Hello and thank you. Uh tonight I'll be
presenting the item at 90 Rome please
for planning commission review. Uh this
is a presentation review and approval
conditional approval or denial of a
variance to setback requirements for a
deck uh extension encroachment into the
basic uh required site setbacks. Uh,
this application is categorically exempt
under the California Environmental
Quality Act, SQA guidelines
15301, additions to existing structures,
as well as 15303, which are uh new
construction of small structures, and
there are no desk items at this time.
So regarding this property, it is in the
SCP 7.5 uh zoning district which
requires basic setbacks of 50 ft from
all sides. Uh the lot area is
approximately 3.38 acres
which uh more than 50% of the lot is in
slopes that are greater than 35%. Uh the
majority of which is also uh in slopes
exceeding 50% as well.
As far as the deck extension, uh it
would be located east of the main
residence. The size is approximately 26
ft x 42 ft uh and would be composed of
similar wood material to what is
existing at the site.
Um, the municipal code uh does not
permit encroachments into setbacks
unless explicitly allowed. Uh, while
items listed in the municipal code
section 153.2207C
are allowed within the required
setbacks. Uh, decks that are greater
than 3 ft above the ground uh may only
extend into required sight setback a
distance of no more than 3 ft. Um since
this uh proposed deck uh encroaches
approximately 7.75 feet into the side
setback uh approval of a setback uh
variance is required
and uh this is the elevation detail of
the uh proposed deck extension.
Uh to quickly summarize uh staff
providing recommending findings which
you can find in attachment one uh the
draft resolution. Uh to quickly
summarize, um staff recommends approval
of the setback varants uh since uh
allowing the encroachment of the
proposed deck extension would limit
disturbance on woodlands and steep
slopes by utilizing previously approved
retaining walls as you can see down here
and on previously disturbed land. It
would not be detrimental to the public
welfare as the proposed deck extension
are located away from Ran Place and the
neighboring residences. And the proposed
variance is consistent with the town of
Woodside general plan goals, land use
1.1 and land use 1.2, which are goals
that discuss high priority to the
conservation of natural resources and
also to minimize grading, including the
downscaling of intensity of land use on
steep hillsides. That concludes my
presentation. Staff is happy to answer
any questions. Uh the applicant is also
uh in attendance via Zoom to answer any
questions. Thank you.
» It's basically the the corner, right?
The upper right corner is is the only uh
space in the setback. Correct.
>> It would be Yes. This corner here. Um
>> that corner. Okay.
>> Yep.
>> Right. The two lines the two parallel
lines are the retaining holes. Correct.
>> Um that is correct. Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Then uh let's proceed. Would the
uh applicant like to make a uh statement
or presentation?
>> Yeah. So, um I don't have a
presentation, but I I do want to uh just
kind of give you a brief sum summary of
this project, right? So, um as Kgo
stated, I'm here to apply for a setback
um variance for my deck expansion at 90
Rome Place. And uh this project really
is to enhance my um outdoor living space
and um my property has a a number of
constraints and uh the shape of the lot,
the buildable area is uh very limited
and also
I have a uh a big part of the buildable
area dedicated to
um creating a fire truck turnound per um
fire department. uh requirements years
ago. So we have very limited usable
outdoor space and this project is to
enhance our outdoor uh living space
because all these constraints that I
mentioned um uh you know the the one
side of that extended area is going to
encroach into the standard 50 ft setback
um by
a little less than 8 feet. Right? So I
do want to point out that as as Keo uh
show in diagram,
I had a previous setback exception when
I built my house uh a number of years
ago. And that setback expression uh
exception um
approved for like 15 ft I believe into
the standard setback. Um, so this deck
is actually within that um, previously
approved exception. So it's not a new
encroachment per se. Um, I just want to
point that out.
Okay. Uh, questions for uh, the
applicant.
Okay. Uh why don't we go ahead with
commissioner uh deliberation and or
excuse me I'm sorry any uh members of
the public here who would like to speak
on this issue
is everybody here for the other one we
have one raised hand online from bale
Oh,
Frank
pranksters are alive and well tonight.
Awesome. Okay. In that case, since after
that very substantive comment, uh maybe
we can go with commissioner
deliberations. Um Erin, do you want to
kick off? Yeah. Uh so thank you Mr. Jong
for the presentation. Um and uh Mr. Yato
for the alo presentation. Uh I did go
visit the site. It is very clear that he
has a setback that's even further into
the 50 foot from a previous line and the
other direction of the deck goes into
infin infinity uh where there's nothing
there. So this seems like a very good
use of space to avoid his kid being in
the driveway. Um, so I'm all for it.
» Um, [clears throat] a little bit more as Darren added, you mentioned that uh
the other the other direction goes into
infinity into the forest. Is that what
you meant?
>> There's nothing.
>> Yeah, there's nothing there. So, yeah,
that's what So, I understand that. No,
there's there's nothing for me to add.
Thank you.
>> Um, I have no problem with making the
findings. It is a very constrained lot.
So, um, no questions and,
um, I'm fine with the draft resolution.
Very little to add beyond all of that. I
also visited the site looks like
agree with Darren's comments. Um,
additionally, that I think the point
about it being sort of less encroaching
than the previous exception is is well
stated as well. So, I have no problem
making the findings.
like to make a motion on this one.
>> Uh I'll make a motion to approve the
staff resolution for the exception.
>> Sorry. Second the motion.
>> Chair Gar.
>> Yes.
>> Commissioner Evans.
>> Yes.
>> Commissioner Gonko.
>> Yes.
>> Commissioner Weaver.
>> Yes.
» All right.
And this one says appeals.
Yes. Right. There's a a 10-day appeal
period. Um, and if anyone would like to
appeal, they can see the deputy town
clerk.
Okay. All right. Well, with that, we
will uh move on uh to the uh second/3
item, which is 831 Glen Craig Way. Uh
so, would staff like to proceed with the
uh presentation, please? Uh the order of
operations here will be uh staff
presentation.
We'll have a chance to ask questions of
staff. Then it will be the appellet. uh
we'll have 10 minutes. The applicant
will have 10 minutes uh before we go to
public comment. We also do have many
people in the room. Uh folks will have
uh 3 minutes each for comments. However,
at the same time, if we if we do the
math, we'll be here a long time. Uh so
if you do have, you know, you agree with other comments uh and things like
that, it's fine to just state that and
um and whatnot. So anyway, with that,
why don't we go ahead and uh do the
staff presentation.
>> Thank you, Chair Gar. Um, so the project
you have before you tonight is an appeal
of the planning director's decision to
approve a stable permit exception uh to
allow two horses at A31 Glen Craig Way
um where the property is um
approximately 19,800 square ft and when
1 acre is required. So the applicant has
applied for an exception to have two
horses on the site and that process is
all of those exceptions are reviewed by
the livestock and equestrian heritage
committee. On May 27th, 2026, the
livestock committee reviewed the
proposed exception. Um they went through
the various findings uh that are
required and the reasoning based um the
reasoning to make those findings
provided by the applicant. Uh there is a
neighbor that spoke um that did not
support the project and asked the
livestock committee to uh deny the
exception primarily related to issues
for dust um insects and noise.
Um after reviewing the project and um
some of members who which did site
inspections uh they determined that they
could make the findings and recommended
approval of the stable exception by
unanimous vote. Um then on May 29th, uh
myself, the plan director, I took that
recommendation and I approved the stable
exception.
Uh within the 10-day appeal period, the
neighbor at 841, Glen Craig Way, filed a
timely appeal um and is requesting that
the planning commission uh uphold the
appeal, which would then deny the stable
exception.
Given the reasoning provided by the
livestock equestrian heritage committee
and the required findings that need to
be made, staff recommends approval of
the project. So it would be to deny the
appeal and to uphold the initial
decision to approve the project. Um, I
do want to note that while the applicant
noted five findings in the um in their
submitt, uh because they're not asking
for more than two horses, only really
the first three findings are necessary
um to be made. So, if the um planning
commission determines that the findings
can be made, the commission should deny
the appeal and can adopt the draft
resolution in attachment one, attachment
A. Um, if the commission determines
that, uh, one of those findings cannot
be made, uh, they should explain why one
or more findings cannot be made and
reasoning to uphold the appeal and deny
the exception. And just to note for the
public that any decision of the planning
commission uh, can be appealed to the
town council. Um, but with that, I'm
happy to answer any questions that you
may have.
wanted to ask if there are members of
the uh equestrian uh sorry the livestock
equestrian heritage committee here.
No one. Yes. Okay. Questions of them?
Well, and I I do want to um note that uh
>> that they are not in a hearing setting
and so they can speak as private
residents and not as livestock
equestrian heritage committees. So, it's
important for any members of the public
who do speak who are on committees to
know what committee you're on, but that
tonight you're entirely speaking as an
individual. And it would be up to them
if they'd like to speak. They may not
choose to speak. Um so, if you do have
any questions about the meeting, um you
can let me know. uh but we want to make
sure that they're not speaking the
capacity as a livestock committee member
because they cannot speak for the entire
committee.
>> So uh Sage, I would have a question of
you if you're knowledgeable in this in
this sphere, right? Um does a town have
a process and procedure to ensure new
permit application with uh change of
ownership of a property?
