Agenda packet, third session — Town Council, February 28, 2023 (part 1 of 3)

Agenda
TC MEETING AGENDA - 2023-02-28.PDF
Meeting Materials
TC MEETING PACKET - 2023-02-28.PDF
ITEM 1 - REGISTER OF DEMANDS FEBRUARY 1 - 15, 2023.PDF
ITEM 2 - MONTHLY INVESTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT FOR JANUARY.PDF ITEM 3 - 2023 ROAD REHAB PSE AWARD.PDF
ITEM 4 - APR FOR HOUSING ELEMENT 2022.PDF
ITEM 4 ATTACHMENT 2 - COMPLETE ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT ON HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION.PDF
ITEM 5 - INCREASING SIZE OF HISTORY COMMITTEE.PDF
ITEM 6 - GLENS PATH PHASE 2 AND PHASE 3 AWD CONSTRUCTION.PDF ITEM 7 - 220 LANING SEWER REIMBURSMENT AGREEMENT.PDF

ITEM A - INFORMATIONAL MEMO TODO EL MUNDO HIGH ROAD
PIPELINE.PDF
ITEM C - 988 GODETIA APPEALS.PDF
ITEM D - HAZARDOUS TREES MTN HOME RD.PDF
ITEM E -TERMINATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY COVID.PDF
ITEM F - APPOINTMENT TO PCE BOARD ALTERNATE.PDF

1. Documents:

2. Documents:

Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023 Page 1

TOWN OF WOODSIDE
TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA February 28, 2023
Independence Hall, 2955 Woodside Road, Woodside 7:00 p.m.

PURSUANT TO TOWN OF WOODSIDE RESOLUTION NO. 2022-7534, TOWN COUNCIL MEETINGS

WILL BE HELD AS HYBRID MEETINGS WITH THE OPTION TO ATTEND BY TELECONFERENCE/VIDEO CONFERENCE OR IN PERSON. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT

WISH TO ATTEND AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING MAY DO SO IN PERSON OR BY JOINING THE ZOOM MEETING https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85437892933. PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND VIA ZOOM MEETING. ANY EMAILS SENT TO [email protected] WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE TOWN COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

IN THE EVENT THAT ANY MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL PARTICIPATES IN A MEETING BY TELECONFERENCE OR VIDEO CONFERENCE, PURSUANT TO THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, ALL VOTES OF THE COUNCIL SHALL BE BY ROLL CALL.

Join Zoom Meeting:

Dial by your location
+1 669 900 9128 +1 346 248 7799
Meeting ID: 854 3789 2933
Weblink:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85437892933
Remote Public Comments:

Meeting participants are encouraged
to submit public comments in writing
in advance of the meeting.

Email: [email protected]

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Liam and Zoe

COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the Council on any matter not on the posted agenda are invited to do so. Please note, however, that the Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or to act on non-agendized items. Such items can be referred to staff for appropriate action, which may include placement on a future agenda. This communication period is limited to five persons, three minutes each. Any additional persons wishing to be heard will be scheduled at the end of Regular Business.

CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be approved by one roll call motion unless a request is made at the beginning of the meeting that an item be withdrawn or transferred to the regular agenda.

1. Register of Demands Against the Town of Woodside from February 1 through 15, 2023.

2. 2022-23 January Monthly Investment Activity Report.

3. Resolution (1) Approving Plans and Specifications for the 2023 Road Rehabilitation Project and (2) Authorizing the Town Manager to Advertise for Bids and to Execute a Contract with the Lowest Responsive and Responsible Bidder. Resolution No. 2023 - ______

4. Annual Progress Report for the Fifth Cycle (2015-23) Housing Element.

5. Resolution Increasing Membership for the Woodside History Committee.

Resolution No. 2023 - ______
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023 Page 2

6. Resolution (1) Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with Andreini Brothers Inc. for the Glens Path Phase 2 and Phase 3 Project, and (2) Concurring with the Findings in the Town’s Response Letter to the Bid Protest Filed by Gradetech, Inc. Resolution No. 2023 - ______

7. Resolution Authorizing the Town Manager to Enter Into a Sewer Extension Partial Reimbursement Agreement with the Owners of 220 Laning Drive for Design and Construction of a Public Sanitary Sewer Main Extension on Laning Drive. Resolution No. 2023 - ______

OLD BUSINESS
A. Information Only: Update on Todo El Mundo/High Road Housing Site and PG&E Gasline.

B. Procedural Motion: Should the Revised Draft Housing Element Responding to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Be Agendized for Further Discussion Prior to Resubmission to HCD?

PUBLIC HEARING
C. Review of two appeals of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a Tentative Map for a Land Division (LDIV2020-0001) and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA2020-0001), to divide one existing legal parcel of record at 988 Godetia Drive (APN: 068-301-100) into two legal parcels (Parcel A and Parcel B). The existing property is 4.96 acres. Proposed Parcel A would be approximately 1.97 acres and proposed Parcel B would be approximately 2.98 acres. No development is proposed with this application. Resolution Nos. 2023 - ______ and 2023 - ______

NEW BUSINESS
D. Resolution Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute a Contract with Bay Area Tree Specialists for Removal of Eight Large Eucalyptus Trees on Mountain Home Road. Resolution No. 2023 - ______
E. 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. Resolution No. 2023 - ______

APPOINTMENT
F. Mayor’s Appointment of Town Manager as Peninsula Clean Energy Board Alternate.

