Town Council
February 28, 2023

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-___

BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
WOODSIDE ADOPTING CEQA2020-0001, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND MITIGATED MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM, CONCERNING THELAND DIVISION TO DIVIDE ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS 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, an Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared by the Town of Woodside (CEQA2020-0001) in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines adopted by the Secretary of Resources, and the Woodside Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, the MND includes professionally prepared studies including, an Arborist Report and a Geotechnical Investigation;
WHEREAS, the Town transmitted for filing a Notice of Completion of the MND and in accordance with CEQA, and forwarded the MND to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to those state agencies that have discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the Project;
WHEREAS, the Town provided notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the MND in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability of the MND was distributed to public agencies and neighboring properties and the MND was made available at Woodside Town Hall, San Mateo County Recorder’s Office, and on the Woodside Town website to the general public for a 30-day public comment period beginning October 13, 2022, and ending November 12, 2022; 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; WHEREAS, the Town received comments on the MND from a nearby resident and adequately responded to the comments;
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2022, the Planning Commission continued to a date certain of December 14, 2022 due to technical difficulties;
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the MND and Project at which oral and written comments and a staff recommendation for adoption of the MND and approval of the project were presented to the Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information in the

ATTACHMENT I
Item C Page 16 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

administrative record;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed all comments received on the Project to determine whether substantial new environmental issues have been raised; and, based on the evaluation of the MND together with all comments received and responses to comments prepared by staff, determined that no substantial new environmental issues had been raised that had not been adequately addressed in the MND; therefore, no revisions affecting the conclusions of the MND were made and additional circulation of the MND – pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines – was not required;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the Project, due to future anticipated construction activity, has the potential to result in significant impacts to, geology and soils (seismic ground shaking, unstable lands, and unique resources), hydrology and water quality (erosion), transportation (hazards), utilities and service systems (storm water compliance and water supply), and mandatory findings of significance (environmental impacts); further, the Planning Commission found that the mitigation measures identified in the MND reduced the level of significance of all identified potential impacts to a level of “less than significant”, as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); WHEREAS, a lead agency must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for changes to a project that it adopts or makes a condition of project approval in order to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The MMRP set forth in the attached Attachment 1, which is incorporated herein by reference, accurately reflects the mitigation measures contained in the MND;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Woodside, based on facts and analysis in the MND, written and oral testimony, mitigation measures included in the Project, staff reports and exhibits presented, found that:

1. It had independently reviewed and analyzed the MND and other information in the record, and had considered the information contained therein, prior to taking action on the Project;

2. The MND had been completed in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Woodside Municipal Code;

3. The MND adequately described the environmental impacts of the proposed Project;

4. All potential impacts associated with the Project, due to future, anticipated construction activity, were found to be less than significant with incorporation of relevant mitigation measures identified in the MMRP; therefore, the Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts and an MND, in accordance with CEQA, was the appropriate environmental document for the Project; and,

5. The MND reflected the independent judgment of the Town.

WHEREAS, having made all of the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission of the Town of Woodside adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA2020-0001) and the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project, attached hereto as Attachment 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are on file with the custodian of these records, the Planning Department of the Town of Woodside, located at 2955 Woodside Road, in the Town of Woodside, and are available for inspection by any interested person; Item C Page 17 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

WHEREAS, appeals #2023-0001 and #2023-0002 were timely filed contesting this determination and the Town Council heard those appeals de novo at a public hearing conducted on February 28, 2023 as required by the WMC;
WHEREAS, at that hearing, the Town Council reviewed the MND together with all comments received and responses to comments and determined that no new environment issues have been raised that are not adequately addressed by the MND;
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the Project, due to future anticipated construction activity, has the potential to result in significant impacts to, geology and soils (seismic ground shaking, unstable lands, and unique resources), hydrology and water quality (erosion), transportation (hazards), utilities and service systems (storm water compliance and water supply), and mandatory findings of significance (environmental impacts); further, the Town Council finds that the mitigation measures identified in the MND reduce the level of significance of all identified potential impacts to a level of “less than significant”, as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and, WHEREAS, a lead agency must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for changesto a project that it adopts or makes a condition of project approval in order to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The MMRP set forth in the attached Attachment 1, which is incorporated herein by reference, accurately reflects the mitigation measures contained in the MND.

WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Woodside, based on facts and analysis in the MND, written and oral testimony, mitigation measures included in the Project, staff reports and exhibits presented, hereby finds that:

It has independently reviewed and analyzed the MND and other information in the record, and has considered the information contained therein, prior to taking action on the Project; The MND has been completed in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Woodside Municipal Code;
The MND adequately describes the environmental impacts of the proposed Project; All potential impacts associated with the Project, due to future, anticipated construction activity, were found to be less than significant with incorporation of relevant mitigation measures identified in the MMRP; therefore, the Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts and an MND, in accordance with CEQA, is the appropriate environmental document for the Project; and,
The MND reflects the independent judgment of the Town.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, having made all of the foregoing findings, the Town Council of the Town of Woodside does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA2020-0001) and the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project, attached hereto as Attachment 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are on file with the custodian of these records, the Planning Department of the Town of Woodside, located at 2955 Woodside Road, in the Town of Woodside, and are available for inspection by any interested person.

Item C Page 18 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the Town Council of the Town of Woodside, at a duly noticed public hearing held on February 28, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

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

Chris Shaw, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Li, Town Clerk
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 Town Council.
_____________________________ ______________
Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
Item C Page 19 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
ATTACHMENT 1
Item C Page 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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 24 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 25 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 26 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 27 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-____

BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
WOODSIDE DENYING APPEALS #2023-0001 AND #2023-00002 AND 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 continued to a date certain of December 14, 2022, due to technical difficulties;
Item C Page 28 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 2022-013, 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 then made 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.:

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).

B. The design or improvement of the proposed land division or subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific/Area Plan;
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 Sensitive Area) designations, which provide fewer constraints to dividing land that meets minimum lot sizes.

Item C Page 29 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

Applicable General Plan Policies Consistent with the Proposed Land Division The Planning Commission found that the Project complies with the following General Plan policies, most of which are intended to avoid environmental impacts.

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.

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 and future development will be required to comply with regulations at the time of application.

Policy LU1.5 – Thoroughly evaluate changes to parcel boundaries

1. Land Divisions
Item C Page 30 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

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 landform 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.

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.

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 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.

Item C Page 31 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

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.

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.

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 Item C Page 32 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

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 application.

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.

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.

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 as such the Project complies with the minimum lot size.

Item C Page 33 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

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.

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. Future proposals to construct residences and accessory structures on the proposed parcels will be required to meet the Building Codes in place at the time development is proposed thereby complying with all public health and safety related regulations.

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.

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

No development is proposed as part of this Project and 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.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further found that the Project complied with Municipal Code Section 152.112 (A-K) as discussed, detained and supported by the Planning Commission Staff Report of December 7, 2022 that was presented at a continuance date of December 14, 2022:
(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 Item C Page 34 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

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. (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.

Item C Page 35 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

(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.

WHEREAS, having made all of the foregoing findings in favor of approval, the Planning Commission of the Town of Woodside approved the Land Division; WHEREAS, appeals #2023-0001 and #2023-0002 were timely filed objecting to the approval of the Land Division;
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2023, the Town Council conducted a de novo public hearing on appeals #2023-0001 and #2023-0002, receiving comments from the Appellants, Respondent, and members of the public and reviewing all written material submitted regarding these appeals; WHEREAS, the Town Council, having considered all of the above-referenced information, hereby denies appeals #2023-0001 and #2023-0002, thereby approving 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.

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.

Item C Page 36 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

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 Council of the Town of Woodside, at a duly noticed public hearing held on February 28, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

Chris Shaw, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Li, Town Clerk
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 Town Council.
_____________________________
Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
Item C Page 37 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

ATTACHMENT II
Item C Page 38 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 39 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 40 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Item C Page 41 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 42 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 43 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Date: January 26, 2023
From: Stephan Fitch, Applicant
To: Woodside Town Council
RE: Town of Woodside Council Meeting Applicant Response to Appeal 988 Godetia Drive - LDIV2020-0001; CEQA2020-0001
Although I sympathize with the parties who are affected by new development projects and those specifically experiencing problems in rainy seasons, I would like to be clear that our application is for recording a new compliant property map (land division) only and does not propose any new development.