>> Yes. Uh new ownership is supposed to uh
obtain a new permit. So the the permits
are not transferable. Um there has been
times in the past where people have just
been sent renewal notices and they have
just paid the fee to renew it. It's been
automatically renewed. In this
particular case, for this application,
what we're recommending with the
approval of the exception is that the
applicant actually apply for a new
permit with the new number of horses
with an updated waste management plan,
insect control plan, and dust control
plan. And it will be incumbent upon the
applicant to do that, which will then be
reviewed by the livestock subcommittee
where they'll do an inspection. um and
if they find it in compliance with all
other aspects of section 115.12
um they can approve that stable permit.
>> My my question was in in the area of is
there actually a u a process uh that is
undertaken when ownership changes. So, I
understand all those all those things
that need to be done,
>> but
>> we don't know when ownership changes.
Um, so, uh, if a renewal is sent out to
a previous owner and they do not renew
it, it would be up to the new owner to
make sure they file an application.
>> And when what is the, uh, duration of of
a permit?
>> It's for one year.
>> It's only a year.
>> They have to renew their their stable
permit every year. They're basically
paying fees just to keep horse on the
property, which is relatively minimal
fee. It's to make sure that they're
compliant with that section I noted. Um,
and then they if their horses use the
trail, they pay trail maintenance fees.
>> And I have a follow-up question
regarding the one acre rule. So, what is
the purpose of um 1 acre minimum to have
a horse or two?
>> Um, I I don't know exact details of of
how that came about. years ago. Um they
established a minimum lot size and then
they provide this exception process. Uh
so I think uh over the years I've been
with a town um there are a few
exceptions that have been applied for
and my understanding for the livestock
committee is their primary goal is to
look at the safety and adequate space
for the horses themselves and the number
of horses being proposed. Um, so, uh, so
they they primarily look at the health
and safety for the horses on the
property.
>> Can you talk a little bit about the
history of of the exceptions? Have they
generally been granted? Has it been
mixed?
>> It's a good question. Um, yes, they have
all been granted. And so, we looked back
to 2010. Um, they have all been granted.
There was one application that just
didn't pursue it. Um, their application
was deemed incomplete and I believe they
moved away from the property. Uh but all
of the other exceptions were
specifically all for a number of horses.
They weren't for any other aspect of the
stable requirements and all of those
were approved. Is there hard for the lot
sizes?
>> Um no. There's just a matter of looking
at the if the facilities are adequate to
serve the number of horses.
>> When they make those uh facility
assessments, do they look at a sort of
minimum square footage per horse?
>> Yeah, there there well I wouldn't say
that per se. There are minimum
requirements in the code that have to be
met. So each horse has to have an
individual stall. Stall has to be at
least 10 by 10. And then they have to
have um the code just requires a minimum
of 600 square ft of turnout area for all
the horses on the property. Um it
doesn't define per horse on turnout.
» It do we have um codes on uh percent of
lot expected to be part of horse or
minimum?
>> No, that's not required. It's it's I
think really, you know, if you had a 5
acre site versus a 1acre site, you know,
obviously a larger site might might have
a much smaller percentage dedicated to
horses.
>> Um, and then there's are there some
basic uh town codes around setbacks on
barns and paddics on
>> Yeah, good good question. Um, so for
barns, um, for new shelters, uh, those
have to meet the required setbacks just
like a house. Um they have
>> front of lot, back of lot, side of lot.
>> Correct. And that so you what you might
find and and may be in the case in this
property, older barns may have been
built prior to the current setback
requirements just like older buildings
um may not meet current setback
requirements. So those can always remain
in place, be repaired or even replaced.
Um and then it's also a good question to
note that turnout areas can go right up
to a property line. Uh when I first
started in 2008, they had just uh
changed the the stable ordinance right
before I started. And previously, there
was a 10- foot setback um from turnout
areas, except when they made that
ordinance change almost 20 years ago, um
they directly removed that and so horses
could go right up to the property line
on all sides.
>> Correct.
with the uh nontransferability of
permits and I believe also ex that
applies to the exceptions as well.
>> That's correct.
>> So I guess what has been the history if
any of
situations like what we're looking at
today, right, which which presumably
infrastructure built under the guise of
an exception, right, that's granted i.e.
x number of stalls that exceeds the sort
of baseline capacity of the of the
house. Has there been any any precedent
with that in terms of
>> um not that I'm aware of. Um the know
each each exception is different. You
know, they've ranged from being less
than an acre to having, you know, more
than seven horses on three acres. Um so
they kind of range mo most of them we
see have been around two to three horses
on a property um that just don't meet
that minimum lot size to accommodate
those by the code.
Thank you.
>> One more question. So, uh, as far as a
permitting, yearly permitting, so anyone
that has a horse has to renew their
permit yearly. That correct?
>> That's correct.
>> And that means that there needs to be an
inspection by
>> No, they they don't get inspections
every year at this point. Once they get
their permit and it has been inspected,
then they just pay the fees to renew
each year. And it should be flagged by
the finance department that if anyone
increases the number of horses that that
person first talks to the planning
department.
>> So in this case uh the neighbor at 841
um Glen Craig
uh his biggest uh objection was that the
fact that his fence was being used as
part of the corral, part of the paddic,
right? Uh so my previous question was
relating to why was offense not mandated
for the actual horse owner for
>> I don't know when you know when they
issued that license it's a matter of
sometimes the finance department was
just accepting renewals um I'm not 100%
sure um but uh it is something that they
should have a horse turnout fence in
which they have since installed
» so Sage I had a couple of questions for
In reviewing the staff report and the
findings we were asked to make, there
were a couple things that showed
themselves in the in the municipal code.
Um, typically for residential properties
for human use, if we grant an exception
or a variance for building height or
um construction within a setback, part
of the boilerplate is that we are
required to make a finding that the
granting of the exception does not
represent a special privilege and also
that the granting of the exception
is not out of character with the rest of
the neighborhood. Now, looking at the
list of findings we are being asked to
make tonight, we have no requirement to
make a finding that this does not
represent a special privilege.
Um, correct?
>> That is correct. Yeah, the findings that
are listed in the report are the only
findings that need to be made for the
exception. And we do not need to make a
finding that
granting the exception is still within
the character of the neighborhood.
>> That's correct. Yeah. Even just briefly
just for the uh benefit of the public.
Um the three findings that need to be
made is one, the exception shall not
impair the health, safety or welfare of
the livestock maintained on the site.
Number two, the exception will not
result in any adverse health, safety,
noise, traffic, or visual impacts on
surrounding properties and roadways. And
number three, the proposed the proposed
use complies with all other standards of
section 115.12
regarding private stables. And that
section of the code is all the other
requirements such as um the the stable
size, the turnout area, the location of
a hose bib, um things of that nature.
So, all of those have been shown to be
in compliance. In this case, it's just a
number of horses.
>> And just to get this for context on the
record, um you folks did pull the
exemptions that have occurred uh for
stable since 2010 and there were eight
of them. And then looking at the um
those and turning those eight exemptions
into horses per acre, the highest horse
density I could find was a exemption for
three horses on 1.17 acres, which was
2.6 horses per acre. And here we're
talking about two horses on 045 acres,
which is greater than four horses per
acre.
>> That's correct. This is the the densest
that we Okay. So, this is denser than
anything we've done in the last 15
years.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> No further questions for staff.
» Anyone else?
>> Um, just one more question. So, the part
of the
Uh Mr. Clark's appeal talks about some
sort of drainage and some other items.
Was that was that investigated by the
town?
>> Uh it I believe there was a inquiry
related to the drainage that's being
looked at by the um engineering
department. So if someone has if there
is drainage install that needs permits
um that's something that the engineering
department will be looking into. Um it's
not necessarily a subject of the
exception tonight. Uh but uh they that
stuff goes through code enforcement if
necessary.
>> Is is it standard to have to
creating a paddic or or a stable to have
met standard drainage requirements prior
to use?
>> I I think it just varies based on
stables. Um there's not a requirement um
that says someone must install drainage
to a certain standard. Um, so I think
people uh they have all different types
of riding arenas and turnouts and uh
round pins. Um, and so some sites may
need more adequate range than others.
» One other question on on historical
context, which is uh in reading a number
of the desk items, it seemed like there
was a history of two horses on the site
were here in 2026. We weren't here in
prior years. What what what has changed?
right that that we are now here was it
previous exceptions that were granted
etc.
>> Yeah. Um I I don't know the the direct
answer in general terms there was a
point in which stable permits were not
required and maybe some of the people
who just had historically had horses
never ended up getting a permit. Um
you know some people just didn't renew
permits. New owners maybe didn't know
they needed a permit. I mean there could
be a variety of reasons. Uh it's
something that's being followed up on
more and the plan department continues
to speak with administration uh
administration department to make sure
things are being followed correctly.
>> Essentially triggering event being the
>> uh the application for the exception.
>> Yeah. And you know really focusing on
the exception that's before us tonight.
So they are asking for the two horses on
this property. um if that is granted
that should really be the main focus um
as opposed to what maybe should have or
could have happened in the past.
So thank you.
All right. Well then we will move on to
the uh presentation by the appellant. Uh
keep it to 10 minutes
this point.
>> Have a couple displays. Is there a place
I can put those
here?
» You can I mean what? Yeah, whatever you
think works best. You can leave it
against our
» uh I can there in case
>> I can scoot over.
» Hi everybody.
I don't need that. Or do you want me to
use it?
>> Uh, yes, you do need to folks online
can't hear unless you're speaking into
the mic.
Can
>> I just quickly point out we don't have a
separate timer, so we'll be doing a
threeminut timer three times just so
everyone's not confused.
>> Okay.
Good evening. Uh, my name is John Clark.