REPORTS
G. Mayor and Councilmember Communications.

COMMUNICATIONS

ADJOURNMENT

IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT, IF YOU NEED SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT THE TOWN CLERK AT (650) 851-6790.

NOTIFICATION IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING WILL ENABLE THE TOWN TO MAKE REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY TO THIS MEETING.

PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S OPEN MEETING RULES, THIS MEETING IS BEING AUDIO RECORDED.

ANY WRITINGS OR DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO A MAJORITY OF THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION AT THE ADMINISTRATION COUNTER AT TOWN HALL LOCATED AT 2955 WOODSIDE ROAD DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.

Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023 Page 1

TOWN OF WOODSIDE
TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA February 28, 2023
Independence Hall, 2955 Woodside Road, Woodside 7:00 p.m.

PURSUANT TO TOWN OF WOODSIDE RESOLUTION NO. 2022-7534, TOWN COUNCIL MEETINGS

WILL BE HELD AS HYBRID MEETINGS WITH THE OPTION TO ATTEND BY TELECONFERENCE/VIDEO CONFERENCE OR IN PERSON. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT

Join Zoom Meeting:

Dial by your location
+1 669 900 9128 +1 346 248 7799
Meeting ID: 854 3789 2933
Weblink:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85437892933
Remote Public Comments:

Meeting participants are encouraged
to submit public comments in writing
in advance of the meeting.

Email: [email protected]

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Liam and Zoe

1. Register of Demands Against the Town of Woodside from February 1 through 15, 2023.

2. 2022-23 January Monthly Investment Activity Report.

4. Annual Progress Report for the Fifth Cycle (2015-23) Housing Element.

5. Resolution Increasing Membership for the Woodside History Committee.

Resolution No. 2023 - ______
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023 Page 2

OLD BUSINESS
A. Information Only: Update on Todo El Mundo/High Road Housing Site and PG&E Gasline.

APPOINTMENT
F. Mayor’s Appointment of Town Manager as Peninsula Clean Energy Board Alternate.

REPORTS
G. Mayor and Councilmember Communications.

COMMUNICATIONS

ADJOURNMENT

IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT, IF YOU NEED SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT THE TOWN CLERK AT (650) 851-6790.

NOTIFICATION IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING WILL ENABLE THE TOWN TO MAKE REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY TO THIS MEETING.

PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S OPEN MEETING RULES, THIS MEETING IS BEING AUDIO RECORDED.

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

Attachment

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

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

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

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

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

MONTHLY INVESTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT FOR JANUARY
LAIF
PARS

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

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

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

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

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

Item 2 Page 2
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item 3 Page 1 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. List of project locations

3. Project location map

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

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

ADVERTISE FOR BIDS AND TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE LOWEST

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

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

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

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

AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mayor of the Town of Woodside
ATTEST:

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

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

TOWN OF WOODSIDE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

Please note: The APR form can only display data for one planning period. To view progress for a different planning period, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at [email protected].
-
44 This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs.
20 Moderate
23 13
15 Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here 20 2
Table B
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress
Permitted Units Issued by Affordability
-
Item 4 Page 4 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

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

COMMITTEE

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

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

Occasionally, there are more applicants than vacancies.

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT

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

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WOODSIDE

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

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

AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item 6 Page 2 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Location Map

3. Gradetech Protest Letter

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

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

AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mayor of the Town of Woodside
ATTEST:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely
SRiii
Sam Rivinius Pres. Gradetech Inc.

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

CC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER MAIN EXTENSION ON LANING DRIVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 2023 –

2. Location Map

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

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

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

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

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

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

AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

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

WITNESSETH:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item 7 Page 15 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
9 23. In the event of litigation over the terms or performance of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

24. Any legal actions brought under, pursuant to, or in regard to this Agreement, or any matter governed hereby, shall be instituted in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, State of California.

25. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deemed delivered five (5) days after the date of posting to the following addresses:

Town: Town of Woodside
2955 Woodside Road
Woodside, CA 94062
Attn: Town Engineer
Permittee: Russ Margiotta
220 Laning Drive
Woodside, CA 94062

26. The laws of the State of California shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement.

27. Time shall be deemed to be of the essence to this Agreement.

28. This document, contains the entire agreement of the parties and shall not be modified except in writing, signed by both parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers or individuals on the day and year first above written.

DATED: ___________, 2023 Town:

By___________________________
Item 7 Page 16 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
10 Kevin Bryant, Town Manager
DATED: ___________, 2023 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Jean B. Savaree, Town Attorney
DATED: ___________, 2023 Permittee:
_____________________________
Russ Margiotta
Item 7 Page 17 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

TOWN OF WOODSIDE

MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: KEVIN BRYANT, TOWN MANAGER
DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 2023
RE: ITEM A: INFORMATION ONLY: UPDATE ON TODO EL MUNDO/HIGH ROAD HOUSING

SITE AND PG&E GASLINE
____________________________________________________________________________ On January 31, 2023, staff and the Town’s Housing Element consultant received direction to incorporate both the Raymundo Road and Todo El Mundo/High Road Town-owned sites in the RHNA Plan that would be included in the revised Draft Housing Element to be submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its second review.

Staff understood the direction to be contingent on confirming that the PG&E gas transmission line in the area is located within the public-right-of-way and not on the Town’s Todo El Mundo/High Road parcel.

