Town Council
February 28, 2023

located at 2955 Woodside Road, in the Town of Woodside, and are available for inspection by any interested person.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the Town of Woodside Planning Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing held on December 14, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Attachment 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) APPROVED:

Marilyn Voelke, Chair
ATTEST:

Planning Secretary
This action is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the Planning Commission.
_____________________________ ______________
Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
Item C Page 104 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP) December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Land Division
Project: CEQA2020-0001
1 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Potential
Environmental
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring
Frequency/
Timing
Cultural
Resources
Mitigation Measure CULTURAL-1 (Archeological Resource): If archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or construction, construction personnel should be instructed to immediately suspend all activity in the immediate vicinity of the suspected resources, and the Town and a licensed archaeologist should be contacted to evaluate the situation. A licensed archaeologist should be retained to inspect the discovery and make any necessary recommendations to evaluate the find under current CEQA guidelines prior to the submittal of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program to the Town for review and approval prior to the continuation of any on-site construction activity. A restrictive covenant or some other equivalent shall be recorded with the Final Parcel Map ensuring compliance of future development with this measure.

Mitigation Measure CULTURAL-2 (Human Remains): In the event a human burial or skeletal element is identified during excavation or construction, work in that location should stop immediately until the find can be properly treated.

The Town and the San Mateo County Coroner’s office should be notified. If deemed prehistoric, the Coroner’s office would notify the Native American Heritage Commission who would identify a “Most Likely Descendant (MLD).” The archeological consultant and MLD, in conjunction with the project sponsor, should formulate an appropriate treatment plan for the find, which might include, but not be limited to, respectful scientific recording and removal, being left in place, or removal and reburial on site, or elsewhere. Associated grave goods are to be treated in the same manner. A restrictive covenant or some other equivalent shall be recorded with the Final Parcel Map ensuring compliance of future development with this measure.

Project
contractors,
and consultants
Town of
Woodside
Planning,
Building, and
Public Works
Departments
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
construction
permits/
ongoing
throughout
construction
for any
Future
Project
Item C Page 105 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP) December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Land Division
Project: CEQA2020-0001
2 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Potential
Environmental
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring
Frequency/
Timing
Geology and
Soils
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (Geotechnical Hazards): A design-level geotechnical study and report shall be required for future development that contains findings, conclusions and recommendations, consistent with the Geosphere Geotechnical Feasibility Report (May, 2019), including additional borings in conformance with ASTM D1586, consistent with the requirements specified by the Town Engineer and the conclusions of Cotton Shires (November, 2020).

Mitigation Measure GEO-2 (Paleontological Resources): The following practices shall be followed during all phases of site preparation and construction activities: If paleontological resources are encountered during construction, construction personnel should be instructed to immediately suspend all activity in the immediate vicinity of the suspected resources, and the Town and a licensed paleontologist should be contacted to evaluate the situation. Project personnel should not collect paleontological resources. A licensed paleontologist should be retained to inspect the discovery and make any necessary recommendations to evaluate the find under current CEQA guidelines, prior to the submittal of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program to the Town for review and approval prior to the continuation of any on-site construction activity.

Project
contractors,
consultants,
and Project
geotechnical
engineer
Town of
Woodside
Building and
Public Works
Departments
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
construction
permits/
ongoing
throughout
construction
for any
Future
Project
Hydrology and
Water Quality
See Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 (Stormwater).

Item C Page 106 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP) December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Land Division
Project: CEQA2020-0001
3 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Potential
Environmental
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring
Frequency/
Timing
Transportation Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 (Sight Distance): The Woodside Fire Protection District and the Town Engineer would be required to review the proposed alignment for any new driveway proposed to provide access to Parcel A to ensure adequate site distances from both directions along Godetia Drive.

Project
contractors,
and consultants
Town of
Woodside
Planning,
Building, and
Public Works
Departments
During Plan
Review of
any Future
Project
Tribal Cultural
Resources
Mitigation Measure TRIBAL CULTURAL-1 (Ground Disturbance): Planning for any potential future construction shall include avoidance of any encountered resources and protection of the cultural and natural context. In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.

Mitigation Measure TRIBAL CULTURAL-2 (Disposition of Recovered Cultural Items): Any resource encountered shall require stopping of construction to consult with any Native American tribe culturally affiliated with the area for recommendations to appropriately care for the discovered resources. Any resource encountered shall be treated with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to:
• Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource; • Protecting the traditional use of the resource; and,
• Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.

Mitigation Measure TRIBAL CULTURAL-3 (Inadvertently Discovered Native American Human Remains): Any Native American human remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated in consultation with any Native American tribe culturally affiliated with the area. The process outlined Project
contractors,
and consultants
Town of
Woodside
Planning,
Building, and
Public Works
Departments
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
construction
permits/
ongoing
throughout
construction
for any
Future
Project
Item C Page 107 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP) December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Land Division
Project: CEQA2020-0001
4 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Potential
Environmental
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring
Frequency/
Timing
below shall be followed to be consistent California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and Public Resources Code §5097.98:

Specifically, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the corner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has been determined and that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or another related provision of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner or cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation or to his or her authorized representative (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5).

The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains.

If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
(a) Whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c), it shall immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American (Most Likely Descendant (MLD)). The descendants Item C Page 108 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP) December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Land Division
Project: CEQA2020-0001
5 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Potential
Environmental
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring
Frequency/
Timing
may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner, or the person responsible for the excavation work, means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site (Public Resources Code Section 5097.98).
(b) Upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in this section, with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants’ preferences for treatment.

1. The descendants’ preferences for treatment may include the following:

A. The nondestructive removal and analysis of human remains, and items associated with Native American human remains.

B. Preservation of Native American human remains and
associated items in place.

C. Relinquishment of Native American human remains and
associated items to the descendants for treatment.

Item C Page 109 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP) December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Land Division
Project: CEQA2020-0001
6 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Potential
Environmental
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring
Frequency/
Timing
D. Other culturally appropriate treatment.

2. The parties may also mutually agree to extend discussions, taking into account the possibility that additional or multiple Native American human remains, as defined in this section, are located in the project area, providing a basis for additional treatment measures.
(c) For purposes of this section, “conferral” or “discuss and confer” means the meaningful and timely discussion and careful consideration of the views of each party, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values, and where feasible, seeking agreement. Each party shall recognize the other’s needs and concerns for confidentiality of information provided to the other.
(d) Human remains of a Native American may be an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness.

Any items associated with human remains that are placed or buried with the Native American human remains are to be treated in the same manner as the remains, but do not by themselves constitute human remains.
(e) Whenever the NAHC is unable to identify a descendent, or the descendants identified fail to make a recommendation, or the landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects the recommendations of the descendants and the mediation provided for (in subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94) fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items associated Item C Page 110 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP) December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Land Division
Project: CEQA2020-0001
7 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Potential
Environmental
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring
Frequency/
Timing
with the Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. To protect these sites, the landowner should do one or more of the following:

1. Record the site with the NAHC or the appropriate information Center.

2. Utilize an open-space or conservation zoning designation or easement.

3. Record a document with the County in which the property is located.

The document shall be titled “Notice of Reinternment of Native American Remains” and shall include a legal description of the property, the name of the owner of the property, and the owner’s acknowledged signature, in addition to any other information required by this section. The document shall be indexed as a notice under the name of the owner.
(f) Upon the discovery of multiple Native American human remains during a ground disturbing land development activity, the landowner may agree that additional conferral with the descendants is necessary to consider culturally appropriate treatment of multiple Native American human remains. Culturally appropriate treatment of the discovery may be ascertained from a review of the site utilizing cultural and archeological standards. Where the parties are unable to agree on the appropriate treatment measures, the human remains and items associated and buried with Native American human remains shall be reinterred with appropriate dignity, pursuant to subdivision (e).
(g) Measures taken to address human remains found would be exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Item C Page 111 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP) December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Land Division
Project: CEQA2020-0001
8 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Potential
Environmental
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party
Monitoring
Frequency/
Timing
Utilities and
Service
Systems
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 (Stormwater): Any future development of proposed Parcel B would need to demonstrate compliance with Town code requirements, and RWQCB “C3” regulations that require demonstration that the project would address stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and result in no net increase in runoff quantity or velocity over pre-existing conditions.

See also Mitigation Measure WILDFIRE-1.

Project
contractors,
and consultants
Town of
Woodside
Planning,
Building, and
Public Works
Departments
During Plan
Review of
any Future
Project
Utilities and
Service
Systems
Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 (Water): Given that, at the time of the preparation of this review, the subject parcel is served by the Redwood City Water Department (RWCWD), future development can only be conditioned by RWCWD. RWCWD, as the current purveyor, requires installation of the water infrastructure shown on the plan dated October 3, 2022, which includes: an 8” water main extension, a lateral for Parcel A with meter, and a lateral for Parcel B with meter. If and when the service is transferred to CalWater, a will serve will be required from CalWater.

Project
contractors and
consultants, in
coordination
with RWCWD
and CalWater.

Town of
Woodside
Planning,
Building, and
Public Works
Departments.

During Plan
Review of
any Future
Project on
Parcel A
Item C Page 112 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-____

BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF WOODSIDE APPROVING LDIV2020-0001, A LAND DIVISION TO DIVIDE ONE LOT INTO TWO. THE EXISTING PROPERTY IS 4.96 ACRES. PROPOSED PARCEL A WOULD BE 1.97 ACRES AND PROPOSED PARCEL B WOULD BE

2.98 ACRES. NO DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS
APPLICATION. THE LAND DIVISION IS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 988 GODETIA DRIVE (APN 068-301-100).

WHEREAS, the applicant submitted an application for consideration of Project No’s CEQA2020-0001, and LDIV2020-0001, a project that includes a Tentative Map for a 2-lot land division of a 4.96 acre parcel, on a property located at 988 Godetia Drive (068-301-100) (collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Project");
WHEREAS, the conceptual building, driveway, and site improvement locations are not being proposed for construction, and are not being considered for approval by the Town. The conceptual buildings, driveways, and associated development locations shown on Tentative Map Sheet TP-1 are only for the purposes of identifying possible improvement locations on the proposed parcels, and are not approved as part of this application;
WHEREAS, any future development proposals shall be subject to any restrictions recorded on the properties, and the development standards and process in place at the time of application; WHEREAS, the Town, as the Lead Agency, prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA2020-0001) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Code of Regulations), for the project, which was circulated between October 13, 2022, and November 12, 2022;
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2022, the Town Architectural and Site Review Board (ASRB) reviewed the project and did not provide any objections or recommendations; WHEREAS, on October 27, 2022, the Town Environment: Open Space, Conservation & Sustainability Committee reviewed the project and did not provide any objections or recommendations; WHEREAS, on November 10, 2022, the Trails Committee reviewed the project and did not provide any objections or recommendations;
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2022, the Town Subdivision Review Committee (Town Planning Director, Town Engineer, Town Geologist, Fire Marshal, and County Health Officer) reviewed and commented on the project and subsequently prepared written comments as included in the Subdivision Review Committee Report;
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2022, the Planning Commission had to continue to a date certain of December 14, 2022, due to technical difficulties;
Item C Page 113 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

WHEREAS, on December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which oral and written comments and a staff recommendation for approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and approval of the Project were presented to the Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information in the administrative record;
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and a MND was prepared by the Town and circulated for public comment in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines adopted by the Secretary for Natural Resources, and the Woodside Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was posted, published, and mailed for consideration of the MND at the Planning Commission Meeting of December 7, 2022, and on said date, the Public Hearing was continued to a date certain of December 14, 2022, due to technical difficulties; WHEREAS, on December 14, 2022, after reviewing and considering all facts and analysis in the MND, written and oral testimony, staff reports and exhibits presented, by adoption of Resolution 2022-___, the Planning Commission approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (CEQA2020-0001), and the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings listed in WMC §152.078 (A-H), as further discussed, detailed and supported by the Planning Commission staff report of December 7, 2022, that was presented at a continuance date of December 14, 2022, in consideration of the Tentative Map (LDIV2020-0001):

A. The tentative map is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific/Area Plan; The proposed Land Division application is subject to the 2012 General Plan, and there is no specific plan for the area. The proposed parcels have a Residential General Plan designation, and while the Project does not include the construction of any site improvements, the conceptual building footprints shown on the plans identify areas for potential residences without the need for a Variance or Exception. The Project complies with the policies of the General Plan (as further discussed below in Finding B). Based on reasons stated herein, the Planning Commission makes this Finding.

B. The design or improvement of the proposed land division or subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific/Area Plan;
Based on the reasons provided below showing consistency with the applicable General Plan policies, the Planning Commission makes this finding:

Residential General Plan Land Use Designation of Project Site The proposed Land Division application is subject to the 2012 General Plan, and there is no specific plan for the area. The Land Use Element of the General Plan discusses Residential designated areas within the Town of Woodside shown on Map LU1 (General Plan Land Use Designations) as areas with a variety of residential densities that can range from large estates with multiple accessory buildings, to smaller single-family residences, with small or no accessory structures. The areas designated as Residential have fewer environmental constraints than those with R/ESA (Residential/Environmentally Item C Page 114 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

Sensitive Area) designations, which provide fewer constraints to dividing land that meets minimum lot sizes.

Applicable General Plan Policies Consistent with the Proposed Land Division The Planning Commission finds that the project complies with the following General Plan policies, most of which are intended to avoid environmental impacts. Each General Plan policy is followed by the reasons the Project complies with the policy.

Land Use Element:

Policy LU1.1 – Give high priority to preservation and conservation of natural resources Preserve and conserve the Town’s natural resources by subordinating development to the land, employing conservation best management practices, and acquiring conservation and open space easements. Valuable natural features, such as streams and stream corridors, scenic corridors, woodlands, meadowlands, ridge tops and hill tops, and significant stands of trees, shall be preserved and protected through imaginative planning, good conservation practices and, where appropriate, the dedication of open space, conservation, or scenic easements. Stream corridors, ponds, and wetlands must be kept free of structures and maintained in a natural condition, except for erosion and flood control measures and other uses beneficial to the water regimen.

The project site is within a suburban part of Town that is not considered an environmentally sensitive area. No designated Stream Corridors, ephemeral drainage ditches, or delineated wetlands exist on the property; however, there are many mature trees (native and non-native species) on-site. The trees that are considered Significant Trees (based on size and species) would require permit approval, if they were proposed for removal in the future. For these reasons, the Planning Commission finds the Project consistent with General Plan Policy LU1.1.

Policy LU1.2 - Limit intensity of development

1. Property shall be developed with minimum disturbance to the natural terrain. The natural environment and rural character of the Town should be retained or restored as much as possible, including measures to retain open space;

2. Decrease land use intensity on steep hillsides and the mountainous areas where it is necessary to limit storm runoff, prevent increased erosion, avoid natural hazards, protect vegetation and watersheds, and maintain scenic qualities;

3. Minimize grading and alteration of natural land forms;

4. Manage intensity of use of individual parcels and buildings by considering health and safety, impacts on adjoining properties from noise, traffic, night lighting, or other disturbing conditions, and protection of natural land characteristics;

5. Limit principal uses and accessory uses to those which can be accommodated without encroaching upon areas identified in the Open Space element of this Plan for conservation of natural resources, general open spaces, or upon areas that present hazards for the type of use and occupancy accommodated on the parcel; and,

6. Encourage the maintenance of livestock, particularly horses, as an important component of the rural character of the Town.

The MND concluded that the Project's impacts on the environment can be mitigated to a less than significant level pursuant to CEQA. The sites can accommodate customary residential uses, while complying with Municipal Code requirements for building locations. Based on the review of the Item C Page 115 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

proposed lot lines, and that future development will need to comply with regulations at the time of application, the Planning Commission finds the Project consistent with General Plan Policy LU1.2.

Policy LU1.5 – Thoroughly evaluate changes to parcel boundaries

1. Land Divisions
The number of lots permitted in a land division is dependent on the characteristics of the area, as well as the minimum lot area required by the WMC. Lots shall be adequate in size and appropriate in shape for the range of accessory uses which are potentially allowed without creating a feeling of overcrowding, negative environmental impacts, or the need for variances.

Visibility of structures, preservation of natural land form and vegetation, topography, noise exposure, maintenance of rural quality, zoning, and the relationship to surrounding properties shall be considered in preparing land division designs. Land division density, or number of lots, will ultimately be determined by these and other factors. The designation of building envelopes shall be required on final maps.

The Project proposes to divide the existing 4.96-acre lot into one 1.97-acre lot and one 2.98-acre lot, both of which would comply with the minimum lot size and minimum average width for parcels located within a SR zoning district: 1-acre minimum lot size and 100-foot minimum average lot width. The conceptual residences, shown on the Tentative Map, demonstrate that the proposed parcels are adequately sized and appropriately shaped to accommodate main residences and accessory structures, without requiring a Variance or Exception. For these reasons, the Planning Commission finds the revised project consistent with General Plan Policy LU1.5.

Historic Preservation Element:

Policy HP1.1 – Protect historic and archaeological resources Ensure adequate protection of historic and archaeological resources.

Additional land/record searches were completed to identify any known Native American tribal lands and/or resources, with negative findings. Although this Project does not propose any grading or development, the adopted MND includes mitigation measures and procedures if any archeological and/or tribal resources are found during any future development of the sites. Based on the studies and adopted mitigation measures, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project complies with the General Plan Policy HP1.1.

Natural Hazards Element:

Policy NH1.1 – Regulate land use and development to protect lives and property The Town shall regulate land use and development to avoid or mitigate the effects of natural hazards in order to protect lives and property.

1. Appropriate Land Uses
Table NH3, Risk Classifications of Structures, Occupancies, and Land Uses, ranks the reliance on various structures, occupancies, and land uses to support health, safety, and welfare. The scale ranges from 1 to 5; with 1 being the most important to health, safety, and welfare, and 5 being the least.

Table NH4, Levels of Acceptable Risk for Structures, Occupancies, and Land Uses, describes the scale of population effect associated with the loss or failure of various Item C Page 116 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

structures, occupancies, and land uses; acceptable damage to the facility; and tolerance for risk. From low to high impact on health safety and welfare, population effect is expressed as “few” to “vast”, acceptable damage to facility as “not applicable” to “none”, and tolerance for risk as “high” to “near zero”.

Table NH5, Location of Structures and Land Uses in Relation to Defined Hazard Areas, provides a general guide to acceptable locations of structures and land uses in relation to defined hazards.

These tables provide a basis for reviewing existing or proposed structures and land divisions for consistency with policy set forth in this Element.

2. Limit Development
Land divisions and development on lands shall be designed and constructed in such a manner that levels of "acceptable risk" defined in Table NH4 are not exceeded.

Development in hazardous areas shall, in general, be limited to structures and improvements which would not threaten human life, or cause substantial financial loss in the event of damage. Where hazards are identified, mitigating measures should be taken at the time of development. Mitigation measures could include providing adequate fire egress from the development, and ensuring that there are no lengthy, one-way streets.

Development shall provide adequate water supplies, roads which are suitable for the safe passage of emergency vehicles, and legible street-name signs and house numbers.

A Geotechnical Feasibility Study, prepared by Geosphere Consultants, Inc., dated May 27, 2019, was prepared, evaluating the stability of potential residence sites. The Town Geologist provided a review of the Report and concurs with the recommendations in the Report, acknowledging that future site improvements will likely be constrained by: potentially expansive surficial soil and fill materials, very strong seismic ground shaking and steep slopes. The Town Geologist recommended that any future development be evaluated by the project geotechnical consultant. Based on the report and Town Geologist’s peer review of the report, the Planning Commission finds that the Project complies with General Plan Policy NH1.1.

Policy NH1.9 – Require assessment and mitigation of fire hazards The Town shall seek to minimize the risk associated with fire hazards by requiring adequate defensible space, fire resistant materials, adequate fire protection, and the appropriate siting of structures.

1. Clearance around Structures
Adequate clearance and vegetation control around structures (defensible space) shall be maintained by the property owner to prevent the spread of fire by direct exposure, and to assure adequate access for fire suppression.

2. Fire Safe Design and Materials
New buildings that are located in a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone shall be designed and constructed to comply with the special requirements that are provided in the California Building Code, including vegetation management for the property, which shall be performed in accordance with the California Fire Code.

Item C Page 117 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

New buildings that are not located in a designated Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, shall be designed and constructed to comply with the Town’s special fire safety construction requirements that are established in the Town’s WMC.

3. Remodeled buildings
Remodeled buildings town-wide shall be designed and constructed to comply with the Town’s special fire safety construction requirements that are provided in the Town’s WMC.

4. Protective Measures
In areas designated by the Town of Woodside as a Very High Fire Severity Hazard Zone (Map NH4), as well as within other areas that are identified as presenting a high fire hazard, special protective measures shall be provided for vegetation management in order to control the spread of a wildfire in accordance with the California Fire Code.

5. Water Supply
Where water supply in existing subdivided areas does not meet current standards for fire flow, all reasonable measures for improvement shall be pursued.

6. Protecting Structures
Owners of habitable buildings and critical facilities in areas classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity, should take reasonable measures to minimize their risk by providing defensible space, fire resistant materials, adequate fire protection, and appropriate siting of new structures.

7. Planning Commission Review
Prior to the approval of any lot line adjustment or division of lands classified as Very High Fire Severity Hazard, the Planning Commission shall review the proposed means of providing adequate fire protection.

The property is not located within a State Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ); however, future proposed structures on the new parcels will be required to comply with all required fire safe construction methods, including but not limited to, the installation of fire hydrants, and fire sprinklers, and the provision of defensible space around structures at the time of construction on the parcels.

Future development will be required to meet all fire regulations in place at the time of applications, and the property is located outside of the VHFHSZ, therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the Project complies with General Plan Policy NH1.9.

Public Utilities Element:

Policy PU1.1 - Ensure adequate utilities
The property owner shall ensure that adequate utility services are available from the utility providers for their property. On-site waste disposal systems shall be used on all properties not within existing public sewer service districts. Connection to public sewer systems shall be provided in accordance with the Town’s adopted Sewer Service Allocation Regulations.

The Redwood City Water Department (RWCWD) submitted a conditional will serve letter to the Town, indicating that both proposed parcels would have water service, until service is transferred to California Water Company. An on-site waste disposal system will be installed with any future development. As such, the Planning Commission finds that the Project complies with General Plan Policy PU1.1.

Item C Page 118 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; Although the proposed 2-lot land division does not include any proposed development at this time, the proposed Tentative Map identifies a building site where development could occur on the newly created vacant lot. No specific development is proposed at this time, therefore the Planning Commission makes this finding.

D. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

The proposed land division would create two parcels, one that is 1.97-acres and one that is 2.98-acres in a zoning district (SR) with a 1-acre minimum lot size. The Project complies with the minimum lot size, therefore the Planning Commission makes this finding.

E. The design of the land division or subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
No designated Stream Corridors, ephemeral drainage ditches, or delineated wetlands exist on the property. Based on the lack of environmentally sensitive areas on the property, the Planning Commission makes this finding.

F. The design of the land division or subdivision or the type of improvements will not cause serious public health or safety problems;
As supported by the MND, the proposed land division would not likely cause serious public health or safety problems for those who may occupy future proposed structures on the properties, or in the surrounding area. Any future proposals to construct modestly sized residences and accessory structures on the proposed parcels would not likely cause serious public health or safety problems if properly designed to meet the Building Codes in place at the time development is proposed. The Planning Commission therefore makes this finding.

G. The design of the land division or subdivision or the type of improvements:
(1) Will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or the use of property within the proposed land division or subdivision; (2 If conflicts with existing easements will occur, substantially equivalent alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided; (3) This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, and no authority is hereby granted to the Planning Commission or Town Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or the use of property within the proposed land division or subdivision; or There are no existing or proposed easements, on the project site; therefore, the Planning Commission makes this finding.

H. The discharge of waste from the proposed land division or subdivision into an existing sewer system would not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the State Regional Item C Page 119 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Water Code § 13000) of the Cal. Water Code.

An on-site waste disposal system would serve any future development on the proposed parcels. Future development would not be allowed to violate existing requirements prescribed by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Cal. Water Code. No development is proposed, at this time; therefore, the Planning Commission makes this finding.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds compliance with all requirements listed in Municipal Code Section 152.112 (A-K):
(A) Lot Sizes:
(1) The proposed parcels both comply with the 1-acre minimum lot area, and the required 100- foot minimum average width for the SR zoning district. Both of the proposed parcels would provide sufficient area to construct site improvements. When necessary, the Planning Commission may require parcels larger than the minimum lot area in order to accommodate topography, geologic hazards, storm water drainage channels, physical obstructions, or other physical conditions of the site.
(2) Pursuant to WMC §153.205, the proposed net lot areas do not include access easements, random public utility or drainage easements (not adjacent to the property line), or a panhandle area in excess of 5% of the net lot area required in the particular zoning district. (B) Lot Design:

The proposed Tentative Map shows conceptual building and improvement locations. Based on the information provided, the proposed lots could accommodate future development. (C) Lot Shape:
(1) The average depth of the proposed parcels do not exceed three times the required average width, and include rectangular shaped areas outside of the required setbacks where structures and improvements could be located.
(2) Panhandle Lots are discouraged in Town and shall only be permitted when the Planning Commission determines that they would result in a better design of development. Municipal Code Section 152.005 defines a Panhandle Lot of having less than a 30-foot frontage. Both proposed parcels would have more than 30 feet of frontage. Neither lot meets the definition of a Panhandle Lot.
(D) Lot Lines
The proposed land division divides the property proportionately lengthwise, yielding the best possible building sites. Additionally, the proposed lot lines are at right angles to the road right-ofway lines. (E) Solar Access:

The proposed parcels have sufficient room for ground mounted solar installations. Additionally, solar access could be found on the roof at any future proposed buildings. (F) Access:
(1) Both lots shall have access to an existing public road: Godetia Drive.

Item C Page 120 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

(2) Neither lot will be divided by a driveway or access easement. (3) Each parcel would be able to be served by its own driveway. (G) Drainage:

The proposal does not include any new development; however, due to the existing topography of the site, any future buildings would be able to drain water runoff away from the residences and could retain development induced drainage onsite that would not increase drainage to adjacent roads.
(H) Non-access Dedications:

Both proposed lots would only be able to take access from Godetia Drive. (I) Remnant Lots:
(1) The proposed land division would not create any substandard lots. (2) Neither lot would be split by a Town or County boundary. (J) Noise Considerations:

General Plan Map N1 (2030 Noise Contour Projections) shows the project site outside of the areas where noise is projected to exceed 55 Ldn in the future. Any future development would be required to follow any noise requirements at the time of application. (K) Buildings Sites:

The conceptual building site is within an area of the site not constrained by steep slopes, and as outlined in the MND prepared for the project, the project site is within a suburban part of Town that is not considered an environmentally sensitive area.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, having made all of the foregoing findings in favor of approval, the Planning Commission of the Town of Woodside does hereby:

Approve the Land Division (LDIV2020-0001), to divide the subject property into two lots, subject to the following Conditions of Approval:

I. Prior to the submittal of the Final Map:
a. The Final Map shall be prepared in accordance with all of the requirements for Final Maps in Woodside Municipal Code Chapter 152.
b. The applicant shall prepare Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for review by the Town that outlines all mitigation measures from the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and restrictions for future improvements to the land. c. The subdivider shall design, obtain permits, install new water infrastructure (including mains, laterals, meters, hydrants and appurtenances) sufficient to meet applicable Redwood City Municipal Code and applicable fire code requirements in accordance with Redwood City Engineering Standards, and pass all required inspections. d. If applicable, the applicant shall submit any outstanding funds related to the processing of the Tentative Map and/or CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Item C Page 121 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

II. Prior to Town Council approval of the Final Map and Easements:
a. The applicant shall file a Final Map prepared by a licensed land surveyor that meets all requirements of Woodside Municipal Code Chapter 152. The applicant shall file a complete application, including the CC&R for the Final Map along with any required deposit for Town review.
b. The subdivider shall design, obtain permits, install new water infrastructure (including mains, laterals, meters, hydrants and appurtenances) sufficient to meet applicable Redwood City Municipal Code and applicable fire code requirements in accordance with Redwood City Engineering Standards, and pass all required inspections. c. The subdivider shall pay the fees for any construction permit in connection with all above improvements, and shall pay associated costs for plan review and inspections. d. The water purveyor reserves the right to amend or alter these conditions of service if there are any changes to the tentative map or CEQA review prior to approval of the Final Map.

III. Prior to the recordation:
a. The Final Map shall be signed by the property owner(s) and all required Town Staff. b. The applicant shall complete all steps required by the County prior to recordation and set up an appointment with the County for signatures and recordation.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the Town of Woodside Planning Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing held on December 14, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

Marilyn Voelke, Chair
ATTEST:

Planning Secretary
This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent.

The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the Planning Commission.
_____________________________
Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
Item C Page 122 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 123 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 124 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 125 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 126 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 127 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 128 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 129 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 130 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 131 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 132 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 133 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 134 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 135 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 136 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 137 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
1 November 21, 2022
Vladimir Alexanyan
RE: LDIV2020-0001; CEQA2020-0001 – 988 Godetia Drive (APN 068-301- 100) Tentative Map Review Comments
Dear Mr. Alexanyan:

On November 14, 2022, the Subdivision Review Committee (Planning Director, Town Engineer, Town Geologist, Fire Marshal and Fire Chief, and County Health Officer) completed its review of the Tentative Map for 988 Godetia Drive, and provided comments after considering the recommendations from various Town Committees. The Comments from the Subdivision Review Committee, Trails Committee, Environment: Open Space, Conservation & Sustainability Committee, and Architectural and Site Review Board are in the attached checklist.

The Planning Commission will review the Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA, the Committee/Board recommendations, and the proposed Land Division, at their regular meeting of December 7, 2022, at 6:00 pm, located at 2955 Woodside Road (Independence Hall). You and/or a representative should attend the Planning Commission meeting to present the project and answer any questions.

We look forward to working with you to complete this process. Any referenced Municipal Code sections can be found by clicking the Municipal Code link on the Town’s website (www.woodsidetown.org). If you have any questions, please call me at 650-530-3436, or e-mail me at [email protected].

Best Regards,
Sarah Filipe
Sarah Filipe
Associate Planner
Attachments: Application Review Checklist
Item C Page 138 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
1 Address: 988 Godetia Drive (APN 068-301-100)
File No.: LDIV2020-0001; CEQA2020-0001
Review Date: November 21, 2022
Subdivision Review Committee Comments
I. Planning Comments:

Below are comments from Sage Schaan, Interim Planning Director. If you have any questions about the comments below, please contact the project planner, Sarah Filipe, at 650-530-3436 or [email protected].
□
A. The conformance of the proposed land division or subdivision with the General Plan and any relevant precise plan which has adopted by the Town;
The land division contemplates a residential use for which the land is designated in the General Plan (R, Residential). Parcel B (the larger of the two proposed parcels) is developed, and contains recently constructed new structures and renovated structures. Parcel A is slated for future new residential development.

There is no precise plan for plan for this property.
□
B. The environmental review documents;
The Draft MND concluded that although the project could have a potentially significant effect on these environmental topic areas, due to future, anticipated construction activity, these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the MND. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). □
C. The conformance of the proposed land division or subdivision to the zoning regulations for the district in which the land division or subdivision is located; The property is currently zoned SR, Suburban Residential (minimum lot size: 1 acre), and the subject property is 4.39 acres. The application includes a proposal to divide the parcel into two SR zone parcels, which would be approximately 1.58 acres (68,657 sf) and 2.81 acres (122,596 sf) in size. Both proposed parcels in the land division would comply with all applicable zoning regulations; including, but not limited to, lot size and dimensions. □
D. The adequacy of the proposed building sites and driveways layout; Proposed Parcel B is developed. The map includes a conceptual building envelope and driveway location for proposed Parcel A. Given the steep topography of Parcel A and the requirement for both a leach field area and a 100 percent expansion area for the leach field, the proposed building envelope is limited to a small bench in the northeastern quadrant of the property. Likewise, the proposed driveway location, located off of Godetia Drive and in close proximity to the

SUBDIVISION REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE TENTATIVE MAP Item C Page 139 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
2 intersection of Jefferson Avenue and Godetia Drive, is the only feasible location to access the building site. The applicant must work with the Town Engineer to ensure safe sight distances for the proposed driveway, and that any slopes > 35 percent proposed for development are manmade and prior to being steepened were < 35 percent (as a land division which requires a Variance is not approvable). Lastly, the plans should be revised to clearly show the intersection of Jefferson Avenue and Godetia Drive, as well as the nearby intersections of Jefferson Avenue with Midglen Way and West California Way (see Attachment 1, Google and Assessor Maps). □
E. The lot design, traffic circulation, and other features relative to the design standards of this chapter, adopted Town policies, and developments on properties in the general area of proposed land division or subdivision;
The existing, improved, public, access road, Godetia Drive, requires no additional improvement(s) to serve the one additional lot being created by the land division; unless, pursuant to the direction of the Town Engineer, specific improvements are needed to ensure adequate sight distance safety for the new driveway for proposed Parcel A (see Comment No. 4). □
F. The numbering of the lots;
The two lots are designated as: Parcel A and Parcel B (Town of Woodside, File No. LDIV2020- 0001).
□
G. The land division or subdivision name and the road names proposed; The land division is named ‘Godetia Drive Lot Split’ (Town of Woodside, File No. LDIV2020-0001).

No new roads are proposed.
□
H. The adequacy of the proposed areas to be dedicated for public use, conversation, scenic, and open space easements;
Not applicable.
□
I. The adequacy of the proposed areas to be dedicated for public use, conservation, scenic, and open space easements;
Not applicable.
□
J. The visual and/or aesthetic impacts;
Design Review will be required when future development is proposed. As noted above, Parcel B is already developed. The current application does not include the design of the future anticipated residence for proposed Parcel A, although the proposed building envelope and driveway location are the only viable locations on proposed Parcel A; therefore, the visual and aesthetic impacts of the development location can be spoken to. The portion of the existing lot slated to become Parcel B is located at the intersection of Jefferson Avenue and Godetia Drive.

This portion of the lot is currently vacant and contains grasses and trees. The treeless bench proposed as the building envelope for proposed Parcel A is low on the hillside and closer to the roadway. Given the prominence of the proposed building envelope, the future residence should hug the hillside, and any future second story should be stepped back (reference Town of Woodside Residential Design Guidelines).
□
K. The solar access; and
Solar access for proposed Parcel A has been analyzed by the applicant. Due to the steep hillside behind the proposed building envelope for proposed Parcel A, solar access for proposed Parcel A would be negatively impacted during the winter months.

Item C Page 140 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
3 □
L. The historical significance of buildings or sites.

Proposed Parcel B contains existing development. In 2012, the ASRB reviewed a proposal to demolish an existing detached garage and detached accessory living quarters; construct a new detached accessory living quarters, detached office, and detached workshop/carport; and retain an existing stable, main residence, and detached garage that serves the main residence (ASRB2012-0013).

No demolition of the original development on Parcel B is proposed with this application.

II. Engineering Comments:

Below are comments from Sean Rose, the Town Engineer. If you have any questions about the comments below, please contact Sean Rose, at 650-851-6796 or [email protected]. □
A. The adequacy of the right-of-way and pavement widths, type of pavement, and condition of existing roads affected by the land division or subdivision; All are adequate.
□
B. The adequacy of the proposed roads for motorized or non-motorized vehicles within the land division or subdivision;
None proposed.
□
C. The adequacy of the existing and proposed trails and paths; No existing trails and paths on the property. In the public right of way along the frontage of the property, there is a trail on the east side of Godetia; there is no trail currently on Jefferson.

It is desirable to have a trail along Jefferson along the frontage (to continue the existing trail on Jefferson which currently terminates at 4225 Jefferson), however given the site constraints it is not feasible or desirable to locate the trail on the property. A trail could be created in the public right of way by the Town in the future, however doing so would be costly given the topography of the right of way.
□
D. The adequacy of the easements proposed for public improvements, utilities, and drainage facilities;
No public easements are proposed.
□
E. The availability of the necessary utilities, including the method of connection; The applicant provided will serve letters. Utilities appear to be readily available to the site.

The site passed perc tests conducted by the applicant.
□
F. The adequacy of the proposed methods for handling drainage and stormwater runoff and the effect on drainage in the general area;
Drainage design was not provided. Given the steep slope topography, drainage will need to be carefully designed.
□
G. The effect of the proposed grading and the adequacy of proposed erosion control measures during and after grading;
None proposed at this time.
□
H. The evaluation of proposed driveways to individual lots; Item C Page 141 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
4 The new driveway off Godetia for Parcel A is adequate. Clear sight lines should be provided from the driveway to the intersection and curve.
□
I. The effects of the proposed land division or subdivision on other public improvements within the jurisdiction of the Town Engineer; and
None identified at this time.
□
J. The evaluation of the geotechnical report with respect to proposed building sites, roads, and storm drainage.

The geotechnical report is adequate for future proposed development.

III. Geology Comments:

Attached are comments from Andrew Mead, the Town Geologist. If you have any questions about the comments below, please contact Andrew at 408-354-5542 or [email protected].

IV. Fire Comments:

Below are comments from Don Bullard, the Fire Marshal. If you have any questions about the comments below, please contact the Fire Marshal, Don Bullard at 650-851-6206 or [email protected].
□
All comments from the Concept Map stage have been resolved. No additional comments at this time.

V. Environmental Health Comments:

Below are comments from Greg Smith, the Health Officer. If you have any questions about the comments below, please contact Greg at 650-372-6200 or [email protected]. □
All comments from the Concept Map stage have been resolved. No additional comments at this time.

VI. Town Committee Comments:

Please see attached for the Town Committee comments (ASRB, Trials Committee, and Environment Committee) that the Subdivision Review Committee chose to transmit. If you have any questions about the comments below, please contact the project planner, Sarah Filipe, at 650-530-3436 or [email protected].

Please note that additional comments may be generated by newly submitted information. If you have any questions about the required materials or comments above, please contact Associate Planner Sarah Filipe at 650-530-3436 or [email protected].

Item C Page 142 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
5 ASRB & Town Committee Reviews
The ASRB and Town Committees reviewed the MND and project at their regularly scheduled meetings in October and November 2022. Comments on the Tentative Map from the ASRB and Town Committees follow:

Architectural and Site Review Board:

On October 24, 2022, the ASRB reviewed the project. The ASRB noted that the project only includes a proposed Tentative Map to split one lot into two lots, and that no development is proposed at this time. The ASRB found that the proposed building site could accommodate a residence and ADU that would comply with required Zoning standards and did not have any recommendations for the Planning Commission to consider with review of the Tentative Map.

Environment: Open Space, Conservation & Sustainability Committee On October 27, 2022, the Environment: Open Space, Conservation & Sustainability Committee reviewed the project. There was no objection to the proposal.

Trails Committee:

Item C Page 143 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
6 On November 10, 2022, the Trails Committee reviewed the project. There Committee noted that a trail on Jefferson Avenue is desirable but challenging given the topography and safety concerns. The Committee expressed interest in the Town exploring the feasibility of a new trail on Jefferson within the roadway easement. Given that the proposal would not impact any trails (no existing trails within the project vicinity and no new trails proposed), there was no objection to the proposal.

Item C Page 144 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
(A)
(1)
(2)
(B)
(C)
(1)
(2)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Sec. 152.112 - Lots.

All lots created in accordance with this chapter shall conform to the zoning regulations effective in the district in which the land division or subdivision is located, or such modifications of the lot area and dimensions as may have been approved as part of a variance pursuant to the Zoning Code.

Lot sizes.

The building limitations table set forth in the Zoning Code specifies the minimum net area of a lot, but lots larger than such minimum area may be required by the Planning Commission when necessary to accommodate topography, geologic hazards, stormwater drainage channels, physical obstructions, or other physical conditions. (See Zoning Code to determine the number of lots and amount of area to remain in a natural state for parcels or lots which exceed 15 percent average ground slope).

The net area of a lot shall not include lot area exclusions outlined in Municipal Code Section 153.205(B).

Lot design. All divisions of land shall result in the creation of lots which are capable of being developed or built upon with minimal changes in the natural physical configuration of the site. No lots shall be created which are impractical for improvements or use due to steepness of terrain, location of watercourses, size, shape, periodic flooding or earth movement, or other physical conditions.

Lot shape.

The average depth of any lot shall not exceed three times its average width, unless the average width is more than 200 feet. All lots created shall contain at a minimum an area of circular or rectangular shape within the required building setback lines equal to the building coverage area permitted in the zoning district. Lot lines shall be free of excessive jogs in alignment, except where existing physical conditions and established property lines preclude the establishment of straight property boundaries.

Lot shapes shall not be designed for the sole purpose of achieving the minimum lot area.

Panhandle lots shall be permitted only when the Planning Commission determines that they would result in better design of the development. The owner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission that, because of unusual physical characteristics, such as topography, a land division or subdivision would be infeasible without the creation of one or more panhandle lots.

Lot lines. The lot lines shall be located to yield the best building sites and, where possible, the lot lines shall be at right angles or radial to the road right-of-way lines.

Solar access. Consideration of optimum solar orientation for energy conservation shall be given in lot location, design, placement of structures, vegetative removal, and landscaping.

Access.

All lots created shall have access to a public road or a private road meeting the minimum requirements of this chapter for pavement and right-of-way widths and improved in accordance with the standards for public improvements set forth in this chapter.

No lot shall be divided by a road, driveway, or access easement, except where located adjacent to a conservation easement or open space easement extending from the road, driveway, or access easement to the property line.

A maximum of two lots may be served by a common driveway when, in the opinion of the Planning Item C Page 145 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
(G)
(H)
(I)
(1)
(2)
(J)
(K)
(A)
(B)
(A) (1)
(2)
Commission, the use of a common driveway will result in reduced adverse physical impacts.

Drainage. All lots shall have the necessary slope to drain water away from the building site at a grade of not less than two percent. Whenever the natural drainage is changed, the storm water shall be conveyed to the road, drain, or natural watercourses. Lots shall be designed so that the 100-year floodplain and the stream corridor protection standards contained in the Zoning Code do not interfere with the normal use of any lot.

Non-access dedications. All lots shall take access from one road only, and such road shall be the road carrying the least amount of traffic. In the case of corner lots or double frontage lots, one road frontage shall be dedicated to the Town to prevent access.

Remnant lots.

No parcel of land or lot which is substandard in size and shape shall be created by any land division or subdivision, unless such parcel is required strictly for public or private utilities, approved access purposes, or other approved public uses.

No lot shall be split by a Town or County boundary.

Noise considerations. All land divisions and subdivisions incorporate into their design noise abatement improvements to render all lots in conformity with the noise element of the General Plan. Maximum ambient noise exposure at exterior use areas, such as patios, decks, and tennis courts, shall be no greater than 55 dBA/Ldn.

Building sites and related improvements on lots shall be located in areas identified by the Town as least environmentally sensitive as a result of the natural land features study under Section 152.024 of this chapter.
(Ord. 2021-617 , § 3(Exh. A), effective 3-11-21)
Sec. 152.113 - Road pattern.

The road pattern in the land division or subdivision shall be in conformity with the circulation element of the General Plan and shall be designed to take into consideration the potential development of adjoining areas.