My wife, Linda, and I have owned our
property at 841 Glen Craig for 30 years.
Tonight, I ask you to reverse the
livestock committee's decision allowing
two horses on a lot that is half the
minimum size required for even one
horse. To be clear, I have no objection
to horses. As a child, we spent summer
in Colorado and Wyoming. I learned to
ride at the Razles ranch where every day
we played capture the flag on horseback.
Our daughters were active members at
Junior Riders. For many years, I owned a
108acre ranch that was part of a 135,000
acre co-op ranch in Santa Barbara Cel
County where we ran cattle and herded
them on horseback. Polar ponies need to
be exercised regularly, and my father
kept aid at home. It was hard to keep up
their exercise schedule, so whenever I
went to visit, I knew what I was in for.
I was expected to help out. Polar ponies
have two speeds: stop and full speed.
This is of course uh exhilarating, but
it can also be exhausting. And when they
did finally tire out, dad just brought
me the next one. So to the neighbors who
wrote letters referring to me as
non-horse people, well, you got me.
There have been moments in my life where
the last thing I wanted to see was
another polar pony. This is not about
horses. It's not about me. It's about
whether town rules and laws are
followed. Of course, I don't have any
authority and will not be making any
decisions tonight. were not here because
of me, but due to an invitation from the
town to participate, because of a
request by my neighbor. You are the only
ones with any authority here tonight."
The owner's response letter disputes
many issues I never raised, yet avoids
the key ones. He never explains why no
lotsize exception or stable permit
applications were submitted in 2015
because he knows they were not. He never
addresses the fence built on my property
because he knows it is. He never
mentions the unpermitted French drain
discharging into the creek or the
unpermitted fill placed against that
creek or even the existence of that
creek. Why not? He had the opportunity
to. With this in mind, I've simplified
my presentation to focus on just one of
the reasons why the livestock committee
decision should be reversed. They simply
did not know what they were approving.
In many cases, because the applicant
concealed it. In other cases, because
they didn't care to ask. But they should
have. That's their job. Tonight, this is
your job. Ask the questions. Get the
answers for yourself. Everything I
discussed comes back to one fact. 831
Glen Craig is too small for two horses.
Under Woodside Municipal Code, Chapter
115, a 1acre minimum is required for one
horse. This property is only 045 acres,
less than half that requirement.
Approving this sets a dangerous
precedent. Does the town allow houses
more than double the square footage
limit? No. Or double the height? Of
course not. When the applicant purchased
the property in 2015, the existing
stable permit could not legal legally
transfer. The transfer disclosure states
the equestrian boarding was
non-conforming and the stable permits
could not be assigned to the new owner.
Per Woodside Municipal Code 115, stable
permits are non-transferable. Sage,
because the lot is under one acre, a lot
size exception was required before any
stable permit could be considered. Yet,
no lots size exception or stable permit
application was submitted or approved in
2015, and no records exist showing who
issued the permit, how or why. The town
will tell you they have no idea how this
happened or who did it. In fact, per the
canceled meeting notice of November 20
uh on November 18, 2015, this should
have been impossible. The property was
purchased on November 7 and no further
meetings were held in 2015. It's not
possible that any applications were
submitted and approved. So, this never
happened. And the livestock committee
knew this when they approved a second
horse on May 27 this year. They knew it,
but they didn't care. Those missing
applications required disclosure of
fencing, nearby creeks, drainage
facilities, and other site conditions,
drainage facilities.
None of that information was reviewed in
2015, and the livestock committee asked
for none of it on May 27 of 26. Woodside
also requires drainage documentation,
addressing concentrated flows, drainage
changes, and water quality impacts.
Sanonteo County has far stricter
regulations. None of this was ever
submitted or evaluated by the town or
county. So, as the next door neighbor,
fully aware of this, what did I do about
it? How did I respond? Who did I report
this to? Nobody. I did nothing. I
ignored what I saw. I minded my own
business for 10 years.
Only after the town invited public
comment on this new application did I
raise any concerns. Strangely enough,
the new application finally requires
compliance with today's regulations. As
Julie confirmed in an email yesterday,
because the exception was approved, a
new stable permit is required. The
property must be inspected and the owner
must comply with all current chapter 15
requirements. That means previously
undisclosed conditions must now be
reviewed. The owner will have to
disclose the extensive French drain
system installed throughout the paddic
and turnout area. Those photographs show
that work in progress. A French drain is
something you might recall the drainage
requirements form describes as a
concentrated flow. There are hundreds of
feet of French drain installed with no
permit. The livestock committee also
required completion of the turnout
fencing. It was finally built just
before the hearing, but they built it on
my property despite repeating warnings
not to do so. The committee also notes
that the owner never requested a final
inspection for it. So, the committee
never learned that the fence encroaches
onto my land before approving this. How
often are woods are projects in Woodside
considered finished and occupancy
approved before the final is signed off?
None. Never. But this one was. The owner
knew his fence was on my land and
clearly didn't want an inspection to
reveal this before the meeting. That's
why there was no inspection. The
applications also asked whether any
immediate health and safety hazards
exist. In my opinion, one absolutely
does. Yet, it was never disclosed. Just
feet from the turnout is a vernal creek
head leading to Kinyatta Road and Bear
Golts Creek. And that French drain is
deposited straight into it. Why is the
applicant never disclosed this? Because
this is effectively a septic system for
the horse facility and it's being dumped
into our local creek. This is water I
collected from that area just a few days
ago.
This is a clear adverse health impact
and Sanonteo County has already begun
investigating. According to information
provided by the town, county ordinance
4913 prohibits non-storm water discharge
into the storm drain system and water
courses and prohibits concealing such
violations. The owner never disclosed
this drainage system to the town, county
or livestock committee despite
application requirements.
The county the or the owner as county
ordinance 4913 defines this concealed
it. Sage saw this area when he came out
to confirm the new fence was built on my
land. He knew about the leech field and
the fill area. He saw it for himself. He
saw the brown stinky water foaming in
the creature ditch. He shrugged. The
livestock made their decision. They
approved it. In 2015, the town performed
no oversight and failed to require the
live standard application processes that
were mandatory. In 2026, the livestock
committee did it again and approved a
second horse without ever considering
Woodside Municipal Code 115, and they
missed a lot of things. Some of these
were very important. This one was
extremely important. But there's more.
When 831 Glen Craig was for sale in
2015, I made an offer and received the
transfer disclosures. Those documents
state septic field is not operating
correctly. Pat Dempsey reported this
system would not take water. Air and
septic the effluent level was above the
outlet and not draining. If that septic
system is failing and a French drain has
since been installed above it, waste
water could be redirected into the
adjacent creek. That possibility should
have been disclosed and evaluated.
But the life's Dr. Marty
never had the opportunity to consider
these facts because they were never
presented. It seems obvious why the
applicant never addressed these issues
in his response letter to my appeal. He
knows exactly what he did and he did it
all because his property is too small
for two horses. There's simply not
enough space for the turnout to drain on
its own. And because the septic system
under it is failing, there's a moisture
problem. If I did not before, I hope I
now have your attention. I hope you now
understand why I said that the livestock
committee did not know what they were
approving. They knew nothing about any
of this and of course they didn't want
to know. I've invested significant time
and expense to bring these issues before
the planning commission because I
believe they deserve careful review.
It's time for these matters to be
addressed properly, preferably beginning
with the removal of the fence that's on
my property. I respectfully ask you to
reverse the approval of the second
horse. Thank you.
Any questions?
No. All right. Thank you.
» All right. We'll proceed to the uh
presentation by the Apple.
» Boy, it's uh really tough to stand here
and not scream.
My name is Manish Monroe. I live at 831
Glen Craig Way. I'm here tonight to
respectfully ask that the planning
commission deny Mr. Clark's appeal and
uphold the stable exception approval
recommended by the livestock committee.
Mr. Clark paid $1,000 to contest the
livestock committee's recommendation.
That gave him the right to appeal, and I
respect that process, but it did not
give him a license to turn a narrow,
stable exception issue into a platform
of unrelated
grievances. The question before you this
evening is not to resolve Mr. Clark's
long list of grievances, disputes,
frustrations, and across the board
complaints. The question before you
tonight is narrow. Can two horses be
kept responsibly at 831 Glen Craig Way
under the town stable exception
standards and conditions that would be
imposed by the town? And is that
consistent with the Woodside general
plan? Based on the actual record, I
believe the answer is yes. prior to the
unanimous 5 to zero vote to recommend
approval to livestock committee members
visited our property for inspection.
Additionally, the minutes from the
meeting state that the facilities were
more than adequate for the horses health
and safety, that the stalls, turnouts,
and paddics were all well constructed
and maintained and that sufficient
measures were in place to manage manure
and control dust. And the most
importantly, the minutes state the
overall lot size did not affect the area
dedicated to the horse facilities. That
record should matter. This exception is
also within the spirits Woodside within
the spirit of Woodside's general plan
pol uh general plan policy CL4.1
which states that the town should
promote and protect its equestrian
heritage by encouraging equestrian
facilities supporting equestrian events
programs and organizations and creating
incentives for horsekeeping including
streamlined permits for barns and
corral.
Now, as to any suggestion that our
horses are not happy, our veterinarian
is on record saying that the horses
consistently appear calm, comfortable,
healthy, and well cared for, and that
she has not observed any signs of undue
stress.