The processes outlined in Chapter 152 of the Municipal Code (Articles V – XIII) are clear and were diligently applied to this application at great time and expense. Throughout the process community members were alerted and given the opportunity to raise concerns. None were raised. The numerous steps in the process afforded environmental & trails committees, as well as the ASRB, Town Engineers, San Mateo County Environmental Health Services and the Fire Dept opportunity to comment on at least three occasions (conceptual and tentative map phases as well as subcommittees) spanning over 4 years. Our direct surrounding neighbors on all sides and abutting properties have given their support for this project. On this I have no further comment.

With respect to the recording of this new proposed property, it should be noted that it is exceptionally suited to handle any future development as it has not 1 (one), but 3 (three) storm drains directly in the public right of way along its boundary. One is on the corner of Godetia directly at the intersection of Jefferson. This storm drain, remarkably, is under the management of Redwood City Public Works who informed us that the storm water is directed away from Canada, across the Golf course and down to Farm Hill (see attached). This constitutes at least 90% of the water from our property and three other homes on Godetia near Jefferson. The other two storm drain systems run along the new proposed property across from 4202 Jefferson and at the intersection at Midglen Way. Both are also performing with great efficiency. It would be difficult to show how a development on this site would affect any of the neighboring homes due to water runoff given its exceptional storm water drainage infrastructure.

Lastly, according to my reading, both appeals seem to claim that the Planning Commission failed to perform their duties in primarily three areas. It is based on these arguments that the request to reverse the decision to approve the land division is being made. A summary of the appeal claims, and our responses to them, are as follows:

ATTACHMENT IV
Item C Page 44 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

1.) The Planning Commission did not make site visits and/or properly inspect the site.

At least one member of the Planning Commission visited and walked the site with me.

The site is easily visible from both Godetia and Jefferson and it is readily apparent that the site is well suited for any concerns regarding water runoff given its exceptional three storm drains along its frontage. A recent completed development on an abutting property located at 4219 Jefferson would inform the Commission that development is not only feasible but in keeping with Woodside Architectural Guidelines.

2.) The Planning Commission did not review historical data related to a previously abandoned application
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 staff 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.

3.) The Planning Commission did not take into consideration the cumulative impact of development in the region.

My understanding is that 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 Township and not just our land division. It is unclear why or how the Planning Commission should evaluate cumulative impact if it is not adequately addressed in CEQA. 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.

Thank you for your time.

Warm regards,
Stephan Fitch
Item C Page 45 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
1/27/23, 3:02 PM Gmail - Jefferson / Godetia drainage runoff system https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=b01ad1ac2c&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1754138241524504471&simpl=msg-f%3A1754138241524504471 1/1 Stephan Fitch < >
Jefferson / Godetia drainage runoff system
PWS-Justin Chapel < > Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 3:56 PM
To: Stephan Fitch < >
Hi Stephan,
The storm drains on Black Fox Way flow towards the golf course and eventually to Farm Hill Blvd. then eventually to Redwood Creek. For drainage on Jefferson from Godetia Dr to Canada Rd. I think you will need to ask Woodside. [Quoted text hidden]
image002.png
37K
Item C Page 46 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

ATTACHMENT V
Item C Page 47 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 48 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
12/19/2022
Item C Page 49 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 50 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 51 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 52 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 53 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 54 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 55 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 56 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 57 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

ATTACHMENT VI
Item C Page 58 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 59 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 60 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 61 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 62 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 63 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 64 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 65 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 66 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
12/19/2022
Item C Page 67 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2022 Page 1
DRAFT

2. 988 Godetia Drive LDIV2020-0001; CEQA2020-0001
Stephan Fitch Planner: Sarah Filipe, Associate Planner
Presentation and approval, conditional approval, or denial, of a proposal for a Land Division (LDIV2020- 0001) to divide one lot into two lots. The 988 Godetia Drive Land Division project proposes to divide one existing legal parcel of record (APN: 068-301-100) into two legal parcels (Parcel A and Parcel B). 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. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA2020-0001) was prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and circulated for public review between October 13, 2022, through November 12, 2022.

Prior to taking an action to approve the project, the Planning Commission shall adopt the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Project was continued from December 7, 2022, due to “Zoom Room” technical difficulties.

DISCUSSION
Associate Planner, Sarah Filipe, presented the staff report.

Chair Voelke asked if the proposed building envelope would be in the old corral area? She also noted that the concept driveway for the new lot appears to be in the same location as the old corral area.

Planner Filipe stated that the concept driveway location for the new lot would be located on Godetia Drive and would not conflict with the existing barn location, but would lead to an area that had been used as a corral several years ago.

Chair Voelke stated that there was a setback location determination made by the former Planning Director in 2018. She asked, what was the reason behind the setback determination? Interim Planning Director, Sage Schaan, stated that the Setback Determination letter outlined the location of the front property line at Godetia Drive, with the side property line located along Jefferson Avenue given that a future proposed building at the conceptual building envelope would be more visible if located closer to Godetia Drive.

Chair Voelke stated that the proposed vacant parcel would need to be served by an onsite septic system.

She asked if percolation tests have been completed?
Planner Schaan stated that percolation tests were completed and reviewed by the County Health Officer.

He stated that there were no objections to future septic suitability from County Health based on the findings from the percolation tests.

Chair Voelke referenced the conceptual building site shown and stated that all possible building locations do not need to be shown, but there needs to be at least one possible building location shown. Is that correct?
Planner Schaan replied, that is correct.

Chair Voelke invited the applicant to speak.

Item C Page 68 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2022 Page 2
DRAFT
Stephan Fitch, property owner, 988 Godetia Drive, provided additional details of the project.

Public Comment opened at 6:26 p.m.

Maggie Mah, property owner, 4271 Jefferson Avenue, stated that cumulative impacts to the neighborhood have occurred due to recent development projects. The lot is proposed to be divided for future development, and that flooding in the area is a major issue, which would be increased with future development on the proposed vacant lot. The engineering drainage plans for recent development has been inadequate. Ms. Mah stated that a future structure on the proposed vacant lot would have a significant visual impact as viewed from the roadway. She noted that there used to be horses on the property and encouraged the existing barn on the property to remain. Ms. Mah noted that the site would not be able to accommodate horses in the future of the lot split is approved.

Christina Galindo, property owner, 4225 Jefferson Avenue, stated that she cannot use a little over a third of her property every time it rains since her property experiences excessive flooding due to uphill development. She stated that her horses had to be evacuated and have been injured from debris carried by the flooding. To bring her horses back to her property, she would have to raise the barn by 4 feet in order to protect the barn from flooding in a severe storm. She stated that her and her adjacent neighbors (not including 988 Godetia Drive) are in a lawsuit to resolve the impacts created by recent flooding of her property. She stated additional development that could be created from the land division is not a wise or safe decision.

Steve Patrick, property owner, 732 West Glen Way, stated that that water flow is a difficult element to mitigate. He stated there was previously open land on lots along Jefferson Avenue that used to help to absorb the water runoff, but drainage pipes installed for recent development had made it less effective. He stated that a previous application for a land division was deemed in appropriate for development when it was before the Planning Commission years ago. He stated the proposed land division would be inappropriate for the neighborhood. The setback for 30-foot-tall home, 20 feet off of Jefferson Avenue, is inappropriate as it would create visual impacts. He suggested a one-story structure with a 50-foot setback from Jefferson Avenue would reduce visual impacts. He stated that drainage would also have to be studied, and that more research is needed for the land division as it would increase the number of cars and driveways in the area. He stated that while there are housing issues facing the Town, instead of a lot split, there could be additional ADUs placed on the existing property. The other homes along Jefferson Avenue have a 50-foot setback and not a 20-foot setback from Jefferson Avenue.