The road pattern employed in the land division or subdivision shall conform to recognized traffic engineering practices while limiting the number and the expanse of roads to a minimum. Great care shall be exercised to create curvilinear roads which blend and harmonize with the natural surroundings. Aesthetics and safety shall be considered.
(Ord. 2021-617 , § 3(Exh. A), effective 3-11-21)
Sec. 152.114 - Road design.

The following minimum criteria shall be followed in road design:

The alignment of roads shall be continuous with existing roads. At intersections, the centerlines of roads not in alignment shall be offset a minimum of 250 feet.

Private roads shall be permitted only when an agreement satisfactory to the Town Engineer and Town Attorney is filed guaranteeing perpetual maintenance and permitting the Town to compel Item C Page 146 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G) (1)
(2)
(H)
(I)
(J)
(K)
(A)
maintenance adequate to ensure public safety.

Centerlines of roads shall intersect at right angles, except in cases of topographical difficulty, the last 300 feet of the road shall curve to the right angle location, and intersections of less than 75 degrees will not be allowed.

Roads shall be extended to the boundary of the land division or subdivision, in the case of dead-end roads, and improved to the standards of the future road. All dead-end roads shall have temporary turnarounds, designed and installed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. At the request of the Planning Commission, a one-foot strip the width of the right-of-way inside the boundary of the land division or subdivision shall be dedicated to the Town.

Intersection corners shall be rounded at the property line by a minimum radius of 15 feet.

Horizontal curves shall be a minimum of 150 feet at the centerline on all roads for a minimum design speed of 22 miles per hour. Arterials and important collectors shall be designed for speeds ranging from 30 to 50 miles per hour as designated by the Town Engineer.

Grades of roads shall range from a minimum of one percent to a maximum of 15 percent. The minimum vertical curve length in 100-foot stations shall be one-fourth the algebraic difference in grades. Vertical curves shall also supply the standard stopping sight distance for the design speed (22 to 50 miles per hour) and, in addition, be long enough to produce a pleasing appearance.

The maximum length of a cul-de-sac road shall be 1,200 feet, unless the Planning Commission determines that a longer cul-de-sac will result in a better design. Culs-de-sac shall terminate in a property line circle of 80 feet in diameter and a minimum pavement diameter of 60 feet, either concentric or offset. Backarounds, "hammerheads," or other devices to turn vehicles may be allowed in new roads or in existing roads if the Planning Commission finds that their use will result in reduced physical impacts and an improved land division or subdivision design.

Landscape islands will be allowed at the end of cul-de-sacs if the pavement width and curvature is adequate to turn a semitrailer truck in a 48-foot radius without running through the landscaping.

The road cross section slope shall be a minimum of three percent, and super elevations shall be employed on arterials and collectors in accordance with the design speed.

Berms shall be asphalt or alternate construction, and berms shall be employed sparingly to control drainage and to ensure traffic safety. Ramps for the handicapped shall be installed as appropriate.

Roads which are continuations of existing roads shall bear the names of such roads. Proposed road names shall be reviewed with the Planning Director, Fire Chief, and Police Chief to avoid duplication and confusion. The owner shall propose road names and obtain comments from the Subdivision Review Committee prior to the approval of the tentative map by the Planning Commission.

Parking bays adjacent to public and private road rights-of-way may be permitted by the Planning Commission.
(Ord. 2021-617 , § 3(Exh. A), effective 3-11-21)
Sec. 152.115 - Road rights-of-way and pavement widths.

All new roads shall meet the minimum requirements specified in Table A set forth in this section. Pavement Item C Page 147 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
widths shall be the width of surface available to vehicular traffic. Such width shall not include shoulders, bike lanes, berms or paved drainage ditches.

Pavement, for the purposes of this section, shall mean a minimum of two-inch thick hot mix asphalt concrete over a minimum of six-inch thick base rock for public and private roads designed for the traffic index (TI) as indicated in said Table A.

In the case of land divisions or subdivisions abutting existing Town public roads, the Planning Commission may require reconstruction to Town Standards.

Road improvements, with the exception of connections, are not normally required on abutting freeways, expressways, or state highways. The details of a connection to a state highway will be specified by the state.

The following minimum standards shall be followed:

Table A
Road Type Number of Lots
Served
Right-of-Way
Width
(Feet)
Pavement Width
(Feet)
Traffic Index
(TI)
Arterial N/A 80 22(a)(c) 6-8
Collector N/A 60 20(a)(c) 5.5
Cul-de-sac and
minor rural
2-10
11 or more
(b)
(b)
16(c)(e)
18(c)

4.0 4.0
Common driveway — — (d) —
(a) Bike lanes with a minimum pavement width of five feet on each side may be required. (b) Forty feet to 50 feet variable, dependent upon the physical characteristics of the terrain and the need to accommodate utilities, trails, or other improvements. (c) Public roads shall include three foot graded and rocked shoulders. Private roads shall include two foot graded and rocked shoulders.
(d) Sixteen feet of paving for that portion serving both lots, and 12 feet of paving for that portion serving one lot.
(e) Thirty-foot minimum pavement radius.
(Ord. 2021-617 , § 3(Exh. A), effective 3-11-21)
Sec. 152.116 - Drainage.

Item C Page 148 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
(A)
(B)
(A)
(B)
(C)
The design of drainage facilities shall conform to the Town's Storm Drainage Master Plan and the Town's drainage requirements contained in Sections 52 and 151 of the Woodside Municipal Code. Areas draining into the development shall be considered as fully developed, and the area shall be outlined on a map submitted with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall be for the 100-year storm or for the tenyear storm when the drainage area is 50 acres or less, and an alternate means of vehicular access to each lot in the land division or subdivision exists. All drainage structures shall terminate in an adequate outfall.

Easements shall be dedicated to cover all drainage structures built as a condition of development. The owner or subdivider shall place in conservation or open space easements dedicated to the Town all floodplains and stream corridors identified by the Planning Commission at the time of the consideration of the tentative map (see Zoning Code).
(Ord. 2021-617 , § 3(Exh. A), effective 3-11-21)
Sec. 152.117 - Trails.

Trails for equestrian, pedestrian, and bicycle use shall be dedicated and improved by the owner or subdivider along roads and at other such locations within the land division or subdivision in order to provide a trail network in accordance with the circulation element of the General Plan. Bicycle paths shall be constructed to state standards.

Equestrian and hiking trails may be surfaced with rock or native earth. The trail width shall not be narrower than four feet. The thickness and type of surfacing material, preparation of subbase, and drainage shall be to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer, based on recommendations by the Trails Committee.

The clearance of overhead vegetation over equestrian or bicycle trails shall be a minimum of 12 feet in height. The minimum width of a trail easement outside a public road right-of-way shall be 15 feet. A greater easement width may be required where such easement cross slopes in excess of a 15 percent grade or where such physical factors, such as rock outcroppings, trees, and stream corridors, exist. (Ord. 2021-617 , § 3(Exh. A), effective 3-11-21)
Sec. 152.118 - Public utilities and easements.

All public utilities shall be placed underground, together with all appurtenances. Utilities should normally be located in the public roads, but when other locations are necessary, the normal easement width shall be 20 feet, unless the utility companies request more or less width. Utilities shall be coordinated to permit the joint use of trenches and easements so as to reduce the disturbance of the natural surroundings. All utility services shall be supplied by the owner or subdivider to each lot.
(Ord. 2021-617 , § 3(Exh. A), effective 3-11-21)
Sec. 152.119 - Conservation, open space, and scenic easements.

The Planning Commission may require the dedication of open space, conservation, or scenic easements within a proposed land division or subdivision for the express purpose of protecting the natural vegetation, terrain, watercourses, historic and cultural resources, scenic vistas, and wildlife and for the purpose of preventing or limiting drainage, erosion, and water quality problems and geologic hazards. If so required, the owner or subdivider shall Item C Page 149 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
(A)
(B)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(C)
(A)
dedicate the easements on the final map and shall execute a deed to the Town, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, which deed shall include such reasonable restrictions as the Planning Commission may impose to carry out the intent of this chapter, the General Plan, or any Specific/Area Plan of the Town. (Ord. 2021-617 , § 3(Exh. A), effective 3-11-21)
Sec. 152.120 - Parks and recreational areas.

Pursuant to Government Code § 66477, and in conformity with the General Plan as adopted, and as may be amended, the Town Council may require as a condition precedent to the approval of a subdivision map the dedication of land for public park and recreational purposes, or the payment of fees in lieu, or a combination of both.

All land to be dedicated for park and recreational purposes shall be found by the Planning Commission to be suitable as to location, size, and topography for park and recreational purposes, which may include any of the following uses:

Neighborhood playgrounds;
Community playfields;
Pedestrian paths, equestrian and hiking trails, and bicycle paths; and Areas of unusual natural beauty, such as creeks, canyons, hilltops, groves, and the like.

The requirements of this section, upon the approval of the Council, may be satisfied by the provision of areas of permanent open space provided and maintained for the benefit of the subdivision or the public. (Ord. 2021-617 , § 3(Exh. A), effective 3-11-21)
Sec. 152.121 - Sewage disposal.

Each parcel, to be served by an individual on-site sewage disposal system, shall be of such size and characteristics that an effective, reliable disposal system can be installed and maintained. Where the rate of water percolation into the earth is satisfactory, septic tanks and drainfields will be permitted pursuant to the standards of the Town and the satisfaction of the Health Officer and Town Engineer. All drainfields shall be tested under wet-weather conditions and shall be capable of 100 percent expansion. Where sanitary sewer service is available within an existing or approved service area, and is authorized by the Town, connection to such system may be required as a condition of land division or subdivision approval.
(Ord. 2021-617 , § 3(Exh. A), effective 3-11-21)
Sec. 152.122 - Water supply.

Domestic supply. Water supply for domestic uses shall meet the requirements of the Health and Safety Code of the state and the standards of the Health Officer. The water system shall have an operating permit from the local or State Health Department. Minimum pressure in any possible structure shall be maintained by a gravity system or pump pressure operated by the water system. An applicant shall submit maps, drawings, and other pertinent records to demonstrate the system's reliability and ability to adequately serve the land division or subdivision.

Item C Page 150 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
(B)
(1)
(2)
(A)
(B)
(C)
Fire protection supply.

The minimum acceptable fire flow and fire hydrant locations/type shall comply with all current Fire District standards required for fire protection.

The water supply system layout, design, and construction shall be approved by the Fire Chief and Town Engineer.
(Ord. 2021-617 , § 3(Exh. A), effective 3-11-21)
Sec. 152.123 - Geotechnical reports.

A geotechnical report shall be prepared, submitted, and approved for every land division or subdivision. The geotechnical report shall include data and recommendations on grading, slopes, trenching, erosion, stability, geologic hazards, drainfield stability, subsurface drainage, road pavement design, and other items necessary for a complete report as specified by the Town. The geotechnical report shall be submitted together with the tentative map and shall encompass all land within the proposed land division or subdivision and any adjacent or nearby land containing geologic characteristics which may affect the proposed land division or subdivision.

An outline of the geotechnical report shall be filed with the concept map and a final report with the tentative map for referencing on the title page of the final map. The final report shall contain a comprehensive geologic and seismic evaluation in addition to the items set forth in this section.

Corrective action shall be specified and the conditions for the construction of roads, utilities, and residences specified. The owner or subdivider shall consult with the Town Geologist prior to the preparation of the outline or report in order to obtain the required specific scope.

The soils report portion of the geotechnical report shall include the results of at least one soil boring or excavation at each proposed building site. If the soils report indicates the presence of critically expansive soils, historical landslides, or other soil problems, a more detailed investigation shall be made to recommend corrective action by the owner, subdivider, or developer at the time a structure is built. The specifications for the corrective action shall be included in the report, and a statement noting the preparation of a soils report, together with the date of the report and the name of the engineer making the report, shall appear on the final map.

The requirements of this section are enacted pursuant to the requirements of the Statutes of 1965, Sections 66490 and 66491 of the Subdivision Map Act. All geotechnical reports shall be approved by the Town Geologist and Town Engineer, and all corrective action shall be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit or shall be included in the building plans as required construction. (Ord. 2021-617 , § 3(Exh. A), effective 3-11-21)
Sec. 152.124 - Grading.

All grading work shall be designed based on a geotechnical report with the concurrence of the person preparing the geotechnical report. All cuts shall be two to one or flatter, and all fills shall be two to one or flatter. The slopes shall be contoured in accordance with good landscape practices to provide a natural pleasing appearance, and where a landscape architect or architect is employed, such architect shall specify the shaping. The grading of entire lots shall be prohibited, and only that amount of grading necessary to ensure an adequate residential and accessory use and Item C Page 151 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
(A)
(B)
(1)
(a)
vehicular access, provide for adequate drainage, or correct geological hazards will be permitted. All cut and fill slopes shall be planted to reduce the potential of soil erosion to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and Architectural and Site Review Board. Grading shall be a balanced cut and fill, and all grading operations shall occur only between April 15 and October 15. All graded areas shall be winterized with planting, netting, and/or erosion control structures by November 1 to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and Planning Director. An exception to the balance cut and fill requirement may be granted by the Town Engineer and Planning Director upon their reaching a finding that the granting of such exception is consistent with the objectives and other standards of this chapter. The Town Engineer may also grant an exception to the grading period upon reaching similar findings. (Ord. 2021-617 , § 3(Exh. A), effective 3-11-21)
Sec. 152.125 - Landscaping and erosion control.

For all land divisions and subdivisions involving grading, erosion control planting shall be included as a minimum.

Tree planting may be required by the Planning Commission. The extent of the work shall be specified prior to the approval of the tentative map. All land division or subdivision projects shall have planting plans providing for the stabilization and replanting of all cut and fill slopes, landscaping, and erosion control. Any planting shall require plans and specifications prepared by a landscape architect or other qualified person. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director, based on recommendations from the Architectural and Site Review Board and the Planning Commission prior to the approval of the road construction plans. The planting concept shall blend and harmonize with the native planting. All planting shall be maintained for a period of two years by the owner or subdivider. The Town shall require a maintenance bond pursuant to Section 152.126 of this chapter. (Ord. 2021-617 , § 3(Exh. A), effective 3-11-21)
Sec. 152.126 - Improvements.

The owner or subdivider shall improve, or agree in writing to improve, all public and private roads, pathways, trails, and easements and to install other improvements required by this chapter as are necessary for the benefit of the lot owners in the land division or subdivision and the surrounding community.

Improvement work, including grading, shall not be commenced until improvement plans and specifications have been approved by the Town Engineer. Improvements shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications to permanent lines and grades to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. All work shall be completed under his/her supervision and shall be subject to such inspections as he/she deems necessary to protect the interests of the Town. The costs of the inspections shall be borne by the owner or subdivider.

Improvement plans.

The owner or subdivider shall submit to the Town Engineer a complete set of plans and profiles on suitable material, pencil or ink, size 24 inches by 36 inches, to a scale of one-inch equals 40 feet to one inch equals ten feet, with all necessary details and specifications. Improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer who shall sign and seal each sheet of the plans. After the approval and signature of the plans by the Town Engineer, three sets of prints and one set of duplicate tracings shall be delivered to the Town Engineer for his/her use.

Item C Page 152 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(6)
(7)
The owner or subdivider may install such improvements before the final map is recorded. If the work is c the absence of an improvement agreement, the owner or subdivider shall use a licensed contractor, sup Workers' Compensation Insurance, and supply evidence of public liability and property damage insuranc Town as an additional insured to the limits normally required in an improvement agreement. The insura shall be approved by the Town Attorney prior to the commencement of the work.

Completion. A complete "as built" improvement plan shall be filed as a permanent record of the Town upon the completion of the required improvements. Upon the acceptance of the "as built" plans, the Town Engineer shall recommend formal acceptance by the Council when he/she is satisfied that the improvements have been installed in conformance with the standards of this chapter. After formal acceptance by the Council, a notice of completion will be recorded by the Town Engineer.

Guarantees. The owner or subdivider shall guarantee the completed work and the improvements and shall make or agree to make the necessary repairs or modifications for damages resulting from storms, erosion, or landslides and to correct errors in the design or construction for a minimum of one year after the date of completion, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. The owner or subdivider shall also guarantee the maintenance of all private roads within the land division or subdivision until a majority of the lots have been sold.

Building permits. No building permit shall be issued for any lot until all required improvements have been completed.

Improvement security. The owner or subdivider shall file with the Town Clerk a faithful performance bond, cash deposit, or other improvement security in the amount deemed sufficient by the Town Engineer to cover all costs of the improvements, engineering, inspection fees, inflation, and incidental expenses. The owner or subdivider shall also cover by bond or other improvement security laborers and materialmen in the amount of 100 percent of the amount of the estimated costs of the improvements.

Such security shall be one of the following at the option of the owner or subdivider and subject to the approval of the Town.

A bond or bonds by one or more duly authorized corporate sureties; A cash deposit, either with the Town or a responsible escrow agent or trust company; or An instrument of credit from one or more financial institutions subject to regulation by the state or federal government pledging that the funds necessary to carry out the act or agreement are on deposit and guaranteed for payment.

Forfeiture of surety. In the event the owner or subdivider shall fail to complete all improvement work, and the Town shall have to complete such work, or if the owner or subdivider shall fail to reimburse the Town for the costs of inspection, engineering fees, and incidental expenses, the Town shall call on the surety for reimbursement or shall appropriate funds for reimbursement from any cash deposit or improvement security. In any event, if the amount of the bond, cash deposit, or improvement security exceeds all the costs and expenses incurred by the Town, the remainder shall be released to the owner or subdivider, and if the amount of the bond or other improvement security is less than the costs and expenses incurred by the Town, the owner or subdivider shall be liable to the Town for the difference.

Release of surety. No extension of time, progress payment from a cash deposit, or release of a surety bond, cash deposit, or improvement security shall be made, except upon certification by the Town Item C Page 153 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
(8)
(9)
(a)
(b)
Engineer that the work covered by the security has been satisfactorily completed and upon the approval of the Council.

Improvement agreements. In the event the improvements required have not been made at the time the final map is filed with the Council, the owner or subdivider shall execute and file with the Town Clerk an agreement between himself and the Town specifying the period within which he/she shall complete all improvements and work. The agreement shall be in a form prescribed by the Town Attorney and shall be based on improvement plans signed by the Town Engineer. The agreement shall also prescribe that the owner or subdivider shall repair any damage to a public road or any other public or private property or improvement which results from or is incidental to the construction of improvements in the land division or subdivision or that, in lieu of making such repairs, the owner or subdivider shall pay to the affected property owner or to the Town the full cost thereof. The owner or subdivider shall also file with the Town Clerk at the same time a faithful performance bond and labor and materialmen bond or other improvement security as set forth in subsection (5) of this division.

Improvement agreements: extensions of time.

If an owner or subdivider requests an extension of time in which to comply with the requirements of an improvement agreement, the amount of the improvement agreement security will be adjusted to reflect current inflation upon the recommendation of the Town Engineer.

If an owner or subdivider begins grading or any other construction on the property on which improvements are to be constructed as required by an improvement agreement, and is thereafter unable to complete such construction within the time set out therein, and requests an extension of time in which to complete such improvements, the Town will suffer damages, the actual amount of which would be extremely difficult or impractical to ascertain. Therefore, each owner or subdivider entering into a subdivision improvement agreement with the Town shall deposit with the Town cash in an amount to be recommended by the Town Engineer, such amount being a reasonable estimate of the Town's damages, and, upon the granting of an extension of time in which to complete the improvements required by an improvement agreement after the owner or subdivider has begun grading on the property for the required improvements, the Town, at its election, may retain such deposit as its sole right to damages.
(Ord. 2021-617 , § 3(Exh. A), effective 3-11-21)
Item C Page 154 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Date: Response Time:
(Days)
Applicant Submitted application 1/13/2020
Town Sent out plan check comments
- Engineering, Fire, Geology, County, and Planning
2/12/2020 30
Applicant Resubmitted revised plans and requested
documents
4/29/2020 77
Town Sent out plan check comments
- Geology, and Planning
5/22/2020 23
Applicant Resubmitted requested documents 6/1/2020 10
Town Sent out plan check comments
- Engineering, Fire, Geology, County, and Planning
6/15/2020 14
Applicant Resubmitted requested documents 10/27/2020 134 Town Application Deemed Complete and Start of CEQA
work, but CEQA work stalled waiting for the
applicant to provide a water Will Serve Letter for
CEQA review
11/12/2020 16
Town Complete IS/MND for CEQA and start public
review period (10/13-11/12) 10/13/2022
700
ASRB ASRB Hearing 10/24/2022 11
Env: OS, C, & S
Committee
Environemnt: Open Space, Conservation and
Sustainability Committee Hearing
10/27/2022 3
Trails
Committee
Trails Committee Hearing 11/10/2022 14
SRC Meeting Subdivision Review Committee Meeting 11/14/2022 4 PC Planning Commission Hearing 12/7/2022 23
Total 1059
Description of Action Taken:

Project Chronology: 988 Goedtia Drive, LDIV2020-0001; CEQA2020-0001 Coordination between RWCWD, Cal Water, and the applicant for Will Serve Letter (resulted in delays)
Item C Page 155 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

TOWN OF WOODSIDE
Report to Town Council Agenda Item D
From: Sean Rose, Town Engineer February 28, 2023
Approved: Kevin Bryant, Town Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

CONTRACT WITH BAY AREA TREE SPECIALISTS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $236,688 FOR REMOVAL OF EIGHT LARGE EUCALYPTUS TREES

ON MOUNTAIN HOME ROAD

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Town Council authorize the Town Manager to execute a contract with Bay Area Tree Specialists in an amount not to exceed $236,688 for removal of eight large eucalyptus trees on Mountain Home Road.

BACKGROUND
On January 17, 2023, the Town Council authorized a contract with Community Tree Service (CTS) in an amount not to exceed $179,500 for removal of nine large eucalyptus trees on Mountain Home Road. The staff report that summarizes the background and construction details of the project is provided herein as Attachment B. The report includes the recommendation for removal by the Woodside Fire Protection District, support for removal by PG&E, the arborist’s findings regarding the health of the trees, project bid results, traffic control and construction outreach plan, and other project details.

CTS’ bid assumed that PG&E would be able to complete a line kill (shutting off power) for the project. Prior to executing the contract with CTS, PG&E informed the Town that it would not be able to complete a line kill within the next 12-18 months, and CTS informed the Town that it would not hold its bid for more than 90 days. Accordingly, CTS has withdrawn its bid for the project.

The Town received ten bids for this project ranging from $111,840 to $486,000 for all nine trees (eight trees plus one additional tree with a PG&E guy wire attached to it). The complete bid results table is provided in Attachment 2 of the January 17th staff report.

The next lowest bid after CTS is from Bay Area Tree Specialists (BATS) in the amounts of $236,688 for eight trees and $258,465 for all nine trees. Unlike the bid by CTS, BATS’ bid does not assume a line kill by PG&E, i.e. their as-bid construction plan is to complete the removal without it. PG&E does not require a Item D Page 1 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
line kill and has indicated they would likely not complete one for this project if this work was done by one of their
contractors.

PG&E has also informed the Town that it will not be able to remove the guy wire in the tree closest to the bridge within the next 12 months, leaving the possibility of removing only eight trees as part of this project. The Town’s request to remove the guy wire is still in process, however, and staff would plan to remove that tree at a later date once the guy wire is removed.

Staff has met with BATS in the field and discussed the work with them in detail. They have confirmed their bid and work plan, including provision of all necessary equipment and traffic control to complete the work. They have indicated that if awarded the contract they could start work in March 2023.

In light of the above, staff recommends awarding the project to BATS for the removal of eight trees in the amount of $236,688.

The cost of the removal of the trees is budgeted in the Safety Services Department budget for the current fiscal year. Adequate funding is provided in the budget for the recommended contract award.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Resolution
B. Staff report from January 17, 2023
C. Correspondence from Jim Olstad
Item D Page 2 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023 –

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WOODSIDE

AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH BAY AREA TREE SERVICE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $236,688 FOR REMOVAL OF

EIGHT LARGE EUCALYPTUS TREES ON MOUNTAIN HOME ROAD
WHEREAS, the Woodside Fire Protection District (WFPD) has identified trees in the public right of way and on Town-owned properties that they deem potentially hazardous due to fire risk, limb fall, and impacts to emergency ingress/egress; and WHEREAS, since 2017 the Town has removed over 100 such
trees from multiple locations throughout the Town; and
WHEREAS, nine of the identified trees are large eucalyptus trees located on the east side of Mountain Home Road between the Mountain Home Road bridge and Manzanita Way;
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2023, the Town Council authorized the Town Manager to execute a contract with Bartlett/SP McLenahan Tree Service (B/SPM) in an amount not to exceed $90,100 for removal of four of the nine trees; and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2022, the Town and B/SPM mutually agreed to rescind the contract due to a change in B/SPM’s work plan and associated scheduling issues; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2022, the Town issued a Request for Bids to remove the four trees noted above plus five more large eucalyptus trees located immediately adjacent to the original four trees, for a total of nine trees; and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2023, the Town received ten bids ranging from $111,840 to $450,000; and
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2023, Council authorized a tree removal contract with Community Tree Service (CTS) in an amount not to exceed $179,500; and
WHEREAS, due to PG&E not being able to complete a line kill for the project as assumed by CTS within the period of time the bid is valid, CTS withdrew its bid; and
WHEREAS, the next lowest bid after CTS is by Bay Area Tree Service (BATS) in the amount of $236,688 for eight trees; WHEREAS, BATS’ bid does not assume a line kill by PG&E is required; and
Item D Page 3 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

ATTACHMENT A
WHEREAS, the cost of the removal of the trees is budgeted in the Safety Services Department budget for the current fiscal year.

WHEREAS, in light of the above staff recommends awarding a contract to BATS in the amount of $236,688 for the removal of eight trees on Mountain Home Road.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WOODSIDE that it authorizes the Town Manager to execute a contract with Community Tree Service in an amount not to exceed $236,688 for removal of eight large eucalyptus trees on Mountain Home Road
* * * * * * *

Passed and adopted by the Town Council of the Town of Woodside, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 28th of February 2023, by the following vote of members thereof:

AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mayor of the Town of Woodside
ATTEST:

Clerk of the Town of Woodside
Item D Page 4 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

TOWN OF WOODSIDE
Report to Town Council Agenda Item A
From: Sean Rose, Town Engineer January 17, 2023
Approved: Kevin Bryant, Town Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

CONTRACT WITH COMMUNITY TREE SERVICE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $179,500 FOR REMOVAL OF NINE LARGE EUCALYPTUS TREES

ON MOUNTAIN HOME ROAD

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Town Council authorize the Town Manager to execute a contract with Community Tree Service in an amount not to exceed $179,500 for removal of nine large eucalyptus trees on Mountain Home Road.

BACKGROUND
Due to the recent and increasing State-wide and local fire incidents and growing fire-related concerns, in 2017 Woodside Fire Protection District (WFPD) submitted to the Town a list of trees in the public right of way and on Town-owned property that it has deemed hazardous due to factors such as proximity to power lines, limb drop potential, and proximity to
ingress/egress points along evacuation routes. The list is updated periodically as trees are removed and additional trees are added to the list by WFPD. The current list is attached to this report (Attachment 4). The nine eucalyptus trees that are the subject of this report are shown on the list highlighted in yellow.

As indicated on the list, since 2017 the Town has removed over 100 hazardous trees from multiple locations throughout the Town, both along roads within the public right of way and on Townowned properties, including the Joan Olsen Preserve, Barkley Park, and the Kiely/Junior Riders equestrian facility.

The nine trees along Mountain Home Road that are proposed for removal under the recommended action are within the public right of way along the east side of Mountain Home Road between the Mountain Home Road Bridge and Manzanita Way. All of the trees have been marked with yellow tape for ease of identification in the field.

The trees are immediately adjacent to PG&E power lines. PG&E periodically trims the trees back from the lines in accordance with CPUC regulations. WFPD and the Fire Safe Council has identified non-native eucalyptus trees as hazardous due to their Item D Page 5 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

ATTACHMENT B
fuel being highly flammable, high airborne ember potential and large amount of debris and resulting ladder fuel on the ground and into the tree canopy. In addition to those concerns, for these nine particular trees WFPD has identified proximity to the power lines and limb fall potential onto the power lines and roadway/path below as reasons for their recommendation for removal.

PG&E is also in support of removing the trees. PG&E has managed the trees with pruning in the past. According to PG&E, removing the trees, rather than continuing to trim them, will help with system reliability (reduced risk of power outages) and public safety due to unforeseen branch failures. PG&E has committed to assisting the Town during the removal operation.

Highlighting the potential for limb fall from the trees, on September 4, 2022 a very large branch (as large as a small tree) from one of the trees fell onto Mountain Home Road. Fortunately, no one was injured in that incident and the trees narrowly missed falling onto the adjacent power lines.

Since placing the yellow tape around the trees, the Town has been contacted by one of the residents within the work area indicating their preference that the trees continue to be pruned rather than removed (Attachment 6). One of the resident’s requests was to complete an arborist report for the trees. The Town has not routinely completed arborist reports on hazardous trees because the recommendations for removal by the WFPD and PG&E have generally not been related to tree health, but rather to proximity to power lines and the other concerns noted above.

However, in response to the resident’s request, the Town commissioned an arborist report for these nine trees. That report is attached herein for review (Attachment 5). In summary, the arborist concludes the trees are in fair to poor health, and in light of the potential risk and ongoing cost of maintenance, recommends that the trees be removed.

DISCUSSION
On September 13, 2022, the Town Council authorized the Town Manager to execute a contract with Bartlett/SP McLenahan (B/SPM) Tree Service in an amount not to exceed $90,100 for removal of four of the nine large eucalyptus trees that are closest to Manzanita Road. Subsequent to execution of the contract, B/SPM revised its project work plan that would have led to significant anticipated project delays and uncertainty regarding the completion date of the work. On December 13, 2022, the Town and B/SPM mutually agreed to rescind the contract.

On December 16, 2022, the Town issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the removal of the four trees noted above plus five Item D Page 6 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
more large eucalyptus trees located immediately adjacent to the original four trees, for a total of nine trees. On January 5, 2023, the Town received ten bids ranging from $111,840 to $450,000. The bid summary is attached to this report (Attachment 3).

The apparent low bid of $111,840 by Arbor Pros did not contain all of the information required by the Town’s RFP and the bidder requested to be released from their bid. In light of the missing information, the Town agreed to release Arbor Pros from their bid. The second low bid was by Community Tree Service (CTS) in the amount of $179,500. The bid was found to be in good order and to contain all of the required information, and project references were confirmed to be satisfactory. Staff therefore recommends awarding the tree removal contract to CTS.

Should the Council elect to proceed with the project and award the contract, staff anticipates commencing the project by midFebruary, pending final confirmation of contractor availability and PG&E’s availability to shut off the power to the lines during a portion of the work.

The tree closest to the Mountain Home Road bridge has a PG&E guy wire anchored to it. Staff has asked PG&E to expedite the removal of the guy wire so that it can be removed with the project. Should PG&E not be able to remove the guy wire in time for our contractor to remove that tree, the removal of the other eight trees will proceed as scheduled and the tree with the guy wire in it will be removed from the project and addressed at a later date.

Removal of the trees will require a large crane(s) with wide outriggers. Given the width of the shoulder and roadway at this location, it will be necessary to close the road for
approximately 10 working days to complete the work. The detour route will utilize Whiskey Hill Road and Portola Road and will be fairly long depending on where residents live along Mountain Home Road, and other streets off of Mountain Home Road (Winding Way, Manzanita, etc.).

To minimize the impact of the full road closure to the
community, closure hours will be limited to the hours from 9am to 4pm to allow for school/commute traffic to pass through the area. Notification of the closure will go out Town-wide on Nextdoor and SMC Alert, and via electronic sign boards placed at multiple locations throughout Town at least 7 days in advance of the start of work.

The Town has sent letters to the five properties that have driveways within the work area that will be most impacted by the work. The letters informed residents that the contractor will accommodate access to their properties during the closure to the Item D Page 7 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
fullest extent possible and to anticipate delays at times during the work. The contractor will separately notice the same residents and work directly with them, in coordination with the Town, on access to their properties during the road closure.

The cost of the removal of the trees is budgeted in the Safety Services Department budget for the current fiscal year.

CONCLUSION
Approval of this resolution will facilitate the removal of nine hazardous trees.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Location Map

3. Bid Summary

4. Hazardous Tree Inventory

5. Arborist Report

6. Letter from Jim Olstad dated January 6, 2023
Item D Page 8 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023 –

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WOODSIDE

AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH COMMUNITY TREE SERVICE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $179,500 FOR REMOVAL OF

NINE LARGE EUCALYPTUS TREES ON MOUNTAIN HOME ROAD
WHEREAS, the Woodside Fire Protection District (WFPD) has identified trees in the public right of way and on Town-owned properties that they deem potentially hazardous due to fire risk, limb fall, and impacts to emergency ingress/egress; and WHEREAS, since 2017 the Town has removed over 100 such
trees from multiple locations throughout the Town; and
WHEREAS, nine of the identified trees are large eucalyptus trees located on the east side of Mountain Home Road between the Mountain Home Road bridge and Manzanita Way; and
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2023, the Town Council authorized the Town Manager to execute a contract with Bartlett/SP McLenahan Tree Service (B/SPM) in an amount not to exceed $90,100 for removal of four of the nine trees; and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2022, the Town and B/SPM mutually agreed to rescind the contract due to a change in B/SPM’s work plan and associated scheduling issues; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2022, the Town issued a Request for Bids to remove the four trees noted above plus five more large eucalyptus trees located immediately adjacent to the original four trees, for a total of nine trees; and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2023, the Town received ten bids ranging from $111,840 to $450,000; and
WHEREAS, based on the amount and responsiveness of the bids received, the Town Engineer recommends awarding the tree removal contract to Community Tree Service in an amount not to exceed $179,500.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WOODSIDE that it authorizes the Town Manager to execute a contract with Community Tree Service in an amount not to exceed $179,500 for removal of nine large eucalyptus trees on Mountain Home Road
* * * * * * *
Item D Page 9 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

Passed and adopted by the Town Council of the Town of Woodside, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 17th of January 2023, by the following vote of members thereof:

AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mayor of the Town of Woodside
ATTEST:

Clerk of the Town of Woodside
Item D Page 10 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item D Page 11 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

TOWN OF WOODSIDE HAZARDOUS TREE INVENTORY
January 2023
# Street Address Tree Type Qty Size Complete?
1 Blue Ridge Ln entire street Euc 22 Med/Lrg x
2 Glencrag 851 Pine 2 Med x
3 Glencrag 823 Pine 2 Med x
4 Glencrag 815 Pine 1 Med x
5 W.Maple 445 Euc 3 Med x
6 W.Maple 465 Euc 3 Med x
7 W.Maple 490 Euc 1 Med x
8 Eastview at Maple Euc 5 Med/Lrg x
9 Southview 703‐747 Euc 13 Lrg x
10 Godetia Lower Euc 8 Lrg x (partial)
11 Glenwood 127 Pine 1 Med
12 Glenwood 231 Pine 6 Sm/Med
13 AltaMesa 235 Euc 2 Med/Lrg
14 AltaMesa 239 Euc 1 Med/Lrg
15 AltaMesa 255 Pine 2 Med
16 AltaMesa 124 Euc 2 Med x
17 AltaMesa 136 Euc 1 Med x
18 AltaMesa at Emergency Gate Euc 2 Med x
19 Hillside 231 Pine 1 Sm
20 Hillside 260 Oak 1 Sm
21 Vineyard Hill   End Pine 2 Sm
22 Mt.Home at Cedar Euc 1 Lrg
23 Mt.Home at Cedar Pine 1 Med
24 Mt.Home 240 Euc 5 Lrg
25 Mt.Home 280 Euc 4 Lrg
26 Mt.Home 290 Euc 3 Lrg
27 Mt.Home at Mt.Wood Euc 2 Lrg
28 Mt.Home at Blue Ridge Euc 2 Lrg
29 Mt.Home before Vintage Euc 1 Lrg
30 Portola 2099 Euc 5 Lrg x
31 Portola 1835 Pine 6 Med x
32 Old LaHonda at Portola Euc 2 Lrg x
33 Roan 40 Pine 1 Med
34 Roan 15 Pine Med
35 Roan at Patrol Pine 2 Med
36 Partititon 3640 Pine 1 Med
38 Kings Mt. before Josselyn Euc 3 Lrg
39 Highland Ter. 239 Euc 1
40 Highland Ter. 255 Pine 2
41 Barkley fields Farm Hill Blvd Euc 2 x
42 Mt.Home 890 Euc 5
43 Canada rd. 1095 Euc 3
44 Canada Rd. 1025 Euc 3
45 Canada Rd. 925 Euc 1
Item D Page 13 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

TOWN OF WOODSIDE HAZARDOUS TREE INVENTORY
January 2023
46 Godetia 1191 Euc 1
47 Godetia 1191 Pine 1
48 Glencrag 626 Pine 2
49 East View 489 Euc 1
50 Maple Way 455 Euc 4
51 Glencrag Woodside Dr. Euc 1
52 Mtn. Home 190 Euc 1
53 Mtn. Home 450 Euc 1
54 Mtn. Home 890 Oak 2
55 Mtn. Home 915 Euc 1
56 Portola 1909 Euc 3 x
57 Alta Mesa 160 Euc 2 x
58 Portola Rd. 1835 Pines 8 x
59 Canada rd. WDS Redwood 1 x
60 Jefferson Ave 4242 Pines 10 x
61 Woodside Dr. 355 Acacia 1 x
62 Woodside Dr. 280 Redwood 1 x
63 Mtn. Home 1200 Oak 1 x
64 Eastview Way 515 1 x
65 Harcross Rd 165 Pine 1 x
66 Woodside Way 654 1 x
67 Glencrag Way 650 1 x
Total Trees 183
Total Trees Removed 103
Item D Page 14 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Advanced Tree Care
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos, CA 94070 650 839 9539 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sean Rose, Public Works Director/Town Engineer
Town of Woodside
2995 Woodside Rd
Woodside, CA 94062
Site: 9 Blue gum eucalyptus in Public Right of Way along Mountain Home Road, Woodside Dear Sean,
At your request I visited the above site for the purpose of inspecting 9 blue gum eucalyptus along Mountain Home Road. The trees are in the Public Right of Way and can be seen in the attached photos.

The purpose of this report is to document the health and condition of the trees and make recommendations for their future.

Observations
The trees are located north of the intersection of Mountain Home Road and Manzanita Way and stand on the east side of the right of way.

Genus and species: Blue gum eucalyptus, Eucalyptus globulus Approximate Estimated Canopy Spread
Trunk Diameter Height
Tree # 1: 72” 80’ 40’ x 40’
Tree # 2: 90” 100’ 30’ x 30’
Tree # 3: 80” 100’ 50’ x 40’
Tree # 4: 72” 90’ 40’ x 30’
Tree # 5: 80” 90’ 50’ x 50’
Tree # 6: 65” 100’ 50’ x 30’
Tree # 7: 40” 90’ 30’ x 20’
Tree # 8: 40” 90’ 40’ x 20’
Tree # 9: 72” 100’ 50’ x 30’
Health and Condition
Tree # 1: Poor health and condition, thin canopy, possibly topped at 8 feet many years ago, resulting in 5 large co-dominant stems. The adjacent power pole is cabled to the tree and the High Voltage lines run approximately 3 feet from the trunk of the tree. The canopy of the tree grows over the High Voltage lines. There is an accumulation of sloughed off bark in the lower branch unions.

Tree # 2: Fair health and condition, thinning canopy, possibly topped at 8 feet many years ago, resulting in 6 large co-dominant stems. The High Voltage lines run approximately 4 feet from the trunk of the tree. The canopy of the tree grows over the High Voltage lines and is full of large dead wood. There is an accumulation of sloughed off bark in the lower branch unions.

Item D Page 15 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Advanced Tree Care
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos, CA 94070 650 839 9539 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tree # 3: Fair health and condition, heavily pruned over the power lines resulting in epicormic growth from pruning cuts reaching over the power lines. The High Voltage lines run approximately 3 feet from the trunk of the tree. The canopy of the tree grows over the High Voltage lines and is full of large dead wood. There is an accumulation of sloughed off bark in the lower branch unions.

Tree # 4: Fair health and condition, thinning canopy, multi trunked with 2 co-dominant stems at 12 feet above grade. Large dead wood throughout the canopy. Many scars and stubs from previous limb failures. There is an accumulation of sloughed off bark in the lower branch unions.

Tree # 5: Fair health and condition, thinning canopy possibly topped at 8 feet many years ago, resulting in 4 large co-dominant stems. The canopy of the tree grows over the High Voltage lines and has some large dead wood. There is an accumulation of sloughed off bark in the lower branch unions.

Tree # 6: Fair health and poor condition; thicker canopy than adjacent eucalyptus, possibly topped at 8 feet many years ago, resulting in 3 large co-dominant stems. The power lines have now crossed the street but the canopy spreads over the top of the power lines. There is an accumulation of sloughed off bark in the lower branch unions.

Tree # 7: Poor health and condition, thinning canopy possibly topped at 8 feet many years ago, resulting in 3 large co-dominant stems. The canopy is full of large dead wood and spreads across the road towards the power lines. There is an accumulation of sloughed off bark in the lower branch unions.

Tree # 8: Poor health and condition, thinning canopy mostly of epicormic growth, possibly topped at 8 feet many years ago, resulting in 2 large co-dominant stems. The canopy is full of large dead wood and spreads across the road towards the power lines. There is an accumulation of sloughed off bark in the lower branch unions.

Tree # 9: Poor health and condition, thinning canopy, possibly topped at 8 feet many years ago, resulting in 5 large co-dominant stems. The canopy is full of large dead wood and spreads across the road towards the power lines. There is an accumulation of sloughed off bark in the lower branch unions.

Discussion
The overall health of all 9 blue gum eucalyptus is fair to poor. The blue gum eucalyptus requires a huge water intake to stay healthy which these trees have not received for many years and are consequently showing signs of drought stress resulting in decline and thinning of the canopies. The decline of the canopies results in accumulations of large dead wood.

Three of the trees are very close to the High Voltage power lines and most of the trees have canopies reaching over the High Voltage power lines. All the trees have canopies reaching over the Public Right of Way such that any large limb failure may result in downed power lines, blocked Public Right of Way and potential to damage to vehicles and loss of life. To minimize the risk of failure, the trees will require regular maintenance and heavy pruning to reduce end weight on the longer, reaching limbs. This has been done with Tree # 3 and as a result, excessive epicormic growth has sprouted from the pruning cuts.

Item D Page 16 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Advanced Tree Care
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos, CA 94070 650 839 9539 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Epicormic growth is a response growth caused by stress whether it be drought stress or heavy pruning, originating from latent buds beneath the bark. Consequently, the resulting growth is very weakly attached to the parent limb and if not maintained will result in further branch failure. Additionally, excessive pruning over the Public Right of Way may unbalance the trees leading to whole tree failure in saturated soil conditions.

Blue gum eucalyptus typically sloughs off bark. The bark is dry and highly flammable and collects in the lower branch unions of the tree and around the base of the tree. This bark needs to be removed to reduce the risk of fire and fire laddering into the upper canopy.