Another important record is that the
property has an existing oversized two
stall barn and a substantial portion of
the un the usable property is dedicated
to horses. Multiple members of the
Woodside horse community have emailed
the town confirming that 831 Glen Craig
pre uh previously supported two horses
without known issue. That record
directly undercuts the suggestion that
two horses are new, unusual or
unsustainable on this property. I also
want to address the practical concerns
raised about manure, flies, odor, dust
and noise, and Mr. Clark's property
value. Our horses live about 10 feet
from our bedroom window. So minimizing
flies, odor, dust, and noise is not just
about our neighbors well-being. It's
also crucial to our quality of life. We
manage manure, flies, dust, noise
aggressively. Manure is picked up
multiple times a day, placed in closed
covered bins, and removed every Friday
by green waste. There is no open manure
pile. We use crushed granite instead of
sand in the runs to reduce dust. We also
use multiple fly control measures
including simplify fly traps and fly
predators.
Flies can come from many sources and the
presence of flies at a neighboring home
does not prove that they came from our
property. The same is true for dust. The
appeal refers to the horses kicking
buckets and water troughs, but that does
not match our setup. We don't own water
troughs and that we don't use buckets at
home. We have automatic water dispensers
bolted to the fence and use a slow
feeder box and two rubber bowls for
supplements. If the slow feeder creates
a specific noise concern, I am willing
to secure pad modify or replace it. That
is a manageable issue, not a reason to
overturn the stable exception. If there
is a reoccurring noise issue, it should
be documented with a date, time, and
recording so it can be compared against
our security system to determine if
there is a correlation. The appeal also
raises property value concerns, but it
provides no appraisals, comparable sales
analysis, or market evidence. So when
you look at the actual facts, the horse
care, the facilities, the prior
two-horse use, the manure system, the
fly controls, the dust controls, a noise
issue that has not been proven, and a
lack of property value evidence, the
record supports approval. That brings me
to the spirit of the appeal itself.
I believe the appeal should be be viewed
for what it is. First, it raises broad
claims about the property slice, flies,
odor, dust, noise, porch welfare, town
permit issues, and property value.
Second, Mr. Clark's appeal moves away
from the stable exception criteria and
into personal commentary, unsupported
allegations, unrelated history, and old
grievances. It includes private private
commentary about a neighbor's financial
privacy after suggesting that privacy
should be respected. It re visits new
and old fence issues, tree property line
issues. It questions motives and raises
prior frustrations with neighbors,
community members, the town's permit
process. The appeal also questions the
judgment of the LEC.
It discusses reputations and speculates
about who may hold the grudge and why.
Mr. Clark even claims he knows that our
horses learned to ask to be fed or
watered by kicking water troughs that
don't exist.
And this appeal goes so far as to state
that a crime was committed when the
second horse was introduced. That is a
serious allegation.
One moment, please.
None of that helps answer the actual
question before the commission, but it
raises a fair question.
Is this appeal about one additional
horse, or is it an attempt to use this
appeal to reopen every complaint Mr.
Clark has had about horses, neighbors,
the town, and 831 Glen Craig? And more
importantly, is there a pattern here?
That question matters because Mr.
Clark's own appeal states that when he
bought his property, he knew that there
were horses next door. He could hear
them, smell them, and notic his flies
and and noticed flies and dusks and was
okay with that. These are his words in
his appeal. Yet, the relief he seeks
would effectively take away our ability
to keep both horses. He says the second
horse is totally unacceptable. asks the
town to limit our property to one horse
and then turns around and challenges the
existing of the first horse permit as
well.
I want to address the practical effect
of Mr. Clark's appeal if it is approved.
Removing a horse from the property would
take away an important part of how our
family participates in the Woodside
community. These horses are how we take part in the
Mayday parade, the Redwood City Fourth
of July parade, day of the horse junior
rodeo, and other events where Woodside
is represented. Would that really be in
the best interest of the Woodside
community? Does anyone here
actually believe that removing one horse
out of two will reduce flies, remove
odor, increase Mr. Clark's property
value, make both horses happier and
healthier, make it quieter and less
dusty, and will solve all the issues
that Mr. Clark raised. Look, I
understand that living next to horses
can raise concerns for a neighbor who
does not have horses, but in a healthy
community, any concern should start with
a neighborly conversation before
becoming formal complaints that use town
time and taxpayer resources. While I
can't speak on behalf of the entire
horse community, many of us believe that
being a good neighbor, contributing to
the community, and raising healthy,
happy horses responsibly are not
mutually exclusive.
If there's a genuine concern, talk to
us. We want to be part of the solution.
School members of the planning
commission, the question before you is
simple. Can two horses be responsibly
kept at 831 Glen Craig under the town
stable exception standards, the town's
conditions, and is that in line with
Woodside's general plan? The actual
report records approval, and I
respectfully ask the planning commission
to deny the appeal and uphold the stable
accession approval for 831 Clank
Craigway.
All right. So, uh we now have an
opportunity to ask questions of the uh
applicant.
Uh for the app the apple
» I I have one which is so we we heard
about the fence uh and the and the fence
line and and whatnot. I'm looking at
this um at the map here and so from what
I can see it looks like you know again
knowing that what we're deciding really
is is is focused on um health and safety
of of livestock is one of the findings.
Right. So, we heard about that fence
potentially moving.
>> I can tell you,
>> sorry, just two questions. One is, you
know, have there been surveys done? And
then two, uh, do we know that the delta
from where it is? And then, is that have
a material impact on the square foot?
>> I'll share that with you. So, ever since
we moved into the property, Mr. Clark
complained that he owned four feet on
our side. There were two metal rods, and
he kept pointing to them, saying, "Nope,
this is this is my property here." He
knew that there was a a marker in the
property that marked the corner of the
property, but he did not share that with
us. So, we ended up spending about
$7,000 because we knew he was going to
be an issue.
And we got the property surveyed. We had
a fence put in. And as you know, the
concrete that goes in the fence, I
believe a little bit of that concrete
post is on his side. He can have that
concrete. we can get that concrete cut.
The fence is not on his side. Now, if
there was an error made by the
contractor, Mr. Clark now has a
responsibility to prove that the fence
is on his side. And once that proof is
made, we will take steps. We will take
all of the necessary steps to conform to
the law, to what this commission
dictates, to what the overall uh rules
are. But we cannot come in here and
start talking about that our family
sewer is going into the creek. That's
absurd.
That is absurd.
Um, question for the applicant. Where on
the property is your septic tank leech
field?
>> It's on the driveway. Um, please step up
microphone.
>> I believe it's on the driveway
underneath the the front of the
property. You s I think when you came
by, you saw the septic tank. The septic
tank, I believe, when the house was
built. Uh, the septic tank might have
been outside, but there was a garage put
over it. So, that septic tank is there.
Um, and that leech field is underneath
that
um the front of the house, I believe.
>> Under the paved area,
>> I believe so.
>> Um, could the planning director speak on
whether that's code or not?
>> Um, I I don't know. This is the Sonteo
County. I don't believe they would
permit new uh paved areas over septic.
I'm not sure if it's in the dirt
semicircle area in the front, but um
it's yeah, it's a Sonteo County health
issue. Definitely for new systems. I
know that's being looked at.
>> You know, Mr. Clark's already called the
Sonteo uh county at one point. Uh we're
just waiting for like the DEA, the FBI
to show up. It's okay. The police, these
guys are going to keep coming and that's
okay. We will keep addressing these
issues, but they have come before.
Sonteo came and checked our uh our
septic tank. They said that there was
some sort of smell coming. Somebody made
a complaint. They came in, they checked
it. If you'd like, I can get back to the
commission on who that was. I don't know
if I have any records of that, but that
did happen.
» Thank you.
I'm making we're gonna if if you don't
mind, we're we're almost to the public
comment uh period. So, if you don't mind
just holding the comment
>> and if we do not have further questions
of the applicant or appellent, we will
go ahead and
getting anything uh we will go ahead and
open uh open public hearing. So, uh
again just the way this is this works is
a few things. So, one please do approach
and speak into the microphone. That's
important so that folks can uh hear if
they're participating online or for the
record. Uh there is a red uh button on
there to be able to slide it up and
down. So just push that and go up and
down. Uh please state your name and if
you're comfortable uh your residence and
there is a limit of 3 minutes uh per
person. Uh again just to reiterate also
we do have a lot of folks here. So don't
feel like you need to use all three
minutes or if you agree with something
else, you know, it's fine to state the
agreement. uh but you are also free to
uh to use the three minutes as you like.
So with that we will go ahead and open
uh public comments and uh and do we have
Julia are there folks on the Zoom and if
so we'll we'll probably switch back and
forth a bit.
>> Just a reminder for those online to use
the raise hand feature if you'd want to
make a comment.
>> So what we'll do is if there folks on
Zoom we'll we'll sort of alternate back
and forth uh and uh and go that way. So
why don't we open up with anyone in the
room like to uh make a comment uh now
would be the time. And I just want to
note that our timer that usually usually
shows up on our screen is not working,
but our deputy town
>> I actually reached out to Jen while we
were talking and we've got it fixed. So,
>> thank you.
» My name is Janet Estep. I've lived in
Woodside off and on for since 1956 when
we incorporated it as a horse community.
Okay.
And the area that Sue uh my friend lived
in the house that you were talking about
was in county all the time until I guess
you'd call it recently the Woodside took
an interest in it. But the regulations
that first of all I've had a uh permit
for over 50 years in Woodside on Raundo
and I resent the fact that they state
that nobody comes out and looks at your
barn. Nobody cares about your manure.
