[0:14] Hello and thank you. Uh tonight I'll be
[0:17] presenting the item at 90 Rome please
[0:19] for planning commission review. Uh this
[0:21] is a presentation review and approval
[0:24] conditional approval or denial of a
[0:26] variance to setback requirements for a
[0:28] deck uh extension encroachment into the
[0:31] basic uh required site setbacks. Uh,
[0:34] this application is categorically exempt
[0:37] under the California Environmental
[0:38] Quality Act, SQA guidelines
[0:42] 15301, additions to existing structures,
[0:45] as well as 15303, which are uh new
[0:48] construction of small structures, and
[0:50] there are no desk items at this time.
[0:58] So regarding this property, it is in the
[1:01] SCP 7.5 uh zoning district which
[1:04] requires basic setbacks of 50 ft from
[1:06] all sides. Uh the lot area is
[1:09] approximately 3.38 acres
[1:13] which uh more than 50% of the lot is in
[1:16] slopes that are greater than 35%. Uh the
[1:19] majority of which is also uh in slopes
[1:23] exceeding 50% as well.
[1:29] As far as the deck extension, uh it
[1:32] would be located east of the main
[1:34] residence. The size is approximately 26
[1:38] ft x 42 ft uh and would be composed of
[1:41] similar wood material to what is
[1:43] existing at the site.
[1:52] Um, the municipal code uh does not
[1:53] permit encroachments into setbacks
[1:56] unless explicitly allowed. Uh, while
[1:58] items listed in the municipal code
[2:00] section 153.2207C
[2:04] are allowed within the required
[2:05] setbacks. Uh, decks that are greater
[2:07] than 3 ft above the ground uh may only
[2:10] extend into required sight setback a
[2:12] distance of no more than 3 ft. Um since
[2:15] this uh proposed deck uh encroaches
[2:18] approximately 7.75 feet into the side
[2:21] setback uh approval of a setback uh
[2:23] variance is required
[2:27] and uh this is the elevation detail of
[2:30] the uh proposed deck extension.
[2:33] Uh to quickly summarize uh staff
[2:35] providing recommending findings which
[2:37] you can find in attachment one uh the
[2:39] draft resolution. Uh to quickly
[2:41] summarize, um staff recommends approval
[2:43] of the setback varants uh since uh
[2:46] allowing the encroachment of the
[2:48] proposed deck extension would limit
[2:50] disturbance on woodlands and steep
[2:52] slopes by utilizing previously approved
[2:54] retaining walls as you can see down here
[2:58] and on previously disturbed land. It
[3:00] would not be detrimental to the public
[3:02] welfare as the proposed deck extension
[3:05] are located away from Ran Place and the
[3:08] neighboring residences. And the proposed
[3:11] variance is consistent with the town of
[3:13] Woodside general plan goals, land use
[3:15] 1.1 and land use 1.2, which are goals
[3:18] that discuss high priority to the
[3:20] conservation of natural resources and
[3:23] also to minimize grading, including the
[3:25] downscaling of intensity of land use on
[3:27] steep hillsides. That concludes my
[3:30] presentation. Staff is happy to answer
[3:31] any questions. Uh the applicant is also
[3:34] uh in attendance via Zoom to answer any
[3:36] questions. Thank you.
[3:49] » It's basically the the corner, right?
[3:51] The upper right corner is is the only uh
[3:54] space in the setback. Correct.
[3:56] >> It would be Yes. This corner here. Um
[3:59] >> that corner. Okay.
[4:00] >> Yep.
[4:00] >> Right. The two lines the two parallel
[4:03] lines are the retaining holes. Correct.
[4:06] >> Um that is correct. Yes.
[4:11] >> Okay. Thank you.
[4:23] » Okay. Then uh let's proceed. Would the
[4:26] uh applicant like to make a uh statement
[4:29] or presentation?
[4:31] >> Yeah. So, um I don't have a
[4:33] presentation, but I I do want to uh just
[4:35] kind of give you a brief sum summary of
[4:37] this project, right? So, um as Kgo
[4:41] stated, I'm here to apply for a setback
[4:43] um variance for my deck expansion at 90
[4:46] Rome Place. And uh this project really
[4:49] is to enhance my um outdoor living space
[4:53] and um my property has a a number of
[4:58] constraints and uh the shape of the lot,
[5:01] the buildable area is uh very limited
[5:04] and also
[5:06] I have a uh a big part of the buildable
[5:09] area dedicated to
[5:12] um creating a fire truck turnound per um
[5:16] fire department. uh requirements years
[5:18] ago. So we have very limited usable
[5:22] outdoor space and this project is to
[5:25] enhance our outdoor uh living space
[5:28] because all these constraints that I
[5:30] mentioned um uh you know the the one
[5:33] side of that extended area is going to
[5:36] encroach into the standard 50 ft setback
[5:40] um by
[5:42] a little less than 8 feet. Right? So I
[5:45] do want to point out that as as Keo uh
[5:48] show in diagram,
[5:50] I had a previous setback exception when
[5:55] I built my house uh a number of years
[5:57] ago. And that setback expression uh
[6:00] exception um
[6:04] approved for like 15 ft I believe into
[6:08] the standard setback. Um, so this deck
[6:13] is actually within that um, previously
[6:16] approved exception. So it's not a new
[6:19] encroachment per se. Um, I just want to
[6:22] point that out.
[6:27] Okay. Uh, questions for uh, the
[6:29] applicant.
[6:34] Okay. Uh why don't we go ahead with
[6:36] commissioner uh deliberation and or
[6:38] excuse me I'm sorry any uh members of
[6:40] the public here who would like to speak
[6:42] on this issue
[6:44] is everybody here for the other one we
[6:46] have one raised hand online from bale
[6:49] Oh,
[7:04] Frank
[7:07] pranksters are alive and well tonight.
[7:09] Awesome. Okay. In that case, since after
[7:12] that very substantive comment, uh maybe
[7:14] we can go with commissioner
[7:15] deliberations. Um Erin, do you want to
[7:18] kick off? Yeah. Uh so thank you Mr. Jong
[7:21] for the presentation. Um and uh Mr. Yato
[7:24] for the alo presentation. Uh I did go
[7:27] visit the site. It is very clear that he
[7:30] has a setback that's even further into
[7:32] the 50 foot from a previous line and the
[7:36] other direction of the deck goes into
[7:37] infin infinity uh where there's nothing
[7:40] there. So this seems like a very good
[7:41] use of space to avoid his kid being in
[7:45] the driveway. Um, so I'm all for it.
[7:51] » Um, [clears throat] a little bit more as Darren added, you mentioned that uh
[7:58] the other the other direction goes into
[8:00] infinity into the forest. Is that what
[8:02] you meant?
[8:03] >> There's nothing.
[8:03] >> Yeah, there's nothing there. So, yeah,
[8:05] that's what So, I understand that. No,
[8:07] there's there's nothing for me to add.
[8:08] Thank you.
[8:12] >> Um, I have no problem with making the
[8:14] findings. It is a very constrained lot.
[8:16] So, um, no questions and,
[8:21] um, I'm fine with the draft resolution.
[8:24] Very little to add beyond all of that. I
[8:25] also visited the site looks like
[8:29] agree with Darren's comments. Um,
[8:32] additionally, that I think the point
[8:33] about it being sort of less encroaching
[8:35] than the previous exception is is well
[8:36] stated as well. So, I have no problem
[8:38] making the findings.
[8:42] like to make a motion on this one.
[8:44] >> Uh I'll make a motion to approve the
[8:47] staff resolution for the exception.
[8:50] >> Sorry. Second the motion.
[8:55] >> Chair Gar.
[8:56] >> Yes.
[8:56] >> Commissioner Evans.
[8:57] >> Yes.
[8:58] >> Commissioner Gonko.
[8:59] >> Yes.
[8:59] >> Commissioner Weaver.
[9:00] >> Yes.
[9:04] » All right.
[9:06] And this one says appeals.
[9:09] Yes. Right. There's a a 10-day appeal
[9:12] period. Um, and if anyone would like to
[9:14] appeal, they can see the deputy town
[9:15] clerk.
[9:17] Okay. All right. Well, with that, we
[9:19] will uh move on uh to the uh second/3
[9:25] item, which is 831 Glen Craig Way. Uh
[9:28] so, would staff like to proceed with the
[9:30] uh presentation, please? Uh the order of
[9:31] operations here will be uh staff
[9:33] presentation.
[9:35] We'll have a chance to ask questions of
[9:36] staff. Then it will be the appellet. uh
[9:39] we'll have 10 minutes. The applicant
[9:41] will have 10 minutes uh before we go to
[9:44] public comment. We also do have many
[9:46] people in the room. Uh folks will have
[9:48] uh 3 minutes each for comments. However,
[9:50] at the same time, if we if we do the
[9:52] math, we'll be here a long time. Uh so
[9:54] if you do have, you know, you agree with other comments uh and things like
[9:57] that, it's fine to just state that and
[10:00] um and whatnot. So anyway, with that,
[10:02] why don't we go ahead and uh do the
[10:04] staff presentation.
[10:05] >> Thank you, Chair Gar. Um, so the project
[10:08] you have before you tonight is an appeal
[10:10] of the planning director's decision to
[10:12] approve a stable permit exception uh to
[10:15] allow two horses at A31 Glen Craig Way
[10:19] um where the property is um
[10:22] approximately 19,800 square ft and when
[10:25] 1 acre is required. So the applicant has
[10:28] applied for an exception to have two
[10:30] horses on the site and that process is
[10:34] all of those exceptions are reviewed by
[10:36] the livestock and equestrian heritage
[10:38] committee. On May 27th, 2026, the
[10:42] livestock committee reviewed the
[10:44] proposed exception. Um they went through
[10:48] the various findings uh that are
[10:50] required and the reasoning based um the
[10:53] reasoning to make those findings
[10:55] provided by the applicant. Uh there is a
[10:58] neighbor that spoke um that did not
[11:00] support the project and asked the
[11:03] livestock committee to uh deny the
[11:05] exception primarily related to issues
[11:08] for dust um insects and noise.
[11:13] Um after reviewing the project and um
[11:16] some of members who which did site
[11:18] inspections uh they determined that they
[11:20] could make the findings and recommended
[11:22] approval of the stable exception by
[11:24] unanimous vote. Um then on May 29th, uh
[11:28] myself, the plan director, I took that
[11:30] recommendation and I approved the stable
[11:33] exception.
[11:35] Uh within the 10-day appeal period, the
[11:37] neighbor at 841, Glen Craig Way, filed a
[11:40] timely appeal um and is requesting that
[11:43] the planning commission uh uphold the
[11:46] appeal, which would then deny the stable
[11:49] exception.
[11:51] Given the reasoning provided by the
[11:55] livestock equestrian heritage committee
[11:57] and the required findings that need to
[11:59] be made, staff recommends approval of
[12:02] the project. So it would be to deny the
[12:04] appeal and to uphold the initial
[12:06] decision to approve the project. Um, I
[12:09] do want to note that while the applicant
[12:11] noted five findings in the um in their
[12:16] submitt, uh because they're not asking
[12:19] for more than two horses, only really
[12:21] the first three findings are necessary
[12:23] um to be made. So, if the um planning
[12:27] commission determines that the findings
[12:28] can be made, the commission should deny
[12:31] the appeal and can adopt the draft
[12:33] resolution in attachment one, attachment
[12:35] A. Um, if the commission determines
[12:39] that, uh, one of those findings cannot
[12:42] be made, uh, they should explain why one
[12:45] or more findings cannot be made and
[12:47] reasoning to uphold the appeal and deny
[12:49] the exception. And just to note for the
[12:52] public that any decision of the planning
[12:54] commission uh, can be appealed to the
[12:56] town council. Um, but with that, I'm
[12:59] happy to answer any questions that you
[13:01] may have.
[13:10] wanted to ask if there are members of
[13:12] the uh equestrian uh sorry the livestock
[13:16] equestrian heritage committee here.
[13:20] No one. Yes. Okay. Questions of them?
[13:24] Well, and I I do want to um note that uh
[13:28] >> that they are not in a hearing setting
[13:31] and so they can speak as private
[13:33] residents and not as livestock
[13:35] equestrian heritage committees. So, it's
[13:37] important for any members of the public
[13:38] who do speak who are on committees to
[13:41] know what committee you're on, but that
[13:42] tonight you're entirely speaking as an
[13:44] individual. And it would be up to them
[13:46] if they'd like to speak. They may not
[13:47] choose to speak. Um so, if you do have
[13:50] any questions about the meeting, um you
[13:52] can let me know. uh but we want to make
[13:54] sure that they're not speaking the
[13:56] capacity as a livestock committee member
[13:58] because they cannot speak for the entire
[13:59] committee.
[14:00] >> So uh Sage, I would have a question of
[14:02] you if you're knowledgeable in this in
[14:05] this sphere, right? Um does a town have
[14:08] a process and procedure to ensure new
[14:11] permit application with uh change of
[14:14] ownership of a property?
[14:16] >> Yes. Uh new ownership is supposed to uh
[14:19] obtain a new permit. So the the permits
[14:22] are not transferable. Um there has been
[14:25] times in the past where people have just
[14:27] been sent renewal notices and they have
[14:29] just paid the fee to renew it. It's been
[14:32] automatically renewed. In this
[14:34] particular case, for this application,
[14:37] what we're recommending with the
[14:39] approval of the exception is that the
[14:41] applicant actually apply for a new
[14:44] permit with the new number of horses
[14:46] with an updated waste management plan,
[14:48] insect control plan, and dust control
[14:49] plan. And it will be incumbent upon the
[14:52] applicant to do that, which will then be
[14:54] reviewed by the livestock subcommittee
[14:56] where they'll do an inspection. um and
[14:58] if they find it in compliance with all
[15:00] other aspects of section 115.12
[15:05] um they can approve that stable permit.
[15:08] >> My my question was in in the area of is
[15:14] there actually a u a process uh that is
[15:19] undertaken when ownership changes. So, I
[15:23] understand all those all those things
[15:24] that need to be done,
[15:26] >> but
[15:26] >> we don't know when ownership changes.
