaid, this is the current procedure.

[1:10:56] It is dropped from the next year's

[1:10:58] mailing list. So there there's no way to

[1:11:03] track what has happened to it. There is

[1:11:05] no way to know who really has a permit.

[1:11:08] There's a lot of horses in in Woodside

[1:11:10] that are unaccounted for. We we're

[1:11:12] pretty sure of that, but we don't

[1:11:14] there's no way to prove it. So, there

[1:11:16] are permits that are that are that have

[1:11:18] never been taken out. There are permits

[1:11:21] that don't get renewed for whatever

[1:11:22] reason. Most people in Woodside who have

[1:11:25] horses are good about this, but but this

[1:11:28] hap this this is classic. I mean, every

[1:11:30] year we see that there are permits that

[1:11:33] fall by the wayside. So, um, it became

[1:11:38] so frustrating at one point that I went

[1:11:41] down to the town and having spent a fair

[1:11:44] amount of time documenting all of the

[1:11:46] dedicated equestrian easements

[1:11:49] in 2008, five, something like that. Um,

[1:11:54] I actually found a bind. I asked the

[1:11:57] town, "Do you have a binder where the

[1:11:59] stable permit applications reside?" I

[1:12:02] was shown a binder and I copied them.

[1:12:06] And Miss Sheen's name is here along with

[1:12:09] five other households on Glen Craig. So,

[1:12:13] the the idea that that she's never had a

[1:12:16] permit is ridiculous. So, I also worked

[1:12:18] on the general plan. I know I'm out of

[1:12:20] time here. I worked on the general plan

[1:12:22] and I can't I I just want to support

[1:12:25] what other people have said about this

[1:12:27] is this is a horse country. I'm lucky

[1:12:29] enough to have good neighbors who look

[1:12:31] out for their horses and look out for

[1:12:32] mine and I wish the minor hours the

[1:12:35] same. Thank you.

[1:12:47] Hello. I am Heather Schilling. I am

[1:12:51] privileged to say that I'm a fifth

[1:12:53] generation woodsider. I currently also

[1:12:56] live on Glen Craig and I know their

[1:12:58] facility quite well. Um I my entire

[1:13:02] professional life has been working with

[1:13:05] horses. I was the barn manager at at uh

[1:13:08] NCFT

[1:13:10] uh head instructor at NCT, barn manager

[1:13:12] and head instructor at BK Ranch. I

[1:13:14] currently work at Westwind in Los Altos

[1:13:16] and I've taught junior riders for 23

[1:13:19] years. So I have extensive history and

[1:13:22] understanding of herd management, barn

[1:13:24] management, and horse care. Um, what I

[1:13:26] will say about their property is that is

[1:13:28] immaculate. It is beautiful. Those

[1:13:30] horses are extremely well cared for.

[1:13:32] They're quiet. They're lovely. They're absolute. I see Sarah riding all

[1:13:37] the time. She takes such good care of

[1:13:38] those horses. I just couldn't say

[1:13:40] anything nicer. Um,

[1:13:43] I

[1:13:44] really want to support this horse

[1:13:47] community. I am also privileged to say

[1:13:50] that my great-g grandandmother was one

[1:13:52] of the founding members of the trail

[1:13:53] club. So, I am very vested in this. I

[1:13:57] any in any way or fashion that I can

[1:14:00] show up for the horse community, I

[1:14:01] absolutely will. Um, there is so much

[1:14:04] history. I remember going through um old

[1:14:07] photo albums uh at my grandmother's

[1:14:09] house on Mansonate away looking at uh

[1:14:11] many old pictures and I just got some

[1:14:14] pictures from my aunt last night. Um

[1:14:16] just some very old vintage pictures of

[1:14:19] my family and the horses involved.

[1:14:21] Horses are such a huge part of this

[1:14:24] community and horses have the ability to

[1:14:26] bring people together as we all know

[1:14:28] from day of the horse and many other

[1:14:30] things that this town does. So I just

[1:14:33] wanted to come here to support them. I

[1:14:34] know that their facility is beautiful,

[1:14:36] well cared for, and um

[1:14:39] I think that's about it. I'll keep it

[1:14:41] short.

[1:14:52] » How's it going everybody? Good evening.