Eucalyptus are considered allelopathic. Allelopathy is a biological phenomenon by which an organism produces one or more biochemicals that influence the germination, growth, survival, and reproduction of other organisms. Consequently, any vegetation within the root zone of the eucalyptus tree will struggle to thrive. There are several native coast live oaks, toyons and bays growing between the eucalyptus that would benefit from the removal of these trees and provide native screen from the passing traffic and pedestrians along the public right of way.

Naturalists, ecologists, and the United States National Park Service consider it an invasive species due to its ability to quickly spread via seeds and displace native plant communities.

Local authorities, especially many fire departments across California consider it to be a major fire hazard, although the United States Department of Agriculture does not list it among its "Invasive and Noxious plants" list in California. Due to these factors, programs across the state of California have been established to remove eucalyptus growth.

Recommendations
The 9 eucalyptus are declining due to drought stress and pose a risk to the utility lines and users of the Public Right of Way. The risk can be reduced with regular maintenance; however, the risk will never be reliminated and the maintenance will be ongoing and costly. Removal of these trees removes all risk and will benefit the surrounding native landscape.

I recommend that these trees be removed.

If you have any questions, please drop me a line.

Sincerely
Robert Weatherill
Certified Arborist WE 1936a
Item D Page 17 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Advanced Tree Care
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos, CA 94070 650 839 9539 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tree #s 1, 2 and 3
Item D Page 18 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Advanced Tree Care
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos, CA 94070 650 839 9539 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tree #s 4 and 5
Item D Page 19 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Advanced Tree Care
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos, CA 94070 650 839 9539 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tree #s 6, 7, 8 and 9
Item D Page 20 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Advanced Tree Care
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos, CA 94070 650 839 9539 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Approximate location of 9 blue gum eucalyptus along Mountain Home Road Item D Page 21 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Kevin Bryant & Members of the Town of Woodside Council:

Subject: Reconsideration of Clear-Cutting the Eucalyptus Trees of Woodside & Suggestion to Conduct a Wider Town Residents Poll for Alternative Fire/Utility Safety Grooming & Select-Cutting (Dead & Diseased Eucalyptus Specimens only) Date: January 6, 2023
Generally, people sort into 3 camps on any given topic: Pro- or Anti- or Ambivalent Indifferent Under-informed. On the Town/Fire District’s current plan to contract for the “yellow-taped” elimination/removal of 9 existing 100-150 year-old Eucalyptus Trees on the north side Right-of-Way on Mountain Home Road between Bear Gulch Creek Bridge & Manzanita … I’m in the “Keep the Eucalypti” Camp.

Arbitrarily (too stealthily? a 12/23/22 taped-to-mailbox notification letter to select neighbors only?) removing these particular healthy (so far as I’m aware) Eucalyptus Trees … without professional Arborist or much-wider affected/local Neighborhood residents’ input (so far as I’m aware) would:

A) begin to dramatically/permanently alter the near-town corridor of long-matured (with perhaps an additional hundred years of life in them) Eucalypti signature sentinels straddling both sides of Mountain Home Road from Woodside Road to Manzanita … and beyond (if this Clear-Cut Program Planning persists) … and B) in light of just the last few days of severe weather, NOT seemingly appreciably increase town/utility safety (no outages caused by falling Eucalyptus branches or trees?) … especially if a much cheaper (and esthetically better?) Tree Grooming & Maintenance (Adopt a Tree?) course of action is pursued.

My understanding of the “clear-cut” issue (from a couple of inquiry conversations with Don Ballard and Kevin Bryant) is … there is an in-place policy or program (driven, in part, by the availability of Federal or State grant-funding?) to remove (eventually clear-cut ALL) Town Eucalyptus specimens because (and here I confess I don’t know the weight or priority given to selective and/or clear-cutting decisions):
1) Eucalypti are a dangerous store of fuel … in the case they do catch fire: matched or exceeded by mature Woodside Pine Trees? How many Eucalypti have caught fire in the Town’s history (in the history of neighboring towns … Burlingame, as an example)?
2) Eucalypti, because of their height & shedding, represent a danger to power lines … in the case of their toppling in the direction of power lines: matched or exceeded by the risks of lower closely intertwined limbs of Oak Trees or other specimen tree limbs as are easily visible to local & casual observation? Item D Page 22 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
3) Eucalypti, despite decades of growth-in-place, are “not native” trees to the area … at what point does diversity (subjective attractiveness?) and/or existence (actual longevity!) convert a “non-native” to “legacy-native” and, therefore, preserve-able? There is no dispute regarding (indeed full support for) good forestry practices … cull the dead, prune/groom the healthy … but to arbitrarily clear-cut seems capricious, unnecessarily expensive (unless grant money … nationwide taxpayers? … isn’t considered Our Expense), and un-thoughtful of the other questions cited above.

There is no dispute (indeed full support for) prudent fire safety measures … but I’d argue that risk needs mitigation with the ultimate quality and character (the afterthe-cutting “look”) of what the roads and corridors of Woodside have long-offered its residents and visitors.

And to let an “existing policy or program?” be the unquestioned driver … as opposed to a wider tree professional evaluation and/or a wider neighbor updated canvassing … when the consequences are so permanent …?
As I noted at the outset of this inquiry, I’m in the Pro-Eucalyptus Camp … as I suspect a great many other towns people would be if-and-once they were more widely informed/polled.

Otherwise … are you, as our current council members, ready to cut down, because of perceived possible danger, every near-wire line Right-of-Way tree along Mountain Home Road and Manzanita and a dozen or more other Woodside streets? Your reconsideration is appreciated. Respectfully submitted, Jim Olstad
Woodside, CA 94062
Item D Page 23 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
From: Jim Olstad
To: Chris Shaw
Cc: Kevin Bryant; Sean Rose; Jim Olstad; Jim Olstad
Subject: Eucalyptus ... the morning after ... 1/18/23
Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 1:04:35 PM
Attachments: Addendum to January 6.docx
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Chris Shaw, thank you (and the Council) for the opportunity (and time allotted) to address the Council last night on my opposition to the now-scheduled removal of 9 prominent 100-150 year old eucalyptus trees on the short "scenic corridor" segment of Mountain Home Road between Bear Gulch Creek Bridge and Manzanita.

I'm naturally disappointed I was only able to persuade 2 council members to reconsider a pending re-bid tree-removal contract ... to possibly further consider alternatives to the in-process Fire District-driven "clear cutting" of ALL eucalyptus right-of-way (and town-owned land) trees in Woodside.

I think you'll be leaving (and somewhat surreptitiously done) a scar (and future scars?) on some of the more scenic corridors in the Town ... hence my primary call for "Reasonable Balanced Management of Risks, Budgets and Esthetics" regarding these Woodside eucalyptus trees.

I also wanted to complete (and correct) the record of my opposition (and alternative suggestions) to this issue:
1) I've attached (below) the addendum rebuttal I submitted to Kevin last night at Town Hall as response to the Agenda Packet I'd received from him by e-mail last Friday. Chris, you didn't have a chance to physically review this rebuttal (and your fellow council members may only have had minutes to read in advance) of your vote(s) ... the train to a conclusion was moving pretty fast. 2) I was correctly corrected by one of the council about there being 4 (not 2) "poor" trees of the 9 in question ... my oversight, my bad.
3) In my remarks, I forgot to bring up a sister city (Burlingame) in San Mateo County (part of some other Fire District, perhaps?) and their seeming embrace (or at least, acceptance) of Eucalyptus trees even more intimately & intensely integrated with their community. The contrast with Woodside ..... ?
Lastly, some good-faith post-vote constructive criticism:

A) The Fire District-composed (and mis-managed or under-managed?) Town of Woodside Hazardous Tree Inventory "the Kill Targets" list (on which Staff & Council are reliant) ... IS FAULTY (both errors of commission & omission).

Item D Page 24 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

ATTACHMENT C
And if Council/Staff are simply acting as a rubber stamp for Fire District dictates (if the Fire District is acting, out of un-reconsidered habit, as the "tail wagging the dog"), then I'm further disappointed. Again ... my primary call is for "Reasonable Balanced Management of Risks, Budgets and Esthetics".

B) To correct (or confirm) the current Fire District list, I'll suggest a physical drive-by audit of all major Woodside "scenic/exit corridors" by appropriate staff (it might take 1 afternoon of someone's time ... and I'd be pleased to ride shotgun!) ... for corrections/confirmations of addresses and species (and their apparent health & expected longevity) .... this is simply good & prudent forestry management practices & information confirmation (it should be noted that a numerical "remaining longevity element" was noticeably missing from the Arborist's Report on the 9 trees in question).

The most immediately glaring errors on the list ... 20 yards on the other side of Bear Gulch Creek (the next-adjacent MHR exit corridor segment between the bridge and Roberts) has one (1) hazardous eucalyptus listed for 190 MHR ... I'll suggest there are more (and of little difference in quality and retainable stateliness from the 9 on last night's hit list). And with that question/suggestion ...

C) my sense of irritation was heightened by confirmation last night that only five (5) "taped to mailbox" notification letters (focused on pending "traffic interruption") were distributed on such a limited (and topic-deflecting?) basis ... as opposed to a much wider "parties-affected" posting ... whether residents or visitors, drivers or walkers or bikers.

When the Town is "step-by-separated-step" approving tree removals at the behest and/or direction of the Fire District that will ... cumulatively (and significantly) and permanently alter the "after clear-cut" look-and-feel of the Town's road ways ... I'd suggest the Council should solicit much wider citizen input before continuing the "clear-cut" trend ... Public Notices of Intent in the Woodside Almanac would be a start ... unless Staff or Council are hoping to minimize the residents' attention to this subject and/or series of anticipated future discrete/discriminatory "clearcutting" actions? D) my sense of "internally inconsistent logic" and "cross-authority finger pointing" being applied to Woodside's overhanging trees & power lines entanglements remains, but that topic will always be there and available to be addressed at the time of likely future (FEMA-funded?) "species elimination" contracts.

Again, I thank you and the Council for your courtesy & consideration ... though I remain strongly opposed to your 4-2 decision ... and ask that the written positions/arguments (including the 2 recommendations/suggestions for "selective cutting" and/or "re-topping" alternative/preservative actions) I've submitted on behalf of the 9 Eucalyptus trees most closely associated with our "corridor segment" be remembered when, inevitably, the Fire District next imposes its "unbalanced" tree removal opinion(s) on the Town.

Item D Page 25 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Jim Olstad
PS: if we have coffee some in the future, Chris, I'll be insisting you buy the first cup (while I volunteer to take care of the refills!)
PPS: I'm still interested in receiving the original (or subsequent versions) of the Hazardous Trees list referenced in my Sunday email to Sean Rose (copied below) ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jim Olstad < >
To: Sean Rose <[email protected]>; Kevin Bryant <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2023, 08:30:53 AM PST
Subject: Re: Eucalyptus inquiry/status 12/23/22 .. update 1/6/23 ... further update 1/15/23 Sean Rose, thanks for sending/sharing this current "hazardous tree inventory" list. I have a few clarifying questions to ask as follow up, and assume you & town administration have the knowledge/history/record that precedes Marshall Ballard's tenure.
1) when was the list of hazardous trees first assembled for the Town's review and subsequent call(s) to action?
If you have a copy of that original list, I'd be interested in seeing it. If you have the defining criteria used to put trees on the list, I'd be interested in seeing that, as well. 2) was/is the list composed/edited/updated by the Fire District or the Town of Woodside?
Who have been the personnel (and qualifications) in charge of doing what I'm assuming have been a number of updates since the list's inception? 3) as a small point, there seem to be a number of "tree address" commission errors on the list ... and possibly further unexplained omission errors? ... depending on what the listing criteria are. We might touch further on this sub-subject when I get in touch with you tomorrow.

I think it will be helpful (and a more efficient use of the Council's time) to correct/clear up some of the data before Tuesday's meeting.

I'll give you a call in the morning. Thanks, Jim Olstad 650-714-7131-cell PS: and also thank you, Kevin Bryant, for sending the information packet & notice for Tuesday ... all of this has been very helpful & appreciated.

Item D Page 26 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Addendum to January 6, 2023 Letter to Council re Eucalyptus clear-cutting topic:

Rebuttal: From the Sublime back to the ________ … Reasonable Balanced Management of Risks & Budgets (economic alternatives) & Esthetics 1) Per paragraph 3 page 2 of the January 17, 2023 Agenda Item A cover report: it should be noted (incomplete or shaded, no pun intended, information presented) that it was a (still) unattended/unmaintained/dead Oak Tree (rotted) branch that broke on to MMH, I believe
2) Per paragraph 4 page 3 of the January 17, 2023 Agenda Item A cover report AND per paragraph Tree#1 page 1 of the January 17, 2023 Arborist report, it should be noted … with appropriate irony … that PGE has safely/successfully used (without apparent concern for tree falling debris risk) Tree #1 as anchor for their utility line for an unspecified/unknown length of time.
3) Absent from the above Arborist report is the expected remaining life of a well‐ maintained “poor” Eucalyptus (25 to 50 years?) or a “fair” Eucalyptus (50 to 100 years?) versus the expected longevity of any near-neighbor right-of-way Oak or Bay or Other trees of similar health?
4) Absent from the Arborists report is an estimation of alternative “annual tree maintenance costs” (pruning/grooming) which, if properly calibrated (at $5000 per year for Trees 2-6 and 8-9?), would indicate (unadjusted for inflation … and possibly an expense partially borne by PG&E?) potentially another 25+ years of a maintained MHR scenic corridor segment … at aggregate cost arguably equivalent to clear-cutting all 9 subject Eucalyptus trees today?
5) Will this council (or councils in the future) feel compelled (by future Fire District mandates) to condemn Eucalyptus Trees … on private property, in Wunderlich or Huddart … to clear cutting if they grow within 10 to 100 feet (the possible span of a storm-toppled toppled tree) of a right-of-way zone or hiking pathway or utility line danger?
6) harvest value of Eucalyptus timber? Offset alternative to $179,000 clear-cut bid. 7) theory of Burlingame esthetic value? Why is one San Mateo city keeping vs. cutting. 8) economics esthetics … philosophic: more people take subtle enjoyment from driving/biking down MHR on a daily basis than visit the Woodside museum on an annual basis.
9) treasure vs. trash … well-intended, but at what other cost(s) or deprivation? 10) Recommendation(s) … Offer(s) … Incidentals
Item D Page 27 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Recommendation/Suggestion A) Removing only “Poor Trees” #1 and #7 … Prune/Groom all others … at a projected current budget savings of $____________? Recommendation/Suggestion B) Re-Topping all trees #1 through #9 at a trunk height restricted/maintained at 30-50 feet … at a projected current budget savings of $____________?
Both suggestions preserve some sense of scenic “sentinel corridor” attractiveness while substantially lessening safety risk(s) and Town expense budget impact … and would serve as “reminder totems” of what once-was (trunks naturally preserved for an extended period by the previously referenced “natural oils”content?) Offer: town-authorized citizen volunteer right-of-way ground maintenance/cleanup Incidentals:
a) continuing presence for Eucalyptus roots arguably reduces (paragraph x page y Arborist report) other ground-fuel growth (a natural fire break?) Cite: “conclusion recommendation of Arborist” per paragraphs 3 page 3
b) savings on current “clear-cut” contract applied to other Eucalyptus and Right-ofWay maintenance practices? c) grant money or Town Budget funding?
d) listing of discrepancies & updating & criteria & bureaucratic controls/reviews e) per paragraphs 1 & 5 (Recommendation) page 3 of the January 17, 2023 Arborist report … “if not maintained …” & “can be reduced with regular maintenance …” f)
g)
h)
Item D Page 28 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
From: Jim Olstad
To: Chris Shaw
Cc: Kevin Bryant; Sean Rose
Subject: Eucalyptus - Burlingame"s National Historic Register approach - 1/21/23 Date: Saturday, January 21, 2023 5:56:10 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Chris Shaw, under the theory of "it's worthwhile to have as broad a perspective as possible ... before uncorrectable irreversible actions are taken", I'd refer you particularly/efficiently to pages 7-9 of the Burlingame perspective of their "treasure, not trash" approved application (as cited below).

Best regards, Jim Olstad -cell
https://burlingamehistory.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/final-ralston-howard-ohp-spring-2012.pdf Item D Page 29 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
1 0Ho
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Registration Form
This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional certification comments, entries, and narrative items on continuation sheets if needed (NPS Form 10-900a).

1. Name of Property
historic name HOWARD-RALSTON EUCALYPTUS TREE ROWS
other names/site number EL CAMINO REAL TREES

2. Location
street & number EL CAMINO REAL, STATE ROUTE 82 not for publication city or town CITY OF BURLINGAME, TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH vicinity state CA code county SAN MATEO code zip code 94010

3. State/Federal Agency Certification
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this nomination _ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.

In my opinion, the property _ meets _ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance:
national statewide local
Signature of certifying official/Title Date
State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government
In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria.

Signature of commenting official Date
Title State or Federal agency/bureau or Tr bal Government

4. National Park Service Certification
I hereby certify that this property is:
entered in the National Register determined eligible for the National Register

determined not elig ble for the National Register removed from the National Register other (explain:) _________________

Signature of the Keeper Date of Action

Item D Page 30 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows San Mateo County, CA Name of Property County and State
2 5. Classification
Ownership of Property
(Check as many boxes as apply.)
Category of Property
(Check only one box.)
Number of Resources within Property
(Do not include previously listed resources in the count.) Contributing
Non
contributing
private building(s) buildings
public - Local district sites
X public - State site structures
public - Federal structure
247 original eucs
32 original elms
+77 new
contributing elms
146 non-historic
eucalyptus
and 55 other Objects
(trees)
object 356 201 Total: 557
Name of related multiple property listing
(Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing) N/A
Number of contributing resources previously
listed in the National Register
N/A

6. Function or Use
Historic Functions
(Enter categories from instructions.)
Current Functions
(Enter categories from instructions.)
OTHER:

Land development promotion through
beautification of the roadway
LANDSCAPE: Windbreak

LANDSCAPE

7. Description
Architectural Classification
(Enter categories from instructions.)
Materials
(Enter categories from instructions.)
N/A foundation:
walls:
roof:
other:

Item D Page 31 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows San Mateo County, CA Name of Property County and State
3 Narrative Description
Summary Paragraph
The Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows flank El Camino Real (State Route 82) through the cities of Burlingame and Hillsborough, in the northern portion of the former Rancho San Mateo and the southern portion of Rancho Buri Buri. The original design intent of landscape gardener John McLaren was to beautify and protect from wind the portion of the County Highway leading to the grand estates of several San Francisco Peninsula property owners, the most prominent of whom were landowner George H. Howard and capitalist William C. Ralston. The tree planting, undertaken between 1873 and 1876, was comprised primarily of English elms, interspersed with eucalyptus, the latter planted to nurse the elms by protecting them from the relentless winds. Once 4 miles in length, the resource area is 2.2 miles long, bounded by Peninsula Avenue on the southeast end of the highway and Ray Drive/Rosedale Avenue on the northwest end. Of the 557 trees contained within these boundaries, 356 are considered contributing trees. The vast majority of these, 247 (approximately 70%) are mature blue and manna gums from the original planting, reaching well over 100 feet in height and 5 feet in diameter at breast height. Also contributing to the resource are 32 mature elms, as well as 77 new elms comprised mainly of plantings from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in 2006 and 2008, and a generous grant to Burlingame from California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) planted on Arbor Day, March 7, 2011. These new plantings are noteworthy because the elm species had been the predominant tree type specified in McLaren’s original landscape plan.

Narrative Description
The resource consists of two rows of trees, one row planted on either side of State Route 82 within the Caltrans 60 to 66-foot right-of-way along the historic highway. The vast majority of trees in the resource are situated within the city of Burlingame. Sixty-three percent of the eucalyptus trees in the rows are mature specimens with thin bark that curls as it sheds and long, narrow leaves and numerous seedpods. Blue gums (E. globulus) account for about two-thirds of the old trees, and manna gums (E. viminalis) comprise the remainder. Mature English elms account for roughly 12% of the historic trees in the resource area. Non-contributing trees within the resource include mature redwood, sycamore, horse chestnut and liquidambar trees. Although the eucalyptus have become established as primary trees within the rows, disease-tolerant elm trees ‘Frontier’ (Ulmus parvifolia-USDA 1972) and ‘Accolade’ (Ulmus accolade-TM ‘Morton’ 1986) have been planted beginning in 2006, in keeping with John McLaren’s original design. Traditional American and European elm trees have a vase-shaped crown with limbs terminating in slender, often pendulous branches, typically reaching between 70 and 90 feet in height, and spreading 50 to 70 feet. [1] Though slightly smaller in scale, Accolade and Frontier hybrid elms were chosen as the two most appropriate and promising varieties currently available, representing traditional elm characteristics while being less likely to get the diseases typically associated with elms since the 1930s. The staked saplings installed by Caltrans have been 15-gallon size or greater.

The matter of how many tree rows were originally planted along the route remains inconclusive. In a letter from 1938, six decades after the planting, McLaren describes to Dr. Stanger, San Mateo County’s foremost historian, the original plan as having consisted of three rows of alternating gums and elms.[2] The earliest photos of the still unpaved county road through Burlingame, taken around 1900, appear to show two tree rows of eucalyptus, one on either side of the dirt road, with wooden fencing erected immediately behind them (See Figure 1). A _______ 1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ulmus americana: American Elm, Fact Sheet ST-649 (Florida: Environmental Horticulture Department, October 1994), 1. 2 John McLaren, Letters to F.M. Stanger, 3 and 12 March 1938. At the San Mateo County Historical Association Archive, Redwood City, California.

Item D Page 32 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows San Mateo County, CA Name of Property County and State
4 Narrative Description (cont.)
thicket of indistinguishable trees is visible behind the tree rows and fencing. Another early photo taken in the Mills Estate area of Burlingame in the 1920s, shows what appear to be medium-sized elms poking through front rows of eucalyptus that line the paved road.

The current placement of tree rows varies in its relationship to the highway throughout the resource. In most places, there is sidewalk between the tree row and the street curb while in other areas the trees are within a planter strip, in some instances protruding into and over the roadway curbing. A small area on the southwest side of El Camino Real, located between Bellevue and Floribunda, borders the Town of Hillsborough where there are no sidewalks. Here the trees are planted in a wide unpaved swath of land used as a footpath by the public. Fencing from adjacent property owners has been erected just west of the trees. At three locations: the west side of El Camino Real south of Willow Avenue, the east side of El Camino Real north of Palm, and the west side of El Camino Real north of Arc Way, the trees are planted within retaining walls raised 2 feet above the adjacent sidewalk, and run along the road for a distance of 75 to 300 feet.

Further north, in the area bordering Highway Road, on the east side of El Camino Real, elms and eucalyptus are planted in very wide islands, roughly half the width of which fall within the Caltrans right of way. Continuing northward on the west side past Adeline, there is an embankment on which the trees are planted, in some areas with longer gaps between mature trees resulting from the removal of Dutch Elm Disease (DED) afflicted elms, while on the east side, from the creek to the end of the resource at Rosedale, the tree rows are planted in a very large unpaved area resembling parkland. This city-owned area contains several elms planted by Burlingame in the 1990s to assess disease resistance. The relatively wide swaths of greenery and trees give the north entrance to the resource a strong, park-like feel. An area just north of the resource was likewise used to test elms in a cooperative research project by UC Extension and the US Department of Forestry (1992), part of the ongoing study of disease-tolerant elms.

On both sides of the roadway within the resource boundaries, most of the flanking properties are residential in nature: homes, condominiums and apartment buildings, interspersed with some commercial buildings and churches. Most properties are screened to some degree by trees that soften the visual impact and help mask overhead utilities. Properties are typically set back several feet from the Caltrans right-of-way, resulting in mostly mature landscaping that contributes to the park-like feel of the roadway. While residential properties have traditionally faced El Camino Real, commercial properties in Burlingame tend to be oriented to face secondary streets, making them appear less prominent. The vast majority of city streets that adjoin El Camino Real are lined with mature street trees.

The Tree Rows have long defined the 2-lane highway El Camino Real through Burlingame, the roadway width of which has stayed relatively constant since its initial paving through the city in 1913, measuring roughly 43.5 feet curb to curb.[3]
The narrow gauge of the resource area is unique to this portion of El Camino Real and is in stark contrast to areas north of Rosedale and Ray, where the roadway was widened considerably and trees removed for development in the 1950s. In some areas, such as those south of the Willow and Forest View areas, the dense look seen in vintage photographs persists; heritage eucalyptus have matured to within just a few feet of one another. In others, particularly those close to the adjacent commercial business streets, such as the Broadway area, the spacing becomes more sparse. Generally, most trees are spaced anywhere from 10 feet to 40 feet apart. Though the original spacing planned by McLaren is unknown, notes made in his Day Book from _______ 3 City of Burlingame, California, Street Card Index, Department of Public Works (Burlingame: circa 1955).

Item D Page 33 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows San Mateo County, CA Name of Property County and State
5 Narrative Description (cont.)
1876 refer to the planting of similar windbreaks on the avenues in San Mateo, “...gums and poplars alternating, and planted 10 feet apart.” By McLaren’s own description, in the case of the El Camino Real plantings, gums were to be removed after the elms had become established.[4] Review of Existing Integrity of the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows Caltrans initially replaced unhealthy older trees with eucalyptus of other varieties, including orange gum (E. bancrofti) planted in 1985, and desert box (E. microtheca) planted in the late 1990s. Although they are similar in bark and leaf size, both of these species are significantly smaller than the original gums selected by McLaren, reaching just 30 feet in height, and up to two feet in diameter. As such, they do not contribute to the tree rows and have not been planted since that period.

In 1999 Caltrans mapped and documented the Tree Rows, including levels of integrity, and found them to be both a historic resource under CEQA and eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Since 2004, Caltrans has had an ongoing agreement with SHPO regarding removals and replacements of trees within the Resource Area.[5] In 2008 Caltrans conducted a comprehensive GPS study of the area from Rosedale Avenue/Ray Drive to Peninsula Avenue, plotting the location of each tree, its type, circumference at breast height, total height, maturity and whether it contributed to the resource. The trees within the resource boundaries were subsequently numbered and tagged for future tracking.

In keeping with McLaren’s original design intent, as trees have had to be replaced, elm trees have been planted and will continue to be planted in the future. Since 2006, Caltrans has planted 44 non-historic, contributing elm saplings to rehabilitate the resource. Burlingame Planning Commission requirements led to the planting of 5 more elms in 2009-10. Cal Fire has planted 33 additional contributing elm saplings in March 2011. Of the 82 total, 5 have died, leaving 77 new contributing elms. New elm trees are considered to be contributing elements of the resource and will only continue to strengthen the integrity of the Tree Rows as they carry out McLaren’s original design of a landscaped, shaded avenue.

Though the original landscape design was thought to have contained three rows of trees for a distance of 4 miles, the remaining portion of the resource is less than 2.2 miles with a single row of trees on each side. Since having been last assessed in 2008, ten DED-afflicted elms and three blue gum eucalyptus have been removed from within the resource area. Enough heritage trees remain in the section running through the City of Burlingame and Town of Hillsborough, however, to create the visual coherence of the Tree Rows when driving on El Camino Real. Since McLaren’s original design of the Tree Rows was intended to be viewed from horse and carriage, the visual integrity is intact.
_______ 4 John McLaren, Letter to Henry W. Poett, December 14, 1935. At the San Mateo County Historical Association Archive, Redwood City, California. 5 Mara Melandry, Office of Cultural Resources Studies Chief, California Department of Transportation, Letter to Dr. Knox Mellon, State Historic Preservation Officer, Sacramento, California, 22 December 2003.

Item D Page 34 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows San Mateo County, CA Name of Property County and State
6 8. Statement of Significance
Applicable National Register Criteria
(Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing.)
X A Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history.

B Property is associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past.

X C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, or method of construction or
represents the work of a master, or possesses high
artistic values, or represents a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components lack
individual distinction.

D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Criteria Considerations
(Mark "x" in all the boxes that apply.)
Property is:

A Owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes.

B removed from its original location.

C a birthplace or grave.

D a cemetery.

E a reconstructed building, object, or structure.

F a commemorative property.

G less than 50 years old or achieving significance
within the past 50 years.

Period of Significance (justification)
Areas of Significance
(Enter categories from instructions.)
Community Planning and Development
Landscape Architecture
Period of Significance
1873-1930
Significant Dates
1873 - year of original planting
1930 - Burlingame election prohibiting
commercial development on the highway to
protect trees
Significant Person
N/A
Cultural Affiliation
Architect/Builder
John McLaren- landscape gardener
The Period of Significance of the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows is from 1873 to 1930. The 1873 date is established with the creation and implementation of McLaren’s original landscape plan that took roughly three years to complete. The pivotal election of 1930 resulted in zoning that prohibited commercial development of the highway in order to save the McLaren trees.

Item D Page 35 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows San Mateo County, CA Name of Property County and State
7 Criteria Considerations (explanation, if necessary)
N/A
Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph
Planted by famed landscape gardener John McLaren for property owners George H. Howard and William C.

Ralston in the mid-1870s, the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for their association with the founding of the cities of Burlingame and Hillsborough, California. The Tree Rows directly influenced Burlingame’s first laws, most notably zoning ordinances specifically crafted to protect the trees from destruction due to development. For over a century, citizens and elected officials have recognized the importance of the Tree Rows to local identity and history.

Long the epicenter of tree-related activism and preservation, the Howard-Ralston Tree Rows are significant to Burlingame’s sense of local history and development, having set aesthetic standards that have influenced decades of Burlingame’s tree planting and management policies. Recognized as a valuable local resource by the City of Burlingame, the Tree Rows have a long history of protection within the city limits. [6] The Tree Rows are also eligible for the National Register under Criterion C, as an excellent example of master landscape designer John McLaren’s early work. McLaren masterfully created a sheltered, park-like environment in an otherwise largely barren landscape. Planted between 1873 and 1876, these Tree Rows substantially predate the earliest California Highway Tree Planting Program, begun in 1921[7], and serve as a reminder of McLaren’s foresight in the area of roadway beautification. The trees also express the importance of El Camino Real as the main overland route to the City of San Francisco, dating from California’s Spanish era into the 1930s.

Narrative Statement of Significance: CRITERION “A”

The eucalyptus and elm Tree Rows that flank El Camino Real (State Route 82) in Burlingame and Hillsborough were planted by landscape gardener John McLaren for property owners George H. Howard and William C.

Ralston in the mid-1870s to create a sheltered grand entrance to their great estates and draw people into the newly surveyed territory. At that time, Ralston was planning the real estate subdivision that later became the City of Burlingame, while Howard and his family were living at their country estate, situated in what later became the Town of Hillsborough. McLaren had recently arrived in San Mateo County from his native Scotland to work as head gardener for Howard.

The landscape plan interspersing rows of eucalyptus and elm trees along a four-mile stretch of El Camino Real, commonly known as County Road, between San Mateo Creek and modern-day Millbrae was conceived one evening in the early 1870s, when the area’s largest property owners gathered in George H. Howard’s home. For Ralston, the incentive was the creation of an attractive boulevard, making the area more hospitable and attractive to future investors.

McLaren in 1935 recalled the participants in this meeting in a letter to Henry W. Poett:
“...a meeting took place in Mr. George H. Howard’s dining room and at which plans were made for the planting of trees along the County Road [El Camino Real] in San Mateo County. Present at this conference _______6 William Kostura, Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row State Historic Resource Evaluation Forms, State of California Resources Agency, Primary Record, (Oakland, California: Caltrans, 1999), pp. 6-7. 7 Ibid., p.6.

Item D Page 36 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows San Mateo County, CA Name of Property County and State
8 CRITERION “A”(cont.)
were your father [Alfred Poett], Mr. George H. Howard, Mr. W.C. Ralston, Mr. D.O. Mills, Mr. Redington, several other local people and myself. All of us were equally enthusiastic about the scheme….”[8] McLaren remained at El Cerrito until 1887 when he left to become assistant superintendent (later superintendent) of San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park. During his tenure of roughly fourteen years in San Mateo County, McLaren planted hundreds of thousands of trees in the area, including several groves designed as windbreaks. In Burlingame what once was a wind-swept prairie became a city of tree-lined boulevards boasting a park-like atmosphere, promoted as one of most coveted addresses on the San Francisco Peninsula. Of all his plantings in San Mateo County, the Ralston-Howard Tree Rows, designed to create a beautiful and protected entrance to the then sparsely populated area, are his best-known surviving work, having become the distinctive feature and pride of Burlingame by the turn of the 20th century. Following the 1906 earthquake, refugees from San Francisco began flooding the area, then home to only about 200 people. As anticipated by Ralston, the treelined El Camino Real was a major attraction for many, and subdivided properties of second-generation landowners began to sell; the population of the town swelled to 1,000 in one year. [9] The Tree Rows are particularly significant because of Burlingame’s extensive history of activism and ensuing legal protection associated with them. The first documented protection of the Tree Rows came just two months after Burlingame’s incorporation, in 1908. Heeding a request of the Burlingame Woman’s Club to protect what many already believed to be the town’s most important asset, Mayor Treadwell and the Trustees enacted an ordinance “prohibiting the cutting, injuring or destroying of trees on public streets, highways or parks of the Town of Burlingame.”[10]
In 1913, shortly after the highway paving was completed, the Burlingame Advance proclaimed:
“Hereafter ‘El Camino Real’–the King’s Highway, if you please. A more beautiful avenue cannot be found and no more fitting name can be found for this most beautiful thoroughfare. It is a big advertisement for Burlingame, for thousands and thousands will see it and admire its beauty and talk about it…Remove the trees and it is no more a king’s highway, but an ordinary country road.” [11] Later that year, in response to numerous petitions by property owners to cut trees on El Camino Real, Mayor McGregor declared the trees’ historical significance to the town: “These trees are not alone an ornament, they are of historic importance and were planted by the pioneers of this region.” [12] He then ordered the arrest of
anyone found cutting trees on the highway. A suggestion by Mayor Moores in 1916 to remove all eucalyptus from public streets was met with a storm of protest, and rebuffed by fellow Trustees and the Parks Commission.[13]
By the early 1920s, concern about the indiscriminate cutting of trees along the highway came to a head, resulting in the framing of an ordinance imposing substantial penalties for cutting trees without a permit. In the _______ 8 John McLaren, Letter to Henry W. Poett, 14 December 1935. At the San Mateo County Historical Association Archive, Redwood City, California.
9 Beverly Evans, “Historical Background,” Burlingame Lively Memories (Burlingame, California: Burlingame Historical Society, 1977), p. 3. 10 City and Town of Burlingame (California), Minutes of the Meetings of the Trustees, Meeting of 20 August 1908. 11 “The King’s Highway,” Burlingame Advance, 14 July 1913. 12 “No Tree Cutting on King’s Highway,” Burlingame Advance, 26 September 1913. 13 “Destroying the Avenues,” Burlingame Advance, 4 February 1916.

Item D Page 37 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows San Mateo County, CA Name of Property County and State
9 CRITERION “A”(cont.)
pivotal election of April 1930, Burlingame voters overwhelmingly elected candidates supportive of zoning ordinances enacted in the early 1920s that prohibited commercial development of El Camino Real, seen as a significant threat to the Tree Rows. [14]
By creating zoning ordinances to protect the trees and continuing to resist the State’s desire to widen the road for traffic, commercial development was forced to occur in other areas that had succumbed to pressure.

By the mid-1950s, when widespread development of the former Mills Estate near Millbrae resulted in highway widening and tree removal, there was an outcry of disapproval and removals stopped, though not before a significant number of trees had been removed near the northern border of the City. In 1958 an unsuccessful attempt was made to widen the highway through Burlingame. This may have been the last significant threat to El Camino Real’s Tree Rows, for in 1965 Alan S. Hart, an engineer with the State Highway Department’s District 4, said that El Camino Real in Burlingame was now virtually a city street, and that the department would make no further move to widen it unless asked by the city.[15] When the City completed designs for its new City Hall in the late 1960s, it also commissioned a new city logo.

The design by A. Woods Giberson depicted “new City Hall, a Eucalyptus tree, and the word ‘Burlingame,’ to predominate.”[16]
Finally, in 1975 the trees were formally recognized by the City of Burlingame and by the San Mateo County Historic Sites Committee, by virtue of their historical significance and other qualities, thus providing them with legal protection from destruction. [17]
This designation marked the culmination of decades of conflict and activism on behalf of the Tree Rows. The long history of esteem for and protection of Burlingame’s trees that started with the McLaren highway plantings has resulted in Burlingame’s designation as a Tree City USA since 1979 and the well-known moniker, “Burlingame: City of Trees.” In addition to privately owned trees, nearly 15,000 trees adorn Burlingame’s city parks and public streets, including those planted on El Camino Real. [18] Narrative Statement of Significance: CRITERION “C”
The Ralston-Howard Eucalyptus Tree Rows are the most important of several avenues planted by John McLaren as ornamental windbreaks in San Mateo County. They represent McLaren’s earliest work in California and comprise the first highway landscaping in the State, predating the California Highway Tree Planting Program by 50 years. In 1872 the State Board of Agriculture called attention to an Act approved in 1868, encouraging plantings of various shade and fruit trees, including eucalyptus and elm, upon the public roads and highways of the State. [19] Eucalyptus had become available in seed form in California by the mid1850s. It did not take long for the hardy, fast growing trees to attain an almost mythical reputation: as practical and attractive windbreaks, as a source of wood for a variety of purposes, as well as oil for numerous medicinal uses. With these qualities in mind, McLaren conceived of a sheltered tunneled entrance to the Burlingame-San Mateo area, created by maturing elm trees that would minimize the dust in dry months, and protect the route from storms in winter. The park-like atmosphere set itself apart from the otherwise windblown, barren _______ 14 “Voters Decide On No Commercialism For El Camino Real.” Burlingame Advance Star, 15 April 1930. 15 William Kostura, Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row State Historic Resource Evaluation Forms, State of California Resources Agency, Primary Record, (Oakland, California: Caltrans, 1999), p. 5. 16 City of Burlingame (California), Minutes of the Meetings of the Trustees, Meeting of 15 September 1969. 17 Burlingame City Council, Heritage Grove Designation (Burlingame, California: 4 November 1975). 18 Davey Resource Group, City of Burlingame Tree Inventory Report, (Burlingame, California: May 2011). 19 “A Good Work,” San Francisco Chronicle, 27 October 1872.

Item D Page 38 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows San Mateo County, CA Name of Property County and State
10 CRITERION “C”(cont.)
landscape. McLaren’s foresight and talent in roadway landscaping caused him to be recalled from Golden Gate Park in 1902 to supervise the design of what had been part of the Howard Estate, where his concepts were to be expanded beyond the limits of El Camino Real to the upscale San Mateo Park subdivision. His large-scale forestation for climate control subsequently inspired other early roadway plantings on the Peninsula, including the portion of El Camino Real through San Bruno as well as the Bayshore (Highway 101) plantings through Burlingame begun in 1930. [20] Drawing inspiration from McLaren’s original designs, more than a century later, in 1981, the Garden Study Club of the Peninsula donated funds for dozens of eucalyptus to be planted along El Camino Real, north of the resource, where decades before McLaren’s trees had been destroyed in the development of the Mills Estate. Stately and gracious, the Tree Rows have retained their sentinel presence in Burlingame for over a century while the city of Burlingame has grown up around them. Only in Burlingame has there been sufficient public pressure exerted to preserve McLaren’s creation.

Developmental history/additional historic context information The City of Burlingame and Town of Hillsborough are located along San Francisco Bay, in San Mateo County, California. With less wind and fog and a warmer climate than cities to the north, the area has long been considered an ideal place to live. The earliest inhabitants were the Ohlone Indians. Tribes lived in fixed village locations, subsisting by hunting, gathering and fishing along the marshes that lined the bay. Today, little remains of the original landscape in which they lived.

California’s El Camino Real has its origins in 16th century Spain, where the system of roads leading to the king’s residence was the envy of Europe. Transplanted to the New World in the late 18th century by the Spanish explorers and missionaries, this system provided the foundation for El Camino Real, covering some 600 miles linking the missions from San Diego in the south to Sonoma in the north, and creating the only overland route up the Peninsula to San Francisco until the early part of the 20th century.

In 1834, the Mexican government, having gained independence from Spain in 1821, seized the church’s lands and gave them away to secular interests. Over the next twelve years the government gave away over 500 land grants, including Rancho San Mateo and Rancho Buri Buri, totaling about 13 million acres. Owners of the “ranchos” became California’s rancho elite, many of whom sold or lost their land to well-to-do American immigrants after the Mexican-American War and California statehood.

In 1847, W.D.M. Howard, a prosperous San Francisco merchant, and his partner Henry Mellus, purchased Rancho San Mateo from Cayetano Arenas, a young clerk working for Governor Pio Pico. The Governor had awarded Arenas the rancho as payment for a debt a year before. [21] The land grant included over 6,000 acres in today’s Hillsborough, Burlingame and northern San Mateo. By 1850, Howard had bought out Mellus’s share and would retire to his country home “El Cerrito,” the first of the grand country estates on the San Francisco Peninsula. He died in 1856 at 37 years old, leaving his 23-year old widow and their young son.

Ralston, a businessman and financier, had made a fortune in the Comstock Lode. Together with Darius Ogden Mills, he founded the Bank of California, which became the most powerful bank in the west, and he used his personal fortune to stimulate the creation of numerous local industries and real-estate developments. _______ 20 City of Burlingame (California), Minutes of the Meetings of the Trustees, Meeting of 3 March 1930. 21 Mitchell P. Postel, San Mateo: A Centennial History (San Francisco, California: Scottswall Associates Publishers, 1994), 15.

Item D Page 39 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows San Mateo County, CA Name of Property County and State
11 Developmental history/additional historic context information (cont.) Two others, Gold Rush banker D. O. Mills and his brother-in-law, Ansel Ives Easton, each purchased 1,500- acre portions of the Buri-Buri rancho creating their own great estates north of Howard's estate. From the land holdings of these men, the development of the Tree Rows and the City of Burlingame would one day take shape.

After the death of W.D.M. Howard, his brother George H. Howard married W.D.M.’s widow, Agnes Poett Howard, and inherited much of his property. The remainder of the property passed to W.D.M. Howard’s son and to his father-in-law, Dr. Joseph Henry Poett. Anson Burlingame, for whom the City is named, later purchased a portion of Poett’s land with the intention of living there, but he died before he could carry out his plans. In 1872, Mills, acting on behalf of Burlingame’s children, sold part of Burlingame’s holdings to William C. Ralston, who would develop a subdivision scheme by hiring civil engineer Alfred Poett (Agnes’s brother) to survey and subdivide the land, creating curving avenues and large residential lots.

It was during this period, in 1873, that George H. Howard hired landscape gardener John McLaren as head gardener at El Cerrito. McLaren, an emigrant from Scotland, stayed for 14 years, engaging in a large number of projects for Howard and other local property owners, including James C. Flood and Leland Stanford. Keeping terse yet meticulous entries, McLaren documented his daily activities. Following the death of George H.