[15:28] Um, so, uh, if a renewal is sent out to
[15:32] a previous owner and they do not renew
[15:34] it, it would be up to the new owner to
[15:36] make sure they file an application.
[15:38] >> And when what is the, uh, duration of of
[15:41] a permit?
[15:41] >> It's for one year.
[15:43] >> It's only a year.
[15:45] >> They have to renew their their stable
[15:46] permit every year. They're basically
[15:49] paying fees just to keep horse on the
[15:51] property, which is relatively minimal
[15:53] fee. It's to make sure that they're
[15:55] compliant with that section I noted. Um,
[15:58] and then they if their horses use the
[16:00] trail, they pay trail maintenance fees.
[16:03] >> And I have a follow-up question
[16:05] regarding the one acre rule. So, what is
[16:09] the purpose of um 1 acre minimum to have
[16:13] a horse or two?
[16:14] >> Um, I I don't know exact details of of
[16:16] how that came about. years ago. Um they
[16:19] established a minimum lot size and then
[16:22] they provide this exception process. Uh
[16:24] so I think uh over the years I've been
[16:27] with a town um there are a few
[16:30] exceptions that have been applied for
[16:32] and my understanding for the livestock
[16:34] committee is their primary goal is to
[16:36] look at the safety and adequate space
[16:38] for the horses themselves and the number
[16:39] of horses being proposed. Um, so, uh, so
[16:43] they they primarily look at the health
[16:45] and safety for the horses on the
[16:46] property.
[16:49] >> Can you talk a little bit about the
[16:50] history of of the exceptions? Have they
[16:53] generally been granted? Has it been
[16:55] mixed?
[16:55] >> It's a good question. Um, yes, they have
[16:58] all been granted. And so, we looked back
[17:01] to 2010. Um, they have all been granted.
[17:04] There was one application that just
[17:06] didn't pursue it. Um, their application
[17:08] was deemed incomplete and I believe they
[17:09] moved away from the property. Uh but all
[17:11] of the other exceptions were
[17:14] specifically all for a number of horses.
[17:16] They weren't for any other aspect of the
[17:17] stable requirements and all of those
[17:19] were approved. Is there hard for the lot
[17:22] sizes?
[17:23] >> Um no. There's just a matter of looking
[17:26] at the if the facilities are adequate to
[17:28] serve the number of horses.
[17:29] >> When they make those uh facility
[17:31] assessments, do they look at a sort of
[17:33] minimum square footage per horse?
[17:35] >> Yeah, there there well I wouldn't say
[17:37] that per se. There are minimum
[17:38] requirements in the code that have to be
[17:40] met. So each horse has to have an
[17:42] individual stall. Stall has to be at
[17:44] least 10 by 10. And then they have to
[17:46] have um the code just requires a minimum
[17:49] of 600 square ft of turnout area for all
[17:52] the horses on the property. Um it
[17:54] doesn't define per horse on turnout.
[17:59] » It do we have um codes on uh percent of
[18:03] lot expected to be part of horse or
[18:06] minimum?
[18:06] >> No, that's not required. It's it's I
[18:09] think really, you know, if you had a 5
[18:11] acre site versus a 1acre site, you know,
[18:13] obviously a larger site might might have
[18:15] a much smaller percentage dedicated to
[18:17] horses.
[18:17] >> Um, and then there's are there some
[18:20] basic uh town codes around setbacks on
[18:23] barns and paddics on
[18:25] >> Yeah, good good question. Um, so for
[18:27] barns, um, for new shelters, uh, those
[18:32] have to meet the required setbacks just
[18:33] like a house. Um they have
[18:37] >> front of lot, back of lot, side of lot.
[18:39] >> Correct. And that so you what you might
[18:40] find and and may be in the case in this
[18:42] property, older barns may have been
[18:45] built prior to the current setback
[18:46] requirements just like older buildings
[18:49] um may not meet current setback
[18:50] requirements. So those can always remain
[18:51] in place, be repaired or even replaced.
[18:54] Um and then it's also a good question to
[18:56] note that turnout areas can go right up
[18:58] to a property line. Uh when I first
[19:01] started in 2008, they had just uh
[19:03] changed the the stable ordinance right
[19:06] before I started. And previously, there
[19:08] was a 10- foot setback um from turnout
[19:10] areas, except when they made that
[19:12] ordinance change almost 20 years ago, um
[19:15] they directly removed that and so horses
[19:18] could go right up to the property line
[19:19] on all sides.
[19:20] >> Correct.
[19:23] with the uh nontransferability of
[19:27] permits and I believe also ex that
[19:30] applies to the exceptions as well.
[19:32] >> That's correct.
[19:32] >> So I guess what has been the history if
[19:35] any of
[19:37] situations like what we're looking at
[19:38] today, right, which which presumably
[19:40] infrastructure built under the guise of
[19:43] an exception, right, that's granted i.e.
[19:46] x number of stalls that exceeds the sort
[19:48] of baseline capacity of the of the
[19:51] house. Has there been any any precedent
[19:52] with that in terms of
[19:54] >> um not that I'm aware of. Um the know
[19:59] each each exception is different. You
[20:01] know, they've ranged from being less
[20:03] than an acre to having, you know, more
[20:05] than seven horses on three acres. Um so
[20:09] they kind of range mo most of them we
[20:11] see have been around two to three horses
[20:14] on a property um that just don't meet
[20:16] that minimum lot size to accommodate
[20:18] those by the code.
[20:20] Thank you.
[20:22] >> One more question. So, uh, as far as a
[20:25] permitting, yearly permitting, so anyone
[20:27] that has a horse has to renew their
[20:30] permit yearly. That correct?
[20:32] >> That's correct.
[20:33] >> And that means that there needs to be an
[20:35] inspection by
[20:36] >> No, they they don't get inspections
[20:38] every year at this point. Once they get
[20:40] their permit and it has been inspected,
[20:43] then they just pay the fees to renew
[20:45] each year. And it should be flagged by
[20:47] the finance department that if anyone
[20:49] increases the number of horses that that
[20:51] person first talks to the planning
[20:53] department.
[20:55] >> So in this case uh the neighbor at 841
[20:59] um Glen Craig
[21:02] uh his biggest uh objection was that the
[21:05] fact that his fence was being used as
[21:08] part of the corral, part of the paddic,
[21:10] right? Uh so my previous question was
[21:13] relating to why was offense not mandated
[21:18] for the actual horse owner for
[21:22] >> I don't know when you know when they
[21:23] issued that license it's a matter of
[21:26] sometimes the finance department was
[21:28] just accepting renewals um I'm not 100%
[21:31] sure um but uh it is something that they
[21:34] should have a horse turnout fence in
[21:37] which they have since installed
[21:42] » so Sage I had a couple of questions for
[21:45] In reviewing the staff report and the
[21:48] findings we were asked to make, there
[21:50] were a couple things that showed
[21:51] themselves in the in the municipal code.
[21:54] Um, typically for residential properties
[21:57] for human use, if we grant an exception
[22:01] or a variance for building height or
[22:06] um construction within a setback, part
[22:09] of the boilerplate is that we are
[22:11] required to make a finding that the
[22:14] granting of the exception does not
[22:16] represent a special privilege and also
[22:19] that the granting of the exception
[22:22] is not out of character with the rest of
[22:25] the neighborhood. Now, looking at the
[22:28] list of findings we are being asked to
[22:30] make tonight, we have no requirement to
[22:33] make a finding that this does not
[22:36] represent a special privilege.
[22:39] Um, correct?
[22:40] >> That is correct. Yeah, the findings that
[22:42] are listed in the report are the only
[22:44] findings that need to be made for the
[22:45] exception. And we do not need to make a
[22:47] finding that
[22:52] granting the exception is still within
[22:54] the character of the neighborhood.
[22:57] >> That's correct. Yeah. Even just briefly
[22:59] just for the uh benefit of the public.
[23:01] Um the three findings that need to be
[23:03] made is one, the exception shall not
[23:05] impair the health, safety or welfare of
[23:07] the livestock maintained on the site.
[23:09] Number two, the exception will not
[23:11] result in any adverse health, safety,
[23:13] noise, traffic, or visual impacts on
[23:15] surrounding properties and roadways. And
[23:17] number three, the proposed the proposed
[23:20] use complies with all other standards of
[23:22] section 115.12
[23:26] regarding private stables. And that
[23:28] section of the code is all the other
[23:30] requirements such as um the the stable
[23:33] size, the turnout area, the location of
[23:35] a hose bib, um things of that nature.
[23:38] So, all of those have been shown to be
[23:40] in compliance. In this case, it's just a
[23:42] number of horses.
[23:44] >> And just to get this for context on the
[23:47] record, um you folks did pull the
[23:50] exemptions that have occurred uh for
[23:53] stable since 2010 and there were eight
[23:56] of them. And then looking at the um
[24:01] those and turning those eight exemptions
[24:04] into horses per acre, the highest horse
[24:08] density I could find was a exemption for
[24:13] three horses on 1.17 acres, which was
[24:17] 2.6 horses per acre. And here we're
[24:20] talking about two horses on 045 acres,
[24:23] which is greater than four horses per
[24:25] acre.
[24:27] >> That's correct. This is the the densest
[24:29] that we Okay. So, this is denser than
[24:32] anything we've done in the last 15
[24:34] years.
[24:34] >> Yes.
[24:35] >> Okay.
[24:37] >> No further questions for staff.
[24:43] » Anyone else?
[24:44] >> Um, just one more question. So, the part
[24:46] of the
[24:49] Uh Mr. Clark's appeal talks about some
[24:52] sort of drainage and some other items.
[24:54] Was that was that investigated by the
[24:56] town?
[24:56] >> Uh it I believe there was a inquiry
[24:59] related to the drainage that's being
[25:01] looked at by the um engineering
[25:03] department. So if someone has if there
[25:06] is drainage install that needs permits
[25:08] um that's something that the engineering
[25:09] department will be looking into. Um it's
[25:12] not necessarily a subject of the
[25:13] exception tonight. Uh but uh they that
[25:16] stuff goes through code enforcement if
[25:18] necessary.
[25:19] >> Is is it standard to have to
[25:22] creating a paddic or or a stable to have
[25:25] met standard drainage requirements prior
[25:28] to use?
[25:28] >> I I think it just varies based on
[25:30] stables. Um there's not a requirement um
[25:34] that says someone must install drainage
[25:36] to a certain standard. Um, so I think
[25:38] people uh they have all different types
[25:40] of riding arenas and turnouts and uh
[25:44] round pins. Um, and so some sites may
[25:48] need more adequate range than others.
[25:53] » One other question on on historical
[25:55] context, which is uh in reading a number
[25:57] of the desk items, it seemed like there
[25:58] was a history of two horses on the site
[26:01] were here in 2026. We weren't here in
[26:03] prior years. What what what has changed?
[26:06] right that that we are now here was it
[26:08] previous exceptions that were granted
[26:11] etc.
[26:12] >> Yeah. Um I I don't know the the direct
[26:16] answer in general terms there was a
[26:19] point in which stable permits were not
[26:20] required and maybe some of the people
[26:23] who just had historically had horses
[26:25] never ended up getting a permit. Um
[26:29] you know some people just didn't renew
[26:31] permits. New owners maybe didn't know
[26:33] they needed a permit. I mean there could
[26:35] be a variety of reasons. Uh it's
[26:38] something that's being followed up on
[26:40] more and the plan department continues
[26:42] to speak with administration uh
[26:45] administration department to make sure
[26:47] things are being followed correctly.
[26:48] >> Essentially triggering event being the
[26:50] >> uh the application for the exception.
[26:52] >> Yeah. And you know really focusing on
[26:54] the exception that's before us tonight.
[26:56] So they are asking for the two horses on
[26:58] this property. um if that is granted
[27:00] that should really be the main focus um
[27:02] as opposed to what maybe should have or
[27:05] could have happened in the past.
[27:08] So thank you.
[27:14] All right. Well then we will move on to
[27:16] the uh presentation by the appellant. Uh
[27:20] keep it to 10 minutes
[27:22] this point.
[27:24] >> Have a couple displays. Is there a place
[27:25] I can put those
[27:28] here?
[27:35] » You can I mean what? Yeah, whatever you
[27:37] think works best. You can leave it
[27:38] against our
[27:45] » uh I can there in case
[27:46] >> I can scoot over.
[27:53] » Hi everybody.
[28:05] I don't need that. Or do you want me to
[28:07] use it?
[28:08] >> Uh, yes, you do need to folks online
[28:09] can't hear unless you're speaking into
[28:11] the mic.
[28:12] Can
[28:13] >> I just quickly point out we don't have a
[28:15] separate timer, so we'll be doing a
[28:16] threeminut timer three times just so
[28:18] everyone's not confused.
[28:21] >> Okay.
[28:23] Good evening. Uh, my name is John Clark.
[28:25] My wife, Linda, and I have owned our
[28:26] property at 841 Glen Craig for 30 years.
[28:30] Tonight, I ask you to reverse the
[28:31] livestock committee's decision allowing
[28:33] two horses on a lot that is half the
[28:35] minimum size required for even one
[28:37] horse. To be clear, I have no objection
[28:39] to horses. As a child, we spent summer
[28:41] in Colorado and Wyoming. I learned to
[28:43] ride at the Razles ranch where every day
[28:45] we played capture the flag on horseback.
[28:47] Our daughters were active members at
[28:49] Junior Riders. For many years, I owned a
[28:51] 108acre ranch that was part of a 135,000
[28:54] acre co-op ranch in Santa Barbara Cel
[28:56] County where we ran cattle and herded
[28:58] them on horseback. Polar ponies need to
[29:01] be exercised regularly, and my father
[29:02] kept aid at home. It was hard to keep up
[29:04] their exercise schedule, so whenever I
[29:06] went to visit, I knew what I was in for.
[29:08] I was expected to help out. Polar ponies
[29:11] have two speeds: stop and full speed.
[29:15] This is of course uh exhilarating, but
[29:17] it can also be exhausting. And when they
[29:19] did finally tire out, dad just brought
[29:21] me the next one. So to the neighbors who
[29:23] wrote letters referring to me as
[29:24] non-horse people, well, you got me.