[1:14:54] Um I'm John Hayward and I was asked to

[1:14:57] take a look at this by Mr. Monroe

[1:14:59] because I am the current and have been

[1:15:02] for the last nine years facilities

[1:15:03] manager at web branch which is a I would

[1:15:07] call densely uh populated stable with uh

[1:15:10] about 300 horses. Um about 200 of which

[1:15:13] are housed in in facilities about the

[1:15:16] same size. Um

[1:15:19] I also work with uh county permitting on

[1:15:21] this. I work with all of our local vets,

[1:15:23] friers, our state vet, CDFA, and I'm

[1:15:27] very well verssed in all of the issues

[1:15:28] that have come up tonight. Um, a couple

[1:15:31] things that uh caught my attention. I

[1:15:33] did read the brief um that was uh put

[1:15:37] online and it seemed like a lot of these

[1:15:39] uh issues that are brought up were

[1:15:41] related to fencing and arborist issues,

[1:15:43] contractors, things like that. Um, and

[1:15:46] so I'm just going to speak on the

[1:15:48] current state of the site which I

[1:15:50] visited. Um, as well as the car the

[1:15:52] horses. Um, if you talk with the state

[1:15:55] vet or CDFA, um, though the town may

[1:15:57] have different reasoning, uh, their

[1:15:59] general reasoning for for requiring

[1:16:02] stling permits and especially with them,

[1:16:04] county of Sanonteo of an acre per horse

[1:16:06] is mostly related to overg grazing. Um,

[1:16:09] their horses here at this uh, property

[1:16:12] are not grazing. they're they're fed hay

[1:16:14] and supplements every day. Um they also

[1:16:17] have adequate fencing um which has been

[1:16:19] mentioned. They have plenty of space as

[1:16:21] far as um stable in addition to the

[1:16:24] turnout. Um typically, you know, in a a

[1:16:26] facility like we have a turnout area of

[1:16:30] 600 square ft is more than adequate. Um

[1:16:33] I believe their turnout area is close to

[1:16:35] 5,000 on the property. Um so more than

[1:16:38] adequate. Uh the way they handle manure,

[1:16:40] flies, all that is absolutely adequate

[1:16:43] and that's coming from somebody that

[1:16:44] does deal with about 80 cubic yards of

[1:16:47] manure daily. Um that gets put right

[1:16:50] next to our Lera neighbors. Um and we

[1:16:52] have dealt with them before and and uh

[1:16:55] yeah, manure is typically the biggest

[1:16:57] issue with neighbors. Um the way they

[1:16:59] handle the manure, picking it up

[1:17:00] multiple times every day, keeping it in

[1:17:02] covered bins till it's picked up. Um

[1:17:04] it's incredible. Um, I've also worked

[1:17:06] with their horses a little bit over at

[1:17:08] the mount of patrol when they've brought

[1:17:09] them over and they are very happy,

[1:17:11] healthy horses. Um, no hoof issues, no

[1:17:15] major medical issues. Um, they're just kept incredibly well. So,

[1:17:20] um, I think that's all I have and uh,

[1:17:22] yeah, thank you. Thanks for talking.

[1:17:24] Thank you.

[1:17:33] » Hi, I'm Christina Chantolo. I'm at 1389

[1:17:36] Kenyana Road. Um I'm an equin

[1:17:39] professional uh in Woodside for the past

[1:17:41] 20 years. I've been managing public and

[1:17:43] private barns um Foldier Stable and a

[1:17:47] lot of private barns in Woodside. And uh

[1:17:49] the facility at um A31 Glen Crag is is

[1:17:54] remarkable. I mean I have never seen a

[1:17:56] fly system that way. Um it's clean, it's

[1:18:00] dustfree, and the horses are very happy.

[1:18:02] So I want to just second what everyone

[1:18:04] else has has said today. And that's all

[1:18:07] you.

[1:18:11] » We do have one raised hand online now.

[1:18:14] Anita, I'm going to give you permission

[1:18:16] to speak. you just need to unmute.

[1:18:21] » Hi, this is Ann Vancamp.

[1:18:24] Um, I just wanted to uh chip in and just

[1:18:27] support what everyone has been saying in

[1:18:30] support of um agreeing with the two

[1:18:34] horses on the property. Um, I'm

[1:18:36] currently uh traveling and sadly not

[1:18:39] able to be there in person. Um and I

[1:18:43] don't want to take too much more time

[1:18:45] but just want to agree with the um

[1:18:48] arguments in favor especially um most

[1:18:53] important to me is to keep good sight

[1:18:55] for horse country and um I'm hoping that

[1:18:58] the planning committee will um approach

[1:19:03] me to

[1:19:05] this uh specific property for Thank you

[1:19:10] so

[1:19:12] you.

[1:19:15] » We have any other comments in the room?

[1:19:23] » I'm Carrie Oberi. I live at 621 East. Um

[1:19:26] I'm familiar with the property. I used

[1:19:28] to house it for Sushi and she had two

[1:19:30] horses and he's done so many

[1:19:32] improvements to the property and I've

[1:19:34] been there since then and I drive by

[1:19:36] there at least four times a day going

[1:19:38] back and forth to the school.

[1:19:40] never seen manure in the on the property

[1:19:42] and it's beautiful and I think they're

[1:19:44] doing a good job.

[1:19:46] >> Thank you.

[1:19:57] » Good evening. My name is Alita Reed and

[1:20:00] I've owned horses

[1:20:03] uh for 50 years. They had the privilege

[1:20:06] of living in Woodside. I did not. I

[1:20:08] lived in Redwood City. I did know Sue

[1:20:11] many, many years. She always had two

[1:20:14] horses on her property. And I just

[1:20:16] wanted to address the history of the

[1:20:18] property that there always were two

[1:20:20] horses there and to all of a sudden

[1:20:23] eliminate one uh is definitely not fair.

[1:20:27] So that's my input on this subject.

[1:20:30] Thank you.

[1:20:40] Hi, my name is Lupita and I'm Susan

[1:20:43] Chen's adopted daughter. I live uh an

[1:20:46] A31 Glen crack for a few years with her

[1:20:49] and we always have two horses and we

[1:20:52] always have problems with Mr. Clark.