Nobody cares about the scent. They do. I
had the flu one year and I couldn't
clean my corral. I got three notices. I
was sick for three weeks. Every week I
got a notice, okay? And we took care of
it. We had we haul manure away. We cover
it up with dirt. We do whatever we
don't. And I don't have horses now, but
I renew my permit because I don't ever
want to give it up because when you do,
you have problems. Now Sue died
and now we have problems for the new
owner who we're trying to welcome into a
horse community.
This is still a horse community. I was
here. I know the men that put this town
together and it was put together to be a
horse community. Now we've been under
attack after the war. We were under
attack in the 60s. the 70s, we've seen
barns torn down and tennis courts put in
and swimming pools put in and even
soccer fields put in. And that's fine.
Those are the people they want to do
that. But in the meantime, we're still
here. The horses are still here. There's
not many of us. When I was younger,
there were 5,000 in town. Now
probablyund and something, I think. you
know, it's gone, but we're on our way
out. But Sue had a good house with two
horses, maintained the the grounds, and
she had that guy as her neighbor for 30
years.
Give us a chance with the new and don't
tell me that we do not regulate the
horse community. The horse community has
been regulated almost out of town. You
took away our commercial barns. You took
away the commercial permits on Kenyatta
long before you guys were here because
that happened in the 70s.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
» All right.
>> I'm Ricky Benadetti. Uh, I'm also on the
trails committee of the town. I'm not
here speaking from the trails committee.
I'm here just as a resident.
Any other disclosures I have to give you
or I
>> think you're good.
>> Okay. Um, we purchased the property at
833 Canata Road back in 1983.
That's 43 years ago. There's always been
horses looking through the window
towards Glen Craig.
We are here today to determine is the
site really large enough to have two
horses on it per the Woodside code. In
my viewpoint, I think it's important to
know why this all came up. Going back
into the 60s, 70s, and 80s
during the winter rains, there were a
lot of landslides up on Oak Hill, Summit
Springs, Partition, Patrol Road, and it
turned out that through the various
inspections, it was from horses being
kept on hillsides,
and they were just constantly churning
things up, mixing it up, making it
slippery, and washing out. They came up
with a plan to say, "Okay, let's only
have horses on one acre and larger."
Well, that's fine except that that was
for the hillsides, but it's a uniform
code throughout the town. So, there has
to be exceptions. You're looking at a
site at 831
Glen Craig that is relatively flat. The
soil is very compacted.
There's good drainage on it. So, there's
really no reason not to approve the
exception of horses on less than an
acre.
» Thank you.
» U my name is Bill Man. I live and own
the property at 823 Glen Craig Way,
which is directly adjacent to 8 uh 31.
Um, in fact, my property almost
surrounds his property. It has uh his
complete um sideyard run and then his
complete rear. So, I I'm very very close
to him. Um the I purchased the property
in and moved in in 1975
and there were horses there. It was a
mess. There was a a creek that went
through it. Um there was four horses on
the property all the time and it was
really poorly kept. Uh that was the uh
an owner, the first owner. Uh then uh a
girl named Suzian uh purchased a
property and started working cleaning it
up trying to uh rellandscape it and a
large portion of this property is
dedicated to horses. There's not a lot
of other stuff on it. Okay. Anyway, she
uh uh and then
the new owners have come in and cleaned
it up. And I'll tell you, I'm right
behind it and beside it. I have three
horses on my property. Um, and
there this year has been exceptional.
There are no flies. In fact, um, on my
place, it's amazing. Horses attract
flies, but um, I have out a lot of fly
control stuff. The new owner has out all
kinds of stuff. There's, in fact, people
have com commented when they come to,
they go, "You don't have any flies as
far as the noise or the dust." Um, you
know, um, I I don't notice anything. I
mean, you hear a horse winning now and
then, but, um, I don't see any problem
whatsoever with them having two horses
there. They're good neighbors, and they
have greatly improved the property, and
if you've been out there and saw it,
it's immaculate. I mean, it it it is
really what it should be. So, anyway,
thank you for your consideration. Thank
you.
Hi, I'm Karen Flores at 185 Hobart's
Heights in Woodside and I just want to
speak about this. Mr. Manro went to the
livestock committee and presented his
exception request which is what we
should all do. He put in place all the
necessary requirements for fly control,
sufficient and safe space for the two
horses, sufficient shelter, drainage,
etc. And he was approved for the two
horses by the committee. In my opinion,
he handled this in the proper way and he
went through the proper channels. I walk
in that area routinely and I had noticed
how nicely fixed up the property was
after the new family had purchased it. I
did not know who they were, but I was
very impressed with what they had done.
I saw the horse and now horses
frequently when I was on my walks. They
are clean. They're well cared for. I do
not notice dust, odor, or flies.
Woodside is a town known for its horses,
and it is part of our overall town
charter. It was the main reason I moved
here 35 years ago. There is a process in
place by the town to asssure that
stables meet certain requirements for a
residential area and Mr. Manra followed
that process and was approved for his
exception. I strongly support the permit
exception to allow the two horses to
remain on the property. Thank you.
My name is uh Dan Flores and I've lived
here the same number of years as my wife
and we do live in the same house.
>> Um
I just want to say something interesting
that struck me. I had some things
written down but something that really
struck me is Mr. Clark opened his
comments by trying to convey the idea
that he didn't dislike horses, that as a
child or as a youngster, he had ridden
horses and worked on horses. And yet,
when I heard his comments,
I didn't come away from that thinking,
this is a guy who likes horses. If
anything, it struck me as somebody that
kind of resented horses and resented all
the work that he had to do when he was
growing up with horses. So, I'm not sure
that any of that can be used to justify
any of the decisions that the members
here have to make. [clears throat] The
other thing is that there have been a
lot of comments about property values,
and that's certainly important. We all
live in Woodside. We certainly know what
property values are all about, but
there's all kinds of things that you
could list that might impact your
property values. It might be a barking
dog. It might be an old car parked in
front. Yes, there might be some dust. I
mean, we could sit here all evening and
just list all the things that might be
impacting somebody's property value.
To me, what is more important is the
character of this community. And if we
as a community and the members here
accept and want to support the character
of this community and one of the
characters of this community is that it
is a horse community. And even though
there aren't as many people now who ride
horses, absolutely it is absolutely one
of the things that makes this community
so charming. When people look around,
there are some people that want to live
in a more sterile environment like
PaloAlto. And I love PaloAlto. I don't
say that in a negative way. They want to
live in a condo or something like that
and that's good. But there are other
people that are attracted to more of a
outdoor type of community. I mean a lot
of neighbors you walk through the town
you see people have chickens. Wow. We
raise eggs. You see kids on kinata
selling eggs that have come from their
chickens. It's part of the overall
character that makes this community so
incredibly unique and beautiful. And I
really believe that we need to support
that and continue to support that. And I
think one of the ways that we can do
that is by supporting the request of Mr.
Monroe here. Now, does a neighbor have
the right to say you need to maintain
your property with your horses?
Absolutely. Nobody wants to live in an
area where somebody brings in 20 horses
and cleans up the horsemen once a month.
That is a very fair request.
Does somebody have the right to look
over and say, "Man, your horses should
be well taken care of. It looks like
they're never fed." That's not an issue
at all here.
He is meeting, matching, and surpassing
every request and need that a reasonable
horse owner would expect for their
horses above and beyond the call of
duty. You walk on the street as a final
comment. Oh, we're over time. Do you
mind just wrapping up?
>> Thank you very much for your time.
>> Thank you. Appreciate it.
Good evening and thank you for your
time. My name is Sarah Monroe. I'm 16
years old and I live at 831 Glen
Craigway. My family and I moved to
Woodside for one specific reason, to be
closer to the equestrian community and
my horses. During August of 2024, I
moved Bling, my first horse, over to 831
Glen Craig Way, and one of my friends
had her horse on the property for a
short period of time. Mr. Clark filed no
complaint about two horses during that
time. As soon as my friend's horse left,
Bling was left alone. Now, if you've had
experience around horses, you would know
that horses are herd animals. Having two
horses that get along is going to make
sure both horses are quieter, calmer,
and happier. Having one horse by itself
is simply cruel, and is the recipe for
an unhappy horse. In Mr. Clark's appeal,
he mentions that the livestock committee
members one did not listen and two made
up their own mind based upon their own
ideas that had no basis in fact.
However, the meeting lasted one and a
half hours. They did listen and two of
the members spoke about how they spent
some time by the horse area observing
the horses and from their own experience
and knowledge concluded the horses are
well cared for and there was enough room
for them. Another claim that was made
was the fly amount had increased. When I
read this, two things came to mind. One,
manure gets picked up multiple times a
day into closed bins and leaves the
property weekly. And according to the
fly life cycle, it simply reduces the
chances of an extensive amount of flies
to be born. The claim that there are
more flies is subjective. No objective
measurements were provided to
demonstrate that there had been an
unusual increase or that is related to
our property and specifically our
horses. These are just two examples
throughout the letter where I noticed an
assumption or baseless statement without
evidence to support it. In the summer of
2025, my family bought Billy the second
horse. Both of these horses are my best
friends, and I couldn't imagine living
without them. In fact, me and my family
purposely didn't hire anyone to take
care of them so I could have the full
responsibility and get the full
equestrian experience. I have skipped
multiple hangouts with friends, school
activities, and events to make sure they
get the best quality of life and enjoy
living with us. For us, getting rid of
one horse would simply mean getting rid
of both, as it's not fair to keep one by
itself. Woodside already has an extreme
decrease in horse properties and horses
as a whole. Please don't let your
decision today contribute to the
continued loss of the equestrian
community that has been a long defining
part of Woodside's identity. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Good evening. I'm Maggie Ma. I'm a
member of the trails committee. I'm here
um um as a resident, but I would like to
address the issue of um question of
stable permits. Um I have uh a lot of
personal experience with this. I'm a
horse owner. I moved here 30 years ago.
