|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Neighbors of 10 Still Creek Road in Woodside rallied to oppose a multi-generational affordable housing project at a May 12 Town Council meeting that was so packed with experts, comments and controversy that a decision will have to wait until the council meets again.
The proposal, at the top of the town’s pipeline list for meeting its state-mandated housing requirements, has been on hold for nearly six years while the property owners sought permission to build.
Housing advocates said that if the town denies the project in the Western Hills neighborhood, it would risk having to replace those units on Woodside’s housing element. If town officials are unable to do so, Woodside could lose state funding, be targeted by third-party lawsuits and subject to builder’s remedy projects that can circumvent local building rules, according to Jeremy Levine, policy manager for Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County.
The contentious project proposed by Christin New and David Mittleman has been denied over issues with building setbacks, slope stability, and neighbors’ concerns over wildfire risk and lack of emergency vehicle access.
New and Mittleman filed an appeal with the Town Council in November 2025 after the Planning Commission denied their setback exception, formal design review and maximum residence size exception. Now, the council is reviewing the proposal and will determine whether it can move forward despite Planning Commission opposition.
The council heard a dozen public comments on May 12, the majority from neighbors of the Still Creek property who oppose the project. The group wore yellow baseball caps as they voiced their concerns about the housing proposal during the meeting.
New inherited the 9.6-acre parcel from her father, who purchased the property in the 1970s. She and her husband’s housing project would occupy two-tenths of an acre. The rest of the property is too steep to build on without excavation work and redwood tree removal, which the couple wants to avoid.
Rendering of northern view of additional dwelling units at a proposed housing development at 10 Still Creek Road in Woodside. Courtesy Baranki Hammer Moretta and Sheehy Architects and Planners. 
Rendering of western view of additional dwelling units at a proposed housing development at 10 Still Creek Road in Woodside. Courtesy Baranki Hammer Moretta and Sheehy Architects and Planners. 
Nighttime renderings of the proposed housing development on 10 Still Creek Road in Woodside. Courtesy Baranki Hammer Moretta and Sheehy Architects and Planners.
The design for 10 Still Creek Road includes a new main residence and three additional dwelling units, which will house New and Mittleman’s aging parents plus provide affordable housing to community members such as teachers, town staff and store clerks.
“Put simply, I want to build a house for my family on my property, and I want to build housing for those who could not otherwise afford to live in the area,” said New during the meeting. “The additional housing that we can build is a way to keep valued members of the community here. People who cannot afford to purchase a property but nonetheless are rooted here.”
The housing project offers two very-low-income housing units— more than any other pipeline project listed in Woodside’s housing element, a blueprint for meeting state-mandated targets for new housing.
If the council decides to deny the project, the town will be “flirting with getting the (housing) element decertified, ” said Jeffrey Popell, a member of the local grassroots organizations Peninsula for Everyone and Yes in Redwood City.
Popell, a lifelong resident of Woodside, added that there is a strong “not in my backyard” sentiment in town and as an advocate for affordable housing, he believes it’s important to rebut NIMBY ideas.
The applicant’s attorney claims that the recent Town Council hearing counts as the fifth hearing on the Still Creek Road housing project. Under the Housing Accountability Act, jurisdictions’ decisions to approve or deny the project are limited to five hearings. Continued hearings count as one of the five hearings, according to the state Department of Housing and Community Development.
If the council is unable to make a decision by the fifth hearing, this could result in a lawsuit against the town costing about $50,000 per unit in addition to legal fees, said Ryan Patterson, New and Mittleman’s land use and real estate attorney.
“When you choose not to build housing for people who work in Woodside but cannot afford to live there, you put a burden directly on nearby communities like Redwood City, San Mateo and Menlo Park,” said Jordan Grimes, founder of Peninsula for Everyone, at the meeting.
Neighbors’ concerns
The neighbors of Still Creek Road brought in a forensic architect, former fire marshal and a Stanford University geophysicist to comment on the project.
