Removed and replaced the property line fence at MCC’s sole expense; Provided additional landscaping along the shared property line with the neighbor for enhanced visual and acoustical screening of the club facilities; Allowed the neighbor to select paint colors and landscaping for club facilities; and Provided the neighbor with the general manager’s personal cell phone number to call at any time with complaints or concerns.
Despite these efforts and concessions, the neighbor continues to oppose MCC, and has now appealed the Planning Commission’s recent compliance decision.
On appeal, the only issue before you is whether MCC complied with its operational conditions during its first year of operations. As detailed below, and as the Planning Commission has already found, MCC is in full compliance. The appeal, which consists of general complaints and grievances, does not specifically identify any condition which MCC has allegedly violated, nor does it provide any evidence that would support a finding of non-compliance with any condition.
Accordingly, the Town Council should deny the appeal.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2019, MCC submitted applications to demolish its existing two-story clubhouse, golf shop, cart storage building, and one-story pool bathhouse; and to construct a new two-story clubhouse, two-story fitness facility, pergola, parking and access areas, retaining walls, and associated site improvements (the “Project”).
In August 2019, following a lengthy planning and appeal process, the Town Council granted final approvals for the Project, consisting of a Conditional Use Permit (CUSE2019-001), Grading Exception (GRAD2019-0002), and Formal Design Review (ASRB2019-015). (See Reso.
No. 2019-7305.) To address concerns about potential noise and other impacts, the Town Council imposed a condition requiring the Planning Commission to review MCC’s compliance with the CUP’s operational conditions one year after completion of the Project.
Following approval of the Project, MCC separately applied to install a 20-foot by 40-foot shade structure near the outdoor pool area. In April 2021, Town staff administratively approved the shade structure and issued a building permit. (Building Permit No. BLDG2021-0019.) This approval was not appealed.
MCC thereafter completed the approved Project, installed the shade structure, and on October 28, 2021, passed final inspection.
A year later, the Planning Commission commenced the required one-year compliance review. Following public hearings on November 9, 2022, February 15, 2023, and April 5, 2023, the Planning Commission found the Project to be in compliance with the operational conditions, Item A Page 21 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Woodside Town Council
June 12, 2023
with the requirement that MCC remove an unpermitted electrical outlet, switch, and wiring on the shade structure. (Reso. No. 2023-003.)
On April 16, 2023, the neighbor, Deborah Mendelson, appealed the Planning Commission’s compliance decision. (Appeal No. 2023-003.) That appeal is now before the Town Council.
II. SCOPE OF APPEAL
Appellant misunderstands the scope of this appeal. Her written submittal purports to appeal the Planning Commission’s “approval of a Conditional Use Permit” and broadly challenges MCC’s right to have and operate its facilities. To be clear, the Town Council is not re-reviewing its 2019 decision to approve the CUP for the Project, nor is it considering whether MCC should be allowed to operate its facilities. MCC’s land use entitlements are final, vested, and beyond challenge.
Rather, this appeal presents a narrower issue: whether MCC complied with the 15 enumerated operational conditions of the CUP during its first year of operations, from October 28, 2021 through October 28, 2022. (See Operational Condition 8 [“Planning Commission review to assess compliance with the Operational Conditions shall occur one year after date of occupancy.”].) The Planning Commission correctly found MCC in compliance, with the exception of certain minor electrical equipment discussed below. On appeal, the Town Council reviews compliance with the operational conditions de novo.
III. MCC IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS OF ITS CUP The appeal does not identify any specific conditions that MCC allegedly violated during its first year of operations, nor does it include any evidence that would support a finding of noncompliance. Rather, the appeal asserts a number of general grievances and unsubstantiated complaints about MCC, its operations, and its proximity to appellant’s property. The complaints focus on special events, noise, and the shade structure. As explained below, MCC is in compliance with the operational conditions related to each of these items, and thus the appeal must be denied.
The appeal does not present issues related to Operational Conditions 2 (airhorns, fireworks, etc.); 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, and 15 (permitted operational hours); 7 (swim meet restriction); and 11 (membership limit). Therefore, these conditions are not discussed further.
A. MCC is in Compliance with Operational Conditions Related to Events Appellant raises a number of concerns about special events at MCC, but she does not specify which operational conditions she believes MCC is violating. As explained below, MCC is compliance with each of the relevant operational conditions, and appellant has not shown any violation. For reference, we provide the text of each relevant condition in italics followed by MCC’s response.
Item A Page 22 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Woodside Town Council
June 12, 2023
Operational Condition 1. The property owner shall make the annual event calendar accessible to all neighbors within 300 feet of the property boundary no later than January 1st of each year. Updates and revisions to this calendar shall also be made accessible to all neighbors within 300 feet of the property boundary. The contact name and number of a property owner representative shall also be made available to ensure that surrounding neighbors can report emergency and nuisance issues for resolution.
MCC is in compliance with Operational Condition 1. MCC has distributed its annual event calendar, along with updates and revisions, to all neighbors within 300 feet including appellant.
For reference, copies of MCC’s event calendars for 2022 and 2023 are attached as Exhibit A.
The current annual event calendar is also featured prominently on the homepage of MCC’s website, together with contact information for its general manager. (See https://menlocc.com/.) Operational Condition 12. Menlo Country Club may have up to 250 special events per year (30 events for the membership; 220 private events sponsored by members). The largest event at the
Clubhouse is usually the Christmas party which attracts approximately 350 people. BBQs on Friday nights at the pool during the warm season (5:30 to 9:30 P.M.) with 100-150 people in attendance. The largest BBQ is on Memorial Day which attracts approximately 350 people.
MCC is in compliance with Operational Condition 12. As reflected in the event calendars, MCC hosted 87 events in 2022, and 23 so far in 2023, well below the limit of 250 special events per year.
Appellant has not offered any evidence that MCC has exceeded its special event limits during the relevant period. She urges that any gathering of people at the club should be considered a special event, but this does not make sense. A core function of the club is for people to gather and socialize, and to use the pool and dining facilities, and these activities are part of the permitted land use. A special event does not occur every time multiple people swim in the pool together, have a conservation on the lawn, or eat together at a table. Rather, as indicated by the operational condition, a “special event” refers to something like a Christmas party, a Friday night or Memorial Day BBQ, or a private event sponsored by a member, such as a wedding.
Appellant complains in particular about activity at the pool and suggests that ordinary use of the pool should be considered a special event or disallowed. That is not correct. MCC’s approvals allow it to have a pool, and in fact, Operational Condition 9 specifies that “the pool may be open seven days a week, 365 days a year.”
Appellant also complains about BBQs held at the club and associated noise, grill smoke, and charcoal lighter fluid. The Operational Conditions, however, do not prohibit or restrict BBQs.
To the contrary, Operational Condition 12 expressly acknowledges that BBQs are one type of permitted special event by referencing the club’s Memorial Day and summertime BBQs. We also Item A Page 23 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Woodside Town Council
June 12, 2023
note that other property owners throughout Woodside commonly use charcoal BBQs and lighter fluid during the summer months.
Even though not required by the operational conditions, in an effort to satisfy appellant and to help define what constitutes a “special event,” MCC agreed with planning staff to treat any gathering of more than 50 people as a special event. Appellant contends this was improper, but staff’s interpretation of the condition is reasonable and entitled to deference, and if anything it results in a conservative approach to counting special events.
Operational Condition 13. A maximum of 25 events with amplified sound may be held at the Fitness Facility, pool and pool patio per year; with no more than one such event per week.
MCC is in compliance with Operational Condition 13. MCC hosted five events with amplified sound in 2021, six in 2022, and none so far in 2023. MCC has not hosted more than one such event per week. Once again, appellant has not offered any evidence that MCC has exceeded its special events limit.
B. MCC is in Compliance with Operational Conditions Related to Noise Appellant makes a number of complaints about noise at MCC, but once again, she does not identify any specific conditions that MCC is allegedly violating, nor does she substantiate her complaints with evidence. The gist of the appeal is not that MCC is violating its operational conditions, but rather that appellant objects to the ordinary, permissible noise from MCC’s operations. As detailed below, MCC has voluntarily implemented measures to reduce its operational noise and to respond to appellant’s concerns, and MCC is in full compliance with the relevant operational condition.
Operational Condition 4. Amplified sound shall not exceed 65dB Leq(h)/85dB Lmax for the 25 annual events at the Fitness Facility, measured at the nearest adjacent residential property line. The property owner shall monitor the sound generation of the 25 events with amplified sound at the Fitness Facility for the first 12 months of operation.
MCC is compliance with Operational Condition 4. MCC has conducted its own noise monitoring during every event with amplified sound. In addition, even though not required by the condition, MCC has conducted noise monitoring during events without amplified sound and during certain routine operations, to ensure that the club is not having noise impacts on its neighbors.
The noise measurements were taken at the residential property line using a professional sound meter (EnnoLogic eS528L Decibel Meter). The resulting noise monitoring data is attached as Exhibit B.
1 The data shows that all events were within the approved noise limits. Appellant does 1 Note that this data includes special events with amplified sound as required by the condition, plus certain special events without amplified sound and certain routine operations that were not classified as special events.
Item A Page 24 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Woodside Town Council
June 12, 2023
not submit any evidence to the contrary. At the Planning Commission’s request, MCC has also placed a marker at the location where it takes noise measurements, so that this location can be identified by the Town on future site visits.
Appellant also raises two additional noise issues that do not implicate the operational conditions. Although these issues are beyond the scope of this appeal, we address them anyway for the Town Council’s information.
First, appellant complains about equipment noise from a “malfunctioning roof exhaust.” This issue, however, never affected appellant and was quickly resolved. During a site visit, MCC and Town staff discovered a low hum emanating from the rooftop equipment. This noise was not audible at the neighbor’s property line. Nevertheless, MCC promptly retained a qualified consultant to investigate. The consultant discovered that the noise was the result of a defective blade in a bathroom exhaust fan, and MCC immediately directed the consultant to replace the entire fan system. This is documented in the report from Paragon Mechanical, Inc. submitted to the Planning Commission.
Second, appellant complains about “pool-equipment noise.” The operational conditions do not restrict use of pool equipment, and there is no evidence of the exaggerated noise impacts claimed by appellant. Additionally, the pool equipment building did not move as part of the Project; it remains in the same location it has been for decades, near the lower parking lot and well away from appellant’s property line and house. Thus, in addition to being unfounded, this issue is not even related to the 2019 CUP. We also note that other pool owners in Woodside use similar equipment without issue.
C. The Shade Structure and Electrical Outlet Are Not Part of the CUP and Do Not Violate Its Operational Conditions
Appellant’s objections to the shade structure and electrical equipment are outside the scope of this appeal for at least three reasons.
First, this appeal is limited to reviewing MCC’s compliance with the CUP’s 15 enumerated operational conditions, and none of those conditions address or regulate the shade structure or electrical equipment.
Second, the shade structure and electrical equipment are outside the scope of the CUP altogether. The shade structure was approved separately from the CUP, and is subject to its own conditions of approval. As noted above, on April 8, 2021, Town staff reviewed and administratively approved a building permit authorizing the 20-foot by 40-foot shade structure near the pool, and the Planning, Engineering, and Fire Departments each imposed conditions of approval. (See Building Permit No. BLDG2021-0019.) Staff’s approval was a proper exercise of its authority (Town Code § 153.912, Table Q), and the shade structure complies with the building permit Item A Page 25 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
EXHIBIT A
Item A Page 27 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 40 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 41 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 42 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 43 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 44 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 45 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 46 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 47 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 48 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 49 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 50 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 51 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
EXHIBIT B
Item A Page 52 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
EXHIBIT C
Item A Page 54 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
1 Item A Page 55 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
2 Item A Page 56 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
3 Item A Page 57 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-002
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
TOWN OF WOODSIDE COMPLETING THE REQUIRED ONE YEAR
REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR THE MENLO COUNTRY CLUB (PERMIT NO. CUSE2019-0001), LOCATED AT 2300 WOODSIDE ROAD.
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2019, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUSE2019-0001), Grading Exception (GRAD2019-0002) and Formal Design Review (ASRB2019-0015) for a proposal to demolish the existing two-story clubhouse, golf shop, cart storage building, and one-story pool bathhouse; and construct a new two-story clubhouse, twostory fitness facility, pergola, new parking and access areas, retaining walls, and associated site improvements, at 2300 Woodside Road, a property owned by the Menlo Country Club; WHEREAS, on June 14, 2019, the Town received an appeal from David Burow, owner of 135 Sheridan Way, and on June 15, 2019, the Town received an appeal from Deborah Mendelson and Kevin Greenwood, owners of 145 Sheridan Way (Appellants) in response to the Planning Commission’s approval of Resolution No. 2019-005, Approving ASRB2019-0015; GRAD2019-0002; and CUSE2019-0001;
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2019, the Town Council continued a duly noticed public de novo hearing for the appeals (APPL2019-0003 and APPL2019-0004); WHEREAS, on August 6, 2019, the Town Council conducted a duly noticed public de novo hearing for the appeals (APPL2019-0003 and APPL2019-0004) in accordance with Municipal Code Section 153.970, at which oral and written comments and a staff report were presented and reviewed by the Town Council. The Town Council upheld the approval of the CUP adding Operational Conditions that include required Planning Commission review of the CUP one year after completion of the project;
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2021, the project was completed and passed final inspections by the Town of Woodside Building Department; WHEREAS, on November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the Operational Conditions of Approval from the CUP (CUSE2019-0001) and the comments from nearby property owners, and continued the item to obtain additional information from Town staff and the applicant; and,
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the Operational Conditions of Approval from the CUP (CUSE2019-0001), the comments from the owners of 145 and 150 Sheridan Way, and the additional information provided by Town staff and the applicant that was requested by the Commission.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds that the Menlo Country Club complies with the CUP Operational Conditionals of Approval for the first year after the completion of the project that occurred on October 28, 2021, with the requirement that the Menlo Country Club removes the unpermitted electrical improvements at/serving the Item A Page 58 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
permitted shade structure (Permit No. BLDG2021-0019) located on the lawn, south of the swimming pool; with the expressed intent that electrical equipment should not be used at the location of the shade structure. The Planning Commission further finds that all Conditions of Approval outlined in Town Council Resolution No. 2019-7305, remain in effect.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the Town of Woodside Planning Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing held on April 5, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tauber, Kutay, Weaver, London, Vice Chair Batchelder, and Chair Voelke
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Garr
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
Marilyn Voelke, Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Secretary
Item A Page 59 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2023 Page 1
APPROVED 05-17-2023
TOWN OF WOODSIDE
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 2023
Minutes
The meeting of the Woodside Planning Commission was called to order on April 5, 2023, at 6:00 P.M. in Independence Hall and by Zoom. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Voelke, Vice Chair Batchelder, Commissioners Kutay, London, Tauber, and Weaver
Absent: Commissioner Garr
Staff: Jean Savaree, Town Attorney
Sage Schaan, Planning Director
Sarah Harper, Planning Technician
NOMINATION OF CHAIR
Nomination of Chair – Commissioner Kutay nominated Commissioner Voelke as Chair.
Motion: Commissioner Kutay/Second: Commissioner Batchelder Yes: Chair Voelke, Commissioners Batchelder, Kutay, London, Lyle, and Weaver No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Commissioner Garr
The motion moves.
NOMINATION OF VICE CHAIR
Nomination of Vice Chair – Chair Voelke nominated Commissioner Batchelder as Vice Chair Motion: Chair Voelke/Second: Commissioner Kutay
Yes: Chair Voelke, Commissioners Batchelder, Kutay, London, Tauber, and Weaver No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Commissioner Garr
The motion moves.
CALLS FOR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Planning Director, Sage Schaan, stated that staff had received an email from the property owners at 150 Sheridan Way expressing concern regarding amplified noise from the Country Club. He stated that there was also another letter from the property owners at 145 Sheridan Way regarding amplified noise, what constitutes an event, the permitting of the shade structure, and the BBQ area.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
No Public communication.
Item A Page 60 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2023 Page 2
APPROVED 05-17-2023
CONSENT CALENDAR
2. Minutes of July 22, 2021
3. Minutes of November 9, 2022
4. Minutes of December 14, 2022
ACTION
The Planning Commission approved the Consent Calendar Minutes.
Motion: Chair Voelke Second: Commissioner Kutay
Yes: Chair Voelke, Vice Chair Batchelder, Commissioners Kutay, Tauber, London, and Weaver Abstain: None
Absent: Commissioner Garr
The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING
5. 2300 Woodside Road CUSE2019-0001
Menlo Country Club Planner: Sage Schaan, Planning Director Planning Commission one-year review of the Menlo Country Club Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Operational Conditions. This review is required one-year after the completion date of the new fitness building and clubhouse, which occurred on October 28, 2021.
This item was continued from November 9, 2022, with Planning Commission direction to staff and the applicant to provide additional information. The item was scheduled for review on February 15, 2023, and was continued to allow the applicant additional time to fix a malfunctioning roof mounted exhaust fan.
Planning Director, Sage Schaan, presented the staff report.
Chair Voelke stated that noise standards are referenced in the Town General Plan as 55 LDN.
Planner Schaan replied that the General Plan lists 55 LDN, which is a night and day average that takes ambient noise into account. The Town does not have a noise ordinance in the Municipal Code.
Commissioner Batchelder stated that one of the concerns raised was the smell from the BBQ area. He asked if the club could switch to an electric BBQ in order to alleviate the smell of the fire starter and charcoal for the surrounding neighbors.
Planner Schaan replied that for the meeting tonight, no new conditions can be added to the project. He replied that the club can be asked to switch to electric BBQ methods voluntarily. Planner Schaan stated that if the Planning Commission finds that the current BBQ is not in compliance with the Conditional Use Permit, it may need to be removed or relocated.
Item A Page 61 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2023 Page 3
APPROVED 05-17-2023
Steve Gonzales, General Manager of the Menlo Country Club, stated that the grill is a natural gas grill.
He noted that the grill is located on the patio adjacent to the building and complies with the Conditional Use Permit.
Chair Voelke stated that she wanted to note that while visiting the site, there was a noise from a fan. She stated that the fan is now quiet and is acceptable now as the noisy one was replaced. Chair Voelke continued in stating that the shade structure should not have been approved without review by the Planning Commission, but that the permit was approved by the previous Planning Director. She stated that if the electrification of the shade structure was not shown on the approved plans. She asked if the Club would remove the electrification from the structure? Mr. Gonzales replied that it is a convenient outlet, otherwise they would have to run long extension cords for using other items such as a popcorn machine for the children and other types of electrical equipment.
Chair Voelke replied that if the electrical is unpermitted, it is a code enforcement issue. She replied that at previous meetings, the request from the Club to the previous Planning Director was for a shade structure for Club members during daylight hours. The shade structure appears more like an outdoor room based on the proximity of the placement to the building. She stated that encourages the congregation of people in an area where it is not ideal. She asked Mr. Gonzales how the Club uses the shade structure? Mr. Gonzales replied that it is used as a shade structure like using umbrellas to block the sun. The area is used primarily during summer months. He noted that there are no other areas of shade besides in the bar area where children are not allowed. It is supposed to be primarily for the children during the day to provide shade.
