Findings required for approval of the parking expansion and bulldozing of the Open Space
There are many pages of documents and information that have been filed with the Town. Many deal with the construction and technical details of the proposed project. Town staff reviews and comments on their concerns, and the applicant must respond to the issues.
The most important of the issues are three separate but similar findings that are necessary to approve various applications. The Town staff will develop the responses to these findings. The applicant's responses to these required findings (at the links at the bottom) are pretty spacious arguments and distortions of reality. They are just informational and not binding on staff. The Town Committees, Town Planning Commission and Town Council will be reviewing the application and staff findings as appropriate.
The findings are the most critical issues that will stop the bulldozers.
The three findings required are:
1 - Amendment to the Conditional use Permit (CUP)
2 - Variance application - to vary from the existing rules for development
3 - Request to abandon Open Space easement (Gov code #51093)
1 - Findings Required for an Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit
1. The project is necessary and desirable and will contribute to the well-being of the community.
The problem of parking congestion is one of the applicants making. The original Conditional Use Permit for the Bakery limited seating to 70 seats in the daytime. The Bakery has been in continuous violation of this provision and has nearly doubled the allowed seating and the Town Council has ignored this. The well-being of the community has been significantly affected by this failure of the Town Council to enforce the seating limits.
Bulldozing the Open Space easement will cause destruction of the pedestrian/equestrian trail that has been in use for many years. This is an essential part of the Safe Routes to School pathways that children and parents use every school day. Many equestrians ride this trail to stay out of the congestion at the Stop signs.
Because of the use of this path for many years by many users, there is a prescriptive easement for this path. Such prescriptive easement belongs to the citizens of Woodside.
Open Space is open and natural and the beautiful trees provide solace to all who travel there. Bulldozing it will significantly damage the community. There will be retaining walls as high at 10 feet surrounded by tall chain link fences and would create an unsightly and ugly structure.
2. The project is consistent with the intent, purpose and objectives of the General Plan and zoning.
The General Plan specifically requires business in Town to primarily service day to day needs of local residents. A recent survey by Mayor Dick Brown revealed that 95% of the restaurant patrons were NOT residents. Becoming a local tourist attraction is a violation of the General Plan.
The purpose of the General Plan was to not allow expansion of existing business to serve more tourists. The Bakery owners agreed to the CUP in 1986, that the seating limit of 70 seats during the day would provide a fine financial return. There was sufficient parking for many years and it worked out well. The creation of the Outdoor dining was specifically for the pandemic. Today it only takes up 6 parking spaces that can be adjusted.
The applicant points out that:" The problem is exacerbated by recreational users who drive to town and leave their car for the duration of their recreational outing in the limited number of available parking". So why should Woodside provide more public parking for recreational visitors?
The General Plan calls for Open Space to provide trees and pathways for the citizens.
3. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare in the vicinity.
Bulldozing the Open Space easement will cause destruction of the pedestrian equestrian trail that has been in use for many years. This is an essential part of the Safe Routes to School pathways. The proposed reroute would cause safety issues and be detrimental.
More cars and congestion will cause health, safety and issues to the residents.
4. The project is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate the proposed use.
The area designated for bulldozing for more parking is in dedicated open space and should not be bulldozed. There will be retaining walls as high at 10 feet surrounded by tall chain link fences and would create an unsightly and ugly structure.
5. The proposed use can be served by roads of adequate width and design to accommodate the quantity and type of traffic generated by the use.
Adding 35 more parking spaces would cause more congestion to the existing traffic. Following the seating limit law would reduce the quantity and type of traffic.
6. Adequate utilities or other services required for such use exist.
Nothing much to add.
2- Findings for a variance
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the identical district classification.
In 2016, a Conditional Use Permit was issued allowing 70 seats in the day time. A detailed review of size, shape, topography, and location and the Permit was conducted. The Bakery owners, property owners, Planning Commission and Town Council all agreed to and approved this plan. The only thing that has changed has been the 6 parking spaces being used Outdoor Dining. So why has this become a massive expansion to the parking needs?
In1979, the Owners of the property agreed to dedicate a portion of the residential lot as Open Space in Perpetuity in return for being permitted a significant expansion of the Hardware store building and large parking expansion. They were given a very generous privilege back then, that none of the other properties have.
The Bakery and the property owners want to add 35 parking spaces because the goal is to expand the Bakery to make more money. Right now the illegal violation of the seating ordnance is attracting more tourists causing parking congestion, which creates major problems to the other properties in the vicinity.
2. The variance or adjustment will not constitute a grant of special privilege, is consistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under the identical district classification and is consistent with the objectives of this chapter.