Howard in 1878, Agnes married Henry Bowie in 1879 and the two spent most of their time in Europe, monitoring McLaren’s activities from afar, and regularly exchanging names of new and exotic plants and seeds to import and plant at El Cerrito. Supervising several Chinese and Irish workers to accomplish his work, McLaren worked six days a week repairing roads and fences, installing irrigation systems, raising thousands of trees from seed in greenhouses, transplanting and staking them as windbreaks, maintaining El Cerrito’s vast gardens, as well as selling fruits, nuts, and vegetables produced on the Howard Estate. McLaren also helped maintain the dairy lands inhabited by dairy herds east of El Camino Real, and planted 70,000 trees on Coyote Point alone, a fair number of which were felled to produce firewood for sale. This forested area is now a San Mateo County Park.

In the late 19th century, wealthy Peninsula-area landowners, including William C. Ralston and George H.

Howard, recognizing the significance of El Camino Real, commissioned John McLaren to transform several miles of this dusty trail through a barren and windswept area into a beautiful tree-lined boulevard leading to their great estates and proposed communities.

McLaren wrote in 1938 of the plan:
“I was charged with the actual task, and the cost was borne by each property owner for his own frontage on the highway. The original plan was that of the three rows of trees so planted, the eucalyptus should only remain as a shelter and windbreak for the elm trees until the latter became properly established and attained some growth.

However, the eucalyptus, as you know, are still in place.” [22] The Tree Row plantings eventually transformed the largely barren landscape, providing beauty while functioning as a windbreak. William C. Ralston died suddenly in 1875, resulting in the passing of the Burlingame property to his associate, William Sharon, with whom he had built San Francisco’s Palace Hotel in 1875. Sharon was unable to find buyers for the Burlingame lots. After Sharon’s death, his son-in-law and heir, ______22 John McLaren, Letter to F.M. Stanger, 3 March 1938. At the San Mateo County Historical Association Archive, Redwood City, California.

Item D Page 40 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows San Mateo County, CA Name of Property County and State
12 Developmental history/additional historic context information (cont.) Francis Newlands, hit upon a scheme to attract well-to-do San Franciscans to the area by founding the Burlingame Country Club in 1893, located in present-day Hillsborough. Most of the Club’s founders were originally from the East, but had made their fortunes in California. They continued to look to the East and to Europe for their cultural and aesthetic standards, including leafy landscaping and English country-style architecture. To make the newly founded Club more accessible and impressive to wealthy businessmen, a unique mission-style train station was built in Burlingame in 1894, funded by the Club’s membership. Others drawn to the new station were refugees of the 1906 earthquake who established the town of Burlingame.

Among the earliest advocates and protectors of El Camino’s Tree Rows were members of the Burlingame Woman’s Club. Recognizing the beauty and shelter the McLaren trees provided, the group endeavored to plant 600 additional street trees as its Arbor Day gift to the town in 1908, making sure trees would remain an integral part of the developing suburb. [23]
In the weeks following Burlingame’s incorporation in 1908, the Woman’s Club requested that Mayor Treadwell and the Trustees enact one of Burlingame’s first ordinances, protecting all city and highway trees from injury or destruction. The ordinance was crafted and passed immediately. In February 1909, a Parks Commission was created by the Trustees. [24] In 1909 El Camino Real became part of the state road system, originally called Legislative Route 2. In 1910, the Town of Hillsborough incorporated, distinguishing its rural, bucolic atmosphere from the developing city life in Burlingame. As streets and sidewalks were paved in Burlingame, resolutions were passed allocating funds for the planting and care of street trees.

By 1912, the paving of El Camino Real through the San Francisco Peninsula had begun. The American Automobile Association (AAA) published its first strip maps of the route from San Diego to San Francisco. The highway section through Burlingame, unique in the state because of the Tree Rows, would rapidly become a renowned motorist destination (See Figure 2). The following year, a prominent architect was commissioned by Burlingame leaders to create massive ornamental stone pillars at both ends of El Camino Real in Burlingame indicating the city limits while highlighting the area within which speeds would be reduced, and the leisurely traveler would be enveloped by the tunnel of mature trees (See Figure 3). Photos from this era reveal that the eucalyptus trees were already becoming the visually dominant species on the highway, having grown much faster than the elms and displaying extraordinary height and girth.

Pressures from property owners along the highway, the growing demand for easily accessible commercial services, coupled with the proliferation of the automobile, resulted in increasing pressure to develop and widen the highway. The City of San Mateo succumbed to these pressures and removed the majority of its Tree Rows.

In Burlingame, however, efforts to institute tree removal policies continued to be met with political resistance.

In 1923, the City Trustees and Parks Commissioners framed an ordinance imposing substantial penalties for cutting trees without a permit. [25] Later that year, perceived favoritism by the Trustees towards certain business projects prompted citizens to vote for an ordinance permitting the extension of the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway business districts, limited to a defined area. [26] Elsewhere the city was to remain strictly residential, including along El Camino Real.
______ 23 Beverly Evans, “Historical Background,” Burlingame Lively Memories (Burlingame, California: Burlingame Historical Society, 1977), p. 58. 24 City and Town of Burlingame (California), Minutes of the Meetings of the Trustees, Meeting of 4 February 1909. 25 City of Burlingame (California), Minutes of the Meetings of the Trustees, Meeting of 5 March 1923. 26 “Ballot Battle is in Progress,” Burlingame Advance, 12 September 1923.

Item D Page 41 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows San Mateo County, CA Name of Property County and State
13 Developmental history/additional historic context information (cont.) By the 1926 election, however, there was renewed pressure to develop the highway. Just days before the election, the Burlingame Advance Star reminded the citizenry of the uniqueness of the highway through Burlingame:
“The State of California, famed throughout the world for the beauty of its vistas, has no more inspiring portion of highway than Burlingame’s grand boulevard…After the sordid miles of soft drink shanties and barbecue stands, this portion of the highway suddenly comes to view as an avenue into paradise.” [27] So proud was the community of the El Camino trees that there was even a proposal by some in the Chamber of Commerce to install bright lights to advertise the section of roadway through Burlingame. “I cannot imagine anything more out of place,” wrote a resident, “than a glare of lights that would entirely kill the beautiful arch of trees that can be seen now, especially on a moonlit night.” [28] Keenly aware of the importance of Burlingame’s leafy image, one community group appealed to the City Trustees, encouraging each property owner to plant at least one tree in his yard:
“The preservation of the suburban atmosphere, which is one of Burlingame’s most delightful assets, will be heightened and preserved by this work.”[29]
Charles A. Buck, President of the Chamber of Commerce and outspoken proponent of zoning that would keep commercial enterprises off the highway, was elected Trustee in 1926, though the zoning issue itself would remain unresolved for four more years.

In a 1928 newspaper article, John McLaren urged the citizens of Burlingame to resist the newest plan to remove the trees on El Camino Real, and to continue to plant trees on the city streets. [30] In the key 1930 election, candidates for the City Trustees who wanted to turn El Camino Real into a commercial strip were soundly defeated, ending nearly a decade of zoning debates (See Figures 4 and 5). Zoning regulations in place since 1930 regulate development of El Camino Real almost exclusively to residential construction, which has limited commercial development to the areas along the east side between Howard Avenue and Chapin Avenue and at the Broadway intersection. Projects in these areas require strict oversight of the City, including plantings consistent with Burlingame’s Urban Forest Management Plan.

By the 1960s Dutch Elm Disease (DED) had begun its spread throughout the area, devastating elm trees on El Camino Real, the effect of which is still in evidence today. The eucalyptus endured, however, maintaining the framework of McLaren’s design.
_______27 “Save the Highway Trees,” Burlingame Advance Star, 9 April 1926. 28“The Letter Box: Wants to Preserve Highway Beauty,” Burlingame Advance Star, 9 April 1926 29 North Burlingame (California) Community Club, Club Scrapbook, “Civic Section of North Burlingame Community Club Plan Program.” Burlingame Advance Star, c. 1927. 30 “John McLaren Tells of How City Appeared Without Trees,” Burlingame Advance Star, 19 March 1928.

Item D Page 42 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows San Mateo County, CA Name of Property County and State
14 Developmental history/additional historic context information (cont.) The long history of preservation activism on behalf of the Tree Rows on El Camino Real in Burlingame culminated in a Heritage Tree ordinance for the City in 1975. The trees on El Camino Real were designated as a “Heritage Grove” in that year; the designation cited the trees’ historic significance, their character, beauty, and rarity, and that they had been designated a “Point of Historic Significance” by the San Mateo Historic Sites Committee. [31] The 1975 designation applied only to the Tree Rows within Burlingame and not the short section adjoining Hillsborough.

Beginning in 2003, representatives from Caltrans District 4, the City of Burlingame Parks Department, and the Burlingame Historical Society met to discuss ways in which future eucalyptus and elm removals could be mitigated in a sensitive manner, using historically accurate elm varietals. The timing was serendipitous; just a decade or two before, selection of disease-tolerant elms for such an ambitious project would have been a challenge. By the mid-2000s, however, there were nearly a dozen promising elm hybrids being studied by experts for use in similar projects all over the United States. Locally, this ongoing process will ultimately reinvigorate McLaren’s original vision over the next several decades as the heritage eucalyptus and elms gradually reach the end of their lifespan.
_______31 Burlingame City Council, Heritage Grove Designation (Burlingame, California: 4 November 1975) Item D Page 43 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows San Mateo County, CA Name of Property County and State
15 9. Major Bibliographical References
Bibliography (Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form.) “A Good Work.” San Francisco Chronicle, 27 October 1872. “Ballot Battle is in Progress.” Burlingame Advance, 12 September 1923.

Burlingame City Council. Heritage Grove Designation, Burlingame, California:
4 November 1975.

Burlingame City Council. Urban Forest Management Plan, Burlingame, California: 2007.

City and Town of Burlingame, California. Minutes of Meetings of the Trustees, Vols. 1-25. 1909-1997.

City of Burlingame, Street Card Index, Department of Public Works, Burlingame, California: circa 1955.

Davey Resource Group. City of Burlingame Tree Inventory Report. Burlingame, California: 2011. “Destroying the Avenues.” Burlingame Advance, 4 February 1916.

Evans, Beverly, “Historical Background.” Burlingame Lively Memories. Burlingame, California:

Burlingame Historical Society, 1977.

Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, California: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007.
“John McLaren Tells of How City Appeared Without Trees.” Burlingame Advance Star, 19 March 1928. “The King’s Highway.” Burlingame Advance, 14 July 1913.

Kostura, William, Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row State Historic Resource Evaluation Forms. State of California Resources Agency, Primary Record, Oakland, California: Caltrans, 1999.

Krakow, Chad. San Mateo Park Historic Building Survey Vol.14. 1989. At the San Mateo County Historical Association Archive, Redwood City, California.

Kurillo, Max and Erline M. Tuttle. California’s El Camino Real and Its Historic Bells. San Diego, California: Sunbelt Publications, 2000.
“The Letter Box: Wants to Preserve Highway Beauty.” Burlingame Advance Star, 9 April 1926.

Lochrie, Betty Hoag. “John McLaren at Rancho San Mateo.” La Peninsula Vol.14. Redwood City, California: San Mateo County Historical Association, 1972.

McLaren, John. Gardening in California: Landscape and Flower. San Francisco, California: A. M.

Robertson, 1908.

Item D Page 44 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows San Mateo County, CA Name of Property County and State
16 Bibliography (Cont.)
McLaren, John. Letter to Henry W. Poett, December 14, 1935. At the San Mateo County Historical Association Archive, Redwood City, California.

McLaren, John. Letters to F.M. Stanger, 3 and 12 March 1938. At the San Mateo County Historical Association Archive, Redwood City, California.

McLaren, John. McLaren’s Day Books, 1873-1885 (excludes 1883). History Center, San Francisco Public Library, San Francisco, California.

McLaren, John. McLaren’s Day Book, 1883. San Mateo County Historical Association Archive, Redwood City, California.

Melandry, Mara. Office of Cultural Resources Studies Chief, California Department of Transportation, Letter to Dr. Knox Mellon, State Historic Preservation Officer, Sacramento, California, 22 December 2003.

North Burlingame (California) Community Club Scrapbook, “Civic Section of North Burlingame Community Club Plan Program.” Burlingame Advance Star, c.1927. “No Tree Cutting on King’s Highway.” Burlingame Advance, 26 September 1913.

Postel, Mitchell P. San Mateo: A Centennial History. San Francisco, California: Scottswall Associates Publishers, 1994.

Santos, Robert L. “The Eucalyptus of California.” California State University, Stanislaus, Denair, California: Alley-Cass Publications, 1997.
“Save the Highway Trees.” Burlingame Advance Star, 9 April 1926.

Schierenbeck, Frances. Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row State Historic Resource Evaluation Forms.

State of California Resources Agency, Continuation Sheet of Primary Record. Oakland, California:

Caltrans, 2008.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Ulmus americana: American Elm, Fact Sheet ST-649.

Florida: Environmental Horticulture Department, October 1994.

U. S. Department of the Interior Washington, Preservation Brief #36 Protecting Cultural Landscapes:

Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1994.

U. S. Department of the Interior Washington, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines [As Amended and Annotated] Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1983.
“Voters Decide On No Commercialism For El Camino Real.” Burlingame Advance Star, 15 April 1930.

Item D Page 45 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows San Mateo County, CA Name of Property County and State
17 Previous documentation on file (NPS): Primary location of additional data:
preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67 has been X State Historic Preservation Office requested) X Other State agency: Caltrans
previously listed in the National Register Federal agency previously determined eligible by the National Register Local government designated a National Historic Landmark University
recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey #____________ Other recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # __________ Name of repository:
recorded by Historic American Landscape Survey # ___________ Historic Resources Survey Number (if
assigned):

10. Geographical Data
Acreage of Property Linear 2.2 miles
(Do not include previously listed resource acreage.)
UTM References
(Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet.) 1 10 558 112mE N4158 635mN 310 555 020mE 4160 420mN
Zone Easting: Northing: Zone Easting: Northing:
2 10 557 120mE 4158 930 4
Zone Easting: Northing Zone Easting Northing
Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property.) 1) Intersection El Camino Real and Peninsula Avenue
2) Change of direction between intersections of Bellevue at ECR (El Camino Real) and Floribunda Avenue at ECR
3) Intersection of El Camino Real with Rosedale Avenue and Ray Drive Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows
Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected.) The boundaries of the nomination reflect the original scope of McLaren’s plantings through Burlingame with the omission of the former Mills Estate area at the northern end of the City. Widespread development of the area during the 1950s involved substantial widening of El Camino Real and resulted in the destruction of many of the historic trees. The northern end of the resource thus ends where Rosedale Avenue and Ray Drive intersect El Camino Real, approximately one mile south of the original McLaren boundary. These boundaries have been designated on the Continuation Sheets of the Primary Record (Caltrans 2008).

Item D Page 46 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows San Mateo County, CA Name of Property County and State
18 (cont.)

11. Form Prepared By
name/title Jennifer Pfaff, President
organization Burlingame Historical Society date July 31, 2011 street & number PO Box 144 telephone 650-348-7961 650-340-9960 city or town Burlingame state CA zip code 94011
e-mail [email protected] (residence only)
Additional Documentation
Submit the following items with the completed form:
• Maps: A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location. (X)

A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Key all photographs to this map. (X)
• Continuation Sheets: Vintage photos attached (X)
Vintage photographs have been digitally scanned and are shown on the Continuation Sheets.

Photographs:
-Current photos of the resource (enclosed) have been taken using a conventional camera with black and white film. They have been keyed to enclosed sketch map.

Name of Property: Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows
City or Vicinity: El Camino Real, Burlingame (#5 includes segment of Town of Hillsborough on right) County: San Mateo State: California
Photographer (of current photographs): Mary Packard
Date Photographed: July 2010
Description of Photograph(s) and number:
1 of 6: El Camino Real between Ray Drive and Adeline Drive looking south. 2 of 6: El Camino Real between Lincoln Avenue and Easton Drive looking north. 3 of 6: El Camino Real between Broadway and Carmelita Avenue looking south. 4 of 6: El Camino Real at Fairfield Road looking north. 5 of 6: El Camino Real just south of Floribunda Avenue looking south. (Includes segment of Hillsborough.) 6 of 6: El Camino Real at Burlingame Avenue looking south.

Item D Page 47 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows San Mateo County, CA Name of Property County and State
19 Property Owner:
(Complete this item at the request of the SHPO or FPO.) name California Department of Transportation (District 4 contact: Beth Krase Greene) street & number 1120 ‘N’ Street telephone 916-653-7136 / (510-286-5612) city or town Sacramento state CA zip code 95814
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.460 et seq.).

Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 18 hours per response including time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of Item D Page 48 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
From: Jim Olstad
To: Chris Shaw
Cc: Kevin Bryant; Sean Rose
Subject: Re: Further attempt to elicit a response - 1/31/23 Date: Monday, February 6, 2023 3:53:23 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Chris, thanks for your reply (and community volunteer suggestions) ... I'm appreciative of the thought, but think I should study/consider the idea a bit more before jumping too quickly into an extended/broader commitment.

And it's also with that "too quick" concern that I still have some not-yetaddressed open questions with you (or Kevin/Sean) ... per this e-mail thread ... regarding further Council study/reconsideration on the topic that's brought me to your attention ... and I'm further wondering/worried if a time clock is ticking away that will preclude/exclude any appeal or possible contract modification(s) re the Eucalyptus matter? ... a 4 corner stall?
What else might I do (what further information might be provided) to get reconsideration of the present (only) vote of 4-2 for "clear cutting" of the specific nine (9) trees on MHR?
You know I'm on record for "pruning/grooming" scores of trees (good forestry practices) versus isolating on the nine (9) somehow selectively chosen (...for now, ...with minimal community input) by the Fire District.

I'd suggest the proposed $179,000 budget/contract commitment would provide A) greater general fire safety, and B) better visual & political optics for Woodside's residents & visitors if applied/distributed to "lots of trees on lots of streets".

I'd also ask (in addition to the previous open questions) whether the other council members (including the 2 votes favoring some form of compromise) are aware (have been informed) of this continuing appeal/reconsideration inquiry? Kevin/Sean, you certainly have my OK to forward/share any material or communication I've sent to your attention with anyone you wish ... as I would be free to similarly share with any party having an interest in the subject (and process).

Chris, I'm almost old enough (or still young enough!) to set my own schedule for coffee, so let me know a time & place convenient for you next week (1/12 and after ... and before any chainsaws roar!) when you're back & I'll make sure I'm available.

Appreciatively, Jim Olstad -cell
On Thursday, February 2, 2023, 11:23:22 AM PST, Chris Shaw <[email protected]> wrote:

Item D Page 49 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Jim,
I was was on a planned vacation in January and my mayoral/town council time consumed by preparing our state mandated Housing Element.

I am available for coffee the week of February 12th.

Your civic engagement is commendable. Have you considered serving on one of our town volunteer committees? Currently there is an opening on the Planning Commission for District three which includes your property. If this is of interest to you, please fill out an application (available at www.Woodside Town.org) and submit it asap. The Town Council is appointing residents to the Planning Commission and ASRB on Tuesday February 14th.

Thanks,
Chris Shaw
Town Council
Town of Woodside
On Jan 31, 2023, at 2:08 PM, Jim Olstad > wrote:
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Chris Shaw: Since it's been a week+ passed regarding the 1/23 (below) and 1/21 (Burlingame approach) emails/questions sent to each of you on the MHR Eucalyptus matter (see last e-mail text re-copied below), I'm somewhat forced to conclude ... A) no invitation for coffee will be forthcoming, and B) perhaps, as a constituent/resident, I'm either being casually disregarded or deliberately ignored.

Whichever or whatever is the case ... I'm prompted to further inquire ... Have you received ANY OTHER resident input (either pro or con) on the "clear cutting" of the nine (9) eucalyptus trees I've been advocating be "pruned/groomed", not permanently destroyed? Respectfully, Jim Olstad
e-mail sent 1/23/23
Sean Rose, thank you for sending/sharing the original 2018 Hazardous Trees list (for comparison with the most recent 2022 list) … you prompt two immediately apparent questions (beyond the Lists’ omissions/commissions errors previously raised):

A) The 2018 list has priority rankings (1, 2 or 3) for each listed tree, the 2022 list has NO priority ranking …. meaning discrete choice/selection of tree destruction is now at the whim of the Fire District or Town Admin?
B) As a further immediately noticeable problem, 5 trees listed as “priority 1” on the 2018 list Item D Page 50 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
(235, 239, 255 AltaMesa … if those address as listed are accurate) … have still not been cut down … while 5 of the trees on (“240?”) Mountain Home Road (listed as “priority 2” on the 2018 list) were, less than a week ago, voted by Council to be cut down in a few weeks time.

I question again … is this “Reasonable Balanced Management of Risks, Budgets and Esthetics”? What is the “after-cutting scar” to this MHR specific scenic corridor segment going to look like?
Based on the above information (of which all council members MAY NOT have been aware before casting their 1/17/23 vote) … should I appeal the Council’s vote? And if so, how would I do so?
Also, should wider groups of Woodside residents be made aware of what you’re doing (and the selectively spotty process the Town & Fire District seem to be using to do it)? Is this an Almanac topic?
Please let me know what steps/actions you’d advise. Respectfully, Jim Olstad Item D Page 51 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
From: Jim Olstad
To: Chris Shaw; Kevin Bryant; Sean Rose
Cc: Jim Olstad
Subject: Woodside Council - 2/28/23 meeting re pending revised Eucalyptus tree cutting contract matter Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 6:49:02 PM
Attachments: Woodside Eucalyptus-Olstad 22823.docx
TofW Hazardous Tree Inventory-2018.xlsx
TofW Hazardous Tree Inventory-sr 1-11-2023 (5).pdf
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Chris Shaw, First, thanks for the coffee & scone yesterday ... I'm in your culinary debt.

Second, since I understand from our multi-faceted conversation, there is further Council reconsideration going on re the $179,000 contract (initially approved in January by a 4-2 vote) for cutting down (eliminating) the nine (9) Eucalyptus trees on the section of MHR between Bear Gulch bridge and Manzanita, I wanted to officially weigh in with this appeal of the Council's present position/decision.

I've previously submitted questions & supplementary information (Burlingame's approach) for my side/views of the matter ... I trust both the Council and admin personnel have had time to review/distribute those materials (and this appeal) for this further re-consideration.

I won't recap further, other than to note the Summary Points (below) which I've also attached (for printing/record convenience) as a separate document (along with the 2018 and 2023 Hazardous Trees lists Sean Rose was kind enough to forward previously to me).

Chris (and Kevin and Sean), I've also offered alternatives/suggestions for improving (reestablishing?) current practices to a better, more inclusionary & transparent process for "good forestry/woodland management" .... Reasonable BALANCED Management.

In particular, Points 4 & 6 below.

Again, thanks for your re-consideration, and I'd be pleased to be involved with Council's/Admin's positive revisions to A) how "tree" decisions are reached & disclosed ... beyond the current tempest, and B) what the "after pruning/grooming" permanent consequences will be to the look-and-feel of the Town's roadways (and budget).

Sincerely, Jim Olstad
Summary Points for Next Round (2/28/23) of Eucalyptus Contract Considerations (incorporating, by this reference, all previous correspondence & submissions) 1) Perhaps … Publicly-stated in-writing advocacy on a subject (generally) should be given more weight than privately-whispered in-secret advocacy ... for transparency and merit considerations.
2) Perhaps … Wider canvassing of on-record positions (citizen polling) should be sought … Item D Page 52 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
both to educate/inform the Public and direct-test their temperatures on significant issues … before those issues divisively go to the newspapers.
3) Perhaps … Reasonable balanced management between safety (risk), budgets (costs) and esthetics (looks) should be sought ... and a different review & decision process be established (or restored?) … at what maturity-and-stature does a “non-native” tree deserve/warrant protection?
4) Perhaps … this specific “9 MHR trees” Eucalyptus topic should be referred to an “Expanded Brief/Wider Mandate” Woodside Trails Committee for consideration & comment … accomplishing a broader inclusion of residents (and visitors?) input. 5) Certainly … On Town Policy and operational implementation, The Tail (Fire District) should not be wagging the Dog (Town Council) … particularly when the Kennel (Town Resident/Visitor Population) is under-informed or misinformed (please see 2018 Original Hazardous Trees list (with specific risk-rankings) versus Current Hazardous Trees list (without priority rankings and with blatant errors of omission and commission). 6) Certainly … The utility (overall safety-improvement value … “bang for buck”) of spending $179,000 (or $380,000?) on 9 trees in a 200 yard MHR road segment versus on “lots of trees (dead & dying) on lots of streets” throughout Woodside should be re-examined and reconsidered and, I would advocate, re-prioritized.

And simply as general observation or argument …
7) In the past, ASRB member-vintages may have favored “metal roof farmhouses over tile roof haciendas” with attendant architectural frustrations … so too, it’s possible future vintages of Town Councils may wonder who caused 150+ year old Eucalyptus Trees to be erased from the Town’s Canopy (Burlingame as contrast).
8) Paraphrasing Joni Mitchell … “they paved Paradise & put up a Parking Lot” … “they cut certain trees to put a fire break in spots … and next they thought, why not … sidewalks?”
Respectfully submitted, Jim Olstad , Woodside, CA 94062 Item D Page 53 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

TOWN OF WOODSIDE HAZARDOUS TREE INVENTORY
January 2023
# Street Address Tree Type Qty Size Complete?
1 Blue Ridge Ln entire street Euc 22 Med/Lrg x
2 Glencrag 851 Pine 2 Med x
3 Glencrag 823 Pine 2 Med x
4 Glencrag 815 Pine 1 Med x
5 W.Maple 445 Euc 3 Med x
6 W.Maple 465 Euc 3 Med x
7 W.Maple 490 Euc 1 Med x
8 Eastview at Maple Euc 5 Med/Lrg x
9 Southview 703‐747 Euc 13 Lrg x
10 Godetia Lower Euc 8 Lrg x (partial)
11 Glenwood 127 Pine 1 Med
12 Glenwood 231 Pine 6 Sm/Med
13 AltaMesa 235 Euc 2 Med/Lrg
14 AltaMesa 239 Euc 1 Med/Lrg
15 AltaMesa 255 Pine 2 Med
16 AltaMesa 124 Euc 2 Med x
17 AltaMesa 136 Euc 1 Med x
18 AltaMesa at Emergency Gate Euc 2 Med x
19 Hillside 231 Pine 1 Sm
20 Hillside 260 Oak 1 Sm
21 Vineyard Hill   End Pine 2 Sm
22 Mt.Home at Cedar Euc 1 Lrg
23 Mt.Home at Cedar Pine 1 Med
24 Mt.Home 240 Euc 5 Lrg
25 Mt.Home 280 Euc 4 Lrg
26 Mt.Home 290 Euc 3 Lrg
27 Mt.Home at Mt.Wood Euc 2 Lrg
28 Mt.Home at Blue Ridge Euc 2 Lrg
29 Mt.Home before Vintage Euc 1 Lrg
30 Portola 2099 Euc 5 Lrg x
31 Portola 1835 Pine 6 Med x
32 Old LaHonda at Portola Euc 2 Lrg x
33 Roan 40 Pine 1 Med
34 Roan 15 Pine Med
35 Roan at Patrol Pine 2 Med
36 Partititon 3640 Pine 1 Med
37 Sandhill/Sandhill Ct Euc 2 Lrg
38 Kings Mt. before Josselyn Euc 3 Lrg
39 Highland Ter. 239 Euc 1
40 Highland Ter. 255 Pine 2
41 Barkley fields Farm Hill Blvd Euc 2 x
42 Mt.Home 890 Euc 5
43 Canada rd. 1095 Euc 3
44 Canada Rd. 1025 Euc 3
Item D Page 54 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

TOWN OF WOODSIDE HAZARDOUS TREE INVENTORY
January 2023
45 Canada Rd. 925 Euc 1
46 Godetia 1191 Euc 1
47 Godetia 1191 Pine 1
48 Glencrag 626 Pine 2
49 East View 489 Euc 1
50 Maple Way 455 Euc 4
51 Glencrag Woodside Dr. Euc 1
52 Mtn. Home 190 Euc 1
53 Mtn. Home 450 Euc 1
54 Mtn. Home 890 Oak 2
55 Mtn. Home 915 Euc 1
56 Portola 1909 Euc 3 x
57 Alta Mesa 160 Euc 2 x
58 Portola Rd. 1835 Pines 8 x
59 Canada rd. WDS Redwood 1 x
60 Jefferson Ave 4242 Pines 10 x
61 Woodside Dr. 355 Acacia 1 x
62 Woodside Dr. 280 Redwood 1 x
63 Mtn. Home 1200 Oak 1 x
64 Eastview Way 515 1 x
65 Harcross Rd 165 Pine 1 x
66 Woodside Way 654 1 x
67 Glencrag Way 650 1 x
Total Trees 185
Total Trees Removed 103
Item D Page 55 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

TOWN OF WOODSIDE HAZARDOUS TREE INVENTORY
February 2018
Street Address Tree Type Qty Size Priority
Glencrag 851 Pine 2 Med 2
Glencrag 823 Pine 2 Med 2
Glencrag 815 Pine 1 Med 2
W.Maple 445 Euc 3 Med 1
W.Maple 465 Euc 3 Med 1
W.Maple 490 Euc 1 Med 1
Eastview at Maple Euc 5 Med/Lrg 1
Southview 703‐747 Euc 9 Lrg 2
Godetia Lower Euc 8 Lrg 3
Glenwood 127 Pine 1 Med 1
Glenwood 231 Pine 6 Sm/Med 2
AltaMesa 235 Euc 2 Med/Lrg 1
AltaMesa 239 Euc 1 Med/Lrg 1
AltaMesa 255 Pine 2 Med 1
AltaMesa 124 Euc 2 Med 1
AltaMesa 136 Euc 1 Med 1
AltaMesa at Emergency Gate Euc 2 Med 1
Hillside 231 Pine 1 Sm 2
Hillside 260 Oak 1 Sm 2
Vineyard Hill   End Pine 2 Sm 2
Mt.Home at Cedar Euc 1 Lrg 2
Mt.Home at Cedar Pine 1 Med 2
Mt.Home 240 Euc 5 Lrg 2
Mt.Home 290 Euc 3 Lrg 2
Mt.Home at Mt.Wood Euc 2 Lrg 2
Mt.Home at Blue Ridge Euc 2 Lrg 2
Mt.Home before Vintage Euc 1 Lrg 2
Portola 2099
Portola 1835 Pine 6 Med 1
Old LaHonda at Portola Euc 2 Lrg 1
SandHill at SandHill Ct Euc 2 Lrg 1
Roan 40 Pine 1 Med 1
Roan 15 Pine Med 1
Roan at Patrol Pine 2 Med 1
Partititon 3640 Pine 1 Med 1
Kings Mt. before Josselyn Euc 3 Lrg 1
Total trees 87
Priority 1 trees 21
Priority 2 trees 58
Priority 3 trees 8
Item D Page 56 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

TOWN OF WOODSIDE
Report to Town Council Agenda Item E
From: Kevin Bryant, Town Manager February 28, 2023
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TERMINATING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY CAUSED BY THE THREAT OF THE NOVEL COVID-19 VIRUS AND

DIRECTION TO STAFF ON CONTINUING OUTDOOR DINING

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Town Council terminate the proclamation of the existence of a local emergency caused by the threat of the Novel COVID-19 virus.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed that a State of Emergency existed in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19.

On March 18, 2020, the Town Manager acting as Director of Emergency Services proclaimed the existence of a local emergency due to existing and threatened conditions of peril due to the expansion of the COVID19 virus.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 8630, on March 24, 2020, the Town Council ratified the proclamation made by the Director of Emergency services by adoption of Resolution 2020-7344.

The Town Council then extended the proclamation of the existence of a local emergency for sixty (60) days at its meeting on April 14, 2020.

The Town Council further extended the proclamation of the existence of a local emergency for sixty (60) days at its meetings of June 9, 2020, July 28, 2020, September 22, 2020, October 27, 2020, December 15, 2020, February 9, 2021, March 23, 2021, May 11, 2021, June 22, 2021, July 27, 2021, September 14, 2021, October 26, 2021, December 14, 2021, February 8, 2022, April 5, 2022, May 24, 2022, July 12, 2022, September 13, 2022, October 25, 2022, December 13, 2022, and January 31, 2023.

The California State of Emergency will expire on February 28, 2023.

Staff recommends that the Town Council formally terminate the local emergency, as well.

Outdoor Dining
On May 26, 2020, the Town Council adopted Urgency Ordinance 2020-609, which authorized the ministerial issuance of temporary use permits for existing restaurants. Temporary use permits were issued to Alice’s, Bucks, the Firehouse, the Village Bakery, and the Village Pub to conduct outdoor dining.

Item E Page 1 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Under the terms of the temporary use permits issued to the restaurants, they would have ten days from the end of the declared emergency, or until March 10th, to remove their outdoor dining facilities.

As in many cities, outdoor dining has proven to be a very popular program in Woodside. Given this, staff requests that the Council authorize staff to explore options to allow for continued outdoor dining. If given this direction by Council, within the next two months staff will return with options for the Town Council to consider regarding continued outdoor dining for those restaurants that would like to continue their outdoor service.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This activity is not a project under CEQA as defined in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378, because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or a foreseeable physical change in the environment.

Attachment
Draft Resolution
Item E Page 2
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
ATTACHMENT 1
Item E Page 3
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023- _______

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WOODSIDE

TERMINATING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY CAUSED BY THE THREAT OF THE NOVEL COVID-19 VIRUS
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2020, due to confirmed cases of a severe acute respiratory illness caused by a new coronavirus (“COVID-19”), the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a public health emergency of international concern, and on January 31, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared a Public Health Emergency for the United States of America; and
WHEREAS, on or about March 4, 2020, as part of the State of California's response to address the global COVID-19 outbreak, the Governor declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the state prepare for broader spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 2020, San Mateo County declared a
Local Health Emergency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 101080 due to the potential introduction of COVID-19 in San Mateo County; and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2020, the President of the United States declared a National Emergency in response to the spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, Section 33.03 of the Woodside Municipal Code
empowers the Town Manager, as the Director of Emergency Services, to proclaim (subject to ratification by the Town Council within seven days) the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the Town is affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity and the Town Council is not in session; and
WHEREAS, based on the expanding threat of the novel COVID19 virus, the Town Manager, Acting as Director of Emergency Services, of the Town of Woodside proclaimed the existence of a local emergency within the Town on March 18, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2020, the Town Council of the Town of Woodside ratified the proclamation of the Director of Emergency Services and extended the period of the existence of a Local Item E Page 4
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Emergency for an additional 30 days or unless sooner terminated; and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2020, June 9, 2020, July 28, 2020, September 22, 2020, October 27, 2020, December 15, 2020, February 9, 2021, March 23, 2021, May 11, 2021, June 22, 2021, July 27, 2021, September 14, 2021, October 26, 2021, December 14, 2021, February 8, 2022, April 5, 2022, May 24, 2022, July 12, 2022, September 13, 2022, October 25, 2022, December 13, 2022, and January 31, 2023, the Town Council of the Town of Woodside extended the period of the existence of a Local Emergency for an additional 60 days or unless sooner terminated; and
WHEREAS, the State of Emergency within the State of
California will end on February 28, 2023.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the local emergency is hereby terminated.
* * * * * *
Passed and adopted by the Town Council of the Town of
Woodside, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of February, 2023, by the following vote of the members thereof:

AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
___________________________________
Mayor of the Town of Woodside
ATTEST:
______________________________
Clerk of the Town of Woodside
Item E Page 5
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

TOWN OF WOODSIDE
Report to Town Council Agenda Item F
From: Kevin Bryant, Town Manager February 28, 2023
SUBJECT: MAYOR’S APPOINTMENT OF TOWN MANAGER AS PENINSULA CLEAN

ENERGY BOARD ALTERNATE

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Town Council accept the Mayor’s appointment of the Town Manager to be the Town’s alternate to the Peninsula Clean Energy Board.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
In 2016, the Town of Woodside, along with all of the other cities and towns in San Mateo County, and San Mateo County, executed a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) relating to and creating the Peninsula Clean Energy Authority (PCE) of San Mateo County.

Pursuant to the JPA Agreement, the PCE Board of Directors is comprised of one director appointed by each City or Town. The Agreement further states that the Director must be a member of the governing body of the agency. Mayor Pro Tem Wall is the appointed Director for the Town of Woodside.

The JPA Agreement also allows the appointment of an alternate to serve in the absence of its Director. Alternates may be either members of the governing body or staff members of the agency.

The Mayor recommends that the Town Manager be appointed as the Board alternate pursuant to the PCE JPA Agreement.

CONCLUSION
Appointment of a Board alternate to PCE will ensure the Town has representation at its Board of Director meetings.

Item F Page 1 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

TOWN OF WOODSIDE
Report to Town Council Agenda Item 1
From: Paula Wong, Management Analyst February 28, 2023
Kevin Bryant, Town Manager
SUBJECT: REGISTER OF DEMANDS AGAINST THE TOWN OF WOODSIDE FROM FEBRUARY 1 THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2023
Per Town of Woodside Municipal Code Title III, Administration, Chapter 31.03.F the attached register of demands for February 1 through February 15, 2023 have been prepared, audited, and certified, by the Administrative Services Manager.

Attachment

1. Register of Demands February 1 through February 15, 2023 Item 1 Page 1 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Accounts Payable
User:

Printed:
paula.wong
2/15/2023 3:34 PM
Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date
Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
41554 1004 A2Z Business Systems 02/10/2023
AR31732 Copier Maintenance Contract 01.29.23-04.28.23 + Nov-Jan Overages Copier Maintenance Contract 01.29.23-04.28.23 + Nov-Jan Overages 1,873.27 Total for Check Number 41554: 1,873.27
41555 1006 Aaronson, Dickerson, Cohn & Lanzone 02/10/2023 1810 Legal Services January 2023 Legal Services January 2023 37,670.25 Total for Check Number 41555: 37,670.25
41556 2963 Baker Tilly US, LLP 02/10/2023
BT2308499 Housing Element Consulting Service: January 2023Housing Element Consulting Service: January 2023 17,600.00 Total for Check Number 41556: 17,600.00
41557 2957 Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. 02/10/2023 0082407 Canada Corners Parking Lot, ASRB2022-0022: November 2022 Canada Corners Parking Lot, ASRB2022-0022: November 2022 1,007.50 0082408 Housing Element Site Noise Analysis: November 2022 Housing Element Site Noise Analysis: November 2022 8,795.00 0082702 Canada Corners Parking Lot, ASRB2022-0022: December 2022 Canada Corners Parking Lot, ASRB2022-0022: December 2022 6,290.00 0082703 Housing Element Site Noise Analysis: December 2022 Housing Element Site Noise Analysis: December 2022 845.00 Total for Check Number 41557: 16,937.50
41558 2448 ClearSource Financial Consulting 02/10/2023
UFC1222-447 Cost Allocation Plan & User Fee Study-Progress Bill #2 Cost Allocation Plan & User Fee Study-Progress Bill #2 15,000.00 Total for Check Number 41558: 15,000.00
41559 1121 CSG Consultants, Inc. 02/10/2023
48168 Lot Merger Review 4214 Jefferson -MERG2022-0002 Lot Merger Review 4214 Jefferson -MERG2022-0002 1,420.00 Total for Check Number 41559: 1,420.00
41560 1393 CSMFO 02/10/2023
300011399 CSMFO Annual Membership Renewal CSMFO Annual Membership Renewal 50.00 300011401 CSMFO Annual Membership Renewal CSMFO Annual Membership Renewal 50.00 Total for Check Number 41560: 100.00
41561 2967 Dyett & Bhatia 02/10/2023
22-589-02 Housing Element/HE CEQA Consultant: December 2022 Housing Element/HE CEQA Consultant: December 2022 35,857.50 Total for Check Number 41561: 35,857.50
41562 2770 Edge Communications Solutions 02/10/2023
411238 Phone (Main Office Number) 02.06.23-03.05.23 Monthly Phone (650)851-6790 02.06.23-03.05.23 228.55 Total for Check Number 41562: 228.55
41563 1308 Embarcadero Media 02/10/2023
77970 Legal Advertising January 2023 Legal Advertising January 2023 1,119.00 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/15/2023 3:34 PM) Page 1 Item 1 Page 2
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
Total for Check Number 41563: 1,119.00
41564 1148 Gerardo Mendoza 02/10/2023
183-2023 Barkley Fields Janitorial + Disinfecting January 2023 Barkley Fields Janitorial + Disinfecting January 2023 940.00 229-2023 Museum Janitorial + Disinfecting January 2023 Museum Janitorial + Disinfecting January 2023 240.00 239-2023 Independence Hall Janitorial January 2023 Independence Hall Janitorial January 2023 135.00 278-2023 Branch Library Janitorial + Disinfecting January 2023 Branch Library Janitorial + Disinfecting January 2023 1,285.00 293-2023 Town Hall Janitorial + Disinfecting January 2023 Town Hall Janitorial + Disinfecting January 2023 1,095.00 Total for Check Number 41564: 3,695.00
41565 1245 ODP Business Solutions, LLC 02/10/2023
285143214001 Supplies: Batteries Supplies: Batteries 48.98 286797428001 Supplies: Tea, Coffee, Coffee Filters Supplies: Tea, Coffee, Coffee Filters 52.46 286797429001 Supplies: Tea Supplies: Tea 12.69
287419302001 Supplies: Coffeemate, Paper Cups, Copy Paper Supplies: Coffeemate, Paper Cups, Copy Paper 136.41 287423410001 Supplies: Cornstarch Utensils Supplies: Cornstarch Utensils 16.28 287423653001 Supplies: Tea Supplies: Tea 35.69
287651733001 Supplies: Paper Cups Supplies: Paper Cups 17.13 287658560001 Supplies: 4Port USB Hub Supplies: 4Port USB Hub 34.39 290236289001 Supplies: Copy Paper, Coffee Creamer Supplies: Copy Paper, Coffee Creamer 98.35 290238630001 Supplies: Paper Clips Supplies: Paper Clips 11.58 290240110001 Supplies: First Aid Supplies: First Aid 25.95 290241384001 Supplies: First Aid Supplies: First Aid 35.21 Total for Check Number 41565: 525.12
41566 1250 Pacific Gas & Electric 02/10/2023
P1399 01.20.23 1399341562-2 Street Lamp 12.15.22-01.13.23 1399341562-2 TH Street Lamp 12.15.22-01.13.23 17.41 Total for Check Number 41566: 17.41
41567 2226 Quench USA, Inc. 02/10/2023
INV05276189 2 Water Units for TH/Public Works 01.20.23-02.19.23 2 Water Units for TH/Public Works 01.20.23-02.19.23 131.26 Total for Check Number 41567: 131.26
41568 1281 Cindy Safe 02/10/2023
Mileage02.05.23 CSMFO Conference:Travel Mileage CSMFO Conference:Travel Mileage 196.25 Reimb. 02.05.23 CSMFO Conference:Hotel Deposit,Per Diem CSMFO Conference:Hotel Deposit,Per Diem 415.57 Total for Check Number 41568: 611.82
41569 1287 San Mateo County Sheriff's Office 02/10/2023 PS-INV304396 FY 22-23 Q3 Jan.-Mar. Law Enforcement ServicesFY 22-23 Q3 Jan.-Mar. Law Enforcement Services 45,556.25 PS-INV304396 FY 22-23 Q3 Jan.-Mar. Law Enforcement ServicesFY 22-23 Q3 Jan.-Mar. Law Enforcement Services 619,242.50 Total for Check Number 41569: 664,798.75
41570 1385 Stepford 02/10/2023
2301069 Adobe Acrobat Pro Annual Enterprise SubscriptionAdobe Acrobat Pro Annual Enterprise Subscription 1,512.50 2306085 IT Service Overage/After Hours October 2022-January 2023 IT Service Overage/After Hours October 2022-January 2023 550.00 Total for Check Number 41570: 2,062.50
41571 1095 Sweeping Corporation of America 02/10/2023
105192CS Monthly Sweep Fee January 2023 Monthly Sweep Fee January 2023 1,513.68 Total for Check Number 41571: 1,513.68
41572 1307 Terminix Processing Center 02/10/2023
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/15/2023 3:34 PM) Page 2 Item 1 Page 3
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
429059073 Annual Pest Control Contract-Museum 01.13.23-01.12.27 Annual Pest Control Contract-Museum 01.13.23-01.12.27 851.52 Total for Check Number 41572: 851.52
41573 1355 The Reveg Edge 02/10/2023
2303 Kite Hill: Monitoring Weeds/Fertilizer Status 12.29.22-01.31.23 Kite Hill: Monitoring Weeds/Fertilizer Status 12.29.22-01.31.23 300.00 Total for Check Number 41573: 300.00
41574 1322 United Site Services 02/10/2023
INV-01379798 Portable Restroom Services 01.25.23-02.21.23 Portable Restroom Services 01.25.23-02.21.23 231.57 Total for Check Number 41574: 231.57
41575 1333 Wells Fargo Financial Leasing, Inc. 02/10/2023 5023533270 Postage Meter Rental SMC Personal Property Tax Postage Meter Rental 02.13.23-03.12.23 35.77 5023533270 Postage Meter Rental 02.13.23-03.12.23 Postage Meter Rental 02.13.23-03.12.23 185.93 Total for Check Number 41575: 221.70
41576 2218 Wex Bank 02/10/2023
87056423 Chevron Gas Card for Fleet 01.07.23-02.06.23 Chevron Gas Card for Fleet 01.07.23-02.06.23 1,612.44 Total for Check Number 41576: 1,612.44
41577 2974 Sean Hennessee 02/10/2023
DefSpace2.7.23 Defensible Space Matching Fund Program FY23 Defensible Space Matching Fund Program FY23 1,500.00 Total for Check Number 41577: 1,500.00
41578 2841 Bradley Hofer 02/10/2023
DefSpace1.30.23 Defensible Space Matching Fund Program FY23 Defensible Space Matching Fund Program FY23 2,750.00 Total for Check Number 41578: 2,750.00
41579 2975 Heeral Kota 02/10/2023
DefSpace1.26.23 Defensible Space Matching Fund Program FY23 Defensible Space Matching Fund Program FY23 3,000.00 Total for Check Number 41579: 3,000.00
41580 2973 Barnaby Levin 02/10/2023
DefSpace1.26.23 Defensible Space Matching Fund Program FY23 Defensible Space Matching Fund Program FY23 700.00 Total for Check Number 41580: 700.00
41581 2977 Peninah Njeri 02/10/2023
DefSpace2.2.23 Defensible Space Matching Fund Program FY23 Defensible Space Matching Fund Program FY23 1,500.00 Total for Check Number 41581: 1,500.00
41582 1742 Julie Sequeira 02/10/2023
DefSpace1.31.23 Defensible Space Matching Fund Program FY23 Defensible Space Matching Fund Program FY23 2,275.00 Total for Check Number 41582: 2,275.00
41583 2976 Tony Yu 02/10/2023
DefSpace1.31.23 Defensible Space Matching Fund Program FY23 Defensible Space Matching Fund Program FY23 2,850.00 Total for Check Number 41583: 2,850.00
41584 1543 Todd Zwaanstra 02/10/2023
DefSpace2.06.23 Defensible Space Matching Fund Program FY23 Defensible Space Matching Fund Program FY23 3,000.00 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/15/2023 3:34 PM) Page 3 Item 1 Page 4
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
Total for Check Number 41584: 3,000.00
Total for 2/10/2023: 821,953.84
Report Total (31 checks): 821,953.84
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/15/2023 3:34 PM) Page 4 Item 1 Page 5
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

TOWN OF WOODSIDE
Report to Town Council Agenda Item 2
Prepared by: Paula Wong, Management Analyst February 28, 2023 Reviewed by: Kevin Bryant, Town Manager
SUBJECT: 2022-23 January Monthly Investment Activity Report

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Town Council review and accept the 2022-23 January Investment Activity Report.

