The Open Space Committee’s Subcommittee for Fencing – represented by Committee member and ASRB member Nancy Reyering - brought a presentation to the Town COWncil earlier this year discussing their belief that the Municipal Code was out of sync with the 2012 General Plan and recently revamped Residential Design Guidelines. The presentation claimed that the code doesn’t conform to the General Plan – nor, for some reason, with the neighboring Town of Portola Valley’s fencing regulations. We should point out that our Code also doesn’t conform with that of Atherton, another neighboring Town that is a frequent bugaboo in Town COWncil discussions but how can it possibly matter what a neighboring Town’s rules are?

The Open Space Committee suggested the following fencing principles in their presentation:

• FENCING SHOULD BE USED SPARINGLY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE A SENSE OF THE SHARED
SCENIC RESOURCES OF THE COMMUNITY.
• ROADSIDE FENCING SHOULD BE WILDLIFE-FRIENDLY TO KEEP VISTAS OPEN AND THE ROADS
SAFE FOR MOTORISTS AND WILDLIFE.
• FENCING SHOULD BE KEPT OUT OF STREAM CORRIDORS.
• FENCING SHOULD BE SUBORDINATE TO THE LANDSCAPE.
• WILDLIFE-FRIENDLY SIDE AND BACK PERIMETER FENCING CAN BE ACHIEVED BY:
a. USING TALLER FENCES TO PROTECT SMALLER AREAS WITHIN A PROPERTY (FOR
CHILDREN,ANIMALS AND GARDENS).
b. CREATING BREAKS IN FENCES FOR ANIMALS TO TRAVERSE.

Horse fencing, which is primarily in the interior of properties will not be affected.

Now, some of this sounds reasonable, and seems like something we could chew our cud over as a Town. But, as always, the devil’s in the details. The Open Space Committee pointed to the regulations in Portola Valley, which are very restrictive (and which they misrepresented to COWncil in a way to paint them as even more restrictive then they actually are!). Front fences in Portola Valley are only allowed to be four feet high, and 4 feet high on side yards along streets, and 6 feet in rear and side yards (with wildlife breaks) that don’t border streets. In their packet to COWncil, the OSC misrepresented the following: they said that that repairs or replacement of more than 20% of any fence in Portola Valley must conform to the current regulations – it’s actually 25%, and it applies only to the portion being repaired and replaced. Currently in Woodside the figure is 50%. They also stated that “domestic fences” need to be set back at least 25 feet from the front property line, which isn’t true for properties less than one acre in size. Finally, they said that domestic fences are allowed on all property lines – when in fact parcels over two acres are only allowed to have “horse fences” – defined as a certain type of low and open fence – anywhere on the property.

This would be quite a change in Woodside, and something we should discuss openly instead of trying to sneak in some vague principles and then claiming it means four foot fences throughout the Town! The ASRB, and now apparently their cohorts on the OSC – have been claiming for some time now that the Municipal Code are in conflict with the General Plan and the Residential Design Guidelines, and that’s why these changes are needed. In fact, in response to this proposal, the Planning Director studied the issue and noted with the concurrence of the Town Manager that the Municipal Code and General Plan are “not in direct conflict.” Staff went on to say that modifications to the Municipal Code to “more closely align” with the General Plan is appropriate – but certainly didn’t say it was required, or urgent, or necessary, or even important at this time given all the other proposed projects in Town.

When the COWncil discussed this matter with the OSC earlier in the year and, to their credit, there was a lot of skepticism from the COWncil. They cited security (including recent car break-ins), blocking light on parcels where the home is near the street, and keeping deer out of yards. COWncil member Tom Shanahan noted that open fences (aka “wildlife friendly”) won’t keep dogs in a yard. Fentress Hall, who sits on the Trails Committee and frequently expresses opinions to the COWncil, suggested that Woodsiders can put up electronic fences with shock collars on their dogs to keep them inside the perimeter!.. When COWncil member Dave Tanner noted that “dumb dogs” ignore electronic fences, Fentress callously suggested it would “improve the gene pool.”