Chair Voelke asked if the shade structure is used as an extended area for parties? Mr. Gonzales replied that it was used before, but the primary dining area is in the courtyard. The other tables on the pool deck have umbrellas.
Chair Voelke asked why did the Club not place the shade structure more adjacent to the pool? Mr. Gonzales replied that the present location was chosen as it is more convenient for Club members, and it was decided by the Committee that would be the location. He noted that the Club also asked the Town if that location was acceptable.
Chair Voelke asked if the shade structure is every used as an extension of food service and storage? Mr. Gonzales replied that the area on the lawn was always used for events, even before the shade structure. There has always been a pool in that area since 1922 and the current pool has been in that location since 1993.
Chair Voelke stated that the Club would have items on the event calendar so that neighbors would be aware. She stated that it was decided that fifty events would be the right number. She stated that all events with amplified sound, regardless of crowd size would have to be placed on the calendar.
Mr. Gonzales replied that is correct. He stated that the Club records sound measurements at every event.
He noted that the Club can have up to twenty-five events with amplified sound. He stated there are very few events with amplified sound other than background music which is allowed. They only place events with fifty or more people on the calendar. He stated the Club also recorded sound decibels at all events.
Item A Page 62 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2023 Page 4
APPROVED 05-17-2023
Chair Voelke asked if the Club considered moving events away from the neighbors? Mr. Gonzales replied that the Club had moved most events into the Clubhouse and away from neighbors.
The pool house opened in May of 2021, and the Main Clubhouse did not open until November of 2021.
For a season, all events were held at the pool area. Once the main Club was opened, many of the events moved to the clubhouse.
Chair Voelke asked if the club will continue to monitor sound? Mr. Gonzales replied that the Clubhouse will continue to monitor the sound to be a good neighbor.
Chair Voelke asked why the BBQ area is in the current location? Mr. Gonzales replied that is the area where the natural gas line is located.
Commissioner Weaver stated that there are restrictions on the use of power equipment such as leaf blowers and lawnmower equipment. He replied that those hours of restriction appear to be the same as the hours of restriction that are throughout Woodside.
Mr. Gonzales replied that there is more restrictive language for the club, including weekend hours.
Planner Schaan replied that Condition 3, operation of power equipment, specifically around the cottages and fitness center Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. And Saturdays 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.
Commissioner Weaver stated that the residential sites further up the hill function as an amphitheater. He asked what are the hourly restrictions on the maintenance of the golf course? Planner Schaan replied that the restrictions do not apply to mowing the lawn areas away from homes.
Vice Chair Batchelder stated that there are two areas of lawn close to the homes.
Commissioner Kutay stated that there are golf courses near the Woodside Hills area, but there is heavy planting and mowing is unnoticeable.
Public comment opened at 6:56 pm
Kevin Greenwood, property owner, 145 Sheridan Way, stated that there was noise from the new building.
He stated that the Planning Department indicates that the building meets the required 50 ft setback, and nothing further could be done. He stated that when he had placed a shade structure on his property, it had to be removed as Planning told him they are not allowed. The Country Club was allowed a shade structure and the shade structure is not a minor adjustment. Planning allowed all non-minor changes made by the construction of the Menlo Country Club without prior discussion. The Club is double the volume that is was before the construction. He stated that the Town did not get back to the neighbors and address their concerns in a timely manner. Mr. Greenwood noted that the General Manager of the Club stated that there was no change in use, but he had found sources online that would dispute that claim. The smell of the smoke and BBQ was never discussed with the Conditional Use Permit. He stated that staff reviewed with the applicant to review what constitutes as an event. Events were swimming events and family BBQs, now weddings and eulogies are being done with amplified noise. He stated that putting up bouncy houses or having a party is an event. He stated that it is not a public club, and he cannot go out there and see what is going on.
Item A Page 63 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2023 Page 5
APPROVED 05-17-2023
Debbie Mendelson, property owner, 145 Sheridan Way, stated that the areas that are referenced where shade is needed once had large oak trees that produced shade, but were unfortunately removed. There was excavation and earth moving going on for the project. There was also a fire pit that encouraged gathering at the south of the building. The fire pit was required to be moved to minimize the attraction to gathering at the lawn, and then an outdoor pavilion was placed in that location. She stated that she took sound readings from her property and there were thirty people talking under the shade structure without any amplified noise and the dba still registered at 60 dba. During the pandemic there was unending noise, and events and it was twenty-eight events over what was allowed. She stated that she would leave voice mails and calls and it took the Town two and a half months to get back to her.
Chair Voelke asked: since the shade structure was placed, was there any difference in noise? Ms. Mendelson replied yes, there can be one hundred people with tables under the shade structure with dinners and BBQs. She replied there is difference in noise as group size varies. She noted that she never saw children out there using the shade structure.
Mr. John Boyle, former Board Member, and former project manager for Menlo Country Club, noted that the project had to be approved by the ASRB and the Planning Commission. He stated that the Club had moved the fire pit based on the request from neighbors. He stated that the structure for shade is a cloth on four posts on a small portion of the lawn.
Commissioner Tauber replied that the trees were natural barriers, and the natural barriers were removed.
He asked why were they removed?
Mr. Boyle replied that the large main tree was not an oak, it was an unhealthy pine tree. There was one large tree removed as they replaced the fence. The Club replanted trees based on the recommendations from staff.
Chair Voelke stated that everyone wants the Country Club to be successful. The residents expect privacy.
The members and Club staff should remember if they lived next to the Country Club, what would they expect from the Club. The Planning Commission wanted less events, but the Town Council expanded the number of events allowed with amplification for the Club.
Commissioner Kutay commented that the Country Club has to keep in mind that the Mendelson’s cannot enjoy their home as the noise is very unpleasant at their property.
Chair Voelke replied that it is also other neighbors, the Schiebers and the Burows who are also having sound issues and are being affected by noise. She stated that most events should take place in the clubhouse as a duty to minimize noise impacts to neighbors.
Chair Voelke asked if smoking is allowed on Club property? Mr. Gonzales replied that smoking is allowed in the parking lot and there is now a break area near the clubhouse. Employees no longer congregate behind the pool house. No one is permitted to smoke out on the lawn areas or behind the clubhouse or pool structures.
Public comment closed at 7:42 p.m.
Item A Page 64 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2023 Page 6
APPROVED 05-17-2023
COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION
Commissioner Tauber stated that initiative-taking from the Club to solve the concerns with neighbors is the ideal solution. The electrical part of the shade structure is an issue. The noise from the fan was fixed.
The shade structure acts as a gathering place especially if there are no trees.
Commissioner Kutay replied that she agrees with Commissioner Tauber. She replied that the Club should place themselves in the neighbor’s position and try to reduce the issues produced by the shade structure.
She asked that the club voluntarily remove the shade structure.
Chair Voelke replied that the fan issue was fixed. The 2 BBQ stations that were approved will be left as is. The approval of the shade structure was approved by the previous Planning Director but should have been reviewed by the Planning Commission. The electricity in the shade structure was added without permit approval. The event calendar still needs work. Only listing events of fifty people or more is not enough, thirty people for an event is significant and should be listed on the Club’s calendar as with all events that occur outside of the normal hours of operations within the Club.
Commissioner Weaver replied that the Club was authorized by the Town Council for regular food and beverage service on Friday and Saturday. He stated that it would easily be fifty people. If the convenience outlet is removed from the shade structure the Club would run extension cords to that area, which is less safe.
Vice Chair Batchelder replied that part of the issue is communication. The Club has to communicate when those events are taking place. If an extra fifty attendees want to come, there is no way to enforce it.
He stated that there are issues with noise on the lawn, and the area should not be used to place bounce houses. He agreed with the previous suggestion for the Club to look into a sound wall or a fountain to mask the noise generated at the pool lawn area.
Commissioner London stated that there should be no need for amplified noise by the pool house. He noted that neighbors live around the Sharon Heights Country Club and have no complaints since amplified sound is not allowed at that Club. He suggested that Menlo Country Club remove amplified noise and visit the Sharon Heights Country Club as an example of a Country Club that had excluded amplified noise for events.
Chair Voelke replied that many suggestions made sense but cannot be forced into the CUP as the Town Council approved it.
Mr. Boyle noted that the Club did not add electricity at the shade structure after the project was inspected and completed. The Club asked if they could install it, and it was approved, inspected, and passed. The lighting was not permanent, but a convenience outlet was there.
Planner Schaan stated that all exterior lighting requires Town approval, except for temporary holiday lighting, and that any lighting at the shade structure has not been approved. He indicated that he would look further into the Building Permit files, but that the electricity at the shade structure was not shown on the approved plans for that structure.
Chair Voelke stated that the electrical was not on the approved plans and it was not the intention of the previous Planning Director to approve electrification of the structure. The structure was approved as just a shade structure.
Item A Page 65 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2023 Page 7
APPROVED 05-17-2023
Planner Schaan replied that is correct, as the approved sets of plans do not show electricity for the shade structure.
Commissioner Tauber replied that he agrees with reducing the noise and removing the electric aspect of the shade structure. Amplification of sound and the definition of an event is a challenge. He asked if the number of events with amplified sound be reduced from the prior agreement of twenty-five events? Chair Voelke replied that the number of events cannot be altered as the Town Council had already approved the prior proposal of twenty-five amplified events with no more than one event with amplified sound per week.
Commissioner Tauber replied that there should not be electricity at the shade structure if it was not previously approved.
ACTION
After review of the item, public testimony, and discussion, the Planning Commission found the Menlo Country Club in compliance with the CUP Operational Conditions of Approval after more than one year of completing the new fitness/pool Building and new clubhouse if Menlo Country Club removes the unpermitted electricity (outlets, switch, and electrical lines) at the shade structure on the lawn south of the swimming pool. The intent behind removing the unpermitted electricality is that any type of electrical equipment, including lighting, shall not be used at the location of the shade structure. Staff will work with Menlo Country Club to ensure they follow all necessary steps to properly remove the unpermitted electrical.
Motion: Chair Voelke/Second: Commissioner Tauber
Yes: Chair Voelke, Vice Chair Batchelder Commissioners Kutay, London, Tauber, and Weaver No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Commissioner Garr
The motion was approved.
REPORTS
a. Staff communications
Planner Schaan presented the Directors Reports for February and March. He noted that the Town is looking for applicants for membership of the ASRB. Planner Schaan noted that staff resubmitted the second Housing Element draft on March 15, 2023.
b. Commissioner communication.
None.
Chair Voelke adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Item A Page 66 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
_______________________________________________________________________________ PC Meeting April 5, 2023 2300 Woodside Road Page 1
TOWN OF WOODSIDE
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSSION
Meeting Date: April 5, 2023 Agenda Item: 4
Prepared by: Sage Schaan, AICP CEP, Planning Director
TITLE: CUSE2019-0001: Continued Planning Commission one-year review of the Menlo Country Club Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Operational Conditions. This review is required one-year after the completion date of the new fitness building and clubhouse, which occurred on October 28, 2021.
This item was continued from November 9, 2022, with Planning Commission direction to staff and the applicant to provide additional information. The item was scheduled for review on February 15, 2023, and was continued to allow the applicant additional time to fix a malfunctioning roof mounted exhaust fan.
Property Information
Address: 2300 Woodside Road
APN: 069-161-020, 069-161-050, 069-161-060, and 069-162-020 (069-150-170 is an off-site drainage parcel)
Property Owner: Menlo Country Club (MCC)
Zoning District: SCP-10 (Special Conservation Planning – 10-acre minimum) General Plan Designation: OS (Open Space) & Medium Intensity Recreational Use Lot Area: 141.03 acres (gross)
137.08 acres (net)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission initiated the one-year review of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Menlo Country Club as required by the Town Council in 2019 while approving the current CUP as part of the project to replace the Clubhouse and Pool/Fitness buildings. The November 9, 2022, Planning Commission report provides further details of the CUP review, and Town Council review of two appeals of the CUP approval. (Attachment VI).
BACKGROUND
During the one-year CUP review by the Planning Commission on November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission noted concerns expressed by an adjacent neighbor, primarily related to generated noise from the Menlo Country Club, and materials stored behind the Pool/Fitness building (Attachment IV, Minutes, Attachment V, Planning Commission Desk Items).
While it was clarified at the hearing that the storage issues has been resolved, and that at least one significant noise event was created by the Woodside High School, Planning Commission questions remained regarding noise generated from current equipment, the permitting of a shade structure, Item A Page 67 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 68
location of barbeque areas, and which events require posting on the Menlo Country Club Event Calendar.
The Planning Commission detennined that additional info1mation needed to be provided before completing the one-year CUP review, and continued the item with the following direction to staff and the applicant:
I. Planning Department Staff:
a. Outline the Town approval process for noise generating mechanical equipment located within the attic of the Fitness/Pool Building.
b. Explain the detennination made to approve a Building Pennit for the shade structure located on the lawn southeast of the Fitness/Pool Building without review by the Planning Commission.
c. Detennine if the barbeque locations on the south side of the Fitness/Pool Building are permitted by the CUP.
d. Explain what constitutes an "Event" that needs to be included on Menlo Country Club's annual event calendar on the website.
II. Menlo Country Club:
a. Place a marker (e.g., stake with a colored flag/ribbon) at the location Menlo Countiy Club measures noise readings.
b. Attenuate the noise generated from the mechanical equipment located in the attic of the Fitness/Pool Building. Please explain what measures will be taken to attenuate the noise. If noise attenuation is not feasible, please explain.
The project was scheduled for a 2nd review on Febma1y 15, 2023, but the malfunctioning exhaust fan was not fixed at that time. The item was continued to April 5, 2023, to allow Menlo Countiy Club time to repair the exhaust fan, which was eventually repaired on Febma1y 28, 2023.
Table 1, below, includes the Planning Commission direction to Planning Department staff and the Menlo Country Club (Attachment III, Action Letter), and Planning Department staff and applicant responses. The applicant provided additional materials with their response in Attachment II).
T a bl e 1 . Pl annm2 C ommiss1on 1rection an d S ta ff/A .pp li cant R esponse PC Comments Staff/ Aoolicant Response
I. Planning Depa1iment Staff
a. Outline the Town approval HV AC equipment locations are not always shown at the process for noise generating planning entitlement stage, unless a Setback Exception or mechanical equipment Variance is required for the location of the equipment. located within the attic of the Review of pe1mits for HV AC equipment on all projects Fitness/Pool Building. (both projects that require, and do not require, public hearing review) are reviewed by Town staff to ensure they comply with required setbacks. The Municipal Code does
not allow for ministerial approval of HV AC equipment
proposed within required setbacks.
PC Meeting Apiil 5, 2023 2300 Woodside Road Page2
Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
_______________________________________________________________________________ PC Meeting April 5, 2023 2300 Woodside Road Page 3 The Zoning District for Menlo Country Club is SCP-10,
which requires that buildings and HVAC equipment be
located at least 50 feet from all property lines. The HVAC equipment at the Menlo Country Club Fitness/Pool
building was reviewed with the building permit submittal and approved given because it is located more than 50 feet from the closest property line.
As noted below, additional noise may be generated by a
malfunctioning rooftop exhaust fan at the Fitness/Pool
building. Rooftop exhaust fan locations are rarely shown on plans submitted for planning entitlement review and are generally reviewed and approved at the building permit
stage.
Menlo Country Club has repaired the malfunctioning
rooftop exhaust fan which should help to minimize noise impacts to neighbors. In summary, the HVAC equipment
was installed in a permitted location and no further noise attenuation is required by the Woodside Municipal Code. b. Explain the determination
made to approve a Building
Permit for the shade structure
located on the lawn southeast
of the Fitness/Pool Building
without review by the
Planning Commission.
After completion of the public hearing process, minor
adjustments are sometimes made during construction.
These adjustments can include, but not limited to,
additional landscape features and structures, such as the shade structure on the lawn located south of the
Fitness/Pool building. In this instance , the previous
Planning Director determined that the proposed project
revision did not require further public hearing and
reviewed the change at the staff level.
As proposed by the Menlo Country Club, the shade
structure did not include any lighting. The previous
Planning Director determined that the open-sided shade
structure with a retractable fabric roof, located on a lawn south of the swimming pool in an area that allows for
recreational use by the Menlo Country Club, did not
require further public hearing review.
The previous Planning Director determined that the shade structure should be reviewed with a building permit
application, and . based on this direction, the applicant obtained the required construction permits to install the shade structure.
In summary, the shade structure was approved by the
previous Planning Director ,but no lighting was approved on or around the shade structure. The applicant has
Item A Page 69 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
_______________________________________________________________________________ PC Meeting April 5, 2023 2300 Woodside Road Page 5 The exhaust fan was repaired on February 28, 2023
(Attachment II).
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information provided with the November 9, 2022, February 15, 2023, Planning Commission reports, staff recommends approval of the Draft Resolution in Attachment VI.A, verifying compliance with the Town Council approved CUP after the first year of operation.
ATTACHMENTS
I. CUP Conditions of Approval Monitoring Checklist, dated September 22, 2021 II. Applicant Response to Planning Commission Action Letter, including an invoice III. Planning Commission Action Letter, dated November 14, 2022 IV. Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 9, 2022 (draft) V. Planning Commission Desk Items from November 9, 2022, hearing VI. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 9, 2022 A. Draft Resolution (updated for 4-5-23, PC hearing)
B. Town Council Resolution No. 2019-7305 (Decision on Appeal of Approved CUP) C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 (Approval of CUP) D. Aerial Photo showing 145 Sheridan Way and Menlo Country Club E. Menlo Country Club response to the CUP Operational Conditions, received October 14, 2022
F. Emails from owner of 145 Sheridan Way
1. June 17, 2021
2. July 28, 2021
3. August 16, 2021
4. August 30, 2021
5. July 17, 2022
VII. Shade Structure Approved Building Permit Plans (PC Only*) *Plans may be viewed by setting up an appointment with the Planning Department.
Item A Page 71 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 80 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 81 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 82 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 84 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
November 14, 2022
Steve Gonzalez
Menlo Country Club
2300 Woodside Road
Woodside, CA 94062
Re: CUSE2019-0001 - 2300 Woodside Road: One-Year CUP Review Dear Mr. Gonzalez,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Planning Commission one-year review of the Menlo Country Club Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Operational Conditions. This review is required one-year after the completion date of the new fitness building and clubhouse, which occurred on October 28, 2021.
ACTION
On November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Operational Conditions of Approval, considered public testimony, and continued Planning Commission review to a future date to be determined, with the following direction:
I. Planning Department Staff:
a. Outline the Town approval process for noise generating mechanical equipment located within the attic of the Fitness/Pool Building. b. Explain the determination made to approve a Building Permit for the shade structure located on the lawn southeast of the Fitness/Pool Building without review by the Planning Commission.
c. Determine if the barbeque locations on the south side of the Fitness/Pool Building are permitted by the CUP.
d. Explain what constitutes an Event that needs to be included on Menlo Country Club s annual event calendar on the website.