Ms. Mah stated that she agrees with the comments made by Mr. Patrick. She stated that there used to be a meadow in the area, but now it is a mess. The driveway concept location from Godetia Drive would create hazards with regard to traffic and runoff in the area. She stated that more studies are needed, and more thought has to be given to mitigate any and all potential hazards from the project. She stated that previously, the Planning Commission had placed a moratorium on developing in that area. She stated that now there is no regard for the moratorium if it is still in effect. She suggested reinstating the moratorium.

Ms.Galindo stated that there should be a pause on development in order try to fix existing issues before additional development is added.

Commissioner Garr stated drainage runoff is a key issue. He asked, what is required for offsite drainage with a development project?
Planner Schaan stated that a development project cannot increase the volume or velocity of offsite runoff beyond what currently exists. The current project includes the division of a parcel, with no development Item C Page 69 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2022 Page 3
DRAFT
proposed at this time. Any future development project would be required to submit a drainage plan, which would require Engineering Department approval based on development requirements.

Commissioner Garr asked if there are different setback standards for this project from other properties on Jefferson Avenue since setbacks required for other properties along street are 50 feet from the Jefferson Avenue property line?
Planner Schaan replied, the difference between the other properties on Jefferson Avenue and the subject site is that the other properties only have one street frontage, which face Jefferson Avenue. He stated that a 50-foot setback applies to front setbacks. The previous Planning Director determined Godetia to be the front setback (property line) and the side setback taken from Jefferson Avenue.

Chair Voelke stated that she has concerns with the determination made that did not establish Jefferson Avenue as the front setback. She noted that most of the building would be visible from Jefferson Avenue.

She asked if there are any requirements that would prohibit a future house from facing Jefferson Avenue if not considered a front setback?
Planner Schaan stated that a front door is not required to face the front setback. He noted that the grade difference between Godetia and the possible future building site is less steep than the grade difference Jefferson Avenue and the possible future building site; thereby pushing development further form Godetia Drive at that location would minimize the visibility of a future project from both roads. The proposed lot would likely need to use the lower area closer to Jefferson Avenue for a future septic system, and not a residence, as it is unlikely that a septic system could be accommodated on other parts of the proposed lot.

Chair Voelke asked if there was a process to notify neighbors when the setback (property line) determination was made?
Planner Schaan replied, no. Setback determinations made by the Planning Director, as outlined in the Municipal Code, do not require neighbor notification.

Chair Voelke asked, at what stage were neighbors notified? Planner Schaan stated that notices were mailed to neighbors within 300 feet at the Concept Map stage for the ASRB hearing, and notices were mailed to neighbors within 300 feet at the Tentative Map stage for the ASRB hearing, and for the Planning Commission hearing. Noticing for other Committee reviews for both stages were included on the Town’s website.

Chair Voelke asked, when referring to noticing, are letters mailed to property owners? Planner Schaan replied, yes.

Commissioner Garr asked if the setback and driveway locations would be “locked-in” with the land division? He asked if the driveway could be moved and if the setbacks could be changed with a future project?
Planner Schaan stated that some past land division and subdivision applications specified the site location envelope for development of buildings beyond required zoning setbacks, and/or limited site access from certain roadways when a new lot would front more than one right-of-way. While this has occurred in the past, it is uncommon.

Item C Page 70 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2022 Page 4
DRAFT
Commissioner Garr asked, in theory, could the front setback be shifted to Jefferson Avenue for this land division?
Planner Schaan stated, yes, if it was a determination made by the Planning Commission.

Public Comment closed at 7:03 p.m.

COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION
Commissioner Bildner asked if the applicant had followed the process that the Town requires for a land division?
Planner Schaan replied yes. The applicant submitted a complete application complying with zoning and land division requirements. The application required an MND, which was prepared and processed in compliance with CEQA.

Commissioner Bildner asked if staff recommends approval of the project as proposed.

Planner Schaan replied yes, based on the project details and the comments received through the Town Subdivision Review Committee process.

Commissioner Bildner stated, staff recommends Planning Commission approval of the Tentative Map based on all the information and comments provided throughout the process, and that unknowable information as to what would ultimately be built in the future is not considered at this time.

Planner Schaan confirmed that there is not development proposal considered at this time.

Commissioner Bildner stated that having the applicant submit information that they could not possibly know today for a project that is not even designed is beyond the applicant’s ability to answer. He stated that evaluation of impacts from future development that is not proposed at this time would be speculation by the Planning Commission.

Chair Voelke stated, while construction is not proposed at this time, it is still the Planning Commission’s purview to review the land division that is presented. She stated that there are still concerns with the shape of the lot and the possible building location that needs to be discussed. She noted that there are potential impacts that may occur from future development based on the proposed lot configuration.

Commissioner Batchelder stated that due to recent development in the neighborhood, offsite runoff has not been adequately addressed according to neighbors. He asked if there is a responsibility of the Town to divert the water elsewhere, or is it always the responsibility of the residents? Commissioner Batchelder stated that more construction in the area would create new issues if water runoff to adjacent properties is not being addressed by recent projects. He asked if development project engineers failed in figuring out how much water would be displaced from each development project? Planner Schaan replied that he is not familiar with the specific circumstances expressed by the neighbors, but that the two properties that are currently under construction on Jefferson Avenue have not been completed. He encouraged residents to speak with the Engineering Department regarding their concerns related to drainage runoff from the new projects to ensure compliance with all requirements. He noted that development projects shall not increase water runoff flow or velocity. He encouraged residents to speak with the Engineering Department if they have concerns with existing construction projects.

Item C Page 71 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2022 Page 5
DRAFT
Commissioner Batchelder stated that there are some concerns with how the drainage standards are being regulated, as residents are raising issues. He stated that the future building on the proposed lot would also be significantly visible if it is two stories. He suggested the future proposed development be limited to one story.

Planner Schaan replied that any requirements to limit future building heights on the proposed lot beyond the zoning district limitations would need to be reviewed with the Town Attorney to determine if such limitation could be required with approval of a land division. He stated that requiring development on one lot within a zoning district to be limited by lower height requirement than what is permitted by the zoning requirements for surrounding properties is uncommon.

Commissioner Batchelder stated concerns related to drainage impacts expressed from the neighbors. He stated that mitigation measures should be implemented for future projects.

Planner Schaan stated that all future development projects would be reviewed by the Engineering Department to ensure compliance with drainage requirements in place at that time.

Commissioner Garr stated that it is his understanding that the Planning Commission is required to review the findings for approval of the Tentative Map. He stated that if the application meets the required findings for approval, then it is the purview of the Planning Commission to render a decision based on the specific project findings. He stated that concerns expressed for the land division proposal do not pertain to the current application and will need to be addressed with any future development project at the site. He noted that any failures that may have occurred from other projects should be reviewed, but it is not fair to the current applicant to address concerns raised for development on other sites. The density that the lot split would create is keeping with the zoning density and that future development would be reviewed through the Town processes to identify any potential impacts from that development. Commissioner Garr noted that he could make the findings to approve the proposed land division.

Commissioner Bildner stated that he agrees with the comments made by Commissioner Garr.

Chair Voelke noted that future development shall be reviewed closely to ensue compliance with all drainage regulations, and that development of the parcel is not currently proposed. She stated that she can make the required findings approve the lot split based on the project details.

ACTION
The Planning Commission made a motion to approve the draft resolution, as written, thereby approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA2020-0001) and the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), based on facts and analysis in the MND, written and oral testimony, mitigation measures included for the project, and, hereby finds that:

1. It has independently reviewed and analyzed the MND and other information in the record, and has considered the information contained therein, prior to taking action on the Project;

2. The MND has been completed in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Woodside Municipal Code;

3. The MND adequately describes the environmental impacts of the proposed Project;

4. All potential impacts associated with the Project, due to future, anticipated construction activity, were found to be less than significant with incorporation of relevant mitigation measures Item C Page 72 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2022 Page 6
DRAFT
identified in the MMRP; therefore, the Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts and an MND, in accordance with CEQA, is the appropriate environmental document for the Project; and,

5. The MND reflects the independent judgment of the Town.

Motion: Chair Voelke /Second: Commissioner Garr
Ayes Chair Voelke, Commissioners Bildner, and Garr
Noes Commissioner Batchelder

Absent: Vice Chair Dare, Commissioners Kutay and London Abstain: None
The Planning Commission passed the motion.