It was also suggested that we need more Mountain Lions in Town. While we’re a big fan of wildlife and learning to live in harmony with it, is this the Woodside we really want? More Mountain Lions, fewer dogs (or maybe only fewer “dumb dogs”), and an inability for COWs to keep out intruders and enjoy their privacy?

Fentress also suggested that current, existing fences should be “sunsetted” – i.e. TORN DOWN – basically because she doesn’t like the look of them. She said, “we don’t get anywhere if we don’t deal with what’s here,” saying it was “painful” and that we’ve “already lost what’s nice about Woodside.” She suggested that when a property changes hands, or when a homeowner comes in for a permit, they be forced to change existing fences to whatever the current fence flavor of the moment is. How big an issue would that be? During the meeting, the Planning Director noted that the majority of fencing in town is 6’ wood-and-wire fencing. It doesn’t sound very green to us to tear out hundreds of miles of fencing in good shape for the heck of it!

You can see these outrageous statements for yourself by checking out the MooTube video and agenda of this meeting here.

In regards to the imagined disconnect between the General Plan and the Municipal Code, it should be noted what the GP has to say about promoting conservation actions in Woodside, including use of wildlife friendly fencing: “Policy CV1.9-d. Individual Initiative - Promote and encourage individual initiative by local residents and property owners to carry out specific efforts for the protection of the environment.” INDIVIDUAL INITIATIVE, not the Town forcing you to rip out your fences – and yet here we are two years later with some zealots claiming a non-existent mandate from the General Plan to do just that.

One thing we did hear during the COWncil meeting on this issue that we liked was the idea of allowing 8’ fences closer to homes and around vegetable gardens, to truly secure against wily deer. It might be the sugar that lets some of the medicine go down if some of these changes are really coming down the pike.

After the pushback and discussion from the COWncil, the OSC met and prepared another report to the COWncil stating that they were going to focus on:

• Roadside fencing should be set back and wildlife friendly to keep the roads safe for wildlife and motorists, and preserve a sense of the shared resources of the community.
• Fences around non-roadside perimeters of properties should be designed with respect for the movement of wildlife.
• Fences should be kept out of stream corridors.”

They also wanted to look at changing the 50% fence repair figure we noted above, and said, “At this time, the Committee does not wish to address other issues raised at the Council meeting, such as a sunset provision for existing fences.” Given how these projects in the Town Government go, and the Town COWncil’s apparent willingness to let the OSC write the rules for Woodside, who knows how long “at this time” is? Will it be snuck into a Code change in a year’s time, when the pushback against these new rules has subsided?

Woodside’s government seems to love to go through these phases of restriction every so often – old hands will remember that they pushed through restrictions on paved area in Town, and then interpreted it to cover gravel which it had never restricted before just a few years later. Now they’re planning on restricting fences and the ASRB wants to reduce basement size and the maximum buildable area on “sensitive” sites. It sounds like the Town government is getting out of hand again.

What’s the best evidence for this? At a recent (5/19/2014) ASRB meeting, a homeowner was trying to modify the design of a couple of gates and fencing that had been previously approved by the ASRB. Nancy Reyering (who remember sits on both the OSC and the ASRB) didn’t like the design, considering it “too industrial.” While her colleagues disagreed, she said that the applicant should lower the (previously approved!) fence and the gate as well. Ms. Reyering claimed to be ‘befuddled’ by the ‘new members’ on the ASRB only referencing the Municipal Code – i.e. the LAW – and not the Residential Design Guidelines. She then offered a so-called ‘friendly amendment’ to REQUIRE a 5’ maximum height limit on the fence and 8” at the bottom for smaller animals to crawl under. While that died, another amendment to ‘consider’ such a fence passed, and then a further amendment that REQUIRED the 8” gap at the bottom passed, over the loud objections of the homeowner, who said it would require changing the whole design of the fence. Nancy didn’t deign to vote for this as it didn’t also limit the height to 5’.

The applicant asked, quite rightly, “Is this a new requirement in Town? That every fence has an 8” opening at the bottom?” Well, is it? When an ASRB member can’t get a massive change in Town regulations created overnight at the Town COWncil, does the ASRB take the matter into its own hands and start creating de facto new regulations that suit their own tastes? Will 5’ and then 4’ fences be “suggested” over and over and over again with homeowners appearing at three and four meetings before the ASRB until it becomes a requirement?