[29:27] There have been moments in my life where
[29:28] the last thing I wanted to see was
[29:30] another polar pony. This is not about
[29:32] horses. It's not about me. It's about
[29:35] whether town rules and laws are
[29:37] followed. Of course, I don't have any
[29:39] authority and will not be making any
[29:40] decisions tonight. were not here because
[29:42] of me, but due to an invitation from the
[29:44] town to participate, because of a
[29:47] request by my neighbor. You are the only
[29:49] ones with any authority here tonight."
[29:52] The owner's response letter disputes
[29:53] many issues I never raised, yet avoids
[29:56] the key ones. He never explains why no
[29:59] lotsize exception or stable permit
[30:01] applications were submitted in 2015
[30:03] because he knows they were not. He never
[30:06] addresses the fence built on my property
[30:08] because he knows it is. He never
[30:11] mentions the unpermitted French drain
[30:13] discharging into the creek or the
[30:14] unpermitted fill placed against that
[30:16] creek or even the existence of that
[30:18] creek. Why not? He had the opportunity
[30:21] to. With this in mind, I've simplified
[30:23] my presentation to focus on just one of
[30:25] the reasons why the livestock committee
[30:27] decision should be reversed. They simply
[30:30] did not know what they were approving.
[30:32] In many cases, because the applicant
[30:34] concealed it. In other cases, because
[30:35] they didn't care to ask. But they should
[30:38] have. That's their job. Tonight, this is
[30:40] your job. Ask the questions. Get the
[30:42] answers for yourself. Everything I
[30:45] discussed comes back to one fact. 831
[30:47] Glen Craig is too small for two horses.
[30:49] Under Woodside Municipal Code, Chapter
[30:51] 115, a 1acre minimum is required for one
[30:54] horse. This property is only 045 acres,
[30:57] less than half that requirement.
[30:59] Approving this sets a dangerous
[31:00] precedent. Does the town allow houses
[31:03] more than double the square footage
[31:04] limit? No. Or double the height? Of
[31:07] course not. When the applicant purchased
[31:09] the property in 2015, the existing
[31:11] stable permit could not legal legally
[31:13] transfer. The transfer disclosure states
[31:16] the equestrian boarding was
[31:17] non-conforming and the stable permits
[31:20] could not be assigned to the new owner.
[31:21] Per Woodside Municipal Code 115, stable
[31:24] permits are non-transferable. Sage,
[31:28] because the lot is under one acre, a lot
[31:30] size exception was required before any
[31:32] stable permit could be considered. Yet,
[31:34] no lots size exception or stable permit
[31:37] application was submitted or approved in
[31:39] 2015, and no records exist showing who
[31:42] issued the permit, how or why. The town
[31:45] will tell you they have no idea how this
[31:47] happened or who did it. In fact, per the
[31:50] canceled meeting notice of November 20
[31:53] uh on November 18, 2015, this should
[31:55] have been impossible. The property was
[31:57] purchased on November 7 and no further
[32:00] meetings were held in 2015. It's not
[32:02] possible that any applications were
[32:04] submitted and approved. So, this never
[32:06] happened. And the livestock committee
[32:08] knew this when they approved a second
[32:10] horse on May 27 this year. They knew it,
[32:13] but they didn't care. Those missing
[32:15] applications required disclosure of
[32:17] fencing, nearby creeks, drainage
[32:18] facilities, and other site conditions,
[32:21] drainage facilities.
[32:23] None of that information was reviewed in
[32:25] 2015, and the livestock committee asked
[32:27] for none of it on May 27 of 26. Woodside
[32:31] also requires drainage documentation,
[32:34] addressing concentrated flows, drainage
[32:36] changes, and water quality impacts.
[32:38] Sanonteo County has far stricter
[32:40] regulations. None of this was ever
[32:42] submitted or evaluated by the town or
[32:44] county. So, as the next door neighbor,
[32:46] fully aware of this, what did I do about
[32:48] it? How did I respond? Who did I report
[32:51] this to? Nobody. I did nothing. I
[32:56] ignored what I saw. I minded my own
[32:58] business for 10 years.
[33:03] Only after the town invited public
[33:05] comment on this new application did I
[33:07] raise any concerns. Strangely enough,
[33:09] the new application finally requires
[33:11] compliance with today's regulations. As
[33:13] Julie confirmed in an email yesterday,
[33:15] because the exception was approved, a
[33:17] new stable permit is required. The
[33:18] property must be inspected and the owner
[33:20] must comply with all current chapter 15
[33:23] requirements. That means previously
[33:25] undisclosed conditions must now be
[33:27] reviewed. The owner will have to
[33:28] disclose the extensive French drain
[33:30] system installed throughout the paddic
[33:31] and turnout area. Those photographs show
[33:34] that work in progress. A French drain is
[33:36] something you might recall the drainage
[33:38] requirements form describes as a
[33:40] concentrated flow. There are hundreds of
[33:42] feet of French drain installed with no
[33:44] permit. The livestock committee also
[33:46] required completion of the turnout
[33:48] fencing. It was finally built just
[33:50] before the hearing, but they built it on
[33:52] my property despite repeating warnings
[33:54] not to do so. The committee also notes
[33:57] that the owner never requested a final
[33:58] inspection for it. So, the committee
[34:00] never learned that the fence encroaches
[34:02] onto my land before approving this. How
[34:04] often are woods are projects in Woodside
[34:06] considered finished and occupancy
[34:08] approved before the final is signed off?
[34:10] None. Never. But this one was. The owner
[34:13] knew his fence was on my land and
[34:15] clearly didn't want an inspection to
[34:16] reveal this before the meeting. That's
[34:18] why there was no inspection. The
[34:20] applications also asked whether any
[34:22] immediate health and safety hazards
[34:24] exist. In my opinion, one absolutely
[34:26] does. Yet, it was never disclosed. Just
[34:29] feet from the turnout is a vernal creek
[34:31] head leading to Kinyatta Road and Bear
[34:33] Golts Creek. And that French drain is
[34:35] deposited straight into it. Why is the
[34:38] applicant never disclosed this? Because
[34:40] this is effectively a septic system for
[34:42] the horse facility and it's being dumped
[34:44] into our local creek. This is water I
[34:47] collected from that area just a few days
[34:49] ago.
[34:54] This is a clear adverse health impact
[34:57] and Sanonteo County has already begun
[34:59] investigating. According to information
[35:02] provided by the town, county ordinance
[35:04] 4913 prohibits non-storm water discharge
[35:06] into the storm drain system and water
[35:08] courses and prohibits concealing such
[35:11] violations. The owner never disclosed
[35:13] this drainage system to the town, county
[35:15] or livestock committee despite
[35:17] application requirements.
[35:20] The county the or the owner as county
[35:22] ordinance 4913 defines this concealed
[35:26] it. Sage saw this area when he came out
[35:28] to confirm the new fence was built on my
[35:30] land. He knew about the leech field and
[35:32] the fill area. He saw it for himself. He
[35:34] saw the brown stinky water foaming in
[35:36] the creature ditch. He shrugged. The
[35:38] livestock made their decision. They
[35:40] approved it. In 2015, the town performed
[35:43] no oversight and failed to require the
[35:45] live standard application processes that
[35:48] were mandatory. In 2026, the livestock
[35:51] committee did it again and approved a
[35:53] second horse without ever considering
[35:55] Woodside Municipal Code 115, and they
[35:57] missed a lot of things. Some of these
[35:59] were very important. This one was
[36:01] extremely important. But there's more.
[36:04] When 831 Glen Craig was for sale in
[36:06] 2015, I made an offer and received the
[36:09] transfer disclosures. Those documents
[36:11] state septic field is not operating
[36:12] correctly. Pat Dempsey reported this
[36:15] system would not take water. Air and
[36:17] septic the effluent level was above the
[36:19] outlet and not draining. If that septic
[36:21] system is failing and a French drain has
[36:23] since been installed above it, waste
[36:25] water could be redirected into the
[36:26] adjacent creek. That possibility should
[36:29] have been disclosed and evaluated.
[36:32] But the life's Dr. Marty
[36:35] never had the opportunity to consider
[36:36] these facts because they were never
[36:38] presented. It seems obvious why the
[36:40] applicant never addressed these issues
[36:42] in his response letter to my appeal. He
[36:44] knows exactly what he did and he did it
[36:46] all because his property is too small
[36:47] for two horses. There's simply not
[36:49] enough space for the turnout to drain on
[36:51] its own. And because the septic system
[36:53] under it is failing, there's a moisture
[36:55] problem. If I did not before, I hope I
[36:57] now have your attention. I hope you now
[36:59] understand why I said that the livestock
[37:01] committee did not know what they were
[37:03] approving. They knew nothing about any
[37:05] of this and of course they didn't want
[37:07] to know. I've invested significant time
[37:09] and expense to bring these issues before
[37:11] the planning commission because I
[37:12] believe they deserve careful review.
[37:14] It's time for these matters to be
[37:16] addressed properly, preferably beginning
[37:18] with the removal of the fence that's on
[37:20] my property. I respectfully ask you to
[37:22] reverse the approval of the second
[37:24] horse. Thank you.
[37:27] Any questions?
[37:33] No. All right. Thank you.
[37:40] » All right. We'll proceed to the uh
[37:42] presentation by the Apple.
[37:50] » Boy, it's uh really tough to stand here
[37:51] and not scream.
[37:54] My name is Manish Monroe. I live at 831
[37:56] Glen Craig Way. I'm here tonight to
[37:58] respectfully ask that the planning
[38:00] commission deny Mr. Clark's appeal and
[38:02] uphold the stable exception approval
[38:04] recommended by the livestock committee.
[38:06] Mr. Clark paid $1,000 to contest the
[38:10] livestock committee's recommendation.
[38:12] That gave him the right to appeal, and I
[38:15] respect that process, but it did not
[38:18] give him a license to turn a narrow,
[38:21] stable exception issue into a platform
[38:24] of unrelated
[38:26] grievances. The question before you this
[38:29] evening is not to resolve Mr. Clark's
[38:31] long list of grievances, disputes,
[38:34] frustrations, and across the board
[38:36] complaints. The question before you
[38:38] tonight is narrow. Can two horses be
[38:41] kept responsibly at 831 Glen Craig Way
[38:45] under the town stable exception
[38:47] standards and conditions that would be
[38:49] imposed by the town? And is that
[38:52] consistent with the Woodside general
[38:56] plan? Based on the actual record, I
[38:58] believe the answer is yes. prior to the
[39:00] unanimous 5 to zero vote to recommend
[39:03] approval to livestock committee members
[39:05] visited our property for inspection.
[39:07] Additionally, the minutes from the
[39:09] meeting state that the facilities were
[39:11] more than adequate for the horses health
[39:14] and safety, that the stalls, turnouts,
[39:16] and paddics were all well constructed
[39:18] and maintained and that sufficient
[39:20] measures were in place to manage manure
[39:22] and control dust. And the most
[39:25] importantly, the minutes state the
[39:27] overall lot size did not affect the area
[39:30] dedicated to the horse facilities. That
[39:33] record should matter. This exception is
[39:36] also within the spirits Woodside within
[39:38] the spirit of Woodside's general plan
[39:40] pol uh general plan policy CL4.1
[39:44] which states that the town should
[39:46] promote and protect its equestrian
[39:48] heritage by encouraging equestrian
[39:50] facilities supporting equestrian events
[39:53] programs and organizations and creating
[39:56] incentives for horsekeeping including
[40:00] streamlined permits for barns and
[40:02] corral.
[40:04] Now, as to any suggestion that our
[40:06] horses are not happy, our veterinarian
[40:08] is on record saying that the horses
[40:10] consistently appear calm, comfortable,
[40:12] healthy, and well cared for, and that
[40:15] she has not observed any signs of undue
[40:18] stress.
[40:22] Another important record is that the
[40:24] property has an existing oversized two
[40:27] stall barn and a substantial portion of
[40:30] the un the usable property is dedicated
[40:32] to horses. Multiple members of the
[40:35] Woodside horse community have emailed
[40:37] the town confirming that 831 Glen Craig
[40:39] pre uh previously supported two horses
[40:42] without known issue. That record
[40:44] directly undercuts the suggestion that
[40:46] two horses are new, unusual or
[40:50] unsustainable on this property. I also
[40:53] want to address the practical concerns
[40:55] raised about manure, flies, odor, dust
[40:59] and noise, and Mr. Clark's property
[41:02] value. Our horses live about 10 feet
[41:05] from our bedroom window. So minimizing
[41:07] flies, odor, dust, and noise is not just
[41:10] about our neighbors well-being. It's
[41:12] also crucial to our quality of life. We
[41:15] manage manure, flies, dust, noise
[41:17] aggressively. Manure is picked up
[41:19] multiple times a day, placed in closed
[41:22] covered bins, and removed every Friday
[41:24] by green waste. There is no open manure
[41:27] pile. We use crushed granite instead of
[41:29] sand in the runs to reduce dust. We also
[41:32] use multiple fly control measures
[41:34] including simplify fly traps and fly
[41:37] predators.
[41:40] Flies can come from many sources and the
[41:43] presence of flies at a neighboring home
[41:45] does not prove that they came from our
[41:48] property. The same is true for dust. The
[41:51] appeal refers to the horses kicking
[41:53] buckets and water troughs, but that does
[41:56] not match our setup. We don't own water
[41:58] troughs and that we don't use buckets at
[42:01] home. We have automatic water dispensers
[42:03] bolted to the fence and use a slow
[42:05] feeder box and two rubber bowls for
[42:08] supplements. If the slow feeder creates
[42:11] a specific noise concern, I am willing
[42:13] to secure pad modify or replace it. That
[42:16] is a manageable issue, not a reason to
[42:19] overturn the stable exception. If there
[42:22] is a reoccurring noise issue, it should
[42:24] be documented with a date, time, and
[42:26] recording so it can be compared against
[42:28] our security system to determine if
[42:30] there is a correlation. The appeal also
[42:33] raises property value concerns, but it
[42:36] provides no appraisals, comparable sales
[42:39] analysis, or market evidence. So when
[42:42] you look at the actual facts, the horse
[42:44] care, the facilities, the prior
[42:46] two-horse use, the manure system, the
[42:47] fly controls, the dust controls, a noise
[42:50] issue that has not been proven, and a
[42:52] lack of property value evidence, the
[42:54] record supports approval. That brings me
[42:58] to the spirit of the appeal itself.