[1:20:54] problems about the fence, problems about

[1:20:57] the trees, problems about the windows

[1:21:00] replacement, problems about anything you

[1:21:03] can name it. He's [snorts] been a

[1:21:05] harassing person since he moved into

[1:21:08] that property. And unfortunately, I have

[1:21:11] two kids and unfortunately they could

[1:21:13] not be friends, my kids, with his girls

[1:21:16] because it's always something between

[1:21:18] them. like uh Alexis uh his daughter

[1:21:23] used to be a friend of my daughter

[1:21:25] Kimberly and they always have problems

[1:21:27] about playing together or something. He

[1:21:30] will get mad upset with them. So I feel

[1:21:34] bad that now the all these problems pass

[1:21:37] it to Mrs. Monroe's family which they're

[1:21:40] very nice family and uh the way he does

[1:21:44] is he takes everything legally and go

[1:21:48] number by number and justified and this

[1:21:52] he seems like he's not a horse lober if

[1:21:54] you're doing this to a horse to a horses

[1:21:57] that is nothing I mean they're not

[1:21:59] bothering his property and they're not

[1:22:00] in his property so I feel sad for

[1:22:04] Monro's family and they have to go

[1:22:06] through this Because my mother having

[1:22:08] cancer, she go she went through all this

[1:22:11] against him like fighting for the fans.

[1:22:14] They he make him make her move the fence

[1:22:18] and he put another fence separated. It

[1:22:20] was just a disaster and it was sad to

[1:22:22] see my mother go fighting always with

[1:22:25] him. And the last word she told me,

[1:22:27] "Whatever you do, don't you ever sell my

[1:22:30] property to Mr. Clark."

[1:22:34] That was her wishes and I did it.

[1:22:45] Evening guys. Uh my name is Dan

[1:22:47] Janatasia. I live in Redwood City on Kev

[1:22:49] Canyon Road. Um I think this you guys

[1:22:51] moving forward you should take this as

[1:22:52] an example of not losing the horse

[1:22:54] community that you have in this area and

[1:22:57] actually welcoming it and moving, you

[1:22:59] know, with the exceptions. I think you

[1:23:00] guys should probably make exceptions

[1:23:01] with how tight this world is and how

[1:23:03] people are willing to put money out for

[1:23:05] a hobby that costs a lot. You have other

[1:23:08] arrangements with kids in school and

[1:23:10] college, but they're willing to go out

[1:23:11] and get these horses. There's a lot of

[1:23:13] people and we're trying to bring up the

[1:23:14] next generation. And if we have problems

[1:23:16] with getting land for 4, FFA, horse

[1:23:20] corral, what the manure is, people that

[1:23:22] move in your airports know there's going

[1:23:24] to be an airport sound. People that move

[1:23:25] into a community with horses need to

[1:23:27] realize there's going to be horse. you

[1:23:28] may have to slow down and pull over,

[1:23:30] stop, let the horses move through

[1:23:32] because at some point there's going to

[1:23:33] be a lot of cars and motorcycles in this

[1:23:36] area. So, uh, thank you very much.

[1:23:44] » Any other comments?

[1:23:48] » All right. Well, we will go ahead and

[1:23:49] close public hearing then. And the next

[1:23:52] step is uh is commissioner deliberation.

[1:23:54] So before we uh sorry there is a hand.

[1:23:57] Is that a hand for a comment?

[1:24:01] >> Yeah, a hand just went up. Um iPhone

[1:24:04] 184. You want to let them speak?

[1:24:07] >> Uh sure. Yeah, if it's public comment.

[1:24:10] Yeah, let's get the last one in.

[1:24:13] >> Okay. You've been given permission to

[1:24:15] speak. You just need to unmute.

[1:24:16] >> Yes. Hi, my name is Sharon Butler. Um,

[1:24:19] I've been in the equestrian community

[1:24:22] for about 25 years. I also knew Sushi

[1:24:26] Han for over 10 years. Um, I just also

[1:24:29] want to reiterate that there have also

[1:24:32] um there have been two horses on that

[1:24:35] property for as long as I have known

[1:24:37] Sue. And the neighbors then main um

[1:24:42] attack on Sue was about property lines,

[1:24:44] not about the number of horses that

[1:24:46] she's had. We um I'm a on the board of

[1:24:50] Satel County Horseman's Association and

[1:24:52] I totally agree with the gentleman that

[1:24:54] just spoke that we are really needing

[1:24:56] the next generation of equestrians to

[1:24:59] come up which is Sarah. Um I personally

[1:25:02] know Munich, his wife Nidi and Sarah.

[1:25:05] They are lovely people. They're a

[1:25:08] wonderful ambassador to our equestrian

[1:25:11] community. Um, and I would hate to see

[1:25:15] anything happen to them not being able

[1:25:17] to ride through Woodside because they've

[1:25:20] had to remove their horses um from

[1:25:22] Woodside. So, I also am in favor of um

[1:25:27] allowing them to have this exception

[1:25:30] permit and keep both horses on the

[1:25:32] property. Um, thank you so much for your

[1:25:34] time.

[1:25:36] >> Thank you.

[1:25:40] » All right. So with that, no other hands

[1:25:42] online. Okay, we'll go ahead and close

[1:25:45] public hearing then and uh and proceed

[1:25:46] to commissioner uh deliberations. So

[1:25:49] just to maybe set the the context for

[1:25:50] that and a reminder of we've heard a lot

[1:25:53] of of different things. The decision in

[1:25:55] front of us is can we make three

[1:25:57] findings uh just to reiterate it. Number

[1:25:59] one is the exception will not impair the

[1:26:01] health, safety or welfare of the

[1:26:02] livestock maintained on the site. So

[1:26:04] that one focused on the livestock. The

[1:26:06] exception will not result in any adverse

[1:26:08] health, safety, noise, traffic or visual

[1:26:09] impacts on surrounding properties and

[1:26:11] roadways and the proposed use complies

[1:26:13] with all under standards of 115.12 which

[1:26:17] again is the private stables uh pieces.