Unfortunately, we can’t be at every ASRB meeting, so who knows what new rules and laws they are creating at their whim! The ASRB, and the regulatory process in this Town, is totally broken.

Despite this training effort, the rumblings have only gotten louder, with the ASRB taking more and more time to review projects, for example – seeing the same project up to FOUR times BEFORE it sending it on to the Planning Commission. With building activity exploding, the ASRB is holding up to three meetings a month and is still falling behind. The ASRB is tasked with a big workload that they’re seemingly making bigger, getting into the weeds with little details and often failing to see the big picture, at a real cost in dollars and time to COWs. The Board clearly is struggling with what they see as conflicts between the the General Plan, the Woodside Municipal Code and the Design Guidelines.

It was with this background that the Town COWncil recently held a special meeting with the ASRB. At the meeting, one ASRB member expressed his frustration with how overbroad he feels the ASRB’s attention has gotten, telling people that their house is too big or that it is too intensive a use even if the Code makes it is permissible on what he characterized as relatively unconstrained lots. He said he has heard from architects that they, “don’t know what’s okay to build in Woodside anymore.” He later said that some on the ASRB say that maximum house sizes “shouldn’t” be allowed – but as he pointed out, that’s what the Code allows. He said that the ASRB gets lengthy discussions about “too big,” “too massive,” “too intense,” – saying “that all we say.”

Other ASRB members strongly disagreed, saying that there should be MORE restrictions, and clearer language, to reduce building size from what’s allowed in the Code on “sensitive” or “constrained” lots. They said that people (shockingly!) look at the Code and believe that defines what they can build in Woodside – and these ASRB members were of the opinion that that’s not correct.

Another ASRB member noted that several times lately at formal reviews - done after perhaps several conceptual reviews and which should really be a rubber stamp at that point – new substantial issues are brought up by other ASRB members to the surprise of homeowners.

The COWncil members in turn expressed their frustration with the process as it is functioning, or dys-functioning, right now. Peter Mason noted that the idea behind the conceptual reviews was to get initial ideas and get a project going in the right direction with what he called “Woodside design.” He said it was meant to be a quick review upfront for direction, and that the ASRB needs to make sure it’s not asking too much of applicants. Interestingly, Peter also claimed that if a project doesn’t get a 7-0 vote at the ASRB then “something’s wrong” (a startling statement at a time of noted divisiveness on the ASRB.) As Dave Tanner noted, people consider being approved as being approved. Mayor Dave Burow stated he’s “very troubled” that the ASRB spends it’s time making such judgments about house size, saying it’s a tortuous process and that he didn’t want the ASRB to decide that houses should be smaller than what is in the code.

As a result of the meeting, COWncil and Staff agreed to move forwards on possible Code changes related to basement size and reducing grading allowances – with COWncil member Tanner asserting that there should be a rule that says that homeowners can’t build tunnels or go beyond the edges of their buildings with basements. The work plan also included the idea of limiting house size (maximum floor area) on those so-called sensitive or constrained lots although, as is often pointed out at the ASRB itself, “every site is unique.” Is this a stealth way of reducing house sizes throughout Woodside, without labeling it as such in order to avoid the outcry that would result?

So, scary stuff. You can check it all out on MooTube. It’s definitely worth watching for a grim picture for Woodside.

The COWncil approved the consent calendar, including $150,000 to pay for an outside company to do engineering consulting work in Town, to examine all of the over 200 culverts and inlet structures of the Town storm drainage system. In past rainy seasons Town-maintained storm drains have failed and flooded, requiring costly repairs. As the majority of these drains are over 60 years old, the Town is concerned that more will start to fail, and it could cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars if they fail in the more catastrophic ways. It is better to fixed them before they fail. The report is due back in October. We will see what sort of bill we will be on the hook for in order to make the repairs.