[43:02] I believe the appeal should be be viewed
[43:04] for what it is. First, it raises broad
[43:07] claims about the property slice, flies,
[43:10] odor, dust, noise, porch welfare, town
[43:13] permit issues, and property value.
[43:15] Second, Mr. Clark's appeal moves away
[43:17] from the stable exception criteria and
[43:19] into personal commentary, unsupported
[43:22] allegations, unrelated history, and old
[43:25] grievances. It includes private private
[43:27] commentary about a neighbor's financial
[43:30] privacy after suggesting that privacy
[43:32] should be respected. It re visits new
[43:35] and old fence issues, tree property line
[43:38] issues. It questions motives and raises
[43:40] prior frustrations with neighbors,
[43:42] community members, the town's permit
[43:44] process. The appeal also questions the
[43:48] judgment of the LEC.
[43:50] It discusses reputations and speculates
[43:53] about who may hold the grudge and why.
[43:56] Mr. Clark even claims he knows that our
[43:58] horses learned to ask to be fed or
[44:01] watered by kicking water troughs that
[44:04] don't exist.
[44:06] And this appeal goes so far as to state
[44:08] that a crime was committed when the
[44:10] second horse was introduced. That is a
[44:13] serious allegation.
[44:16] One moment, please.
[44:27] None of that helps answer the actual
[44:29] question before the commission, but it
[44:31] raises a fair question.
[44:34] Is this appeal about one additional
[44:37] horse, or is it an attempt to use this
[44:40] appeal to reopen every complaint Mr.
[44:42] Clark has had about horses, neighbors,
[44:45] the town, and 831 Glen Craig? And more
[44:48] importantly, is there a pattern here?
[44:50] That question matters because Mr.
[44:53] Clark's own appeal states that when he
[44:55] bought his property, he knew that there
[44:57] were horses next door. He could hear
[44:59] them, smell them, and notic his flies
[45:02] and and noticed flies and dusks and was
[45:05] okay with that. These are his words in
[45:07] his appeal. Yet, the relief he seeks
[45:11] would effectively take away our ability
[45:13] to keep both horses. He says the second
[45:16] horse is totally unacceptable. asks the
[45:20] town to limit our property to one horse
[45:22] and then turns around and challenges the
[45:25] existing of the first horse permit as
[45:28] well.
[45:30] I want to address the practical effect
[45:32] of Mr. Clark's appeal if it is approved.
[45:35] Removing a horse from the property would
[45:37] take away an important part of how our
[45:39] family participates in the Woodside
[45:42] community. These horses are how we take part in the
[46:03] Mayday parade, the Redwood City Fourth
[46:05] of July parade, day of the horse junior
[46:07] rodeo, and other events where Woodside
[46:10] is represented. Would that really be in
[46:12] the best interest of the Woodside
[46:13] community? Does anyone here
[46:17] actually believe that removing one horse
[46:20] out of two will reduce flies, remove
[46:22] odor, increase Mr. Clark's property
[46:25] value, make both horses happier and
[46:27] healthier, make it quieter and less
[46:29] dusty, and will solve all the issues
[46:31] that Mr. Clark raised. Look, I
[46:35] understand that living next to horses
[46:37] can raise concerns for a neighbor who
[46:40] does not have horses, but in a healthy
[46:42] community, any concern should start with
[46:45] a neighborly conversation before
[46:47] becoming formal complaints that use town
[46:50] time and taxpayer resources. While I
[46:53] can't speak on behalf of the entire
[46:55] horse community, many of us believe that
[46:58] being a good neighbor, contributing to
[47:00] the community, and raising healthy,
[47:02] happy horses responsibly are not
[47:05] mutually exclusive.
[47:08] If there's a genuine concern, talk to
[47:10] us. We want to be part of the solution.
[47:15] School members of the planning
[47:17] commission, the question before you is
[47:18] simple. Can two horses be responsibly
[47:20] kept at 831 Glen Craig under the town
[47:23] stable exception standards, the town's
[47:25] conditions, and is that in line with
[47:27] Woodside's general plan? The actual
[47:30] report records approval, and I
[47:32] respectfully ask the planning commission
[47:34] to deny the appeal and uphold the stable
[47:37] accession approval for 831 Clank
[47:40] Craigway.
[47:50] All right. So, uh we now have an
[47:52] opportunity to ask questions of the uh
[47:54] applicant.
[48:01] Uh for the app the apple
[48:10] » I I have one which is so we we heard
[48:12] about the fence uh and the and the fence
[48:14] line and and whatnot. I'm looking at
[48:16] this um at the map here and so from what
[48:19] I can see it looks like you know again
[48:23] knowing that what we're deciding really
[48:25] is is is focused on um health and safety
[48:28] of of livestock is one of the findings.
[48:30] Right. So, we heard about that fence
[48:33] potentially moving.
[48:34] >> I can tell you,
[48:35] >> sorry, just two questions. One is, you
[48:37] know, have there been surveys done? And
[48:38] then two, uh, do we know that the delta
[48:42] from where it is? And then, is that have
[48:44] a material impact on the square foot?
[48:46] >> I'll share that with you. So, ever since
[48:47] we moved into the property, Mr. Clark
[48:50] complained that he owned four feet on
[48:52] our side. There were two metal rods, and
[48:54] he kept pointing to them, saying, "Nope,
[48:56] this is this is my property here." He
[48:59] knew that there was a a marker in the
[49:02] property that marked the corner of the
[49:04] property, but he did not share that with
[49:06] us. So, we ended up spending about
[49:08] $7,000 because we knew he was going to
[49:10] be an issue.
[49:12] And we got the property surveyed. We had
[49:16] a fence put in. And as you know, the
[49:19] concrete that goes in the fence, I
[49:21] believe a little bit of that concrete
[49:23] post is on his side. He can have that
[49:26] concrete. we can get that concrete cut.
[49:29] The fence is not on his side. Now, if
[49:32] there was an error made by the
[49:34] contractor, Mr. Clark now has a
[49:36] responsibility to prove that the fence
[49:39] is on his side. And once that proof is
[49:41] made, we will take steps. We will take
[49:45] all of the necessary steps to conform to
[49:48] the law, to what this commission
[49:50] dictates, to what the overall uh rules
[49:55] are. But we cannot come in here and
[49:58] start talking about that our family
[50:01] sewer is going into the creek. That's
[50:04] absurd.
[50:06] That is absurd.
[50:16] Um, question for the applicant. Where on
[50:18] the property is your septic tank leech
[50:21] field?
[50:22] >> It's on the driveway. Um, please step up
[50:25] microphone.
[50:27] >> I believe it's on the driveway
[50:31] underneath the the front of the
[50:32] property. You s I think when you came
[50:34] by, you saw the septic tank. The septic
[50:36] tank, I believe, when the house was
[50:38] built. Uh, the septic tank might have
[50:41] been outside, but there was a garage put
[50:42] over it. So, that septic tank is there.
[50:45] Um, and that leech field is underneath
[50:48] that
[50:50] um the front of the house, I believe.
[50:53] >> Under the paved area,
[50:54] >> I believe so.
[50:57] >> Um, could the planning director speak on
[51:00] whether that's code or not?
[51:01] >> Um, I I don't know. This is the Sonteo
[51:04] County. I don't believe they would
[51:06] permit new uh paved areas over septic.
[51:10] I'm not sure if it's in the dirt
[51:11] semicircle area in the front, but um
[51:14] it's yeah, it's a Sonteo County health
[51:16] issue. Definitely for new systems. I
[51:18] know that's being looked at.
[51:20] >> You know, Mr. Clark's already called the
[51:21] Sonteo uh county at one point. Uh we're
[51:25] just waiting for like the DEA, the FBI
[51:27] to show up. It's okay. The police, these
[51:30] guys are going to keep coming and that's
[51:31] okay. We will keep addressing these
[51:34] issues, but they have come before.
[51:37] Sonteo came and checked our uh our
[51:42] septic tank. They said that there was
[51:44] some sort of smell coming. Somebody made
[51:46] a complaint. They came in, they checked
[51:48] it. If you'd like, I can get back to the
[51:49] commission on who that was. I don't know
[51:51] if I have any records of that, but that
[51:52] did happen.
[52:00] » Thank you.
[52:03] I'm making we're gonna if if you don't
[52:06] mind, we're we're almost to the public
[52:08] comment uh period. So, if you don't mind
[52:09] just holding the comment
[52:11] >> and if we do not have further questions
[52:14] of the applicant or appellent, we will
[52:15] go ahead and
[52:17] getting anything uh we will go ahead and
[52:20] open uh open public hearing. So, uh
[52:23] again just the way this is this works is
[52:26] a few things. So, one please do approach
[52:28] and speak into the microphone. That's
[52:30] important so that folks can uh hear if
[52:32] they're participating online or for the
[52:34] record. Uh there is a red uh button on
[52:37] there to be able to slide it up and
[52:38] down. So just push that and go up and
[52:40] down. Uh please state your name and if
[52:42] you're comfortable uh your residence and
[52:45] there is a limit of 3 minutes uh per
[52:47] person. Uh again just to reiterate also
[52:49] we do have a lot of folks here. So don't
[52:50] feel like you need to use all three
[52:52] minutes or if you agree with something
[52:53] else, you know, it's fine to state the
[52:55] agreement. uh but you are also free to
[52:57] uh to use the three minutes as you like.
[53:00] So with that we will go ahead and open
[53:02] uh public comments and uh and do we have
[53:04] Julia are there folks on the Zoom and if
[53:06] so we'll we'll probably switch back and
[53:07] forth a bit.
[53:09] >> Just a reminder for those online to use
[53:10] the raise hand feature if you'd want to
[53:12] make a comment.
[53:13] >> So what we'll do is if there folks on
[53:14] Zoom we'll we'll sort of alternate back
[53:16] and forth uh and uh and go that way. So
[53:19] why don't we open up with anyone in the
[53:21] room like to uh make a comment uh now
[53:22] would be the time. And I just want to
[53:24] note that our timer that usually usually
[53:27] shows up on our screen is not working,
[53:29] but our deputy town
[53:30] >> I actually reached out to Jen while we
[53:32] were talking and we've got it fixed. So,
[53:33] >> thank you.
[53:37] » My name is Janet Estep. I've lived in
[53:39] Woodside off and on for since 1956 when
[53:43] we incorporated it as a horse community.
[53:47] Okay.
[53:48] And the area that Sue uh my friend lived
[53:53] in the house that you were talking about
[53:55] was in county all the time until I guess
[53:59] you'd call it recently the Woodside took
[54:02] an interest in it. But the regulations
[54:06] that first of all I've had a uh permit
[54:11] for over 50 years in Woodside on Raundo
[54:15] and I resent the fact that they state
[54:19] that nobody comes out and looks at your
[54:22] barn. Nobody cares about your manure.
[54:25] Nobody cares about the scent. They do. I
[54:28] had the flu one year and I couldn't
[54:30] clean my corral. I got three notices. I
[54:34] was sick for three weeks. Every week I
[54:36] got a notice, okay? And we took care of
[54:39] it. We had we haul manure away. We cover
[54:43] it up with dirt. We do whatever we
[54:45] don't. And I don't have horses now, but
[54:48] I renew my permit because I don't ever
[54:52] want to give it up because when you do,
[54:56] you have problems. Now Sue died
[55:00] and now we have problems for the new
[55:02] owner who we're trying to welcome into a
[55:06] horse community.
[55:09] This is still a horse community. I was
[55:12] here. I know the men that put this town
[55:16] together and it was put together to be a
[55:19] horse community. Now we've been under
[55:22] attack after the war. We were under
[55:25] attack in the 60s. the 70s, we've seen
[55:29] barns torn down and tennis courts put in
[55:34] and swimming pools put in and even
[55:37] soccer fields put in. And that's fine.
[55:40] Those are the people they want to do
[55:42] that. But in the meantime, we're still
[55:45] here. The horses are still here. There's
[55:47] not many of us. When I was younger,
[55:50] there were 5,000 in town. Now
[55:53] probablyund and something, I think. you
[55:56] know, it's gone, but we're on our way
[55:59] out. But Sue had a good house with two
[56:03] horses, maintained the the grounds, and
[56:07] she had that guy as her neighbor for 30
[56:12] years.
[56:13] Give us a chance with the new and don't
[56:17] tell me that we do not regulate the
[56:21] horse community. The horse community has
[56:23] been regulated almost out of town. You
[56:27] took away our commercial barns. You took
[56:30] away the commercial permits on Kenyatta
[56:33] long before you guys were here because
[56:35] that happened in the 70s.
[56:38] Thank you.
[56:39] >> Thank you.
[56:46] » All right.
[56:48] >> I'm Ricky Benadetti. Uh, I'm also on the
[56:50] trails committee of the town. I'm not
[56:52] here speaking from the trails committee.
[56:54] I'm here just as a resident.
[56:57] Any other disclosures I have to give you
[56:59] or I
[57:00] >> think you're good.
[57:00] >> Okay. Um, we purchased the property at
[57:04] 833 Canata Road back in 1983.
[57:08] That's 43 years ago. There's always been
[57:11] horses looking through the window
[57:14] towards Glen Craig.
[57:17] We are here today to determine is the
[57:20] site really large enough to have two
[57:22] horses on it per the Woodside code. In
[57:26] my viewpoint, I think it's important to
[57:29] know why this all came up. Going back
[57:33] into the 60s, 70s, and 80s
[57:37] during the winter rains, there were a
[57:41] lot of landslides up on Oak Hill, Summit
[57:44] Springs, Partition, Patrol Road, and it
[57:48] turned out that through the various
[57:52] inspections, it was from horses being
[57:54] kept on hillsides,
[57:56] and they were just constantly churning
[57:58] things up, mixing it up, making it
[58:00] slippery, and washing out. They came up
[58:04] with a plan to say, "Okay, let's only
[58:07] have horses on one acre and larger."