The Town Manager has received confirmation from PG&E that a gas transmission line is installed in the public right-of-way on Todo El Mundo and High Road pursuant to its Franchise Agreement and not on the Town-owned property.

PG&E requirements, which comply with Federal and State regulations, require gas transmission lines to be a minimum of 10 feet from the face or foundation of any building.

PG&E does have an easement on the property adjacent to Woodside Road for electric transmission lines. There are 60kV transmission lines and two poles within the easement.

Item A Page 1 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 1

TOWN OF WOODSIDE

TOWN COUNCIL
Meeting Date: February 28, 2023 Agenda Item: C
Prepared by: Sarah Filipe, Associate Planer
Reviewed by: Sage Schaan, Planning Director
Approved by: Kevin Bryant, Town Manager
TITLE: APPL2023-0001; APPL2023-0002: Review of two appeals of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a Tentative Map for a Land Division (LDIV2020-0001) and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA2020-0001), to divide one existing legal parcel of record at 988 Godetia Drive (APN: 068-301-100) into two legal parcels (Parcel A and Parcel B). The existing property is 4.39 acres. Proposed Parcel A would be approximately 1.58 acres and proposed Parcel B would be approximately 2.81 acres. No development is proposed with this application.

Property Information
Address: 988 Godetia Drive
APN: 068-301-100
Property Owner: Vladimir Alexanyan and Margaret Migdal
Zoning District: SR (Suburban Residential)
General Plan Designation: R (Residential)
Existing Lot Area:

Gross Lot Area: 4.96 acres (215,857 square feet) (including roadway easement) Lot Area: 4.39 acres (191,253.67 square feet) (excluding roadway easement)* Proposed Parcel A:

Gross Lot Area: 1.97 acres (85,947 square feet) (including roadway easement) Lot Area: 1.58 acres (68,657 square feet) (excluding roadway easement)* Proposed Parcel B:

Gross Lot Area: 2.98 acres (129,909 square feet) (including roadway easement) Lot Area: 2.81 acres (122,596 square feet) (excluding roadway easement)* * Woodside Municipal Code Section 153.205(B) excludes roadway easements from Lot Area. All references to Lot Area sizes in the report excludes roadway easements.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission approved a Tentative Map Land Division application (File No. LDIV2020-0001) (the “Project”), dividing one existing legal parcel of record at 988 Godetia Drive (APN: 068-301-100) into two legal parcels (Parcel A and Parcel B). The existing Item C Page 1 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 2 property is 4.39 acres. Planning Commission approval of the approved Tentative Map divides the property into Parcel A that would be 1.58 acres and Parcel B that would be 2.81 acres. No development is proposed as part of the Project. Prior to the approval of the Land Division, the Planning Commission approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) ( File No. CEQA2020- 0001) that provides mitigation measures minimizing potential impacts from the proposed Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

At the Planning Commission hearing on December 14, 2022, nearby neighbors expressed concerns relating to potential visual and drainage impacts that may result from future development on proposed Parcel A (Attachment VII, minutes; and, Attachment VIII, desk items).

The Planning Commission recognized the concerns from the neighbors, while noting that the proposed Project only creates a new lot and does not propose development of the parcels at this time.

The Commission further noted that any future development would be required to comply with all development standards, including drainage requirements, and would be subject to design review by the Town’s Architectural and Site Review Board (ASRB).

The Planning Commission determined that that the Project is consistent with all development standards for a Land Division and approved the MND and Land Division.

On January 3, 2023, two appeals (Attachment II and III) of the Planning Commission’s determination were filed, requesting denial of the Project (see details below).

The project applicant has provided a response to the appeals in Attachment IV.

Project details are provided in the December 14, 2022, staff report in Attachment IX.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council review the two appeals of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project, the applicant’s response to the appeals, and any public testimony provided to the Town Council.

Based on the Project details, staff recommends that the Town Council:

1. Deny the appeals, by passing the draft Resolutions in Attachment I, thereby approving the MND and Project.

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Project is located in the northeast part of the Town of Woodside, at the intersection of Godetia Drive and Jefferson Avenue.

The site is surrounded by single-family residential properties zoned Suburban Residential (SR) on the southeast, south, and southwest sides; and, zoned R-1, on the north side of Jefferson Avenue.

The site consists primarily of a tree-covered knoll with some areas of grassland. The existing parcel has a single-family residence, Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), and additional accessory structures (workshop and home office). An unoccupied stable is located on the property visible Item C Page 2 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 3 from Godetia Drive. The property ranges from an elevation of 448 at the western property line, to an elevation of 558 at the site of the existing residence on proposed Parcel B.

PROJECT DISCUSSION
As approved by the Planning Commission, the existing 4.39-acre parcel of record (APN: 068-301- 100) would be divided into two legal parcels (Parcel A and Parcel B), retaining the existing development on proposed Parcel B; and creating the opportunity for a new single-family residence on proposed Parcel A. No development is proposed as part of this Land Division. Any future development on either proposed parcel would be reviewed through the design review and permitting procedures required at the time of the future development.

TOWN COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND PROJECT APPEALS
Project
On December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission considered and approved an MND (Resolution No. 2022-013, Attachment V) and Land Division for the Project (Resolution No. 2022-014, Attachment VI) as noted.

After the Planning Commission’s approval of the MND and Land Division application, two appeals were filed.

The property owner of 4229 Jefferson Avenue filed an appeal on January 3, 2023 (Attachment II, APPL2023-0001), noted as Appellant Galindo in this report.

