Woodside planning commission denies setback exception for 10 Still Creek Road after hours of public comment

WOODSIDE, Calif. — The Woodside Planning Commission voted 3-2 on Nov. 19 to deny a requested setback exception for a proposed multigenerational project at 10 Still Creek Road, concluding commissioners could not make several of the findings required under the town code.

Planning staff recommended approval of the formal design review and a single setback exception, saying the applicant had reduced height and bulk and complied with ADU code changes. "Staff does recommend approval of the project," the planner said during the presentation.

The project would place a main residence with three accessory dwelling units (one attached ADU, one detached ADU across the private road, and a JADU) on an approximately eight‑acre lot bisected by a private roadway and subject to steep slopes and a conservation easement. The applicant removed proposed carports and lowered some heights; staff said the main house could be conditioned to meet the 30‑foot height limit.

Neighbors and experts raised multiple objections. Local resident Joan Maine, speaking for neighbors who oppose the plan, told commissioners: "Planning should not grant the requested exceptions." She argued the project fails the five findings the commission must make for a setback exception, including that conforming alternatives exist and that the project is inconsistent with the prevailing setback pattern on Still Creek Road.

Stanford geophysics professor and neighbor Simon Klemperer warned of geologic risk: "The proposed 4 unit compound exceeds the carrying capacity of this land," he said, citing mapped landslide deposits and a nearby fault trace. Other residents cited the road’s past collapse, the shared private‑road maintenance responsibilities and potential septic and fire risks from clustering multiple units in a high‑severity fire zone.

The applicant and the project’s design team emphasized tradeoffs. Architect Jim Baranski described the site’s constraints — roughly 400 feet of elevation change across the parcel and a narrow buildable bench — and said shifting buildings farther from the road would require greater grading and the removal of mature redwoods. The applicant’s husband, David Middleman, told the commission that the cited 24 parking spaces were the driveway capacity and that only six spaces were required: "We are only required 6. Our driveway can fit 24." The applicant also said the design incorporated arborist and fire‑district recommendations and a staged vegetation management plan.

Commissioners debated the five findings required for a setback exception — whether conforming alternatives exist; whether alternatives would cause greater adverse impacts; whether the exception conforms to surrounding setback patterns; whether the exception would cause no significant negative environmental impacts; and whether the proposal is consistent with the town’s general plan. Several commissioners said they were concerned the applicants had not demonstrated that no reasonable conforming alternative exists and that the project’s scale and visibility do not fit the immediate neighborhood pattern. Others cited recent code amendments that expanded ADU allowances and said practical tradeoffs (additional grading or tree removal) might not be preferable.

Vice Chair Gar moved to deny the setback exception, citing inability to make findings 1(a)/(b)/(c) and 5; the motion was seconded and passed 3-2. Chair Weaver and Commissioner Appfel voted no; Vice Chair Gar, Commissioner Gunerco and Commissioner Taubber voted yes. The commission’s denial applies to the requested exception; staff and the applicant noted that the project could be revised and resubmitted or appealed to the Town Council within 10 calendar days.

What’s next: The decision can be appealed to the Town Council. If the applicant revises the design they could return with changes addressing massing, siting or other issues the commission identified, or resubmit with grading changes that would alter the entitlement path. The town’s staff report and submissions, including ASRB comments and the project packet, remain part of the public record.