Then it was time for another exciting episode of Tree Court! The Town COWncil, for the fifth time in three years, heard from a resident who cut down significant trees without a permit, and appealed to the COWncil to reduce the hefty fine. As always, the resident plead ignorance of the law, stating that he had been told that the Bay Laurel trees he had cut down were bad for oak trees since they carry and spread Sudden Oak Death and did not realize he needed a permit. The mitigating circumstances this time were the obviously well-maintained state of the resident’s forest, the fact that he had sprayed his oaks for SOD, and that the area was still well-forested and that the tree removal had not opened up any views or building sites for the homeowner. What would YOU have decided?

The COWncil reduced the fine by 50%, as it has in the past, but not until after a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. The COWncil was vocally upset that they keep seeing these cases, although Town Manager Kevin Bryant provided some context, reporting that more than 100 tree-removal permits were granted in the first six months of this year, suggesting only a 1% scofflaw rate. Several of the COWncil members – notably Ron Romines - were in favor of charging the full fine to the resident, seemingly out of frustration for the fact that they keep seeing these cases. COWncil members Shanahan and Gordon noted how the COWncil had acted in previous cases. They have reduced the fine by taking circumstances into account, so it would be improper to act differently in this case. He eventually convinced the majority of their colleagues.

As a member of the public pointed out, however, the impression the COWncil leaves is of deciding these cases on a whim. Mayor Burow pushed back on this, saying it wasn’t, but in a hearing when COWncil member Kasten stated that there “were days when you feel kinda cranky” (about seeing these cases) and other COWncil members, upset by previous go-rounds, pondered throwing the book at this resident, it’s hard to seriously argue with the whim label. But one wonders why so many COWS don’t seem to know the tree removal rules which are certainly not intuitive. Staff should do period out reachto make sure the all COWs were aware of the rules.

One good thing did come out of this case, with the COWncil having a discussion on the purpose of the tree ordinance – what is it for? Is it to save every significant tree (as is indeed written into the law, as Ron pointed out), or is to stop wholesale clear cutting, or to create a healthy forest and canopy? As several COWncil members pointed out, the ordinance has been very successful in stopping the clear cutting rampages of a decade ago. The COWncil then decided to have a joint meeting with the Sustainability and Conservation Committee (who originally created the language for the tree ordinance 8 years ago), to learn more about the origins of the law and to discuss possible changes to it.

The COWncil then moved to approve the 2014-2015 Town budget, after a short discussion.

After that came the fun part of the meeting, with PG&E requesting a permanent easement under part of Barkley Fields for the movement of a big gas transmission pipe that runs all the way up the Peninsula. The pipe was laid in 1935 (!) and isn’t wide enough for modern in-line inspection equipment, and runs under neighborhoods in Woodside and Redwood City. While the COWncil was generally in agreement that the easement had to be granted, they were apparently shocked to discover at the meeting that a second big gas transmission line ALSO runs under these neighborhoods, with no plans to move it. The COWncilmembers claimed no knowledge of this prior to the meeting, while Staff has been negotiating with PG&E for weeks or months on the issue so who knew about the second line, and when?

The discussion turned into a bit of interrogation, with COWncil members and residents bringing up the San Bruno disaster and other recent woes like the hydro-testing leak in Woodside a few years ago, and the panic in San Carlos recently. There was stark disbelief over a claim that PG&E had recently been recognized as an industry leader in safety from Lloyds of London, though apparently it is true. As Council member Barbara Gordon pointed out, however, it’s going to take a long time to rebuild trust in PG&E, and all the critical infrastructure replacements identified after the San Bruno explosion have yet to be finished.

With corporate representatives from PG&E present trying to gracefully defend themselves. It is definitely worth watching on MooTube. Two residents (one who’s bedroom window is four feet from a 24” gas line) implored PG&E to move both lines at the same time, but PG&E made it clear they had absolutely no plans to do that, stating that the second line is safe and had been inspected. Since the COWncil did not really have any leverage to demand both lines be moved, they granted the easement.

The COWncil did ask for the following, and hopefully PG&E will follow through:

• Safety data on all pipes in Woodside, that can be put on the Town website
• An open house with PG&E reps, where the citizenry can ask question
• An informational display at Barkley Fields about the project

The work at Barkley Fields will be done in July, in the part of the baseball field farthest away from the parking lot. We’re certainly glad that this aging gas transmission line is being moved, but we sure hope that PG&E’s records and testing are accurate with regards to this second line running so very close to Woodside homes.