The property owner of 4271 Jefferson Avenue filed an appeal on January 3, 2023 (Attachment III, Appeal 2023-0002), noted as Appellant Mah in this report.

Appeals – Standard of Review
Per WMC §152.155, the Town Council hears appeals “de novo”.

A de novo appeal differs from an “on the record” appeal during which the Planning Commission’s decision and findings would be entitled to a presumption of correctness. In a de novo appeal this presumption of correctness does not apply. The Town Council considers the appeal “as if no decision previously had been rendered.” Freeman v. DirecTV, Inc., 457, F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir. 2006). The Town Council’s review is entirely independent of the determination made by the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s determination is afforded no deference on appeal. Barrientos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 633 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2011).

During this de novo hearing, the Town Council should take comments from Appellants, the Applicant (Respondent), and members of the public. New evidence, including public testimony is allowed and mustl be considered by the Town Council. After the Town Council receives all comments, the public hearing should be closed. During Town Council deliberation the Town Council should discuss the Project approval findings in order to determine if they can be made. If the findings for Project approval can be made, the appeals should be denied. If the findings for Project approval can not be made. the appeals should be granted.

The Town Council findings and decision on the appeals are final and conclusive.

Item C Page 3 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 4

PROJECT REVIEW
As noted in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment IX), WMC Chapter 152 outlines the procedure for review of Land Divisions in the Town of Woodside. It requires that Town staff and Committees review and provide comments on a Concept Map, for the applicant to address before an application for a Tentative Map is submitted. Once all of the necessary information for the Tentative Map is submitted to the Town and determined complete by the Planning Department, an Initial Study is prepared to determine what level of CEQA analysis and documentation is required for a project. The CEQA document is then prepared and circulated for public review.

During that time, each required Town Committee reviews the application and provides recommendations on the CEQA document and Tentative Map to the Planning Commission. This process was followed for Respondent’s application. Because the Town Council reviews this application “de novo,” the applicable requirements for a Land Division are outlined below:

Concept Map
Application Requirements
WMC §152.060 and 152.061 outline the submittal requirements for review of the Concept Map submitted for the Project. The Concept Map review process provides the applicant with input from Town committees to consider before providing all details (e.g., plans and technical reports) needed to process the Tentative Map required for the Project.

Conferences on Concept Map
WMC §152.062(C) requires that the Town transmit copies of the Concept Map to members of the Subdivision Review Committee (Membership outlined in WMC §152.130: Planning Director; Town Engineer; Town Geologist; Fire Chief/Marshal; and, County Health Officer), and to the Town Architectural and Site Review Board (ASRB), Environment: Open Space, Conservation, and Sustainability Committee, Trails Committee, and any other Town committees deemed necessary to review the project. The Respondent completed the Concept Map review process.

Attachment IX.C includes a written summary of the Committees’ comments on the Concept Map.

Tentative Map
Application Requirements
WMC §§152.071 - 152.074 outline submittal requirements for review of a proposed Tentative Map. The Respondent’s Tentative Map included all necessary information to ensure compliance with the WMC requirements, most notably the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 152) and the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 153). The Tentative Map application was determined complete, and all required committees deemed necessary to review the Project reviewed the Tentative Map along with the draft MND.

1. ASRB & Town Committee Reviews
As noted above, the ASRB and applicable Town Committees reviewed the MND and the Project at their regularly scheduled meetings in October and November 2022. Comments on the Tentative Map are summarized below:

Architectural and Site Review Board:

On October 24, 2022, the ASRB reviewed the Project and noted that the Project only included a proposed Tentative Map to divide one lot into two lots, and that no development was proposed. The ASRB found that the proposed building site could accommodate a Item C Page 4
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 5 residence and ADU that would comply with required WMC zoning standards and did not have any additional recommendations.

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

Trails Committee:

On November 10, 2022, the Trails Committee reviewed the Project. The Committee noted that a trail on Jefferson Avenue adjacent to the subject site would be desirable but challenging given the topography. The Committee expressed interest in the Town exploring the feasibility of a new trail on Jefferson within the public right-of-way. Given that the Project would not impact any trails (no existing trails within the Project vicinity and no new trails proposed), there was no objection to the Project.

2. Subdivision Review Committee Review
The Subdivision Review Committee, composed of the Town’s Planning Director, Town Engineer, and Town Geologist; the Woodside Fire Protection District’s Fire Marshal; and the San Mateo County Environmental Health Officer, met with the Respondent on November 14, 2022. The review criteria for each Committee member is outlined in WMC Section 152.130 and comments from each Committee member are located in Attachment IX.D, and summarized as follows:
(a) Town Planning Director:

The Town Planning Director indicated that the Land Division would allow for future residential development, which complies with the existing Residential General Plan designation. The proposed lots meet the lot creation requirements for the proposed (SR) zoning district; and mitigation measures to minimize impacts to the environment and neighboring properties are included in the MND.
(b) Town Engineer:

The Town Engineer’s review focused on infrastructure improvement such as new roadways, storm drains, etc. Since no development is proposed as part of this Land Division, the Town Engineer had no significant comments for the Project but did inform the Respondent that the Town is exploring the possibility of installing a mixed-use (pedestrian/equestrian) trail in the public right-of-way located immediately adjacent to the property line along Jefferson Avenue.
(c) Town Geologist:

The Town Geologist noted that the Project and anticipated future development is constrained by potentially expansive surficial soil and fill materials, the potential for very strong seismic ground shaking in the event of an earthquake and steep slopes. Any future development would call for evaluation by the Project’s geotechnical consultant to provide construction recommendations which address the specific soil conditions on site.