Um, there was an existing stable permit
and I I knew about it because the old
permit was stuck up on the barn. Um, and
I was I had boarded horses down here at
another spot. So, I knew there was
stable permits permitted. However, a lot
of people don't, as Sage said, um, there
is really no mechanism within the town
to allow to alert the town that
properties change hands. So, um, uh, as
a member of the trails committee, we
work with the town to issue the stable
permit invoices every year. Um, we have
a budget that comes from the trail user
fees that people pay according to how
many horses they have that regularly
ride the trails.
Um, and that makes up half our budget.
And that goes into repairing trails. So,
we keep a close eye or we try to keep a
close eye on the stable permit. I will
tell you this and it's been going on for
years that the town I'm sorry Sage, but
the town has been has never had good
records about stable permits.
Uh, at one point, um, so what happens is
the the property changes hands. Um, the
invoice goes out it and it goes to the
former the former owner, right? So the
current owner will look at that and he
goes, "Well, that's just for somebody
else." Maybe they'll forwarded it, maybe
they won't, but the but the previous
owner is going to go, "Well, I don't
live there anymore. Why should I have
this?" Right? So you can imagine. So
when a when a stable permit invoice goes
unpaid, this is the current procedure.
It is dropped from the next year's
mailing list. So there there's no way to
track what has happened to it. There is
no way to know who really has a permit.
There's a lot of horses in in Woodside
that are unaccounted for. We we're
pretty sure of that, but we don't
there's no way to prove it. So, there
are permits that are that are that have
never been taken out. There are permits
that don't get renewed for whatever
reason. Most people in Woodside who have
horses are good about this, but but this
hap this this is classic. I mean, every
year we see that there are permits that
fall by the wayside. So, um, it became
so frustrating at one point that I went
down to the town and having spent a fair
amount of time documenting all of the
dedicated equestrian easements
in 2008, five, something like that. Um,
I actually found a bind. I asked the
town, "Do you have a binder where the
stable permit applications reside?" I
was shown a binder and I copied them.
And Miss Sheen's name is here along with
five other households on Glen Craig. So,
the the idea that that she's never had a
permit is ridiculous. So, I also worked
on the general plan. I know I'm out of
time here. I worked on the general plan
and I can't I I just want to support
what other people have said about this
is this is a horse country. I'm lucky
enough to have good neighbors who look
out for their horses and look out for
mine and I wish the minor hours the
same. Thank you.
Hello. I am Heather Schilling. I am
privileged to say that I'm a fifth
generation woodsider. I currently also
live on Glen Craig and I know their
facility quite well. Um I my entire
professional life has been working with
horses. I was the barn manager at at uh
NCFT
uh head instructor at NCT, barn manager
and head instructor at BK Ranch. I
currently work at Westwind in Los Altos
and I've taught junior riders for 23
years. So I have extensive history and
understanding of herd management, barn
management, and horse care. Um, what I
will say about their property is that is
immaculate. It is beautiful. Those
horses are extremely well cared for.
They're quiet. They're lovely. They're absolute. I see Sarah riding all
the time. She takes such good care of
those horses. I just couldn't say
anything nicer. Um,
I
really want to support this horse
community. I am also privileged to say
that my great-g grandandmother was one
of the founding members of the trail
club. So, I am very vested in this. I
any in any way or fashion that I can
show up for the horse community, I
absolutely will. Um, there is so much
history. I remember going through um old
photo albums uh at my grandmother's
house on Mansonate away looking at uh
many old pictures and I just got some
pictures from my aunt last night. Um
just some very old vintage pictures of
my family and the horses involved.
Horses are such a huge part of this
community and horses have the ability to
bring people together as we all know
from day of the horse and many other
things that this town does. So I just
wanted to come here to support them. I
know that their facility is beautiful,
well cared for, and um
I think that's about it. I'll keep it
short.
» How's it going everybody? Good evening.
Um I'm John Hayward and I was asked to
take a look at this by Mr. Monroe
because I am the current and have been
for the last nine years facilities
manager at web branch which is a I would
call densely uh populated stable with uh
about 300 horses. Um about 200 of which
are housed in in facilities about the
same size. Um
I also work with uh county permitting on
this. I work with all of our local vets,
friers, our state vet, CDFA, and I'm
very well verssed in all of the issues
that have come up tonight. Um, a couple
things that uh caught my attention. I
did read the brief um that was uh put
online and it seemed like a lot of these
uh issues that are brought up were
related to fencing and arborist issues,
contractors, things like that. Um, and
so I'm just going to speak on the
current state of the site which I
visited. Um, as well as the car the
horses. Um, if you talk with the state
vet or CDFA, um, though the town may
have different reasoning, uh, their
general reasoning for for requiring
stling permits and especially with them,
county of Sanonteo of an acre per horse
is mostly related to overg grazing. Um,
their horses here at this uh, property
are not grazing. they're they're fed hay
and supplements every day. Um they also
have adequate fencing um which has been
mentioned. They have plenty of space as
far as um stable in addition to the
turnout. Um typically, you know, in a a
facility like we have a turnout area of
600 square ft is more than adequate. Um
I believe their turnout area is close to
5,000 on the property. Um so more than
adequate. Uh the way they handle manure,
flies, all that is absolutely adequate
and that's coming from somebody that
does deal with about 80 cubic yards of
manure daily. Um that gets put right
next to our Lera neighbors. Um and we
have dealt with them before and and uh
yeah, manure is typically the biggest
issue with neighbors. Um the way they
handle the manure, picking it up
multiple times every day, keeping it in
covered bins till it's picked up. Um
it's incredible. Um, I've also worked
with their horses a little bit over at
the mount of patrol when they've brought
them over and they are very happy,
healthy horses. Um, no hoof issues, no
major medical issues. Um, they're just kept incredibly well. So,
um, I think that's all I have and uh,
yeah, thank you. Thanks for talking.
Thank you.
» Hi, I'm Christina Chantolo. I'm at 1389
Kenyana Road. Um I'm an equin
professional uh in Woodside for the past
20 years. I've been managing public and
private barns um Foldier Stable and a
lot of private barns in Woodside. And uh
the facility at um A31 Glen Crag is is
remarkable. I mean I have never seen a
fly system that way. Um it's clean, it's
dustfree, and the horses are very happy.
So I want to just second what everyone
else has has said today. And that's all
you.
» We do have one raised hand online now.
Anita, I'm going to give you permission
to speak. you just need to unmute.
» Hi, this is Ann Vancamp.
Um, I just wanted to uh chip in and just
support what everyone has been saying in
support of um agreeing with the two
horses on the property. Um, I'm
currently uh traveling and sadly not
able to be there in person. Um and I
don't want to take too much more time
but just want to agree with the um
arguments in favor especially um most
important to me is to keep good sight
for horse country and um I'm hoping that
the planning committee will um approach
me to
this uh specific property for Thank you
so
you.
» We have any other comments in the room?
» I'm Carrie Oberi. I live at 621 East. Um
I'm familiar with the property. I used
to house it for Sushi and she had two
horses and he's done so many
improvements to the property and I've
been there since then and I drive by
there at least four times a day going
back and forth to the school.
never seen manure in the on the property
and it's beautiful and I think they're
doing a good job.
>> Thank you.
» Good evening. My name is Alita Reed and
I've owned horses
uh for 50 years. They had the privilege
of living in Woodside. I did not. I
lived in Redwood City. I did know Sue
many, many years. She always had two
horses on her property. And I just
wanted to address the history of the
property that there always were two
horses there and to all of a sudden
eliminate one uh is definitely not fair.
So that's my input on this subject.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Lupita and I'm Susan
Chen's adopted daughter. I live uh an
A31 Glen crack for a few years with her
and we always have two horses and we
always have problems with Mr. Clark.
problems about the fence, problems about
the trees, problems about the windows
replacement, problems about anything you
can name it. He's [snorts] been a
harassing person since he moved into
that property. And unfortunately, I have
two kids and unfortunately they could
not be friends, my kids, with his girls
because it's always something between
them. like uh Alexis uh his daughter
used to be a friend of my daughter
Kimberly and they always have problems
about playing together or something. He
will get mad upset with them. So I feel
bad that now the all these problems pass
it to Mrs. Monroe's family which they're
very nice family and uh the way he does
is he takes everything legally and go
number by number and justified and this
he seems like he's not a horse lober if
you're doing this to a horse to a horses
that is nothing I mean they're not
bothering his property and they're not
in his property so I feel sad for
Monro's family and they have to go
through this Because my mother having
cancer, she go she went through all this
against him like fighting for the fans.
They he make him make her move the fence
and he put another fence separated. It
was just a disaster and it was sad to
see my mother go fighting always with
him. And the last word she told me,
"Whatever you do, don't you ever sell my
property to Mr. Clark."
That was her wishes and I did it.