[1:26:20] I think the other thing that that is the

[1:26:21] narrow sort of decision in front of us.

[1:26:24] Uh we are also uh sworn to uphold the

[1:26:27] general plan and we we all know that does carry quite a few elements of

[1:26:32] equestrian community in it. Um so that

[1:26:36] in my mind is also quite germanine to

[1:26:37] the decision that we should be making

[1:26:39] because it's the context in which this will this will sit. Um so

[1:26:45] with that I'll also disclose we uh big

[1:26:50] piece of why we're here as well. We have

[1:26:51] an eight and and 10year-old who are is

[1:26:54] training as well. So certainly

[1:26:55] understand the horse community and and

[1:26:56] that nature of our town. Uh but with

[1:26:58] that um would anyone like to to kick off

[1:27:01] discussions?

[1:27:05] » [clears throat]

[1:27:06] >> So none of the uh findings uh I can go

[1:27:10] against any none of the findings uh

[1:27:13] fairly narrow uh narrow decision uh as

[1:27:18] far as that's concerned. U the

[1:27:19] grievances by the neighbor

[1:27:22] um although they might be important to

[1:27:25] him have don't have really anything to

[1:27:27] do with with our deliberation. Uh the

[1:27:30] drainage issue is uh being handled uh by

[1:27:35] staff at this point or in the future. Uh

[1:27:40] the fence issues have been resolved

[1:27:43] other than um the con the small peers

[1:27:46] that appear to be on on Mr. Clark's

[1:27:49] property. uh but that can be removed I

[1:27:54] suppose uh without you know without

[1:27:57] impacting uh our decision. So, um I

[1:28:02] can't find any uh objections to to this

[1:28:06] uh well actually I would not uh I would

[1:28:09] not approve the appeal uh that is before

[1:28:13] us and I would uphold the exception by

[1:28:16] the uh livestock committee for the two

[1:28:19] horse u permit on 831 Glen Craig.

[1:28:29] As Richard just pointed out, the

[1:28:31] findings we are being asked to make

[1:28:33] tonight are quite narrow and defined by

[1:28:37] the municipal code. And [clears throat]

[1:28:41] in the context of that

[1:28:45] of what we're being asked uh the

[1:28:47] findings we're being asked to make

[1:28:49] tonight,

[1:28:51] um I would agree with Richard in that we

[1:28:55] need to deny the appeal.

[1:28:58] Um, the property owners are certainly

[1:29:02] committed to their horses and the way

[1:29:05] the code is set up right now. if you are

[1:29:09] willing to turn over a sufficient

[1:29:12] quantity of your residential property to

[1:29:14] equin purposes and satisfy the

[1:29:17] requirements of the livestock committee.

[1:29:20] Um there is currently no upper bound in

[1:29:23] the code on the density of horses that

[1:29:27] you can have on your property. Um

[1:29:32] whether

[1:29:33] that should be con reconsidered is

[1:29:38] um a policy decision at the town council

[1:29:41] level rather than being a planning

[1:29:44] commission decision where we're sort of

[1:29:46] acting in a quasi um judicial role here.

[1:29:50] And so

[1:29:53] whether there would be any uh you know

[1:29:56] upper bound on horse density that would

[1:29:58] be an issue for town council and future

[1:30:01] modifications of the municipal code as

[1:30:03] written. Um I did have one follow-up

[1:30:07] question for uh for Sage. Um

[1:30:13] the code does not support uh does the

[1:30:17] code support having a horse turnout area

[1:30:21] or

[1:30:22] um um on top of a septic tank leech

[1:30:26] field.

[1:30:28] >> Um I'm there there's nothing in the

[1:30:31] municipal code related to that. If

[1:30:33] anything, it would be uh from the Sonteo

[1:30:36] County um health department who

[1:30:38] primarily regulates septic systems.

[1:30:40] There is nothing in the municipal code

[1:30:42] and

[1:30:44] I'm I'm just not aware or recall any

[1:30:47] instances where that's become an issue.

[1:30:49] The only thing that sort of occurred to

[1:30:52] me in real time, I mean during the

[1:30:54] meeting, and I had no time to research

[1:30:56] this, is that as a residential property,

[1:31:00] the owners have a requirement in order

[1:31:03] to inhabit the house to have a working

[1:31:06] septic system. And um

[1:31:11] and ultimately at some point that might

[1:31:13] conflict with the ecquin use of their

[1:31:16] property. And I would think in that case

[1:31:20] that the health and safety requirements

[1:31:24] of sanitation and the septic system

[1:31:26] would trump the equin uses. But that is

[1:31:29] totally on the fly and that is more of a

[1:31:32] phil a philosophical question.

[1:31:35] But in in the context of the findings

[1:31:39] we're being asked to make um tonight, I

[1:31:42] could make the findings and deny the

[1:31:45] appeal.