(d) Woodside Fire Protection District Fire Marshal:

The Fire Marshal indicated that the water supply for fire protection purposes is adequate; a fire hydrant is located directly across the street; and, emergency vehicle access is Item C Page 5
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 6 adequate. The Fire District will review the details of any future landscaping, during the development review process if/when development is proposed. (e) San Mateo County Environmental Health Officer:

The San Mateo County Environmental Health officer noted that both proposed parcels would have adequate water supply for domestic purposes once required pipe upgrades are installed (provided by Redwood City Water Department) and adequate room for onsite sewage disposal (provided by a future septic system installation) is available.

3. Planning Commission Review
Per WMC §152.077(D), the Planning Commission received and reviewed the determinations made by the above-referenced Committees and considered all of the following items prior to taking action on a Land Division:
152.077(D)
(1) The environmental review documents;
(2) The report, findings, and recommendations of the Subdivision Review Committee; (3) The report and recommendations of the ASRB and Town Committees, or their designated subcommittees;
(4) Consistency with the General Plan, any applicable Specific/Area Plan, and the zoning and site development provisions;
(5) Applications or requirements for variances, exceptions or other entitlements, if any;
(6) Staff reports including all attachments;
(7) Public testimony; and,
(8) The testimony of the owner or subdivider and/or his/her authorized representatives.
(a) Planning Commission Findings Regarding MND
CEQA (Environmental) Review
To comply with CEQA and WMC §152.024, an Initial Study was prepared. The Initial Study concluded that all potentially significant impacts of the Project could be reduced to a less than significant level by imposing identified mitigation measures, therefore, an MND was the appropriate environmental document under CEQA. The Draft MND for the Project, which included the Initial Study and all supporting technical studies, was reviewed by the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission was advised that the MND identified the following areas that would potentially be significantly impacted by the Project:

1. Cultural Resources;

2. Geology and Soils;

3. Hydrology and Water Quality;

4. Transportation;

5. Tribal Cultural Resources;

6. Utilities and Service Systems; and,

7. Mandatory Findings of Significance.

The Draft MND concluded that although the Project could have a potentially significant effect on Item C Page 6
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 7 these environmental topic areas, due to future, anticipated construction activity, these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the MND. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Attachment IX.A.1 provides ten (10) mitigation measures that are needed to reduce any potential significant impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are required for any future development of the proposed parcels.

During the 30 day comment period to the MND, the Town received one comment regarding it. The comment was from a neighboring property owner who was concerned about stormwater runoff and drainage. The Final MND included a response to the comment stating that any future development projects will be required to show that existing offsite drainage flows will not be increased in volume or velocity before obtaining approval from the Town’s Engineering Department (Attachment IX.G.12). Additionally, the MMRP includes a mitigation measure for development projects to comply with all local and State offsite drainage runoff requirements.

The Final MND, including all comments received and responses to comments prepared by the Town, raised no substantial new environmental issues that have not been adequately addressed.

The Planning Commission found that the MND was prepared in compliance with CEQA, and approved the MND by Resolution No. 2022-013 (Attachment V) (b) Planning Commission Findings for Land Division
Required Land Division Findings A-H (WMC §152.078)
WMC §152.078 states that the Planning Commission shall approve a Land Division if the Planning Commission makes all of the following specific findings:
(A) The tentative map is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific/Area Plan;
(B) The design or improvement of the proposed land division or subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific/Area Plan;
(C) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (D)The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; (E) The design of the land division or subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
(F) The design of the land division or subdivision or the type of improvements will not cause serious public health or safety problems;
(G)The design of the land division or subdivision or the type of improvements:
(1) Will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or the use of property within the proposed land division or subdivision; (2 If conflicts with existing easements will occur, substantially equivalent alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided; (3) This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, and no authority is hereby granted to the Planning Commission or Town Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or the use of property within the proposed land division or subdivision; or
(H) The discharge of waste from the proposed land division or subdivision into an existing Item C Page 7
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 8 sewer system would not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Water Code § 13000) of the Cal. Water Code.

As shown in Planning Commission Resolution of Approval, Attachment VI, the Planning Commission made the required findings for approval outlined in WMC §152.078.

Required Municipal Code Land Division Standards (WMC §152.111 - 152.126) In addition to the findings in WMC §152.078, the Planning Commission also determined that the Project complied with WMC §152.111 - 152.126 including compliance with various regulations related to Lot Sizes and Shapes (§152.112), Road Patterns (§152.113), Road Design (§152.114), Road Rights of Way and Pavement Widths (§152.115), Drainage (§152.116), Trails (§152.117), Public Utilities and Easements (§152.118), Conservation, Open Space, and Scenic Easements (§152.119), Park and Recreational Areas (§152.120), Sewage Disposal (§152.121), Water Supply (§152.122), Geotechnical Reports (§152.123), Grading (§152.124), Landscape and Erosion Control (§152.125), and Improvements (§152.126). The Planning Commission made the following findings related to these code sections:

WMC §152.111 (Compliance with Requirements)
WMC §152.111 states that if the Planning Commission finds that it would be in the public interest to approve a greater or lesser standard than proposed by the Applicant, the Planning Commission may approve such a modification as long as the Applicant can provide that it would be in the public interest to approve such a modification. The Applicant did not propose any modifications to the required improvements or standards of design.