BACKGROUND
The Town of Woodside’s Investment Policy requires that there be “a monthly transaction report made to the Town Council that reports the transactions of all Investments” and California Government Code Section 53607 requires “the monthly report shall be so submitted within 30 days following the end of the month covered by the report”. This report has been prepared to facilitate that review. It has been prepared by utilizing the Town’s financial reporting, LAIF and PARS investment reports, as of January 31, 2023.

MONTHLY INVESTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT FOR JANUARY
LAIF
PARS

PENSION
PARS
OPEB
Beginning Balance July 2022 9,220,484.23 2,157,749.43 1,085,306.03 Net Transfer In/(Out)- between Town's Wells Fargo Checking Account 1,000,000.00 - - Interest Income Q4 FY2022 Cash Basis, received July 2022 16,830.99 - - Net Investment Earnings(Loss) - (111,150.87) (57,184.81) Ending Balance July-September Q1 10,237,315.22 2,046,598.56 1,028,121.22 Net Transfer In/(Out)- between Town's Wells Fargo Checking Account 1,300,000.00 - - Interest Income Q1 29,951.59 - -
Net Investment Earnings(Loss) - 129,109.87 64,828.26
Ending Balance October-December Q2 11,567,266.81 2,175,708.43 1,092,949.48 Net Transfer In/(Out)- between Town's Wells Fargo Checking Account - - - Interest Income Q2 49,742.32 - -
Net Investment Earnings(Loss) - 127,584.88 64,104.84
Ending Balance January 2023 11,617,009.13 2,303,293.31 1,157,054.32 YTD Net Transfer In/(Out)- between Town's Wells Fargo Checking Account 2,300,000.00 - - YTD Interest Income-Cash Basis 96,524.90 - -
YTD Interest Income-Accrual Basis 79,693.91 - -
YTD Net Investment Earnings(Loss) - 145,543.88 71,748.29 Item 2 Page 1 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
LAIF
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) is managed and administered by the State of California’s Treasurer, created by statue beginning in 1977 as an investment alternative for California’s local governments.

LAIF investment income is received on a quarterly basis, for the quarters ending March 31st, June 30th, September 30th, and December 31st. The Town receives an investment income statement and the cash from the State in the month following the end of the involved quarter. Thus, such revenue is received in July, October, January, and April.

PARS (IRS Sec 115)
The Town has two IRS Section 115 accounts with PARS. The Pension account can be used for unfunded pension liabilities and is shown on the financial statements as restricted cash. The OPEB (other post-employment benefits) account is for retiree health premiums and is shown only in the notes of the statements (per Governmental Accounting Standards Board regulations).

Due to the ease of access of the Town’s funds in liquid accounts such as LAIF and PARS, the Town has more than sufficient funds available to meet its liquidity (expenditure) requirements for the next six months and is in compliance with the Town Council’s financial management policy.

CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the Town Council review and accept this report.

Item 2 Page 2
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

TOWN OF WOODSIDE
Report to Town Council Agenda Item 3_
From: Sean Rose, Town Engineer February 28, 2023
Approved by: Kevin Bryant, Town Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION (1) APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2023 ROAD REHABILITATION PROJECT; (2) AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER

TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS AND TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE LOWEST

RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $525,000 WHICH INCLUDES A $25,000 CONTINGENCY.

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Town Council adopt the attached resolution:
(1) approving plans and specifications for the 2023 Road Rehabilitation Project; and (2) authorizing the Town Manager to advertise for bids and execute a contract with the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in an amount not to exceed $525,000, which includes a $25,000 contingency.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Regular and strategic maintenance and rehabilitation of the Town’s roads is a cost-effective way to provide greater safety and usability for road users and extend the life of the roadway system. Each year the Town completes a road rehabilitation project that incorporates asphalt overlays, microseals, digouts to repair localized pavement failures, and other pavement treatments as appropriate. Streets are selected for treatment based on pavement condition and overall cost-effectiveness with the aid of the Town’s StreetSaver pavement management software program, and a field assessment by Public Works staff. Pavement condition is primarily determined by a numeric score referred to as the “Pavement Condition Index, or PCI”. The PCI scale is from 0 (poor condition) to 100 (excellent condition). The Town’s current Town-wide PCI is 74, which places the Town in the 90th percentile of Bay Area municipalities.

The 2023 Road Rehabilitation project scope includes approximately 0.7 miles of new asphalt overlay, 1.4 miles of micro surfacing, 2,000 linear feet of asphalt trail repaving, new pavement striping and marking, and incidental work on eleven streets throughout the Town. A list of the streets including the street’s current PCI and the work to be completed on each is provided in Attachment 2. A project location map is provided in Attachment 3. All of the streets to be paved in 2023 are residential and minor collector streets.

The adopted CIP has $475,000 budgeted for this project. Staff is proposing authorization of an additional $50,000 to the project in order to complete additional paving this year on Alta Vista and 2000 linear feet of the asphalt trail on Canada Rd between Olive Hill Lane and I280. This addition will be reflected in the upcoming budget.

Item 3 Page 1 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the attached resolution which approves the plans and specifications for the 2023 Road Rehabilitation Project; and authorizes the Town Manager to advertise for bids and to execute a contract with the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, in an amount not to exceed $525,000, which includes a $25,000 contingency.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. List of project locations

3. Project location map

4. 2023 Road Rehabilitation Project Plans & Specifications (available in the office of the Town Engineer).

Item 3 Page 2
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
2023 Road Rehabilitation Project
RESOLUTION NO. 2023 –
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WOODSIDE:
(1) APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2023 ROAD REHABILITATION PROJECT; (2) AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO

ADVERTISE FOR BIDS AND TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE LOWEST

RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $525,000 WHICH INCLUDES A $25,000 CONTINGENCY
WHEREAS, the Adopted Budget and Capital Improvement Program provides funds for annual road rehabilitation work; and WHEREAS, annual road maintenance work is necessary to ensure safety and usability for all users of the Town’s roads; and WHEREAS, the Town Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the Town Council’s approval; and
WHEREAS, streets have been selected for maintenance based on pavement condition and overall cost-effectiveness; and
WHEREAS, Town staff recommends bidding the construction and executing a contract with the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for road maintenance construction services.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Woodside that:

1. The plans and specifications for the 2023 Road Rehabilitation Project are approved.

2. The Town Manager is authorized to advertise for bids and to execute a contract with the lowest responsible bidder, with a total contract amount not to exceed 525,000, which includes a $25,000 contingency.
* * * * * * *
Passed and adopted by the Town Council of the Town of Woodside, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 28th February, 2023, by the following vote of members thereof:

AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mayor of the Town of Woodside
ATTEST:

Clerk of the Town of Woodside
Item 3 Page 3 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
ATTACHMENT 1
2023 Road Rehabilitation- Project Locations
STREET Begin Limits End Limit Treatment PCI
Croydon Way Ridgeway Rd. End Micro-surfacing (Type 2) 57 Fernside St. Woodside Dr. Harcross Rd. Micro-surfacing (Type 2) 60 Fox Hollow Rd. Woodside Rd. End Micro-surfacing (Type 2) 60 Sheridan Way Woodside Dr. End Micro-surfacing (Type 2) 66 Olive Hill Ln. Canada Rd. Albion Ave. Micro-surfacing (Type 2) 61 Canada Ln. Romero Rd. Woodside Rd. Micro-surfacing (Type 2) 59 Alta Vista Canada Rd. End Micro-surfacing (Type 2) 62
High Road Woodside Rd. Woodside Dr. Asphalt Overlay 68
Farm Hill Blvd. Hwy 280 575 ft. east of I280 Asphalt Overlay 57 Glencrag Way Jefferson Ave. W. Glen Ave. Asphalt Overlay 56 Canada Rd. Olive Hill Hwy 280 AC Trail
** All treatments include asphalt digouts/base repairs as needed.

Item 3 Page 4 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
ATTACHMENT 2
Item 3 Page 5 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
ATTACHMENT 3

TOWN OF WOODSIDE

REPORT TO TOWN COUNCIL
Meeting Date: February 28, 2023 Agenda Item:4
Prepared by: Sage Schaan, Planning Director
Approved by: Kevin Bryant, Town Manager
SUBJECT: ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT (APR) FOR THE FIFTH CYCLE (2015-23) HOUSING ELEMENT (2022)

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Town Council accept the Annual Progress Report (APR) for the fifth cycle (2015-23) Housing Element for 2022, and direct staff to transmit the report to the State Departments of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and Office of Planning and Research (OPR).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report describes the actions taken during 2022 to implement programs identified in the 2015-2023 Housing Element. These programs support the provision of affordable housing, maintain and upgrade the Town’s housing stock, and encourage greater energy efficiency in construction. The full APR report (online) utilizes the forms and methodology provided by HCD on December 14, 2022, for the 2022 Housing Element APR.

DISCUSSION
In 2015, the Town of Woodside completed the required and timely update to its Housing Element. On January 23, 2015, HCD certified Woodside’s fifth cycle (2015-2023) Housing Element. The Town adopted the updated Housing Element on March 10, 2015. The Town transmitted the final, approved Housing Element to HCD on March 18, 2015; and HCD acknowledged full compliance via letter on April 9, 2015.

Government Code Section 65400 requires that each governing body (City Council or Board of Supervisors) prepare an annual report on the status and progress in implementing the jurisdiction's Housing Element of the General Plan, using forms and definitions adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development. This same code section prescribes that Housing Element Annual Progress Reports are due April 1st every year, and HCD allows for a 60-day grace period. The APR is summarized in Table 1 of this staff report. Table B, Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress, from the APR is included in Attachment 1. The complete Annual Progress Report (APR) on Housing Element Implementation is available for review at https://bit.ly/3XY08Rx.

The 2022 APR form contains the most recent reporting requirements provided by HCD. Additionally, the updated reporting form provided by HCD requires local governments to provide more information on density bonus projects that have been submitted for approval or are in development. No density bonus projects have been submitted or constructed in Town.

Woodside Municipal Code (WMC) Updates
In 2022, the Town approved an Ordinance to bring the WMC into compliance with recently enacted legislation (SB9) that allows ministerial approval of two units on any single-family lot that meets certain objective requirements, and ministerial approval of a lot-split on any single-family lot that meets certain objective requirements.

RHNA Progress
During 2022, the Town issued permits for fifteen (15) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and eight (8) permits for Single Family Dwellings (SFDs).

Item 4 Page 1 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
The Cycle 5 allowable ADU income distribution formula allocates ADUs as follows: 70% as Extremely Low Income and Very Low Income; 15% as Low Income; 10% as Moderate Income; and, 5% as Above Moderate Income. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Affordability of ADUs Study, dated September 8, 2021, is expected to be used for ADU income distribution in Housing Element Cycle 6 (2023-2031). The ABAG Study uses different ADU income distribution allocation for ADUs as follows: 30% as Extremely Low Income and Very Low Income; 30% as Low Income; 30% as Moderate Income; and, 10% as Above Moderate Income.

HCD may consider permits issued for housing units between July 2022, and December 2022, toward the Cycle 6 RHNA target, therefore Town staff distributed the 2022 permits issued for ADUs using the ABAG Affordability of ADUs distribution. Of the fifteen (15) ADUs permitted in 2022, and pursuant to the ADU income distribution formula outlined in the ABAG Study (i.e., 30% Extremely Low and Very Low, 30% Low, 30% Moderate, and 10% Above Moderate), four (4) ADUs are considered Very Low-Income Units; four (4) as Low-Income Units; four (4) as Moderate-Income Units; and three (3) as Above ModerateIncome Units (Table 1). All eight (8) SFDs permitted in 2022 count as Above Moderate-Income units (Table 1).

The Town of Woodside has exceeded the RHNA targets for housing production across all income level categories during the current RHNA cycle (2015-2023).

The Town has exceeded the RHNA target number of units by 86 units, the majority of which (64 units) are Above Moderate units. However, HCD does not allow these additional units to be carried over to the next Housing Element cycle. Although there were not significant penalties for local jurisdictions that did not meet Housing Element Cycle 5 RHNA targets, HCD has strengthened its enforcement division and increased penalties for jurisdictions that do not meet their Housing Element Cycle 6 RHNA targets given the ongoing affordable housing inequality in the State.

Table 1
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for 2015-2023
Very Low
Income
Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Total
Units
ABAG Target
Projections
23* 13 15 11 62
2015 1 0 0 4 5
2016 5 1 1 8 15
2017 6 1 1 5 13
2018 11 2 1 7 21
2019 11 2 2 12 27
2020 0 7 2 8 17
2021 6 3 9 9 27
2022** 4 4 4 11 23
Total Units to
Date
44 20 20 64 148
Item 4 Page 2 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Remaining
ABAG Target
Projections
0 0 0 0 0
No. of Units
Over Target
21 7 5 53 86
* The Regional Housing Needs Allocation assumes 11 of these units are Extremely Low-Income units and 12 of the units are Very Low Income (all contained within the ‘Very Low Income’ category above). ** ADU affordability distribution is based on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Affordability of ADUs Study, dated September 8, 2021.

CONCLUSION
Acceptance and transmittal of the attached Annual Progress Report will satisfy the State statutory requirement for the 2022 annual reporting on the Town’s Cycle 5 Housing Element.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Table B from the Annual Progress Report, Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress

2. Complete Annual Progress Report on Housing Element Implementation is available at https://bit.ly/3XY08Rx1 (online)
1These are State forms, and some pages are more legible in electronic form.

Item 4 Page 3 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Jurisdiction Woodside ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
1 Projection Period 3 4
RHNA Allocation by
Income Level 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Units to Date (all years) Total Remaining
RHNA by Income
Level
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - 1 5 6 11 11 - 6 4 -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - 1 1 2 2 7 3 4 -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - 1 1 1 2 2 9 4 -
Above Moderate 11 - 4 8 5 7 12 8 9 11 - 64 -
62 - 5 15 13 21 27 17 27 23 - 148 -
5 6 7
Extremely low-Income
Need 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Units to Date Total Units
Remaining
12 - - - - 10 - 3 2 - 15 -
-
Please note: For the last year of the 5th cycle, Table B will only include units that were permitted during the portion of the year that was in the 5th cycle. For the first year of the 6th cycle, Table B will only include units that were permitted since the start of the planning period. Projection Period units are in a separate column.

Total RHNA
Total Units
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Extremely Low-Income Units*
Note: units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income RHNA progress and must be reported as very low-income units in section 7 of Table A2. They must also be reported in the extremely low-income category (section 13) in Table A2 to be counted as progress toward meeting the extremely low-income housing need determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1). *Extremely low-income houisng need determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1). Value in Section 5 is default value, assumed to be half of the very low-income RHNA. May be overwritten.

Progress toward extremely low-income housing need, as determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1).

Please note: The APR form can only display data for one planning period. To view progress for a different planning period, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at [email protected].
-
44 This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs.
20 Moderate
23 13
15 Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here 20 2
Table B
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress
Permitted Units Issued by Affordability
-
Item 4 Page 4 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Jurisidiction Name
Reporting Calendar Year
First Name
Last Name
Title Click here to download APR Instructions
Email
Phone
Street Address
City
Zipcode
1_23_23
Optional: Click here to import last year's data. This is best used when the workbook is new and empty. You will be prompted to pick an old workbook to import from. Project and program data will be copied exactly how it was entered in last year's form and must be updated. If a project is no longer has any reportable activity, you may delete the project by selecting a cell in the row and typing ctrl + d.

P.O. Box 620005
Town of Woodside
94062
Please Start Here
General Information
2022
Woodside
Contact Information
Sage
Schaan
Planning Director
[email protected]
6505303432
Mailing Address
Annual Progress Report January 2020
Optional: This runs a macro which checks to ensure all required fields are filled out. The macro will create two files saved in the same directory this APR file is saved in. One file will be a copy of the APR with highlighted cells which require information. The other file will be list of the problematic cells, along with a description of the nature of the error.

Optional: Save before running. This copies data on Table A2, and creates another workbook with the table split across 4 tabs, each of which can fit onto a single page for easier printing. Running this macro will remove the comments on the column headers, which contain the instructions. Do not save the APR file after running in order to preserve comments once it is reopened.

Optional: This macro identifies dates entered that occurred outside of the reporting year. RHNA credit is only given for building permits issued during the reporting year.

Link to the online system: https://apr.hcd.ca.gov/APR/login.do Submittal Instructions
Please save your file as Jurisdictionname2022 (no spaces). Example: the city of San Luis Obispo would save their file as SanLuisObispo2022 Housing Element Annual Progress Reports (APRs) forms and tables must be submitted to HCD and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) on or before April 1 of each year for the prior calendar year; submit separate reports directly to both HCD and OPR pursuant to Government Code section 65400. There are two options for submitting APRs:

1. Online Annual Progress Reporting System - Please see the link to the online system to the left. This allows you to upload the completed APR form into directly into HCD’s database limiting the risk of errors. If you would like to use the online system, email [email protected] and HCD will send you the login information for your jurisdiction. Please note: Using the online system only provides the information to HCD. The APR must still be submitted to OPR. Their email address is [email protected].

2. Email - If you prefer to submit via email, you can complete the excel Annual Progress Report forms and submit to HCD at [email protected] and to OPR at [email protected]. Please send the Excel workbook, not a scanned or PDF copy of the tables.

Jurisdiction Woodside ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Date
Application
Submitted
Total
Approved
Units by
Project
Total
Disapproved
Units by
Project
Streamlining
2 3 4 6 7 8 9
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Date
Application
Submitted+
(see
instructions)
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Total PROPOSED
Units by Project
Total

APPROVED
Units by project
Total

DISAPPROVED
Units by Project
Was APPLICATION

SUBMITTED
Pursuant to GC
65913.4(b)?
(SB 35
Streamlining)
Ddi the housing
development
application seek
incentives or
concessions
pursuant to
Government Code
section 65915?
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 2 0 2 0 2 6 12 0 0 0 75020100 10 Still Creek RD ASRB2022-0001 SFD O 1/14/2022 1 1 No No
75020100 10 Still Creek RD ASRB2022-0001 ADU R 1/14/2022 1 1 No No 75020100 10 Still Creek RD ASRB2022-0001 ADU R 1/14/2022 1 1 No No 72052090 175 Josselyn LN ASRB2022-0025 SFD O 8/30/2022 1 1 No No 72052090 175 Josselyn LN ASRB2022-0025 ADU R 8/30/2022 1 1 No No 72052090 175 Josselyn LN ASRB2022-0025 ADU R 8/30/2022 1 1 No No 73044300 152 Alta Mesa RD ASRB2022-0031 SFD O 10/24/2022 1 1 No No 73044300 152 Alta Mesa RD ASRB2022-0031 ADU R 10/24/2022 1 1 No No 69150060 125 Sheridan WY ASRB2022-0033 SFD O 11/4/2022 1 1 No No 69150060 125 Sheridan WY ASRB2022-0033 ADU R 11/4/2022 1 1 No No 69041200 145 Northridge LN ASRB2022-0037 SFD O 12/5/2022 1 1 No No 69041200 145 Northridge LN ASRB2022-0037 ADU R 12/5/2022 1 1 No No 69259450 2155 Greenways
Dr. ASRB2021-0006 SFD O 2/11/2021 1 1 No No
69259450 2155 Greenways
Dr.

ASRB2021-0006 ADU R 2/11/2021 1 1 No No
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Table A
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
1 5
Project Identifier Unit Types Proposed Units - Affordability by Household Incomes Density Bo Applica
10 Housing Development Applications Submitted
Jurisdiction Woodside ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Table A2
Streamlining Infill
Housing without Financial
Assistance or Deed
Restrictions
Term of Affordability
or Deed Restriction Notes
2 3 5 6 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Entitlement
Date Approved # of Units issued
Entitlements
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Building Permits
Date Issued
# of Units Issued
Building Permits
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Certificates of
Occupancy or other
forms of readiness
(see instructions)
Date Issued
# of Units
issued
Certificates of
Occupancy or
other forms of
readiness
How many of
the units were
Extremely Low
Income?+
Was Project
APPROVED using
GC 65913.4(b)?
(SB 35
Streamlining)
Y/N
Infill Units?
Y/N+
Assistance Programs
for Each Development
(may select multiple -
see instructions)
Deed Restriction
Type
(may select
multiple - see
instructions)
For units affordable without
financial assistance or deed
restrictions, explain how the
locality determined the units
were affordable
(see instructions)
Term of Affordability or
Deed Restriction
(years) (if affordable in
perpetuity enter 1000)+
Number of
Demolished/De
stroyed Units
Demolished or
Destroyed Units
Demolished/D
estroyed Units
Owner or
Renter
Total Density Bonus Applied
to the Project (Percentage
Increase in Total Allowable
Units or Total Maximum
Allowable Residential Gross
Floor Area)
Number of Other
Incentives,
Concessions, Waivers,
or Other Modifications
Given to the Project
(Excluding Parking
Waivers or Parking
Reductions)
List the incentives,
concessions,
waivers, and
modifications
(Excluding Parking
Waivers or Parking
Modifications)
Did the project receive a
reduction or waiver of
parking standards? (Y/N)
Notes+
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 1 0 1 0 1 10 13 0 4 0 4 0 4 11 23 0 3 0 3 0 3 9 18 0 0 18 0 0 0 0
72370200 180 Fox Hollow
Road ASRB2021-0029 SFD O 1 1/27/2022 1 0 0 N 1 Demolished O 73041400
73041480
221 Highland
Terrace
ASRB2022-0006 SFD O 1 7/13/2022 1 0 0 N
73041400
73041480
221 Highland
Terrace
ASRB2022-0006 ADU R 1 7/13/2022 1 0 0 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/21
73062070 111 Hillside Drive ASRB2022-0008 SFD O 1 12/5/2022 1 0 0 N 1 Demolished O 73062070 111 Hillside Drive ASRB2022-0008 ADU R 1 12/5/2022 1 0 0 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/21
73101270 111 La Questa
Way ASRB2022-0011 SFD O 1 11/14/2022 1 0 0 N 1 Demolished O 73101270 111 La Questa
Way ASRB2022-0011 ADU R 1 11/14/2022 1 0 0 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/21 72380020 72380070 3902 Sand Hill
Road ASRB2022-0017 SFD O 1 8/5/2022 1 0 0 N
72380020 72380070 3902 Sand Hill
Road ASRB2022-0017 ADU R 1 8/5/2022 1 0 0 N
72112050 310 Kings
Mountain Road ASRB2022-0018 SFD O 1 12/29/2022 1 0 0 N 1 Demolished O 72112050 310 Kings
Mountain Road ASRB2022-0018 ADU R 1 12/29/2022 1 0 0 N
73032160 132 Alta Vista
Road ASRB2022-0026 SFD O 1 11/9/2022 1 0 0 N 1 Demolished O 73032160 132 Alta Vista
Road ASRB2022-0026 ADU R 1 11/9/2022 1 0 0 N
0 0 0
73035080 255 Glenwood
Avenue BLDG2020-0324 ADU R 0 1 6/13/2022 1 0 0 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/21 76310030 195 Farm Road BLDG2021-0466 ADU R 0 1 3/17/2022 1 0 0 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/21
73082430 1589 Our Hill Lane BLDG2021-0573 ADU R 0 1 4/28/2022 1 0 0 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/21
72141040 3575 Tripp Road BLDG2021-0218 ADU R 0 1 2/10/2022 1 0 0 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/22
73132240 408 Eleanor Drive BLDG2021-0292 ADU R 0 1 4/19/2022 1 0 0 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/23
75293170 310 Family Farm
Road BLDG2021-0308 ADU R 0 1 3/14/2022 1 0 0 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/24 76310030 195 Farm Road BLDG2021-0465 ADU R 0 1 3/17/2022 1 0 0 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/25
68301071 4249 Jefferson
Avenue BLDG2021-0538 ADU R 0 1 5/20/2022 1 0 0 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/26 73082430 1589 Our Hill Lane BLDG2021-0574 ADU R 0 1 4/28/2022 1 0 0 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/27
73050250 131 Bardet Road BLDG2019-0599 ADU R 0 1 11/22/2022 1 0 0 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/28
69041030 235 Harcross
Road BLDG2020-0531 ADU R 0 1 11/3/2022 1 0 0 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/29 72201050 3985 Woodside
Road BLDG2021-0444 ADU R 0 1 9/1/2022 1 0 0 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/30 69250540 2160 Greenways
Drive BLDG2021-0523 ADU R 0 1 9/1/2022 1 0 0 N
72162080 3110 Woodside
Road BLDG2022-0100 ADU R 0 1 9/15/2022 1 0 0 N
72221040 235 Winding Way BLDG2022-0171 ADU R 0 1 9/22/2022 1 0 0 N 0 0 0
72052200 165 Josselyn Lane BLDG2021-0226 SFD O 0 1 2/10/2022 1 0 0 N 1 Demolished O 76310030 195 Farm Road BLDG2021-0463 SFD O 0 1 3/17/2022 1 0 0 N 1 Demolished O 72151450 148 Kings
Mountain Road BLDG2021-0481 SFD O 0 1 6/22/2022 1 0 0 N 68301071 4249 Jefferson
Avenue BLDG2022-0137 SFD O 0 1 5/20/2022 1 0 0 N
69041030 235 Harcross
Road BLDG2020-0530 SFD O 0 1 11/3/2022 1 0 0 N 1 Demolished O 69032340 150 Wildwood
Way BLDG2021-0191 SFD O 0 1 10/4/2022 1 0 0 N 1 Demolished O 69250540 2160 Greenways
Drive BLDG2021-0522 SFD O 0 1 9/1/2022 1 0 0 N
75293170 310 Family Farm
Road BLDG2022-0137 SFD O 0 1 10/4/2022 1 0 0 N 1 Demolished O 0 0 0
72191220 215 Mountain
Wood Lane BLDG2017-0139 ADU R 0 0 1 4/19/2022 1 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/30 75220020 905 Espinosa
Road BLDG2017-0200 ADU R 0 0 1 5/31/2022 1 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/31 72141050 3577 Tripp Road BLDG2017-0417 ADU R 0 0 1 6/7/2022 1 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/32
68301100 988 Godetia Drive BLDG2013-0144 ADU R
0 0 1 6/29/2022 1 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs
Study - 9/8/33
This ADU was
permitted when HCD
counted units by
finaled date, not permit
issued date; therefore,
this unit has never
been counted toward
any RHNA cycle.
73112110 151 Mountain
Home Road BLDG2019-0100 ADU R 0 0 1 8/29/2022 1 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/34 1 Demolished R 75294060 1460 Portola Road BLDG2019-0109 ADU R 0 0 1 10/24/2022 1 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/35
72201010 3793 Woodside
Road BLDG2019-0305 ADU R 0 0 1 5/23/2022 1 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/36 72052260 Pending 331 Greer Road BLDG2020-0173 ADU R 0 0 1 5/23/2022 1 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/37
69242050 2165 Ward Way BLDG2021-0015 ADU R 0 0 1 12/5/2022 1 N ABAG - Affordability of ADUs Study - 9/8/38
72162420 50 Propect Street BLDG2021-0170 ADU R 0 0 1 9/28/2022 1 N 72091120 3450 Tripp Road BLDG2018-0499 SFD O 0 0 1 3/30/2022 1 N 1 Demolished O 72074330 90 Roan Place BLDG2017-0113 SFD O 0 0 1 5/17/2022 1 N 72141050 3577 Tripp Road BLDG2017-0416 SFD O 0 0 1 6/7/2022 1 N 1 Demolished O 73112110 151 Mountain
Home Road BLDG2019-0099 SFD O 0 0 1 8/29/2022 1 N 1 Demolished O 72211670 970 Mountain
Home Road BLDG2019-0112 SFD O 0 0 1 7/11/2022 1 N 1 Demolished O 72201010 3793 Woodside
Road BLDG2019-0304 SFD O 0 0 1 10/4/2022 1 N 1 Demolished O 69044130 122 Maybury
Place BLDG2019-0366 SFD O 0 0 1 10/24/2022 1 N 1 Demolished O 69041110 1660 Fernside
Street BLDG2019-0601 SFD O 0 0 1 3/25/2022 1 N 1 Demolished O 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Density Bonus
1 Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement Affordability by Household Incomes - Building Permits Affordability by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy 4 7 10
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Housing with Financial Assistance
and/or Deed Restrictions Project Identifier Demolished/Destroyed Units Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units Jurisdiction Woodside ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
1 Projection Period 3 4
RHNA Allocation by
Income Level 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Units to Date (all years) Total Remaining
RHNA by Income
Level
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - 1 5 6 11 11 - 6 4 -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - 1 1 2 2 7 3 4 -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - 1 1 1 2 2 9 4 -
Above Moderate 11 - 4 8 5 7 12 8 9 11 - 64 -
62 - 5 15 13 21 27 17 27 23 - 148 -
5 6 7
Extremely low-Income
Need 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Units to Date Total Units
Remaining
12 - - - - 10 - 3 2 - 15 -
Please note: The APR form can only display data for one planning period. To view progress for a different planning period, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at [email protected].
-
44 This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs.
20 Moderate
23 13
15 Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here 20 2
Table B
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress
Permitted Units Issued by Affordability
-
-
Please note: For the last year of the 5th cycle, Table B will only include units that were permitted during the portion of the year that was in the 5th cycle. For the first year of the 6th cycle, Table B will only include units that were permitted since the start of the planning period. Projection Period units are in a separate column.

Total RHNA
Total Units
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Extremely Low-Income Units*
Note: units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income RHNA progress and must be reported as very low-income units in section 7 of Table A2. They must also be reported in the extremely low-income category (section 13) in Table A2 to be counted as progress toward meeting the extremely low-income housing need determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1). *Extremely low-income houisng need determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1). Value in Section 5 is default value, assumed to be half of the very low-income RHNA. May be overwritten.

Progress toward extremely low-income housing need, as determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1).

Jurisdiction Woodside ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Date of Rezone Rezone Type
2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11
APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Date of Rezone Very Low-Income Low-Income Moderate-Income Above ModerateIncome Rezone Type Parcel Size
(Acres)
General Plan
Designation Zoning Minimum
Density Allowed
Maximum
Density Allowed
Realistic
Capacity Vacant/Nonvacant Description of Existing Uses
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
3 8
Project Identifier RHNA Shortfall by Household Income Category Sites Description 1 Sites Identified or Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need and No Net-Loss Law Table C
Jurisdiction Woodside
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
1 2 3 4
Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status of Program Implementation H1.1(a) Accessory
Dwelling Units Survey
Utilize the Town's voluntary survey form
related to accessory dwelling units
(ADUs), formerly referred to as
accessory living quarters (ALQs), on an
ongoing basis. The survey is provided
to applicants of new accessory dwelling
units requesting information on the
proposed occupancy and rental costs of
the units. This information will assist
the Town in tracking the affordability of
units and/or their use at no cost for
family members or as part of work
agreements.

Ongoing The Town provides the survey to all applicants constructing accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The surveys are on-file in the Planning Department at Town Hall.

H1.1(b) Rental Availability
Information
Request the voluntary submittal of
rental availability information and
priority consideration to special housing
needs groups.

Ongoing The Town makes housing resources available on its website on an ongoing basis, but does not have a specific role in advocating for special housing needs groups.

Housing Programs Progress Report
Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.

Table D
Program Implementation Status pursuant to GC Section 65583

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
H1.1(c) Streamline ASRB
Review
Streamline the ASRB review of
accessory dwelling units. Consider and
evaluate using a single meeting review
process for ADUs. Utilize on an ongoing
basis the handout that advises
applicants of the process requirements
for accessory dwelling units.

Amended Dec. 2015 &
Ongoing
The Town amended the Municipal Code on December 8, 2015, to streamline the review of certain residential development. All ADUs, which may be up to 1,500 square feet, and buildings less than or equal to 1,000 square feet within Scenic Corridors and the Western Hills, are reviewed within a single-meeting Architectural and Site Review Administrator (ASRA) process, instead of two meetings (Conceptual and Formal) before the Architectural and Site Review Board (ASRB) (WMC Sections 153.910-153.918. On March 28, 2017, the Town amended the Woodside Municipal Code (WMC) to streamline the approval process for ADUs, to remove barriers to their construction, and to bring the WMC into compliance with recently enacted State legislation that aims to expand the capacity of jurisdictions to provide more affordable housing units in the State of California (Ordinance No. 2017-585). In September 2017, the Town Council heard the Planning Commission recommendation and directed staff to study the matter further. On March 27, 2018, the Town approved code amendments that clarify the allowable development of ADUs above existing garages and within barns (Ordinance 2018-593). In 2019, the Town further streamlined design review by eliminating ASRA review of smaller projects in favor of planning staff review (PC Resolution No. 2019-019). Review of ADUs is a ministerial approval with staff, unless another planning entitlement is required (ref. WMC Section 153.107, Table A-3, and Section 153.912). Effective January 1, 2020, an 800 sf ADU, maintaining side and rear setbacks of 4 feet, is permitted by-right on single-family residential parcels in California.

H1.1(d) Rental Unit
Incentive Program
Develop and establish incentive
programs to encourage the construction
of rental units for households meeting
affordability criteria set by the State,
such as the reduction of development
standards, easing size restrictions,
reduction of permitting fees, allowing
increase in square footage for the main
residence when constructing a deed
restricted accessory dwelling units
(deed restricted over a set period of time
to ensure its affordability during this
period), etc.

Ongoing
The Town encourages construction of ADUs. A maximum of two ADUs, including ADUs in barns, are permitted on a parcel. For Parcels equal to or greater than 1.0 acre in size, but less than 1.5 acres in size, a maximum of one detached and one attached ADU is permitted. For Parcels less than 1.0 acre in size, no more than one ADU, whether attached or detached, is permitted. In the R-1 District, no more than one ADU is permitted, and detached ADUs may only be permitted if the Lot Area is at least 20,000 square feet (WMC 153.211).The Town amended the Municipal Code on December 8, 2015, to streamline the review of certain residential development.

All ADUs which may be up to 1,500 square feet, and buildings less than or equal to 1,000 square feet within Scenic Corridors and the Western Hills, are reviewed within a single-meeting Architectural and Site Review Administrator (ASRA) process, instead of two meetings before the Architectural and Site Review Board (ASRB) (WMC Sections 153.910-153.918).A previous restriction to one rental unit per parcel where two ADUs are allowed was removed as part of the code change related to bringing ADU requirements into compliance with State law (Ordinance No. 2017-585). In 2019, the Town further streamlined design review by eliminating ASRA review of smaller projects in favor of planning staff review (PC Resolution No. 2019-019). Review of ADUs is a ministerial action in accordance with State law.

H1.1(e) Affordability
Incentives
Annually evaluate the affordability and
amend incentives or regulatory
concessions as necessary to ensure
second units can accommodate the
Town’s housing needs for lower and
moderate-income households. Consider
the expansion of Town ordinances
which permit affordable rental units.

Ongoing
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are being constructed in Woodside at a rate of approximately 10.85 per year, 95% of which are Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income units. This rate is more than double the target of 5.3 ADUs per year specified in the Housing Element Update (2015-2023) (Table H9) to meet this RHNA cycle. If the number of units developed slows, the Town will consider incentives to ensure the Town's housing needs for lower and moderate-income households continue to be met. (1) On March 28, 2017, the Town adopted Ordinance No. 2017- 585, to bring the Woodside Municipal Code into compliance with legislation enacted by the State designed to streamline the approval process for ADUs; remove barriers to their construction; and expand the capacity of jurisdictions to provide more affordable housing units in the State of California (WMC Section 153.211). (2) To encourage a small ADU type which can be readily created from a converted portion of an existing residence, streamline the approval process for Junior ADUs, remove barriers to their construction, and provide more affordable housing units, the Town added provisions for Efficiency Accessory Dwelling Units (EADUs) (Resolution No. 2018-025). The Town Council, based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission (PC Resolution 2020-001), amended requirements for ADUs, including relaxed setback and parking requirements, minimum ADU size by right, and a shorter timeline for approval.

These changes bring the Town's ADU regulations into compliance with new State laws that became effective January 1, 2020 (Ordinance No. 2020-610). The Town continues to wait for HCD's comments on the local ADU Ordinance that was submitted to HCD in 2017.

H1.1(f) Affordability
Outreach
Conduct outreach efforts throughout the
community to promote the units by
sending announcements to
organizations and hosting meetings on
an annual basis, and posting
information on Town’s website, etc.

Ongoing The Town maintains information about housing resources on its website (https://www.woodsidetown.org/planning/housing-resources).

H1.1(g) Affordable Rental
Ordinance
Discuss how the Town will consider
expansion of ordinances to permit
affordable rental units.

Ongoing See (e) above.

H1.1(h) Sewer for
Accessory Dwelling Units
Coordinate with sewer providers to
provide priority service to accessory
dwelling units.

Ongoing
Only approximately 40% of Town properties are served by sewer, and the area's physical constraints and treatment plant limitations render the construction of new public sewage systems impractical. Therefore, the majority of housing units must be served by on-site sewage disposal systems (i.e., septic tank/drain field systems). The Town of Woodside has very limited sewer capacity. Existing Town sewer policy is to allocate the Town's limited remaining wastewater treatment and collection capacity to serve only sites with prior sewer assessments and accessible areas with failing septic systems, especially in the north Cañada Road area (Housing Element (2015-2023), pp. 266-267) . In 2022, The Town Council approved Ordinance No. 2022-627 - Sewer Service Allocation Regulations, providing a process for lots contiguous to sewer districts to potentially connect to sewer.

H1.1(i) Amnesty Program
Consideration of a new Town Ordinance
to provide an amnesty program for the
legalization of accessory dwelling units
constructed without permits including a
reduction or elimination of penalty fees
for a specific period of time, not to be
less than one year.

Ongoing This measure will be considered with the upcoming Housing Element (2023 - 2030).

H1.1(j) Deed Restricted
Units
Consideration of a new Town Ordinance
to provide for the construction of new
deed restricted units to ensure
affordability over time.

Ongoing No action has been taken on this strategy.

H1.1(k) Additional Square
Footage
Consideration of a new Town Ordinance
to allow for additional square footage for
a main residence if at least one of the
accessory dwelling units is deed
restricted for affordability.

Ongoing This measure will be considered with the upcoming Housing Element (2023 - 2030).

H1.1(l)Prepare Brochure
on ADU's
Prepare a brochure to help to explain
opportunities for adding accessory
dwelling units to existing lots in all
residential zones. Clarify acreage
requirements and unit opportunities for
each zone.