[1:31:49] Um, so consistent with Commissioner

[1:31:54] Weaver's view, I do think there's

[1:31:56] probably an issue with the uh the

[1:32:00] overarching, I guess, acre per horse or

[1:32:02] I forget the exact numbers. Um because

[1:32:06] when I went to view the property, the acre per horse was probably based on

[1:32:11] an old view of grazing and hills and

[1:32:16] that it'll be some side of the of the

[1:32:18] property as horse. Um you know, this family has dedicated my my back of

[1:32:24] math is maybe over 40% of the property

[1:32:26] to the horses. Um and possibly more um

[1:32:29] which is which is really a different

[1:32:31] metric than an acre per horse. Um, and

[1:32:34] so what what I think regardless of what

[1:32:37] happens this evening, I think I would

[1:32:39] encourage those whose job it is to

[1:32:42] figure this out is to maybe change that

[1:32:44] rule. Um, and think about because I did

[1:32:48] hear minimums on stall size, on runouts,

[1:32:50] on paddics. Um and and if if this is a

[1:32:55] precedence, which is what I always try

[1:32:57] to avoid, um then how many other sites

[1:33:01] in Woodside could be reorganized to be

[1:33:04] 40% horses and meet these other

[1:33:06] requirements but not be the be the um

[1:33:10] acre. So if if the goal is is to be a

[1:33:14] western community and give everyone that

[1:33:15] sort of opportunity, um maybe try to

[1:33:19] revisit that acre per horse and make it

[1:33:22] more thoughtful to be what the horse

[1:33:24] needs and not some antiquated paddic,

[1:33:28] hillside, what have you view. Um so

[1:33:31] hopefully that could be happen. Um and

[1:33:33] then uh consistent with the others, the

[1:33:37] what we're being asked is very narrow.

[1:33:40] um and not necessarily uh encompassing

[1:33:44] of the entirety. So, I think the septic

[1:33:46] is an issue that if if the lines go

[1:33:48] under the paddic and uh there's a

[1:33:51] potential for a neighborhood issue. Um

[1:33:53] but the paddic is massive and if there

[1:33:56] was an issue, I think that they could

[1:33:58] move the fence back a little bit and

[1:33:59] make the septic going to run part of it

[1:34:01] or what have you. Um but I think that's

[1:34:03] not for us to figure out um over time.

[1:34:06] So I I don't really have I don't really

[1:34:08] have any reason to accept the appeal

[1:34:13] based on the narrow view, but I would

[1:34:14] encourage some perhaps rethinking of

[1:34:17] what it what a horse site looks like and

[1:34:19] how to how to make it uh acceptable so

[1:34:22] that future houses can be shifted if you

[1:34:26] know if it makes sense.

[1:34:30] Yeah, agree with agree [clears throat]

[1:34:33] with many of of of my co-commissioner

[1:34:35] statements. Um,

[1:34:37] and one thing just as far as the the the

[1:34:39] limits um there's a two horse per acre

[1:34:44] limit I think are we saying not on the

[1:34:46] appeal process ly or is

[1:34:52] on the application for right because we

[1:34:54] have minimum one and then two per acre.

[1:34:58] So like a twoacre site can have four,

[1:34:59] three acre site can have six, etc.

[1:35:02] >> To add a second horse, you need a one

[1:35:04] acre lot minimum is my understand.

[1:35:07] >> Correct. Right. But in and then in

[1:35:08] general it's it's um one horse per

[1:35:12] excuse me two per acre uh incremental

[1:35:14] beyond that as well.

[1:35:18] Yes, there there there's a requirement

[1:35:21] of to have one acre lot size to have

[1:35:24] horses and and then the exceptions don't

[1:35:27] have the

[1:35:28] >> correct. So that therefore there's a

[1:35:29] process for the exceptions what's being

[1:35:31] uh reviewed tonight.

[1:35:32] >> Yeah. So so I'll talk about the the

[1:35:35] findings first off. I agree from the uh

[1:35:37] the narrowness of these findings. I I

[1:35:40] don't see well I say stated in the

[1:35:42] affirmative I I can make these findings

[1:35:45] uh these these these make sense to me. I

[1:35:47] do think the point I'm going to

[1:35:48] reiterate some of the points that uh

[1:35:50] Commissioner Evans made with respect to

[1:35:52] like is it the right metrics? Um a 3acre

[1:35:57] site on 40% grade probably going to be

[1:36:01] hard to have horses, right? Uh the Glen

[1:36:03] Craig site is is a whole another story.