II. Menlo Country Club:
a. Place a marker (e.g., stake with a colored flag/ribbon) at the location Menlo Country Club measures noise readings.
b. Attenuate the noise generated from the mechanical equipment located in the attic of the Fitness/Pool Building. Please explain what measures will be taken to attenuate the noise. If noise attenuation is not feasible, please explain.
In addition to the comments above, it was noted during the Planning Commission review that lighting has been installed and used at the shade structure on the lawn Item A Page 88 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
adjacent to the pool. Lighting at this structure has not been approved by the Town and shall be removed.
Please email ([email protected]) or call me (650-530-3432) to set up a meeting for review of the Operational Conditions of Approval and the direction provided by the Planning Commission.
Kindest Regards,
Sage Schaan, AICP CEP
Interim Planning Director
Item A Page 89 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2022 Page 1
DRAFT
PUBLIC HEARING
2. 2300 Woodside Road CUSE2019-0001
Menlo Country Club Planner: Sage Schaan, Interim Planning Director Planning Commission one-year review of the Menlo Country Club Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Operational Conditions. This review is required one-year after the completion date of the new fitness building and clubhouse, which occurred on October 28, 2021.
DISCUSSION
Vice Chair Dare recused from the project since the firm she works for is designing a house adjacent to Menlo Country Club, and Commissioner Bildner recused from the project since he is a member of the Menlo Country Club.
Sage Schaan, Deputy Planning Director, presented the staff report.
Chair Voelke stated that she visited the site and expressed concerns with the permanent trellis structure at the south end of the pool that includes outdoor lighting.
Planner Schaan noted that lighting at the described trellis structure is not approved and shall be removed.
He stated that during the inspection of the structure on the lawn south of the pool, exterior lights were observed and noted to the applicant that the lights are not permitted and required removal prior to passing final inspection. The lighting was removed by the applicant prior to final inspection. Planner Schaan noted that if such lighting at the trellis structure is reinstalled by the applicant, such installation of lighting conflicts with the permit approvals, and the approved CUP, therefore shall not be installed at any time.
Chair Voelke stated that there are currently lights strung on the structure when she visited the site. She stated that the overall project was a substantial change to the site, and there was thought and public comments regarding noise impacts to the houses adjacent to the rear of the pool house. The Country Club previously stated the changes to the pool building would help to mitigate the existing noise levels since the new building is taller blocking most of the pool area. There was also discussion regarding the open lawn area being changed from a gathering area with a fire pit to just a lawn which minimized the potential for area being an attractive gathering place. The Mendelson property is most affected by noise from the pool area. The Conditional Use Permit states that, The pool fitness building shall consist of a kitchen, bar, flex room, locker room, exercise room, upper flex room, and fire pit. She noted that the fire pit was relocated in front of the building to minimize noise generated from the area south of the pool. She stated that there was no mention of an outdoor pavilion or permanent structure on the lawn and there is no mention of the ability to BBQ outside within the fenced area. She stated that she is shocked that the outdoor pavilion was allowed. She stated it is a large structure that encourages gathering. She believes the structure is not part of the Use Permit and is a violation of the Use Permit. She stated that the definition of an event must be clarified. She noted that there was not supposed to be anything on that side that faces the neighbors. She stated that she had heard a hum around the area and when approaching the Mendelson s property line the noise was more substantial. She stated that it was the HVAC equipment that was making noise. Chair Voelke stated that the issues she raised need to be addressed.
Commissioner Garr stated he reviewed the sound log decibel readings from the Club. He asked if any additional studies were completed?
Item A Page 90 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2022 Page 2
DRAFT
Planner Schaan stated that the Conditional Use Permit requires the applicant is to provide the data, and that no additional noise studies, beyond what is required by the CUP, were completed.
Steve Gonzalez, General Manager of the Menlo Country Club, stated that the Club follows the conditions of the CUP. Mr. Gonzalez stated that the event being discussed on October 29th in the neighbor s letter did not come from the Club since the Club was closed that evening. He noted that the Woodside High Homecoming Dance was that night and that the noise heard was likely generated from the High School.
Mr. Gonzalez stated that in regard to what an event is, he only had to record the event if it was over 50 people attending. Mr. Gonzalez stated that those events were made available on the event calendar on the Club s website. Mr. Gonzalez suggested that Ms. Mendelson is mistaking regular, al a carte dining by Club members as events that need to be noticed on the event calendar. He stated that the noise log was recorded when amplified noise was used, any event that created excessive noise was delt with accordingly.
Chair Voelke, asked Mr. Gonzalez, who gave the guidance on listing events on the calendar for fifty or more people?
Mr. Gonzalez stated that he and staff had developed the number of people that constituted an event together.
Commissioner Kutay stated that she wanted to clarify that Ms. Mendelson did not state an event was taking place on October 29th, but that there were bright lights on at the pool pavilion area after 8 p.m.
Mr. Gonzalez stated that he was commenting on the event log created by Ms. Mendelson that was recently sent to him. He stated that the last log noted that there was loud noise at night on October 29th . He stated that there was no pool or club events on October 29th . Chair Voelke asked why is there electricity to the shade structure? Mr. Gonzalez stated that the construction was done to specs. The idea was to use temporary lighting occasionally. He states that the lighting is removed after events.
Chair Voelke asked about the noise from the HVAC system.
Mr. Gonzalez stated that there were decibel reading taken up along their property lines. He stated that the HVAC system is in the approved location and meets code.
Chair Voelke stated that the Commission would need more information on the HVAC equipment since the language proposed in the Resolution states that the noise should not affect the health and safety of the surrounding neighbors.
Planner Schaan stated he will go back and research the previous actions and approvals of the Menlo Country Club.
Commissioner London stated that another Club outside of Woodside, Sharron Heights, does not allow any PA system from 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm. He stated it is not just an air conditioner making the noise.
Mr. Gonzalez stated that the Club wants to be good neighbors and peacefully coexist. He stated that the Club will do their best to keep all of the activity at a minimum.
Item A Page 91 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2022 Page 3
DRAFT
Commissioner Garr asked, s fewer than fifty people, would amplified sound be used for an event?
Mr. Gonzalez stated that if it is fifty or more it is an event. Can there be less than 50 people with the use of a PA system? It is possible.
Chair Voelke stated that there is a distinction between events with does not specify any number of attendees; it just states that events need to be placed on the calendar available to neighbors.
Public comment opened 7:56 pm.
Kevin Greenwood, resident, 145 Sheridan Way, stated no one from the Planning Commission, Town Council, or Planning staff had been to their property to hear what it sounds like. He also stated that no representatives from the Menlo Country Club had observed the activity from his deck. He states that there were issues with communications with staff regarding the construction of a lawn area, pool area, and a sunshade structure. He noted that he had to revoke a sunshade from his property as they were not allowed. He stated a lawn area was cleared of trees and now includes a place a bouncing house. He stated that he had heard conversations from party goers on various occasions.
Sue Sweeny Burow, property owner, 135 Sheridan, stated that she hears amplified noise very often, and it is very loud. The road behind her property has trucks that drive through there that cause commotion from cars and trucks. She stated that it makes her uneasy as she is not sure if it is people from the Club or burglars.
Public comment closed at 8:07 pm.
COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION
Chair Voelke stated that the BBQ area is large, and the HVAC has to be reviewed. She asked for clarification on what constitutes an event.
Commissioner Kutay stated that she echoes Chair Voelke s concerns. She stated that she had heard the mechanical noise as well. She also stated that there is enough space for 50 to 100 people that could be in that area, and to be used with amplified noise would definitely affect the neighboring properties in a negative manner.
Commissioner Garr stated that the definition of event needs to be looked into. He stated that the pavilion permitting process also needs to be revisited.
Chair Voelke stated that points for review is the HVAC equipment, the sunshade, mobile BBQs, and what constitutes an event.
Mr. Gonzalez stated that the mobile BBQs use gas and are used periodically.
Commissioner London stated that the removal of PA system to remove amplified noise would be a benefit for all parties.
Mr. Gonzalez noted that the noise reading was provided at the property line, and not at the shade structure. He presented on the plans where the noise reading was taken on the property. He noted that Item A Page 92 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2022 Page 4
DRAFT
there will not be any events at the Club until May 1st, so they will not be conducting any noise readings until that time.
Chair Voelke stated that they should provide a marker showing where the noise readings would be taken.
Mr. Gonzalez stated that is agreeable.
John Boyle, Board Member, and current Project Manager for Menlo Country Club stated that a lot of the issues identified in the letters is the issues and noise were from 2021 and not from 2022. He stated that the issues would not be repeated as the building will be used in a different manner in 2022. He stated that it will less disruptive since construction is complete and many activities will be inside the main clubhouse, not at the pool area.
Kevin Greenwood stated that there were twenty-two events in 2021 when there was only supposed to be fifteen. He stated that he did not hear from Mr. Gonzalez regarding the events. He stated the calendars for the main clubhouse were marked in the calendars.
Chair Voelke stated that the issues have to be reviewed and will have been worked on before completing the review of the Conditional Use Permit.
ACTION
The Planning Commission reviewed the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Operational Conditions of Approval, considered public testimony, and continued Planning Commission review to a future date to be determined, with the following direction:
I. Planning Department Staff:
a. Outline the Town approval process for noise generating mechanical equipment located within the attic of the Fitness/Pool Building.
b. Explain the determination made to approve a Building Permit for the shade structure located on the lawn southeast of the Fitness/Pool Building without review by the Planning Commission.
c. Determine if the barbeque locations on the south side of the Fitness/Pool Building are permitted by the CUP.
d.
annual event calendar on the website.
II. Menlo Country Club:
a. Place a marker (e.g., stake with a colored flag/ribbon) at the location Menlo Country Club measures noise readings.
b. Attenuate the noise generated from the mechanical equipment located in the attic of the Fitness/Pool Building. Please explain what measures will be taken to attenuate the noise. If noise attenuation is not feasible, please explain.
In addition to the comments above, it was noted during the Planning Commission review that lighting has been installed and used at the shade structure on the lawn adjacent to the pool. Lighting at this structure has not been approved by the Town and shall be removed.
Motion: Chair Voelke /Second: Commissioner Garr
Ayes Chair Voelke, Commissioners Garr, Kutay, and London Noes None
Item A Page 93 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2022 Page 5
DRAFT
Absent: Commissioner Batchelder
Recused: Vice Chair Dare and Commissioner Bildner
The Planning Commission passed the motion.
Item A Page 94 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Conditional Use Permit & Event Log
DEBBIE MENDELSON / KEVIN GREENWOOD
No one – Not one planning commissioner, town council member, town staff member, or MCC personnel, has been to our home to witness the distressful disturbances we endure from the MCC – the sound levels, stench of charcoal lighter fluid and diesel fuel, industrial barbeques at the bottom of our property, or the garbage/storage and employee rest facilities in the area now facing our property (and hidden from MCC members by a fenc.
Reviewing the Conditional Use Permit we note:
Under section11 Operational Conditions
The Menlo Country Club did not provide an annual event calendar by the January 1 date as stipulated.
Power equipment (mowers, blowers, weed wackers) used at and around the fitness center is in continuing violation of the times allowed.
The MCC has exceeded the scheduled event list in 2021 and 2022 by 27 events.
The MCC has continuously exceeded the one event per week allowed.
The decibel level from our deck and home exceeds what was allowed.
Exemption from CEQA (granted by the town) should never legally have been allowed. Based on volume of earth moving on the project, dust levels from earth movement and construction of a road, trees not protected, and inaccurate assessments of the engineering firm.
We asked the Lake Street Ventures project manager for the name of the company that did the property survey and a copy of the survey. That was in 2019. He said he would provide it and despite numerous requests and his agreement, to this day it has not been provided.
We would challenge that this private club is a benefit to the “community”, especially if their criteria is as a Woodside “employer”.
MCC designates itself a “private non-commercial club” while it rents out its facilities for (commercial)events.
The chimney of the fitness building is white not the conforming required gray/green.
Item A Page 97 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
MCC Events – May 2021 – Oct 2022
DEBBIE MENDELSON / KEVIN GREENWOOD
May 2021
May 12 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Tables and chairs set up within feet of the fence
o Children screaming from 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.
May 21 “Menlo Cup Dinner”
o 75-100 men having an auction over a PA system
o Heavily intoxicated, hooting, hollering & profanities over a PA system o It is so loud we clearly heard the words from inside our house where all the windows have been closed.
o We called Mr. Gonzales—NO RESPONSE at the time or later May 24 – House vibrating from heavy equipment 112dB
o Video – a road now added within 10 feet of our property and 5 feet from an oak tree. o Called club and leave message – NO RESPONSE
May 31 – “Memorial Day Party” 65dB
Item A Page 99 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
MCC Events – May 2021 – Oct 2022
DEBBIE MENDELSON / KEVIN GREENWOOD
June 2021
June 1 – Tuesday – blowers and mowers going at 7:00 A,M, June 4 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Dinner / Party in the Outdoor Pavilion.
o One child screaming “Daddy, watch me!” over and over for 10+ minutes, o NOTE: 15 propane tanks being stored within 20 feet of the property line. MCC pool inflatables all being stored behind a fence that faces our property. (pictures) June 13 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Sunday – Yelling and starter guns beginning at 9:00 A.M. (swim meet?) June 15 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT o Tuesday Evening party, 50 plus people June 17 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Private party with club servers - Outdoor Pavilion NOC June 18 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Children’s party, huge bouncy house, BBQ Noise level plus June 20 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Sunday 8:45 A.M. Team screaming and chanting starts. (swim meet?) The MCC BBQ smoke smell fills our house.
o Our Father’s Day memorial brunch is overwhelmed by screaming kids at the MCC. o Had to move our family Father’s Day gathering indoors! June 22 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Tuesday night - Noisy gathering until 9:00 P.M.
June 24 – “Pizza & Ice Cream Night” scheduled 5-8
o Event went 4:30-8:45 The normal “conversation” was so loud from their Outdoor Pavilion that from inside our home we could hear personal conversations of club members about everything from their financial investments to their cell phone difficulties
Item A Page 100 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
MCC Events – May 2021 – Oct 2022
DEBBIE MENDELSON / KEVIN GREENWOOD
o Children and adults yelling for much of evening.
June 25 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o 5:00 on, another huge bouncy castle event; yelling and constant noise, glass breaking. o We have to close all our windows and still hear the screaming.
June 27 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Another BBQ party PA system going, cheering and yelling all evening.
Item A Page 101 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
MCC Events – May 2021 – Oct 2022
DEBBIE MENDELSON / KEVIN GREENWOOD
July 2021
July 2 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Unbelievable noise level 5:00-9:00 pm – yelling & children running around screaming
July 2-12, 16 & 17 - WE ARE OUT OF TOWN
July 15 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Another outdoor party and bouncy castle (pictures available) July 19 – Monday – 6:00 a.m. weed wackers, mowers, and blowers going July 23 – Family Barbeque
o The smell of charcoal lighter and smoke from the barbeques placed near our property fills our house. Another bouncy house event with yelling and screaming, no simple family gathering.
o MCC now storing full size BBQ’s, chairs, freezer, and miscellaneous furniture behind the fence that keeps the MCC members from having to see MCC garbage but it is now an eyesore we are supposed to accept – directly exposed to our property.
July 26 – Monday – 6:00 a.m. weed wackers, mowers, and blowers going July 30 – Family barbeque - 5:00 pm
o Attendees eating in the outside pavilion area are so loud that their personal discussions are understandable from our deck.
o At 7:30 children start screaming.
o All manner of “stuff” on the side of fence facing our property. o Employees sitting in four golf carts behind their fence, talking and fifteen feet from the property line.
July 31 – Saturday, 7:15 am – the noise begins from heavy machinery being used to move furniture behind the fence facing our property. 10 highchairs, 7 banquet tables, 10 folding tables, 3-foot-high stacks of pallets, umbrellas, hydro pool washing system, freezer, industrial hose reels, chairs and piles of stuff.
Item A Page 102 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
MCC Events – May 2021 – Oct 2022
DEBBIE MENDELSON / KEVIN GREENWOOD
August 2021
August 1 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Sunday 1:00 clattering of dishes and cutlery and BBQ smell permeates the interior of our house.
August 2 – Tuesday – 6:45-7:15 a.m. weed wackers, mowers, and blowers going August 6 – o Motorized BBQ on our side of fence with 3 staff people sitting on it. o Pool maintenance equipment, freezer, other golf carts driving up and down next to fence. (photos)
August 7 Father Son Dinner
o 4:00 p.m. stench of butane is in the garden and on the deck. I move inside and have to close all house windows.
o Photos of all the junk once again stored behind their fence in plain view for us o 6:30 p.m. – PA system going for awards?
August 8 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Guests at our house while sitting on the deck ask who are the people talking downstairs in your garden? They recite pieces of conversations from MCC members.
August 11 we are away
August 12 take pictures once again of all the junk and carts facing our property.
August 13 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Guests at our home once again ask what is all that noise? August 14 – 11:15 A.M. Four MCC employees are sitting in their outdoor kitchen staging area. This area has been in operation since May. THIS IS AN AREA THAT NEVER
EXISTED BEFORE AND A USE THAT NEVER EXISTED BEFORE AND WAS NOT DISCUSSED OR APPROVED AT THE PLANNING OR COUNCIL MEETINGS. We hear their conversations we see their cutlery, pallets, tables, chairs being moved around all of it facing our property behind a fence that screens the mess and activities from MCC members but faces our property.
Item A Page 103 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
MCC Events – May 2021 – Oct 2022
DEBBIE MENDELSON / KEVIN GREENWOOD
August 15 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Dinner party at outdoor pavilion
August 16 – vibra-plate/vibratory rammer, jackhammers, from main building construction.
August 19 – employee(s)? behind fence obscured from MCC view facing our property at a table surrounded by golf carts, 12 huge steel pots, freezer, BBQ’s umbrellas, tables, chairs, etc.
August 21 – Noise from another party set up and huge water slide installed.
August 27 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Dinner party at outdoor pavilion – noise began 5:00 pm August 30 – Heavy machinery from 9:00 on, all day
Item A Page 104 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
MCC Events – May 2021 – Oct 2022
DEBBIE MENDELSON / KEVIN GREENWOOD
September 2021
September 6 Labor Day Barbeque
o Large, professional bounce castle, and accompanying screaming and yelling.
September 12 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o 5:25 A.M. mowers and blowers going.
o 5:00 p.m. – Outdoor pavilion event - Kids screaming
o BBQ smoke wafting into our house.
September 14 – 2:00 p.m. – on, Club staff working and laughing etc. on the side of the fence away from being visible to members but exposed to us. Junk continues to be piled on the side of the fence facing us.
September 16 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Pavilion area is all lit up party going on and at 8:45 with all our windows closed we hear yelling screaming and Happy Birthday renditions being performed.
September 22 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Pavilion area, another birthday party going from 4:30 p.m. yelling screaming, etc.
September 23 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o People loudly partying until 9:30 p.m.
o We had to move our guests into the house – too much noise to talk quietly on our deck.
September 24 – Saturday, 5:30 a.m. – club pavilion lights on Item A Page 105 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
MCC Events – May 2021 – Oct 2022
DEBBIE MENDELSON / KEVIN GREENWOOD
October 2021
1. Called MCC Manager Steve Gonzales: I told him we tried reaching the club by phone and email at the end of May and early June – NO RESPONSE. We have communicated our concerns to the town.