Ongoing
In 2020, Town staff prepared an article for the quarterly Town newsletter, the Woodsider, describing new ADU requirements and the associated opportunities to construct ADUs. Information is also provided on the Town website. The Town has prepared an ADU handout and continues to update the handout and explore ways to explain the importance of ADU construction to meets the Town's RHNA projections. In fall of 2022, the Town held a series of ADU workshops with residents detailing the process to construct ADUs, to review specific property constraints, and answer property specific questions from residents related to ADU construction.

H1.2(a) Fabricated Units
Continue to allow mobile homes, factory
built and modular housing units,
consistent with State law.

Ongoing
Ongoing. The Town continues to allow mobile homes, factory built, and modular housing units, consistent with State law. For example, the Town recently reviewed a factory built modular housing unit manufactured by BluHomes in Vallejo for a residential parcel (https://www.bluhomes.com/). The California Code of Regulations (CCR) includes Building, Residential, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Energy, Green Standards and Reference Standards Codes. The 2022 update to the Building Efficiency Standards focuses on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions, and alterations to existing buildings. The most significant efficiency improvements to the residential Standards (most pertinent to Woodside) include improvements for attic and wall insulation, water heating, and lighting.

Effective January 1, 2023, all projects that are submitted for building, plumbing, electrical and mechanical permits are required to comply with the 2022 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24.

H1.2(b) Alternative
Construction Methods
Explore adopting procedures under
which alternative construction methods
(e.g. green building methods, such as
pre-manufactured construction
components and manufactured housing,
etc.) can be considered. The California
Building Code provides an option for
alternative construction, whereby an
applicant submits an alternate design to
the Building Official, the alternate
design standards and testing of the
proposed product, and the rationale for
the request. The Building Official may
approve an alternate construction
methodology. The Town has approved
alternate building materials in the past,
including rammed earth landscape
walls, green roofs, rainwater retention
and reuse systems, fuel cells, ground
source heat recovery systems, and
Styrofoam core truss wall systems. The
Town now encourages the use of green
building materials through
implementation of the Sustainability
Element, and the Residential Design
Guidelines RDG), both adopted in 2012.

The RDGs were revised and adopted in
February, 2016, but maintain all
language cited regarding sustainability.

Ongoing
The Town is implementing its Sustainability Element, Climate Action Plan (CAP), and Residential Design Guidelines (RDG), all of which advocate using and reusing a variety of materials. CAP Measure 3.1.2, related to Residential Green Building Requirements, establishes the Town's intention to continue to adopt all new State Residential Building Codes, and to encourage and incentivize achievement of CAL Green Tier 1 energy performance. The measure also continues to encourage the integration of sustainable design features and elements, such as passive heating and cooling, solar, green roofs, and geothermal systems.

The California Code of Regulations (CCR) includes Building, Residential, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Energy, Green Standards and Reference Standards Codes. The 2022 update to the Building Efficiency Standards focuses on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions, and alterations to existing buildings. The most significant efficiency improvements to the residential Standards (most pertinent to Woodside) include improvements for attic and wall insulation, water heating, and lighting. (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400- 2015-037-CMF.pdf).

On July 25, 2017, the Town adopted Ordinance No. 2017-588 to provide an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations, to achieve timely and cost effective installations (ref. WMC Chapter 150, Sections 150.50-150.55). Effective January 1, 2023, all projects submitted for building, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical permits are required to comply with the 2022 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24.

H1.3(a) Expand Public
Transit
Continue to request the extension of
public transit routes along major traffic
corridors.

Ongoing No changes have been made to transit routes along major traffic corridors.

H1.4(a) Administer MultiFamily Housing
Opportunities
The Woodside Town Council approved
the Multi-Family Overlay Zone at Cañada
College on January 27, 2015. The
College District will retain complete
control over its own property and
multifamily would only be allowed if the
College District decides to lease or sell
some parcels of land on the Cañada
College campus. The Town will work
with the College District to facilitate any
future desired multi-family housing.

Ongoing
No development proposals have been submitted for construction of multi-family housing within the Multi-Family Overlay Zone at Cañada College. The Town will continue to coordinate with Cañada College on administering opportunities for multi-family housing. Additional multi-family housing opportunities are included in Housing Element Cycle 6.

H1.4(b) Density Bonus
Develop a density bonus ordinance
consistent with State law to introduce
concessions and incentives for multifamily housing, such as reduction in parking, increased density, expedited
processing, reduced fees, etc.

Ongoing
The Town allows ADUs in all residential zones, which increases the allowable density. The Town will continue to work on developing its density bonus ordinance, consistent with State law.

H1.5(a) Amend Municipal
Code
Town staff will work with the Town
Council and/or their designees to
determine how the Municipal Code may
be amended to ease restrictions on the
construction of rental units and to
provide incentives for affordable deed
restricted units.

Ongoing
ADUs are being constructed at a rate which exceeds the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) target established for the Town to meet the need for affordable housing for RHNA Cycle 5.

H1.5(b) Prepare
Recommendations for
Town Council
After final ideas are prepared in the form
of proposed Municipal Code
amendments, staff will bring the
proposal to the Planning Commission
for their recommendation and to the
Town Council for their review and
approval.

Ongoing
See the discussion under (a) above. In 2021, the Town Council amended the WMC to provide internal code consistency concerning the manner in which building and plate height are measured, defined, and distributed, and to increase interior head height for ADUs above garages, which makes these ADUs more conventionally habitable, while minimizing massing impacts on neighbors (TC Ordinance No. 2021-616).

H2.1(a) Appy California
Building Code
The Town shall continue to apply the
California Building Code in order to
preserve the existing housing stock and
Historic structures.

Ongoing
Ongoing. The Town enforces the building code in issuing building permits and through code enforcement actions when complaints are received. The Town also implements the goals, policies, and strategies of the Historic Preservation Element within the General Plan. As indicated in the Residential Design Guidelines, historic structures contribute to the community fabric. Preservation or adaptive reuse of existing or historic structures is preferred over demolition (ref. RDG, Section 3, (1) Setting and Architectural Style, (d)).

As of January 1, 2019, Building Permits are valid for a period of 12 months instead of 6, in accordance with AB 2913 (Wood). Applicants may also be granted 1-2 extensions in the timelines for their Building Permits to facilitate construction and completion of projects. Effective January 1, 2023, all projects that are submitted for building, plumbing, electrical and mechanical permits, are required to comply with the 2022 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24.

H2.1(b) Maintain and
Improve Housing
Maintain the character and quality of
existing housing which is in good
condition, and improve the character of
housing wherever substandard
structures are found.

Ongoing Ongoing
H2.1(c) Enforce Housing
Standards
The Town’s code enforcement staff and
building inspector will continue to follow
up on complaints regarding housing
conditions. Violations shall be brought
into conformance in a timely manner.

The emphasis shall be on maintaining
the existing housing stock. If
circumstances dictate (e.g., low income
households, or limited income seniors),
the property owner will be referred to
the County to determine if funds for
housing improvements are available.

Ongoing
Ongoing. The Town responds to complaints related to compliance and works with Town residents to address issues related to public health and safety. The Town maintains a list and related links to housing resources on its website. (https://www.woodsidetown.org/planning/housing-resources-including-adus).

Since 2016, the Town recognized that short-term vacation rentals are a commercial use not expressly allowed by the Zoning Code. Complaints regarding these rentals are handled by the Town's Code Enforcement Program.

H2.1(d) Sewage System
The Town shall continue to support the
provision of a sewage system to those
areas experiencing waste disposal
problems and will encourage sanitary
service districts to prioritize service
improvements for designated potential
affordable housing sites, if they become
available.

Ongoing
Existing Town sewer policy is to allocate the Town's limited remaining wastewater treatment and collection capacity to serve only sites with prior sewer assessments and accessible properties with failing septic systems, especially in the north Cañada Road area (Housing Element (2015-2023), pp. 266-267). (https://www.woodsidetown.org/planning/housing-resources-including-adus). The Town is in the process of updating maps of the sewer districts, the parcels connected to sewer, and the availability of sewer connections for parcels contiguous to existing sewer districts as part of the Housing Element Update process.

H2.2(a) Continue Home
Rehabilitation
The Town shall continue to encourage
and facilitate the rehabilitation and/or
expansion of existing housing units.

Ongoing
As indicated in (b), under Policy H2.1, above, the Town anticipates that a total of 718 units, or approximately 90 per year, will be upgraded between 2015 and 2023 (Housing Element Update, (2015-2023), Table H10).
(https://www.woodsidetown.org/planning/housing-resources-including-adus).

H2.2(b) Exceptions and
Variances
Continue to provide for setback
exceptions and variances to recognize
limitations on existing structures to
allow remodeling or small additions
rather than demolition and construction
of new structures.

Code Amended
In 2013
&
Ongoing
The Town processes building permits for additions and remodels on an ongoing basis, and grants variances and exceptions to encourage rehabilitation of existing units over demolition. The Town maintains information on the County's Rehabilitation Loan Program at Town Hall and on the Town website. For this purpose, the Town approved 61 variances between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022; of these variances, 22 related to setbacks; 5 related to height requirements; 6 related to development on slopes > 35% slopes; 3 related to paved area; 2 related to increasing the footprint and/or plate height of a nonconforming structure; 1 related to total floor area; 1 related to building coverage; and 1 related to parking requirements. Also for this purpose, fifteen (15) setback exceptions and one (1) height exception were granted during this same time period (Town records maintained in the Trakit database). In 2013, WMC Chapter 153 was revised to include a process to allow minor additions to main residences with nonconforming floor area. Many parcels and homes in Town are nonconforming. This amendment allowed for increased flexibility with remodeling which allows for the improvement and retention of existing housing stock. On December 12, 2017, the Town Council conducted a Study Session to review those sections of Chapter 151, Site Development, and Chapter 153, Zoning, of the Woodside Municipal Code, which address nonconforming lots, structures, improvements, and uses; and provided general direction on a desired scope of study by the Planning Commission. On February 7, 2018, the Planning Commission determined that the conversion of a nonconforming main residence to another residential use does not require a Change of Use (PC Resolution No. 2018-004).

H2.2(c) Utilize Town and
County Rehabilitation
Programs
Encourage the private sector to
rehabilitate and construct new housing
through the Town's policies and
programs, and inform low and moderate
income residents about the County's
Rehabilitation Loan Program.

Ongoing Ongoing. Housing resources are maintained on the Town's website. (https://www.woodsidetown.org/planning/housing-resources-including-adus) H2.3(a) Construct to
Building Code
New housing shall conform with
building codes. Ongoing
Ongoing. All housing is required to conform to the State Building Codes and obtain a building permit prior to construction or renovation.

The California Code of Regulations (CCR) includes Building, Residential, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Energy, Green Standards and Reference Standards Codes. The 2022 update to the Building Efficiency Standards focuses on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions, and alterations to existing buildings. The most significant efficiency improvements to the residential Standards (most pertinent to Woodside) include improvements for attic and wall insulation, water heating, and lighting (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf). Effective January 1, 2023, all projects that are submitted for plumbing electrical and mechanical, are required to comply with the 2022 California Code of Regulations, Title 24.

H2.3(b) Limit House Sizes
Continue to maintain house size
limitations in all zones to encourage the
retention of existing smaller homes
where possible, especially in the R-1
zone.

Ongoing
Maximum allowable size of the main residence in the Town's residential zones is included in Section 153.206, Table E – Floor Area Requirements. In the R-1 zone, the maximum residence size is 10% of the lot area, plus 1,000 square feet, up to a maximum of 3,000 square feet (subject to Total Floor Area (TFA) limits). In the SR zone, the maximum residence size is 4,000 square feet (subject to Total Floor Area (TFA) limits). In the RR and SCP zones, the maximum floor area is 6,000 square feet (subject to Total Floor Area (TFA) limits). In the OS zones, the maximum floor area is 1,500 square feet. Total floor area for Legal Nonconforming lots (residential size adjusted to lot size) for the different zoning districts is included in WMC Section 153.206, Tables E-1 through E-4. In response to requests to allow for larger Maximum Residence Sizes in the Woodside Heights neighborhood, on January 24, 2017, the Town Council adopted an ordinance (Ordinance No. 2017- 583) to:
1) Create no increase in Total Floor Area allowed;
2) Allow incremental increases in allowable residence size proportional to lot size (with the point of departure for increase being the point at which total floor area and maximum residence size without an Exception are the same and terminating at the new maximum residence size cap); with approval of an Exception; 3) Increase the maximum allowable residence sizes with an Exception by zoning district by 10%; except in the R-1 zone, where the same increase is 5%. Thus, RR, SCP-5, SCP-7.5, and SCP-10 increased from a maximum residence size cap of 8,000 to 8,800 square feet; SR from 5,000 to 5,500 square feet; and R-1 from 4,000 to 4,200 square feet; and,
4) Create no increase to allowable basement grading, which was limited by the Town Council on May 10, 2016. The Town worked with residents of The Glens to formulate recommendations for special development standards to provide property owners with more flexibility and less entitlement process as they rebuild or renovate structures. These changes, including: 1) relaxed setbacks based on both form zoning and lot size; and, 2) progressively increasing maximum residence sizes for smaller lots with no increase to maximum allowable floor area, were approved January 28, 2020.

H2.4(a) Promote and
Enforce Energy Efficiency
and Sustainability
Continue to require compliance with
Title 24 of the State’s building
regulations. In addition, disseminate
energy conservation information
available from other agencies, such as
PG&E's solar subsidy program and
energy audits.

Ongoing
In its Climate Action Plan (CAP) Measure 3.1.2, the Town established its intention to continue to adopt all new State Residential Building Codes. It will also encourage and incentivize achievement of CAL Green Tier 1 energy performance, and the integration of sustainable design features and elements such as passive heating and cooling, solar, green roofs, and geothermal systems. It should be noted that while the Town encourages integration of sustainable design features, CAL Green Tier 1 energy performance is increasingly viewed as highly restrictive and beyond what most property owners are able to achieve.

The California Code of Regulations (CCR) includes Building, Residential, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Energy, Green Standards and Reference Standards Codes. The 2022 update to the Building Efficiency Standards focuses on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions, and alterations to existing buildings. The most significant efficiency improvements to the residential Standards (most pertinent to Woodside) include improvements for attic and wall insulation, water heating, and lighting (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf). Effective January 1, 2023, all projects that are submitted for building, plumbing, electrical and mechanical permits are required to comply with the 2022 California Code of Regulations (CCRs), Title 24.

H2.4(b) Building Design
and Materials
Continue to encourage the inclusion of
energy saving siting, features and
materials in the retrofit of existing units,
the construction of new units, and the
development of new subdivisions.

Ongoing
In CAP Measure 3.1.2, the Town indicates its intention to encourage the integration of sustainable design features and elements, such as passive heating and cooling, solar, green roofs, geothermal, as described in the Residential Design Guidelines, Building Design, Sustainability section; and the General Plan Sustainability Element. On July 25, 2017, the
Town adopted Ordinance No. 2017-588 to provide an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations, to achieve timely and cost effective installations. On September 11, 2018, the Town Council authorized the Town Manager to execute an agreement with Sage Renewables, Inc. to provide renewable energy consulting services for a feasibility study of a Town Solar Photovoltaic System and Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (Resolution 2018- 7251). In 2019, the Town Council executed an amendment with Sage Renewables, Inc. to provide Renewable Energy Consulting Services to further evaluate the feasibility of a solar photovoltaic system and electric vehicle charging stations for Town facilities (TC Resolution 2019-7289). On January 14, 2020, the Town Council considered a proposal to install roof-top solar at Town Hall and the library. The vote was 3-2, which was one vote shy of passing. On January 14, 2020, the Town Council also considered a bid to install electrical vehicle charging stations at Town Hall and the library. Due to the high cost of the one bid received, staff recommended that this bid not be accepted. On October 27, 2020, the Town Council directed staff to pursue an agreement with PowerFlex to install four Level 2 charging stations, including the charging units, load management controller, mounting assembly, 5 years of network software, warranty, and permit drawings (TC Resolution No. 2020-7374; as amended by TC Resolutions No. 2021-7407 and No. 2021-7420). The EV Chargers were installed during the summer of 2021.

H2.4(c) Sustainable
Services and Development
Continue to implement the Town s
Sustainability Element of the General
Plan. Staff anticipates that energy
conservation requirements will continue
to be enforced consistent with Title 24 of
the California Code of Regulations.

Conservation practices are also guided
by the provision of the Sustainability
Element and voluntary green building
provisions. The Town will also:

1. Continue to subsidize the plan review
and building inspection of roof-mounted
and ground-mounted solar panel
installations in order to encourage
energy saving features in retrofits.

2. Continue to encourage staff to attend
training in energy efficient building
techniques in order to assist applicants
in incorporating design energy efficient
new homes and remodel projects. The
Town attends the Build It Green Bay
Area Public Agency Council meetings
and San Mateo County Green Building
meetings regularly, and a member of the
planning staff is certified through the
Build It Green Certified Green Building
Professional training.

3. Continue to pool resources with
neighboring jurisdictions. The Town has
helped advertise Portola Valley’s green
speaker series in order to facilitate
homeowners’ education of energy
conservation techniques
Ongoing
In adopting its Climate Action Plan (CAP) on September 22, 2015, the Town indicated its intent to continue to adopt all new State Residential Building Codes; and continue to encourage the integration of sustainable design features and elements, such as passive heating and cooling, solar, green roofs, and geothermal systems, as described in both the Building Design section of the RDG and the Sustainability Element of the General Plan. As of January 1, 2023, all projects submitted for building, plumbing, electrical and mechanical permits are required to comply with the 2022 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24. The Code includes Building, Residential, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Energy, Green Standards and Reference Standards Codes. In adopting its Housing Element (2015-2023), the Town adopted Policy H2.4, "Promote sustainability including energy efficient housing, and related programs (a) through (e)" to implement the policy. The Town continues to subsidize the plan review and building inspection of roof-mounted and ground-mounted solar panel installations. The Town also encourages staff to attend training in energy efficient building techniques, and continues to pool resources with Portola Valley to facilitate homeowners' education of energy conservation techniques.

On July 25, 2017, the Town adopted Ordinance No. 2017-588 to provide an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations, to achieve timely and cost- effective installations.

On September 11, 2018, the Town Council authorized the Town Manager to execute an agreement with Sage Renewables, Inc. to provide renewable energy consulting services for a feasibility study of a Town Solar Photovoltaic System and Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (Resolution No. 2018-7251). On October 27, 2020, the Town Council directed staff to pursue an agreement with PowerFlex to install four Level 2 charging stations, including the charging units, load management controller, mounting assembly, 5 years of network software, warranty, and permit drawings (TC Resolution No. 2020-7374; as amended by TC Resolutions No. 2021-7407 and No. 2021-7420). The EV Chargers were installed during the summer of 2021.

H2.4(d) Update Design
Review
Continue to implement the requirements
of Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations and the provisions of the
Sustainability Element of the General
Plan and the Residential Design
Guidelines related to sustainability.

Periodic Updates are made
on an ongoing basis
Ongoing. The California Code of Regulations (CCR) includes Building, Residential, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Energy, Green Standards, and Referenced Standards Code. The 2022 update to the Building Efficiency Standards focused on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions, and alterations to existing buildings. The most significant efficiency improvements to the residential Standards (most pertinent to Woodside) include improvements for attic and wall insulations, water heating, and lighting. (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015- 037/CEC-400-2015-037-CMF.pdf)Effective January 1, 2023, all projects that are submitted for building, plumbing, electrical and mechanical permits are required to comply with the 2022 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24.

H2.4(e) Green Building
Incentives
Explore adopting green building
regulations and incentives. Ongoing
In Climate Action Plan (CAP) Measure 3.1.2, the Town establishes its intention to adopt all new State Residential Building Codes, and to encourage and incentivize achievement of CAL Green Tier 1 energy performance. It should be noted that while the Town encourages integration of sustainable design features, CAL Green Tier 1 energy performance is increasingly viewed as highly restrictive and beyond what most property owners have been able to achieve. As of January 1, 2023, all projects are required to comply with the 2022 California Code of Regulations (CCR). The Code includes Building, Residential, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Energy, Green Standards and Reference Standards Codes. The 2022 update to the Building Efficiency Standards focuses on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions, and alterations to existing buildings. The most significant efficiency improvements to the residential Standards (most pertinent to Woodside) include improvements for attic and wall insulation, water heating, and lighting
(http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf). On July 25, 2017, the Town adopted Ordinance No. 2017-588 to provide an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations, to achieve timely and cost effective installations. On September 11, 2018, the Town Council authorized the Town Manager to execute an agreement with Sage Renewables, Inc. to provide renewable energy consulting services for a feasibility study of a Town Solar Photovoltaic System and Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (TC Resolution No. 2018-7251). On October 27, 2020, the Town Council directed staff to pursue an agreement with PowerFlex to install four Level 2 charging stations, including the charging units, load management controller, mounting assembly, 5 years of network software, warranty, and permit drawings (TC Resolution No. 2020-7374; as amended by TC Resolutions No. 2021-7407 and No. 2021-7420). The EV Chargers were installed during the summer of 2021.

H3.1 (a) Maintain Local
Public Sector Employees
Develop a program to maintain a list of
local public-sector employees (e.g., fire,
sheriff, and Town employees), school
teachers and staff, care-giver, and
equestrian-related workers and
professionals (e.g., blacksmiths,
veterinarians) interested in rental of
affordable units, and assure that
interested landlords and those
personnel share information about
vacancies.

Ongoing The Town maintains a list of housing resources on its website. (https://www.woodsidetown.org/planning/housing-resources) H3.1(b) Employee Housing
Continue to inform that employee
housing for six or fewer persons is
treated as a single family structure and
residential use, subject to the same
restrictions as conventional single
family dwellings (California Health and
Safety Code, Section 17021.5).

Ongoing Ongoing.

H3.2 (a) Continue Disabled
Housing Programs and
Policies
Continue to enable mobility-impaired
persons to access their homes through
Town development standard exceptions
for accessibility modifications and other
available programs. Continue to
recommend that the County direct
CDBG funds to support its Housing
Accessibility for Disabled Persons
program at the Center for Independence
of the Disabled. The Town will direct
inquiries for house modifications for the
disabled to the County program. Public
information regarding the program is
available at Town Hall and publicized on
the Town’s web site.

Ongoing
The Town maintains information to support Housing Accessibility for Disabled Persons at the Center for Independence of the Disabled on its website (https://www.woodsidetown.org/planning/housing-resources) (http://www.cidsanmateo.org/).

H3.2(b) Amend Zoning
Ordinance to Expand
Exceptions for all
Disabilities
Establish language in the zoning
ordinance to allow for exceptions for
disabilities of all types, including
developmental disabilities, not limited to
physical disabilities. Work with the
Town Council to amend the Municipal
Code to contemplate and accommodate
all disabilities.

Completed in 2017
WMC Section 153.204 allows the Planning Director to grant limited exceptions to development standards for minor improvements to existing residences to accommodate access needs for disabled persons. On January 24, 2017, the Town adopted Ordinance No. 2017-582, which clarifies that the zoning ordinance allows exceptions for disabilities of all types, including developmental disabilities and/or physical disabilities.

H3.2(c) Outreach Program
Work with the Golden Gate Regional
Center (GGRC) and the Center for
Independence of individuals with
Disabilities (CID) to implement an
outreach program that informs families
within the Town of housing and services
available for persons with
developmental disabilities, including
housing-related training through
workshops for individuals and families.

Ongoing
The Town maintains a list of housing resources on its website:
(https://www.woodsidetown.org/planning/housing-resources), and includes links to organizations providing resources for individuals with disabilities:
(http://www.cidsanmateo.org/).

H3.2(d) Group Homes
Continue to inform that group homes
with six (6) or fewer persons are
permitted uses in all residential districts,
as required by State law.

Ongoing
WMC Section 153.005, defines a Residential Care Home as a dwelling unit or portion thereof, used and licensed by the State of California or the County of San Mateo, for the care of up to six persons including oversight occupancy or care for extended time periods, and including all uses defined in Sections 5115 and 6116 of the Cal. Welfare and Institutions Code, or successor legislation. Section 153.107, Table A-1, lists Residential Care Homes as 'Permitted Uses and Structures' in all residential districts, except the Multi-Family Residential District (MFRD) at Cañada College.

H3.2(e) Definition of Family
Amend the Municipal Code to change
the definition of family to be consistent
with State law (i.e., remove the reference
to occupants of a residential facility
serving six or fewer persons).

Completed in 2017
The definition of family was amended in Ordinance 2012-557, adopted on November 27, 2012. Subsequent to this amendment, HCD directed the Town to further define the definition of Family to remove the reference to occupants of a residential facility serving six or fewer persons. On January 24, 2017, the Town adopted Ordinance No. 2017-582 which removes ‘or the occupants of a residential facility serving six or fewer persons’ from the definition of Family (WMC Section 153.005).

H3.3(a) Senior Amenities
Continue to consider the possibility of
allowing residential projects, with
medical facilities and ground
transportation, for seniors.

Ongoing
The WMC does not yet specifically address residential projects with medical facilities and ground transportation for seniors. The Town is evaluating ways to create more opportunities for senior housing as part of its Housing Element Update for RHNA Cycle 6.

H3.3(b) Encourage ADUs
for Seniors
Facilitate the accommodation of senior
housing opportunities within the context
of the Town's single-family setting.

Encourage development of accessory
dwelling units (second units) to enable
seniors to live in Woodside in an
extended family situation or in a rental
unit.

Ongoing
The Town encourages the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) for seniors, other family members, and other members of the community. All singlefamily parcels, by right, may construct a single-family residence, a 500 square foot Junior ADU within the residence, and a 800 sf ADU. For parcels equal to or greater than 1.0 acre, but less than 1.5 acres in size, a maximum of one detached and one attached ADU is permitted. For parcels that are 1.5 acres in size or greater, a maximum of two ADUs, whether attached or detached are permitted (ref. WMC Section 153.211).

To encourage a small ADU type which can be readily created from a converted portion of an existing residence, streamline the approval process for Junior ADUs, remove barriers to their construction, and provide more affordable housing units, the Town added provisions for Efficiency Accessory Dwelling Units (EADUs)(PC Resolution No. 2018-025). The process of reviewing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) has been streamlined in accordance with State law; and is a ministerial approval with staff, unless another planning entitlement is required (ref. WMC Section 153.107, Table A-3, and Section 153.912). The Town also now uses the term "Junior ADUs" instead of "Efficiency ADUs" to be consistent with terminology used in State law (Ordinance No. 2020-610).

H3.3(c) Home Repair
Information
Provide information to the public about
local organizations which offer home
repair services for seniors, to make it
easier for seniors to remain in their
homes and to help maintain the housing
stock.

Ongoing The Town provides information on housing resources on its website (https://www.woodsidetown.org/planning/housing-resources).

H3.3(d) Property Tax
Postponement Program
In February 2009, the State Legislature
suspended the State Controller's Office
Property Tax Postponement Program.

Since that time, the Controller's Office
has been working with the Legislature to
restore the program or find alternative
ways to assist senior, blind and disabled
homeowners with their property tax. On
September 28, 2014, the Governor
signed AB 2231 which reinstates the
State Controller's Property Tax
Postponement Program. This program
will allow senior citizens and disabled
persons with an annual household
income of $35,500 or less to apply to
defer payment of property taxes on their
principal residence. Under this bill,
applications may be filed with the State
Controller beginning September 1, 2016
(California State Controller's Office).

Ongoing
The State of California Property Tax Postponement Program was reinstated, effective September 1, 2016. The program allows homeowners who are seniors, are blind, or have a disability, to defer current-year property taxes on their principal residence, if they meet certain criteria including 40 percent equity in the home and an annual household income of $35,000 or less. The Town provides a link to information on property tax postponement
(https://www.woodsidetown.org/planning/housing-resources-including-adus) (https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html).

H3.3(e) Reverse Annuity
Mortgages
Provide mechanisms to ensure that
homeowners can continue to live in their
home for as long as they want. The
Town will continue to encourage CDBG
funding to help support the County’s
Reverse Annuity Mortgages (Home
Equity Conversion) program, allowing
seniors to convert the equity in their
homes into regular monthly income,
without giving up their property. This
program provides seniors with
information about home equity
conversion options, helps with the
paper work, and provides financial
analysis and consultation. The Town will
maintain information regarding the
program at Town Hall, and occasionally
publicize its availability on the Town’s
website.

Ongoing
The Town provides a link to information on reverse annuity mortgages on its website (https://www.woodsidetown.org/planning/housing-resources-includingadus); (https://www.smcgov.org/housing/california-mortgage-relief-program); (http://calfha.com/fha-reverse-mortgage/).

H3.4(a) Cooperate with
Agencies Providing
Emergency Shelter
The Town shall cooperate with agencies
providing emergency shelter and
transitional housing for the homeless
and those in crisis. The Town will
prepare an analysis of parcels that could
potentially be used to accommodate the
Town's homeless population.

Ongoing
The most recent snapshot count of homeless persons within Woodside (2019), indicates the population continues to be 0. The count was not conducted in 2021 because of COVID-19. The Town coordinates with agencies providing housing services, including HIP Housing that focuses on home sharing. The Town permits emergency shelters and transitional houses in its Community Commercial (CC) District. These facilities may potentially be located on all 'CC' parcels. Specific parcels, however, have not yet been identified. With a local homeless population of 0 within Woodside, the Town has given priority to making financial contributions to regional programs such as the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) that are addressing the wider regional need for homeless services.

H3.4(b) Amend the
Municipal Code
Amend the Municipal Code to allow
Transitional and Supportive Housing in
all residential districts as a permitted
use. No additional regulations, other
than those normally required for singlefamily residences, shall apply to Transitional and Supportive Housing.

Transitional and supportive housing
aims to enable recently homeless
persons to move to permanent housing
as quickly as possible.

Ongoing
On November 27, 2012, the Town adopted Ordinance No. 2012-557 to permit emergency shelters and transitional houses in its Community Commercial (CC) District, as a permitted use. HCD directed the Town to further amend the Municipal Code to allow Transitional and Supportive Housing in all residential districts as a permitted use (although residential care homes for up to six people are allowed in all residential districts). On January 24, 2017, the Town updated WMC Section 153.107, Table A-1, to allow Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing in all residential districts (except in the Multi-Family Residential District (MFRD)) (Ordinance No. 2017-582).

The most recent snapshot count of homeless persons within Woodside (2019), indicates the population remains at 0. A total of 901 people are homeless in San Mateo County. The Town, therefore, continues to contribute to existing regional agencies providing homeless services and housing.

H4.1(a) Community
Development Block Grant
The Town shall continue to participate in
and support the use of Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
by the County Housing and Community
Development Program for its numerous
housing assistance programs. The Town
will continue to update Housing
information on the Town website to
advise owners and applicants of the
different programs and assistance
available through San Mateo County.

Ongoing and on an annual
basis
Ongoing. The Town continues to provide up-to-date information on housing resources on its website (https://www.woodsidetown.org/planning/housingresources-including-adus).

H4.1(b) Sub-Regional
Housing Program
Continue participation in sub-regional
housing programs. Woodside Town
Council member represents the Town on
the San Mateo County City/County
Association of Governments (C/CAG),
the countywide sub-regional body which
oversees the Housing Element Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
through a Policy Advisory Committee
(PAC). A member of the Town planning
staff participated in the San Mateo
County Sub-Regional Housing Needs
Allocation Process meetings. Through
this process the Town was able to
coordinate with the City of Redwood
City to provide multifamily affordable
housing at Cañada College (as
described in the section below).

Planning staff has also cooperated with
surrounding jurisdictions by attending
meetings and participating in the San
Mateo County 21 Elements Technical
Advisory Committee to pool local
resources on updating the Housing
Elements for each jurisdiction.

Ongoing and on an annual
basis
Ongoing. The Town will continue to work with the College District to facilitate any future desired housing. The Town also continues to collaborate with the consortium, 21 Elements, regarding housing element update issues.

H4.1(c) Work with other
Municipalities and
Agencies
The Town shall work with nearby
municipalities, the County, and nonprofit agencies to investigate the possibilities of undertaking joint efforts
to provide low and moderate income
housing. In 2008, the Town worked with
Redwood City and LAFCO to detach a
portion of land within Woodside that is
owned by Cañada College. That land
was then annexed into Redwood City in
order to facilitate the construction of a
60 unit affordable housing project for
faculty and staff. Construction of the 60-
unit development has now been
completed and provides affordable
housing for faculty and staff at Cañada
College.

Ongoing and on an annual
basis
The Town will continue to work with the College District and neighboring jurisdictions to facilitate future affordable housing.

H4.1(d) Work with Nearby
Communities and NonProfits
The Town shall continue to cooperate
with surrounding communities and nonprofit housing developers in filling the housing need goals established for the
communities by the Association of Bay
Area Governments.

Ongoing and on an annual
basis
The Town will continue to work with the College District and neighboring jurisdictions to facilitate future affordable housing.

H4.1(e) Work with Citizens
and Organizations
The Town shall encourage private
citizens and organizations, such as
churches and clubs, to undertake
projects related to housing and
transportation for persons with special
housing and transportation problems.

For example in 2005, the Town Council
approved the Town’s membership in the
Housing Endowment and Regional Trust
(HEART) of San Mateo County, a
cooperative regional approach to raising
funds to support the construction of
affordable housing within the County.

Ongoing and on an annual
basis
Ongoing. Between 2005 and 2020, the Town donated $25,211 to the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART). In 2021, the Town donated an additional $1,739, for a total during this period (2005-2021) of $26,950 (source: Town Hall records). The Town has also made donations to HIP Housing totaling $10,000 - $2,500 each year between 2018 and 2021. HIP Housing provides home sharing, selfsufficiency, and property development.

H4.1(f) Meet with Housing
Advocates
The Town will host a meeting with
special needs housing advocate
organizations to discuss opportunities
and available incentives to encourage
the development of housing for persons
with special needs.

Ongoing and on an annual
basis
The Town is part of a consortium of jurisdictions in San Mateo County called 21 Elements working together to update all of the Housing Elements in the County.

As part of this process, a series of "listening sessions" have been organized, including a session on November 15, 2021 with service providers, including but not limited to HIP Housing, LifeMoves, Samaritan House, Youth Leadership Institute, Ombudsman Services of SMC, and National Alliance on Mental Illness.

Service providers emphasized the need for affordable housing sites near transit or with access to government services, near parks and community/senior centers, within high walkability neighborhoods, and with adequate parking and good noise insulation.

H4.2(a) Enable Home
Sharing
Enable residents to remain in or to live
in Woodside in a shared housing
arrangement. Continue to support the
use of Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds by San Mateo
County to implement the Home Sharing
Program. This service matches people
needing housing and people owning a
home who desire additional income
and/or companionship. The Town will
also provide information on HIP
Housing's Home Sharing Program. The
Town will continue to make information
about Home Sharing programs available
at Town Hall and will publicize the effort
as part of the Housing Information that
is available on the Town's website.

Ongoing and on an annual
basis
The Town helps to address homeless issues on a regional basis by supporting CDBG funding of County programs that service the homeless and by providing occasional funding of the County's Homeless Shelter Fund. The Town contributed $10,000 towards the construction of a new homeless shelter during 2000-01. The Town also maintains resource information on programs such as HIP's Home Sharing Program on its website (https://www.woodsidetown.org/planning/housingresources-including-adus) (http://hiphousing.org/programs/home-sharingprogram/).

H4.3(a) Density Bonus
Ordinance
Work with the Town's Consultant and
the Town Council to refine the draft
Density Bonus Ordinance, as provided
by State law.

Winter 2015
The Town allows accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in all residential zones, which increases the allowable density. The Town will continue to work on developing its density bonus ordinance, consistent with State law.

H4.3(b) Affordability
Incentives
Explore other incentives to provide
affordable housing. Ongoing
During the RHNA Cycle 5, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) have been constructed in Woodside at a rate of approximately 10.85 per year, 95% of which are Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income units. This rate is more than double the target of 5.3 ADUs per year specified in the Housing Element Update (2015-2023) (Table H9) to meet this RHNA cycle. Town residents have been active in developing accessory dwelling units. The Town has met its affordable housing targets for RHNA Cycle 5.

The Town is working closely with property owners on opportunities for constructing more ADUs. The Town issued 19 permits for ADUs in 2021, and 15 permits for ADUs in 2022.

H4.4(a) Equal Opportunity
Housing Organizations
Promote equal housing opportunity by
continuing to support organizations
such as the Midpeninsula Citizens for
Fair Housing. Continue to make
information available at Town Hall, on
the Town's website, and at the library,
regarding the availability of fair housing
services, and refer any housing
discrimination complaints to that
agency.

Ongoing
The Town supports a variety of fair housing organizations including the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) and a broad range of organizations involved in the Housing Our People Effectively (HOPE) Plan. The Town also provides information on fair housing resources at Town Hall and on the Town's website (https://www.woodsidetown.org/planning/housing-resources-includingadus), and refers calls to fair housing agencies, such as the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, depending on the type of need (https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/Housing/).

H4.4(b) Referrals
The Town shall provide a referral service
to link those persons experiencing
discrimination in housing with public or
private groups who handle complaints
against discrimination.

Ongoing
The Town maintains a list of housing resources on its website, including a link to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. (https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/Housing/)
H5.1(a) Housing
Availability Information
Provide public information regarding the
construction of new affordable units
(accessory dwelling units) in Town and
the availability of County programs to
provide assistance to low and moderate
income households. The Town will
provide public information at Town Hall
regarding the process and incentives for
developing and preserving accessory
dwelling units (second units) for rental,
family quarters, or caretaker purposes.

The Town will also maintain information
regarding all of the County’s various
programs available to low and moderate
income Town residents, seniors, and the
disabled, as discussed elsewhere in this
chapter. The Town will regularly include
such housing information on the Town’s
website.

Ongoing
The Town supports a variety of affordable and fair housing organizations, and provides information on housing resources at Town Hall and on the Town's website (https://www.woodsidetown.org/planning/housing-resources-includingadus). The Town collects volunteer surveys on accessory dwelling units (ADUs); and, using its 'Trakit' permitting software, the Town maintains a database of ADUs and other housing resources. The Town Planning Department also maintains a binder with surveys submitted by property owners on ADUs.

H5.2(a) Housing Inventory
Database
Maintain an inventory of sites available
for housing development. Continue to
maintain the Town’s parcel database
with information about each parcel in
Town, available to the public at any time.

Continue to update the Town's map of
vacant land. Available land information
will be updated in each annual report
(see Housing Element Appendix D).

Ongoing
The Town uses Trakit, a shared database of all Town development and permitting information by parcel. The Town also maintains a list of vacant parcels in all of the residential zones that have the potential to be used as housing sites. (https://www.woodsidetown.org/planning/housing-resources-including-adus). The Town is in the process of updating the list of vacant parcels for the Housing Element Update process required for the RHNA Cycle 6, to identify those that can be served by sewer service and other utilities.

H5.3(a) Facilitate
The Town shall continue to provide
information and consultation to property
owners and private developers in order
to facilitate the construction of new
housing.

Ongoing
The Town works to review all residential construction in an efficient manner to facilitate the construction of new housing. The County keeps assessor parcel data up-to-date. The process of reviewing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) was streamlined in accordance with State law and is a ministerial approval with staff, unless another planning entitlement is required (ref. WMC Section 153.107, Table A3, and Section 153.912). An 800 square foot ADU can be constructed by-right on single-family residential lots, and may be constructed within 4 feet of the side and rear property lines. Town staff prepared an article for the quarterly Town newsletter, The Woodsider, describing new relaxed ADU development standards.

Information is also provided on the Town website. In Fall od 2022, the Town held ADU workshops with residents from each Town district to explain the process to obtain a permit for an ADU, and to obtain information from residents related to challenges they may have with constructing an ADU.

H5.3(b) Permit
Requirements
To continue to inform housing
construction permit applicants of all
application requirements at the earliest
stage.

Ongoing
As indicated under (a) above, the process of reviewing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) has been streamlined in accordance with State law; and is a ministerial approval with staff, unless another planning entitlement is required (ref. WMC Section 153.107, Table A-3, and Section 153.912). An 800 sf ADU can now be constructed by-right on single-family residential lots, and may be constructed within 4 feet of the side and rear property lines. Effective January 1, 2022, SB9 allows the ministerial approval of two units that are at least 800 sf on any singlefamily residential parcel that meets certain objective standards; and ministerial approval of the division of any single-family residential lot into two lots that meets certain objective standards. The Town approved an Urgency Ordinance and a regular Ordinance to bring the WMC into compliance with the recently enacted SB9 (TC Ordinance 2021-622 (urgency ordinance); TC Ordinance 2022-624; and amended by TC Ordinance 2022-625), and Objective Design Standards for SB9 units (TC Resolution 2021-7464).

H5.3(c) Review Permit
Process
To continue the review of administrative
and Planning Commission review
processes in order to minimize housing
development permit processing
difficulties.

Ongoing
As stated in (a and b) above, the process of reviewing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) has been streamlined in accordance with State law; and is a ministerial approval with staff, unless another planning entitlement is required (ref. WMC Section 153.107, Table A-3, and Section 153.912). An 800 square foot ADU can be constructed by-right on single-family residential lots, and may be constructed within 4 feet of the side and rear property lines.

H5.4(a) Disseminate
Information
The Town shall regularly provide
housing information to the public at
Town Hall and on the Town’s website.

Ongoing
The Town maintains information related to home sharing and other housing resources at Town Hall, and on the Town's website.
(https://www.woodsidetown.org/planning/housing-resources-including-adus).

H5.4(b) Annual Housing
Report
Provide an annual report to the State’s
Department of Housing and Community
Development. The Town must develop
an annual report to the State outlining
its progress in implementing the
provisions of the Housing Element. The
report will be completed and forwarded
to the State by April 1 of each year. The
annual report to the State’s Department
of Housing and Community
Development will include an internal
consistency review in order to ensure
maintenance of General Plan
consistency throughout the planning
period.

Ongoing The Town will be submitting its Annual Housing Report to the State's Department of Housing and Community Development on or before April 1st of each year.

H5.4(c) New Data
The Town staff shall incorporate current
Census and other data into the Housing
Element Annual Reports and Updates,
when available, and to revise and refine
the Element on the basis of such
information and citizen input.

Ongoing The Town incorporates new data and periodic updates in the Annual Reports, as information becomes available.

H5.4(d) Support Outside
Input
The Town shall support the efforts of
public and private organizations to bring
about more understanding of housing
issues and to devise solutions to
defined housing needs.

Ongoing
The Town of Woodside and other diverse stakeholders undertook an intensive community based planning process to develop a plan to end homelessness in San Mateo County. The HOPE Plan (Housing Our People Effectively) is the community's comprehensive policy and planning document related to homelessness and relating to emergency shelter, transitional and supportive housing. The Town has also been a member of the Heart of San Mateo County since July, 2005. Between 2005 and 2020, the Town donated $25,211 to the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART). In 2021, the Town donated an additional $1,739, for a total during this period (2005-2021) of $26,950. The Town also made donations to HIP Housing totaling $10,000 - $2,500 each year between 2018 and 2021. HIP Housing provides home-sharing, self-sufficiency, and property development. The Town also continues to participate in the 21 Elements Technical Advisory Committee to study provision of housing on a local and regional basis.