The COWncil meeting wrapped up shortly after.

During COW-munications at the beginning of the meeting, a woman asked the COWncil to re-extend a permit to her – apparently it had lapsed four months ago due to life circumstances. Town Manager Kevin Bryant of course said staff wasn’t in favor of doing that, and that the COWncil couldn’t vote on it that night anyway. Rather than just dying there, however, Shanahan asked if there were any objections to looking at the issue, leaving the other COWncil members on the hook. With COWncil members Tanner and Mason noting that there wasn’t any information presented on the circumstances, the Town Manager actually agreed to talk with the applicant and get a letter from her to the Town COWncil! Interesting times lately in the convoluted development process of Woodside.

The COWncil then took up the matter of Greenwaste Recovery, Inc. – the Town’s garbage, recycling, and compost collector – and it’s request to increase its fees to Town residents. Kevin urged the COWncil to pass a fairly standard 2.58% increase request based on the Consumer Price Index that is provided for in the contract. Greenwaste was also asking for another 6.42% increase on top of that, for a whopping 9% increase this year – and this increase would be the floor from which future CPI increases would be based.

Kevin (and later a representative for Greenwaste as well) explained that there is a clause in the contract that allows Greenwaste to ask the Town COWncil for a special increase if “regulatory changes, or other changes which cannot be foreseen” occur. He noted that it would be up to COWncil to determine if such a rate was warranted. The representative from Greenwaste made a presentation, stating that Greenwaste had lost money in Woodside for the past three years (!). While she said that they chose not to reduce labor costs during that time, but did put in place other efficiencies and tried to fix it internally. However, she said, it was only after they didn’t succeed in closing the gap that they were approaching the COWncil. She noted that the successful increase in composting in Town had led to people using smaller cans – which decreased fees to Greenwaste. She stated that the company did not foresee that, leading COWncilmember Mason to suggest that she was saying that “whoops we miscalculated, pay us more.”

To our COWncil’s credit, they pushed back fairly hard, demanding to know more information – about rate structures in neighboring Towns, how much off-curb service costs the company, the profit margin the company expects, and other facts. They got some response, but the company itself claimed not to know how much it costs them to fully provide the off curb – sometimes by hundreds of feet – service that they provide. The representative did state that they thought it was probably true that curbside service breaks even at this point.

After a fairly intense grilling by Woodside standards and a suggestion by the Mayor Pro-Tem that the Town consider ending the contract early, the COWncil moved to approve an additional 3% increase for a total 5.58% increase to everyone’s bill come July.

The COWncil noted that Greenwaste’s service was considered exemplary by Town residents, several of who spoke at the meeting, and the COWncil wanted to provide some relief to allow them to not lose money in the Town. However, they left the door open for Greenwaste to come back and ask for more money, if they did more research and figured out how much off-curb garbage service really costs. They hinted they would look favorably at an increase that would allow Greenwaste to charge the full cost of that service rather than a general increase on everyone.

So, off-curb garbage customers, prepare to see your rates skyrocket soon. Additionally, the COWncil talked about opening up the contract in terms of increasing its duration and getting Greenwaste to offer a manure pickup service, as they do in Portola Valley. The representative from Greenwaste said they were definitely interested, and interested in moving away from the “archaic” current model, and to a model that charges for everything they pick up, including garbage, recycling, and compost. The good news in all of this is that after for years trying, COWs seem to have to changed behavior and are composting more!

The COWncil then moved to discussing the next year’s budget, and it looks like the renovation of the library might finally be happening – though probably not until December at the earliest. Kevin also shared the bad news that a fourth bridge in Town may need to be fixed, with an unknown though likely large cost. The COWncil discussed the need to start budgeting for these large capital improvement projects that will be required in the Town over the next years and decades, with the possibility of a bond not ruled out if required.

The meeting adjourned at 10:35 pm.

HAVE A HAPPY AND SAFE 4TH!