ACTION
The Planning Commission made a motion to approve the draft resolution, as written, approving 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.

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.

Item C Page 73 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2022 Page 7
DRAFT
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.

Motion: Chair Voelke /Second: Commissioner Bildner
Ayes Chair Voelke, Commissioners Bildner, and Garr
Noes Commissioner Batchelder

Absent: Vice Chair Dare, Commissioners Kutay and London Abstain: None
The Planning Commission passed the motion.

Item C Page 74 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
1 Sarah Harper
From: Steve Patrick < >
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 12:47 PM
To: Sarah Filipe; Planning Commission
Cc: Sage Schaan
Subject: Re: 988 Godetia.

Attachments: Main residence sf.png.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.

Hi Sarah, Planning Commissioners,
Thanks for the response, I have these further comments.

RE documents:

I think it is important that the previous application  is reviewed so the current Planning Commission can evaluate the merits of the modified land division application  compared to the past request. If this comprehensive review takes more time it would be appropriate for such a significant request diminishing the potential of preserving an equestrian property.

RE Main residence size:

The documents provided by the applicant indicates the main residence is 4575.9 sf not less than 4000sf.

RE Front set back:

Who was the planning director that determined that standard set in the Town ordinance regarding sites with frontage on more than one roadway was met? It seem abundantly clear that the component/requirement of “most visible” has not been met.

A potentially 30’ tall structure placed 20’ from the top of a 15’ road‐away embankment, essentially 45’ roof line in such close proximity above the driving surface, is inappropriate and contrary to the Towns General plan and design guidelines.

ATTACHMENT VIII
Item C Page 75 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
2 Thanks,
Steve Patrick
Item C Page 76 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
3 831 Midglen Way
Woodside, CA 94062
o 650 369-0416
c 650 222-0004
On Dec 6, 2022, at 4:04 PM, Sarah Filipe <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Steve,
Thank you for your email. I looked into the previous land division application and what I found was that the Planning Commission reviewed a tentative map application in 2004 and denied the application.

Then, a year later, the Planning Commission reviewed a tentative map application but continued the item requesting more documentation. And, as Sage recalls, the applicant never came back or followed up with the application.

I unfortunately don’t have the file available to view, but it sounds like the previous lot design, size, driveway location, etc. were different than what is being proposed now. I have asked for the box to be pulled so that I can look at those plans.

Regarding the existing main residence, it is less than 4,000 square feet, which does not require a Residence Size Exception, and therefore does not require an increased setback.

The Planning Director has reviewed the land division and has determined that Godetia Drive be the front.

I will make sure your comments are forwarded to the Planning Commission.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Thank you,
Sarah Filipe
Associate Planner
Town of Woodside
(650) 851‐6796 Office
(650) 530‐3436 Direct
P.O. Box 620005
2955 Woodside Road
Woodside,  CA  94062
<image001.jpg>
Happy Holidays!
Town Hall will be closed December 26th – January 2nd.

From: Steve Patrick < com>
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 12:08 PM
To: Sarah Filipe <[email protected]>; Sage Schaan <[email protected]> Item C Page 77 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
4 Cc: Akio Patrick < com>
Subject: 988 Godetia.
[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.

Hi Sarah, Sage,
I was looking over the proposed subdivision information for this site and I recall this coming before the PC some time in the past and it was denied.

Would it be possible to get a copy of those minutes so staff, public and current PC members can reflect on the issues at that time and if they are still relevant? Another observation is it appears the current main residence is larger than what would be afforded without an exception being granted, part of that exception requires the setbacks be increased to 100’. It is understood that this existing non conforming condition exists on the existing parcel however the granting of this subdivision allows this condition to be ignored affording the benefits of the current large parcel without consideration.

It was my understanding that a subdivision was not permitted that creates a more non conforming condition than what currently exists.

Also the applicant has established that the front setback is along Godetia, per chapter 153 it states that the Planning Director shall determine the road from which the building site would be most visible and apply front set back regulations to that roadway frontage. In this case the parcel faces Jefferson avenue, 455’ and only 153” along Godetia, and will not be visible from Godetia.

Therefore the front setback should be established along Jefferson.I undersantd that the existing parcel front setback is indeed Godetia however the new parcel A needs to have the front setback established to be on Jefferson.

I acknowledge the Town Engineer has signed of on the site access concept however I have concerns that entering and exiting, down a very steep driveway, within 50’ of the Jefferson intersection into a 13’ wide road will be dangerous and problematic. I think a driveway profile should be studied and approved, before approval of this subdivision.

Thanks,
Steve Patrick
Woodside, CA 94062
Item C Page 78 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 79 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 80 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Item C Page 81 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
just to tear it down. Ms. Luben noted that the Town of Woodside was in the process of drafting a preservation element.

Clotide Luce, of 301 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, stated that she returned to Woodside for the hearing because lived in house through 1960s. She submitted photos of the house in the 1960s for the record.

She urged the Town of Woodside to preserve the " masterwork." She noted that in 1960s, her family was able to maintain the house on middle class budget. She stated support for Alternative 2 because she felt that other buyers would want this George Washington Smith- designed historical house. She listed names of many famous guests to the home as a reference to its historical significance. She presented the idea of a less costly Alternative B whereby the current applicant could inexpensively protect the house from further deterioration without complete renovation. She noted that the Applicant has not produced a new project design in which the benefits of new development would outweigh the costs of historical destruction.

Sonja Davidow, a neighbor of the Jackling Estate, informed Commissioners that the house was visible from the street and especially from her property. She noted that approval of this demolition would set a standard of demolition of historical houses in Woodside. She stated that Mr. Jackling contributed historically and so did the architect.

Commissioner Hobson moved to close the public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and Commissioner Patrick seconded the motion. The commissioners voted by voice.

Ayes:

Nos:

Absent:

Chair Livermore, Vice- Chair Elder, Commissioners Hobson, and Patrick. none
Commissioner Jorgensen, Commissioner Scutchfield.

Commissioner Scutchfield joined the meeting.

3. Woodside Developers LLC
Lawler Ranch Road
CUP 2004- 001. SDPC 2004- 001. LLA 2003- 005
A. Review of a
request to construct bridges and roadways in the stream corridor.

B. Review of a site development permit to grade in excess of 1500cy for purposes of roadway construction.

C. Review of a
request to adjust the lot lines of four lots.

This item was continued.

4. Vladamir & Mie.dal Alexanvan
988 Godetia Drive
LD 2002- 001
Review of a Tentative Parcel Map for a land division resulting in two lots in the SR zoning district.

Commissioner Patrick recused himself from Item # 4, Vladimir and Migdal Alexanyan Land Division.

Kelly Posusney, Associate Planner, presented the staffs report.

Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2004
Approved April 21, 2004

Item C Page 82 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Vice- chair Elder inquired whether the 55 sf remaining paved area was based on the maximum allowed on the lot or based on the drawn site plan. Ms. Posusney replied that the remaining paved area was based on the drawing.

Chair Livermore asked the width of the developable building envelope. Ms. Sullivan and the Applicant agreed 30 feet.

The Applicant, Vladimir Alexanyan, stated that he was the owner of property for four years. He indicated that he spent three years devoted to this lot division, performing many tests. In response to the Planning Department' s 8 findings, he noted that he could redraw the proposed property lines to be straighter. He mentioned that he would be willing to accommodate a horse trail easement.

Mr. Alexanyan stated that he could add acreage to the new lot and that he would reduce the proposed house size. He refuted the staffs comment that vegetation would have to be cleared to create a clear and safe line- of-sight for the driveway along Jefferson Road, noting that the existing vegetation was low to the ground. He suggested changing the driveway location, and noted that the speed limit of Jefferson Road is 25 mph. Mr. Alexanyan stated that he believed landscaping around the proposed house would be more scenic than the existing condition.