Right now, I want you to know that you have 3 bright spot lights that are on at 9:30 and 10:00 p.m. as well as 5:00 a.m. They are visible inside our house and from our deck.
2. We do not understand why you stack or throw, safety cones, pool equipment, golf carts, freezers, ladders, packing crates, BBQ’s, banquet tables, chairs, umbrellas, etc. etc. behind a fence, creating an eyesore for us and our guests. This “junk yard” did not exist prior to construction of the new pool house and was never discussed in the permitting meetings. It may shield the view of MCC members but is a junk pile adjacent to our property for us.
3. The volume of noise from MCC and especially the new pavilion is unacceptable – ranging from parties including drunken adults, screaming children, and at quieter times, member conversations about their stock trades and cell phone company problems. It ruins our privacy and the enjoyment of visiting guests.
Steve Gonzales‘s response was the lights should not be on at 5:00 in the morning. They are monitoring the sound decibel level at the property line.
I explained to him that the noise rises, the sound level rises and from our deck and inside the house with the windows closed it is unbearable.
He said that they cannot use that area from November to May that in the future most of the events will be at the clubhouse.
NOTE: 10/2 lights on at 6:50 A.M.
10/3 lights on at 6:00 A.M.
10/13 lights on 6:30 A.M.
10/14 lights on 5:30 A.M.
10/17 lights on 9:00 P.M. – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
10/18 lights on 6:00A.M.
October 28 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
Item A Page 106 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
MCC Events – May 2021 – Oct 2022
DEBBIE MENDELSON / KEVIN GREENWOOD
o 5:00 on into the night children screaming, Dining pavilion all lit up, 4 golf carts by the fence
October 29 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Lights on in pavilion area until after 8:00P.M.
Item A Page 107 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
MCC Events – May 2021 – Oct 2022
DEBBIE MENDELSON / KEVIN GREENWOOD
January - April 2022
January 30 – Lights left on all night in Pavilion area
February 23 – 6:15 a.m. weed wackers, mowers, and blowers going Note this is an occurrence multiple times a week including what sounds to be garbage pickup on Tuesday mornings at 6:00 a.m.
April 22 – Jackhammers all morning; Stump grinders all afternoon.
Item A Page 108 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
MCC Events – May 2021 – Oct 2022
DEBBIE MENDELSON / KEVIN GREENWOOD
May 2022
May 1 – May 29 – NO SCHEDULED EVENTS
May 5 – – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Thursday 3:30 on - the outdoor pavilion dining area must be open again - intermittent yelling and conversations. We view first hand, employees yelling back and forth, golf carts and other stuff placed behind fence facing our property.
May 7 – – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Softball Event?? 3:00 p.m. organized softball in the pavilion area, screaming and yelling.
May 21/22 – – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Pool Event?? yelling and loud voices coming from pool area.
May 30 – We left our home to avoid the 175 guest event
June 2022
June 1 – June 22 – NO SCHEDULED EVENTS
o June 2 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT - loud conversations and children yelling. Pool Event??
o June 3 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT - Large, commercial bouncy castle and yelling.
Some sort of party event.
o June 12 – Event at pool (we can’t see pool) 9:15 a.m. – Children screaming & chanting in unison
June 23 – NO SCHEDULED EVENTS
o UNSCHEDULED LUNCHEON – PA system introducing officers o LOUD BIRTHDAY PARTY followed
Item A Page 109 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
MCC Events – May 2021 – Oct 2022
DEBBIE MENDELSON / KEVIN GREENWOOD
July 2022
July 1 – Family BBQ 5:00 p.m.
o Strong smell of smoke coming into the house I look outside and see they have erected another commercial bouncy castle and extended the roofing over the outdoor pavilion.
July 8 Family BBQ 5:00 p.m.
o Another large bouncy castle, children screaming
July 10 swim meet beginning 10:00 a.m.
o Swim Team Party – loud use of PA
July 14 Family BBQ 5:00 p.m.
o Large Bounce Castle - children yelling and screaming
July 16 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o PA system being used, lots of screaming
August 2022 – NO SCHEDULED EVENTS
August 14 – 5:45 a.m. Blowers
o 9:30 A.M. smoke coming into house from the BBQ’s
August 22 – stench from chemical fertilizer so strong I had to keep the grandchildren inside the house. Lingered for two days.
August 23 – motor at club running 8:30-9:15 p.m., registered 65dB in our bedroom.
Item A Page 110 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
MCC Events – May 2021 – Oct 2022
DEBBIE MENDELSON / KEVIN GREENWOOD
September 2022
September 10 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o 5:30 to 9:00 p.m. PA system in use, at least 75 people at event.
September 11 – Saturday, 5:30 a.m. weed wackers, mowers, and blowers going September 13 – 5:30 a.m. – garbage pickup??
September 18 – Sunday 5:00 a.m. weed wackers, mowers, and blowers going October 2022
October 7 – Weed eaters going for four hours
October 10 11:00 a.m. – Blowers going for two hours
October 29 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Unscheduled party
o Loud, horrible amplified “music” non-stop for three and a half hours without a break. It ended at 11:00 p.m. (with our windows closed and the TV on we could still hear the non-stop racket). We measured it at a constant of 70dB - 76dB Item A Page 111 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
MCC Events – May 2021 – Oct 2022
DEBBIE MENDELSON / KEVIN GREENWOOD
Item A Page 113 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
MCC Events – May 2021 – Oct 2022
DEBBIE MENDELSON / KEVIN GREENWOOD
Item A Page 114 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
MCC Events – May 2021 – Oct 2022
DEBBIE MENDELSON / KEVIN GREENWOOD
Item A Page 115 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
MCC Events – May 2021 – Oct 2022
DEBBIE MENDELSON / KEVIN GREENWOOD
August 2022 – No Events
October 29 2022 – NO SCHEDULED EVENT
o Unscheduled party
o Loud, horrible amplified “music” non-stop for three and a half hours without a break. It ended at 11:00 p.m. (with our windows closed and the TV on we could still hear the non-stop racket). We measured it at a constant of 70dB - 76dB Item A Page 116 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 118 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
______________________________________________________________________________ PC Meeting November 9, 2022 2300 Woodside Road Page 1
TOWN OF WOODSIDE
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: November 9, 2022 Agenda Item: 2
Prepared by: Sage Schaan, AICP CEP, Interim Planning Director Title: CUSE2019-0001 – Planning Commission one-year review of the Menlo Country Club Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Operational Conditions. This review is required one-year after the completion date of the new fitness building and clubhouse, which occurred on October 28, 2021.
Property Information
Address: 2300 Woodside Road
APN: 069-161-020, 069-161-050, 069-161-060, and 069-162-020 (069-150-170 is an off-site drainage parcel)
Property Owner: Menlo Country Club (MCC)
Zoning District: SCP-10 (Special Conservation Planning – 10-acre minimum) General Plan Designation: OS (Open Space) & Medium Intensity Recreational Use Lot Area: 141.03 acres (gross)
137.08 acres (net)
BACKGROUND
On June 5, 2019, the Planning Commission considered and approved the Design Review application, Grading Exception, and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a proposal to demolish the existing Clubhouse, golf shop, cart storage building, and pool bathhouse; and construct a new twostory Clubhouse, two-story fitness facility, pergola, new parking and access areas, retaining walls, and other associated site improvements at the Menlo Country Club (MCC) (Attachment C, Planning Commission Resolution of Approval).
After the Planning Commission’s approval of the CUP, two appeals were filed. Appellant Burow, the owner of 135 Sheridan Way, filed his appeal on June 14, 2019. Appellants Mendelson/Greenwood, the owners of 145 Sheridan Way, filed their appeal on June 15, 2019.
After these appeals were filed, staff facilitated a meeting between the Appellants and MCC to determine whether or not any of the issues raised by the appeals could be resolved through further discussion. During the meeting Appellants and MCC agreed on a number of revised conditions to be attached to the Conditional Use Permit, thereby resolving some, but not all, issues on appeal.
On August 6, 2019, the Town Council considered both appeals. The Town Council added Operational Conditions of Approval for the CUP, while upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the CUP and associated development entitlements (Attachment B, Town Council Resolution of Approval).
Item A Page 120 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
______________________________________________________________________________ PC Meeting November 9, 2022 2300 Woodside Road Page 2 Below is a list of the CUP Operational Conditions from the Town Council Resolution approving the project:
II. Operational Conditions:
1. The property owner shall make the annual event calendar accessible to all neighbors within 300 feet of the property boundary no later than January 1st of each year. Updates and revisions to this calendar shall also be made accessible to all neighbors within 300 feet of the property boundary. The contact name and number of a property owner representative shall also be made available to ensure that surrounding neighbors can report emergency and nuisance issues for resolution.
2. The use of airhorns, fireworks, discharge of firearms, and unsupervised use of amplified sound equipment on site is prohibited. The use of an electronic starter “beeper” is allowed to be used at the five annual swim meets.
3. Operational hours for powered equipment (e.g., mowers, blowers, etc.), at and around the Fitness Center and cottages is limited to Monday through Friday, between 9:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M., and Saturday 9:00 A.M. to 1:00P.M. No powered equipment in these areas are allowed on Sundays.
4. Amplified sound shall not exceed 65dB Leq(h)/85dB Lmax for the 25 annual events at the Fitness Facility, measured at the nearest adjacent residential property line. The property owner shall monitor the sound generation of the 25 events with amplified sound at the Fitness Facility for the first 12 months of operation.
5. Outdoor amplified sound events (not including ambient “background” music) at the Pool/Fitness Facility shall cease at 10 PM.
6. Outdoor amplified sound events (not including ambient “background” music) at the Clubhouse or on the Menlo Country Club grounds shall cease at 11:00 PM.
7. Activity at the pool between November and April shall be limited to recreational swimming, lap swimming and swim lessons; with no swim meets.
8. Planning Commission review to assess compliance with the Operational Conditions shall occur one year after date of occupancy.
9. The pool may be open seven days a week, 365 days a year.
10. Food and beverage service may take place at the pool from May through October, 11:00 A.M. to 7:30 P.M. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 A.M. through 9:30 P.M. Fridays and Saturdays.
11. Menlo Country Club may have up to 480 individual memberships (with privileges for spouse, and children up to 27 years of age).
12. Menlo Country Club may have up to 250 special events per year (30 events for the membership; 220 private events sponsored by members). The largest event at the Clubhouse is usually the Christmas party which attracts approximately 350 people. BBQs on Friday nights at the pool during the warm season (5:30 to 9:30 P.M.) with 100-150 people in attendance. The largest BBQ is on Memorial Day which attracts approximately 350 people.
13. A maximum of 25 events with amplified sound may be held at the Fitness Facility, pool and pool patio per year; with no more than one such event per week.
14. The Clubhouse may operate from 9:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. Monday through Wednesday and 9:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Thursday through Sunday.
Item A Page 121 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
______________________________________________________________________________ PC Meeting November 9, 2022 2300 Woodside Road Page 3
15. The Fitness Center may operate from 6:00 A.M. to 7:30 P.M. Monday through Wednesday, 6:00 A.M. to 8:30 P.M. Thursday and Sunday, and 6:00 A.M. to 9:30 P.M. Friday and Saturday.
Condition of Approval II.8, requires Planning Commission review of the Operational Conditions one year after the project was completed. The fitness building was completed on May 5, 2021, before the completion of the overall project. The site work and new clubhouse were completed on October 28, 2021. The date the entire project was completed (October 28, 2021) is the date used to establish the start of the required one-year review period.
PLANNING COMMISSION CUP REVIEW
Pursuant to Conditions of Approval II.1, MCC notifies the property owners within 300 feet by mail at the beginning of the year citing their website link (https://menlocc.com), that includes a link to the scheduled events for the upcoming year.
Just prior to this one-year Planning Commission review of the CUP, MCC submitted responses to each of the CUP Operational Conditions while also explaining how MCC responded to concerns received from nearby neighbors (Attachment E).
Over the course of the past year and a half staff received five emails (Attachment F) from the neighbor located at 145 Sheridan Way, which is nearest to the MCC outdoor area adjacent to the pool (Attachment D, Aerial Photo). Four of the emails were received before the completion of the entire project expressing concerns related to permit approvals, construction noise, and activity at the fitness building (Attachments F.1 – F.4). On July 17, 2022, the neighbor emailed MCC expressing concerns related to activities at the pool area. Attachment F.5 includes the email from the neighbor and a response from MCC. The Town has not received any comments from other nearby neighbors since the completion of the project.
The Planning Commission shall determine if Menlo Country Club is in compliance with the CUP Operational Conditions. If determined to be in compliance with the Operational Conditions, the Planning Commission shall approve the Draft Resolution in Attachment A. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Resolution
B. Town Council Resolution No. 2019-7305 (Decision on Appeal of Approved CUP) C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-005 (Approval of CUP) D. Aerial Photo sowing 145 Sheridan Way and Menlo Country Club E. Menlo Country Club response to the CUP Operational Conditions, received October 14, 2022 F. Emails from owner of 145 Sheridan Way
1. June 17, 2021
2. July 28, 2021
3. August 16, 2021
4. August 30, 2021
5. July 17, 2022
Item A Page 122 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023 -
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
TOWN OF WOODSIDE COMPLETING THE REQUIRED ONE YEAR
REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR THE MENLO COUNTRY CLUB (PERMIT NO. CUSE2019-0001), LOCATED AT 2300 WOODSIDE ROAD.
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2019, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUSE2019-0001), Grading Exception (GRAD2019-0002) and Formal Design Review (ASRB2019-0015) for a proposal to demolish the existing two-story clubhouse, golf shop, cart storage building, and one-story pool bathhouse; and construct a new two-story clubhouse, twostory fitness facility, pergola, new parking and access areas, retaining walls, and associated site improvements, at 2300 Woodside Road, a property owned by the Menlo Country Club; WHEREAS, on June 14, 2019, the Town received an appeal from David Burow, owner of 135 Sheridan Way, and on June 15, 2019, the Town received an appeal from Deborah Mendelson and Kevin Greenwood, owners of 145 Sheridan Way (Appellants) in response to the Planning Commissions approval of Resolution No. 2019-005, Approving ASRB2019-0015; GRAD2019-0002; and CUSE2019-0001;
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2019, the Town Council continued a duly noticed public de novo hearing for the appeals (APPL2019-0003 and APPL2019-0004); WHEREAS, on August 6, 2019, the Town Council conducted a duly noticed public de novo hearing for the appeals (APPL2019-0003 and APPL2019-0004) in accordance with Municipal Code Section 153.970, at which oral and written comments and a staff report were presented and reviewed by the Town Council. The Town Council upheld the approval of the CUP adding Operational Conditions that include required Planning Commission review of the CUP one year after completion of the project;
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2021, the project was completed and passed final inspections by the Town of Woodside Building Department; WHEREAS, on November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the Operational Conditions of Approval from the CUP (CUSE2019-001) and the comments from the owner of 145 Sheridan Way, and continued the item to obtain additional information from Town staff and the applicant; and,
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the Operational Conditions of Approval from the CUP (CUSE2019-001), the comments from the owner of 145 Sheridan Way, and the additional information provided by Town staff and the applicant that was requested by the Commission.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds that the Menlo Country Club complies with the CUP Operational Conditionals of Approval for the first year after the completion of the project that occurred on October 28, 2021. The Planning Commission further finds that all Conditions of Approval outlined in Town Council Resolution Item A Page 123 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
No. 2019-7305, remain in effect.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the Town of Woodside Planning Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing held on April 5, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
Marilyn Voelke, Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Secretary
Item A Page 124 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 126 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 127 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 128 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 129 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 130 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 131 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 132 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 133 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 134 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 135 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 136 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 137 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 140 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 141 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 142 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 143 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 144 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 145 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 146 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 147 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 148 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 151 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 152 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 155 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 156 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
meet event (and bar b que?) that ran from 8:45 in the morning. Not expecting that (since it wasnt on the calendar), we had planned an outdoor memorial service at our home for the fathers of our sons and daughter in law who had both died in the last year. Imagine trying to have a memorial with the screaming and yelling coming from the club. Noise in excess of 65db. How pleasant. Tonight? Another sit down, wait staff dinner with a hugh inflatable castle (bouncy house?) and screaming kids as we attempted a long planned outdoor dinner party. So, whatever noise was averted by moving the fire pit, has been increased exponentially by the new event destination center at the south end of the pool, permitted after the fact by the planning department. This is not about it was in the construction footprint. Its the planning department not consulting with or the town taking care of, the interests of residents. We own homes here we are Woodside. MCC is just a private club that benefits from being part of Woodside.
We did discuss tree removal in general terms, and especially about tree screening of the back of of the pool building. We did not ever discuss tree removal to expand the lawn area to an event center or destination location.
I understand that the CUP requires the MCC to send out a calendar of all planned events. The safety net the town provided MCC was that occasional changes could be posted on their website. MCC has already abused that stipulation. I have gotten calendars for many years by calling Laurel Lint. My point is that eleven non calendared events have taken place since Memorial Day, on the calendar they sent out shortly before Memorial Day. These were large and involved not last minute additions. They should reasonably have been on the initial calendar. Realize that we suffer the inconvenience of having to plan if and when we can have parties or guests to our home during the summer; planning around the MCC s scheduled events and cacophony, because when they have events, we and nearby neighbors often cant even hear our guests talk.
And its ridiculous that they send out such an incomplete calendar and that we residents are expected to constantly check MCCs website (which may or may not be accurate) when trying to plan get togethers at our own homes. A month and a half in and there have been a eleven non calendared events. And even tonight its dining under the sunshade with waiters, a giant castle/bouncy house, and the associated dissonance. It should be incumbent on MCC to provide an accurate calendar prior to Memorial Day, good for at least three months, and to provide at least a months notice to residents of subsequent changes to the initial calendar for any new events after those first three months. If any neighbors on our street were having a large event that might impact neighbors, they let everyone on the street know. Its common courtesy among people who are actually good neighbors. MCC certainly plans far in advance whether its a swim meet, wedding, or outdoor dinner event, that we shouldnt have to monitor MCC s website in order to know if we can have a quite dinner party on our deck or by our pool, a calendar which they might change at any time. Their behavior belies their lie that they are good neighbors . That issue seems to be resolved.
Unless behind the fence is what you mean by approved storage area , be aware that instead of the previous eyesore of piled pool items, furniture and the hazard of 15 propane tanks, they have now put what appears to be a freezer, two golf carts, tables, chairs, planks, buckets, and more behind their fence for us to look at. It continues to be a public eyesore not to their members and guests, but for us and our guests.
Cant they store their excess goods and garbage somewhere that residents dont have to see them? Not yet addressed:
We still have no indication of when the project should be completed so we know when the one year monitoring period will begin. Do you have a tentative date? There was no attachment.