[1:36:06] Um it was one of the two uh sort of

[1:36:09] tearown houses that that we looked at

[1:36:11] when we moved to Woodside. It was listed

[1:36:12] for more than ours and we were already

[1:36:14] stretching. So, we ended up with the

[1:36:16] other one. But, I mean, my wife was a

[1:36:18] horse person. We looked at it and we're

[1:36:19] like, "Wow, this this exists in the Bay

[1:36:21] Area." We were we were stunned, right,

[1:36:22] to to see that that even existed. Um,

[1:36:25] but also, you know, I think some of the

[1:36:27] things that you personally were struck

[1:36:29] at looking at the site, it had a two

[1:36:31] stall barn on it, right? That was

[1:36:33] already there. And so we've heard uh

[1:36:36] that there's not you know

[1:36:38] transferability which is a little bit

[1:36:40] weird uh in full transparency is maybe a

[1:36:44] read uh on on that visav other things

[1:36:46] that do transfer right uh setback

[1:36:49] exceptions for houses transfer uh right

[1:36:52] when you knock down a house you can uh

[1:36:54] encroach into the setback as much as

[1:36:56] what was already there. So it's a bit

[1:36:59] odd that in an equestrian community

[1:37:01] we've set a more restrictive standard

[1:37:03] for uh equestrian facilities/ quotas

[1:37:06] than than the others. I think you know

[1:37:08] in addition to you know how do we define

[1:37:11] an adequate facility I think it's worth

[1:37:13] considering

[1:37:15] what should the transferability be right

[1:37:17] and the fact that we're having folks uh

[1:37:20] reup permits even though there's no

[1:37:22] horse uh is sort of an interesting uh outcome

[1:37:28] right so we can just all sort of reflect

[1:37:30] on

[1:37:30] >> we have more rights for our garage

[1:37:32] >> I'm sorry

[1:37:32] >> we have more rights for our garage than

[1:37:34] a than a barn

[1:37:36] >> right and

[1:37:36] >> footprint point of and and at the same

[1:37:38] time the general plan says things like

[1:37:40] uh that equestrian facilities should be

[1:37:42] sort of made visible right so so we have

[1:37:45] this sort of inconsistency in I think

[1:37:47] the the general plan intent and then

[1:37:49] maybe this particular uh issue of

[1:37:52] permits and transferability and

[1:37:53] exceptions um when we issue an exception

[1:37:57] generally uh a a homeowner will proceed

[1:38:01] to con if there's construction involved

[1:38:03] right in this case

[1:38:06] let's assume this barn were being built,

[1:38:07] you know, based on this rather than

[1:38:09] being a pre-existing uh barn.

[1:38:13] One would hope that that's not something

[1:38:15] that's getting torn down when you sell

[1:38:16] it, right? Why are we subjecting the

[1:38:18] next owner to going through the same

[1:38:19] bureaucratic process and relitigating

[1:38:22] exceptions that were already decided? It

[1:38:24] seems like uh both a waste of the

[1:38:26] planning commission's time uh and

[1:38:28] livestock's time as well as uh just an

[1:38:30] undue burden. And I agree, like we had

[1:38:32] no idea about horse permits. I mean, I

[1:38:34] lived here for 10 years and we didn't we

[1:38:36] lived in a in a in a place in the Glenns

[1:38:37] that couldn't have horses. We moved to

[1:38:38] Ray Mundo and I think my wife joined the

[1:38:41] trails committee and heard about

[1:38:42] permits. We had no idea. So, uh it's not

[1:38:45] wellnown. Um you know, our our property

[1:38:47] didn't have horses on it for years and years. And you know, if it did

[1:38:51] come, we would have forwarded on the

[1:38:52] note because it would have had the the

[1:38:54] previous uh deceased owner's name on it.

[1:38:56] And so it's a little bit of a a

[1:38:58] long-winded um maybe set of commentary,

[1:39:01] but I do think it's also, you know,

[1:39:03] really encouraging to see how much folks

[1:39:06] really care about this. And it really

[1:39:07] is, you know, the more time you spend in

[1:39:08] Woodside, it's it's a unique community.

[1:39:11] People who come here don't know that it

[1:39:12] exists. And and I think that's that's great. Um

[1:39:16] you know, Darren, on your points on

[1:39:19] should we re is it worth considering

[1:39:21] revisiting, right?

[1:39:23] um you know, how is the next generation

[1:39:28] getting on board, right? It's going to

[1:39:29] be through also maybe not the most

[1:39:31] expensive houses in town. I think Glen

[1:39:34] Craig's a good example of that, right?

[1:39:36] This is a site that was, you know,

[1:39:38] needed some some some elbow grease. Uh

[1:39:40] had some facilities on it and uh this is

[1:39:43] an example of seeing kind of the next

[1:39:45] generation grow up. So, you know, if

[1:39:47] it's only the the the the 3 4 5 acre

[1:39:50] estates that are

[1:39:53] out of the range of price of many folks

[1:39:55] who are who are kind of moving to town

[1:39:56] with kids, uh then, you know, we should

[1:39:58] think about what that means. Anyway, um

[1:40:01] but bring it back to the the narrow

[1:40:03] piece, I can certainly make all all

[1:40:05] three findings. So, it seemed like we

[1:40:08] had a little bit of unonymity on that.

[1:40:10] Do does anyone have any additional

[1:40:11] comments or would we like to make a

[1:40:12] motion? I I just think it's such a small

[1:40:15] question we're being asked and it's

[1:40:16] outside of the macro question that it's

[1:40:18] actually the question.

[1:40:19] >> Yep.

[1:40:21] >> Okay.

[1:40:22] >> I guess I I move to uh what am I what am

[1:40:26] I asking to move?

[1:40:28] >> Uh if you agree with the um

[1:40:31] recommendation of the resolution, you

[1:40:32] can move to adopt the resolution which

[1:40:35] would deny the appeal and uphold the

[1:40:38] plan director's decision for the stable

[1:40:40] exception. And as noted earlier, we

[1:40:43] would strike those last two findings as

[1:40:45] they're not necessary. [snorts]

[1:40:47] >> Um then I would move to uh accept the

[1:40:50] three findings that we've been asked to

[1:40:52] review. Um but as a as an aside, I would

[1:40:54] actually hope that the folks in the

[1:40:57] livestock committee would maybe rethink

[1:40:58] these the acre rule and maybe make it

[1:41:01] focused on what a horse needs.

[1:41:07] Would second it.

[1:41:09] I'll second it.

[1:41:12] Chair Gar.

[1:41:13] >> Yes.

[1:41:14] >> Commissioner Evans.

[1:41:15] >> Yes.