Traditionalists (as well as folks who just plain love a good time) will go and see the 76th Annual Redwood City 4th of July Parade! This year’s theme is “Through the Eyes of a Child.” The parade is totally volunteer-run, and draws thousands of spectators and dozens of floats and hundreds of marchers from throughout the State. It’s truly a sight to see and is the largest 4th of July Parade in Northern California! The Parade starts at 10 am, but be sure to get there early for a good spot. If that seems early for a holiday morning, you can make it a little sweeter by starting the morning at a pancake breakfast at the Redwood City Fire Department – proceeds benefiting the Redwood City Firefighter’s Association. Afterwards, stick around for the great festival featuring delicious food, live music, vendors, and fun activities for the kids. For the Parade route, check out their website here.

Other nearby Towns and cities have their celebrations as well, and you won’t be disappointed if you decide to check them out!

Menlo Park hosts a small cow-munity parade starting at 11:45, with a festival running from 12-2:30 pm at Burgess Park. The festival includes climbing walls, jumphouses, carnival games, laser tag, face painting and yummy food! Just the thing for a calmer 4th.

PaloAlto has its 33rd Annual Summer Festival and Chili Cook-Off at Mitchell Park from 12-5 pm. Enjoy the fierce competition of the Chili Cook-off starting at 1:30 – decide for yourself who makes the best chili on the Peninsula!

If you want to find just one spot to spend the day, Foster City’s tough to beat, with a city-sponsored party running all day from 8 am to 9:45 pm! Games, food, and entertainment, and a fun family and dog parade fill the day, and end with a thrilling fireworks display over beautiful San Francisco Bay.

Or, enjoy what’s sure to be a beautiful day on the coast with Half Moon Bay’s Independence Day festivities. Their parade runs from 12-1 pm.

For those in a musical moo-d, be sure to join the world-class San Francisco Symphony’s concert at Shoreline Amphitheatre, complete with a rousing fireworks display accompanied by the orchestra!

And finally, the big bossy bull of Bay Area 4th Festivities has got to be in San Francisco, with live music and family entertainment from noon to night at Pier 39, ending with a spectacular fireworks display sure to delight kids young and old!

We wish you and your family a safeand happy 4th, and remind you in this year of high fire danger – please please leave the fireworks to the professionals!

At that meeting, Town Manager Kevin Bryant characterized it as a “simple change” in the code, and asked the Town COWncil whether the COWncil wished to allow it and whether the Town should pick up the cost of the rule change or if the neighborhood should. He noted that the Town hadn’t polled other areas that might be similarly interested in such a change, like Emerald Hills. Greg Smith, speaking for the Woodside Heights Homeowners Association pointed out later that those neighborhoods hadn’t initiated the process and that that wasn’t a reason to slow down any change in the rules. He stated that the Heights was different than some other neighborhoods, being geographically isolated from the rest of Woodside, and that literally on the other side of the street were homes that were twice as big as the allowed homes in Woodside Heights.

Chair of the Woodside Planning Commission Marilyn Voelke spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating she was “alarmed” at zoning one zone at the request of some percentage of the zone residents, and that if zoning was to be adjusted at all, the whole Town should be looked at the same time – which almost certainly would kill this plan for the foreseeable future. She also stated she was “alarmed” at the argument about being concerned about what was across the street in another town, and raised the specter of our whole Town becoming like Atherton, stating there could be a “domino effect.” A man from Woodside Hills also spoke against the idea, saying that people move to Woodside “knowing it can be hard to get projects done” and you can look at a house two ways, as a home or an investment, and that this was investment thinking.

However, most of the people who spoke at the meeting were residents of the Heights in favor of the proposal. They rebutted the charges of “investment” thinking, saying that the neighborhood is very stable and has low turnover, that allowing this change would decrease the need for “compounds” of multiple outbuildings that cover the land much more than a single larger house would, and that this would allow people with children to move into the neighborhood over time.

The COWncil, as usual, hemmed and hawed. COWncil member Peter Mason stated that “as an architect, the house size in the Heights is small” and it can be hard to build projects there because of it. He went on to say however that he thought that a 33% size increase is “a lot,” and that the Town should study it, noting that the COWncil just recently had a discussion with the ASRB, which is of the opinion that some residences in Town are “too large.” COWncil member Dave Tanner agreed that increasing maximum house size by 1500 s.f. is too much, but some increase is good and that the Town should study it.