Debbie Mendelson
Item A Page 158 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 159 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 161 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 163 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 164 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 165 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 166 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 167 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
Item A Page 169 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
TOWN OF WOODSIDE
Report to Town Council Agenda Item: B
Prepared by: Kevin Bryant, Town Manager July 25, 2023
SUBJECT: DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TOWN MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 32, ARTICLE I, REGARDING THE
COMPOSITION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
BACKGROUND
California Government Code 65111 grants the Town Council authority to specify the membership of the Planning Commission which must be comprised of “at least five members, all of whom shall act in the public interest.”
Section 32.01 of the Woodside Municipal Code states:
Pursuant to the provisions of Cal. Gov’t Code § 65100, a Planning Commission, consisting of seven members, is hereby created.
Section 32.04 of the Woodside Municipal Code states:
No more than one member of the Planning Commission shall have his/her place of legal residence in, and be appointed from, each district of the Town; provided, however, the Council, by two-thirds vote of the full membership thereof, may appoint two or more members having their places of legal residence in the same district. If two or more members from the same district are so appointed, the Council shall designate which such members shall be appointed to which term or terms of office. If a member, during his/her term of office, removes his/her place of legal residence from one district to another, he/she may nevertheless complete the term of his/her office. If a member removes his/her place of legal residence from the Town, his/her office shall become vacant and shall be filled as for any other vacancy.
On April 12, 2022, by ordinance, the Town began the transition to a by-district form of Council member elections. As part of that action, the Town formally reduced its number of districts from seven to five. As a result, Chapter 32, Article I of the Woodside Municipal Code must now be amended to either retain a seven-member Planning Commission and to specify the residence requirements, if any, for those seats, or to reduce the size of the Planning Commission to five members to retain the one-member-per-district model.
On February 23, 2021, the Town Council conducted a study session to discuss the composition of the Planning Commission (see Attachments 2-4). The Council received written and/or verbal testimony from 57 people who commented on the size of the Planning Commission and/or district representation. All 57 of the commenters requested that Planning Commissioners continue to be appointed by district. Less than half of the commenters, 22 or 39%, urged the Council to keep a seven-member Planning Commission.
Item B Page 1
REQUESTED DIRECTION
The purpose of this meeting is to receive public input and to allow the Council to discuss and provide staff direction on whether to draft either:
1) an ordinance amendment that would continue to provide for a seven-member Planning Commission with members appointed at-large;
2) an ordinance amendment that would provide for a seven-member Planning Commission with five members residing in a unique Council district and two members appointed at-large;
3) an ordinance amendment that would reduce the size of the Planning Commission to five members, with each residing in a unique Council district; or 4) an ordinance amendment that would reduce the size of the Planning Commission to five members appointed at-large.
NEXT STEPS
Upon receiving the Council’s direction, staff will prepare an ordinance amendment to be introduced by the Council at a subsequent meeting. Unless otherwise specified by the Council, implementation of the new ordinance would occur over time with the expiration of current Planning Commission terms. The current membership of the Planning Commission is included as Attachment 1.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Current Planning Commission
2. February 23, 2021 Town Council Staff Report
3. February 23, 2021 Town Council Desk Items
4. February 23, 2021 Town Council Minutes
Item B Page 2
ITEM B ATTACHMENT 1
CURRENT PLANNING COMMISSION
Below are the incumbent Commissioners, the new Council districts in which they reside, and when their terms expire.
MEMBER Council District Term Expiration
Batchelder 1 2024
Garr 1 2026
Weaver 2 2027
Voelke1 2 2027
Kutay 4 2024
Tauber 5 2024
VACANT2 2026
Note 1: Commissioner Voelke was appointed in 2023 to serve as an out-of-district Commissioner for Council District 3. Her term expires in 2027.
Note 2: The vacant seat was created July 1st when Commissioner London resigned his seat. He had been appointed in 2022 to serve as the Planning Commissioner for then-Council District 3.
The Council action to adopt a new five-member Council District map resulted in Commissioner London’s residence being in District 5. He was completing his four-year term when he resigned.
Commissioners Batchelder, Garr, Kutay, and Tauber are serving terms which began prior to the change in Council districts.
Item B Page 3
ATTACHMENT 1
TOWN OF WOODSIDE
Report to Town Council Agenda Item A
From: Kevin Bryant, Town Manager February 23, 2021
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: REVIEW AND DIRECTION TO STAFF ABOUT
REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND
REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT THAT COMMISSIONERS BE APPOINTED
BY DISTRICT
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Town Council review this staff report, take public testimony, and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
At its meeting on February 9th, the Town Council requested that staff prepare information for a study session regarding the Town’s current ordinance establishing the Planning Commission. In particular, the Council indicated an interest in discussing the size of the Planning Commission and the requirement that each of the Council districts be represented on the Planning Commission.
Staff has provided the following information to facilitate the study session.
California Government Code
The Town Council has broad authority to establish the criteria for appointment to its committees and commissions and in assignment of duties to these committees and commissions. (California Government Code 54957)
The provisions in state law which address the establishment of a planning commission are found in California Government Code 65100, Planning agencies; assignment of functions, which provides:
There is in each city and county a planning agency with the powers necessary to carry out the purposes of this title. The legislative body of each city or county shall by ordinance assign the functions of the planning agency to a planning department, one or more planning commissions, administrative bodies or hearing officers, the legislative body itself, or any combination thereof, as it deems appropriate and
necessary. In the absence of an assignment, the legislative body shall carry out all the functions of the planning agency.
Pursuant to Government Code 65111, Planning commissions; creation; membership; designation of jurisdiction; joint area planning agencies or commissions or advisory agencies; powers and duties, if the Council appoints a Planning Commission, that Commission is required to report directly to the Council.
Item B Page 4
ATTACHMENT 2
The Woodside Municipal Code provides for the appointment of a Planning Commission with the following powers and duties as specified in Woodside Municipal Code Section 32.06, Powers and duties:
The Planning Commission shall have the powers and duties set forth in Cal. Gov’t Code and the general laws of the state and as set forth in this Code, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(A) To prepare a general plan and development policy for the Town for recommendation to the Council;
(B) To recommend such ordinances and resolutions to the Council as are necessary to implement the general plan
and development policy adopted by the Council;
(C) To participate in the administration of the laws and policies of the Town by conducting the necessary public hearings and acting upon applications for zoning
amendments, conditional use permits, variances,
subdivisions, and other functions as may be assigned by the Council;
(D) To recommend to the Council changes, when necessary, in the general plan, the development policy, and pertinent laws;
(E) To prepare and recommend to the Council such specific plans as it deems necessary to supplement the general
plan; and
(F) To periodically review the capital improvements program of the Town.
Woodside Municipal Code
California Government Code 65111 also grants the Council authority to specify the membership which must be comprised of “at least five members, all of whom shall act in the public interest.” Woodside Municipal Code Chapter 32, Commissions, Article I, Planning Commission, currently provides for appointment of seven Planning Commissioners. (Woodside Municipal Code 32.01, Creation) The members are appointed by a majority vote of the Council.
Appointments are made at the first regular meeting in February for any terms expiring. (Woodside Municipal Code 32.02(A),
Appointments)
Interested candidates are required to file a written application, but the Council may also make its own recommendations for appointment. (Woodside Municipal Code 32.02(B), Appointments) Planning Commissioners are appointed to 4-year terms and serve until their successors are appointed. (Woodside Municipal Code
32.03, Terms of office)
Item B Page 5
Section 32.04 provides that Planning Commissioners must reside and be appointed from each district, but by a 2/3 vote of the full Council, it may appoint “two or more members having their places of legal residence in the same district.” (Woodside Municipal Code
32.04, Residence)
If Planning Commissioners move from one district to another, they are allowed to complete their terms in office, but if they establish residence outside Woodside, they vacate their appointment. (Woodside Municipal Code 32.04, Residence) Vacancies occurring midterm are filled by appointment of a new commissioner to serve for the remainder of the term. Planning Commissioners may be removed from office by a vote of 5 Councilmembers. (Woodside Municipal Code 32.05, Vacancies; removal from office)
Planning Commission Appointment History
From February 2012 to February 2021, the Town Council has interviewed candidates for 19 district appointments, including those to fill mid-term vacancies. In 15 instances (79 percent), there was only one candidate for appointment. In the other 4 instances (21 percent), there were two or more candidates for a seat.
For the recent appointment, the Town received one application for the vacant District 1 seat and no applications for the desired vacancy for District 4. Over the ten-year period from 2012, the Town made one out-of-district appointment for one term. The Town Council considered two applications for that out-of-district appointment in late 2013.
Planning Commission Meeting Attendance
Table 1 shows the number of Planning Commissioners present at meetings for the ten-year period from 2011 to 2020.
TABLE 1: Number of Planning Commissioners Present at Meetings by Year 7 Members
6 Members
5 Members
4 Members
er of
Meeti
2011 0 5 2 3
2012 5 1 4 9
Item B Page 6
2013 0 1 10 3
2014 6 5 2 1
2015 6 4 7 1
2016 1 6 8 2
2017 1 7 4 3
2018 1 4 5 5
2019 2 5 4 5
2020 2 4 6 2
2011-20 24 42 52 34
16% 28% 34% 22%
At only 16 percent of the meetings held during that period were there a full seven Commissioners present. Over the last five years, the trend has been more pronounced as only 9 percent of the meetings between 2016 and 2020 had seven Commissioners present.
Over the ten-year period from 2011-2020, the Planning Commission had only four or five members present over half (56%) of the time.
The figure is similar (57%) for the five-year period between 2016 and 2020.
This attendance information does not distinguish between Commissioner absences from meetings and those periods where there were vacant seats on the Planning Commission. Over the ten year period, there were 28 meetings held with at least one vacant seat on the Planning Commission, including all 14 meetings in 2013.
San Mateo Cities and Towns
Table 2 is a survey of the twenty cities and towns in San Mateo County listed in order of the number of citizens per Planning Commissioner.
TABLE 2: San Mateo County Cities and Towns Ranked by Citizens per Planning Commissioner
Population
1/1/20
Council
Members
Citizens
per
Council
Member
Planning
Commissioners
Citizens per
Planning
Commissioner
Daly City 109,142 5 At-large
21,828.40 5
Atlarge 21,828.40
San Mateo 103,087 5 At-large
20,617.40 5
Atlarge 20,617.40
Item B Page 7
Redwood City
86,754 7 District
12,393.43 7
Atlarge 12,393.43
South San Francisco
67,879 5 District
13,575.80 7
Atlarge 9,697.00
Foster City
33,033 5 At-large
6,606.60 5
Atlarge 6,606.60
San Bruno
45,454 5 At-large
9,090.80 7
Atlarge 6,493.43
San Carlos
30,145 5 At-large
6,029.00 5
Atlarge 6,029.00
Pacifica
38,331 5 District
7,666.20 7
Atlarge 5,475.86
Menlo Park
35,254 5 District
7,050.80 7
Atlarge 5,036.29
Millbrae
22,832 5 At-large
4,566.40 5
Atlarge 4,566.40
East Palo Alto
30,794 5 At-large
6,158.80 7
Atlarge 4,399.14
Burlingame
30,118 5 At-large
6,023.60 7
Atlarge 4,302.57
Belmont
26,813 5 At-large
5,362.60 5 - 7
Atlarge 3,830.43
Half Moon Bay
12,431 5 At-large
2,486.20 5
Atlarge 2,486.20
Atherton
7,031 5 At-large
1,406.20 5
Atlarge 1,406.20
Brisbane
4,633 5 At-large
926.60 5
Atlarge 926.60
Portola Valley
4,607 5 At-large
921.40 5
Atlarge 921.40
Woodside
5,676 7 District
810.86 7 District 810.86
Hillsborough
11,418 5 At-large
2,283.60 Council
Colma
1,729 5 At-large
345.80 Council
AVERAGE
6,807.52 AVG 6,545.96
MEDIAN
6,026.30 MED 4,801.34
Eighteen of the twenty cities and towns in San Mateo County have independent Planning Commissions. In the two towns that do not have Planning Commissions (Hillsborough and Colma), the Town Council serves the functions required by the Government Code.
Nine cities and towns have five Planning Commissioners. Eight cities and towns, including Woodside, have seven Planning Commissioners. One city, Belmont, has the latitude to appoint between five and seven members.
Of the eighteen cities and towns that have Planning Commissions, the Town of Woodside has the fewest citizens per Commissioner at Item B Page 8
811. The Town of Woodside is also unique in having Commissioners appointed by Council district. All other cities and towns appoint Commissioners at-large.
DISCUSSION
As discussed in this report, the Town Council has broad authority to determine the criteria to be considered in making appointments to its committees and commissions. The controlling legal framework resides in Chapter 32 of the Woodside Municipal Code, which the Town Council may amend by ordinance.
Staff observes that there are two significant and distinct questions that the Town Council may want to discuss. These questions are independent of each other.
The first question is: Does the Town Council believe that Planning Commission representation by district is important to the governance of the Town? The information in Table 1 confirms that district representation on the Planning Commission is unique to the Town of Woodside.
If the Town Council provides direction to remove the requirement that Commissioners be appointed to represent Council districts, all members could be declared at-large appointees when a new ordinance takes effect.
The Council can consider geographic concentration when making appointments to the Planning Commission without requiring a specified relationship between districts and appointees.
The second question is: Is seven members the correct number of Planning Commissioners for the Town of Woodside? There is a nearly even split within San Mateo County between seven- and five-member Planning Commissions. The information in Table 1 does indicate that the Town has the lowest ratio of citizens per Planning Commissioner in San Mateo County.
If the Town Council elects to pursue the reduction in the number of Planning Commissioners, the Council should also provide direction on how to implement this change. The Council could make the change effective with the implementation of an ordinance amendment making the change to fewer members or could adopt a transition plan that would take effect as current terms end. Making the change effective upon adoption of an ordinance amendment would necessitate a process where all currently appointed members are dismissed.
This would require a vote of 5 Town Council members. Current Planning Commissioners and others would then be invited to apply for appointment to the newly configured Planning Commission.
ANALYSIS
Item B Page 9
A previously elected Town Council established the size of the Planning Commission and the requirement that members represent Council districts. Staff believes the question about the appropriate size and nature of the Planning Commission to be a question of governance and one appropriately determined by the Town Council, the Town’s elected representatives.
From a Town administration perspective, there would not be a substantial difference between seven or fewer members of the Planning Commission. Likewise, moving from district to at-large appointments would not have a substantial effect on the administration of the Town.
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission fulfills a requirement of the California Government Code. The selection of the residency requirements and number of commissioners is appropriately best determined by the Town Council.
ATTACHMENT
1. Correspondence from Maggie Mah, February 17, 2021
Item B Page 10
From: MAGGIE MAH
To: Council Members
Cc: Kevin Bryant; Jennifer Li
Subject: Changes to the Planning Commission
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 2:07:35 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: Mayor Domkowsky, Council members Brown, Carvell, Fluet, Scott, Shaw and WallI am writing to express my concerns over ideas introduced at last week’s Town Council meeting that, if carried forward, would make significant changes to the Planning Commission. I understand that the Council has taken not taken formal action and will be studying the matter further.
Mayor Domkowsky suggested that the number of commissioners be reduced from 7 to 5 and that appointments could be made on an “at large” basis rather than by district.
As stated, these changes would--
1.) Improve the efficiency of Planning Commission deliberations, presumably by having fewer opinions and taking less time,
2.) Allow the Council to appoint candidates on an at large basis rather than by district which would also permit the Council to appoint more than one candidate should there be multiple qualified applicants and multiple open seats.
Comparisons were made to the ASRB, which was reduced in size from 7 to 5 several years ago and which several members of the Council remarked as having been improved by doing so. (Criteria for measuring improvement was not discussed.) While I am all for improved efficiency at all levels of government, here are my reasons for concern:
1.) The Planning Commission makes legal decisions that can affect the entire community and should not be compared to the ASRB.
The ASRB can only make recommendations to the Planning Director on individual projects that come to them for review. Apart from the Council, the Planning Commission is the only other Town body with legal authority. Reducing the number of commissioners from 7 to 5 and eliminating district appointments means that residents have significantly less representation in legal matters that may have a direct impact on them.. Fewer commissioners means that legal decisions are deliberated with fewer opinions as well as making each commissioner’s vote more important. Further, without specific district appointments, residents lose any sense of representation, accountability or advocacy that they would otherwise have.
If smaller and unrepresentative is better for the Planning Commission then why not do the same to the Town’s other legal decision making body. How about 5 council seats? How would it be if California representatives to Congress or the State Assembly were reduced in number and elected at large?
2.) Appointing commissioners to the Planning Commission on an at-large basis creates the potential for a disproportionate number of commissioners from one area of the community to have a disproportionate impact on issues affecting residents in other areas. Just as certain districts have Specific Plans (Emerald Hills, The Glens), each district in Town is different. We have districts for a reason and the residents of each district should have a right to representation.
3.) As to the issue of the Council being constrained by district only appointments, the Municipal Code allows for this:
Sec. 32.04 - Residence.
No more than one member of the Planning Commission shall have his/her place of legal residence in, and be appointed from, each district of the Town; provided, however, the Council, by two-thirds vote of the full membership thereof, may appoint two or more members having their places of legal residence in the same district. If two or more members from the same district are so appointed, the Council shall designate which such members shall be appointed to which term or terms of office. If a member, during his/her term of office, removes his/her place of legal residence from one district to another, he/she may nevertheless complete the term of his/her office. If a member removes his/her place of legal residence from the Town, his/her office shall become vacant and shall be filled as for any other vacancy.
Item B Page 11
TOWN OF WOODSIDE
MEMORANDUM
TO: TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: KEVIN BRYANT, TOWN MANAGER
DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 2021
RE: ITEM A – Study Session: Review and Direction to Staff About Reducing the Number of Planning Commissioners and Removing the Requirement that Commissioners Be Appointed by District
____________________________________________________________________________ In response to a question about the evolution of the membership of the Planning Commission, following is a history of the composition of the Commission.
The Planning Commission was created when the Town Council adopted Ordinance 1957-20 on February 14, 1957. The Ordinance consisted of one sentence, “pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 65300 of the Government Code of the State of California, a planning commission consisting of five members is hereby created.” Therefore, the Town’s original Planning Commission consisted of five members appointed at-large.
The current configuration of seven commissioners appointed by Council district was established by Council adoption of Ordinance 1968-200 on September 10, 1968. A review of the Town Council and Planning Commission minutes of meetings leading up to the adoption of Ordinance 1968-200 indicate the following reasons were considered for increasing membership at that time:
An increase of membership from five to seven members may provide a continuity of service.
An increase of membership would alleviate the time demands made by the expectation of Commissioners to serve on subcommittees appointed by the Mayor. An increase would serve to secure greater participation in government by the residents.
There is no discussion in the minutes about the reasons for moving from at-large to district appointment.
The Town Attorney at the time also recommended updating the 1957 ordinance because State law had changed and required that ordinances establishing planning commissions include the organization thereof, the number of members, their terms of office, method of appointment and removal.
Item B Page 12
ATTACHMENT 3
In 1970, the Town Council considered a proposal to remove the requirement that commissioners be appointed from each of the seven Council districts. The proposal to do so did not pass.
Ordinance 1970-220, which did pass, established the term of office for each of the district seats, with no more than two seats expiring in any one year.