Mr. Alexanyan refuted the Staffs water drainage issues, stating that there is no running water through the area during rains or storms. He stated that the proposed building would not affect area drainage. On the issue ofthe PG & E easement, he suggested putting the wires underground along property line.

Commissioner Scutchfield inquired whether the Applicant intended to build the house himself. Mr.

Alexanyan replied that he did intend to build house himself.

Akio Patrick, of732 West Glen Way, stated that he supported the idea of subdivision philosophically because he was a contractor. However, on this particular site, he supported the staffs findings. Mr.

Patrick stated that the major problems were access to the site and the forced location of the building pad right along road due to 35 percent slopes behind the proposed house. He additionally maintained that the front drainage was a natural depression where the sewage would likely mix with rainwater. He declared the combined drainage and septic issues to be a danger to public health, and requested a greater investigation of the downstream effects of the development of septic in a natural drainage field He stated that he saw no room for expansion in this plan because the proposal already was at its maximum.

Steve Patrick, of732 West Glen Way, entered the room to speak. He noted that he lived in the neighborhood for his entire life, and that he observed the traffic increase over time. He stated that the proposed driveway egress point onto Jefferson Road was unsafe. He declared that traffic is faster than 25 mph on Jefferson because it is a downhill slope, and the project would be detrimental to anyone driving.

He reminded Commissioners that Staff had pointed out the oddly-shaped lot, which would be in violation of General Plan. He indicated that a drainfield proposed in a seasonal creek would not be safe. He suggested a wet weather test should be done after a
large rainfall. He noted that fluid from the site would affect everyone downstream. He further noted that the Applicant did not properly demonstrate the actual amount of 35 percent slopes on the property, and that he thought the house is proposed in the only portion of lot that is not a 35 percent slope.

Mr. Alexanyan replied that he had submitted details and calculations of the slopes. He stated that the proposed septic leachfields would be 25- 30 feet from running water. He refuted the statement that the drainage area is a creek or stream.

Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2004
Approved April 21, 2004

Item C Page 83 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Vice- chair Elder asked if the 15 inch and 24 inch pipes were going into a catch basin.

Town Engineer, Kent Dewell, replied that the pipe crossed under the street to discharge onto the open land with no catch basin.

Commissioner Scutchfield asked Mr. Dewell whether the water flowed or soaked into the property. Mr.

Dewell replied that in high flow conditions, active water would cross the property.

Chair Livermore asked Mr. Dewell his opinion ofthe traffic and line- of-sight issue. Mr. Dewell replied that in the Commission' s submitted information, the calculations were based on 30 mph average traffic speed along Jefferson. He noted that in the four tests oftraffic speed, a percent of the vehicles were traveling faster than 30 mph. He affirmed that there were a significant number of vehicles using Jefferson traveling at a higher speed, which was not reflected in the Staffs report.

Vice- chair Elder moved to close the public hearing, and Commissioner Scutchfield seconded the motion.

With a unanimous voice vote, Chair Livermore closed the public hearing.

Ayes:

Nos:

Absent:

Chair Livermore, Vice- Chair Elder, Commissioners Hobson, and Scutchfield. none
Commissioner Jorgensen, Commissioner Patrick.

Discussion:

Vice- chair Elder stated that she had concerns with traffic safety and building screening. She noted that to cut back existing vegetation and leave the building exposed to road would detract from the scenic quality, but would be necessary for traffic safety. She stated that she could make the findings and thus could not approve the land division.

Commissioner Scutchfield agreed with Vice- chair Elder, and noted that the jog in the property line did not conform to the General Plan. She further concurred that the driveway safety and vegetation removal issues were significant. Commissioner Scutchfield stated that she was concerned with the drainage situation. She noted that if the property was landscaped, it would defeat the purpose of natural preservation. She declared that she would continue or deny the proposed land division.

Commissioner Hobson stated that her main concerns were drainage and driveway safety. She noted that the other issues could be fixed, and praised Alexanyan' s willingness to dedicate a horse trail. However, she affirmed that there was too much water on the site. She stated that the Applicant could not build a septic system into a natural drainage field. She noted that the driveway opening onto traffic would be dangerous, and stated that the project has major problems.

Chair Livermore noted that the Applicant would not be able to build additions to the main house because the proposal was already at maximum build- out. He noted that he had observed fast traffic on Jefferson and felt that the driveway would be a safety issue. He further stated that the proposed house would be in the only building envelope possible because of all of the constraints. He added that because of the septic field he agreed with Staffs comments and reports. He stated that he could not approve the land division.

Vice-chair Elder moved to deny Land Division Application LD# 02- 00 I, due to an ability to make the findings A through D, F and G of Section 152. 028 ofthe Woodside Municipal Code as outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Scutchfield seconded the motion. The vote was called by roll.

Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2004
Approved April 21, 2004

Item C Page 84 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Ayes:

Nos:

Absent:

Chair Livermore, Vice- Chair Elder, Commissioners Hobson, and Scutchfield. none
Commissioner Jorgensen, Commissioner Patrick.

The land division application LD # 02- 001 was denied.

Commissioner Patrick entered the room, having recused himself from Item # 4.

5. Russ & Shaunalia Kahn
233 Eleanor Drive
APPL 2003- 001
Appeal of the Planning Directors decision to deny a
request to change the exterior wall materials from
wood to stucco.

Ms. Sullivan, Director of Planning and Building, presented the Staff's report.

Commissioner Patrick questioned the findings of the ASRB hearing. Ms. Sullivan clarified that at the ASRB hearing, the Board found the proposal to be a modern house, and the Board wanted wood siding rather than stucco.

Chair Livermore asked ifthe applicant would like to make a presentation.

The Applicant, Shaunalia Kahn of 233 Eleanor Road, drew the Commissioners attention to the sample board and noted that the slate stones represented the terrace floor materials and the natural stones would be found on the lower walls of the house. She pointed out photos on the model, which indicated how obscured the house would be by landscaping. Mrs. Kahn noted that the ASRB made its recommendation with less information on the project, and that the stucco had been changed to a darker shade. She stated that the stucco would blend into the surrounding environment and would be less busy than the horizontal lines of redwood siding. She further declared that half of the homes in the neighborhood utilized stucco.

She noted that she had lived in the previous house on the same lot for 6 years, and the original house had stucco walls. She further indicated that the changes from siding to stucco would only cover 18 percent of the exterior walls. Mrs. Kahn reminded Commissioners that they received letters from six of her seven neighbors in support of the stucco changes, and that there was only one dissenting neighbor. She submitted for the record photographs taken from the edge of her property line elucidating the dissenting neighbor' s obscured view. She noted that she and her husband have spent months going to neighbors for discussions and approval, and she drew attention to the submitted petition of over 60 supporting neighbors.

Commissioner Patrick asked the Applicant whether the approved wood siding was a different color from the proposed stucco. Mrs. Kahn replied that it was a change in color.

Commissioner Hobson asked if there was a difference in the presentation to the ASRB. Ms. Sullivan replied that there was no model, photos of vantage points, or adequate sample boards when the matter was considered by the ASRB. The Applicant further clarified that she did not originally realize that neighbors would complain and that the change could not occur over the counter.

The Applicant' s design architect, Taylor Perkins, explained that the Kahns' wanted a cohesive final product and that it would be hard to apply flat redwood siding to the curves of the building. She explained the model and emphasized that the stucco would only be ] 8 percent of the exterior. She stated that the removal of the horizontal siding lines would help minimize the building' s perceived height.

Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2004
Approved April 21, 2004

Item C Page 85 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
removal this year. She requested that a study be performed to analyze the erosion and runoff for the proposal.

Rick White, of 125 Fox Hollow, stated concern for the illegal tree removal and did not support the project.

Commissioner Patrick moved to close the public hearing, and Commissioner Ma seconded the motion.