COWncil member Barbara Gordon said she was sympathetic to the request, though wary of unintended consequences - and noted the reality that when the Town chooses to “study” something, it can literally take years. COWncil member Ron Romines was notably unsympathetic, saying he considered this “spot zoning” and that the Town has a “well-thought-out” zoning scheme.

COWncil member Anne Kasten noted that people are spending much more time at home these days, working and exercising and doing lots of things at home that in the past were done outside the home. She stated plainly that this would allow for the creation of better homes in the neighborhood and that she didn’t want to see “analysis paralysis” stop the increase.

COWncil member Tom Shanahan was probably the loudest voice against the increased house size, saying it would lead to larger families and more impact on Town services and that the Town could study it as long as they wanted but he didn’t think it was “going to fly”, stating that many people in Town agreed with him.

Inevitably, the COWncil agreed to study the issue and wrap it into the monolithic – and potentially development-killing – discussions they’re having with the ASRB, which include shrinking basement size and decreasing house sizes even further on sensitive lots.

This led to visible anger amongst the residents of the Heights in attendance at the meeting, with Greg Smith accusing the COWncil of “deep-sixing” the proposal. COWncil member Tanner responded that the project wasn’t “deep-sixed” but that the Town is following its work plan. Smith replied that the COWncil had managed to “translate what was a relatively simple request” into a really long process. He and the residents of the neighborhood then walked out of the meeting.

It was definitely an energetic meeting! And while we don’t know whether the Heights proposal as requested is a good idea or not, the fact that the COWncil can’t address it in a reasonable time frame is deeply worrisome. We are also concerned greatly by the demonization of homeowners committing the great crime of wanting to increase the value of their home! This kind of thinking is dangerous and pernicious. It makes us worry just what is going to come of the Town’s “study process” with the ASRB regarding basement and main residence size.

The COWncil approved a contract with O’Grady Paving (the only bidder!) for $281,777 (and a $50,000 contingency) to fund the construction of crosswalk and other improvements as part of the Woodside School Safety Project, which will be built during this summer while school is out of session. O’Grady has worked in Woodside before.

In the Town Manager’s Report, Kevin Bryant noted that interest in the Defensible Space Matching Fund Program has jumped since the COWncil increased the amount. The Town will match from $1,000 to $2,000. Nineteen new properties have been approved since the increase. The Matching Fund encourages homeowners to keep their properties free of brush and debris, and in this new era of a year-round fire season, that’s a goal we can all support! Applications for the Program are available on the Town’s website.

Kevin also proposed changes to how the Town is handling older building approvals. Woodside does not currently have rules to make approvals expire after a certain amount of time without activity, which is apparently unusual among our neighboring towns. Recently applicants have been picking up and moving on approvals that are older than five years. This certainly makes sense given the recession we all lived through. Kevin claims that this makes processing applications difficult as “rules do change over time, and old approvals may not meet current standards.” According to the Report, “Staff and the Town Attorney will be recommending expiration dates for entitlements,” and will recommend that the Code be amended to “clarify” when incomplete applications are deemed to be withdrawn. So if you’ve been thinking about whether or not to move on a project you’ve had approved for your property, the time to move on it is now or enjoy another boxing match with Town development officials!

Finally in the Report, Kevin stated that Cal Water has communicated with the Town about the restrictions which will go into effect if mandatory rationing due to the ongoing drought is put into place. Currently, voluntary restrictions are in place, but the following would be prohibited if mandatory rationing is put in force:

• Use of water that results in runoff to gutters and streets
• Washing of vehicles without use of a shut-off nozzle
• Use of water for washing hard-surfaced areas such as driveways and sidewalks
• Use of water for filling decorative lakes or ponds
• Use of water for decorative fountains unless it utilizes a recirculation system
• Use of water for the filling of swimming pools

It’s interesting to note that some on the COWncil consider enforcing these types of restrictions as basically impossible to enforce, and that if water rationing comes into effect, actual hard water use limits will be enforced by the water authorities.