In 1976, the Town Council adopted Ordinance 1976-265, which reduced the threshold for an outof-district appointment by the Council from a unanimous vote to a 2/3 vote. The requirement for a unanimous vote had been in effect since the establishment of district representation on the Planning Commission in 1968.
The composition of the Planning Commission and the method for appointing commissioner has remained unchanged since 1976.
Item B Page 13
From: Kevin Bryant
To: Council Members
Subject: Item A - PC Attendance by District
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 3:57:11 PM
I’ve been asked to provide the Planning Commission attendance by District. Here it is from 2011-20.
Kevin
Dist 1 Dist 2 Dist 3 Dist 4 Dist 5 Dist 6 Dist 7
2011 8 8 6 8 8 8 6
2012 12 15 10 18 13 16 14
2013 6 10 4 12 11 12 13
2014 12 12 14 14 12 9 13
2015 14 13 17 14 14 15 11
2016 11 13 16 16 13 10 12
2017 8 13 15 14 10 11 10
2018 13 15 12 14 10 7 11
2019 10 12 13 9 13 9 13
2020 11 14 11 6 12 11 10
TOTAL 105 125 118 125 116 108 113
Pct of Mtgs. 69% 82% 78% 82% 76% 71% 74%
Item B Page 14
From: Jennifer Li
To: Council Members
Subject: Fwd: Item A
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 7:20:07 AM
From: Ned Fluet <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2021 3:05:16 PM
To: Jennifer Li <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: COVID-19 & Town Update
Jennifer,
I received this email from a resident and he said it could be added to the record for Tuesday' meeting.
Thanks,
Ned
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 11:47 PM Simon L Klemperer < > wrote:
Ned, I appreciate your timely updates.
My strong reaction to the planning commission question is that yes, representation by district is very important. (Not that I’ve ever gone before them … simply on the basis of accessible, equitable, representative governance.)
I have no views on the correct number of representatives, but would suggest that using the same districts that send representatives to the Town Council would be simplest to administer, and simplest to understand.
In the case where no candidate steps forward from a single district, the highest vote-getter amongst losing candidates of other districts could be appointed to the open seat.
Thanks,
Simon Klemperer
Item B Page 15
From: Jennifer Li
To: Council Members
Subject: Fwd: Agenda Item A - It’s essential to maintain representation BY DISTRICT Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 7:18:36 AM
From: Corinne Moesta
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2021 3:59:44 PM
To: Town Hall email <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item A - It’s essential to maintain representation BY DISTRICT [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.
Dear Town Council Members & Town of Woodside,
Thank you for considering ways to make government smaller and more efficient. While we agree that 5 Planning Commissioners is probably sufficient, our concern is the unintended consequences of moving to “at-large” election of members. Representation by district is essential to maintaining fair, effective government in Woodside.
The Planning Comission should be elected by district
A move to “at-large” elections is not necessary, nor in the interest of our community. If given the opportunity, well intentioned volunteers of the Planning Commission and Town Council will naturally tend to encourage & appoint candidates from their own social circles, thereby inadvertently excluding some areas of Woodside. We believe that members would do their best to understand what’s in the interest of the entire town, but there are challenges that are unique to certain areas of which they might not be aware.
Our hill, District 7, is a prime example with specific challenges. The necessity of home generators is a fact of life for Woodside residents in the hills. We also have the challenges of non-conforming lots despite large properties. We don’t have access to adequate internet connections to conduct school/business from home while doing our part to slow the spread of Covid-19. Many might not realize we’re in a separate school district and have different traffic patterns than central Woodside. We live with the near-constant danger of wildfire. Etc.
Recognizing these differences, we need a Planning Commissioner that understands the implications and takes these into consideration when helping to revise & craft the General Plan, Town ordinances & resolutions as well as when advising about zoning, permits, variances and subdivisions.
Having representatives from our district on Planning Commission and Town Council is very important so that those bodies can consider different points of view when making decisions that affect the entire town or parts of it. Yes, even with district representation, it’s possible decisions are still made that adversely affect one part of town, but at least there’s the opportunity to have the needs of other districts considered in the process. The Glens certainly has its own challenges. Other areas of Town, such as the neighborhoods near the Horse Park, Wunderlich, or east of 280, undoubtedly have unique concerns too. Each area of Town deserves government representatives that understand the subtle differences in priorities and needs of that district.
Finally, in the past 5 years, towns, cities, and districts all over California (including Menlo Item B Page 16
Park & Redwood City) have been successfully sued and forced to move from “at-large” elections to “district” elections on the basis that it is a violation of the California Voting Rights Act to discriminate against certain populations. Clearly we should maintain our district-based elections.
7 vs 5 members of the Planning Commission
As noted in the Town staff report, some local towns have only 5 Planning Commissioners, although almost half of the represented sample have 7 members. We generally support the concept of smaller government and can see an argument for moving in that direction.
Woodside has at least 4 distinct areas, each with it’s own challenges: The hills, central Woodside, the Glens, and the areas east of 280 (or others?) So, it might make sense to move toward a 5 member Planning Commission and Town Council: move to 5 districts, or 4 members by district and 1 at-large member, as some other CA towns have done. However, reducing the number of members would require re-districting the town from its current 7 districts to 5 — an expensive, time-consuming process. Certainly during these challenging times of Covid-19, wildfires, power shut offs, and the need for capital improvements, there are many better ways the Town can spend our tax dollars.
Thank you again for your consideration and service to our town. We applaud your interest in enhancing the efficiency of our town government, however, representation by district is essential for residents and should not be changed. We hope that you will look for other ways to streamline and improve town government.
Sincerely,
Cori & Achim
Cori & Achim Moesta
Woodside, CA 94062
Item B Page 17
From: Kevin Bryant
To: Council Members
Subject: FW: Planning Commission
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 10:02:51 AM
From: Rosekrans & Associates Inc
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 9:59 AM
To: Kevin Bryant <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Commission
[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.
Kevin,
Please pass this on to the Town Council.
Mayor Domkowsky and Council Members.
Having served two terms (2014-2018)on the Town of Woodside Planning Commission I am strongly in favor of maintaining the current composition of the Commission-seven members representing the seven geographic districts.
Considering the powers and duties of the Planning Commission as outlined in the staff report, it is important that the citizens of Woodside,because of it's widespread geography be fully represented.Many of the other San Mateo County cities are much more homogeneous than Woodside.
While I'm somewhat surprised by the attendance figures in the staff report, there is no evidence that a smaller number of Commissioners would mean a higher percentage of attendance.There are no comparative numbers for other public bodies.
I enjoyed my term on the Commission.I thought we were respectful of the applicants,staff and fellow members and collectively made good decisions.
Please leave things as the are.
Adolph Rosekrans
Adolph S. Rosekrans, Inc. Architects Woodside, CA 94062 Item B Page 19
From: Kevin Bryant
To: Council Members
Subject: FW: Study Session in Regard to Changes to Planning Commission Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 10:31:29 AM
From: Nancy Atkinson
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 10:26 AM
To: Town Hall email <[email protected]>
Subject: Study Session in Regard to Changes to Planning Commission [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.
To: MEMBERS OF TOWN OF WOODSIDE TOWN COUNCIL
I have become aware of your upcoming discussion in regard not only to the size but also the eligible candidates for the Planning Commission.
I am writing to let you know I feel strongly PC members should be from their own districts and I am vehemently opposed to PC members being appointed at large.
I understand this is proposed change is motivated by the perception there are not enough applicants for Plannning Commission.
I personally am seldom even aware of an opening on committees, other than LEHC of which I am a member. If there could be more exposure to openings, there might be more interest.
I strongly believe this is not the time to be discussing such an important subject. I am not able to do video zoom from home and could not even connect to phone zoom for the last LEHC meeting.
Therefore I am not able to participate in this subject at this time, although I would very much like to.
Town residents should be aware of this important subject. Other than a phone call from a neighbor, I have heard nothing. Please postpone any decision on this item until live meetings with public input is available.
Nancy Atkinson
Item B Page 21
From: Kevin Bryant
To: Council Members
Subject: FW: Planning Directors
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 11:50:06 AM
From: Rick DeBenedetti
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 11:49 AM
To: Kevin Bryant <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Directors
[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.
Good morning Kevin. I received the Town Council agenda for the upcoming meeting tomorrow evening. Of particular interest was the item regarding the possible changes to the Planning Commission. I have some concerns after reading what is being considered. To begin with I do not believe that a change is actually needed. The planning commission works. So why is there a need to make a change on something that works. I do not always agree with what some of the commissioners bring to the table or the final outcome but I do feel it is important to have a representative who lives in each district of the town who understands the nuances of that district. A person who talks to their immediate neighbors and knows their concerns. I am not sure if I would know the full impact of an issue in Woodside Hills or the Glens since I do not know those areas as well as I do the Old La Honda Road and Kings Mountain or other areas of Woodside. I would think a commissioner would find it very helpful hearing from their fellow commissioner before making a decision.
I also feel something like this is difficult to really follow on a Zoom Meeting. With the Covid restrictions starting to open up, this matter may be best to be tabled until a true open meeting can be held. With the seating/tables open again in the parking lot of Bucks could a meeting be held there or in the school parking lot. These areas would allow plenty of distance for those who decide to attend a discussion on this matter.
Again I do not see the need for a planning commission change. Please pass this on to the council members.--Rick
Item B Page 22
From: Pamela J Hinds
To: Town Hall email
Subject: Item A: Representation by District
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 1:12:22 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Town Council Members & Town of Woodside,
We are writing to express deep concern about the possibility of moving from district representation to “at-large” election of members. Areas within Woodside are unique with different types of terrain, concerns, and issues, so at large representation would have a negative effect on fair, inclusive government in Woodside. We urge you to continue with district representation.
Sincerely
Pamela J. Hinds & Mark Diel
Item B Page 23
From: melinda stoker
To: Ned Fluet; Richard Brown; J.Carvell; Sean P. Scott; Chris Shaw; Jennifer Wall Cc: Jennifer Li; Melinda Stoker
Subject: Concerns regarding changing representation on the planning commission Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 3:05:23 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: Mayor Domkowsky, Council members Brown, Carvell, Fluet, Scott, Shaw, and Wall, I’m writing to raise concerns about suggestions to make significant changes to the Planning Commission that were brought up at the last town council meeting. My understanding is that Mayor Domkowsky posed that the number of commissioners be reduced from 7 to 5 and that appointments could be made on an “at large” basis rather than by district. I am aware that this concept or action has not been finalized and that town residents have not been made apprised of this discussion point with advanced notification of this topic prior to tomorrow's town council meeting at 7pm.
Reducing / eliminating district representation and allowing the Council to appoint candidates on an at large basis would mean that more than one candidate in a single district can be appointed. And, if the Planning Commission was reduced from 7 to 5 members, each commissioner’s vote would be more powerful and representation for a single district could become disproportionate, which is not equitable for all town residents.
The Emerald Hills side of Woodside and The Glens have unique issues and the Whiskey Hill Road / Mountain Home / Kings Mountain / Canada Rd. areas have different needs when it comes to planning / development / improvements, etc. Therefore, residents of each district should have equal representation and advocacy on the planning commission.
Holding a discussion that could potentially have a detrimental impact for district representation within our community is deserving of an appropriate forum. I respectfully request that this idea be tabled until appropriate notification, commentary, and study can take place.
Sincerely,
Melinda M. Stoker
Item B Page 25
From: Steve Patrick
To: Kevin Bryant; Town Hall email
Subject: Agenda item A, 2-23-21
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 3:20:44 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Kevin Bryant, Town Manager.
Woodside Council Members.
Addressing agenda Item A, on the February 23,2021 council agenda to considered reduction of Planning Commission members and district representation, I make these observations and comments.
I was honored to have served on the Planning Commission for over 16 years. In those years I listened to the input from Commissioners, from the districts they represented, and were able to bring insight into the uniqued needs and considerations in their areas.
Woodside is not homogeneous in make up, Glens, Emerald Lake Hills, Old LaHonda, Woodside Hills and the others areas are very different and if all commissioners are from only one area the insights of commissioners living in the other districts will be lost.
Your report analyzing the attendance of commissioners does not seem to offer compelling reasoning to reduce the number of commissioners or eliminate the desire to foster unique district representation as desired in the original General Plan as envisioned by our founding fathers. Commissioners are volunteers and serve to review citizens requests for planning approvals in a timely manner, should the number of commissioners be reduce I believe the number of meetings with less than a quorum will increase and cause potential delays to projects.
Tools exist in our ordinance allowing the Council to permit cross over representation when needed.
Please consider these insights as you deliberate on changing the make up and representation of the citizens of the Town.
As it has been said,
“If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
Thanks,
Steve Patrick
Item B Page 26
From: Bill Hindson
To: Town Hall email
Subject: Agenda Item A Please Maintain Our District Representation Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 4:33:48 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Submitted by William Hindson, resident of Woodside since 1978 (The Glens, Central Woodside, and since 1983 Old La Honda Road/Orchard Hill Rd.) Dear Mayor Dombkowski and Members of Council,
First allow me to thank you for your service.
Woodside is fortunate to enjoy a diversity in its several communities, based largely on location within our varied geography. This diversity is important for the development of mutually supportive neighborhood resilience based on common walkabout values and concerns. This is an important attribute much needed in the face of our two very real natural threats of wildfire and earthquake, as well as other issues which are nowadays challenging our families and social structures.
As has long been the case in Woodside, district representation has served the community well to help further these goals. Please do your utmost to maintain the representation on key elements of the town's organization on a district basis , while also continuing to strive for reductions in the costs and burdens of our town government.
Respectfully,
William Hindson
Item B Page 29
From: kerry debenedetti
To: Council Members
Cc: Kevin Bryant
Subject: Study Session re/ Planning Commission
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 4:51:38 PM
Attachments: districts.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.
Dear Woodside Town Councilmembers,
The neighborhoods of Woodside vary greatly, even within our seven districts. To take Planning Commission representation away from any of those districts would jeopardize the balance of priority-setting and decision-making in this unique and wonderful town. Just look at the map and imagine how the concerns and views of residents in one corner might differ from those in another. A seat at the table should be reserved and required for representatives from each of our districts. That, of course, also means the number of Planning Commissioners should stay at seven.
Please do not consider changing how we are represented on the Planning Commission.
Kerry DeBenedetti
Item B Page 30
RON ROMINES
Woodside, CA 94062
February 22, 2021
Town Council
Town of Woodside
Re: Restructuring the Planning Commission
Honorable Councilmembers:
As an almost 50 year resident of the Town and former
Councilmember, I would like to offer my perspective on the pending issue of restructuring the Planning Commission: the proposal to reduce the size from seven to five Commissioners and to abandon District-specific representation.
It may be tempting to consider the numerical analysis and comparison to other San Mateo County towns in the staff report and conclude that it makes sense for Woodside to conform "to the norm." I suggest that this is a hasty conclusion which ignores important attributes of a Planning Commission scheme that serves Woodside's unique environment.
Obviously, the historic and current size of the Commission is inseparable from District-specific representation on the Commission. I believe that this arrangement has served the Town and its residents well for many years and there is no compelling reason to change it other than convenience in filling seats on the Commission. I think appointment of Commissioners by District is quite consistent with and supports an important goal inherent in the General Plan, which is the recognition of Woodside's unique and varied landscape. The Town is now required to maintain a planning body with representatives distributed Town-wide.
Woodside is one of the smallest municipalities in San Mateo County in terms of population, but it is also one of the most diverse in terms of geography and topography, lot size, residents' income, infrastructure, and residential development issues. Given the significant and unending desire for property development in Woodside, land-use issues are by far the biggest chunk of "government business" handled by the Town. And virtually all of this "business" falls under the perview of the Planning Commission, whose decisions have in the aggregate the most significant long-term impact on Woodside property owners.
Even though deliberations may be somewhat lengthier with a seven member body, Item B Page 31
it is more important to have a fuller airing of issues with a greater variety of perspectives than it is to "streamline" in the interest of efficiency.
A clear and significant advantage to having a Commissioner for each District is that at least one representative is much more likely to have first-hand familiarity with the development issues and appreciation of the potential impact of a given project. Likewise, having a "local representative" on the Planning Commission provides project applicants and affected neighbors someone to whom they have access and who have a stake in the same neighborhood.
It is as important to have District-specific representation on the Planning Commission as it is on the Town Council. The matters regularly considered and decisions made by the Planning Commission have a much more personal and long-term impact on residents in terms of the built environment of the various neighborhoods in Town. Abandoning the requirement of appointment by District risks concentrating representation within discreet areas. It serves no compelling need and is not good policy.
Sincerely,
Ron Romines
RR:hs
cc: Kevin Bryant
Jackie Young
Jennifer Li
Item B Page 32
From: Barbara Wood
To: Town Hall email
Subject: Changes to Planning Commission
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 6:56:22 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Council members and Town Manager -
I would like to strongly urge you to retain the current system of having Woodside's Planning Commission members represent the town's council districts.
As I am sure all of you are well aware, Woodside is a unique place with vastly different neighborhoods. That is why, I surmise, that the town's founders divided the town into districts to be represented both by council members and planning commissioners.
The Woodside Hills neighborhood could not be more different from the Woodside Glens' neighborhood. Skywood Acres bears no resemblance to Mountain Home Road. My little neighborhood off Woodside Road and Albion (one of the town's first subdivisions!) is vastly different from Emerald Hills.
Expecting townwide decisions to be made by officials who do not intimately know the town's diverse neighborhoods, as a resident of those neighborhoods does, would be an injustice to all its residents.
Please retain the current system of appointing a planning commissioner from each neighborhood in the town so we continue to have a representative democracy in our town.
If you have trouble getting candidates for these positions, the solution is not to trash the system, but instead to better publicize the positions and better communicate with the residents.
Perhaps a better use of your study session time would be a discussion of how to install a robust electronic communication system to allow the town's residents to be better informed of the town's important business.
Sincerely yours,
Barbara Wood
Item B Page 33
From: David McMullin
To: Town Hall email
Subject: Planning Commission
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 7:42:40 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: Members of the Town of Woodside Town Council
I would like to express my opinion that Planning Commission Members should be chosen from their respective districts. I am against appointing Planning Commissioners from an at large pool.
Woodside is a very diverse community: geographically, topographically, and culturally. All neighborhoods should be represented on the Commission.
This issue should be tabled until we can have in person town meetings. Too many of my neighbors are not connected digitally and should have the right to weigh in on this important policy change.
David McMullin
Greer Road
Item B Page 34
From: Deborah Fitz
To: Town Hall email
Subject: Planning Commission Study Session Comments
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 8:43:42 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: Mayor Domkowsky, Council members Brown, Carvell, Fluet, Scott, Shaw and WallWe are writing to express our concern regarding commissioners being appointed “at large” rather than by district and the reduction of planning commissioners from 7 to 5.
Before describing our concerns, we first want to express our appreciation for the excellent work the current planning commissioners are providing to our community. We have come before the commission twice, most recently in December to request a variance to install a generator on our property. The process was efficient, and all commissioners were well informed, thoroughly prepared and reasonable in considering and granting our request. We are grateful for their support.