[58:10] Well, that's fine except that that was
[58:14] for the hillsides, but it's a uniform
[58:18] code throughout the town. So, there has
[58:21] to be exceptions. You're looking at a
[58:23] site at 831
[58:26] Glen Craig that is relatively flat. The
[58:30] soil is very compacted.
[58:33] There's good drainage on it. So, there's
[58:37] really no reason not to approve the
[58:41] exception of horses on less than an
[58:45] acre.
[58:49] » Thank you.
[58:56] » U my name is Bill Man. I live and own
[58:59] the property at 823 Glen Craig Way,
[59:03] which is directly adjacent to 8 uh 31.
[59:08] Um, in fact, my property almost
[59:10] surrounds his property. It has uh his
[59:13] complete um sideyard run and then his
[59:18] complete rear. So, I I'm very very close
[59:20] to him. Um the I purchased the property
[59:24] in and moved in in 1975
[59:27] and there were horses there. It was a
[59:29] mess. There was a a creek that went
[59:31] through it. Um there was four horses on
[59:34] the property all the time and it was
[59:36] really poorly kept. Uh that was the uh
[59:41] an owner, the first owner. Uh then uh a
[59:46] girl named Suzian uh purchased a
[59:48] property and started working cleaning it
[59:50] up trying to uh rellandscape it and a
[59:55] large portion of this property is
[59:57] dedicated to horses. There's not a lot
[59:59] of other stuff on it. Okay. Anyway, she
[1:00:02] uh uh and then
[1:00:06] the new owners have come in and cleaned
[1:00:08] it up. And I'll tell you, I'm right
[1:00:10] behind it and beside it. I have three
[1:00:12] horses on my property. Um, and
[1:00:16] there this year has been exceptional.
[1:00:18] There are no flies. In fact, um, on my
[1:00:22] place, it's amazing. Horses attract
[1:00:24] flies, but um, I have out a lot of fly
[1:00:27] control stuff. The new owner has out all
[1:00:30] kinds of stuff. There's, in fact, people
[1:00:32] have com commented when they come to,
[1:00:34] they go, "You don't have any flies as
[1:00:36] far as the noise or the dust." Um, you
[1:00:39] know, um, I I don't notice anything. I
[1:00:43] mean, you hear a horse winning now and
[1:00:44] then, but, um, I don't see any problem
[1:00:47] whatsoever with them having two horses
[1:00:50] there. They're good neighbors, and they
[1:00:52] have greatly improved the property, and
[1:00:54] if you've been out there and saw it,
[1:00:56] it's immaculate. I mean, it it it is
[1:00:58] really what it should be. So, anyway,
[1:01:00] thank you for your consideration. Thank
[1:01:03] you.
[1:01:11] Hi, I'm Karen Flores at 185 Hobart's
[1:01:14] Heights in Woodside and I just want to
[1:01:17] speak about this. Mr. Manro went to the
[1:01:20] livestock committee and presented his
[1:01:22] exception request which is what we
[1:01:25] should all do. He put in place all the
[1:01:27] necessary requirements for fly control,
[1:01:30] sufficient and safe space for the two
[1:01:32] horses, sufficient shelter, drainage,
[1:01:35] etc. And he was approved for the two
[1:01:37] horses by the committee. In my opinion,
[1:01:40] he handled this in the proper way and he
[1:01:42] went through the proper channels. I walk
[1:01:44] in that area routinely and I had noticed
[1:01:47] how nicely fixed up the property was
[1:01:49] after the new family had purchased it. I
[1:01:52] did not know who they were, but I was
[1:01:54] very impressed with what they had done.
[1:01:56] I saw the horse and now horses
[1:01:58] frequently when I was on my walks. They
[1:02:01] are clean. They're well cared for. I do
[1:02:03] not notice dust, odor, or flies.
[1:02:07] Woodside is a town known for its horses,
[1:02:10] and it is part of our overall town
[1:02:12] charter. It was the main reason I moved
[1:02:14] here 35 years ago. There is a process in
[1:02:17] place by the town to asssure that
[1:02:19] stables meet certain requirements for a
[1:02:21] residential area and Mr. Manra followed
[1:02:24] that process and was approved for his
[1:02:26] exception. I strongly support the permit
[1:02:29] exception to allow the two horses to
[1:02:31] remain on the property. Thank you.
[1:02:43] My name is uh Dan Flores and I've lived
[1:02:46] here the same number of years as my wife
[1:02:49] and we do live in the same house.
[1:02:53] >> Um
[1:02:55] I just want to say something interesting
[1:02:57] that struck me. I had some things
[1:02:59] written down but something that really
[1:03:01] struck me is Mr. Clark opened his
[1:03:05] comments by trying to convey the idea
[1:03:08] that he didn't dislike horses, that as a
[1:03:11] child or as a youngster, he had ridden
[1:03:14] horses and worked on horses. And yet,
[1:03:17] when I heard his comments,
[1:03:20] I didn't come away from that thinking,
[1:03:22] this is a guy who likes horses. If
[1:03:25] anything, it struck me as somebody that
[1:03:27] kind of resented horses and resented all
[1:03:30] the work that he had to do when he was
[1:03:32] growing up with horses. So, I'm not sure
[1:03:36] that any of that can be used to justify
[1:03:39] any of the decisions that the members
[1:03:40] here have to make. [clears throat] The
[1:03:42] other thing is that there have been a
[1:03:44] lot of comments about property values,
[1:03:47] and that's certainly important. We all
[1:03:48] live in Woodside. We certainly know what
[1:03:50] property values are all about, but
[1:03:53] there's all kinds of things that you
[1:03:54] could list that might impact your
[1:03:56] property values. It might be a barking
[1:03:59] dog. It might be an old car parked in
[1:04:01] front. Yes, there might be some dust. I
[1:04:03] mean, we could sit here all evening and
[1:04:05] just list all the things that might be
[1:04:07] impacting somebody's property value.
[1:04:11] To me, what is more important is the
[1:04:14] character of this community. And if we
[1:04:17] as a community and the members here
[1:04:19] accept and want to support the character
[1:04:22] of this community and one of the
[1:04:24] characters of this community is that it
[1:04:26] is a horse community. And even though
[1:04:28] there aren't as many people now who ride
[1:04:31] horses, absolutely it is absolutely one
[1:04:34] of the things that makes this community
[1:04:35] so charming. When people look around,
[1:04:38] there are some people that want to live
[1:04:39] in a more sterile environment like
[1:04:41] PaloAlto. And I love PaloAlto. I don't
[1:04:43] say that in a negative way. They want to
[1:04:45] live in a condo or something like that
[1:04:47] and that's good. But there are other
[1:04:49] people that are attracted to more of a
[1:04:52] outdoor type of community. I mean a lot
[1:04:54] of neighbors you walk through the town
[1:04:56] you see people have chickens. Wow. We
[1:04:58] raise eggs. You see kids on kinata
[1:05:00] selling eggs that have come from their
[1:05:03] chickens. It's part of the overall
[1:05:06] character that makes this community so
[1:05:08] incredibly unique and beautiful. And I
[1:05:12] really believe that we need to support
[1:05:14] that and continue to support that. And I
[1:05:17] think one of the ways that we can do
[1:05:18] that is by supporting the request of Mr.
[1:05:22] Monroe here. Now, does a neighbor have
[1:05:26] the right to say you need to maintain
[1:05:29] your property with your horses?
[1:05:31] Absolutely. Nobody wants to live in an
[1:05:34] area where somebody brings in 20 horses
[1:05:36] and cleans up the horsemen once a month.
[1:05:38] That is a very fair request.
[1:05:40] Does somebody have the right to look
[1:05:42] over and say, "Man, your horses should
[1:05:44] be well taken care of. It looks like
[1:05:47] they're never fed." That's not an issue
[1:05:48] at all here.
[1:05:51] He is meeting, matching, and surpassing
[1:05:54] every request and need that a reasonable
[1:05:58] horse owner would expect for their
[1:06:00] horses above and beyond the call of
[1:06:02] duty. You walk on the street as a final
[1:06:05] comment. Oh, we're over time. Do you
[1:06:07] mind just wrapping up?
[1:06:08] >> Thank you very much for your time.
[1:06:09] >> Thank you. Appreciate it.
[1:06:15] Good evening and thank you for your
[1:06:16] time. My name is Sarah Monroe. I'm 16
[1:06:19] years old and I live at 831 Glen
[1:06:20] Craigway. My family and I moved to
[1:06:23] Woodside for one specific reason, to be
[1:06:25] closer to the equestrian community and
[1:06:27] my horses. During August of 2024, I
[1:06:30] moved Bling, my first horse, over to 831
[1:06:32] Glen Craig Way, and one of my friends
[1:06:34] had her horse on the property for a
[1:06:36] short period of time. Mr. Clark filed no
[1:06:38] complaint about two horses during that
[1:06:40] time. As soon as my friend's horse left,
[1:06:43] Bling was left alone. Now, if you've had
[1:06:45] experience around horses, you would know
[1:06:47] that horses are herd animals. Having two
[1:06:50] horses that get along is going to make
[1:06:52] sure both horses are quieter, calmer,
[1:06:54] and happier. Having one horse by itself
[1:06:57] is simply cruel, and is the recipe for
[1:06:59] an unhappy horse. In Mr. Clark's appeal,
[1:07:02] he mentions that the livestock committee
[1:07:04] members one did not listen and two made
[1:07:07] up their own mind based upon their own
[1:07:08] ideas that had no basis in fact.
[1:07:11] However, the meeting lasted one and a
[1:07:12] half hours. They did listen and two of
[1:07:15] the members spoke about how they spent
[1:07:16] some time by the horse area observing
[1:07:18] the horses and from their own experience
[1:07:21] and knowledge concluded the horses are
[1:07:23] well cared for and there was enough room
[1:07:25] for them. Another claim that was made
[1:07:27] was the fly amount had increased. When I
[1:07:30] read this, two things came to mind. One,
[1:07:32] manure gets picked up multiple times a
[1:07:34] day into closed bins and leaves the
[1:07:36] property weekly. And according to the
[1:07:38] fly life cycle, it simply reduces the
[1:07:40] chances of an extensive amount of flies
[1:07:42] to be born. The claim that there are
[1:07:44] more flies is subjective. No objective
[1:07:46] measurements were provided to
[1:07:48] demonstrate that there had been an
[1:07:49] unusual increase or that is related to
[1:07:51] our property and specifically our
[1:07:53] horses. These are just two examples
[1:07:55] throughout the letter where I noticed an
[1:07:56] assumption or baseless statement without
[1:07:58] evidence to support it. In the summer of
[1:08:01] 2025, my family bought Billy the second
[1:08:04] horse. Both of these horses are my best
[1:08:06] friends, and I couldn't imagine living
[1:08:07] without them. In fact, me and my family
[1:08:10] purposely didn't hire anyone to take
[1:08:12] care of them so I could have the full
[1:08:13] responsibility and get the full
[1:08:15] equestrian experience. I have skipped
[1:08:17] multiple hangouts with friends, school
[1:08:19] activities, and events to make sure they
[1:08:21] get the best quality of life and enjoy
[1:08:23] living with us. For us, getting rid of
[1:08:26] one horse would simply mean getting rid
[1:08:27] of both, as it's not fair to keep one by
[1:08:29] itself. Woodside already has an extreme
[1:08:32] decrease in horse properties and horses
[1:08:34] as a whole. Please don't let your
[1:08:35] decision today contribute to the
[1:08:37] continued loss of the equestrian
[1:08:39] community that has been a long defining
[1:08:40] part of Woodside's identity. Thank you.
[1:08:43] >> Thank you.
[1:08:55] Good evening. I'm Maggie Ma. I'm a
[1:08:57] member of the trails committee. I'm here
[1:08:59] um um as a resident, but I would like to
[1:09:03] address the issue of um question of
[1:09:07] stable permits. Um I have uh a lot of
[1:09:10] personal experience with this. I'm a
[1:09:12] horse owner. I moved here 30 years ago.
[1:09:15] Um, there was an existing stable permit
[1:09:17] and I I knew about it because the old
[1:09:20] permit was stuck up on the barn. Um, and
[1:09:23] I was I had boarded horses down here at
[1:09:25] another spot. So, I knew there was
[1:09:27] stable permits permitted. However, a lot
[1:09:30] of people don't, as Sage said, um, there
[1:09:34] is really no mechanism within the town
[1:09:37] to allow to alert the town that
[1:09:39] properties change hands. So, um, uh, as
[1:09:43] a member of the trails committee, we
[1:09:45] work with the town to issue the stable
[1:09:48] permit invoices every year. Um, we have
[1:09:51] a budget that comes from the trail user
[1:09:55] fees that people pay according to how
[1:09:57] many horses they have that regularly
[1:09:59] ride the trails.
[1:10:01] Um, and that makes up half our budget.
[1:10:05] And that goes into repairing trails. So,
[1:10:07] we keep a close eye or we try to keep a
[1:10:09] close eye on the stable permit. I will
[1:10:12] tell you this and it's been going on for
[1:10:14] years that the town I'm sorry Sage, but
[1:10:17] the town has been has never had good
[1:10:20] records about stable permits.
[1:10:23] Uh, at one point, um, so what happens is
[1:10:28] the the property changes hands. Um, the
[1:10:31] invoice goes out it and it goes to the
[1:10:34] former the former owner, right? So the
[1:10:37] current owner will look at that and he
[1:10:38] goes, "Well, that's just for somebody
[1:10:40] else." Maybe they'll forwarded it, maybe
[1:10:42] they won't, but the but the previous
[1:10:44] owner is going to go, "Well, I don't
[1:10:45] live there anymore. Why should I have
[1:10:47] this?" Right? So you can imagine. So
[1:10:49] when a when a stable permit invoice goes
[1:10:52] unpaid, this is the current procedure.
