Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woodside Council Hears Heated Appeal Over 10 Still Creek; Hearing Continued to May 26
Summary
At a de novo appeal hearing, applicants and opponents traded technical and legal arguments over a proposed four-unit residence with multiple ADUs at 10 Still Creek Road. Neighbors and experts raised fire, geologic and road-access concerns; the council continued the matter to May 26 to review same-day submissions.
The Woodside Town Council on May 12 held a de novo public hearing on an appeal of planning commission denials for entitlements tied to a proposed multi-structure residence at 10 Still Creek Road, then continued the matter to May 26 to allow council and the public time to review voluminous materials filed the day of the hearing.
The applicants — Kristen and David (last names on file with the town) — and their design and legal team argued the project responds to site constraints, preserves steep slopes and trees to the extent feasible, and meets state housing and ADU rules. Architect James Bransky told the council the site offers “three very limited buildable areas” and that moving structures back to meet a 50-foot setback would require “about 1,645 cubic yards” of additional excavation, tall retaining walls and removal of mature redwoods, increasing environmental harm.
Attorney Ryan Patterson argued the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code §65589.5) and recent ADU law favor approval where an application meets applicable objective standards, saying in part that “when a project meets the objective applicable standards it must be approved at the density proposed.” Patterson also said the project includes an ADA-related justification for a junior ADU (JADU) sited to allow accessible garage-level entry for family members with mobility impairments.
Opponents presented technical witnesses and dozens of resident speakers. Architect Adam French prepared a report asserting feasible conforming alternatives exist that would avoid the setback exception. Forensic fire consultant Keith Parker, retained by neighbors, said the project would add complexity to fire response and evacuation because of limited off-street parking, proximity of occupied structures to the road and constrained space for defensible clearance. A Stanford geophysicist’s submitted analysis (presented by a proxy) raised concerns about dormant landslide deposits and a local fault trace near the site.
Neighbors also protested process issues: several speakers and letters noted the applicants and opponents each filed hundreds of pages of materials on the day of the hearing (the applicants’ late submission was described as 342 pages), and requested more time to review. At least two residents asked the council to either ignore same-day materials or continue the hearing so the community and council could digest the new records.
After extended public comment and applicant rebuttal, the council voted unanimously to continue the appeal hearing to May 26, 2026, and set a written-submission deadline of May 19 for any materials responding to items filed on the day of the May 12 meeting. Mayor Brian Dowski and council members said the continuance was intended to protect procedural fairness for both neighbors and applicants.
What happens next: the council will open the continued item at deliberations on May 26; no new oral public comment will be taken then on matters beyond the record unless the council reopens the hearing. Written responses to May 12 submissions must be filed by May 19, per the council’s direction.