The principal reason for our concern is that “at large” commissioners may not reflect the various districts’ diverse geography and varying conditions which give rise to specialized and unique concerns.
Representation on the planning commission from each district ensures appropriate knowledge of the particular needs associated with that district. Historically, “at-large” representation has not always been sensitive to those unique needs.
Two examples come to mind:
1. The Old La Honda Road community was excluded from the Comcast contract with the rest of the town, leaving residents without adequate broadband internet. Inability to access high speed broadband has become more than an inconvenience during the pandemic with so many residents working and attending school remotely; and
2. The increasing incidence of wildfires and storms resulting in power shut offs has created the need for generators to provide back up power in emergency along the Old La Honda Road corridor. This is another urgent safety need that would be best understood by a commissioner with direct experience.
Both of these serious concerns are more pressing in the hills and in districts west of 280. However, in the event that no candidate to represent a district is identified, the Municipal Code provides the following remedy:
Sec. 32.04 - Residence.
No more than one member of the Planning Commission shall have his/her place of legal residence in, and be appointed from, each district of the Town; provided, however, the Council, by two-thirds vote of the full membership thereof, may appoint two or more members having their places of legal residence in the same district. If two or more members from the same district are so appointed, the Council shall designate which such members shall be appointed to which term or terms of office. If a member, during his/her term of office, removes his/her place of legal residence from one district to another, he/she may nevertheless complete the term of his/her office. If a member removes his/her place of legal residence from the Town, his/her office shall become vacant and shall be filled as for any other vacancy.
Given the benefits as cited for each district to have a commissioner, maintaining seven planning commissioner seems to make the most sense. We value efficient government, but it’s not clear that reducing the number of commissioners would result in greater efficiency. Our direct experience with the commission Item B Page 35
was responsive and professional. For these reasons, we ask that you maintain the status quo of seven commissioners with representation from each district.
Thank you for your consideration,
Deborah & Alex Fitz
Item B Page 36
From: Tracy Cox
To: Town Hall email
Subject: Proposal to reduce Planning Commission representation Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 8:54:31 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: Mayor Domkowsky, Council members Brown, Carvell, Fluet, Scott, Shaw and WallThe proposal to reduce the number of Planning Commissioners is not to be taken lightly. As a twenty year resident of district 7, I have come to know just how different our needs and issues are from most of the town. Throughout the years, I have come to know our various district 7 representatives, who were neighbors and in some cases friends. I felt that I had someone to talk to not only about about grievances and issues, but also someone to praise and support during good times.
They were people who knew what it was like to live on the far side of Woodside, people that knew if we didn’t have a representative to speak up for us, we would be passed by. Should I even mention the years long "battle" to improve Old La Honda's roadway? I feel we NEED representatives from each unique district of this town, not only for a fair and even governing council, but for a spokesperson who will be heard. How do you propose to regulate our very different districts in a fair and unbiased way if we have no specific representative to whom we can turn to? I am very concerned that an “at large” appointee will not have the same attention and impact on issues that affect one district but not the others. Does the council member from District 1 have any experience with the 800 - 1200 cyclists that use Old La Honda road on a typical Saturday? Probably not, and therefore may not think having a charity bike ride up OLH road is a bad idea.
I would also like to comment on the reduction of members from 7 to 5 people.
After reading over the Councils attendance charts from the past ten years, it seems that the average attendance is around five or six per meeting. What the chart does not make clear is that it is not always the same representative not attending. In the past year of Zoom meetings, has there been an increase in attendance? Reducing the quorum to three is NOT in the best interest of the town. I feel that it would change the council to a homogenous and ineffectual "good old boys club”. How can three votes represent the varied and different districts of the town of Woodside? Redistricting the town would be a costly and time consuming job, thus reducing the council to five volunteer members wouldn’t save money either.
Item B Page 37
Sincerely,
Tracy Cox
Item B Page 38
From: Patricia Nelson
To: Town Hall email
Subject: District versus At Large Representation
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 9:25:17 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Town Council,
We have lived in Woodside for seven years after moving from Palo Alto. We are very fortunate to live on Martinez Rd off of Old La Honda Road among a very special community. We strongly support having a district planning commissioner on the Council, rather than taking our chances that a representative-atlarge would have the knowledge and inclination to speak for our families and unique properties "on the Hill". There are many ways that we are different from other parts of Woodside, including our fire susceptibility, potential flooding risks, narrow roads and traffic issues, absolute necessity of generators, poor internet service, etc. A person from our District 7 should represent us.
Thank you,
Patricia Nelson and Scott Zamvil
Woodide, CA
Item B Page 39
From: Fiona Bensen
To: Town Hall email
Subject: Proposed changes to The Woodside Planning Commission Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 9:40:11 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello there,
I am unable to participate in the Town Council Zoom meeting tomorrow evening at 7pm, but would like to convey my opinion about the proposal to reduce the number of Woodside Planning Commissioners, and move to an “at large” rather than the current “by district” representation.
I believe this is not in the interests of the individual districts which make up Woodside, each having unique needs.
The needs of those living in say the district that represents Old La Honda Rd are distinctly different from the needs of those living in the district that represents say Canada Rd residents. We need to maintain representation by district to ensure fair, effective government for all in Woodside.
Accordingly, please note my desire for the status quo to remain.
Fiona Bensen
Woodside
formerly of
Woodside
Item B Page 40
From: Susie Q
To: John Dean
Cc: Town Hall email
Subject: Re: Maintaining Representation By District
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 9:43:42 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Woodside Town Council Members,
I support representation by district over "at large" elections. Even though we have lived on this very special hill for only 27 years, my family can attest to the fact that we have unique and specific concerns/problems to be communicated.
Thank you for providing this discussion,
Susan Dean
Woodside, CA 94062
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 9:05 PM John Dean <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Sir/Madam,
If the town of Woodside wants to maintain fair representation within its community, I believe that it is critical that we continue with representation by district.
Sincerely,
John Dean
Woodside, CA
Item B Page 41
From: Vandana Mathur
To: Town Hall email
Subject: Opposed to Election of "at large" Planning Commission Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 10:33:04 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Town Council,
We are strongly opposed to the proposed election of Woodside Planning Commission members "at large" rather than by district. Our district (7) is topographically unique and faces specific issues including access by only a single road, lack of reliable internet or cell service, reliance on propane, and extreme wildfire threats. Our properties have unusual shape and terrain that differs considerably from those in other districts. We require representation by someone elected by our district who is deeply knowledgeable about these issues so that they may be in the forefront of their thinking when considering Planning Commission rules and regulations. The Voting Rights Act requires that our votes not be marginalized and that we are given proper representation.
We will attend tomorrow's meeting to further voice our concerns.
Thank you for your consideration.
Vandana Mathur
David Reichling
Item B Page 42
From: Carol Rose
To: Town Hall email
Subject: Representation by district
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 11:07:10 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
District Representation for Town Council is the only way our diverse districts can be fairly represented. 60 years
resident home owner, Old LaHonda Rd.
Carol Rose
Item B Page 43
From: Jennifer Jones
To: Town Hall email
Subject: Opinion/ Planning Commission Members
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 8:34:59 AM
[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.
> To: Members of the Town of Woodside Town Council
>
> I would like to express my opinion that Planning Commission Members should be chosen from their respective districts. I am against appointing Planning Commissioners from an at large pool. >
> Woodside is a very diverse community: geographically, topographically, and culturally. All neighborhoods should be represented on the Commission.
>
> This issue should be tabled until we can have in person town meetings. Too many of my neighbors are not connected digitally and should have the right to weigh in on this important policy change. >
> Jennifer Jones Greer Road
Item B Page 45
From: Bob Garcia
To: Town Hall email
Subject: Planning commission representation
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 8:56:36 AM
[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.
The recent discussion of planning commission at large representation flies in the face of fair and equitable political representation. It assumes a homogeneous town population where all needs and requirements are equal. This could not be further from the truth. Each subsection of Woodside is unique, with special considerations for fire safety and quality of life. The current system of neighborhood representation works to maintain a unique voice from each of the neighborhoods
We oppose the change to "at large" planning commission representation.
Bob and Diane Garcia
Woodside
Item B Page 46
From: Kevin Bryant
To: Council Members
Subject: FW: Agenda Item A, 2.23.21 Meeting
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 9:38:13 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: MBS
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 8:28 PM
To: Kevin Bryant <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item A, 2.23.21 Meeting
[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.
Town Manager Kevin Bryant, Mayor Dombkowsky & Council Members, I’m writing to state my objection to reducing the number of Planning Commission members from seven to five and replacing district-based representation with at-large appointments. The study assessment doesn’t posit a good reason for the proposed changes (no obvious benefits were indicated), so why is this being considered? The commission would lose the representation and voice from each district under the proposed changes. Given the varied needs, interests and characters of the different districts, I believe it is important to continue to provide for Planning Commission representation from each district.
Sincerely,
Marian Sprague
Item B Page 47
From: Jeffrey Lea
To: Town Hall email
Subject: proposed change to Planning Commission makeup
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 9:42:21 AM
[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.
To the Council:
I am writing in opposition to the proposed change away from district representation on the Commission. I have lived in Woodside for more than 25 years, and worked on many projects here for 50 years. Woodside is one of the most varied communities in the area in terms of housing stock and population. Together with very luxurious and expensive residences are a great many of more modest scale, and the mix of those as well as the neighborhood breakdown in Town lends itself to divergent needs and interests. All those differences are valid and worthy of consideration. I feel that is best ensured by requiring that candidates be scattered among the various natural Town communities with a District residence requirement.
Thank you.
Jeff Lea
Jeffrey C. Lea, Chairman Emeritus
Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc.
Civil Engineers | Land Surveyors
HAYWARD • ROSEVILLE • DUBLIN • SAN JOSE
WWW.LEABRAZE.COM
Item B Page 48
From: Kevin Bryant
To: Council Members
Subject: FW: Planning Commission
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 9:43:23 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Mario Musto
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 8:57 AM
To: Kevin Bryant <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Commission
[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.
Dear Mr. Bryant- I do not want a change made in Planning Commissioner number or District requirement at this time. The Council should review public comment and address issue at a more appropriate date.
Yours TrulyMario Musto
Sent from my iPhone
Item B Page 49
From: Diane Toby
To: Town Hall email
Subject: Planning Commission - Proposed Changes
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 10:04:40 AM
[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.
To the Woodside Town Council,
With this letter I am registering my opposition to the proposed change from district to general representation on the Commission. Among the many positives of living in Woodside is the mix of residents. Covering the needs of those in greatly varied neighborhoods as well as economic differences is surely a difficult proposition. I have lived in Woodside for twenty five years and have been witness to the benefits of community representation. Losing the voices of differing neighborhoods strikes me as a recipe for conflict.
I respectfully request that the Planning Commission retain its current neighborhood-based representation.
Thank you,
Diane Toby
Item B Page 50
From: Lexi
To: Council Members; [email protected]
Subject: Town Council Agenda Item A
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 3:13:23 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello All,
I’m writing regarding Agenda Item 'A', addressing the Planning Commission membership representatives.
I very recently resigned after 20 years on the LEHC, and am a 40+ year Woodside resident, so am stating my opinion as a private citizen.
I am very strongly opposed to the proposed changes to the current ordinance being studied in tonight's Agenda Item 'A' under New Business.
Due to Woodside's unique nature, topography, and zones of the Town, I find it interesting but irrelevant to compare it to other San Mateo County cities and towns as a contributing factor in making this proposed ordinance change to Planning Commission membership.
What I think is most relevant, and most important, is that each zone is entitled to informed, fair representation based on lived experience in each zone.
Additionally, reducing the number of members has the real potential to make the body more insular in it's decision-making, instead of having to consider the sometimes vast diversity of the seven zones through the perspective and knowledge of the representative who actually lives there.
I personally have lived in three different zones with very different characteristics. Starting on seven acres of level land in central Woodside, where I was fortunate enough to build my home, then buying into the Whiskey Hill Road area on three totally flat acres with a running creek, to my present downsizing in the north end of Canada Road on a bit over 1/2 acre on a hillside. All very different in topography, land characteristics, neighborhoods, and land use regulations.
My point being that the zone variations are pretty significant and deserve representation by a resident of each individual zone. Eliminating that PC requirement, creating an 'at-large' representative, (which doesn't even sound good on paper, in my opinion), and eliminating two zone-based positions, does not serve the residents nearly as well as the current ordinance sets out, and may result in a disservice to residents.
If the issue is about time and/or attendance, those can readily be addressed under the existing PC zonebased membership makeup.
Thank you for your time and efforts on TC, and I hope you consider my thoughts in your study session.
Best regards,
Alexis (Lexi) Bartlo
Item B Page 51
From: Susan Lang
To: Town Hall email
Subject: Town Council Meeting February 23, 2021
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 4:13:04 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members - Just a comment about the agenda of tonight’s meeting. It seems that there are several important items to be considered (including on the consent calendar), but especially considering the change in the Planning Commission re the number of commissioners on the commission as well as the district requirement. This represents a potential sea change in the structure and function of the commission. At this time, with covid restrictions already forcing communication by zoom, it seems an odd time to be considering this item. Hopefully, this could be postponed until in person meetings/comments are once again allowed. Thank you very much for your consideration.
Susan Lang, Woodside
Sent from my iPad
Item B Page 52
From: Sandi Thompson
To: Town Hall email
Cc: Sandra Thompson
Subject: Proposed changes to structure of the Town Plannning Commission Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 4:35:57 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Town Council:
I understand you are preparing to review the
representative structure of the Planning Commission
from district representation to at-large representation.
Having served as chair of the Commission as well as a
member, I do have some insight, for better or worse.
I would strongly recommend you not do this without
careful study and after virtual-only opportunities to have in-person public meetings.
Woodside is diverse in many ways.
1. Our zoning creates very different uses from one
section of town to another. There are large parcel
requirements and then there are less than an acre lots.
How these are used (as well as those in between) are
very very different.
It was always notable to me how neighborhood patterns
widely vary from parcels east of 280 to those on Old La Honda Road, those in "Central" Woodside to those in the Glens. Representatives of those Districts would be able to give voice to those zoning quirks better than at large reps, IMHO.
Item B Page 53
2. The price points of various parcels throughout the
Town have existed for decades. There are families who
have kept homes within the family for a century or more as well as those who have mortgaged themselves
heavily to raise families and live in our beautiful haven.
Representation is key to making sure all voices are
heard equally. And the Town may need to provide
services diverse to each community. Some property
owners will hire a battery of consultants and architects to do their bidding and others will design jointly with a
contractor. Both are important to the vibracy of our
Town.
3. And then our geography. Building envelopes, cut and
fill requirements, horse/hiking trails, riparian areas, etc are really restrictive to the development of our lands.
District representatives better understand those nuances and can provide comfort to district residence that there is an understanding of local geographic realities.
Having spent 6 - 7 years on the Commission, one might
think that I understood Woodside like the back of my
hand. But then I would go on a site inspection over 5
miles from my residence, but all within Woodside, to
discover a part of Town of which I had little to no
awareness. I always tried to seek out the opinion of the Commissioner who represented the District for insight
and perpective after a tour of the site. I always learned more and felt as if I better represented everyone's
interests more appropriately.
I am happy to provide more details about my opinion.
Item B Page 54
From:
To: Council Members
Subject: proposed change to merge council positions
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 4:51:03 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Town Council members,
I am aware of the proposal to "streamline" possibly make things more efficient- however... in the case of merging all districts into one, very few ,representations I think this is a VERY bad idea.
Woodside is full of little "micro neighborhoods" with different needs. The topography, house sizes and prices, horses vs the Glenns/no horses, road traffic, makeup of young families vs. older residents, the weather... there are countless items that affect each area differently.
For example: someone from the Glenns with young school age children has completely different issues than someone on Whiskey Hill with several horses and a large land parcel, and those needs are again different from someone in the Kings Mountain area.
This town is not "vanilla", it is full of little nuances and specialized characteristics.
I do not see merging all of us 5,000+ residents into representation from one, or a very few, as being efficient, positive or constructive. I only see future problems with this plan and many unhappy people who feel their needs and concerns are not being heard.
Thank you for your consideration,
Kathi Dancer
Item B Page 56
From: Sarah Rivers
To: Town Hall email
Subject: changes to Planning Commission without notice
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 5:24:10 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Woodside Town Council Members,
With all due respect, I am writing to express my extreme concern and disappointment after learning that the Town Council is proceeding with a discussion of reducing our Planning Commission from 7 district members to 5 at large members. This is way too significant a change with not enough time allotted for either the council or the public to adequately review.
The council should act responsibly and set a date for a study session at a special meeting devoted to this issue. This special meeting should be planned for a date in the future ( a matter of weeks) get well publicized and encourage participation from the residents of Woodside.
Sarah Rivers
Family Farm Road
Woodside
Sarah Rivers
Item B Page 57
From: Kevin
To: Town Hall email
Subject: Planning Commission discussion
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 5:29:37 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: Woodside Town Council
I understand you will be discussing reducing the Planning Commission from 7 district members to 5 at large members.
This is too significant of a change with not enough time for either the council or the public to review. The council should set a date for a study session at a special meeting. You need to hear from people in every neighborhood and every district.
Bottom line, this needs to be weeks out, well noticed, and allow for full participation from the public.
If the issue is difficulty in finding enough volunteers, the answer is not reducing the commission size or a members at large arrangement. That will only create multiple future problems. It's like kicking the can down the road.
Kevin Greenwood
Item B Page 58
From: Fawni Hill
To: Town Hall email
Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Item
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 5:29:53 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor, Town Council Members, Town Manager, et al,
Woodside is a very unique TOWN - Rural in nature with coveted open space, trails, parks and a wonderful quality of life for not only the residents and their pets/animals, but visitors from neighboring communities that journey to Woodside to breathe the fresh air and take in the splendor of the region and experience a rural community right in the heart of Silicon Valley.
People want to move here to have that Woodside experience; however, many who come have instead brought suburban and even urban views with them regarding how the community should look and function. Woodside is the last Town in Central San Mateo County that is trying to hold on to the heritage that makes this community so desirable.
Yes, change will always occur, but by eliminating distinct neighborhoods from having a say in local government through their neighborhood representative, is not a community value and akin to discrimination. Every neighborhood should be represented, from the smallest single family home or cottage to the 100 million dollar plus estates. All voices matter, not just those who can buy or manipulate votes and favors.
The proposal on the table is being pushed without the benefit of community involvement though it will affect every resident of Woodside.
Please consider taking a breath, spending some time asking the people what they want for THEIR Town, for today and into the future.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Fawni L. Hill
Item B Page 59
From: David Gluss
To: Town Hall email
Subject: Changing representation method for town council Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 6:33:32 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I find it alarming that you'd consider moving to an at-large system for choosing representation for the town council.
It makes it easy for a populous part of the town to freeze out smaller parts. As Old La Honda Road contains a lower number of people but a high proportion of the town's road and connectivity, it would be easy to just cut off money for maintenance.
Some examples:
Consider the school bond. It was voted down because most of the population doesn't have children. This did not affect me personally but I was disgusted that people would be their selfishness ahead of the children. That, however is what many people are like.