Commissioner Livermore stated that the site design would be analyzed at a later time, and clarified that the Planning Commission was only asked to make findings for the setback exception. He continued that he could not make finding one because there were alternatives available that would conform to the setbacks.

Commissioner Anderson stated that he could not make findings one, four or five. Commissioner Hobson concurred. Commissioner Patrick stated that he could not make finding one, and continued that there were conforming alternatives for the site. Commissioner Ma stated that she could not make finding one or four. Commissioner Jorgensen stated that she could not make finding one, four, or five.

Commissioner Livermore moved to deny the setback exception due to the inability to make finding one, four, or five as stated in the staffreport. Commissioner Ma seconded the motion.

Ayes: Vice -chair Jorgensen, Commissioner Ma, Patrick, Livermore, Hobson, and Anderson

Absent: Chair Elder
Noes: None.

3. Vladimir and Migdal Alexanyan LD 2004 -001
988 Godetia Drive
Review of a tentative parcel map for a land division resulting in two lots in the SR Zoning District.

Commissioner Patrick recused himself from LD 2004 -001.

Ms. Sullivan, Director of Planning and Building, presented the staff report.

Ms. Commissioner Ma inquired whether the land division conformed to the hillside development regulations. Sullivan responded that the applicant's engineer had provided the calculations. Commissioner Anderson stated that either the numbers or the provided site plan appeared incorrect.

Commissioner Anderson noted that the proposed driveway location was on or near 35% slopes, and Ms. variance Sullivan clarified would that ifthe slopes in excess of 35% were manmade and were less than 35% naturally, no be necessary. Commissioner Ma stated that it would be difficult to retain the required 70% of the land in a natural state.

Vladimir Alexanyan, 980 Godetia, stated that this was the second hearing for this proposed land division.

He indicated that the 35% slopes near the proposed driveway were manmade. He continued that he already had electric, water, and gas service for two lots. He stated that a maximum of 3,000 SF of area would be developed on the proposed lot, including the driveway.

Phil Forsythe, of 1 104 Godetia, stated that the lot yield was calculated incorrectly and stated that he was against the land division.

Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2005 Page 3
Approved October 19, 2005
Item C Page 86 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
Steve Patrick, of 732 West Glen Way, passed out a letter to the Commissioners. He stated that the lot yield calculation was incorrect and stated a desire to view the computations. He continued that the two new lots should be of approximately the same size, and maintained that land divisions detract from the rural character of Woodside. He stated that the application was incomplete including not showing the number of bedrooms to be served, the drainfields areas, the paved area, or the area to be retained in a natural state. He continued that the survey was unclear and the contours were manipulated in the leachfield area. He noted that the proposed building site straddled an area of 35% slopes, and stated concern for traffic safety on Godetia Drive. He stated that a trail easement should be included in the land division, and a wet weather test should be done of the proposed septic site.

Mr. Alexanyan clarified that he found no direction in the General Plan or Municipal Code that a land division required the division of a property into equally -sized lots.

Commissioner Livermore moved to close the public hearing, and Commissioner Ma seconded the motion.

Commissioner Livermore stated that the Commissioners required more information, and that there was not enough information to make a decision. He continued that the Planning Commissioners should view the engineer'scalculations.

Commissioner Livermore made a motion to continue Land Division #2004 -001 to a date uncertain, and after the Planning Commission's discussion of the Hillside Development Regulations. Commissioner Hobson seconded the motion.

Commissioner Anderson asked for discussion. He stated that he would prefer to deny the application rather than to continue the application and have the applicant spend more money to produce the calculations that the Commissioners required.

Commissioner Hobson stated that the Commissioners should view the source documents. Commissioner Livermore stated that the Planning Commission would not be likely to approve the land division, but continued that they did not have enough information to deny the application.

Ayes: Vice -chair Jorgensen, Commissioner Ma, Livermore, and Hobson Noes: Commissioner Anderson

Absent: Chair Elder
Recused: Commissioner Patrick

4. Kent & Beatrice Putnam XMR2004 -003 SDPC 2004 -004
345 Miramontes Road
Exception to Maximum Residence Size (XMR #2004 -003) - Review of an application for an exception to the 6,000 square foot maximum residence size limit to allow for a main residence of 7,937 square feet in the RR zoning district, in accordance with Woodside Municipal Code Section 153.047( E). On September 1, 2004, the Planning Commission approved an exception to the Maximum Residence Size to allow for a main residence of 7,887 square feet.

Exception to Site Development (SDPC #04 -004) - Review of an application in accordance with Woodside Municipal Code Section 151.22 (b), to review approximately 2,800 cubic yards of cut and Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2005

Approved October 19, 2005
Item C Page 87 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
PC Meeting December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Page 1

TOWN OF WOODSIDE

REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: December 7, 2022 Agenda Item: 3
Prepared by: Sarah Filipe, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Sage Schaan, AICP CEP, Interim Planning Director TITLE: LDIV2020-0001; CEQA2020-0001 –Presentation and approval, conditional approval, or denial, of a proposal for a Land Division (LDIV2020-0001) to divide one lot into two lots.

The 988 Godetia Drive Land Division project proposes to divide one existing legal parcel of record (APN: 068-301-100) into two legal parcels (Parcel A and Parcel B). 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. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA2020-0001) was prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and circulated for public review between October 13, 2022, through November 12, 2022.

Prior to taking an action to approve the project, the Planning Commission shall adopt the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration.

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)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to divide one existing legal parcel of record (APN: 068-301-100) into two legal parcels (Parcel A and Parcel B). The gross lot area of the existing property is 4.96 acres, which includes an easement for the adjacent road right-of-way. Municipal Code Section 153.205(B) excludes easements for road rights-of-way from Lot Area calculations. All Lot Areas discussed in this report exclude road rights-of-way unless explicitly noted at gross lot area.

Proposed Parcel A would be 1.58 acres and proposed Parcel B would be 2.81 acres. No

ATTACHMENT IX
Item C Page 88 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
PC Meeting December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Page 2
development is proposed as part of this application.

The proposed Tentative Map (Attachment H) includes the location of the existing buildings on proposed Parcel B, and a conceptual building footprint and driveway location on proposed Parcel A. The conceptual building footprint shown on Parcel A is not a proposed building but demonstrates an area in which a building could be located, which is required by the Municipal Code; however, no new development is proposed, at this time.

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project and circulated for a 30-day public review period (Attachment G) (see discussion below for more details). Pursuant to CEQA, the Planning Commission must take action to adopt the MND prior to taking an action to approve the Tentative Map.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review all materials and testimony; and, take the following actions:

1. Adopt the MND and MMRP in Attachment A, in compliance with CEQA; and,

2. Approve the proposed land division, as conditioned in Attachment B.

REPORT CONTENT
The report contains the following sections:

Section: Description: Pages:

I. Property Description 3
II. Project Description 3
III. Entitlement Process
A. Concept Map
B. Tentative Map
C. Planning Commission
D. Post Approval
3-6
3 4-5
5-6
6 IV. CEQA (Environmental) Review 6-7
V. Land Division Review Criteria
A. Required Findings A-H, WMC §152.078
B. Required Land Division Standards,
WMC §§152.112-152.126
7-12
7-8
8-12
VI. Planning Commission Actions
A. CEQA Options
B. Project Options
12 12
12-13
VII. Conclusion 13-14
Item C Page 89 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
PC Meeting December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Page 3
I. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The project site is located in the northeast part of the Town of Woodside, at the intersection of Godetia Drive and Jefferson Avenue.

The project 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 project 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). A stable is also located on the property close to 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.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes to divide one existing legal parcel of record (APN: 068-301-100) into two legal parcels (Parcel A and Parcel B). The existing property Lot Area is 4.39 acres (191,253.67 square feet). The proposed Land Division would create two new parcels; keeping the existing development on proposed Parcel B; and a vacant lot on proposed Parcel A that could be developed with a single-family residence in the future. No development is proposed as part of this application.

III. ENTITLEMENT PROCESS AND COMMITTEE COMMENTS
WMC Chapter 152 outlines the procedure for review of land divisions in the Town of Woodside.