WMC §152.112 (Lots)
WMC §152.112 (A-K) outlines the requirements for lot sizes, designs, shapes, lot lines, solar access, site access, drainage, non-access dedications, remnant lots, noise considerations, and environmental constraints to improvement locations.
(A) Lot Sizes:
(1) The proposed parcels both comply with the 1-acre minimum lot area, and the required 100-foot minimum average width for the SR zoning district. Both of the proposed parcels would provide sufficient area to construct site improvements. (2) Pursuant to WMC §153.205, the proposed net lot areas do not include access easements, random public utility or drainage easements (not adjacent to the property line), or a panhandle area in excess of 5% of the net lot area required in the particular zoning district.
(B) Lot Design:

The proposed Tentative Map for Land Division shows conceptual building and improvement locations. Based on the information provided, the proposed lots could accommodate future development.
(C) Lot Shape:
(1) The average depth of the proposed parcels do not exceed three times the required average width, and include rectangular shaped areas outside of the required setbacks where structures and improvements could be located.

Item C Page 8
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 9 (2) Panhandle Lots are discouraged in Town and shall only be permitted when the Planning Commission determines that they would result in a better design of development. Municipal Code Section 152.005 defines a Panhandle Lot of having less than a 30-foot frontage. Both proposed parcels would have more than 30 feet of frontage. Neither lot meets the definition of a Panhandle Lot. (D) Lot Lines
The Land Division divides the property proportionately lengthwise, yielding the best possible building sites. Additionally, the proposed lot lines are at right angles to the road right-of-way lines.
(E) Solar Access:

The proposed parcels have sufficient room for ground mounted solar installations.

Additionally, solar access could be located on the roof at any future proposed buildings. (F) Access:
(1) Both proposed lots have access to an existing public road: Godetia Drive. (2) Neither lot would be divided by a driveway or access easement. (3) Each parcel would be able to be served by its own driveway. (G) Drainage:

The Land Division does not include any new development; however, due to the existing topography of the site, any future buildings must be able to drain water runoff away from the residences and retain development induced drainage onsite so as not to increase offsite drainage onto adjacent roads and adjacent properties beyond existing conditions (H) Non-access Dedications:

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

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

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

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

The Project does not propose any new roads.

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

Item C Page 9
Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 10 The Project does not include new roads.

WMC §152.115 (Road Rights-of-Way and Pavement Widths)
WMC §152.115 (A-E) outlines the requirements for proposed road rights-of-way widths within land divisions. The Project does not include new roads.

WMC §152.116 (Drainage)
WMC §152.116 (A-B) outlines the requirements for proposed or required drainage facilities within Land Divisions. No new development is proposed as part of the Land Division application; therefore, new drainage facilities are not required. Any future development would be required to comply with all WMC drainage requirements in place at the time the development application is approved.

WMC §152.117 (Trails)
WMC §152.117 (A-C) outlines the requirements for proposed trail easements. No trails or trail easements are proposed as part of this Land Division.

WMC §152.118 (Public Utilities and Easements)
WMC §152.118 outlines the requirements for undergrounding and locating proposed utilities. The Project does not include any proposed development. Future proposed development would require connections to nearby utilities prior to approval of construction permits. A public waterline upgrade will need to be installed, prior to approval of a Final Map, to serve the new parcel, as required by the Conditions of Approval ensuring that the new parcel can be served by a municipal water connection.

WMC §152.119 (Conservation, Open Space, and Scenic Easements) WMC §152.119 states that the Planning Commission may require the dedication of conservation, open space, and scenic easements for the express purpose of protecting the natural vegetation, terrain, watercourses, historic and cultural resources, scenic vistas, and wildlife to prevent erosion, water quality problems, and geologic hazards.

For Land Divisions of less than 5 lots, the Town Attorney advised that the Town may not require dedication of easements unless there is a clear nexus between the impacts from the proposed project and the need for such an easement, such as impacts to an environmentally sensitive area.

Easement dedication is not required for this two lot Land Division.

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

This Land Division creating 2 lots, does not require the dedication of park or recreational areas.

WMC §152.121 (Sewage Disposal)
WMC §152.121 requires that each proposed parcel be designed to provide an effective disposal system. The existing residence and accessory structures are served by a septic system. Future development of a residence and accessory structures on proposed Parcel A would require installation of a septic system at that time.

WMC §152.122 (Water Supply)
WMC §152.122 (A-B) provides requirements for water supply. Since no development is proposed Item C Page 10 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 11 as part of the Land Division, no new infrastructure is required. The Project site is located within an existing suburban residential neighborhood and is currently served by the Redwood City Water Department (RWCWD). On June 1, 2022, Cal Water completed installation of an 8-inch emergency interconnect from Godetia Drive and four fire hydrants on Godetia Drive, including a fire hydrant at 999 Godetia Drive – immediately across the street from the subject parcel at 988 Godetia Drive.

On August 4, 2022, CalWater extended a transfer of service offer to serve six properties on Godetia Drive. This offer required unanimous acceptance from all six property owners. CalWater achieved unanimous acceptance on October 3, 2022. Next steps for transfer of service from RWCWD to CalWater include: 1) RWC City Council approval (by RWC); 2) SFPUC approval (by RWC); and 3) California PUC approval (by CalWater).