Granting permission to bulldoze a dedicated Open Space is granting a special privilege. The parking problems are of the applicants own making due to ignoring the seating limits. Allowing 35 parking spaces that would enable the Bakery to expand is a special privilege.
3. The strict application of this chapter would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship which is not of the applicant's own making.
The parking problems are of the applicants own making. The Bakery was only allowed 70 seats during the daytime, but has continuously ignored the rule, and provided nearly twice that number. More seats means more parking demand which means more congestion. By following the rules, there would not be a parking problem. Parking issues were fine before COVID. When the rules were loosened and outdoor dining was installed, the Bakery started ignoring limits on seating which has caused the congestion and problems.
4. The granting of the variance or adjustment will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the property is situated.
Bulldozing a beautiful Open Space Easement will cause significant harm to the public welfare. Destroying the Safe Routes to School path will be hazardous to the many children that walk to school. Rerouting the trail will make it much less convenient and dangerous for kids on bicycles. Public welfare will be significantly harmed.
5. Granting the variance will be consistent with the general purposes and objectives of the zoning code and of the general plan.
As discussed above, granting a variance will be a violation of the General Plan and zoning code. The General Plan specifically requires business in Town to primarily service day to day needs of local residents. A recent survey by Mayor Dick Brown revealed that 95% of the restaurant patrons were NOT residents. Becoming a local tourist attraction is a violation of the General Plan. The purpose of the General Plan was to not allow expansion of existing business to serve more tourists
3 - Findings required for termination of an Open Space Easement The Applicant has not responded to these findings yet.
These issues are partially covered in the other finding documents above.
This requirement was also specified in the 1979 Easement dedication.
GOVERNMENT CODE - GOV
TITLE 5. LOCAL AGENCIES [50001 - 57607] ( Title 5 added by Stats. 1949, Ch. 81. )
DIVISION 1. CITIES AND COUNTIES [50001 - 52203] ( Division 1 added by Stats. 1949, Ch. 81. )
PART 1. POWERS AND DUTIES COMMON TO CITIES AND COUNTIES [50001 - 51298.5] ( Part 1 added by Stats.
1949, Ch. 81. )
CHAPTER 6.6. Open-Space Easement Act of 1974 [51070 - 51097]
ARTICLE 4. Termination of an Open-Space Easement [51090 - 51094]
Government code #51093.
(a) The landowner may petition the governing body of the county or city for abandonment of any open-space easement or in the case of an open-space easement granted to a nonprofit organization pursuant to this chapter, for approval of abandonment by such organization, as to all of the subject land. The governing body may approve the abandonment of an open-space easement only if, by resolution, it finds:
(1) That no public purpose described in Section 51084 will be served by keeping the land as open space
We have enjoyed the open space for years. The beautiful oak trees provide solace when walking by. The trail provides a Safe Route to School and path for pedestrians and equestrians. It was dedicated in 1979 as Open Space in perpetuity. Bulldozing the open space would harm the public and citizens of Woodside.
(2) That the abandonment is not inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter.
Abandonment and bulldozing for parking is completely at odds with the purpose of providing Open Space for citizens to walk and enjoy.
(3) That the abandonment is consistent with the local general plan
As discussed above, abandonment is a significant violation of the General Plan of Woodside and causes harm to the citizens. As discussed above, granting a variance will be a violation of the General Plan and zoning code. The General Plan specifically requires business in Town to primarily service day to day needs of local residents. A recent survey by Mayor Dick Brown revealed that 95% of the restaurant patrons were NOT residents. Becoming a local tourist attraction is a violation of the General Plan. The purpose of the General Plan was to not allow expansion of existing business to serve more tourists.
(4) That the abandonment is necessary to avoid a substantial financial hardship to the landowner due to involuntary factors unique to him.
There is no financial hardship. The Bakery continues to create parking congestion by violating the seating limits. The Bakery and property owners agreed with the parking needs and seating limits in the Conditional Use Permit signed in 2016. The Bakery agreed they could make a fine financial return with these limits. They are only interested in making more money by expanding the seating in the Bakery. They have gotten used to the excessive profits achieved by violating the seating limits.
The applicant has responded to the first two findings. The applicants responses are pretty spacious arguments and distortions of reality. The Town staff should reject these statements as irrelevant and non-responsive
For your consternation and enjoyment: Here are applicant's updated responses to findings required:
Updated Variance Application Letter - 12-12-23.pdf
Updated CUP Application Letter - 12-12-23.pdfWebsite supported by Save Rural Woodside