[1:41:15] >> Commissioner Gonerko.

[1:41:16] >> Yes.

[1:41:17] >> Commissioner Weaver.

[1:41:18] >> Yes.

[1:41:22] » Great. So, the uh decision passes. There

[1:41:25] is a 10-day appeal period. Um and so if

[1:41:28] anyone has questions, please see the

[1:41:30] plan department about filing an appeal.

[1:41:32] Um if there is an appeal filed, it would

[1:41:34] be reviewed by the town council. All

[1:41:36] right.

[1:41:37] >> Thank you. Uh and thanks folks for uh

[1:41:40] for spending your time with us and Sage

[1:41:42] are there any other uh

[1:41:46] that are

[1:41:48] yes

[1:41:50] any uh other reports or

[1:41:52] >> have you received the June director's

[1:41:54] report um as you seen the number of

[1:41:57] permits issued we continue to remain

[1:41:59] busy

[1:42:01] um and then as we've kind of highlighted

[1:42:03] more so the last month is looking at our

[1:42:05] housing numbers and so for the month of

[1:42:08] June, um the uh town issued two more

[1:42:13] permits for ADUs in town. So, we're up

[1:42:17] to about 17 ADUs this year so far, about

[1:42:20] halfway through the through the year.

[1:42:23] Um,

[1:42:30] » excuse me, folks. We're we're just we're

[1:42:32] continuing here if you don't mind taking

[1:42:33] the conversations outside. Um are we

[1:42:35] going to that seems like it's relatively

[1:42:38] low. Are we We're not on track at all,

[1:42:40] are we?

[1:42:40] >> In terms of 17 in general number of

[1:42:43] units.

[1:42:44] >> Um so uh yeah, in general number of

[1:42:47] units, you know, what we have through um

[1:42:50] June 2026, we've noted that there's been

[1:42:52] 898s and 36 new single family

[1:42:55] residences. Uh so we are

[1:42:58] >> 30 36 new single family residences.

[1:43:01] >> Uh 36. Yes. So this is uh where we are

[1:43:04] through cycle 6 that ends in 2031. So

[1:43:08] we're starting to get about halfway

[1:43:09] through the cycle. Um we're probably a

[1:43:11] little bit less than half of the number

[1:43:13] of units uh that are necessary. Uh but

[1:43:16] also with units it's important to look

[1:43:18] at the um the types of units and we have

[1:43:22] to have varied units. We have multif

[1:43:24] family housing uh that is hoping to move

[1:43:27] forward. um they're still looking at

[1:43:30] issues with sewer capacity and how to

[1:43:32] what may be necessary to upgrade any

[1:43:34] infrastructure. Um so you know often

[1:43:38] people will suggest you know maybe

[1:43:40] cities are very far behind. Um in some

[1:43:42] cases actually I think we're on

[1:43:44] relatively good

[1:43:46] uh track. Um and I always note that

[1:43:49] while I think in the front end of the

[1:43:52] housing element cycle it's likely to see

[1:43:55] fewer units than at the back end meaning

[1:43:58] the housing element has all these

[1:44:00] different programs and elements uh

[1:44:02] strategies to implement. And so as these

[1:44:06] different strategies get implemented um

[1:44:08] you'll might see start to pick up the

[1:44:10] pace the number of units towards the end

[1:44:11] of the cycle.

[1:44:12] >> Has there ever been an analysis done on

[1:44:15] what is the possible ADU footprint

[1:44:18] that's that's available in the town

[1:44:19] because everyone that gets done and we

[1:44:21] sort of lo lose runway for

[1:44:23] >> Yeah. No, it's a good question. Um it's

[1:44:25] a bit difficult to know just um because

[1:44:28] historically I mean there's ADUs on

[1:44:30] properties that already exist and that

[1:44:32] necessarily weren't tallied up in any

[1:44:34] way many years ago. Uh we have the town

[1:44:37] has increased the number of ADUs that

[1:44:39] are allowed on properties. Uh so for

[1:44:41] properties that are vacant, it's pretty

[1:44:43] easy to tell how much they're allowed as

[1:44:44] well as state law has changed um to

[1:44:46] really increase the number of ADUs

[1:44:48] allowed on property in different

[1:44:49] circumstances. Um so so yeah you know at 17 is uh just for this year I would

[1:44:56] say is is pretty good. Um they had we

[1:45:00] had a a target in the housing element of

[1:45:02] 15 ADUs per year. Um and so we've

[1:45:06] already exceeded that. Um most all of

[1:45:09] the years we've went over 20 usually

[1:45:12] between like 20 and 25 units. Um, so if

[1:45:15] we keep up this pace, we do know that

[1:45:17] there's a number of plan checks that are

[1:45:19] getting closer to issuance. Um, so we're

[1:45:22] in pretty good pace in terms of the

[1:45:23] number of ADUs this year. Say some

[1:45:26] follow-up questions. Um, there were some

[1:45:27] very extensive public records requests

[1:45:29] uh that were made by uh the previous um

[1:45:32] town manager as well as local reporters,

[1:45:35] etc. Thousands of documents. I've had

[1:45:36] some time to spend time with them and it

[1:45:39] seems we're not making very fast

[1:45:41] progress on the multif family sites and

[1:45:44] there were quite a few uh items of

[1:45:47] correspondence in there uh where it

[1:45:49] appeared the town council is not uh

[1:45:52] allowing these things to proceed to

[1:45:53] agenda. uh are we at risk with HCD if we

[1:45:57] don't make adequate process and do we

[1:46:00] need to take steps to be more compliant

[1:46:03] with our housing element and are we at

[1:46:05] risk based on the agenda setting of the

[1:46:07] town council of becoming non-compliant?