[1:10:56] It is dropped from the next year's
[1:10:58] mailing list. So there there's no way to
[1:11:03] track what has happened to it. There is
[1:11:05] no way to know who really has a permit.
[1:11:08] There's a lot of horses in in Woodside
[1:11:10] that are unaccounted for. We we're
[1:11:12] pretty sure of that, but we don't
[1:11:14] there's no way to prove it. So, there
[1:11:16] are permits that are that are that have
[1:11:18] never been taken out. There are permits
[1:11:21] that don't get renewed for whatever
[1:11:22] reason. Most people in Woodside who have
[1:11:25] horses are good about this, but but this
[1:11:28] hap this this is classic. I mean, every
[1:11:30] year we see that there are permits that
[1:11:33] fall by the wayside. So, um, it became
[1:11:38] so frustrating at one point that I went
[1:11:41] down to the town and having spent a fair
[1:11:44] amount of time documenting all of the
[1:11:46] dedicated equestrian easements
[1:11:49] in 2008, five, something like that. Um,
[1:11:54] I actually found a bind. I asked the
[1:11:57] town, "Do you have a binder where the
[1:11:59] stable permit applications reside?" I
[1:12:02] was shown a binder and I copied them.
[1:12:06] And Miss Sheen's name is here along with
[1:12:09] five other households on Glen Craig. So,
[1:12:13] the the idea that that she's never had a
[1:12:16] permit is ridiculous. So, I also worked
[1:12:18] on the general plan. I know I'm out of
[1:12:20] time here. I worked on the general plan
[1:12:22] and I can't I I just want to support
[1:12:25] what other people have said about this
[1:12:27] is this is a horse country. I'm lucky
[1:12:29] enough to have good neighbors who look
[1:12:31] out for their horses and look out for
[1:12:32] mine and I wish the minor hours the
[1:12:35] same. Thank you.
[1:12:47] Hello. I am Heather Schilling. I am
[1:12:51] privileged to say that I'm a fifth
[1:12:53] generation woodsider. I currently also
[1:12:56] live on Glen Craig and I know their
[1:12:58] facility quite well. Um I my entire
[1:13:02] professional life has been working with
[1:13:05] horses. I was the barn manager at at uh
[1:13:08] NCFT
[1:13:10] uh head instructor at NCT, barn manager
[1:13:12] and head instructor at BK Ranch. I
[1:13:14] currently work at Westwind in Los Altos
[1:13:16] and I've taught junior riders for 23
[1:13:19] years. So I have extensive history and
[1:13:22] understanding of herd management, barn
[1:13:24] management, and horse care. Um, what I
[1:13:26] will say about their property is that is
[1:13:28] immaculate. It is beautiful. Those
[1:13:30] horses are extremely well cared for.
[1:13:32] They're quiet. They're lovely. They're absolute. I see Sarah riding all
[1:13:37] the time. She takes such good care of
[1:13:38] those horses. I just couldn't say
[1:13:40] anything nicer. Um,
[1:13:43] I
[1:13:44] really want to support this horse
[1:13:47] community. I am also privileged to say
[1:13:50] that my great-g grandandmother was one
[1:13:52] of the founding members of the trail
[1:13:53] club. So, I am very vested in this. I
[1:13:57] any in any way or fashion that I can
[1:14:00] show up for the horse community, I
[1:14:01] absolutely will. Um, there is so much
[1:14:04] history. I remember going through um old
[1:14:07] photo albums uh at my grandmother's
[1:14:09] house on Mansonate away looking at uh
[1:14:11] many old pictures and I just got some
[1:14:14] pictures from my aunt last night. Um
[1:14:16] just some very old vintage pictures of
[1:14:19] my family and the horses involved.
[1:14:21] Horses are such a huge part of this
[1:14:24] community and horses have the ability to
[1:14:26] bring people together as we all know
[1:14:28] from day of the horse and many other
[1:14:30] things that this town does. So I just
[1:14:33] wanted to come here to support them. I
[1:14:34] know that their facility is beautiful,
[1:14:36] well cared for, and um
[1:14:39] I think that's about it. I'll keep it
[1:14:41] short.
[1:14:52] » How's it going everybody? Good evening.
[1:14:54] Um I'm John Hayward and I was asked to
[1:14:57] take a look at this by Mr. Monroe
[1:14:59] because I am the current and have been
[1:15:02] for the last nine years facilities
[1:15:03] manager at web branch which is a I would
[1:15:07] call densely uh populated stable with uh
[1:15:10] about 300 horses. Um about 200 of which
[1:15:13] are housed in in facilities about the
[1:15:16] same size. Um
[1:15:19] I also work with uh county permitting on
[1:15:21] this. I work with all of our local vets,
[1:15:23] friers, our state vet, CDFA, and I'm
[1:15:27] very well verssed in all of the issues
[1:15:28] that have come up tonight. Um, a couple
[1:15:31] things that uh caught my attention. I
[1:15:33] did read the brief um that was uh put
[1:15:37] online and it seemed like a lot of these
[1:15:39] uh issues that are brought up were
[1:15:41] related to fencing and arborist issues,
[1:15:43] contractors, things like that. Um, and
[1:15:46] so I'm just going to speak on the
[1:15:48] current state of the site which I
[1:15:50] visited. Um, as well as the car the
[1:15:52] horses. Um, if you talk with the state
[1:15:55] vet or CDFA, um, though the town may
[1:15:57] have different reasoning, uh, their
[1:15:59] general reasoning for for requiring
[1:16:02] stling permits and especially with them,
[1:16:04] county of Sanonteo of an acre per horse
[1:16:06] is mostly related to overg grazing. Um,
[1:16:09] their horses here at this uh, property
[1:16:12] are not grazing. they're they're fed hay
[1:16:14] and supplements every day. Um they also
[1:16:17] have adequate fencing um which has been
[1:16:19] mentioned. They have plenty of space as
[1:16:21] far as um stable in addition to the
[1:16:24] turnout. Um typically, you know, in a a
[1:16:26] facility like we have a turnout area of
[1:16:30] 600 square ft is more than adequate. Um
[1:16:33] I believe their turnout area is close to
[1:16:35] 5,000 on the property. Um so more than
[1:16:38] adequate. Uh the way they handle manure,
[1:16:40] flies, all that is absolutely adequate
[1:16:43] and that's coming from somebody that
[1:16:44] does deal with about 80 cubic yards of
[1:16:47] manure daily. Um that gets put right
[1:16:50] next to our Lera neighbors. Um and we
[1:16:52] have dealt with them before and and uh
[1:16:55] yeah, manure is typically the biggest
[1:16:57] issue with neighbors. Um the way they
[1:16:59] handle the manure, picking it up
[1:17:00] multiple times every day, keeping it in
[1:17:02] covered bins till it's picked up. Um
[1:17:04] it's incredible. Um, I've also worked
[1:17:06] with their horses a little bit over at
[1:17:08] the mount of patrol when they've brought
[1:17:09] them over and they are very happy,
[1:17:11] healthy horses. Um, no hoof issues, no
[1:17:15] major medical issues. Um, they're just kept incredibly well. So,
[1:17:20] um, I think that's all I have and uh,
[1:17:22] yeah, thank you. Thanks for talking.
[1:17:24] Thank you.
[1:17:33] » Hi, I'm Christina Chantolo. I'm at 1389
[1:17:36] Kenyana Road. Um I'm an equin
[1:17:39] professional uh in Woodside for the past
[1:17:41] 20 years. I've been managing public and
[1:17:43] private barns um Foldier Stable and a
[1:17:47] lot of private barns in Woodside. And uh
[1:17:49] the facility at um A31 Glen Crag is is
[1:17:54] remarkable. I mean I have never seen a
[1:17:56] fly system that way. Um it's clean, it's
[1:18:00] dustfree, and the horses are very happy.
[1:18:02] So I want to just second what everyone
[1:18:04] else has has said today. And that's all
[1:18:07] you.
[1:18:11] » We do have one raised hand online now.
[1:18:14] Anita, I'm going to give you permission
[1:18:16] to speak. you just need to unmute.
[1:18:21] » Hi, this is Ann Vancamp.
[1:18:24] Um, I just wanted to uh chip in and just
[1:18:27] support what everyone has been saying in
[1:18:30] support of um agreeing with the two
[1:18:34] horses on the property. Um, I'm
[1:18:36] currently uh traveling and sadly not
[1:18:39] able to be there in person. Um and I
[1:18:43] don't want to take too much more time
[1:18:45] but just want to agree with the um
[1:18:48] arguments in favor especially um most
[1:18:53] important to me is to keep good sight
[1:18:55] for horse country and um I'm hoping that
[1:18:58] the planning committee will um approach
[1:19:03] me to
[1:19:05] this uh specific property for Thank you
[1:19:10] so
[1:19:12] you.
[1:19:15] » We have any other comments in the room?
[1:19:23] » I'm Carrie Oberi. I live at 621 East. Um
[1:19:26] I'm familiar with the property. I used
[1:19:28] to house it for Sushi and she had two
[1:19:30] horses and he's done so many
[1:19:32] improvements to the property and I've
[1:19:34] been there since then and I drive by
[1:19:36] there at least four times a day going
[1:19:38] back and forth to the school.
[1:19:40] never seen manure in the on the property
[1:19:42] and it's beautiful and I think they're
[1:19:44] doing a good job.
[1:19:46] >> Thank you.
[1:19:57] » Good evening. My name is Alita Reed and
[1:20:00] I've owned horses
[1:20:03] uh for 50 years. They had the privilege
[1:20:06] of living in Woodside. I did not. I
[1:20:08] lived in Redwood City. I did know Sue
[1:20:11] many, many years. She always had two
[1:20:14] horses on her property. And I just
[1:20:16] wanted to address the history of the
[1:20:18] property that there always were two
[1:20:20] horses there and to all of a sudden
[1:20:23] eliminate one uh is definitely not fair.
[1:20:27] So that's my input on this subject.
[1:20:30] Thank you.
[1:20:40] Hi, my name is Lupita and I'm Susan
[1:20:43] Chen's adopted daughter. I live uh an
[1:20:46] A31 Glen crack for a few years with her
[1:20:49] and we always have two horses and we
[1:20:52] always have problems with Mr. Clark.
[1:20:54] problems about the fence, problems about
[1:20:57] the trees, problems about the windows
[1:21:00] replacement, problems about anything you
[1:21:03] can name it. He's [snorts] been a
[1:21:05] harassing person since he moved into
[1:21:08] that property. And unfortunately, I have
[1:21:11] two kids and unfortunately they could
[1:21:13] not be friends, my kids, with his girls
[1:21:16] because it's always something between
[1:21:18] them. like uh Alexis uh his daughter
[1:21:23] used to be a friend of my daughter
[1:21:25] Kimberly and they always have problems
[1:21:27] about playing together or something. He
[1:21:30] will get mad upset with them. So I feel
[1:21:34] bad that now the all these problems pass
[1:21:37] it to Mrs. Monroe's family which they're
[1:21:40] very nice family and uh the way he does
[1:21:44] is he takes everything legally and go
[1:21:48] number by number and justified and this
[1:21:52] he seems like he's not a horse lober if
[1:21:54] you're doing this to a horse to a horses
[1:21:57] that is nothing I mean they're not
[1:21:59] bothering his property and they're not
[1:22:00] in his property so I feel sad for
[1:22:04] Monro's family and they have to go
[1:22:06] through this Because my mother having
[1:22:08] cancer, she go she went through all this
[1:22:11] against him like fighting for the fans.
[1:22:14] They he make him make her move the fence
[1:22:18] and he put another fence separated. It
[1:22:20] was just a disaster and it was sad to
[1:22:22] see my mother go fighting always with
[1:22:25] him. And the last word she told me,
[1:22:27] "Whatever you do, don't you ever sell my
[1:22:30] property to Mr. Clark."
[1:22:34] That was her wishes and I did it.
[1:22:45] Evening guys. Uh my name is Dan
[1:22:47] Janatasia. I live in Redwood City on Kev
[1:22:49] Canyon Road. Um I think this you guys
[1:22:51] moving forward you should take this as
[1:22:52] an example of not losing the horse
[1:22:54] community that you have in this area and
[1:22:57] actually welcoming it and moving, you
[1:22:59] know, with the exceptions. I think you
[1:23:00] guys should probably make exceptions
[1:23:01] with how tight this world is and how
[1:23:03] people are willing to put money out for
[1:23:05] a hobby that costs a lot. You have other
[1:23:08] arrangements with kids in school and
[1:23:10] college, but they're willing to go out
[1:23:11] and get these horses. There's a lot of
[1:23:13] people and we're trying to bring up the
[1:23:14] next generation. And if we have problems
[1:23:16] with getting land for 4, FFA, horse
[1:23:20] corral, what the manure is, people that
[1:23:22] move in your airports know there's going
[1:23:24] to be an airport sound. People that move
[1:23:25] into a community with horses need to
[1:23:27] realize there's going to be horse. you
[1:23:28] may have to slow down and pull over,
[1:23:30] stop, let the horses move through
[1:23:32] because at some point there's going to
[1:23:33] be a lot of cars and motorcycles in this
[1:23:36] area. So, uh, thank you very much.
[1:23:44] » Any other comments?
[1:23:48] » All right. Well, we will go ahead and
[1:23:49] close public hearing then. And the next
[1:23:52] step is uh is commissioner deliberation.
[1:23:54] So before we uh sorry there is a hand.
[1:23:57] Is that a hand for a comment?
[1:24:01] >> Yeah, a hand just went up. Um iPhone
[1:24:04] 184. You want to let them speak?
[1:24:07] >> Uh sure. Yeah, if it's public comment.
[1:24:10] Yeah, let's get the last one in.
[1:24:13] >> Okay. You've been given permission to
[1:24:15] speak. You just need to unmute.
