Woodside planning commission continues variance hearing for 1385 Canada Road after neighbor noise concerns

The Woodside Town Planning Commission on July 16 voted to continue a public hearing on a variance application for 1385 Canada Road after neighbors raised concerns about noise from proposed relocated pool equipment.

The item asked the commission to allow pool mechanical equipment to be placed inside the required front setback and to approve exterior roof beams connecting an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to an outdoor kitchen structure. Planning staff presented the application and noted two desk items from an adjacent neighbor and a response from the applicant addressing noise mitigation.

The case matters because the applicant is asking to place mechanical equipment inside the setback area, which requires a variance and may affect the immediate neighbors' living areas. Planning staff said the property is about 4.18 acres and that the proposed new equipment location would sit roughly 57 feet from the nearest neighboring residence; the earlier, previously approved location was shown in materials as substantially farther from that neighbor. Planner Keigo Yamamoto told the commission, “this application is also categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA guidelines, section 150 three-zero-three, section E.”

During the presentation staff summarized the desk items: two letters from a neighbor at 115 Dean Road raising sleep and noise concerns and a response from the applicant that included updated drawings and a memorandum proposing an enclosed pool-equipment shed. The applicant’s architect, Peter Mason of Mason Architects, described construction details for a masonry enclosure with sound-attenuating doors and roof and said the enclosure plus the distance to the nearest house would reduce measured noise levels. “The walls around it are going to be CMU, that are filled with, mortars,” Mason said, adding that the enclosure and landscape screening would be finished to match the ADU.

Two neighbors spoke during public comment. Vera Goldsmith, who said she lives “right across from where the ADU is going to be,” told the commission the equipment would be “right on top of where my bedroom is” and said she worried about future resale and ongoing disturbance. Julie Holloway, who identified her address as 115 A Dean Road, raised privacy concerns from her property into the ADU and asked about additional landscaping and screening.

Commissioners questioned staff and the applicant about enforceability and evidence. One commissioner asked whether restricting pump operation at night would be feasible; staff responded that such a condition would be difficult to enforce. Staff noted that plan-check and inspection processes could incorporate specific construction materials and details if the commission required them in a condition of approval.

Commissioners described competing considerations: several said the revised location is visually more elegant and easier to conceal, but others emphasized that setbacks exist to protect neighbors' quiet and that the commission had not previously received objections to the earlier, more distant equipment location. One commissioner said the level of technical detail in the applicant’s email exchanges made them uncomfortable attempting to resolve the issue in real time at the hearing.

After discussion, the applicant asked the commission to allow additional time to meet with neighbors and produce further evidence of noise mitigation. Planning staff advised that the commission could continue the item with direction for the applicant to confer with neighbors and to provide additional materials such as noise studies or updated construction drawings; staff would then bring the item back to a future meeting.

The commission adopted a motion to continue the matter to a date uncertain and instructed the applicant to meet with neighbors and submit additional documentation demonstrating noise attenuation and the construction details to be used. The motion passed unanimously among commissioners present.

The commission’s action leaves the previous setback exception (approved January 22, 2025) in effect for the originally approved locations; the new proposed equipment location will return for review once the applicant provides the requested materials and neighbors are given an opportunity to respond.