The WMC requires that Town staff and Committees review and provide comments on a Concept Map, before an application is submitted for a Tentative Map. 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 the project. The CEQA document is then prepared and circulated for public review. During that time, each required Town Committee must review the application and provide recommendations on the CEQA document and Tentative Map to the Planning Commission.

A. Concept Map
Application Requirements
WMC §152.060 and 152.061 outline the submittal requirements for review of a Concept Map application. 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 a Tentative Map application.

Conferences on Concept Map
WMC §152.062(C) requires that the Town transmit copies of the Concept Map to the 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 Item C Page 90 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
PC Meeting December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Page 4
necessary to review the project. The applicant completed the Concept Map review process.

Attachment C includes a written summary of the Committee comments on the Concept Map provided to the applicant.

B. Tentative Map
Application Requirements
WMC §§152.071 - 152.074 outline submittal requirements for review of a Tentative Map application. The Tentative Map shall include all necessary information to ensure compliance with the Town’s WMC requirements, most notably the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 152) and the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 153). Once the Tentative Map application is determined complete, and all required committees have reviewed the project, the Planning Commission may review the CEQA document and the proposed land division.

Conferences on Tentative Map
WMC § 152.075 requires that the Town transmit copies of the Tentative Map to the members of the Subdivision Review Committee and to the Chairs of the Town ASRB, Environment: Open Space, Conservation, and Sustainability Committee, Trails Committee, and any other Town committees deemed necessary to review the project. The ASRB and all Town Committees reviewed the project Draft MND.

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 are summarized below:

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 proposed land division.

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 is 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 proposal would not impact any trails (no existing trails within the project vicinity and no new trails proposed), there was no objection to the proposed land division.

Subdivision Review Committee Review
The Subdivision Review Committee includes the Town Interim Planning Director, Town Engineer, and Town Geologist; the Woodside Fire Protection District Fire Marshal; and the San Item C Page 91 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
PC Meeting December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Page 5
Mateo County Environmental Health Officer. The Subdivision Review Committee met with the subdivider, on November 14, 2022. The review criteria for each Committee member are outlined in Municipal Code Section 153.130. The comments from each Committee member are located in Attachment D, and below is a summary of the comments.

Town Planning Director:

The Planning Director indicated that the land division would be 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 are included in the MND, to minimize impacts to the environment and neighboring properties.

Town Engineer:

The Town Engineer review criteria is primarily designed for proposed development along with a land division, such as new roadways, storm drains, etc. Since no development is proposed as part of this land division, the Town Engineer did not have any significant comments for the project. The Town Engineer informed the applicant that the Town is exploring the possibility of installing a mixed-use (pedestrian/equestrian) trail in the public right-of-way, and due to the topography and roadway location, the trail would need to be located immediately adjacent to the property line of the subject site along Jefferson Avenue.

Town Geologist:

The Town Geologist noted that the proposed land division and anticipated future development is constrained by potentially expansive surficial soil and fill materials, very strong seismic ground shaking and steep slopes. The Town Geologist noted that any future development will be evaluated by the project geotechnical consultant who will provide construction recommendations based on the specific soil conditions.

Woodside Fire Protection District Fire Chief:

The Woodside Fire Protection District Fire Marshal indicated that the water supply for fire protection purposes is adequate; a fire hydrant is located directly across the street; emergency vehicle access is adequate; and, the Fire District will review the details of any future landscaping, during the development review process.

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 the 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).

C. Planning Commission
The Municipal Code provides the review procedures for the Planning Commission on the CEQA document (for this project, an MND), and the proposed land division. With regards to the proposed land division, WMC §152.077(D) requires that the Planning Commission consider all of the following items prior to taking action on the project:
152.077(D)
(1) The environmental review documents;
Item C Page 92 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
PC Meeting December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Page 6
(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 subdivider and/or his/her authorized representatives.

D. Post Approval
Expiration and Extension of an Approved Tentative Map
If the proposed Tentative Map is approved by the Planning Commission, the WMC outlines the expiration of the Tentative Map in WMC §§152.100 and 152.101. To avoid expiration of the Tentative Map, the applicant must file a complete Final Map compliant with all Tentative Conditions, obtain Town Council approval, and record it with the County within 24 months after the approval of the Tentative Map. If the Final Map is not recorded within 24 months after the approval of the Tentative Map, all approvals for the Tentative Map expire unless an extension is granted. WMC §152.101(A) indicates that the Planning Commission may grant an extension to the approval of the Tentative Map, not to exceed 12 months, to allow for additional time for the Town Council approval and recordation of the Final Map. The applicant shall file an extension request application at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the Tentative Map.

Final Map and Easement Dedication
WMC §§152.104, 152.106, 152.107 provide all of the requirements and procedures for filing, approving, and recording a Final Map, following Tentative Map approval. Pursuant to WMC §152.106(D), the Town Council shall approve the Final Map if it conforms with the approved Tentative Map, including all Conditions of Approval. During review of the Final Map, the Town Council shall consider whether to accept any proposed public easements, although the proposed land division does not currently propose any dedication of easements. As described above, any approved Final Map must be recorded within 24 months of the Tentative Map approval, or, if an extension is granted, no later than 36 months of the Tentative Map approval.

IV. CEQA (ENVIRONMENTAL) REVIEW
Pursuant to CEQA and WMC §152.024, an Initial Study must be prepared in compliance with CEQA for all land divisions. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, the appropriate environmental analysis and documentation is determined and prepared in compliance with CEQA. The Town of Woodside prepared the required Initial Study, which is based in part on technical studies by consultants including a Primary Record Report and a Geotechnical Investigation. 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, the Town determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was the appropriate environmental document under CEQA.

The Town then prepared the Draft MND for the Project, which includes the Initial Study and all supporting technical studies.

The MND identified the following areas that would potentially be significantly impacted by the Item C Page 93 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
PC Meeting December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Page 7
proposed land division:

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 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 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 would be required for any future proposed development of the proposed parcels. If the land division is approved, staff recommends Condition of Approval I.b:
requiring that all applicable mitigation measures be recorded on each of the new parcels as part of a deed restrictive covenant so that any future landowners and/or staff would be able to easily locate and comply with/enforce the restrictions placed on the property pursuant to the land division approval.

During the 30 day comment period, the Town received one comment regarding the draft MND. The comment was from a neighboring property owner with concerns 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 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, raises no substantial new environmental issues that have not been adequately addressed.

If the Planning Commission finds that the MND was prepared in compliance with CEQA, the Planning Commission shall adopt the MND and MMRP prior to approving the project. If the Planning Commission cannot make the findings to approve the project , thereby denying the project, the MND shall not be adopted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15270).

V. LAND DIVISION REVIEW
The Planning Commission shall approve the Project if all of the eight findings set forth in WMC §152.078 can be made. These findings are listed in Section VI.A of this Report below. If the Planning Commission determines that the findings can be made, the Planning Commission must then consider whether the Project complies with WMC §152.065 - 152.080 (see Section VI.B of the staff report for analysis of each code section) which set forth various site design and technical regulations.

A. Required Land Division Findings A-H (WMC §152.078)
WMC § 152.078 states that the Planning Commission shall approve a tentative map if the Planning Item C Page 94 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
PC Meeting December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Page 8
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 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.

The Draft Resolution in Attachment B provides detailed findings and analysis of applicable General Plan policies related to the required findings for approval outlined in WMC § 152.078.

The recommended findings indicate that the project is consistent with the General Plan and Municipal Code requirements, therefore, staff recommends that the findings for approval can be made, allowing the Planning Commission to approve the project.

B. Required Municipal Code Land Division Standards (WMC §152.111 - 152.126) WMC §152.111 - 152.126 (Attachment E) requires 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). Staff finds that each of these requirements applicable to the Project are met.

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 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 Item C Page 95 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
PC Meeting December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Page 9
interest to approve such a modification. The applicant is not proposing 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.

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-of-way 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. (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.

Item C Page 96 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
PC Meeting December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Page 10
(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.