H5.4(e) Pre-Housing
Element Update
The Planning Commission shall explore
housing and related issues and report to
the Town Council with
recommendations 12 months prior to
each required Housing Element Update.

Ongoing
The Year 2022 is the eight year of the most recent Housing Element Cycle 5 (2015- 2023). The Planning Commission is in the process of exploring housing and related issues and is reporting to the Town Council with recommendations 12 months prior to each required Housing Element Update. The Planning Commission along with the Town Council and Architectural and Site Review Board (ASRB) held a joint study session on October 26, 2021 to review requirements related to SB9. The Planning Commission met on November 17, 2021 and December 1, 2021 to review SB9 requirements and make recommendations to the Town Council regarding implementation of SB9 and the related Objective Design Standards. Several Housing Element Update discussions were conducted with the Planning Commission and Town Council in 2022. The Town submitted a Cycle 6 Draft and received comments from HCD, and has resubmitted to HCD, awaiting its 2nd review.

H5.4(f) Citizen
Participation
The Town shall encourage the
involvement of citizens in the study of
housing and related issues and in the
formulation of proposals to ameliorate
housing problems.

Ongoing
Public input was encouraged throughout the process of updating the recent Housing Element (2015-2023). The Town is currently working with the consortium, 21 Elements, on the Housing Element Update for RHNA Cycle 6 (2023-2031). A series of "Let's Talk Housing' meetings were conducted during the spring of 2021.

The meeting with the Woodside break-out session was conducted on April 14, 2021. To provide the public with more background information for the Housing Element Update process, 21 Elements conducted a series of webinars during the fall of 2021 including: (1) Why Affordability Matters; (2) Housing and Racial Equity; (3) Housing in a Climate of Change; and, (4) Putting it All Together for a Better Future. On November 4, 2021, the Town of Woodside also participated in a Second Unit webinar and led a Town break-out session to provide guidance on constructing ADUs. (https://www.woodsidetown.org/community/lets-talk-housingcounty-sanmateo)(https://www.woodsidetown.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning/ page/33133/adu_and_second_unit_webinar.pdf)
On September 15, September 22, September 29, October 6, and October 13, 2022, the Town held ADU Workshops for residents by their newly adopted Town Council Districts. Registered property owners received individual attention on ADU planning for their property.

H5.4(g) Public Notification
Involve a representative cross-section of
Woodside residents and obtain their
input on the housing projects, policies
and programs. Assure that extensive
notice is provided to all residents
regarding housing projects, policies and
programs, including those intended to
develop or maintain affordable housing.

Continue to regularly advertise in the
local newspaper (the “Almanac”), and to
mail agenda postcards to each
household when housing issues of
community concern are being discussed
by the Planning Commission or Town
Council. Articles on the Town’s website
will address upcoming housing
considerations. Public information will
also include background on the need for
affordable housing and an explanation
about income qualifications for such
housing. Continue to notify
neighborhood associations of projects
proposed in their area, and provide an
opportunity for their comment.

Ongoing
Meetings conducted as part of the Housing Element Update (2015-2023) were well publicized in the Almanac and the Town's website. Postcards were also mailed to each household announcing the Planning Commission and Council Meetings.

Meetings for the current Housing Element Update (2023-2031) were also publicized on the 21 Elements 'Let's Talk Housing' webpage (http://www.21elements.com/letstalk-housing-outreach).

H5.4(h) Housing Forums
The Planning Commission shall hold
well-publicized forums to discuss
housing issues and to gather citizens'
input as needed in order to update the
Housing Element.

Periodic
The Housing forums were held as part of the recent Housing Element update (2015- 2023)
(https://www.woodsidetown.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning/page/4 961/2015_housing_element.pdf) (https://www.woodsidetown.org/planning/housingresources-including-adus). Housing forums have also been held as part of the current Housing Element update (2023-2031): http://www.21elements.com/lets-talkhousing-outreach https://www.woodsidetown.org/community/lets-talk-housing-county-san-mateo https://www.letstalkhousing.org/events.

See discussion of Policy H5.4 (e) and (f), above.

H5.5(a) Multi-Jurisdictional
Coordination
Collaborate and coordinate with other
jurisdictions on housing and related
issues that impact adjacent
communities. The Town will continue to
participate in multi-jurisdictional
conferences and other formal and
informal efforts which focus on the need
to meet housing needs. In particular, the
Town may look to contribute financially
to county-wide housing efforts such as
providing for the homeless.

Ongoing Ongoing.

H5.5(b) Program
Monitoring
As required by State law, Section
65583(c) of the Government Code, an
implementation program has been
established in order to implement the
goals, policies and objectives contained
in the Housing Element. Housing
Element Table 3-10 describes
Woodside's Action Program and
identifies the schedule, status, agencies
and officials responsible for the
implementation of the various program
actions.

Ongoing. Noted.

General Comments
Jurisdiction Woodside ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Description of Commercial
Development Bonus
Commercial Development Bonus
Date Approved
3 4
APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above Moderate
Income
Description of Commercial
Development Bonus
Commercial Development Bonus
Date Approved
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Units Constructed as Part of Agreement
Commercial Development Bonus Approved pursuant to GC Section 65915.7 Table E
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Project Identifier
1 2
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation
formulas
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
Annual Progress Report January 2020
Jurisdiction Woodside ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
The description should adequately document how each
unit complies with subsection (c) of Government Code
Section 65583.1+
.

For detailed reporting requirements, see the chcklist
here:

Extremely LowIncome+ Very Low-Income+ Low-Income+ TOTAL UNITS+Extremely LowIncome+Very LowIncome+ Low-Income+ TOTAL UNITS+ https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/docs/adequate-sites-checklist.pdf Rehabilitation Activity
Preservation of Units At-Risk
Acquisition of Units
Mobilehome Park Preservation
Total Units by Income
Table F
Please note this table is optional: The jurisdiction can use this table to report units that have been substantially rehabilitated, converted from non-affordable to affordable by acquisition, and preserved, including mobilehome park preservation, consistent with the standards set forth in Government Code section 65583.1, subdivision (c). Please note, motel, hotel, hostel rooms or other structures that are converted from non-residential to residential units pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c)(1)(D) are considered net-new housing units and must be reported in Table A2 and not reported in Table F.

Activity Type
Units that Do Not Count Towards RHNA+
Listed for Informational Purposes Only
Units that Count Towards RHNA +
Note - Because the statutory requirements severely limit what can be counted, please contact HCD to receive the password that will enable you to populate these fields.

Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and Acquired for Alternative Adequate Sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c) Annual Progress Report January 2020
Jurisdiction Woodside ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Notes
2 3 6
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Unit Category
(2 to 4,5+)
Tenure
R=Renter
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Total Moderate Income Units
Converted from Above
Moderate
Date Converted Notes
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Table F2
Above Moderate Income Units Converted to Moderate Income Pursuant to Government Code section 65400.2 For up to 25 percent of a jurisdiction’s moderate-income regional housing need allocation, the planning agency may include the number of units in an existing multifamily building that were converted to deed-restricted rental housing for moderate-income households by the imposition of affordability covenants and restrictions for the unit. Before adding information to this table, please ensure housing developments meet the requirements described in Government Code 65400.2(b). 5 Project Identifier Unit Types
1 4
Affordability by Household Incomes After Conversion Units credited toward Above Moderate RHNA
Jurisdiction Woodside
Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation
2 3 4
APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Realistic Capacity
Identified in the
Housing Element
Entity to whom the site
transferred Intended Use for Site
1 Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation
formulas
Table G
Locally Owned Lands Included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory that have been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of Project Identifier
NOTE: This table must only be filled out if the housing element sites inventory contains a site which is or was owned by the reporting jurisdiction, and has been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of during the reporting year.

Jurisdiction Woodside Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Period 2022
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31)
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation
formulas
Designation Size Notes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
APN Street Address/Intersection Existing Use Number of
Units
Surplus
Designation
Parcel Size (in
acres) Notes
NOTE: This table is meant to contain an invenory of
ALL surplus/excess lands the reporting jurisdiction
owns
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Parcel Identifier

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
Table H
Locally Owned Surplus Sites
For San Mateo County jurisdictions, please format the APN's as follows:999-999-999 Jurisdiction Woodside ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: + indicates an optional field
Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain
auto-calculation
formulas
Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Project Type Date
2 3
APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+ Activity Date Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above Moderate
Income
Table I
Units Constructed Pursuant to Government Code 65852.21 and Applications for Lot Splits Pursuant to Government Code 66411.7 (SB9) NOTE: SB 9 PROJECTS ONLY. This table only
needs to be completed if there were lot splits
applied for pursuant to Government Code
66411.7 OR units constructed pursuant to
65852.21.

Units entitled/permitted/constructed must also
be reported in Table A2. Applications for these
units must be reported in Table A.

Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Project Identifier Unit Constructed
1 4
Annual Progress Report January 2020
Jurisdiction Woodside ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Project Type Date
2 3
APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Unit Category
(SH - Student Housing) Date Very Low- Income
Deed Restricted
Very Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Low- Income Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate- Income
Deed Restricted
Moderate- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Not
Cells in g
Table J
Student housing development for lower income students for which was granted a density bonus pursuant to subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 65915 Project Identifier Units (Beds/Student Capacity) Approved 1 4
NOTE: STUDENT HOUSING WITH DENSITY BONUS ONLY. This
table only needs to be completed if there were student housing projects WITH a density bonus approved pursuant to
Government Code65915(b)(1)(F)
Annual Progress Report January 2020
Jurisdiction Woodside
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 4
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 4
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 4
11 23
Units by Structure Type Entitled Permitted Completed
SFA 0 0 0
SFD 7 8 8
2 to 4 0 0 0
5+ 0 0 0
ADU 6 15 10
MH 0 0 0
Total 13 23 18
12 12
0 0
0 0
0 0
Income Rental Ownership Total
Very Low 0 0 0
Low 0 0 0
Moderate 0 0 0
Above Moderate 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
Units Constructed - SB 35 Streamlining Permits
Number of Streamlining Applications Approved
Total Developments Approved with Streamlining
Total Units Constructed with Streamlining
Total Housing Applications Submitted:

Number of Proposed Units in All Applications Received:

Total Housing Units Approved:

Total Housing Units Disapproved:

Total Units
Housing Applications Summary
Use of SB 35 Streamlining Provisions
Note: Units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals Number of Applications for Streamlining
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Jurisdiction Woodside
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Total Award Amount Total award amount is auto-populated based on amounts entered in rows 15-26.

Task $ Amount Awarded $ Cumulative Reimbursement
Requested
Other
Funding Notes

1. Regional Work Effort: Participate
in regional work effort to support
the housing element process,
including countywide research, best
practices, analytical tools, data
analysis, and collaborative
development of outreach materials.
$4,000.00 $4,000.00 Local
General Fund
Town staff is working
with 21 Elements on
Public Outreach and
portions of the
Housing Element,
including but not
limited to the AFFH
analysis and
Demographic Trends.

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Reporting
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
Please update the status of the proposed uses listed in the entity’s application for funding and the corresponding impact on housing within the region or jurisdiction, as applicable, categorized based on the eligible uses specified in Section 50515.02 or 50515.03, as applicable. $ 65,000.00
Task Status
In Progress

2. Adequate Sites Analysis: Assess
potential sites and strategies for
creating housing capacity,
considering anticipated need
allocations and state laws. The
outcome will be early identification
of the most viable strategies to
ensure adequate sites.
$53,000.00 $33,722.96 Local
General Fund
The Town has retained
a GIS Specialist who is
assisting the Town in
preparing maps of
sewer districts and
environmental
conditions that are
being used for the
Adequate Sites
Analysis. Final LEAP
reimbursments will be
submitted in 2023.

3. Evaluation of Existing Element:

Evaluate the existing element in
relation to recent state law; develop
key foundational sections of the
housing element and refine the
work program and schedule,
including engagement strategy,
rezoning, and other actions.
$6,000.00 $4,362.96 Local
General Fund
The Town evaluated
the current Cycle 5
Housing Element and
identified priorities for
the RHNA Cycle 6
Housing Element. This
is ongoing until Cycle 6
certification. Final LEAP
reimbursments will be
submitted in 2023.

In Progress
In Progress

4. Develop Draft Housing Element:

Develop housing element draft;
conduct continued public
engagement and facilitate timely
review and approval.
$2,000.00 $0.00 Local
General Fund
The Town prepared
the draft Housing
Element and submitted
to HCD. The Town has
resubmitted the
Housing Element to
HCD responding to
initial HCD comments.

Final LEAP
reimbursments will be
submitted in 2023.

Summary of entitlements, building permits, and certificates of occupancy (auto-populated from Table A2) Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 1
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 1
Deed Restricted 0
In Progress
Completed Entitlement Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Non-Deed Restricted 1
10 13
Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 4
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 4
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 4
11 23
Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 3
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 3
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 3
9 Total Units 18
Certificate of Occupancy Issued by Affordability Summary Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total Units
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total Units
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low

TOWN OF WOODSIDE
Report to Town Council Agenda Item 5
From: Kevin Bryant, Town Manager February 28, 2023
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION INCREASING MEMBERSHIP FOR THE WOODSIDE HISTORY

COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Town Council adopt the attached draft resolution increasing the membership of the Woodside History Committee.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Throughout the year, the Town Council reviews applications and appoints individuals to the Town’s Citizen Advisory Committees.

Occasionally, there are more applicants than vacancies.

The Town Council Committees Appointments Subcommittee has reviewed the reappointment requests for the terms expiring February 2023 and the one new application received for appointment to the Woodside History Committee. The Subcommittee recommends the Town Council increase the membership of the Woodside History Committee to twelve (12) members.

To support citizen volunteer participation, the Town Council increases membership as needed. Unless otherwise directed by the Town Council, the quorum of the Woodside History Committee will remain unchanged.

CONCLUSION
Adoption of the attached draft resolution would increase the size of the Woodside History Committee.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution increasing membership for the Woodside History Committee
Item 5 Page 1 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023 -

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WOODSIDE

INCREASING MEMBERSHIP FOR WOODSIDE HISTORY COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the Woodside History Committee advises Town staff and the Town Council regarding actions, policies, and plans relating to historic preservation; plans and recommends means for ensuring the security and public accessibility of the Town's historic archives; gathers and catalogues historic material; and, WHEREAS, the membership size and the establishment of a quorum of all the Town’s advisory committees is adjusted from time to time, based upon individual circumstances.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Town Council of the Town of Woodside does hereby establish that the membership of the Woodside History Committee is twelve members and a quorum of the Woodside History Committee for purposes of undertaking committee business is five members.
* * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of
Woodside, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of February 2023 by the following vote of the members thereof:

AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Mayor of the Town of Woodside
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Clerk of the Town of Woodside
Item 5 Page 2 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

TOWN OF WOODSIDE
Report to Town Council Agenda Item 6_
From: Sean Rose, Town Engineer February 28, 2023
Approved by: Kevin Bryant, Town Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION (1) AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH ANDREINI BROTHERS INC. FOR THE GLENS PATH PHASE 2 AND PHASE 3 PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,115,303, WHICH INCLUDES $100,000 FOR CONSTRUCTION
CONTINGENCY, AND (2) CONCURRING WITH THE FINDINGS IN THE TOWN’S RESPONSE LETTER TO THE BID PROTEST FILED BY GRADETECH INC.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (1) authorizing the Town Manager to execute a construction contract with Andreini Brothers Inc. for the Glens Path Phase 2 and Phase 3 project in an amount not to exceed $1,115,303, which includes $100,000 for construction contingency, and (2) concurring with the findings in the Town’s response letter to the bid protest filed by Gradetech Inc.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The Glens Path Phase 2 and Phase 3 project will construct a 4’ wide asphalt path along Glenwood Avenue from Canada Road to 332 Glenwood. In order to install the path, the project requires the construction of retaining walls, driveway and road repaving, utility relocations, storm drain modifications, and installation of screening vegetation.

The completion of this project along with the Phase 1 project completed in summar 2019 on Hillside Drive from Alta Mesa to Glenwood Avenue, will complete the multi-phase project to provide a continuous path along Glenwood Avenue/Hillside Drive, the main thoroughfare in the Glens neighborhood. A location map showing the extent of the project is provided in Attachment 2.

On May 24, 2022 the Town Council approved plans and specifications and authorized bidding for the Phase 2 work. On June 23, 2022, the Town received two bids, from Grade Tech Inc. and Redgwick Construction, in the amounts of $613,634 and $770,722, respectively. The engineers estimate was $430,000, approximately 43% lower than the low bid. At staff’s recommendation, on July 26, 2023, the Town Council rejected all bids for the phase 2 work and authorized rebidding.

On January 17, 2023 the Council approved plans and specifications for the Phase 3 work, authorized bidding of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 work as one combined project, and authorized the Town Manager to execute a construction contract in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 which included $100,000 for construction contingency.

Item 6 Page 1 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
On February 16, 2023 the Town received three bids, from Andreini Brothers Inc, Gradetech Inc, and Brannon Corporation, in the amounts of $1,015,303, $1,188,887, and $1,372,471, respectively. The engineer’s estimate was $900,000.

On February 17, 2023, Gradetech submitted a bid protest on the basis that Andreini’s bid was missing information specified in the Town’s bid documents. The Town requested that Andreini submit the missing information which they did on February 22, 2023. The Town Attorney reviewed Gradetech’s protest and the information submitted by Andreini, and found each of the bid irregularities in Andreini’s bid were minor, have been corrected, resulted in no change in bid price, and did not cause Andreini Brothers to gain a competitive advantage in the bidding process. Gradetech’s bid protest and the Town’s response letter are provided herein as Attachments 3 and 4, respectively.

The low bid by Andreini is 13% over the engineer’s estimate. Given that the low bid for the phase 2 work was 43% over the estimate, the fact that the current bid for the combined project yielded three bids each within 15-17% of each other, and the current inflationary environment, staff believes the low bid amount is reasonable for the work to be performed and fairly reflects current market conditions.

In light of the above, staff recommends that the Town Council award the construction contract for the Glens Path Phase 2 and Phase 3 Project to Andreini Brothers in an amount not to exceed $1,115,303, which includes $100,000 for construction contingency. If the Town Council elects to award the construction contract to Andreini, staff further recommends Council concur with the findings in the Town’s response letter to the bid protest filed by Gradetech Inc.

Funding Plan
The adopted FY22-23 budget includes $770,000 for project construction of both Phase 2 and Phase 3 combined, of which $250,000 is from grant sources and $520,000 is from the Town’s Road (Measure A, Measure W, and Traffic Safety) Funds.

A TFCA grant will cover $290,848 of the project cost. The remaining $824,455 will be covered by local funds, including the aformentioned $520,000 that have been idenfitied and budgeted, as well as $240,700 of other budgeted capital spending that will not occur in Fiscal Year 2023 including savings on the Road Rehabilitation Project ($90,700) and equipment replacement ($55,000) and moving the Sand Hill/Portola Road intersection improvements ($75,000) and the Highway 84 and 35 stop sign study ($20,000) to future years, and approximately $65,000 in projected Measure A and Measure W revenue over budgeted amounts for Fiscal Year 2023.

If the recommended actions are approved, staff anticipates construction would commence in spring/summer 2023 and take approximately 2-4 months to complete.

Item 6 Page 2 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Location Map

3. Gradetech Protest Letter

4. Town Response to Protest Letter
Item 6 Page 3
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023 –
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL (1) AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH ANDREINI BROTHERS INC. FOR THE GLENS PATH PHASE 2 AND PHASE 3 PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,115,303, WHICH INCLUDES $100,000 FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY, AND (2) CONCURRING WITH THE FINDINGS IN THE TOWN’S RESPONSE LETTER TO THE BID PROTEST FILED BY GRADETECH INC.

WHEREAS, the Glens Path Phase 2 and Phase 3 project will construct a 4’ wide asphalt path along Glenwood Avenue from Canada Road to 332 Glenwood; and
WHEREAS, the completion of Phase 2 and Phase 3, along with the Phase 1 project completed in summar 2019 on Hillside Drive from Alta Mesa to Glenwood Avenue, will complete the multi-phase project to provide a continuous path along Glenwood Avenue/Hillside Drive, the main thoroughfare in the Glens neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2022, the Town Council approved the plans and specifications for the Glens Path Phase 2 Project, and authorized bidding and execution of the construction contract; and WHEREAS, due to very high bid cost on July 26, 2022 the Town Council rejected bids and authorized the Town Manager to re-bid the project and execute a construction contract; and
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2023 the Council approved plans and specifications for the Phase 3 work, authorized bidding of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 work as one combined project, and authorized the Town Manager to execute a construction contract in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 which included $100,000 for construction contingency; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2023 the Town received three bids, from Andreini Brothers Inc., Gradetech Inc., and Brannon Corporation, in the amounts of $1,015,303, $1,188,887, and $1,372,471, respectively; and
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2023 Gradetech submitted a bid protest on the basis that Andreini’s bid was missing information specified in the Town’s bid documents and the Town requested that Andreini submit the missing information which they did on February 22, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Town Attorney reviewed Gradetech’s protest and the information submitted by Andreini, and found each of the bid irregularities in Andreini’s bid were minor, have been corrected, resulted in no change in bid price, and did not cause Andreini Brothers to gain a competitive advantage in the bidding process; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the Town Council award the construction contract for the Glens Path Phase 2 and Phase 3 Project to Andreini Brothers in an amount not to exceed $1,115,303, which includes $100,000 for construction contingency; and
Item 6 Page 4 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, staff further recommends Council concur with the findings in the Town’s response letter to the bid protest filed by Gradetech Inc.
* * * * * * *
Passed and adopted by the Town Council of the Town of Woodside, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 28th of February, 2023, by the following vote of members thereof:

AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mayor of the Town of Woodside
ATTEST:

Clerk of the Town of Woodside
Item 6 Page 5
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item 6 Page 6 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
ATTACHMENT 2
Gradetech Inc.

General Engineering Contractor
Lic. A628365
P.O. Box 1728, San Ramon CA 94583 ●Tel: (510) 733-0390
Fax:(510) 733-0389
February 17, 2023
Town of Woodside
Public Works Department
2955 Woodside Road
Woodside, California 94062
Attn: Sean R. Rose, Town Engineer [email protected] & Sindhi Mekala Sr Engineer Town of Woodside [email protected] CC: Andreini Bros.Inc.’s John Kottmeier at [email protected] Mario Andreini at [email protected]
Subject: Bid Protest of Andreini Bros Inc, Apparent Low Bid on Town of Woodside’s The Glens Path Project - Phase 2 & Phase 3 Bid 2/16/2023.

Mr. Rose
Gradetech respectfully protests Andreini Bros Inc.’s Bid on above referenced project for Bid irregularities as follows;
Envelope A Document 00 4313 for Bid bond accompanying bid, there appears to be no corporate seal from Bidder or seal from bonding company.

Envelope A Incomplete Bidders Registration Form 00 4314-2, Bidder failed to acknowledge All-Risk & Professional Liability. Bidders Registration Form 00 4341-4 and left blank with no explanation or offer to provide if awarded.

Envelope A Missing information for SAFETY EXPERIENCE on Bidder Registration Form 00 4314 – 4. Failed to attach a resume or outline Safety Engineers qualifications as required.

Envelope B
Per the Required contents of the SOQ Submission the submittal per sections 2.03 Submittals should have included the following.
· Completed questionnaire.
· Part D for Subcontractors
· Resume of proposed key personnel.
· Audited or reviewed financial statements.
· Surety Letter re: Capability to Provide Required Performance and Payment Bonds.
· Insurer Letter re: Capability to Provide Required Insurance. · Description of Human and Physical Resources.
· Evidence of License. &
Item 6 Page 7 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
ATTACHMENT 3
Gradetech Inc.

General Engineering Contractor
Lic. A628365
P.O. Box 1728, San Ramon CA 94583 ●Tel: (510) 733-0390
Fax:(510) 733-0389
· Litigation History if applicable for the last three years.

But Andreini Brothers failed to include the following.
· Resume of proposed key personnel.
· Surety Letter re: Capability to Provide Required Performance and Payment Bonds.
· Insurer Letter re: Capability to Provide Required Insurance. · Description of Human and Physical Resources.
· Evidence of License.
· Litigation History if applicable for the last three years.

Andreini Bros bid failed to complete required sections of bid, appears to have failed to seal bid and bonds and per above bid irregularities the Town of Woodside should consider Andreini Bros Bid as non-responsive.

Sincerely
SRiii
Sam Rivinius Pres. Gradetech Inc.

P.O. Box 1728, San Ramon CA 94583 ●Tel: (510) 733-0390 Fax:(510) 733-0389 Item 6 Page 8
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
February 23, 2023
Via Email: [email protected]
Sam Rivinius
President, Gradetech Inc.

CC:

Mario Andreini ([email protected])
Andreini Brothers, Inc.

Re: Gradetech Inc.’s Bid Protest of the Apparent Low Bid on Town of Woodside’s The Glens Path Project - Phase 2 & Phase 3 Submitted by Andreini Bros Inc.

Mr. Rivinius
The Town of Woodside received Gradetech Inc.’s (Gradetech’s) letter dated February 17, 2023, protesting the bid submitted by Andreini Brothers, Inc. (Andreini Bros) in response to the Town’s Notice Inviting Bids for the Glens Path Project – Phase 2 & Phase 3 (the Protest). The Protest cited several irregularities in the bid packet submitted by Andreini Bros, including:
1) No corporate seal from bidder or bonding company on the submitted Bid Bond (Document 00 4313)
2) Bidder failed to acknowledge All-Risk & Professional Liability insurance on page 2 of Document 00 4314
3) Page 4 of Document 00 4314 was left blank
4) Bidder failed to attach the résumé of its designated safety engineer with page 4 of Document 00 4314
5) Bidder failed to attach the résumés of its key personnel 6) Bidder failed to submit a surety letter attesting to bidder’s capability to provide the required performance and payment bonds
7) Bidder failed to submit an insurer letter attesting to bidder’s capability to provide the required insurance
8) Bidder failed to submit a description of its human and physical resources
9) Bidder failed to submit evidence of its license
10) Bidder failed to submit of a description of its litigation history over the past three years
In response to Gradetech’s Protest, Andreini Bros provided to the Town supplemental documentation related to the “Envelope A” and “Envelope B” portions of its bid submission. Those documents are attached with this letter.

Item 6 Page 9 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
ATTACHMENT 4
2 After reviewing the protest and the supplemental documentation from Andreini Bros, I have made the following findings regarding the alleged irregularities in the Andreini Bros bid:
1) No corporate seal from bidder or bonding company on the submitted Bid Bond (Document 00 4313)
Finding: No irregularity. The bid submitted by Andreini Bros included a completed Bond Accompanying Bid form with signature from D. Garcia, as well as a Power of Attorney listing D. Garcia as a lawful attorney-in-fact for, and authorized to execute bonds on behalf of, Great American Insurance Company. The submitted Bond Accompanying Bid is an enforceable bond and therefore substantially complies with the bidding requirement.
2) Bidder failed to acknowledge All-Risk & Professional Liability insurance on page 2 of Document 00 4314
Finding: Minor, corrected irregularity. Andreini Bros submitted an updated page indicating that the policy information will be provided prior to award. Further, it supplied an insurer letter from Alliant Insurance Services, Inc., dated February 21, 2023, indicating that Andreini Bros can provide all insurance coverages required under Document 00 7316. This irregularity was minor, in that it had no effect on the bid price and provided Andreini Bros no competitive advantage in the bidding process. The irregularity has now been corrected, as Andreini Bros will comply with the insurance requirements, and therefore is waived pursuant to Section 1.07 of the Notice Inviting Bids (Document 00 1113) and Section 3.03B of the Instructions to Bidders (Document 00 2113).
3) Page 4 of Document 00 4314 was left blank1
Finding: No irregularity. A completed page 00 4314-4 was supplied with the bid.

Andreini Bros also provided an updated page 00 4314-4 with an attached résumé of its designated safety engineer in response to item 4, below. 4) Bidder failed to attach the résumé of its designated safety engineer with page 4 of Document 00 4314
Finding: Minor, corrected irregularity. Andreini Bros submitted an updated page 00 4314-4 an attached résumé of its designated safety engineer. This irregularity was minor, in that it had no effect on the bid price and provided Andreini Bros no competitive advantage in the bidding process. The irregularity has now been corrected and therefore is waived pursuant to Section 1.07 of the Notice Inviting Bids (Document 00 1113) and Section 3.03B of the Instructions to Bidders 1 The Protest letter referred to “Bidder Registration Form 00 4341-4.” As Document 00 4314 was the Bidder Registration Form, it was assumed that the Protest intended to refer to this document.

Item 6 Page 10 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
3 (Document 00 2113).
5) Bidder failed to attach the résumés of its key personnel Finding: Minor, corrected irregularity. Andreini Bros submitted résumés for Mario Andreini and John Kottmeier as its key personnel. It also submitted résumés for Scott Howard Poms and Fred Canevaro, who are the key personnel of its designated subcontractors, Scapes and F. Ferrando & Co. This irregularity was minor, in that it had no effect on the bid price and provided Andreini Bros no competitive advantage in the bidding process. The irregularity has now been corrected and therefore is waived pursuant to Section 1.07 of the Notice Inviting Bids (Document 00 1113) and Section 3.03B of the Instructions to Bidders (Document 00 2113).
6) Bidder failed to submit a surety letter attesting to bidder’s capability to provide the required performance and payment bonds
Finding: Minor, corrected irregularity. Andreini Bros submitted a letter from Great American Insurance Company’s Bond Division, dated February 21, 2023, and attesting to its capability to provide the required performance and payment bonds. This irregularity was minor, in that it had no effect on the bid price and provided Andreini Bros no competitive advantage in the bidding process. The irregularity has now been corrected and therefore is waived pursuant to Section

1.07 of the Notice Inviting Bids (Document 00 1113) and Section 3.03B of the Instructions to Bidders (Document 00 2113).
7) Bidder failed to submit an insurer letter attesting to bidder’s capability to provide the required insurance
Finding: Minor, corrected irregularity. Andreini Bros submitted two letters dated February 21, 2023, from Barrett Business Services Inc. and Alliant Insurance Services Inc., respectively, attesting to its capability to meet the insurance requirements listed in Document 00 7316. This irregularity was minor, in that it had no effect on the bid price and provided Andreini Bros no competitive advantage in the bidding process. The irregularity has now been corrected and therefore is waived pursuant to Section 1.07 of the Notice Inviting Bids (Document 00 1113) and Section 3.03B of the Instructions to Bidders (Document 00 2113). 8) Bidder failed to submit a description of its human and physical resources Finding: Minor, corrected irregularity. Andreini Bros submitted a description of its human and physical resources. This irregularity was minor, in that it had no effect on the bid price and provided Andreini Bros no competitive advantage in the bidding process. The irregularity has now been corrected and therefore is waived pursuant to Section 1.07 of the Notice Inviting Bids (Document 00 1113) and Section 3.03B of the Instructions to Bidders (Document 00 2113).

Item 6 Page 11 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
4 9) Bidder failed to submit evidence of its license
Finding: No irregularity. Andreini Bros provided its contractors license number with its bid and the Town was able to independently verify its license. For this reason, the Town does not view this as an irregularity. However, to the extent that it constituted an irregularity, it was minor, had no effect on the bid price and provided Andreini Bros no competitive advantage in the bidding process.

Therefore, to the extent that there was an irregularity, it is waived pursuant to Section 1.07 of the Notice Inviting Bids (Document 00 1113) and Section 3.03B of the Instructions to Bidders (Document 00 2113).
10) Bidder failed to submit a description of its litigation history over the past three years Finding: Minor, corrected irregularity. Andreini Bros submitted a document attesting that it has no litigation history over the last three years. This irregularity was minor, in that it had no effect on the bid price and provided Andreini Bros no competitive advantage in the bidding process. The irregularity has now been corrected and therefore is waived pursuant to Section 1.07 of the Notice Inviting Bids (Document 00 1113) and Section 3.03B of the Instructions to Bidders (Document 00 2113).

For the reasons discussed above, each of the irregularities found in Andreini Bros’ bid were minor, have been corrected, resulted in no change in bid price, and did not cause Andreini Bros to gain a competitive advantage in the bidding process.

Therefore, I plan to recommend that all irregularities in Andreini Bros’ bid be waived pursuant to Section 1.07 of the Notice Inviting Bids (Document 00 1113) and Section

3.03B of the Instructions to Bidders (Document 00 2113) and that the contract be awarded to Andreini Bros as the lowest responsive bid.

The recommended award will be considered by the Town Council at its regular meeting of Tuesday, February 28, 2023, beginning at 7:00 P.M.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sean R. Rose
Public Works Director/Town Engineer
Attachments:
1) Supplemental Envelope A documents
2) Supplemental Envelope B documents
Item 6 Page 12 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023 Page 1

TOWN OF WOODSIDE
Report to Town Council Agenda Item 7
From: Sean Rose, Town Engineer February 28, 2023
Approved By: Kevin Bryant, Town Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A

SEWER EXTENSION PARTIAL REIMBURSMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNERS OF 220 LANING DRIVE FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A

PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER MAIN EXTENSION ON LANING DRIVE

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Town Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Town Manager to enter into a sewer extension partial reimbursement agreement with the owners of 220 Laning Drive for design and construction of a public sanitary sewer main extension on Laning Drive.

BACKGROUND
The subject property, 220 Laning Drive, lies within the Redwood Creek Sewer Assessment District (RCS), designated as Assessment #335 and comprised of Assessor's Parcel No. 073-021-010.

On May 23, 2017, Town Council consented to the annexation of 220 Laning Drive to the Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance District (FOSMD), owned and operated by the County of San Mateo. On February 13, 2018, the County Board of Supervisors approved the annexation.

The RCS was created by the Town in the late 1960s. At formation the Town constructed the Redwood Creek trunk main and the sewer collection system within the Glens neighborhood. Upon formation, sewer service within the RCS boundaries was transferred to FOSMD for them to own and operate the system.

After formation and construction of the collection system in the Glens, most properties outside of the Glens within the RCS boundary were not connected either because they preferred to remain on septic or the collection system needed to serve the properties was not yet built. Over the years since formation, many properties have connected to the system, and many of those properties have needed to extend the collection system mains at their own expense in order to serve their properties. Said main extensions being extensions of the public sewer system can be utilized by other owners connecting in the future.

In 1974 a master plan for RCS was created that showed conceptually where sewer mains would be located within the public right of way or utility easements to most efficiently serve the properties within the District. The plan has been used over the years to guide sewer extensions within the RCS and also provided the basis for the Town’s Item 7 Page 1 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023 Page 2
“intract” fee for new connections. The intract fee is assessed by the Town to owners connecting to the existing collection system who do not have to extend the collection system themselves to serve their property; it is those owners’ contribution to the cost of the collection system. The current intract fee is $14,500.

The intract fees are held by the Town in the Redwood Creek Sewer Assessment District Fund (RCSAD Fund) to be used for costs associated with building out the collection system within the District in accordance with the general intent of the Master Plan. The current balance of that fund is $260,383.

For properties needing to extend the collection system to serve their property, Woodside Municipal Code Section 51.047(J) provides the Town and those owners the option to enter into a reimbursement agreement.

Under the agreement, the Town collects a portion of the cost of the main extension from other owners that decide to connect to the extension in the future and reimburses those funds to the owner that constructed the extension.

Because it is indeterminate as to when, or even if, other owners might connect to the extension in the future, the original owner extending the collection system does not know at the time of entering into the agreement when, if ever, they will be reimbursed for a portion of their cost. Additionally, because future connection(s) occur over many years or decades the agreements are difficult for owners and the Town to effectively track and enforce.

DISCUSSION
The property at 220 Laning Drive is currently on septic and, having been annexed into FOSMD, has approached the Town about connecting to the system. Staff and the property owner concur that the most cost effective and beneficial option for the owner and the neighborhood in the context of the master plan, is to extend a collection system main approximately 250’ up Laning Drive within the public right of way from the existing trunk main at the intersection of Laning Drive and Redwood Creek to a location near the intersection of Laning Drive and Jane Drive. The proposed extension location is shown in the attached Location Map (Attachment 2).

The 220 Laning Drive property would construct the collection system main extension and their private sewer lateral from their residence to the terminus of the main extension at Laning and Jane. The extension could be utilized in the future by at least 8-10 properties uphill on Laning Drive and Ravine Drive that are within the District boundary but have not connected yet.

Because the proposed main extension has a clear benefit to the neighborhood consistent with the intent of the master plan, and in light of the concerns associated with the Section 51.047 (J) reimbursement agreement described above, staff has drafted the attached Sewer Extension Partial Reimbursement Agreement (SEPRA) Item 7 Page 2 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023 Page 3
(Attachment 3) between the Town and the owner of 220 Laning Drive.

Under the SEPRA the Town would reimburse the owner for 50% of the cost of design and construction of the collection system main extension, up to a maximum of $50,000. Any costs in excess of the $50,000 cap and the entire cost of the private sewer lateral would be borne by the owner.

Reimbursement funding from the Town would come from the RCSAD Fund.

The SEPRA would be utilized in lieu of the reimbursement agreement under Section 51.047(J); in exchange for partial reimbursement of the project cost by the Town under the SEPRA, the owner would waive their right to request a reimbursement agreement under Section 51.047(J).

The proposed SEPRA represents a new program, consistent with the intent of the intract fee and the RCSAD Fund, that could be utilized by other owners, pending availability of funding from the RCSAD Fund.

Under the program, the Town could financially assist owners seeking to extend the collection system to serve their residence in cases where the extension provides a clear benefit to other owners in the future and facilitates the construction of the collection system as envisioned in the master plan.

The owner will obtain all necessary permits form the Town and Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance Department prior to construction of the sanitary sewer main.

CONCLUSION
Approval of the sewer extension partial reimbursement agreement would facilitate the construction of a public sanitary sewer extension consistent with the master plan for the Redwood Creek Sewer Assessment District.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 2023 –

2. Location Map

3. Sewer Reimbursement Agreement for 220 Laning Drive
Item 7 Page 3
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WOODSIDE AUTHORIZING

THE TOWN MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A SEWER EXTENSION PARTIAL REIMBURSMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNERS OF 220 LANING DRIVE FOR DESIGN AND

CONSTRUCTION OF A PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER MAIN EXTENSION ON LANING DRIVE WHEREAS, the subject property, 220 Laning Drive, lies within the Redwood Creek Sewer Assessment District (RCS), designated as Assessment #335 and comprised of Assessor's Parcel No. 073-021-010; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2017, Town Council consented to the annexation of 220 Laning Drive to the Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance District (FOSMD), owned and operated by the County of San Mateo; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the County Board of Supervisors approved the annexation; and
WHEREAS, in 1974 a master plan for RCS was created that showed conceptually where sewer mains would be located within the public right of way or utility easements to most efficiently serve the properties within the District; and
WHEREAS, the master plan has been used over the years to guide sewer extensions within the RCS and also provided the basis for the Town’s “intract” fee for new connections; and
WHEREAS, the intract fee of $14,500 is assessed by the Town to owners connecting to the existing collection system who do not have to extend the collection system themselves to serve their property; and WHEREAS, the intract fees are held by the Town in the Redwood Creek Sewer Assessment District Fund (RCSAD Fund) to be used for costs associated with building out the collection system within the District in accordance with the general intent of the master plan; and WHEREAS, for properties needing to extend the collection system to serve their property, Woodside Municipal Code Section 51.047(J) provides the Town and those owners the option to enter into a reimbursement agreement; and
WHEREAS, staff and the property owner of 220 Laning Drive concur that the most cost effective and beneficial option for the owner and the neighborhood in the context of the master plan, is to extend a collection system main approximately 250’ up Laning Drive within the public right of way; and
WHEREAS, the 220 Laning Drive property would construct the collection system main extension and their private sewer lateral from their residence to the terminus of the main extension at Laning and Jane Drive; and
Item 7 Page 4 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, the extension could be utilized in the future by at least 8-10 properties uphill on Laning Drive and Ravine Drive that are within the District boundary but have not connected yet; and WHEREAS, because the proposed main extension has a clear benefit to the neighborhood consistent with the intent of the master plan, staff has drafted a Sewer Extension Partial Reimbursement Agreement (SEPRA) between the Town and the owner of 220 Laning Drive; and WHEREAS, under the SEPRA the Town would reimburse the owner for 50% of the cost of design and construction of the collection system main extension, up to a maximum of $50,000; and
WHEREAS, reimbursement funding from the Town would come from the RCSAD Fund; and
WHEREAS, the SEPRA would be utilized in lieu of the reimbursement agreement under Section 51.047(J); in exchange for partial reimbursement of the project cost by the Town under the SEPRA, the owner would waive their right to request a reimbursement agreement under Section 51.047(J); and
WHEREAS, the proposed SEPRA represents a new program, consistent with the intent of the intract fee and the RCSAD Fund, that could be utilized by other owners, pending availability of funding from the RCSAD Fund; and
WHEREAS, under the program, the Town could financially assist owners seeking to extend the collection system to serve their residence in cases where the extension provides a clear benefit to other owners in the future and facilitates the construction of the collection system as envisioned in the master plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WOODSIDE that the Town of Woodside hereby authorizes the Town Manager to enter into a sewer extension partial reimbursement agreement with the owners of 220 Laning Drive for design and construction of a public sanitary sewer main extension on Laning Drive.

* * * * * * * * * * * *
Passed and adopted by the Town Council of the Town of Woodside, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of February 2023, by the following vote of the members thereof:

AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
______________________________
Mayor of the Town of Woodside
Item 7 Page 5
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Clerk of the Town of Woodside
Item 7 Page 6
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item 7 Page 7 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
ATTACHMENT 2
1 LANING DRIVE SEWER EXTENSION PARTIAL REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this ____ day of _____________, 2023, by and between the TOWN OF WOODSIDE (hereinafter “Town”), and Russ Margiotta (hereinafter “Permittee”) (collectively, the “parties”).