Residents said they believe that the project could be downsized, that the site is too fragile to build on and that the project should be denied due to its potential risk to public safety.
Neighbors have also complained about the impact that the house will have on their privacy as they drive past it on the way to their own homes. There are two houses beyond 10 Still Creek Road before it reaches a dead-end.
Addressing concerns that the project would increase fire risk in the area, Mayor Brian Dombkowski sought an explanation as to why it would be the “tipping point” for public safety.
“The key is we’ve got to stop adding to the problem, ” said former Marin County Fire Marshal Keith Parker. He noted that the building’s close proximity to the road and magnitude on a small footprint does not allow adequate defensible space.
“We are acutely aware of the fire danger in the area, which is why we developed a vegetation management plan independent of this project in 2024 and have gone above and beyond the requirements of today’s fire safe building code,” Mittleman said.
He and his wife are requesting a 30-foot setback exception, rather than the required 50 feet. Although this would bring their property closer to the road, it will prevent the removal of more trees, excavation of the slope, and the requirement to build a retaining wall.
The project’s architect Jim Baranski explained to the council that the visual difference of a 50-foot and 30-foot setback are minor, but the “impact on the site is profound.”
Charles Kissick, a geological engineer with Sigma Prime Geoscience, told the council that after many years of evaluating this project, “slope stability hazard is low,” despite the neighbors’ apprehensions.
A comment from Stanford geophysicist Simon Klemperer found that “the proposed building footprint sits directly on active and dormant landslide deposits.” He also added that the earthquake fault that runs through the project site is a common area that has observed ruptured buried pipelines at the fault crossing.
Mittleman said that their project has been through multiple reviews and updates since they initially planned it in 2019. Their most recent revision in July 20205 was to comply with town code, town goals and state law, he said.
Conflict of interest claims ‘unfounded’
New and Mittleman also filed a complaint against Planning Commissioner Alex Tauber, alleging he had violated the town’s code of ethics and conduct and had financial conflict of interest in the outcome of the project.
According to the staff report, Tauber is a member of the Skywood Association Board and lives in close proximity to Still Creek Road. His neighbors are opposing the project.
An investigation by the town determined that all of New and Mittleman’s allegations were unfounded.
The applicants alleged several reasons why Tauber should have recused himself from the Planning Commission meeting reviewing the project, which he voted against. In the investigation into these complaints, the town attorney determined that Tauber was not obligated to remove himself in the consideration of the project.
New and Mittleman also alleged that Tauber had reason to recuse himself because the project would impact traffic along Skywood Way, a main street leading off of Highway 84 to both of their properties. This allegation was not supported by the investigation findings because the project would not substantially alter traffic levels for Tauber, who lives in a different subdivision and has no way to access the property from his road.
The complaint also alleges that Tauber’s dual role as a Planning Commissioner and Skywood Association member “deprived the appellants of a fair and unbiased decision-maker,” according to the report.
Tauber indicated that the board had not formally taken a position on the project and that he had not personally spoken to other members about the project before the Planning Commission’s review.
“Woodside was incorporated in 1956 for one reason: to preserve our character. Central to that character is a culture of volunteerism, citizen-led government, and a basic code of trust, even when we disagree. 10 Still Creek has been inconsistent with our culture,” said Tauber, who wore a yellow hat while making his public comment.
The investigation report noted that Tauber was upset by the applicant’s suggestion that he had acted unethically. He recalled a time in 2024 where Mittleman asked him to secure the votes needed to have a setback variance approved by the Planning Commission. Tauber allegedly declined and reported this to former Town Manager Kevin Bryant, who encouraged him to stop communicating with Mittleman about the project.
Town Council extends hearing
Due to the substantial amount of new information presented by experts and neighbors during the meeting, the Town Council unanimously agreed to extend the hearing on the housing project to May 26.
The decision was made to allow council members to thoroughly review all materials, some of which were only made available a few hours before the meeting.