[1:24:16] >> Yes. Hi, my name is Sharon Butler. Um,
[1:24:19] I've been in the equestrian community
[1:24:22] for about 25 years. I also knew Sushi
[1:24:26] Han for over 10 years. Um, I just also
[1:24:29] want to reiterate that there have also
[1:24:32] um there have been two horses on that
[1:24:35] property for as long as I have known
[1:24:37] Sue. And the neighbors then main um
[1:24:42] attack on Sue was about property lines,
[1:24:44] not about the number of horses that
[1:24:46] she's had. We um I'm a on the board of
[1:24:50] Satel County Horseman's Association and
[1:24:52] I totally agree with the gentleman that
[1:24:54] just spoke that we are really needing
[1:24:56] the next generation of equestrians to
[1:24:59] come up which is Sarah. Um I personally
[1:25:02] know Munich, his wife Nidi and Sarah.
[1:25:05] They are lovely people. They're a
[1:25:08] wonderful ambassador to our equestrian
[1:25:11] community. Um, and I would hate to see
[1:25:15] anything happen to them not being able
[1:25:17] to ride through Woodside because they've
[1:25:20] had to remove their horses um from
[1:25:22] Woodside. So, I also am in favor of um
[1:25:27] allowing them to have this exception
[1:25:30] permit and keep both horses on the
[1:25:32] property. Um, thank you so much for your
[1:25:34] time.
[1:25:36] >> Thank you.
[1:25:40] » All right. So with that, no other hands
[1:25:42] online. Okay, we'll go ahead and close
[1:25:45] public hearing then and uh and proceed
[1:25:46] to commissioner uh deliberations. So
[1:25:49] just to maybe set the the context for
[1:25:50] that and a reminder of we've heard a lot
[1:25:53] of of different things. The decision in
[1:25:55] front of us is can we make three
[1:25:57] findings uh just to reiterate it. Number
[1:25:59] one is the exception will not impair the
[1:26:01] health, safety or welfare of the
[1:26:02] livestock maintained on the site. So
[1:26:04] that one focused on the livestock. The
[1:26:06] exception will not result in any adverse
[1:26:08] health, safety, noise, traffic or visual
[1:26:09] impacts on surrounding properties and
[1:26:11] roadways and the proposed use complies
[1:26:13] with all under standards of 115.12 which
[1:26:17] again is the private stables uh pieces.
[1:26:20] I think the other thing that that is the
[1:26:21] narrow sort of decision in front of us.
[1:26:24] Uh we are also uh sworn to uphold the
[1:26:27] general plan and we we all know that does carry quite a few elements of
[1:26:32] equestrian community in it. Um so that
[1:26:36] in my mind is also quite germanine to
[1:26:37] the decision that we should be making
[1:26:39] because it's the context in which this will this will sit. Um so
[1:26:45] with that I'll also disclose we uh big
[1:26:50] piece of why we're here as well. We have
[1:26:51] an eight and and 10year-old who are is
[1:26:54] training as well. So certainly
[1:26:55] understand the horse community and and
[1:26:56] that nature of our town. Uh but with
[1:26:58] that um would anyone like to to kick off
[1:27:01] discussions?
[1:27:05] » [clears throat]
[1:27:06] >> So none of the uh findings uh I can go
[1:27:10] against any none of the findings uh
[1:27:13] fairly narrow uh narrow decision uh as
[1:27:18] far as that's concerned. U the
[1:27:19] grievances by the neighbor
[1:27:22] um although they might be important to
[1:27:25] him have don't have really anything to
[1:27:27] do with with our deliberation. Uh the
[1:27:30] drainage issue is uh being handled uh by
[1:27:35] staff at this point or in the future. Uh
[1:27:40] the fence issues have been resolved
[1:27:43] other than um the con the small peers
[1:27:46] that appear to be on on Mr. Clark's
[1:27:49] property. uh but that can be removed I
[1:27:54] suppose uh without you know without
[1:27:57] impacting uh our decision. So, um I
[1:28:02] can't find any uh objections to to this
[1:28:06] uh well actually I would not uh I would
[1:28:09] not approve the appeal uh that is before
[1:28:13] us and I would uphold the exception by
[1:28:16] the uh livestock committee for the two
[1:28:19] horse u permit on 831 Glen Craig.
[1:28:29] As Richard just pointed out, the
[1:28:31] findings we are being asked to make
[1:28:33] tonight are quite narrow and defined by
[1:28:37] the municipal code. And [clears throat]
[1:28:41] in the context of that
[1:28:45] of what we're being asked uh the
[1:28:47] findings we're being asked to make
[1:28:49] tonight,
[1:28:51] um I would agree with Richard in that we
[1:28:55] need to deny the appeal.
[1:28:58] Um, the property owners are certainly
[1:29:02] committed to their horses and the way
[1:29:05] the code is set up right now. if you are
[1:29:09] willing to turn over a sufficient
[1:29:12] quantity of your residential property to
[1:29:14] equin purposes and satisfy the
[1:29:17] requirements of the livestock committee.
[1:29:20] Um there is currently no upper bound in
[1:29:23] the code on the density of horses that
[1:29:27] you can have on your property. Um
[1:29:32] whether
[1:29:33] that should be con reconsidered is
[1:29:38] um a policy decision at the town council
[1:29:41] level rather than being a planning
[1:29:44] commission decision where we're sort of
[1:29:46] acting in a quasi um judicial role here.
[1:29:50] And so
[1:29:53] whether there would be any uh you know
[1:29:56] upper bound on horse density that would
[1:29:58] be an issue for town council and future
[1:30:01] modifications of the municipal code as
[1:30:03] written. Um I did have one follow-up
[1:30:07] question for uh for Sage. Um
[1:30:13] the code does not support uh does the
[1:30:17] code support having a horse turnout area
[1:30:21] or
[1:30:22] um um on top of a septic tank leech
[1:30:26] field.
[1:30:28] >> Um I'm there there's nothing in the
[1:30:31] municipal code related to that. If
[1:30:33] anything, it would be uh from the Sonteo
[1:30:36] County um health department who
[1:30:38] primarily regulates septic systems.
[1:30:40] There is nothing in the municipal code
[1:30:42] and
[1:30:44] I'm I'm just not aware or recall any
[1:30:47] instances where that's become an issue.
[1:30:49] The only thing that sort of occurred to
[1:30:52] me in real time, I mean during the
[1:30:54] meeting, and I had no time to research
[1:30:56] this, is that as a residential property,
[1:31:00] the owners have a requirement in order
[1:31:03] to inhabit the house to have a working
[1:31:06] septic system. And um
[1:31:11] and ultimately at some point that might
[1:31:13] conflict with the ecquin use of their
[1:31:16] property. And I would think in that case
[1:31:20] that the health and safety requirements
[1:31:24] of sanitation and the septic system
[1:31:26] would trump the equin uses. But that is
[1:31:29] totally on the fly and that is more of a
[1:31:32] phil a philosophical question.
[1:31:35] But in in the context of the findings
[1:31:39] we're being asked to make um tonight, I
[1:31:42] could make the findings and deny the
[1:31:45] appeal.
[1:31:49] Um, so consistent with Commissioner
[1:31:54] Weaver's view, I do think there's
[1:31:56] probably an issue with the uh the
[1:32:00] overarching, I guess, acre per horse or
[1:32:02] I forget the exact numbers. Um because
[1:32:06] when I went to view the property, the acre per horse was probably based on
[1:32:11] an old view of grazing and hills and
[1:32:16] that it'll be some side of the of the
[1:32:18] property as horse. Um you know, this family has dedicated my my back of
[1:32:24] math is maybe over 40% of the property
[1:32:26] to the horses. Um and possibly more um
[1:32:29] which is which is really a different
[1:32:31] metric than an acre per horse. Um, and
[1:32:34] so what what I think regardless of what
[1:32:37] happens this evening, I think I would
[1:32:39] encourage those whose job it is to
[1:32:42] figure this out is to maybe change that
[1:32:44] rule. Um, and think about because I did
[1:32:48] hear minimums on stall size, on runouts,
[1:32:50] on paddics. Um and and if if this is a
[1:32:55] precedence, which is what I always try
[1:32:57] to avoid, um then how many other sites
[1:33:01] in Woodside could be reorganized to be
[1:33:04] 40% horses and meet these other
[1:33:06] requirements but not be the be the um
[1:33:10] acre. So if if the goal is is to be a
[1:33:14] western community and give everyone that
[1:33:15] sort of opportunity, um maybe try to
[1:33:19] revisit that acre per horse and make it
[1:33:22] more thoughtful to be what the horse
[1:33:24] needs and not some antiquated paddic,
[1:33:28] hillside, what have you view. Um so
[1:33:31] hopefully that could be happen. Um and
[1:33:33] then uh consistent with the others, the
[1:33:37] what we're being asked is very narrow.
[1:33:40] um and not necessarily uh encompassing
[1:33:44] of the entirety. So, I think the septic
[1:33:46] is an issue that if if the lines go
[1:33:48] under the paddic and uh there's a
[1:33:51] potential for a neighborhood issue. Um
[1:33:53] but the paddic is massive and if there
[1:33:56] was an issue, I think that they could
[1:33:58] move the fence back a little bit and
[1:33:59] make the septic going to run part of it
[1:34:01] or what have you. Um but I think that's
[1:34:03] not for us to figure out um over time.
[1:34:06] So I I don't really have I don't really
[1:34:08] have any reason to accept the appeal
[1:34:13] based on the narrow view, but I would
[1:34:14] encourage some perhaps rethinking of
[1:34:17] what it what a horse site looks like and
[1:34:19] how to how to make it uh acceptable so
[1:34:22] that future houses can be shifted if you
[1:34:26] know if it makes sense.
[1:34:30] Yeah, agree with agree [clears throat]
[1:34:33] with many of of of my co-commissioner
[1:34:35] statements. Um,
[1:34:37] and one thing just as far as the the the
[1:34:39] limits um there's a two horse per acre
[1:34:44] limit I think are we saying not on the
[1:34:46] appeal process ly or is
[1:34:52] on the application for right because we
[1:34:54] have minimum one and then two per acre.
[1:34:58] So like a twoacre site can have four,
[1:34:59] three acre site can have six, etc.
[1:35:02] >> To add a second horse, you need a one
[1:35:04] acre lot minimum is my understand.
[1:35:07] >> Correct. Right. But in and then in
[1:35:08] general it's it's um one horse per
[1:35:12] excuse me two per acre uh incremental
[1:35:14] beyond that as well.
[1:35:18] Yes, there there there's a requirement
[1:35:21] of to have one acre lot size to have
[1:35:24] horses and and then the exceptions don't
[1:35:27] have the
[1:35:28] >> correct. So that therefore there's a
[1:35:29] process for the exceptions what's being
[1:35:31] uh reviewed tonight.
[1:35:32] >> Yeah. So so I'll talk about the the
[1:35:35] findings first off. I agree from the uh
[1:35:37] the narrowness of these findings. I I
[1:35:40] don't see well I say stated in the
[1:35:42] affirmative I I can make these findings
[1:35:45] uh these these these make sense to me. I
[1:35:47] do think the point I'm going to
[1:35:48] reiterate some of the points that uh
[1:35:50] Commissioner Evans made with respect to
[1:35:52] like is it the right metrics? Um a 3acre
[1:35:57] site on 40% grade probably going to be
[1:36:01] hard to have horses, right? Uh the Glen
[1:36:03] Craig site is is a whole another story.
[1:36:06] Um it was one of the two uh sort of
[1:36:09] tearown houses that that we looked at
[1:36:11] when we moved to Woodside. It was listed
[1:36:12] for more than ours and we were already
[1:36:14] stretching. So, we ended up with the
[1:36:16] other one. But, I mean, my wife was a
[1:36:18] horse person. We looked at it and we're
[1:36:19] like, "Wow, this this exists in the Bay
[1:36:21] Area." We were we were stunned, right,
[1:36:22] to to see that that even existed. Um,
[1:36:25] but also, you know, I think some of the
[1:36:27] things that you personally were struck
[1:36:29] at looking at the site, it had a two
[1:36:31] stall barn on it, right? That was
[1:36:33] already there. And so we've heard uh
[1:36:36] that there's not you know
[1:36:38] transferability which is a little bit
[1:36:40] weird uh in full transparency is maybe a
[1:36:44] read uh on on that visav other things
[1:36:46] that do transfer right uh setback
[1:36:49] exceptions for houses transfer uh right
[1:36:52] when you knock down a house you can uh
[1:36:54] encroach into the setback as much as
[1:36:56] what was already there. So it's a bit
[1:36:59] odd that in an equestrian community
[1:37:01] we've set a more restrictive standard
[1:37:03] for uh equestrian facilities/ quotas
[1:37:06] than than the others. I think you know
[1:37:08] in addition to you know how do we define
[1:37:11] an adequate facility I think it's worth
[1:37:13] considering
[1:37:15] what should the transferability be right
[1:37:17] and the fact that we're having folks uh
[1:37:20] reup permits even though there's no
[1:37:22] horse uh is sort of an interesting uh outcome
[1:37:28] right so we can just all sort of reflect
[1:37:30] on
[1:37:30] >> we have more rights for our garage
[1:37:32] >> I'm sorry
[1:37:32] >> we have more rights for our garage than
[1:37:34] a than a barn
[1:37:36] >> right and
[1:37:36] >> footprint point of and and at the same
[1:37:38] time the general plan says things like
[1:37:40] uh that equestrian facilities should be
[1:37:42] sort of made visible right so so we have
[1:37:45] this sort of inconsistency in I think
[1:37:47] the the general plan intent and then
[1:37:49] maybe this particular uh issue of
[1:37:52] permits and transferability and
[1:37:53] exceptions um when we issue an exception
[1:37:57] generally uh a a homeowner will proceed
[1:38:01] to con if there's construction involved
[1:38:03] right in this case
[1:38:06] let's assume this barn were being built,
[1:38:07] you know, based on this rather than
[1:38:09] being a pre-existing uh barn.