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the sewer collection system serving the parcels within the Redwood Creek Sewer Assessment District (RCS) was constructed with funds generated by a benefit assessment on those parcels; and
WHEREAS, the RCS sewer system is now maintained through a Joint Powers Agreement by the Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance District (FOSMD); and WHEREAS, parcels located within the area of the RCS that were to be immediately served by the sewer collection system at the time of its initial construction were assessed the pro rata share of the cost of the full system, including the main line and collection laterals required to serve those parcels; and
WHEREAS, parcels that were not immediately served by the RCS sewer system were assessed only the pro rata share of the cost to fund only the main line of the system, which entitled those parcels to connect to the system at the time that the system was expanded by the Town or by a privately funded extension that allowed connection by private lateral; and
WHEREAS, owners of parcels not immediately served by the RCS sewer system can connect those parcels to the system, subject to approved annexation into the FOSMD, by either constructing the necessary lateral lines to serve their parcel or by paying an “intract” fee to the Town if collection lateral lines have already been constructed to allow for Item 7 Page 8 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
ATTACHMENT 3
2 connection by private lateral; and
WHEREAS, Permittee is the owner of the parcel located at 220 Laning Drive (the “Property”), which is located within the RCS boundaries but has, to date, not connected to the sewer collection system; and
WHEREAS, the Property previously paid the main line assessment imposed by RCS and therefore is entitled to connect to the sewer collection system pending construction of a collection lateral making connection by private lateral possible; and WHEREAS, there currently is no sewer main line or collection lateral adjacent to the Property, and therefore no way to connect the structure(s) located at the Property to the sewer collection system by private lateral over the Property; and WHEREAS, the sewer collection line closest to the Property terminates approximately at the location where Redwood Creek intersects Laning Drive, which is approximately 250 feet from the Property; and
WHEREAS, Permittee proposes to extend the the sewer main line from its current termination point at Redwood Creek along the Laning Drive Public Right of Way (“Sewer Main Extension”) and dedicate that Sewer Main Extension to the FOSMD so that the Property may be connected by private lateral to a publicly-maintained sewer collection line; and
WHEREAS, Section 51.047(J) of the Woodside Municipal Code provides Permittee the ability to enter a reimbursement agreement with the Town, through which the Town would assess a pro rata share of the total cost of constructing the Sewer Main Extension to any parcels that connect to the Sewer Main Extension prospectively, in lieu of assessing those parcels the intract fee, and reimburse Permittee for the costs associated with Item 7 Page 9
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
3 completing the Sewer Main Extension through those prospective assessments; and WHEREAS, there are approximately three to five (5) parcels along Laning Drive, in addition to the Property, that could connect to the Sewer Main Extension by private lateral; and
WHEREAS, completing the Sewer Main Extension is anticipated to cost in excess of $100,000; and
WHEREAS, were Permittee and the Town to enter into a reimbursement agreement pursuant to Section 51.047(J), Permittee would not receive reimbursement for any of the cost of the Sewer Main Extension unless and until the adjacent parcels elect to connect to the Sewer Main Extension; and
WHEREAS, neither the Town nor Permittee is aware that any of the parcels adjacent to the proposed Sewer Main Extension will connect to the sewer collection system in the immediate future, or how likely it is that all adjacent parcels will ultimately connect to the Sewer Main Extension; and
WHEREAS, given the uncertainty about prospective connections, it is also unclear when, if ever, Permittee would receive full reimbursement for the cost of the Sewer Main Extension, less Permittee’s own pro rata share of that cost; and WHEREAS, administering a reimbursement agreement is a significant burden for the Town, as it obligates the Town to assess parcels per the reimbursement agreement for undefined period of time, making it difficult to monitor and identify the proper heir(s) or assign(s) to whom to make reimbursement payments; and
WHEREAS, the Town has funds generated through assessment of the intract fee, which are to be used for the purpose of improving and building out the existing intract Item 7 Page 10 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
4 sewer system within the RCS; and
WHEREAS, to ensure that a portion of Permittee’s cost is reimbursed and to avoid the burden Town would otherwise incur in administering a reimbursement agreement, the parties now wish to enter into this Agreement through which Permittee shall waive his right to request a reimbursement agreement under Section 51.047(J) in exchange for partial reimbursement of the project cost; and
WHEREAS, by partially reimbursing Permittee for the costs of the Sewer Main Extension, and Permittee’s waiver of the right to request a reimbursement agreement, the Town shall retain the right to assess the intract fee upon the connection of those five properties that would otherwise be subject to a reimbursement agreement for the Sewer Main Extension.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it agreed by the parties as follows:

1. The Town shall allow encroachment on the Public Right of Way along Laning Drive, pursuant to an Encroachment Permit to be obtained by Permittee and/or his contractor, for the purpose of allowing Permittee to extend the sewer main line from the existing termination of the Redwood Creek Trunk Main up Laning Drive (the “Sewer Main Extension”) to the point at which a private lateral can connect to that Sewer Main Extension at the Property (collectively, the “Improvements”).

2. Permittee shall have plans and specifications prepared for the Improvements and shall provide them to Town for review and approval as part of the permitting process.

3. Town makes no representation as to requirements or obligations that shall be imposed by FOSMD in order to obtain its approval for connection to the sewer system.

Item 7 Page 11 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
5 Permittee understands and agrees that he shall obtain any approvals and meet any requirements imposed by FOSMD without assistance from the Town.

4. Permittee shall obtain one or more cost proposals to construct the Improvements and provide them to the Town for review and written approval. Such cost proposal(s) shall clearly delineate between costs associated with the Sewer Main Extension to be constructed in the Public Right of Way and costs associated with the private sewer lateral on the Property.

5. Upon completion of the Improvements in condition acceptable to the Town, Permittee shall dedicate to the FOSMD, and FOSMD shall accept, the Sewer Main Extension.

6. Permittee shall provide the Town and FOSMD with as-built drawings at the time that the Town accepts the dedication pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.

7. Upon acceptance of the dedicated Sewer Main Extension, Permittee shall provide Town with proof of project costs related to the Sewer Main Extension. Upon review and approval of the Town Engineer, within 90 days, the Town shall reimburse Permittee for up to 50% of those costs in an amount not to exceed $50,000.00 (“Partial Reimbursement”).

8. In exchange for the Partial Reimbursement, Permittee waives any rights he might have to enter a reimbursement agreement with the Town pursuant to Woodside Municipal Code Section 51.047(J) and any and all other rights to reimbursement from the Town or adjacent property owners that might otherwise share in the cost of the Sewer Main Extension. Town shall have the right to further improve the Sewer Main Extension after its dedication by Permittee, and Town shall retain the right assess its intract fee and any other connection-related fees on any parcels connecting to the Sewer Main Extension without Item 7 Page 12 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
6 providing any further reimbursement or other payment to Permittee.

9. Prior to the commencement of work on the Improvements, the Permittee shall submit to the Town an itemization of costs, and estimates of the amount of those costs, attributable to the Sewer Main Extension work and subject to Partial Reimbursement.

Costs eligible for Partial Reimbursement shall include payments to contractors and subcontractors and the cost of bid document preparation (if any), engineering, testing, and inspection, and any other associated costs of constructing the Sewer Main Extension identified by Permittee and approved by the Town Engineer. The Town shall not be obligated to reimburse any costs not approved in writing prior to the commencement of work.

10. Permittee shall perform the Improvements to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer.

Town shall retain the services of a professional construction inspection firm or utilize qualified Town employees to oversee Permittee’s performance.

11. All Improvements constructed shall comply with the approved plans, and there shall be no material change or alteration from the approved plans without the approval of the Town Engineer.

12. Permittee shall retain the services of a testing firm to make all necessary compaction tests and shall furnish the results of said tests to the Town Engineer. Permittee’s cost for retaining said firm shall be a cost subject to Partial Reimbursement.

13. Construction of Improvements shall be by duly licensed general contractors and subcontractors licensed by the State of California with a Class A license. Before commencement of work either the Permittee or Permittee’s general contractor shall furnish a performance bond and labor and materials bond for the benefit of the Town and to the Item 7 Page 13 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
7 satisfaction of the Town Engineer.

14. Permittee and the Town Engineer shall agree on a schedule for completion of the Improvements and Permittee shall use its best efforts to cause construction to comply with said schedule.

15. Permittee shall at all times keep the Property free of all liens and claims of lien.

Permittee shall comply with the directions of the Town Engineer as to construction staging areas and parking.

16. The Permittee’s contractors and subcontractors shall guarantee the work for one year from date of completion. The Permittee shall sign over contractors’ and subcontractors’ performance bond to Town at the time the Sewer Main Extension is dedicated.

17. In the event of default by Permittee the Town shall give Permittee written notice of default and any monetary default shall be cured in ten (10) days and any non-monetary default cured in thirty (30) days. If the default is not so cured, the Town may revoke the Encroachment Permit and take possession of the Project and all bonds, cure the default and complete construction of the Sewer Main Extension and any associated Improvements located in the Public Right of Way.

18. Both parties agree that this Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, assigns and transferees of the Permittee and the Town may cause this Agreement to be recorded.

19. Permittee agrees to hold the Town, its officers, employees, and agents harmless, and indemnify and defend the Town from any and all liability and claims which arise during the process of any actual work performed on the Improvements by the Permittee, its volunteers, or its agents.

Item 7 Page 14 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
8 20. After Town has formally accepted the dedication, Town agrees to hold Permittee harmless from any and all liability and claims related to the dedicated portion of the Improvements which arise following Town’s acceptance of the dedication.

21. All contractors and subcontractors to be used by Permittee shall furnish evidence of liability insurance in a minimum amount of $2,000,000 per occurrence and have the Town, its employees, officers, agents named as additional insureds in said insurance with a firm licensed and in good standing with the State of California. Such coverage shall be primary and non-contributory with respect to the Town and Town’s separate insurance. Said insurance shall be maintained by Permittee, or contractors and subcontractors used by Permittee, until acceptance of the Improvements by the Town. Permittee shall provide Town with certificates verifying proof of all other forms of insurance required of contractors and subcontractors prior to the commencement of work.

22. Permittee agrees to require in any construction contract related to the Improvements that the contractor executing the work comply with state prevailing wage and labor law (California Labor Code Sections 1720 to 1780, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 8, Subchapter 3, commencing with Section 16000) including, among other things, to: pay at least the applicable prevailing wage and travel and subsistence payments for public works activities performed under this Agreement; comply with overtime and working hour requirements; comply with apprenticeship obligations; comply with payroll recordkeeping requirements; and comply with other obligations as required by law. Copies of the applicable prevailing wage rates are on file with the Town Engineer and shall be made available upon request. Permittee shall ensure that the above requirements are included in all contracts and any lower tier subcontracts related to the Improvements.

Item 7 Page 15 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
9 23. In the event of litigation over the terms or performance of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

24. Any legal actions brought under, pursuant to, or in regard to this Agreement, or any matter governed hereby, shall be instituted in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, State of California.

25. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deemed delivered five (5) days after the date of posting to the following addresses:

Town: Town of Woodside
2955 Woodside Road
Woodside, CA 94062
Attn: Town Engineer
Permittee: Russ Margiotta
220 Laning Drive
Woodside, CA 94062

26. The laws of the State of California shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement.

27. Time shall be deemed to be of the essence to this Agreement.

28. This document, contains the entire agreement of the parties and shall not be modified except in writing, signed by both parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers or individuals on the day and year first above written.

DATED: ___________, 2023 Town:

By___________________________
Item 7 Page 16 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
10 Kevin Bryant, Town Manager
DATED: ___________, 2023 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Jean B. Savaree, Town Attorney
DATED: ___________, 2023 Permittee:
_____________________________
Russ Margiotta
Item 7 Page 17 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

TOWN OF WOODSIDE

MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: KEVIN BRYANT, TOWN MANAGER
DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 2023
RE: ITEM A: INFORMATION ONLY: UPDATE ON TODO EL MUNDO/HIGH ROAD HOUSING

SITE AND PG&E GASLINE
____________________________________________________________________________ On January 31, 2023, staff and the Town’s Housing Element consultant received direction to incorporate both the Raymundo Road and Todo El Mundo/High Road Town-owned sites in the RHNA Plan that would be included in the revised Draft Housing Element to be submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its second review.

Staff understood the direction to be contingent on confirming that the PG&E gas transmission line in the area is located within the public-right-of-way and not on the Town’s Todo El Mundo/High Road parcel.

The Town Manager has received confirmation from PG&E that a gas transmission line is installed in the public right-of-way on Todo El Mundo and High Road pursuant to its Franchise Agreement and not on the Town-owned property.

PG&E requirements, which comply with Federal and State regulations, require gas transmission lines to be a minimum of 10 feet from the face or foundation of any building.

PG&E does have an easement on the property adjacent to Woodside Road for electric transmission lines. There are 60kV transmission lines and two poles within the easement.

Item A Page 1 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 1

TOWN OF WOODSIDE

TOWN COUNCIL
Meeting Date: February 28, 2023 Agenda Item: C
Prepared by: Sarah Filipe, Associate Planer
Reviewed by: Sage Schaan, Planning Director
Approved by: Kevin Bryant, Town Manager
TITLE: APPL2023-0001; APPL2023-0002: Review of two appeals of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a Tentative Map for a Land Division (LDIV2020-0001) and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA2020-0001), to divide one existing legal parcel of record at 988 Godetia Drive (APN: 068-301-100) into two legal parcels (Parcel A and Parcel B). The existing property is 4.39 acres. Proposed Parcel A would be approximately 1.58 acres and proposed Parcel B would be approximately 2.81 acres. No development is proposed with this application.

Property Information
Address: 988 Godetia Drive
APN: 068-301-100
Property Owner: Vladimir Alexanyan and Margaret Migdal
Zoning District: SR (Suburban Residential)
General Plan Designation: R (Residential)
Existing Lot Area:

Gross Lot Area: 4.96 acres (215,857 square feet) (including roadway easement) Lot Area: 4.39 acres (191,253.67 square feet) (excluding roadway easement)* Proposed Parcel A:

Gross Lot Area: 1.97 acres (85,947 square feet) (including roadway easement) Lot Area: 1.58 acres (68,657 square feet) (excluding roadway easement)* Proposed Parcel B:

Gross Lot Area: 2.98 acres (129,909 square feet) (including roadway easement) Lot Area: 2.81 acres (122,596 square feet) (excluding roadway easement)* * Woodside Municipal Code Section 153.205(B) excludes roadway easements from Lot Area. All references to Lot Area sizes in the report excludes roadway easements.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission approved a Tentative Map Land Division application (File No. LDIV2020-0001) (the “Project”), dividing one existing legal parcel of record at 988 Godetia Drive (APN: 068-301-100) into two legal parcels (Parcel A and Parcel B). The existing Item C Page 1 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 2 property is 4.39 acres. Planning Commission approval of the approved Tentative Map divides the property into Parcel A that would be 1.58 acres and Parcel B that would be 2.81 acres. No development is proposed as part of the Project. Prior to the approval of the Land Division, the Planning Commission approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) ( File No. CEQA2020- 0001) that provides mitigation measures minimizing potential impacts from the proposed Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

At the Planning Commission hearing on December 14, 2022, nearby neighbors expressed concerns relating to potential visual and drainage impacts that may result from future development on proposed Parcel A (Attachment VII, minutes; and, Attachment VIII, desk items).

The Planning Commission recognized the concerns from the neighbors, while noting that the proposed Project only creates a new lot and does not propose development of the parcels at this time.

The Commission further noted that any future development would be required to comply with all development standards, including drainage requirements, and would be subject to design review by the Town’s Architectural and Site Review Board (ASRB).

The Planning Commission determined that that the Project is consistent with all development standards for a Land Division and approved the MND and Land Division.

On January 3, 2023, two appeals (Attachment II and III) of the Planning Commission’s determination were filed, requesting denial of the Project (see details below).

The project applicant has provided a response to the appeals in Attachment IV.

Project details are provided in the December 14, 2022, staff report in Attachment IX.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council review the two appeals of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project, the applicant’s response to the appeals, and any public testimony provided to the Town Council.

Based on the Project details, staff recommends that the Town Council:

1. Deny the appeals, by passing the draft Resolutions in Attachment I, thereby approving the MND and Project.

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Project is located in the northeast part of the Town of Woodside, at the intersection of Godetia Drive and Jefferson Avenue.

The site is surrounded by single-family residential properties zoned Suburban Residential (SR) on the southeast, south, and southwest sides; and, zoned R-1, on the north side of Jefferson Avenue.

The site consists primarily of a tree-covered knoll with some areas of grassland. The existing parcel has a single-family residence, Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), and additional accessory structures (workshop and home office). An unoccupied stable is located on the property visible Item C Page 2 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 3 from Godetia Drive. The property ranges from an elevation of 448 at the western property line, to an elevation of 558 at the site of the existing residence on proposed Parcel B.

PROJECT DISCUSSION
As approved by the Planning Commission, the existing 4.39-acre parcel of record (APN: 068-301- 100) would be divided into two legal parcels (Parcel A and Parcel B), retaining the existing development on proposed Parcel B; and creating the opportunity for a new single-family residence on proposed Parcel A. No development is proposed as part of this Land Division. Any future development on either proposed parcel would be reviewed through the design review and permitting procedures required at the time of the future development.

TOWN COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND PROJECT APPEALS
Project
On December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission considered and approved an MND (Resolution No. 2022-013, Attachment V) and Land Division for the Project (Resolution No. 2022-014, Attachment VI) as noted.

After the Planning Commission’s approval of the MND and Land Division application, two appeals were filed.

The property owner of 4229 Jefferson Avenue filed an appeal on January 3, 2023 (Attachment II, APPL2023-0001), noted as Appellant Galindo in this report.

The property owner of 4271 Jefferson Avenue filed an appeal on January 3, 2023 (Attachment III, Appeal 2023-0002), noted as Appellant Mah in this report.

Appeals – Standard of Review
Per WMC §152.155, the Town Council hears appeals “de novo”.

A de novo appeal differs from an “on the record” appeal during which the Planning Commission’s decision and findings would be entitled to a presumption of correctness. In a de novo appeal this presumption of correctness does not apply. The Town Council considers the appeal “as if no decision previously had been rendered.” Freeman v. DirecTV, Inc., 457, F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir. 2006). The Town Council’s review is entirely independent of the determination made by the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s determination is afforded no deference on appeal. Barrientos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 633 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2011).

During this de novo hearing, the Town Council should take comments from Appellants, the Applicant (Respondent), and members of the public. New evidence, including public testimony is allowed and mustl be considered by the Town Council. After the Town Council receives all comments, the public hearing should be closed. During Town Council deliberation the Town Council should discuss the Project approval findings in order to determine if they can be made. If the findings for Project approval can be made, the appeals should be denied. If the findings for Project approval can not be made. the appeals should be granted.

The Town Council findings and decision on the appeals are final and conclusive.

Item C Page 3 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 4

PROJECT REVIEW
As noted in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment IX), WMC Chapter 152 outlines the procedure for review of Land Divisions in the Town of Woodside. It requires that Town staff and Committees review and provide comments on a Concept Map, for the applicant to address before an application for a Tentative Map is submitted. Once all of the necessary information for the Tentative Map is submitted to the Town and determined complete by the Planning Department, an Initial Study is prepared to determine what level of CEQA analysis and documentation is required for a project. The CEQA document is then prepared and circulated for public review.

During that time, each required Town Committee reviews the application and provides recommendations on the CEQA document and Tentative Map to the Planning Commission. This process was followed for Respondent’s application. Because the Town Council reviews this application “de novo,” the applicable requirements for a Land Division are outlined below:

Concept Map
Application Requirements
WMC §152.060 and 152.061 outline the submittal requirements for review of the Concept Map submitted for the Project. The Concept Map review process provides the applicant with input from Town committees to consider before providing all details (e.g., plans and technical reports) needed to process the Tentative Map required for the Project.

Conferences on Concept Map
WMC §152.062(C) requires that the Town transmit copies of the Concept Map to members of the Subdivision Review Committee (Membership outlined in WMC §152.130: Planning Director; Town Engineer; Town Geologist; Fire Chief/Marshal; and, County Health Officer), and to the Town Architectural and Site Review Board (ASRB), Environment: Open Space, Conservation, and Sustainability Committee, Trails Committee, and any other Town committees deemed necessary to review the project. The Respondent completed the Concept Map review process.

Attachment IX.C includes a written summary of the Committees’ comments on the Concept Map.

Tentative Map
Application Requirements
WMC §§152.071 - 152.074 outline submittal requirements for review of a proposed Tentative Map. The Respondent’s Tentative Map included all necessary information to ensure compliance with the WMC requirements, most notably the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 152) and the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 153). The Tentative Map application was determined complete, and all required committees deemed necessary to review the Project reviewed the Tentative Map along with the draft MND.

1. ASRB & Town Committee Reviews
As noted above, the ASRB and applicable Town Committees reviewed the MND and the Project at their regularly scheduled meetings in October and November 2022. Comments on the Tentative Map are summarized below:

Architectural and Site Review Board:

On October 24, 2022, the ASRB reviewed the Project and noted that the Project only included a proposed Tentative Map to divide one lot into two lots, and that no development was proposed. The ASRB found that the proposed building site could accommodate a Item C Page 4
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 5 residence and ADU that would comply with required WMC zoning standards and did not have any additional recommendations.

Environment: Open Space, Conservation & Sustainability Committee On October 27, 2022, the Environment: Open Space, Conservation & Sustainability Committee reviewed the Project. There was no objection to the Project.

Trails Committee:

On November 10, 2022, the Trails Committee reviewed the Project. The Committee noted that a trail on Jefferson Avenue adjacent to the subject site would be desirable but challenging given the topography. The Committee expressed interest in the Town exploring the feasibility of a new trail on Jefferson within the public right-of-way. Given that the Project would not impact any trails (no existing trails within the Project vicinity and no new trails proposed), there was no objection to the Project.

2. Subdivision Review Committee Review
The Subdivision Review Committee, composed of the Town’s Planning Director, Town Engineer, and Town Geologist; the Woodside Fire Protection District’s Fire Marshal; and the San Mateo County Environmental Health Officer, met with the Respondent on November 14, 2022. The review criteria for each Committee member is outlined in WMC Section 152.130 and comments from each Committee member are located in Attachment IX.D, and summarized as follows:
(a) Town Planning Director:

The Town Planning Director indicated that the Land Division would allow for future residential development, which complies with the existing Residential General Plan designation. The proposed lots meet the lot creation requirements for the proposed (SR) zoning district; and mitigation measures to minimize impacts to the environment and neighboring properties are included in the MND.
(b) Town Engineer:

The Town Engineer’s review focused on infrastructure improvement such as new roadways, storm drains, etc. Since no development is proposed as part of this Land Division, the Town Engineer had no significant comments for the Project but did inform the Respondent that the Town is exploring the possibility of installing a mixed-use (pedestrian/equestrian) trail in the public right-of-way located immediately adjacent to the property line along Jefferson Avenue.
(c) Town Geologist:

The Town Geologist noted that the Project and anticipated future development is constrained by potentially expansive surficial soil and fill materials, the potential for very strong seismic ground shaking in the event of an earthquake and steep slopes. Any future development would call for evaluation by the Project’s geotechnical consultant to provide construction recommendations which address the specific soil conditions on site.

(d) Woodside Fire Protection District Fire Marshal:

The Fire Marshal indicated that the water supply for fire protection purposes is adequate; a fire hydrant is located directly across the street; and, emergency vehicle access is Item C Page 5
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 6 adequate. The Fire District will review the details of any future landscaping, during the development review process if/when development is proposed. (e) San Mateo County Environmental Health Officer:

The San Mateo County Environmental Health officer noted that both proposed parcels would have adequate water supply for domestic purposes once required pipe upgrades are installed (provided by Redwood City Water Department) and adequate room for onsite sewage disposal (provided by a future septic system installation) is available.

3. Planning Commission Review
Per WMC §152.077(D), the Planning Commission received and reviewed the determinations made by the above-referenced Committees and considered all of the following items prior to taking action on a Land Division:
152.077(D)
(1) The environmental review documents;
(2) The report, findings, and recommendations of the Subdivision Review Committee; (3) The report and recommendations of the ASRB and Town Committees, or their designated subcommittees;
(4) Consistency with the General Plan, any applicable Specific/Area Plan, and the zoning and site development provisions;
(5) Applications or requirements for variances, exceptions or other entitlements, if any;
(6) Staff reports including all attachments;
(7) Public testimony; and,
(8) The testimony of the owner or subdivider and/or his/her authorized representatives.
(a) Planning Commission Findings Regarding MND
CEQA (Environmental) Review
To comply with CEQA and WMC §152.024, an Initial Study was prepared. The Initial Study concluded that all potentially significant impacts of the Project could be reduced to a less than significant level by imposing identified mitigation measures, therefore, an MND was the appropriate environmental document under CEQA. The Draft MND for the Project, which included the Initial Study and all supporting technical studies, was reviewed by the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission was advised that the MND identified the following areas that would potentially be significantly impacted by the Project:

1. Cultural Resources;

2. Geology and Soils;

3. Hydrology and Water Quality;

4. Transportation;

5. Tribal Cultural Resources;

6. Utilities and Service Systems; and,

7. Mandatory Findings of Significance.

The Draft MND concluded that although the Project could have a potentially significant effect on Item C Page 6
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 7 these environmental topic areas, due to future, anticipated construction activity, these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the MND. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Attachment IX.A.1 provides ten (10) mitigation measures that are needed to reduce any potential significant impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are required for any future development of the proposed parcels.

During the 30 day comment period to the MND, the Town received one comment regarding it. The comment was from a neighboring property owner who was concerned about stormwater runoff and drainage. The Final MND included a response to the comment stating that any future development projects will be required to show that existing offsite drainage flows will not be increased in volume or velocity before obtaining approval from the Town’s Engineering Department (Attachment IX.G.12). Additionally, the MMRP includes a mitigation measure for development projects to comply with all local and State offsite drainage runoff requirements.

The Final MND, including all comments received and responses to comments prepared by the Town, raised no substantial new environmental issues that have not been adequately addressed.

The Planning Commission found that the MND was prepared in compliance with CEQA, and approved the MND by Resolution No. 2022-013 (Attachment V) (b) Planning Commission Findings for Land Division
Required Land Division Findings A-H (WMC §152.078)
WMC §152.078 states that the Planning Commission shall approve a Land Division if the Planning Commission makes all of the following specific findings:
(A) The tentative map is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific/Area Plan;
(B) The design or improvement of the proposed land division or subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific/Area Plan;
(C) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (D)The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; (E) The design of the land division or subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
(F) The design of the land division or subdivision or the type of improvements will not cause serious public health or safety problems;
(G)The design of the land division or subdivision or the type of improvements:
(1) Will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or the use of property within the proposed land division or subdivision; (2 If conflicts with existing easements will occur, substantially equivalent alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided; (3) This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, and no authority is hereby granted to the Planning Commission or Town Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or the use of property within the proposed land division or subdivision; or
(H) The discharge of waste from the proposed land division or subdivision into an existing Item C Page 7
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 8 sewer system would not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Water Code § 13000) of the Cal. Water Code.

As shown in Planning Commission Resolution of Approval, Attachment VI, the Planning Commission made the required findings for approval outlined in WMC §152.078.

Required Municipal Code Land Division Standards (WMC §152.111 - 152.126) In addition to the findings in WMC §152.078, the Planning Commission also determined that the Project complied with WMC §152.111 - 152.126 including compliance with various regulations related to Lot Sizes and Shapes (§152.112), Road Patterns (§152.113), Road Design (§152.114), Road Rights of Way and Pavement Widths (§152.115), Drainage (§152.116), Trails (§152.117), Public Utilities and Easements (§152.118), Conservation, Open Space, and Scenic Easements (§152.119), Park and Recreational Areas (§152.120), Sewage Disposal (§152.121), Water Supply (§152.122), Geotechnical Reports (§152.123), Grading (§152.124), Landscape and Erosion Control (§152.125), and Improvements (§152.126). The Planning Commission made the following findings related to these code sections:

WMC §152.111 (Compliance with Requirements)
WMC §152.111 states that if the Planning Commission finds that it would be in the public interest to approve a greater or lesser standard than proposed by the Applicant, the Planning Commission may approve such a modification as long as the Applicant can provide that it would be in the public interest to approve such a modification. The Applicant did not propose any modifications to the required improvements or standards of design.

WMC §152.112 (Lots)
WMC §152.112 (A-K) outlines the requirements for lot sizes, designs, shapes, lot lines, solar access, site access, drainage, non-access dedications, remnant lots, noise considerations, and environmental constraints to improvement locations.
(A) Lot Sizes:
(1) The proposed parcels both comply with the 1-acre minimum lot area, and the required 100-foot minimum average width for the SR zoning district. Both of the proposed parcels would provide sufficient area to construct site improvements. (2) Pursuant to WMC §153.205, the proposed net lot areas do not include access easements, random public utility or drainage easements (not adjacent to the property line), or a panhandle area in excess of 5% of the net lot area required in the particular zoning district.
(B) Lot Design:

The proposed Tentative Map for Land Division shows conceptual building and improvement locations. Based on the information provided, the proposed lots could accommodate future development.
(C) Lot Shape:
(1) The average depth of the proposed parcels do not exceed three times the required average width, and include rectangular shaped areas outside of the required setbacks where structures and improvements could be located.

Item C Page 8
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 9 (2) Panhandle Lots are discouraged in Town and shall only be permitted when the Planning Commission determines that they would result in a better design of development. Municipal Code Section 152.005 defines a Panhandle Lot of having less than a 30-foot frontage. Both proposed parcels would have more than 30 feet of frontage. Neither lot meets the definition of a Panhandle Lot. (D) Lot Lines
The Land Division divides the property proportionately lengthwise, yielding the best possible building sites. Additionally, the proposed lot lines are at right angles to the road right-of-way lines.
(E) Solar Access:

The proposed parcels have sufficient room for ground mounted solar installations.

Additionally, solar access could be located on the roof at any future proposed buildings. (F) Access:
(1) Both proposed lots have access to an existing public road: Godetia Drive. (2) Neither lot would be divided by a driveway or access easement. (3) Each parcel would be able to be served by its own driveway. (G) Drainage:

The Land Division does not include any new development; however, due to the existing topography of the site, any future buildings must be able to drain water runoff away from the residences and retain development induced drainage onsite so as not to increase offsite drainage onto adjacent roads and adjacent properties beyond existing conditions (H) Non-access Dedications:

Both proposed lots would only be able to take access from Godetia Drive. (I) Remnant Lots:
(1) The Land Division would not create any substandard lots. (2) Neither lot would be split by a Town or County boundary. (J) Noise Considerations:

General Plan Map N1 (2030 Noise Contour Projections) shows that the Project site is outside of the areas where noise is projected to exceed 55 Ldn in the future. Any future development would be required to follow noise requirements of the WMC in effect at the time of the future application.
(K) Buildings Sites:

The conceptual building site is within an area of the site not constrained by steep slopes, and as outlined in the MND , the Project site is within a suburban part of Town that is not considered an environmentally sensitive area.

WMC §152.113 (Road Pattern)
WMC §152.113 (A-B) outlines the requirements for proposed road patterns within land divisions.

The Project does not propose any new roads.

WMC §152.114 (Road Design)
WMC §152.114 (A-K) outlines the requirements for proposed road designs within land divisions.

Item C Page 9
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 10 The Project does not include new roads.

WMC §152.115 (Road Rights-of-Way and Pavement Widths)
WMC §152.115 (A-E) outlines the requirements for proposed road rights-of-way widths within land divisions. The Project does not include new roads.

WMC §152.116 (Drainage)
WMC §152.116 (A-B) outlines the requirements for proposed or required drainage facilities within Land Divisions. No new development is proposed as part of the Land Division application; therefore, new drainage facilities are not required. Any future development would be required to comply with all WMC drainage requirements in place at the time the development application is approved.

WMC §152.117 (Trails)
WMC §152.117 (A-C) outlines the requirements for proposed trail easements. No trails or trail easements are proposed as part of this Land Division.

WMC §152.118 (Public Utilities and Easements)
WMC §152.118 outlines the requirements for undergrounding and locating proposed utilities. The Project does not include any proposed development. Future proposed development would require connections to nearby utilities prior to approval of construction permits. A public waterline upgrade will need to be installed, prior to approval of a Final Map, to serve the new parcel, as required by the Conditions of Approval ensuring that the new parcel can be served by a municipal water connection.

WMC §152.119 (Conservation, Open Space, and Scenic Easements) WMC §152.119 states that the Planning Commission may require the dedication of conservation, open space, and scenic easements for the express purpose of protecting the natural vegetation, terrain, watercourses, historic and cultural resources, scenic vistas, and wildlife to prevent erosion, water quality problems, and geologic hazards.

For Land Divisions of less than 5 lots, the Town Attorney advised that the Town may not require dedication of easements unless there is a clear nexus between the impacts from the proposed project and the need for such an easement, such as impacts to an environmentally sensitive area.

Easement dedication is not required for this two lot Land Division.

WMC §152.120 (Parks and Recreational Areas)
WMC §152.120 (A-C) outlines the requirements for the dedication of parks and recreational areas.

This Land Division creating 2 lots, does not require the dedication of park or recreational areas.

WMC §152.121 (Sewage Disposal)
WMC §152.121 requires that each proposed parcel be designed to provide an effective disposal system. The existing residence and accessory structures are served by a septic system. Future development of a residence and accessory structures on proposed Parcel A would require installation of a septic system at that time.

WMC §152.122 (Water Supply)
WMC §152.122 (A-B) provides requirements for water supply. Since no development is proposed Item C Page 10 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 11 as part of the Land Division, no new infrastructure is required. The Project site is located within an existing suburban residential neighborhood and is currently served by the Redwood City Water Department (RWCWD). On June 1, 2022, Cal Water completed installation of an 8-inch emergency interconnect from Godetia Drive and four fire hydrants on Godetia Drive, including a fire hydrant at 999 Godetia Drive – immediately across the street from the subject parcel at 988 Godetia Drive.

On August 4, 2022, CalWater extended a transfer of service offer to serve six properties on Godetia Drive. This offer required unanimous acceptance from all six property owners. CalWater achieved unanimous acceptance on October 3, 2022. Next steps for transfer of service from RWCWD to CalWater include: 1) RWC City Council approval (by RWC); 2) SFPUC approval (by RWC); and 3) California PUC approval (by CalWater).

The Redwood City Water Department has provided a conditional ‘Will Serve’ letter, dated October 3, 2022, (Attachment IX.G.8) for the Land Division, requiring the upgrade of water lines prior to approval of the Final Map.

Additionally, the Fire Marshal and Fire Chief have participated in the Subdivision Review Committee meetings and have found that the existing fire hydrants on Godetia Drive could serve future development on the proposed parcels.

WMC §152.123 (Geotechnical Reports)
WMC §152.123 (A-C) outlines requirements for the submittal of geotechnical reports. The Applicant provided a Geotechnical Feasibility Report evaluating the stability of potential residence sites and septic drainfields at the Concept Map and Tentative Map stages for review by the Town Geologist. Although no development is proposed at this time, any future development would be required to comply with geotechnical recommendations of the Town Geologist issued as part of the review process for that future application. The Town Geologist concluded that a subdivision and leach field feasibility study review was completed consistent with the prevailing standards of practice in the Town and recommended geotechnical approval of the subject land division application.

WMC §152.124 (Grading)
WMC §152.124 requires that all grading design be based on the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the Town Engineer and Town Geologist. No grading is proposed as part of the Land Division, but any future development would be required to comply with all grading regulations in place at that time.

WMC §152.125 (Landscaping and Erosion Control)
WMC §152.125 requires that all Land Divisions that include grading also include landscaping to help control erosion. No grading is proposed as part of the Land Division, but any future development would be required to comply with all grading and landscaping regulations in place at that time.

WMC §152.126 (Improvements)
WMC §152.126 (A-B) outlines detailed requirements for all proposed site improvements such as roadway construction and maintenance. No improvements are proposed as part of the Land Item C Page 11 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 12 Division; therefore, maintenance bonds or review of improvement plans is not applicable.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
The Planning Commission considered all of the above noted sections of the WMC and approved the Land Division as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 2022-013 and 2022-014.

SUMMARY OF APPEALS AND APPLICANT RESPONSE
Attachments II and III include the details of each appeal. Appellants Galindo and Mah make the following arguments on appeal:

Summary of Galindo Appeal:

Appellant Galindo contends that:
• Studies and project request by the owners of 988 Godetia Drive do not take into account the cumulative effect of all development in the area;
• Commissioners and Town personnel have not completed site inspections; • Communication to the downhill neighbors has been lacking; • The project eliminates a horse property;
• The previous application denial in the early 2000’s was not properly vetted or reviewed by Planning Commission;
• The Town failed to act on and/or communicate plan after previous denial and request for a moratorium on development in the area; and,
• There is not a Planning Commissioner or Town Council member who is familiar with the area.

Relief Requested:

1. Moratorium until the environmental impact studies and engineering firms can properly assess the damage and come up with a solution for the neighborhood.

Summary of Mah Appeal:

Appellant Mah contends that:
• Planning commissioners were not provided with complete documentation of previous multiple land division applications on this property. Planning Commissioners therefore failed to adequately address the basis for approval;
• Planning Commission failed to consider a previous decision (9/15/04) to recommend that the Town enact a moratorium on further land divisions, subdivisions and subsequent building in this area (Toyon Hills) until after the development of a specific plan, which the Planning Director stated was the area of Town at highest risk for detrimental impacts of further development including drainage, traffic and fire safety; • Planning Commission failed to consider that the area surrounding the proposed land division is now the location for several large developments that have taken place in recent years that have caused and are continuing to cause catastrophic problems for the entire neighborhood;
• Planning Commission failed to consider the cumulative impacts of further development, which would be enabled by this land division; and, Item C Page 12 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 13 • Planning Commission failed to consider that, although the applicant claims to have no intention of demolishing the existing barn, construction on the proposed building site for the newly created lot would render the property unsuitable for equestrian use. This violates multiple General Plan policies to preserve and protect the equestrian heritage.

Relief Requested:

1. Reversal of decision.

2. Require conditions be applied to any further actions to divide and/or develop the parcel to ensure that the burden of liability remains with the applicant/owner of the original property proposed for land division.

3. Require that the Town impose a moratorium on any further development activity including land divisions, subdivisions and construction until a review and study of development impacts to the surrounding area can be completed.

4. Impose a requirement for a third party plan check on all engineering calculations presented as part of proposed developments.

Respondent’s Submittal in Response to Appeal
In summary, Respondent indicates that (Attachment IV):
• The Project proposes no new development.
• Throughout the review process, community members were alerted and given the opportunity to raise concerns. Direct neighbors have no objection to the Project. • The new parcel created by the Land Division has 3 storm drains in the public right-of-way along the property boundary. The storm water is directed away from Canada across the golf course and down to Farm Hill. This constitutes 90% of the storm water from the property and 3 other homes on Godetia near Jefferson. The other 2 storm drains run along the new parcel across from 4202 Jefferson at the intersection of Midglen Way. • At least one member of the Planning Commission visited and walked the site. • There is nothing in the Municipal Code, Chapter 152 Articles V – XIII that discusses “historical records” as being a factor of relevance for the applicant. The previous application mentioned in the appeal was abandoned over two decades ago. It is unclear how, not only the Planning Commission members, but also the applicant, could be expected to respond to historical records or to challenge former findings in this process. It would be objectionable to have Committee members make judgements based on information not addressed in the Municipal Code and where the applicant is not provided with guidelines for making a measured response.
• The State sets the guidelines for CEQA and if the cumulative impact of development, given the States mandate for new housing, is not being factored appropriately in the CEQA report then this is a State issue. If there is a failure in the report, which all development relies on, to the point that it would prevent the recording of a new map, then certainly it should halt all development in the Town and not just this land division. The process for recording a new compliant property map (land division) with San Mateo County is outlined in Municipal Code Chapter 152 and included a requirement for the generation of a CEQA report which found no reason to prevent a land sub-division.

STAFF ANALYSIS OF APPEALS
As noted above, the Town Council hears appeals “de novo” as if no decision had been rendered Item C Page 13 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 14 by the Planning Commission. Staff has analyzed the applicable WMC sections and recommends that all findings needed for approval of this Project can be made.

Appellants disagree with staff’s recommendation for approval of the Project but Appellants have not pointed to any particular finding for approval that cannot be made but contend the Project should be denied for the following reasons. .

First, Appellants contend that the Planning Commission failed to consider the cumulative effect of development in this area of Town, failed to consider previous applications for a land division at this site, and failed to consider a 2004 recommendation for a moratorium on development in this area of Town.

Staff’s Response: The applicable provisions of the WMC do not require that findings be made on these points when reviewing and approving a Land Division.

Second, Appellant’s contend that Committee members and Town personnel have not done site inspections and/or are not familiar with this area of Town.

Staff’s Response: Planning Commissioners and Town personnel have visited or are familiar with the site as demonstrated by the detailed comments of the reviewing subcommittees. Town staff and Committee members were familiar with the specific site and the surrounding area.

Third, communication with downstream members was “lacking”.

Staff’s Response: This project was publicly noticed as required by State law and public hearings were held by the ASRB and Planning Commission at which all interested members of the public were allowed to speak.

Fourth, the Land Division will eliminate a “horse property” and/or render the property unsuitable for equestrian purposes.

Staff’s Response: There is nothing in the record to support these contentions. There is no development proposed in conjunction with this Land Division and the stable located on the property is not proposed to be demolished. The existing stable has not been occupied by any livestock use in several years, possibly in upwards of 15 years or more. While equestrian uses in Woodside are strongly encouraged, retention of existing equestrian facilities is not a prerequisite to any project approval, including Land Division applications.

CONCLUSION
As noted above, the appeals are heard “de novo” and at the conclusion of the appeal hearing, the Town Council must determine whether or not it can make the findings required to approve the MND and Land Division. If the findings can be made, the Land Division should be approved, and the Project may proceed. If the findings cannot be made, the appeal should be granted, and the Land Division should be denied. As detailed in this report, all relevant Town Committees, the ASRB and Planning Commission determined that findings could be made for approval of the MND and Project. No new issues have been raised on appeal and staff therefore recommends that the Town Council, after hearing, deny the appeals by adopting the draft Resolutions at Attachment I.

Item C Page 14 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 15

ATTACHMENTS
I. Draft Resolutions of Approval

1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
II. Appeal filed by Christina Galindo, dated January 3, 2023 III. Appeal filed by Maggie Mah, dated January 3, 2023
IV. Applicant Response Letter, January 27, 2023
V. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-013, Approving CEQA2020-0001 VI. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-014, Approving LDIV2020-0001 VII. Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 14, 2022 (Draft) VIII. Planning Commission Desk Items from the December 14, 2022, hearing IX. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 14, 2022 A. Draft Resolution Adopting the MND and MMRP (CEQA2020-0001).

1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
B. Draft Resolution Approving the Proposed Land Division (LDIV2020-0001) C. Concept Map Subdivision Review Committee Letter, dated November 2, 2018 D. Tentative Map Subdivision Review Committee Letter, dated November 21, 2022 E. Woodside Municipal Code §152.112 - 152.126
F. Project Chronology
G. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (See link
attachment_g._final_mnd_988_godetia.pdf (woodsidetown.org). Hard copies of the MND are available upon request from Town staff.)

1. Application

2. Land Division Exhibits

3. Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection, prepared by Richard Gessner, Monarch Consulting Arborists, LLC, dated February 14, 2019.

4. Subdivision Feasibility Study, prepared by Geosphere Consultants, Inc., dated May 27, 2019

5. Cotton, Shires, and Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers and Geologists, Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review, dated November 12, 2020

6. Native American Heritage Commission, letter dated and received April 7, 2020.

7. California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS), letter dated April 28, 2020; received May 7, 2020.

8. Cal Water Offer Letter for Transfer of Service, dated August 4, 2022

9. Copies of ‘Will Serve’ letters provided by PG&E, AT+T and Redwood City Water Department

10. Cal Water Fire Flow Test of New Fire Hydrant at 999 Godetia Drive, dated June 10, 2022

11. Tentative Parcel Map, prepared by DOES Architects, submitted March 3, 2020

12. Comments Received and Response to Comments
X. Approved Tentative Map, received March 3, 2020 (Town Council Only*) Item C Page 15 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023