Evening guys. Uh my name is Dan
Janatasia. I live in Redwood City on Kev
Canyon Road. Um I think this you guys
moving forward you should take this as
an example of not losing the horse
community that you have in this area and
actually welcoming it and moving, you
know, with the exceptions. I think you
guys should probably make exceptions
with how tight this world is and how
people are willing to put money out for
a hobby that costs a lot. You have other
arrangements with kids in school and
college, but they're willing to go out
and get these horses. There's a lot of
people and we're trying to bring up the
next generation. And if we have problems
with getting land for 4, FFA, horse
corral, what the manure is, people that
move in your airports know there's going
to be an airport sound. People that move
into a community with horses need to
realize there's going to be horse. you
may have to slow down and pull over,
stop, let the horses move through
because at some point there's going to
be a lot of cars and motorcycles in this
area. So, uh, thank you very much.
» Any other comments?
» All right. Well, we will go ahead and
close public hearing then. And the next
step is uh is commissioner deliberation.
So before we uh sorry there is a hand.
Is that a hand for a comment?
>> Yeah, a hand just went up. Um iPhone
184. You want to let them speak?
>> Uh sure. Yeah, if it's public comment.
Yeah, let's get the last one in.
>> Okay. You've been given permission to
speak. You just need to unmute.
>> Yes. Hi, my name is Sharon Butler. Um,
I've been in the equestrian community
for about 25 years. I also knew Sushi
Han for over 10 years. Um, I just also
want to reiterate that there have also
um there have been two horses on that
property for as long as I have known
Sue. And the neighbors then main um
attack on Sue was about property lines,
not about the number of horses that
she's had. We um I'm a on the board of
Satel County Horseman's Association and
I totally agree with the gentleman that
just spoke that we are really needing
the next generation of equestrians to
come up which is Sarah. Um I personally
know Munich, his wife Nidi and Sarah.
They are lovely people. They're a
wonderful ambassador to our equestrian
community. Um, and I would hate to see
anything happen to them not being able
to ride through Woodside because they've
had to remove their horses um from
Woodside. So, I also am in favor of um
allowing them to have this exception
permit and keep both horses on the
property. Um, thank you so much for your
time.
>> Thank you.
» All right. So with that, no other hands
online. Okay, we'll go ahead and close
public hearing then and uh and proceed
to commissioner uh deliberations. So
just to maybe set the the context for
that and a reminder of we've heard a lot
of of different things. The decision in
front of us is can we make three
findings uh just to reiterate it. Number
one is the exception will not impair the
health, safety or welfare of the
livestock maintained on the site. So
that one focused on the livestock. The
exception will not result in any adverse
health, safety, noise, traffic or visual
impacts on surrounding properties and
roadways and the proposed use complies
with all under standards of 115.12 which
again is the private stables uh pieces.
I think the other thing that that is the
narrow sort of decision in front of us.
Uh we are also uh sworn to uphold the
general plan and we we all know that does carry quite a few elements of
equestrian community in it. Um so that
in my mind is also quite germanine to
the decision that we should be making
because it's the context in which this will this will sit. Um so
with that I'll also disclose we uh big
piece of why we're here as well. We have
an eight and and 10year-old who are is
training as well. So certainly
understand the horse community and and
that nature of our town. Uh but with
that um would anyone like to to kick off
discussions?
» [clears throat]
>> So none of the uh findings uh I can go
against any none of the findings uh
fairly narrow uh narrow decision uh as
far as that's concerned. U the
grievances by the neighbor
um although they might be important to
him have don't have really anything to
do with with our deliberation. Uh the
drainage issue is uh being handled uh by
staff at this point or in the future. Uh
the fence issues have been resolved
other than um the con the small peers
that appear to be on on Mr. Clark's
property. uh but that can be removed I
suppose uh without you know without
impacting uh our decision. So, um I
can't find any uh objections to to this
uh well actually I would not uh I would
not approve the appeal uh that is before
us and I would uphold the exception by
the uh livestock committee for the two
horse u permit on 831 Glen Craig.
As Richard just pointed out, the
findings we are being asked to make
tonight are quite narrow and defined by
the municipal code. And [clears throat]
in the context of that
of what we're being asked uh the
findings we're being asked to make
tonight,
um I would agree with Richard in that we
need to deny the appeal.
Um, the property owners are certainly
committed to their horses and the way
the code is set up right now. if you are
willing to turn over a sufficient
quantity of your residential property to
equin purposes and satisfy the
requirements of the livestock committee.
Um there is currently no upper bound in
the code on the density of horses that
you can have on your property. Um
whether
that should be con reconsidered is
um a policy decision at the town council
level rather than being a planning
commission decision where we're sort of
acting in a quasi um judicial role here.
And so
whether there would be any uh you know
upper bound on horse density that would
be an issue for town council and future
modifications of the municipal code as
written. Um I did have one follow-up
question for uh for Sage. Um
the code does not support uh does the
code support having a horse turnout area
or
um um on top of a septic tank leech
field.
>> Um I'm there there's nothing in the
municipal code related to that. If
anything, it would be uh from the Sonteo
County um health department who
primarily regulates septic systems.
There is nothing in the municipal code
and
I'm I'm just not aware or recall any
instances where that's become an issue.
The only thing that sort of occurred to
me in real time, I mean during the
meeting, and I had no time to research
this, is that as a residential property,
the owners have a requirement in order
to inhabit the house to have a working
septic system. And um
and ultimately at some point that might
conflict with the ecquin use of their
property. And I would think in that case
that the health and safety requirements
of sanitation and the septic system
would trump the equin uses. But that is
totally on the fly and that is more of a
phil a philosophical question.
But in in the context of the findings
we're being asked to make um tonight, I
could make the findings and deny the
appeal.
Um, so consistent with Commissioner
Weaver's view, I do think there's
probably an issue with the uh the
overarching, I guess, acre per horse or
I forget the exact numbers. Um because
when I went to view the property, the acre per horse was probably based on
an old view of grazing and hills and
that it'll be some side of the of the
property as horse. Um you know, this family has dedicated my my back of
math is maybe over 40% of the property
to the horses. Um and possibly more um
which is which is really a different
metric than an acre per horse. Um, and
so what what I think regardless of what
happens this evening, I think I would
encourage those whose job it is to
figure this out is to maybe change that
rule. Um, and think about because I did
hear minimums on stall size, on runouts,
on paddics. Um and and if if this is a
precedence, which is what I always try
to avoid, um then how many other sites
in Woodside could be reorganized to be
40% horses and meet these other
requirements but not be the be the um
acre. So if if the goal is is to be a
western community and give everyone that
sort of opportunity, um maybe try to
revisit that acre per horse and make it
more thoughtful to be what the horse
needs and not some antiquated paddic,
hillside, what have you view. Um so
hopefully that could be happen. Um and
then uh consistent with the others, the
what we're being asked is very narrow.
um and not necessarily uh encompassing
of the entirety. So, I think the septic
is an issue that if if the lines go
under the paddic and uh there's a
potential for a neighborhood issue. Um
but the paddic is massive and if there
was an issue, I think that they could
move the fence back a little bit and
make the septic going to run part of it
or what have you. Um but I think that's
not for us to figure out um over time.
So I I don't really have I don't really
have any reason to accept the appeal
based on the narrow view, but I would
encourage some perhaps rethinking of
what it what a horse site looks like and
how to how to make it uh acceptable so
that future houses can be shifted if you
know if it makes sense.
Yeah, agree with agree [clears throat]
with many of of of my co-commissioner
statements. Um,
and one thing just as far as the the the
limits um there's a two horse per acre
limit I think are we saying not on the
appeal process ly or is
on the application for right because we
have minimum one and then two per acre.
So like a twoacre site can have four,
three acre site can have six, etc.
>> To add a second horse, you need a one
acre lot minimum is my understand.
>> Correct. Right. But in and then in
general it's it's um one horse per
excuse me two per acre uh incremental
beyond that as well.
Yes, there there there's a requirement
of to have one acre lot size to have
horses and and then the exceptions don't
have the
>> correct. So that therefore there's a
process for the exceptions what's being
uh reviewed tonight.
>> Yeah. So so I'll talk about the the
findings first off. I agree from the uh
the narrowness of these findings. I I
don't see well I say stated in the
affirmative I I can make these findings
uh these these these make sense to me. I
do think the point I'm going to
reiterate some of the points that uh
Commissioner Evans made with respect to
like is it the right metrics? Um a 3acre
site on 40% grade probably going to be
hard to have horses, right? Uh the Glen
Craig site is is a whole another story.
Um it was one of the two uh sort of
tearown houses that that we looked at
when we moved to Woodside. It was listed
for more than ours and we were already
stretching. So, we ended up with the
other one. But, I mean, my wife was a
horse person. We looked at it and we're
like, "Wow, this this exists in the Bay
Area." We were we were stunned, right,
to to see that that even existed. Um,
but also, you know, I think some of the
things that you personally were struck
at looking at the site, it had a two
stall barn on it, right? That was
already there. And so we've heard uh
that there's not you know
transferability which is a little bit
weird uh in full transparency is maybe a
read uh on on that visav other things
that do transfer right uh setback
exceptions for houses transfer uh right
when you knock down a house you can uh
encroach into the setback as much as
what was already there. So it's a bit
odd that in an equestrian community
we've set a more restrictive standard
for uh equestrian facilities/ quotas
than than the others. I think you know
in addition to you know how do we define
an adequate facility I think it's worth
considering
what should the transferability be right
and the fact that we're having folks uh
reup permits even though there's no
horse uh is sort of an interesting uh outcome
right so we can just all sort of reflect
on
>> we have more rights for our garage
>> I'm sorry
>> we have more rights for our garage than
a than a barn
>> right and
>> footprint point of and and at the same
time the general plan says things like
uh that equestrian facilities should be
sort of made visible right so so we have
this sort of inconsistency in I think
the the general plan intent and then
maybe this particular uh issue of
permits and transferability and
exceptions um when we issue an exception
generally uh a a homeowner will proceed
to con if there's construction involved
right in this case
let's assume this barn were being built,
you know, based on this rather than
being a pre-existing uh barn.