Consider the internet/cable deal: 10% of the population is not only excluded from the deal (us) but because of Comcast's exclusive deal with the town, no other cable company can serve the ones you left out, and we are left out permanently.
To conclude:
If you change to a non-district plan, I'm afraid that the densely populated town center will call all of the shots in their own favor, and that wouldn't be right.
David Gluss + Patti Pop
Item B Page 61
From: Karen Offen PhD
To: Town Hall email
Subject: Districts or not
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 8:14:54 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am very concerned that changing from district representation for the planning commission is a potentially dangerous proposal Woodside is an unusual community - with different areas with different acreages, animals, etc.
It is not like the neighboring communities that are more homogenous. I think there is a back story behind this proposal that might threaten Woodside’s very character and rural residential, horsey, outdoors existence. We should become aware of what this back story is. I urge the Town Council to investigate thoroughly where this idea is coming from - and why - before drawing any conclusions.
Thank you, Karen Offen
( a Woodside resident since 1968)
Sent from my iPhone
Item B Page 62
4. The Town Council already has the ability to appoint Planning Commissioners at large if no qualified applicants apply for an opening in a particular district.
Representation by district is critical for all the reasons Ms. Mah so eloquently stated in her letter, and for the reasons I have noted above. I respectfully request that you retain the current Planning Commission structure and, by so doing, protect the integrity of land use planning in the Town of Woodside.
Respectfully yours,
Terry Freeman
CC: Kevin Bryant ([email protected] )
Jackie Young ([email protected])
Jennifer Li ([email protected] )
Item B Page 64
From: Ann Nolan
To: Town Hall email
Subject: New Business - Study Session, 2/23/21 Meeting
Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:18:14 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
I am opposed to reducing the number of Planning Commissioners and removing the requirement they be appointed by district.
Woodsiders in each of our seven districts deserve representation by people who know their neighborhood and who can act for them effectively and knowledgeably. Woodside has defined districts for a reason: they differ from one another. Each district has its own specific requirements and needs and even geography. If you reduce the number of Commissioners and then appoint them, you may get 5 commissioners at every meeting, but you may not be giving your constituents proper representation.
Finally I think a decision of this scope and importance should be discussed when it's appropriate to hold an in-person, "live" meeting, not a virtual one. I hope that can happen relatively soon. This is an important issue.
Sincerely,
Ann P. Nolan
Item B Page 65
Item B Page 66
ATTACHMENT 4
Item B Page 67
Item B Page 68
From: Jennifer Li
To: Council Members
Subject: FW: Agenda item regarding Composition of the Planning Commission Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:51:54 PM
From: Marilyn Voelke
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:51 PM
To: Town Hall Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda item regarding Composition of the Planning Commission [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 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
You’ve heard from me before about this issue. I would like to reiterate my belief that the overwhelming number of residents you have heard from on this issue want the Planning Commission composition to remain as it is…7 members from 7 districts. I disagree with Kevin’s summary in that although it is true that a large number of residents attending the prior meetings specifically wanted 7 members from 7 districts, all of them wanted things to remain the same…certainly the clearest interpretation of that is 7 members from 7 districts. I have attached my prior emails to this one for clarity.
Respectfully,
Marilyn Voelke
Email dated 9-13-22
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
From February 23, 2021, when the Council had its first study session on the question of changing the composition of the Planning Commission and reducing its membership from 7-5, through all of the meetings on the redistricting and reduction of Council seats from 7-5, you have heard overwhelmingly from residents that they want the system to stay the same and that they want representatives to represent their district viewpoint at Commission and Council. The Council has been redistricted and membership reduced because the law seems to require it, not because the residents wanted it. That is not the case with the Planning Commission. There is no compelling reason for the Planning Commission districts and membership to change. The ordinance should simply be changed to reflect what now exists. The Planning Commission benefits from 7 voices and viewpoints coming from all over town. I have provided a copy below of my email of 2-28- 22 to the Council supporting a 7 District Council map and summarizing the public input at the 2-23-21 meeting referred to in the Staff Report for tonight’s meeting. I went through all of those emails and was present for the meeting. I think my interpretation is accurate. Residents want to continue the system that has been available to them since the Town was founded.
I also believe the ordinance should be strengthened to ensure that a qualified in-district applicant be appointed if available, over an out-ofdistrict applicant. In 16 years on the Planning Commission, I have worked with two out of district Commissioners. Each was appointed because there was no in-district applicant. This is the norm in Town and, again, the overwhelming desire of residents. The last time Commissioners were appointed, 5 of the 6 Council Members present, inexplicably to me, voted to appoint an out of district applicant instead of a qualified in-district candidate, denying that district its neighborhood representation. Two of those Council Members voted for the out of district candidate twice…instead of the qualified incumbent in District 3 and again instead of the qualified District 4 candidate. Those votes belying those Council Members frequent on the record statements that they firmly believe residents want, and deserve to have, their neighborhoods represented. The District 4 Council Member was absent.
This vote has resulted in one neighborhood with two voices on the Planning Commission, and one neighborhood, with none. This is not the district/neighborhood representation your constituents have repeatedly asked for.
Respectfully submitted,
Marilyn Voelke
Feb 28, 2022, 4:50 PM
Dear Mayor Brown and Council Members,
I would like to support the hand drawn map produced by the Moestas, attachment 10 to the Staff Report. It captures the neighborhoods well in a 7 district map. The Town has had 7 districts since its inception and the system has served it well. There is no public groundswell for changing the system and reducing districts to 5. Quite the opposite. That suggestion has come from a few members of the Council, not from the public.
TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
07/25/2023
DESK ITEM: ITEM B
I went back to look at the Town Council meeting packet, desk items, and subsequent minutes for the meeting on February 23, 2021 which was a study session on reducing the number of Planning Commissioners to 5, and removing the requirement that they be appointed by district. This meeting is pertinent because it's the first time the public engaged on the suggestion that districts be reduced from 7 to 5. I have tried to provide some numbers for you. I have tried my best to make the count accurate. I don't know the full number of residents participating in the meeting because it was a Zoom meeting and participants are not shown to us.
At least 55 participated by writing an email. None said they wanted to change the appointment of Planning Commissioners by district.
DIstrict representation, neighborhood representation, was universally supported. None advocated for reducing the districts from 7 to 5. One did say that might work, but would need study. Thirty specifically said that the districts should remain at 7. Twenty one (19 emails) essentially wanted the status quo, district representation as it exists without going further in the email. Three just wanted a postponement, expressing what many others did, that the matter should be postponed until in person meetings could be held.
The minutes show that 18 residents spoke during the meeting. Nine had previously written. Nine were new to the conversation. The descriptions are brief and none of the descriptions note whether the speaker favored 7 or 5 districts, although I remember statements in support of 7 districts being made. Eight of those speakers, myself among them, have advocated for retention of the 7 districts. One speaker, I recall stated that 5 might make sense.
You have since received more letters in support of retaining 7 districts. I am aware of only two recent statements by residents advocating for a 5 district scheme, one during public comment at your last meeting and one email comment.
The community has really already let you know how it feels about retaining the district system as it is. Let's pick the best 7 district map and move on.
Repectfully,
Marilyn Voelke
TOWN OF WOODSIDE
Report to Town Council Agenda Item: C
Prepared by: Kevin Bryant, Town Manager July 25, 2023
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: ARCHITECUTRAL AND SITE REVIEW BOARD
MEMBERSHIP
BACKGROUND
The Town of Woodside has had an Architectural and Site Review Board since the adoption of its first Zoning Ordinance in October 1959. Section 36.1 of Ordinance 1959-80 stated that:
An Architectural-Site Plan Committee is hereby created to carry out the duties hereinafter specified. The committee shall include a Planning Commissioner and two residents of the Town of Woodside, one of whom shall be a registered architect. Committee members shall be appointed by the Town Council for a one-year term renewable at the pleasure of the Council.
The present day makeup of the Architectural and Site Review Board is established by Section
32.15 of the Woodside Municipal Code, which states:
There is created an Architectural and Site Review Board (ASRB) which shall be advisory to the Planning Director. The Board shall consist of five members, one of which shall be a licensed architect if one is available for appointment and another one of which shall be a licensed landscape architect if one is available for appointment. The Board’s members shall be appointed by the Town Council. The Planning Director shall serve as the executive officer of the Board and shall be responsible for calling meetings of the Board, maintaining records, including minutes, referring applications, and transmitting in writing the reports and recommendations of the Board to the Planning Commission for action.
The regular meetings of the ASRB are held on the first and third Mondays of each month at 4:30 p.m. in Independence Hall.
In February 2023, the terms of three of the five members of the ASRB expired. The Town received no new applications in response to its normal recruitment efforts and the Council was not able to make new appointments. To allow the ASRB to reach quorum, one of the three ASRB members whose term was scheduled to end in February 2023 agreed to continue on the Board for a short, but undefined period of time. To address the issue that all three members were required to be present to make quorum, on March 14, 2023, the Town Council adopted Resolution 2023-7571 which had the effect of reducing quorum to be a majority of appointed members instead of potential members. In adopting the resolution, the Council asked that the issue of the ASRB vacancies return to the Council for discussion if it continues.
Pursuant to Resolution 2023-7571, the ASRB functioned with a quorum of two from March 14th through May 9th, when the Council appointed a fourth member to the ASRB.
The ASRB still has one vacant seat and the one member whose term ended in February 2023 who Item C Page 1 Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
would like to step down. The Town has continued to recruit for two new members through frequent posts to Nextdoor and emails to subscribers of Town announcements and agendas. No additional applications for appointment to the ASRB have been received.
DISCUSSION
Staff is unaware of any other time in the Town’s history when there were not sufficient applicants to serve on the ASRB. When asked to comment on the difficulty of recruiting for members, one ASRB member commented during his reappointment interview in February that it was “dumb luck.”
Staff acknowledges that the termination of the California State of Emergency Declaration for COVID-19 and the end of hybrid meetings which allowed Board member participation by Zoom has likely had an impact on both recruitment and retention for the ASRB. However, the Town must comply with state law regarding Brown Act meetings and cannot return to Board member participation by Zoom beyond what is allowed by law.
To facilitate Council discussion, Staff has provided the following potential modifications to the operation and structure of the ASRB (A-D). These modifications are not mutually exclusive, and the Council could decide and direct that more than one of the changes be implemented. In the absence of any changes, Staff will continue recruitment efforts for the ASRB.
Operational Modifications
A. The ASRB meets twice a month at 4:30 on Monday afternoons. The time and frequency of ASRB meetings could be modified by either starting meeting times later (6:00 or 7:00, for example) and/or holding regular meetings once a month instead of twice a month.
Pros: Scheduling meetings in the evening may attract applicants who cannot participate in meetings that start during the workday. Holding regular meetings once a month may attract applicants for whom every two weeks is too great a time commitment.
Cons: Holding meetings once a month instead of every two weeks would result in longer agendas and longer meetings. Additionally, applicants that require ASRB review may have to wait longer to have their project reviewed by the ASRB if there only one meeting per month.
Structural Modifications
B. ASRB membership could be permanently reduced to three members.
Pros: Fewer applicants would be needed to fill the ASRB. For the current ASRB, the member who seeks to step down would be able to do so and the Board would have full membership.
Cons: ASRB recommendations would be made by between two and three appointees instead of by between three and five appointees, reducing the number of different perspectives reviewing applications.
Item C Page 2
Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
C. Allow non-residents to serve on the ASRB. This could include professional architects or landscape architects that do not live in Woodside or college or graduate students in the field of architecture that do not live in Woodside.
Pros: Allowing non-residents who have professional and/or education qualifications would ensure that the ASRB has architectural expertise and would increase the pool of potential applicants.
Cons: Allowing non-residents to serve on the ASRB is contradictory to the resident volunteer model that has sustained the Town since its incorporation.
D. Disband the ASRB. Taking this action would require a modification to the Zoning Ordinance to re-assign applications to either the Planning Commission, the Architectural and Site Review Administrator, or Staff.
Pros: Disbanding would negate the need to recruit for the ASRB.
Cons: Disbanding the ASRB would end nearly 65 years of citizen participation in the architectural and site review process.
CONCLUSION
Recruitment to the ASRB has proved difficult in 2023. Discussion of potential changes the operation and structure of the ASRB is appropriate to determine if changes are needed to the Architectural and Site Review process.
Item C Page 3
Town Council Meeting July 25, 2023
From: Jennifer Li
To: Council Members
Subject: FW: ASRB
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:39:08 PM
From: Sage Schaan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:38 PM
To: Melissa Cardinale <[email protected]>; Jennifer Li <[email protected]>; Kevin Bryant <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: ASRB
Please include the email below to the Town Council as a Desk Item for Agenda Item C (ASRB).
From: Johanna Street
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 8:22 AM
To: Sage Schaan <[email protected]>
Subject: ASRB
[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.
Sage,
I have been somewhat following the interest problem with the ASRB. I am a licensed architect (specializing in historic preservation) and live here in Woodside. Yesterday I finally had a chance to actually watch a meeting to get a sense of what is involved. I’m sure that I could be a helpful member of the Board with pertinent and specific comments. That said, however, I am also a mother of two school-age girls and would not be able to attend meetings after 3:00pm (and Monday is not a great day either). If the day and time of the ASRB meeting changes, then I would be happy to apply for the position. I can’t say that a change would increase interest from other members of the community but wanted to share my own constraints. Hope this is helpful information. I will try to log in to the Council meeting tonight to follow the conversation but, again, the time is inconvenient for my family.
Best regards from,
Johanna Street
Sent from Mail for Windows
TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
07/25/2023
DESK ITEM: ITEM C
From: Sage Schaan
To: Town Attorney; Kai Ruess; Kevin Bryant; Jennifer Li; Melissa Cardinale Subject: FW: Tuesday, July 25th Town Council Meeting
Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 3:31:17 PM
From: Kevin Greenwood <
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 3:03 PM
To: Sage Schaan <[email protected]>
Cc: Jennifer Wall <[email protected]>; Paul Goeld <[email protected]>; Chris Shaw <[email protected]>; Ned Fluet <[email protected]>; Brian Dombkowski <[email protected]>
Subject: Tuesday, July 25th Town Council Meeting
[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.
Sage,
I am writing because there will not be time to state all of this at our appeal tomorrow night.
First, it is our appeal, Debbie Mendelson and I. It is not the appeal of the general public or Menlo Country Club. If they have comments, they are entitled to their three minutes of general comments at the beginning of the town council meeting – they are not on the agenda. They are not paying $400 to sit at the table. They can file their own appeal.
Second, we made our appeal to the town council, not to the planning department. This was our private document directed to the town council members. We were neither soliciting town staff input prior to our appeal, nor authorizing anyone to forward our private documents to any third party. Absent our knowledge or consent, you forwarded our documents to MCC (not a party to our appeal). We were never informed you had done so.
Third, time frames: We, as appellants, were allowed only ten days to file an appeal. Yet, you allowed MCC and their attorney two months to craft a lengthy, often erroneous, response (which you chose to include in the packet). You/the planning department (also not a party to this appeal) apparently took three months to compile, refine, and craft justifications and arguments. Then, two business days prior to the town council meeting you forward a link to 169 pages of documents! If you are giving the town council an equal two business day lead time, we cannot reasonably expect them to read and reflect on the entire file and your actions are further subverting the appeal process.
Fourth, you create your own report (which is placed first in the file, ahead of the appeal) directing the town council to deny our appeal, going so far as to draft the resolution wording for denial. This is analogous to what you did with the planning commission. You took what you chose from the November meeting, created a document of questionable and limited scope that allowed you to achieve your desired results. The planning commission could discuss all the problems and improprieties, but could basically only vote on your resolution! Thus, this appeal.
So, here we are again with the planning department driving the bus, directing the town council what to vote on and how. The town council members live in Woodside and I expect them to listen to and protect the interests of town residents they represent. The town council should be considering our appeal and making decisions and recommendations based on the appeal, upon which planning might later have input, not the other way around!
From:
To: Council Members; Jennifer Li
Cc: Sage Schaan;
Subject: Desk Item for TC Meeting July 25, 203 Item A - MCC CUP Appeal Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:00:35 PM
Attachments: MCC Appeal July 2023.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.
Subject: Menlo Country Club CUP Review
To: Dear Honorable Council Members
From Dave Burow and Suzanne Sweeney Woodside
We live directly behind the pool and recently remodeled locker room, exercise facility and restaurant/bar on the Menlo Country Club (MCC). We were out of town for the Planning Commission meeƟng on this subject. We want to share our experience and have 3 requests of the Town Council:
1. Screening shrubs
MCC should be required to complete the planƟng of screening shrubs behind the pool building as specified in the iniƟal approved construcƟon plans. The screening shrubs were planted with irrigaƟon at the end of the original construcƟon but have mostly died in the intervening Ɵme. A term of the CUP should be the maintenance of the screening shrubs.
2. Noise
Unamplified
During the original CUP hearings, MCC took the posiƟon that the new building, being two stories, would act as an effecƟve sound barrier. The Town Council at the Ɵme agreed with this posiƟon and required that the social and dining area be restricted to the area directly in front of the new building. For example, the TC required the fire pit to be moved from the south side of the building, where noise would not be blocked by the building, to the other side of the pool where it would be blocked.
Our home at 135 Sheridan Way is situated such that the pool building sits directly between the pool, dining and social acƟviƟes and our house. As a result, we have not heard very much unamplified sound coming from acƟviƟes at the pool. Our neighbors at 145 Sheridan Way are not so fortunate as the pool building does NOT block the noise coming from acƟviƟes at the southeast end of the pool and adjacent lawn area where the sunshade structures have been installed.
The TC should not only require that the current electrificaƟon of the sunshade structures area be removed, but also that baƩery powered lighƟng and candle powered lighƟng should be prohibited in this area as well.
Amplified Sound
The only Ɵme we hear sound from MCC is when it is amplified. A recent water aerobics class where the instructor used amplified sound was parƟcularly loud and disrupƟve (and was not on the MCC calendar). We note that MCC has had very few (11) amplified sound events at the pool house over the past 2 ½ years. We travel out of town for several months of the year, so it is possible we missed all or some of them. Therefore, we are not sure to what extent we would be adversely affected by amplified sound. Given that the current CUP allows up to 25 amplified sound events at the pool per year (max 1/week), we encourage the TC to reduce that number.
Ideally the use of amplified sound would not be allowed at evening events at the pool. We have no problem with 5 swim meets per year. In any event, we suggest that the CUP be set for review and renewal aŌer 3 years since the pandemic has not created a realisƟc reference environment.
3. MCC has a large area of forest in the northwest corner of their property. It contains many standing dead trees, fallen limbs and dry brush. This area is reachable only via dirt road. The closest access is on the Cal Water property on Woodside Drive at Wildwood. Cal Water has been granted permits to enclose their equipment with a perimeter fence at that site which will block off that access. AŌer that access is blocked, in case of a fire, fire trucks would have to traverse the golf course from Woodside Road traveling a significant distance on either dirt roads or along cart paths.
I believe this represents a significant fire hazard to Woodside Hills and request that the TC either by way of a CUP provision or separately require MCC to clear out the dead wood to the saƟsfacƟon of the Fire Marshall and clear out dead wood annually.