[1:38:13] One would hope that that's not something
[1:38:15] that's getting torn down when you sell
[1:38:16] it, right? Why are we subjecting the
[1:38:18] next owner to going through the same
[1:38:19] bureaucratic process and relitigating
[1:38:22] exceptions that were already decided? It
[1:38:24] seems like uh both a waste of the
[1:38:26] planning commission's time uh and
[1:38:28] livestock's time as well as uh just an
[1:38:30] undue burden. And I agree, like we had
[1:38:32] no idea about horse permits. I mean, I
[1:38:34] lived here for 10 years and we didn't we
[1:38:36] lived in a in a in a place in the Glenns
[1:38:37] that couldn't have horses. We moved to
[1:38:38] Ray Mundo and I think my wife joined the
[1:38:41] trails committee and heard about
[1:38:42] permits. We had no idea. So, uh it's not
[1:38:45] wellnown. Um you know, our our property
[1:38:47] didn't have horses on it for years and years. And you know, if it did
[1:38:51] come, we would have forwarded on the
[1:38:52] note because it would have had the the
[1:38:54] previous uh deceased owner's name on it.
[1:38:56] And so it's a little bit of a a
[1:38:58] long-winded um maybe set of commentary,
[1:39:01] but I do think it's also, you know,
[1:39:03] really encouraging to see how much folks
[1:39:06] really care about this. And it really
[1:39:07] is, you know, the more time you spend in
[1:39:08] Woodside, it's it's a unique community.
[1:39:11] People who come here don't know that it
[1:39:12] exists. And and I think that's that's great. Um
[1:39:16] you know, Darren, on your points on
[1:39:19] should we re is it worth considering
[1:39:21] revisiting, right?
[1:39:23] um you know, how is the next generation
[1:39:28] getting on board, right? It's going to
[1:39:29] be through also maybe not the most
[1:39:31] expensive houses in town. I think Glen
[1:39:34] Craig's a good example of that, right?
[1:39:36] This is a site that was, you know,
[1:39:38] needed some some some elbow grease. Uh
[1:39:40] had some facilities on it and uh this is
[1:39:43] an example of seeing kind of the next
[1:39:45] generation grow up. So, you know, if
[1:39:47] it's only the the the the 3 4 5 acre
[1:39:50] estates that are
[1:39:53] out of the range of price of many folks
[1:39:55] who are who are kind of moving to town
[1:39:56] with kids, uh then, you know, we should
[1:39:58] think about what that means. Anyway, um
[1:40:01] but bring it back to the the narrow
[1:40:03] piece, I can certainly make all all
[1:40:05] three findings. So, it seemed like we
[1:40:08] had a little bit of unonymity on that.
[1:40:10] Do does anyone have any additional
[1:40:11] comments or would we like to make a
[1:40:12] motion? I I just think it's such a small
[1:40:15] question we're being asked and it's
[1:40:16] outside of the macro question that it's
[1:40:18] actually the question.
[1:40:19] >> Yep.
[1:40:21] >> Okay.
[1:40:22] >> I guess I I move to uh what am I what am
[1:40:26] I asking to move?
[1:40:28] >> Uh if you agree with the um
[1:40:31] recommendation of the resolution, you
[1:40:32] can move to adopt the resolution which
[1:40:35] would deny the appeal and uphold the
[1:40:38] plan director's decision for the stable
[1:40:40] exception. And as noted earlier, we
[1:40:43] would strike those last two findings as
[1:40:45] they're not necessary. [snorts]
[1:40:47] >> Um then I would move to uh accept the
[1:40:50] three findings that we've been asked to
[1:40:52] review. Um but as a as an aside, I would
[1:40:54] actually hope that the folks in the
[1:40:57] livestock committee would maybe rethink
[1:40:58] these the acre rule and maybe make it
[1:41:01] focused on what a horse needs.
[1:41:07] Would second it.
[1:41:09] I'll second it.
[1:41:12] Chair Gar.
[1:41:13] >> Yes.
[1:41:14] >> Commissioner Evans.
[1:41:15] >> Yes.
[1:41:15] >> Commissioner Gonerko.
[1:41:16] >> Yes.
[1:41:17] >> Commissioner Weaver.
[1:41:18] >> Yes.
[1:41:22] » Great. So, the uh decision passes. There
[1:41:25] is a 10-day appeal period. Um and so if
[1:41:28] anyone has questions, please see the
[1:41:30] plan department about filing an appeal.
[1:41:32] Um if there is an appeal filed, it would
[1:41:34] be reviewed by the town council. All
[1:41:36] right.
[1:41:37] >> Thank you. Uh and thanks folks for uh
[1:41:40] for spending your time with us and Sage
[1:41:42] are there any other uh
[1:41:46] that are
[1:41:48] yes
[1:41:50] any uh other reports or
[1:41:52] >> have you received the June director's
[1:41:54] report um as you seen the number of
[1:41:57] permits issued we continue to remain
[1:41:59] busy
[1:42:01] um and then as we've kind of highlighted
[1:42:03] more so the last month is looking at our
[1:42:05] housing numbers and so for the month of
[1:42:08] June, um the uh town issued two more
[1:42:13] permits for ADUs in town. So, we're up
[1:42:17] to about 17 ADUs this year so far, about
[1:42:20] halfway through the through the year.
[1:42:23] Um,
[1:42:30] » excuse me, folks. We're we're just we're
[1:42:32] continuing here if you don't mind taking
[1:42:33] the conversations outside. Um are we
[1:42:35] going to that seems like it's relatively
[1:42:38] low. Are we We're not on track at all,
[1:42:40] are we?
[1:42:40] >> In terms of 17 in general number of
[1:42:43] units.
[1:42:44] >> Um so uh yeah, in general number of
[1:42:47] units, you know, what we have through um
[1:42:50] June 2026, we've noted that there's been
[1:42:52] 898s and 36 new single family
[1:42:55] residences. Uh so we are
[1:42:58] >> 30 36 new single family residences.
[1:43:01] >> Uh 36. Yes. So this is uh where we are
[1:43:04] through cycle 6 that ends in 2031. So
[1:43:08] we're starting to get about halfway
[1:43:09] through the cycle. Um we're probably a
[1:43:11] little bit less than half of the number
[1:43:13] of units uh that are necessary. Uh but
[1:43:16] also with units it's important to look
[1:43:18] at the um the types of units and we have
[1:43:22] to have varied units. We have multif
[1:43:24] family housing uh that is hoping to move
[1:43:27] forward. um they're still looking at
[1:43:30] issues with sewer capacity and how to
[1:43:32] what may be necessary to upgrade any
[1:43:34] infrastructure. Um so you know often
[1:43:38] people will suggest you know maybe
[1:43:40] cities are very far behind. Um in some
[1:43:42] cases actually I think we're on
[1:43:44] relatively good
[1:43:46] uh track. Um and I always note that
[1:43:49] while I think in the front end of the
[1:43:52] housing element cycle it's likely to see
[1:43:55] fewer units than at the back end meaning
[1:43:58] the housing element has all these
[1:44:00] different programs and elements uh
[1:44:02] strategies to implement. And so as these
[1:44:06] different strategies get implemented um
[1:44:08] you'll might see start to pick up the
[1:44:10] pace the number of units towards the end
[1:44:11] of the cycle.
[1:44:12] >> Has there ever been an analysis done on
[1:44:15] what is the possible ADU footprint
[1:44:18] that's that's available in the town
[1:44:19] because everyone that gets done and we
[1:44:21] sort of lo lose runway for
[1:44:23] >> Yeah. No, it's a good question. Um it's
[1:44:25] a bit difficult to know just um because
[1:44:28] historically I mean there's ADUs on
[1:44:30] properties that already exist and that
[1:44:32] necessarily weren't tallied up in any
[1:44:34] way many years ago. Uh we have the town
[1:44:37] has increased the number of ADUs that
[1:44:39] are allowed on properties. Uh so for
[1:44:41] properties that are vacant, it's pretty
[1:44:43] easy to tell how much they're allowed as
[1:44:44] well as state law has changed um to
[1:44:46] really increase the number of ADUs
[1:44:48] allowed on property in different
[1:44:49] circumstances. Um so so yeah you know at 17 is uh just for this year I would
[1:44:56] say is is pretty good. Um they had we
[1:45:00] had a a target in the housing element of
[1:45:02] 15 ADUs per year. Um and so we've
[1:45:06] already exceeded that. Um most all of
[1:45:09] the years we've went over 20 usually
[1:45:12] between like 20 and 25 units. Um, so if
[1:45:15] we keep up this pace, we do know that
[1:45:17] there's a number of plan checks that are
[1:45:19] getting closer to issuance. Um, so we're
[1:45:22] in pretty good pace in terms of the
[1:45:23] number of ADUs this year. Say some
[1:45:26] follow-up questions. Um, there were some
[1:45:27] very extensive public records requests
[1:45:29] uh that were made by uh the previous um
[1:45:32] town manager as well as local reporters,
[1:45:35] etc. Thousands of documents. I've had
[1:45:36] some time to spend time with them and it
[1:45:39] seems we're not making very fast
[1:45:41] progress on the multif family sites and
[1:45:44] there were quite a few uh items of
[1:45:47] correspondence in there uh where it
[1:45:49] appeared the town council is not uh
[1:45:52] allowing these things to proceed to
[1:45:53] agenda. uh are we at risk with HCD if we
[1:45:57] don't make adequate process and do we
[1:46:00] need to take steps to be more compliant
[1:46:03] with our housing element and are we at
[1:46:05] risk based on the agenda setting of the
[1:46:07] town council of becoming non-compliant?
[1:46:09] Um I'm not aware of any of that being
[1:46:11] set by the town council. What I'll say
[1:46:13] at the staff level um it's continuing to
[1:46:16] be pursued. Again, one of the biggest
[1:46:18] issues is access to sewer. Um and so the
[1:46:22] town has recently completed kind of a
[1:46:26] capacity study. Um and now the the
[1:46:29] consultants are going forward to
[1:46:32] complete the full master sewer plan. And
[1:46:34] part of that is to look at what
[1:46:36] solutions are necessary um to make sure
[1:46:39] that you can kind of access all of the
[1:46:41] capac contractual capacity that Woodside
[1:46:44] has allowed under the town center
[1:46:45] assessment district. Um, so that's a big
[1:46:48] piece and that's hoping to wrap up, you
[1:46:50] know, by the end of summer, early fall
[1:46:53] and we'll have better understanding of
[1:46:55] maybe potential costs for any sewer
[1:46:56] upgrades that are necessary. So that's
[1:46:58] one of the steps that is being pursued
[1:47:00] and it's a it's a big first step that
[1:47:01] needs to take place.
[1:47:02] >> Thank you. Do you have high confidence
[1:47:03] that when that's completed, the mayor
[1:47:05] will put that on the agenda in a
[1:47:06] reasonable amount of time?
[1:47:07] >> I can speak to that. If if you're
[1:47:10] finding any uh any issues with those um
[1:47:13] getting agendas, you can please inform
[1:47:15] the planning commission. We would
[1:47:16] appreciate it.
[1:47:17] >> Sure. All of that goes to the town
[1:47:19] manager's office in terms of what goes
[1:47:20] onto the that
[1:47:21] >> are the results of the sewage study in
[1:47:23] the public domain right now if it's
[1:47:26] complete.
[1:47:26] >> The the initial pieces for the what they
[1:47:29] looked at as the contractual capacity
[1:47:31] and the hydraulic capacity uh for the
[1:47:34] town center area. I'm sorry, two things
[1:47:37] confused for the town center assessment
[1:47:38] district. Um, and so that is a public.
[1:47:42] Um, and yeah, if you guys want copies,
[1:47:45] we can get you guys copies of that. And
[1:47:47] that it's it's that's kind of the uh a
[1:47:50] piece of what the overall master sewer
[1:47:51] plan is.
[1:47:53] >> What steps are required to put it out
[1:47:55] for bid uh following the completion of
[1:47:57] that study
[1:47:57] >> in terms of for the in
[1:48:00] >> uh or or for no, I'm sorry, for housing
[1:48:03] developers.
[1:48:04] >> Oh, um I'm I'm still researching that.
[1:48:06] the town attorney's office um has a
[1:48:09] legal firm looking at um what's
[1:48:12] necessary. So there's what is called the
[1:48:14] surplus lands act. And so that's another
[1:48:17] step that needs to be done in
[1:48:18] conjunction once you understand what
[1:48:20] your sewer needs are. And so that
[1:48:25] my limited understanding is is uh that
[1:48:28] will help identify what's necessary. And
[1:48:32] then there's something that's called a
[1:48:34] notice availability and it's sent out to
[1:48:36] various types of uh housing developers,
[1:48:40] affordable housing developers. Um and
[1:48:43] >> further steps would necessar be
[1:48:45] necessary to kind of get in contract and
[1:48:47] >> could could we see maybe a timeline of
[1:48:49] what a sort of you know let's say speed
[1:48:52] of light workback schedule would look
[1:48:54] like to get one of these out to bids in
[1:48:56] terms of which things need to happen
[1:48:58] assuming that
[1:48:59] >> check with the town manager's office. Is
[1:49:01] that something we could see in the
[1:49:02] future?
[1:49:02] >> I can check with the town manager's
[1:49:04] office. They set those agendas.
[1:49:05] >> Thank you. We appreciate it.
[1:49:10] » Um, and then with that, I just wanted to
[1:49:13] um thank Commissioner Gerko very much.
[1:49:15] This is his last meeting. Um, and so
[1:49:18] it's been a real pleasure to serve with
[1:49:19] you. And so
[1:49:22] >> I have a question. So I'm staying on
[1:49:24] until we get a replacement. So
[1:49:26] >> Well, I appreciate that. So um, if you
[1:49:28] will, that's great. And we have one
[1:49:30] application uh that has been submitted.
[1:49:33] Um so we know there's at least one
[1:49:35] applicant and we're hoping uh there may
[1:49:38] have been some other interest as well.
[1:49:39] So we might receive more applications.
[1:49:41] >> Good.
[1:49:42] >> Just a reminder there's a recess in
[1:49:44] August so the timing may work out that.
[1:49:48] >> Yeah.
[1:49:50] So we
[1:49:51] >> so if this doesn't come your last me we
[1:49:54] do want to thank you very much for
[1:49:55] everything you've done.
[1:49:58] >> Thank you.
[1:50:00] Um, I don't have any further reports.
[1:50:05] All right, we'll go ahead and Thank you,
[1:50:07] folks.