One would hope that that's not something
that's getting torn down when you sell
it, right? Why are we subjecting the
next owner to going through the same
bureaucratic process and relitigating
exceptions that were already decided? It
seems like uh both a waste of the
planning commission's time uh and
livestock's time as well as uh just an
undue burden. And I agree, like we had
no idea about horse permits. I mean, I
lived here for 10 years and we didn't we
lived in a in a in a place in the Glenns
that couldn't have horses. We moved to
Ray Mundo and I think my wife joined the
trails committee and heard about
permits. We had no idea. So, uh it's not
wellnown. Um you know, our our property
didn't have horses on it for years and years. And you know, if it did
come, we would have forwarded on the
note because it would have had the the
previous uh deceased owner's name on it.
And so it's a little bit of a a
long-winded um maybe set of commentary,
but I do think it's also, you know,
really encouraging to see how much folks
really care about this. And it really
is, you know, the more time you spend in
Woodside, it's it's a unique community.
People who come here don't know that it
exists. And and I think that's that's great. Um
you know, Darren, on your points on
should we re is it worth considering
revisiting, right?
um you know, how is the next generation
getting on board, right? It's going to
be through also maybe not the most
expensive houses in town. I think Glen
Craig's a good example of that, right?
This is a site that was, you know,
needed some some some elbow grease. Uh
had some facilities on it and uh this is
an example of seeing kind of the next
generation grow up. So, you know, if
it's only the the the the 3 4 5 acre
estates that are
out of the range of price of many folks
who are who are kind of moving to town
with kids, uh then, you know, we should
think about what that means. Anyway, um
but bring it back to the the narrow
piece, I can certainly make all all
three findings. So, it seemed like we
had a little bit of unonymity on that.
Do does anyone have any additional
comments or would we like to make a
motion? I I just think it's such a small
question we're being asked and it's
outside of the macro question that it's
actually the question.
>> Yep.
>> Okay.
>> I guess I I move to uh what am I what am
I asking to move?
>> Uh if you agree with the um
recommendation of the resolution, you
can move to adopt the resolution which
would deny the appeal and uphold the
plan director's decision for the stable
exception. And as noted earlier, we
would strike those last two findings as
they're not necessary. [snorts]
>> Um then I would move to uh accept the
three findings that we've been asked to
review. Um but as a as an aside, I would
actually hope that the folks in the
livestock committee would maybe rethink
these the acre rule and maybe make it
focused on what a horse needs.
Would second it.
I'll second it.
Chair Gar.
>> Yes.
>> Commissioner Evans.
>> Yes.
>> Commissioner Gonerko.
>> Yes.
>> Commissioner Weaver.
>> Yes.
» Great. So, the uh decision passes. There
is a 10-day appeal period. Um and so if
anyone has questions, please see the
plan department about filing an appeal.
Um if there is an appeal filed, it would
be reviewed by the town council. All
right.
>> Thank you. Uh and thanks folks for uh
for spending your time with us and Sage
are there any other uh
that are
yes
any uh other reports or
>> have you received the June director's
report um as you seen the number of
permits issued we continue to remain
busy
um and then as we've kind of highlighted
more so the last month is looking at our
housing numbers and so for the month of
June, um the uh town issued two more
permits for ADUs in town. So, we're up
to about 17 ADUs this year so far, about
halfway through the through the year.
Um,
» excuse me, folks. We're we're just we're
continuing here if you don't mind taking
the conversations outside. Um are we
going to that seems like it's relatively
low. Are we We're not on track at all,
are we?
>> In terms of 17 in general number of
units.
>> Um so uh yeah, in general number of
units, you know, what we have through um
June 2026, we've noted that there's been
898s and 36 new single family
residences. Uh so we are
>> 30 36 new single family residences.
>> Uh 36. Yes. So this is uh where we are
through cycle 6 that ends in 2031. So
we're starting to get about halfway
through the cycle. Um we're probably a
little bit less than half of the number
of units uh that are necessary. Uh but
also with units it's important to look
at the um the types of units and we have
to have varied units. We have multif
family housing uh that is hoping to move
forward. um they're still looking at
issues with sewer capacity and how to
what may be necessary to upgrade any
infrastructure. Um so you know often
people will suggest you know maybe
cities are very far behind. Um in some
cases actually I think we're on
relatively good
uh track. Um and I always note that
while I think in the front end of the
housing element cycle it's likely to see
fewer units than at the back end meaning
the housing element has all these
different programs and elements uh
strategies to implement. And so as these
different strategies get implemented um
you'll might see start to pick up the
pace the number of units towards the end
of the cycle.
>> Has there ever been an analysis done on
what is the possible ADU footprint
that's that's available in the town
because everyone that gets done and we
sort of lo lose runway for
>> Yeah. No, it's a good question. Um it's
a bit difficult to know just um because
historically I mean there's ADUs on
properties that already exist and that
necessarily weren't tallied up in any
way many years ago. Uh we have the town
has increased the number of ADUs that
are allowed on properties. Uh so for
properties that are vacant, it's pretty
easy to tell how much they're allowed as
well as state law has changed um to
really increase the number of ADUs
allowed on property in different
circumstances. Um so so yeah you know at 17 is uh just for this year I would
say is is pretty good. Um they had we
had a a target in the housing element of
15 ADUs per year. Um and so we've
already exceeded that. Um most all of
the years we've went over 20 usually
between like 20 and 25 units. Um, so if
we keep up this pace, we do know that
there's a number of plan checks that are
getting closer to issuance. Um, so we're
in pretty good pace in terms of the
number of ADUs this year. Say some
follow-up questions. Um, there were some
very extensive public records requests
uh that were made by uh the previous um
town manager as well as local reporters,
etc. Thousands of documents. I've had
some time to spend time with them and it
seems we're not making very fast
progress on the multif family sites and
there were quite a few uh items of
correspondence in there uh where it
appeared the town council is not uh
allowing these things to proceed to
agenda. uh are we at risk with HCD if we
don't make adequate process and do we
need to take steps to be more compliant
with our housing element and are we at
risk based on the agenda setting of the
town council of becoming non-compliant?
Um I'm not aware of any of that being
set by the town council. What I'll say
at the staff level um it's continuing to
be pursued. Again, one of the biggest
issues is access to sewer. Um and so the
town has recently completed kind of a
capacity study. Um and now the the
consultants are going forward to
complete the full master sewer plan. And
part of that is to look at what
solutions are necessary um to make sure
that you can kind of access all of the
capac contractual capacity that Woodside
has allowed under the town center
assessment district. Um, so that's a big
piece and that's hoping to wrap up, you
know, by the end of summer, early fall
and we'll have better understanding of
maybe potential costs for any sewer
upgrades that are necessary. So that's
one of the steps that is being pursued
and it's a it's a big first step that
needs to take place.
>> Thank you. Do you have high confidence
that when that's completed, the mayor
will put that on the agenda in a
reasonable amount of time?
>> I can speak to that. If if you're
finding any uh any issues with those um
getting agendas, you can please inform
the planning commission. We would
appreciate it.
>> Sure. All of that goes to the town
manager's office in terms of what goes
onto the that
>> are the results of the sewage study in
the public domain right now if it's
complete.
>> The the initial pieces for the what they
looked at as the contractual capacity
and the hydraulic capacity uh for the
town center area. I'm sorry, two things
confused for the town center assessment
district. Um, and so that is a public.
Um, and yeah, if you guys want copies,
we can get you guys copies of that. And
that it's it's that's kind of the uh a
piece of what the overall master sewer
plan is.
>> What steps are required to put it out
for bid uh following the completion of
that study
>> in terms of for the in
>> uh or or for no, I'm sorry, for housing
developers.
>> Oh, um I'm I'm still researching that.
the town attorney's office um has a
legal firm looking at um what's
necessary. So there's what is called the
surplus lands act. And so that's another
step that needs to be done in
conjunction once you understand what
your sewer needs are. And so that
my limited understanding is is uh that
will help identify what's necessary. And
then there's something that's called a
notice availability and it's sent out to
various types of uh housing developers,
affordable housing developers. Um and
>> further steps would necessar be
necessary to kind of get in contract and
>> could could we see maybe a timeline of
what a sort of you know let's say speed
of light workback schedule would look
like to get one of these out to bids in
terms of which things need to happen
assuming that
>> check with the town manager's office. Is
that something we could see in the
future?
>> I can check with the town manager's
office. They set those agendas.
>> Thank you. We appreciate it.
» Um, and then with that, I just wanted to
um thank Commissioner Gerko very much.
This is his last meeting. Um, and so
it's been a real pleasure to serve with
you. And so
>> I have a question. So I'm staying on
until we get a replacement. So
>> Well, I appreciate that. So um, if you
will, that's great. And we have one
application uh that has been submitted.
Um so we know there's at least one
applicant and we're hoping uh there may
have been some other interest as well.
So we might receive more applications.
>> Good.
>> Just a reminder there's a recess in
August so the timing may work out that.
>> Yeah.
So we
>> so if this doesn't come your last me we
do want to thank you very much for
everything you've done.
>> Thank you.
Um, I don't have any further reports.
All right, we'll go ahead and Thank you,
folks.