[1:46:09] Um I'm not aware of any of that being

[1:46:11] set by the town council. What I'll say

[1:46:13] at the staff level um it's continuing to

[1:46:16] be pursued. Again, one of the biggest

[1:46:18] issues is access to sewer. Um and so the

[1:46:22] town has recently completed kind of a

[1:46:26] capacity study. Um and now the the

[1:46:29] consultants are going forward to

[1:46:32] complete the full master sewer plan. And

[1:46:34] part of that is to look at what

[1:46:36] solutions are necessary um to make sure

[1:46:39] that you can kind of access all of the

[1:46:41] capac contractual capacity that Woodside

[1:46:44] has allowed under the town center

[1:46:45] assessment district. Um, so that's a big

[1:46:48] piece and that's hoping to wrap up, you

[1:46:50] know, by the end of summer, early fall

[1:46:53] and we'll have better understanding of

[1:46:55] maybe potential costs for any sewer

[1:46:56] upgrades that are necessary. So that's

[1:46:58] one of the steps that is being pursued

[1:47:00] and it's a it's a big first step that

[1:47:01] needs to take place.

[1:47:02] >> Thank you. Do you have high confidence

[1:47:03] that when that's completed, the mayor

[1:47:05] will put that on the agenda in a

[1:47:06] reasonable amount of time?

[1:47:07] >> I can speak to that. If if you're

[1:47:10] finding any uh any issues with those um

[1:47:13] getting agendas, you can please inform

[1:47:15] the planning commission. We would

[1:47:16] appreciate it.

[1:47:17] >> Sure. All of that goes to the town

[1:47:19] manager's office in terms of what goes

[1:47:20] onto the that

[1:47:21] >> are the results of the sewage study in

[1:47:23] the public domain right now if it's

[1:47:26] complete.

[1:47:26] >> The the initial pieces for the what they

[1:47:29] looked at as the contractual capacity

[1:47:31] and the hydraulic capacity uh for the

[1:47:34] town center area. I'm sorry, two things

[1:47:37] confused for the town center assessment

[1:47:38] district. Um, and so that is a public.

[1:47:42] Um, and yeah, if you guys want copies,

[1:47:45] we can get you guys copies of that. And

[1:47:47] that it's it's that's kind of the uh a

[1:47:50] piece of what the overall master sewer

[1:47:51] plan is.

[1:47:53] >> What steps are required to put it out

[1:47:55] for bid uh following the completion of

[1:47:57] that study

[1:47:57] >> in terms of for the in

[1:48:00] >> uh or or for no, I'm sorry, for housing

[1:48:03] developers.

[1:48:04] >> Oh, um I'm I'm still researching that.

[1:48:06] the town attorney's office um has a

[1:48:09] legal firm looking at um what's

[1:48:12] necessary. So there's what is called the

[1:48:14] surplus lands act. And so that's another

[1:48:17] step that needs to be done in

[1:48:18] conjunction once you understand what

[1:48:20] your sewer needs are. And so that

[1:48:25] my limited understanding is is uh that

[1:48:28] will help identify what's necessary. And

[1:48:32] then there's something that's called a

[1:48:34] notice availability and it's sent out to

[1:48:36] various types of uh housing developers,

[1:48:40] affordable housing developers. Um and

[1:48:43] >> further steps would necessar be

[1:48:45] necessary to kind of get in contract and

[1:48:47] >> could could we see maybe a timeline of

[1:48:49] what a sort of you know let's say speed

[1:48:52] of light workback schedule would look

[1:48:54] like to get one of these out to bids in

[1:48:56] terms of which things need to happen

[1:48:58] assuming that

[1:48:59] >> check with the town manager's office. Is

[1:49:01] that something we could see in the

[1:49:02] future?

[1:49:02] >> I can check with the town manager's

[1:49:04] office. They set those agendas.

[1:49:05] >> Thank you. We appreciate it.

[1:49:10] » Um, and then with that, I just wanted to

[1:49:13] um thank Commissioner Gerko very much.

[1:49:15] This is his last meeting. Um, and so

[1:49:18] it's been a real pleasure to serve with

[1:49:19] you. And so

[1:49:22] >> I have a question. So I'm staying on

[1:49:24] until we get a replacement. So

[1:49:26] >> Well, I appreciate that. So um, if you

[1:49:28] will, that's great. And we have one

[1:49:30] application uh that has been submitted.

[1:49:33] Um so we know there's at least one

[1:49:35] applicant and we're hoping uh there may

[1:49:38] have been some other interest as well.

[1:49:39] So we might receive more applications.

[1:49:41] >> Good.

[1:49:42] >> Just a reminder there's a recess in

[1:49:44] August so the timing may work out that.

[1:49:48] >> Yeah.

[1:49:50] So we

[1:49:51] >> so if this doesn't come your last me we

[1:49:54] do want to thank you very much for

[1:49:55] everything you've done.

[1:49:58] >> Thank you.

[1:50:00] Um, I don't have any further reports.

[1:50:05] All right, we'll go ahead and Thank you,

[1:50:07] folks.

Planning Commission - July 15, 2026

Transcript