WMC §152.113 (Road Pattern)
WMC §152.113 (A-B) outlines the requirements for proposed road patterns within land divisions.

The proposed project does not include any proposed roads.

WMC §152.114 (Road Design)
WMC §152.114 (A-K) outlines the requirements for proposed road designs within land divisions.

Since no new roads are proposed, the road design criteria does not apply.

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. Since no new roads are proposed, the road design criteria does not apply.

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. A downhill neighbor has expressed concerns related to the development of the and additional drainage problems it may cause to downhill properties. Any future development proposals will need to comply with all drainage requirements in place at the time the development application is submitted.

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.

Item C Page 97 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
PC Meeting December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Page 11
WMC §152.118 (Public Utilities and Easements)
WMC §152.118 outlines the requirements for undergrounding and locating proposed utilities.

Since the proposed project does not include any new utilities and the proposed parcels would be able to install the utilities from the road for any future development. A waterline upgrade will need to be installed to serve the new parcel and shall be installed prior to approval of a Final Map.

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.

The Town Attorney has advised staff that the Town may not require the easements since this is not a subdivision (5 or more lots), unless a strong nexus can be made 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 necessary, or included in the project.

WMC §152.120 (Parks and Recreational Areas)
WMC §152.120 (A-C) explains the requirements for the dedication of parks and recreational areas.

The proposed land division only includes 2 lots, which are too few lots to require the dedication of park or recreational areas, and the applicant proposes none.

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.

WMC §152.122 (Water Supply)
WMC §152.122 (A-B) provides requirements for water supply. Since no development is proposed as part of the land division, new infrastructure is not 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 with Redwood City, 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 G.9) for the proposed 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 Item C Page 98 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
PC Meeting December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Page 12
future development on the proposed parcels.

WMC §152.123 (Geotechnical Reports)
WMC §152.123 (A-C) provides 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 the Town Geologist review. Although no development is proposed at this time, any future development would be required to follow the geotechnical recommendations for a future project as approved by the Town Geologist.

WMC §152.124 (Grading)
WMC §152.124 requires that all grading design be based on the recommendations of the geotechnical report, and 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 the time an application are filed for development.

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 the time an application is filed for development.

WMC §152.126 (Improvements)
WMC §152.126 (A-B) provide detailed requirements for all proposed site improvements such as roadway construction and maintenance. No improvements are proposed as part of the land division, therefore, maintenance bonds or review of improvement plans is not applicable.

VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
The Planning Commission must review the MND, to determine if the document adequately addresses all environmental issues, pursuant to CEQA. If the Planning Commission finds the MND complete, the Planning Commission should adopt the MND.

Lastly, the Planning Commission should determine whether all of the findings for approval can be made. If all of the findings for approval can be made, and the State VHFSZ findings for approval can be made, the Planning Commission should approve the proposed land division.

A. CEQA Options
As discussed above the Planning Commission must review the MND. Below are three (3) different options for taking action on the MND:

1. Adopt the MND, as presented and recommended by staff;

2. Recommend changes to the MND; which may require recirculation of the MND, depending on the extent of the required changes; or,

3. Reject the MND as inadequate under CEQA, and recommend preparation of an EIR.

B. Project Options
Item C Page 99 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
PC Meeting December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Page 13
Once the Planning Commission reviews the entire record including public testimony and adopts the MND by approving the Resolution in Attachment A (if determine that findings for approval can be made), the Planning Commission may take any of the following actions on the Project:

1. Approve the project as recommended by staff; based on the findings in the Draft Resolution (Attachment B), or with minor modifications to the Draft Resolution.

2. Determine that the current project is not consistent with the General Plan policies, and ask if the applicant would like to revise the project to address the General Plan inconsistencies prior to the Planning Commission taking action on the Project. If the applicant decides to redesign the project to comply with the General Plan, the Planning Commission may continue the item with direction to the applicant on how the project could be modified to comply with the General Plan. If the applicant declines the invitation to revise the project, the Planning Commission should continue the item with reasons why the findings cannot be made to approve the project, and staff would return at future date with a Resolution for Denial based on the Planning Commission's findings.

3. Continue the item with direction for additional information from staff and/or the applicant.

VII. CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission shall review and consider all materials and public testimony prior to coming to a conclusion on the project. Once the Planning Commission determines that it has all the information necessary to take action on the MND and the project, the Commission shall approve the Draft Resolutions, as written or as modified by the Commission, 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.

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.

Item C Page 100 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
PC Meeting December 7, 2022 988 Godetia Drive Page 14
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.

IV. Along with recordation of the Final Map:
a. CC&Rs approved by the Town Council shall be recorded.

ATTACHMENTS
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
H. Tentative Map, received March 3, 2020 (Planning Commission Only*) *Copies of all materials distributed to the Planning Commission are available at Town of Woodside, located at 2955 Woodside Road, Woodside, CA 94062, or video conference, by appointment only.

Item C Page 101 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___

BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF WOODSIDE ADOPTING CEQA2020-0001, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND MITIGATED MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM, CONCERNING THE LAND DIVISION TO DIVIDE ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS 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, an Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared by the Town of Woodside (CEQA2020-0001) in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines adopted by the Secretary of Resources, and the Woodside Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, the MND includes professionally prepared studies including, an Arborist Report and a Geotechnical Investigation;
WHEREAS, the Town transmitted for filing a Notice of Completion of the MND and in accordance with CEQA, and forwarded the MND to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to those state agencies that have discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the Project;
WHEREAS, the Town provided notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the MND in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability of the MND was distributed to public agencies and neighboring properties and the MND was made available at Woodside Town Hall, San Mateo County Recorder’s Office, and on the Woodside Town website to the general public for a 30-day public comment period beginning October 13, 2022, and ending November 12, 2022; 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; WHEREAS, the Town received comments on the MND from a nearby resident and adequately responded to the comments;
WHEREAS on December 7, 2022, the Planning Commission had to continue to a date certain of December 14, 2022 due to technical difficulties.

WHEREAS, on December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the MND and Project at which oral and written comments and a staff recommendation for adoption of the MND and approval of the project were presented to the Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information in the Item C Page 102 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

administrative record;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all comments received on the Project to determine whether substantial new environmental issues have been raised; and, based on the evaluation of the MND together with all comments received and responses to comments prepared by staff, the Town has determined that no substantial new environmental issues have been raised that have not been adequately addressed in the MND; therefore, no revisions affecting the conclusions of the MND were made and additional circulation of the MND – pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines – is not required;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Project, due to future anticipated construction activity, has the potential to result in significant impacts to, geology and soils (seismic ground shaking, unstable lands, and unique resources), hydrology and water quality (erosion), transportation (hazards), utilities and service systems (storm water compliance and water supply), and mandatory findings of significance (environmental impacts); further, the Planning Commission finds that the mitigation measures identified in the MND reduce the level of significance of all identified potential impacts to a level of “less than significant”, as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and, WHEREAS, a lead agency must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for changes to a project that it adopts or makes a condition of project approval in order to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The MMRP set forth in the attached Attachment 1, which is incorporated herein by reference, accurately reflects the mitigation measures contained in the MND.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Woodside, based on facts and analysis in the MND, written and oral testimony, mitigation measures included in the Project, staff reports and exhibits presented, hereby finds that:

1. It has independently reviewed and analyzed the MND and other information in the record, and has considered the information contained therein, prior to taking action on the Project;

2. The MND has been completed in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Woodside Municipal Code;

3. The MND adequately describes the environmental impacts of the proposed Project;

4. All potential impacts associated with the Project, due to future, anticipated construction activity, were found to be less than significant with incorporation of relevant mitigation measures identified in the MMRP; therefore, the Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts and an MND, in accordance with CEQA, is the appropriate environmental document for the Project; and,

5. The MND reflects the independent judgment of the Town.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, having made all of the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission of the Town of Woodside does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA2020- 0001) and the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project, attached hereto as Attachment 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are on file with the custodian of these records, the Planning Department of the Town of Woodside, Item C Page 103 Town Council Meeting 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