The Redwood City Water Department has provided a conditional ‘Will Serve’ letter, dated October 3, 2022, (Attachment IX.G.8) for the Land Division, requiring the upgrade of water lines prior to approval of the Final Map.

WMC §152.123 (Geotechnical Reports)
WMC §152.123 (A-C) outlines requirements for the submittal of geotechnical reports. The Applicant provided a Geotechnical Feasibility Report evaluating the stability of potential residence sites and septic drainfields at the Concept Map and Tentative Map stages for review by the Town Geologist. Although no development is proposed at this time, any future development would be required to comply with geotechnical recommendations of the Town Geologist issued as part of the review process for that future application. The Town Geologist concluded that a subdivision and leach field feasibility study review was completed consistent with the prevailing standards of practice in the Town and recommended geotechnical approval of the subject land division application.

WMC §152.124 (Grading)
WMC §152.124 requires that all grading design be based on the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the Town Engineer and Town Geologist. No grading is proposed as part of the Land Division, but any future development would be required to comply with all grading regulations in place at that time.

WMC §152.125 (Landscaping and Erosion Control)
WMC §152.125 requires that all Land Divisions that include grading also include landscaping to help control erosion. No grading is proposed as part of the Land Division, but any future development would be required to comply with all grading and landscaping regulations in place at that time.

WMC §152.126 (Improvements)
WMC §152.126 (A-B) outlines detailed requirements for all proposed site improvements such as roadway construction and maintenance. No improvements are proposed as part of the Land Item C Page 11 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 12 Division; therefore, maintenance bonds or review of improvement plans is not applicable.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
The Planning Commission considered all of the above noted sections of the WMC and approved the Land Division as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 2022-013 and 2022-014.

SUMMARY OF APPEALS AND APPLICANT RESPONSE
Attachments II and III include the details of each appeal. Appellants Galindo and Mah make the following arguments on appeal:

Summary of Galindo Appeal:

Appellant Galindo contends that:
• Studies and project request by the owners of 988 Godetia Drive do not take into account the cumulative effect of all development in the area;
• Commissioners and Town personnel have not completed site inspections; • Communication to the downhill neighbors has been lacking; • The project eliminates a horse property;
• The previous application denial in the early 2000’s was not properly vetted or reviewed by Planning Commission;
• The Town failed to act on and/or communicate plan after previous denial and request for a moratorium on development in the area; and,
• There is not a Planning Commissioner or Town Council member who is familiar with the area.

Relief Requested:

1. Moratorium until the environmental impact studies and engineering firms can properly assess the damage and come up with a solution for the neighborhood.

Summary of Mah Appeal:

Appellant Mah contends that:
• Planning commissioners were not provided with complete documentation of previous multiple land division applications on this property. Planning Commissioners therefore failed to adequately address the basis for approval;
• Planning Commission failed to consider a previous decision (9/15/04) to recommend that the Town enact a moratorium on further land divisions, subdivisions and subsequent building in this area (Toyon Hills) until after the development of a specific plan, which the Planning Director stated was the area of Town at highest risk for detrimental impacts of further development including drainage, traffic and fire safety; • Planning Commission failed to consider that the area surrounding the proposed land division is now the location for several large developments that have taken place in recent years that have caused and are continuing to cause catastrophic problems for the entire neighborhood;
• Planning Commission failed to consider the cumulative impacts of further development, which would be enabled by this land division; and, Item C Page 12 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 13 • Planning Commission failed to consider that, although the applicant claims to have no intention of demolishing the existing barn, construction on the proposed building site for the newly created lot would render the property unsuitable for equestrian use. This violates multiple General Plan policies to preserve and protect the equestrian heritage.

Relief Requested:

1. Reversal of decision.

2. Require conditions be applied to any further actions to divide and/or develop the parcel to ensure that the burden of liability remains with the applicant/owner of the original property proposed for land division.

3. Require that the Town impose a moratorium on any further development activity including land divisions, subdivisions and construction until a review and study of development impacts to the surrounding area can be completed.

4. Impose a requirement for a third party plan check on all engineering calculations presented as part of proposed developments.

Respondent’s Submittal in Response to Appeal
In summary, Respondent indicates that (Attachment IV):
• The Project proposes no new development.
• Throughout the review process, community members were alerted and given the opportunity to raise concerns. Direct neighbors have no objection to the Project. • The new parcel created by the Land Division has 3 storm drains in the public right-of-way along the property boundary. The storm water is directed away from Canada across the golf course and down to Farm Hill. This constitutes 90% of the storm water from the property and 3 other homes on Godetia near Jefferson. The other 2 storm drains run along the new parcel across from 4202 Jefferson at the intersection of Midglen Way. • At least one member of the Planning Commission visited and walked the site. • There is nothing in the Municipal Code, Chapter 152 Articles V – XIII that discusses “historical records” as being a factor of relevance for the applicant. The previous application mentioned in the appeal was abandoned over two decades ago. It is unclear how, not only the Planning Commission members, but also the applicant, could be expected to respond to historical records or to challenge former findings in this process. It would be objectionable to have Committee members make judgements based on information not addressed in the Municipal Code and where the applicant is not provided with guidelines for making a measured response.
• The State sets the guidelines for CEQA and if the cumulative impact of development, given the States mandate for new housing, is not being factored appropriately in the CEQA report then this is a State issue. If there is a failure in the report, which all development relies on, to the point that it would prevent the recording of a new map, then certainly it should halt all development in the Town and not just this land division. The process for recording a new compliant property map (land division) with San Mateo County is outlined in Municipal Code Chapter 152 and included a requirement for the generation of a CEQA report which found no reason to prevent a land sub-division.