The main business of the meeting was the approval of a lot line adjustment by the Town COWncil, dividing a lot on Moore Road into three buildable lots. The adjustment had been denied by the Planning Commission because the PC stated that the proposed map didn’t comply with certain General Plan goals and policies. When it was first brought before the Town COWncil at the end of March, the COWncil also denied the proposed map, but sounded more positive overall. COWncilmembers literally broke out their pencils to redraw lines that on the applicants’ map to show what they considered a more appropriate map.

After discussions between Town Staff and the applicant, an adjusted map that took the Town’s concerns in mind, mostly with reduced paving on the site and not allowing development near an environmentally sensitive and scenic area was brought back to Council at this meeting. While it’s odd that a project has to get all the way to the Town COWncil twice to get approved in this Town, we are glad to see the COWncil worked with the applicant in order to get the lot line adjusted – a rare customer-focused result in this Town!

Finally, the COWncil approved the appointment of the seven members of the newly-created Emergency Preparedness Committee, and then heard COWncil Communications. The meeting adjourned thereafter.

Amazingly, as COWnty Controller Bob Adler reported in his annual financial report, property valuations are up six percent in the County as a whole which makes last year the largest one-year hike in valuations in County history. This is a welcome change from recent years, when as we reported Woodside property values dropped like a rock. Bloomberg News reported back then that Woodside’s property values had dropped 15.7%, or more than three times the County and national average.

Home prices bear out the rise in County valuations. As an article on the San Jose Mercury’s News website points out. From December 2012 to December 2013, the median home price in San Mateo County jumped an enormous 31%.

With the Planning Commission and ASRB humming (adding extra meetings just to cover the workload) and with Town staff needing to retain outside contractors to handle anything that’s not building and planning work, it is clear that our Town is coming back in a big way.

The article sounds a cautionary note, however, contrasting the spike in home prices with a recent slowing in sales in the County. With that in mind, it’s important to remind our Town staff and elected politicians to be careful to make smart decisions to enhance, instead of crush, smart development in Woodside. We all know how hard it is to get a permit in Woodside. A couple of recent moves to make things a little easier in Town are to be commended but with what we are hearing about the development process, much more needs to be done. It is more important than ever for our Town to keep the goal of maintaining our unique environment without unnecessary regulation and overly burdensome processes.

On Saturday, May 17th, the Open Space Committee presented the Backyard Habitat Awards to 50 Woodside residences. The Backyard Habitat Program is designed to encourage and honor Woodside residents who “embrace and utilize the natural beauty of our region” by leaving land in its natural state and creating corridors for wildlife to move about the Town and its surrounding woodlands, fields, and streams.
According to Nancy Reyering of the Committee, there were 49 attendees including two Town COWncil members. Awardees receive a plaque and are thanked for their participation.

Two speakers discussed the importance of the Program to the region’s biodiversity – Nicky Hughes of the Gold Rush Nursery, and Phillipe Cohen, the executive director of neighboring Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve. Mr. Cohen noted the importance of citizens of Woodside and Portola Valley in choosing to protect riparian corridors that run through the Preserve.

The following day, the Town Hall played host to the now-annual SOD Blitz, the regional program lead by Matteo Garbelotto, an adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management at UC Berkeley. SOD, or Sudden Oak Death, is the by now familiar pathogen that attacks and kills oak trees, and is often spread by proximity to bay laurel trees. The spring meetings train citizen scientists to take samples from suspected ill trees and then the results are tested and tabulated by Professor Garbelotto’s lab.

In fall, a second round of meetings displays the ever-increasing spread of SOD and discusses mitigation methods before the winter rains. It is possible, if expensive, to inoculate individual trees against the disease.
We at COW are grateful for the good work of Professor Garbelloto and his colleagues, and everyone in the Woodside-Portola Valley area who participates in the SOD Blitz every year. It is especially important that everyone with oak trees on their property to learn about how this horrible disease is spread and what can be done to try to contain the spread. You can learn more about SOD here.

This was a sobering reminder of just how wonderful – and yet how fragile – our beautiful surroundings are.