STAFF ANALYSIS OF APPEALS
As noted above, the Town Council hears appeals “de novo” as if no decision had been rendered Item C Page 13 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 14 by the Planning Commission. Staff has analyzed the applicable WMC sections and recommends that all findings needed for approval of this Project can be made.

Appellants disagree with staff’s recommendation for approval of the Project but Appellants have not pointed to any particular finding for approval that cannot be made but contend the Project should be denied for the following reasons. .

First, Appellants contend that the Planning Commission failed to consider the cumulative effect of development in this area of Town, failed to consider previous applications for a land division at this site, and failed to consider a 2004 recommendation for a moratorium on development in this area of Town.

Staff’s Response: The applicable provisions of the WMC do not require that findings be made on these points when reviewing and approving a Land Division.

Second, Appellant’s contend that Committee members and Town personnel have not done site inspections and/or are not familiar with this area of Town.

Staff’s Response: Planning Commissioners and Town personnel have visited or are familiar with the site as demonstrated by the detailed comments of the reviewing subcommittees. Town staff and Committee members were familiar with the specific site and the surrounding area.

Third, communication with downstream members was “lacking”.

Staff’s Response: This project was publicly noticed as required by State law and public hearings were held by the ASRB and Planning Commission at which all interested members of the public were allowed to speak.

Fourth, the Land Division will eliminate a “horse property” and/or render the property unsuitable for equestrian purposes.

Staff’s Response: There is nothing in the record to support these contentions. There is no development proposed in conjunction with this Land Division and the stable located on the property is not proposed to be demolished. The existing stable has not been occupied by any livestock use in several years, possibly in upwards of 15 years or more. While equestrian uses in Woodside are strongly encouraged, retention of existing equestrian facilities is not a prerequisite to any project approval, including Land Division applications.

CONCLUSION
As noted above, the appeals are heard “de novo” and at the conclusion of the appeal hearing, the Town Council must determine whether or not it can make the findings required to approve the MND and Land Division. If the findings can be made, the Land Division should be approved, and the Project may proceed. If the findings cannot be made, the appeal should be granted, and the Land Division should be denied. As detailed in this report, all relevant Town Committees, the ASRB and Planning Commission determined that findings could be made for approval of the MND and Project. No new issues have been raised on appeal and staff therefore recommends that the Town Council, after hearing, deny the appeals by adopting the draft Resolutions at Attachment I.

Item C Page 14 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ TC Meeting February 28, 2023 988 Godetia Drive Appeals Page 15

ATTACHMENTS
I. Draft Resolutions of Approval

1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
II. Appeal filed by Christina Galindo, dated January 3, 2023 III. Appeal filed by Maggie Mah, dated January 3, 2023
IV. Applicant Response Letter, January 27, 2023
V. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-013, Approving CEQA2020-0001 VI. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-014, Approving LDIV2020-0001 VII. Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 14, 2022 (Draft) VIII. Planning Commission Desk Items from the December 14, 2022, hearing IX. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 14, 2022 A. Draft Resolution Adopting the MND and MMRP (CEQA2020-0001).

1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
B. Draft Resolution Approving the Proposed Land Division (LDIV2020-0001) C. Concept Map Subdivision Review Committee Letter, dated November 2, 2018 D. Tentative Map Subdivision Review Committee Letter, dated November 21, 2022 E. Woodside Municipal Code §152.112 - 152.126
F. Project Chronology
G. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (See link
attachment_g._final_mnd_988_godetia.pdf (woodsidetown.org). Hard copies of the MND are available upon request from Town staff.)

1. Application

2. Land Division Exhibits

3. Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection, prepared by Richard Gessner, Monarch Consulting Arborists, LLC, dated February 14, 2019.

4. Subdivision Feasibility Study, prepared by Geosphere Consultants, Inc., dated May 27, 2019

5. Cotton, Shires, and Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers and Geologists, Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review, dated November 12, 2020

6. Native American Heritage Commission, letter dated and received April 7, 2020.

7. California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS), letter dated April 28, 2020; received May 7, 2020.

8. Cal Water Offer Letter for Transfer of Service, dated August 4, 2022

9. Copies of ‘Will Serve’ letters provided by PG&E, AT+T and Redwood City Water Department

10. Cal Water Fire Flow Test of New Fire Hydrant at 999 Godetia Drive, dated June 10, 2022

11. Tentative Parcel Map, prepared by DOES Architects, submitted March 3, 2020

12. Comments Received and Response to Comments
X. Approved Tentative Map, received March 3, 2020 (Town Council Only*) Item C Page 15 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

Page 1 of 4 ends

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

Page 2 of 4 ends

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

Page 3 of 4 ends

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

Page 4 of 4 ends

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

Page 1 of 10 ends

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

Page 2 of 10 ends

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

Page 3 of 10 ends

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

Page 4 of 10 ends

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

Page 5 of 10 ends

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

Page 6 of 10 ends

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

Page 7 of 10 ends

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

Page 8 of 10 ends

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

Page 9 of 10 ends

(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.

Item C Page 36 Town Council Meeting February 28, 2023

Page 10 of 10 ends

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

Page 3 ends

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

Page 4 ends

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

Page 5 ends

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

Page 6 ends

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

Page 4 ends

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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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 §152.122 (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.

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:

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.

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.)