|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Residents and even council members, commenting as private citizens, converged on an April 3 Woodside Planning Commission study session to speak their minds about changes to zoning and design standards associated with proposed multi-family housing sites. The plans are part of the town’s eight-year housing element plan, which the state has yet to certify.
The sites are at 1.77 acres on Raymundo Drive, 1.6 acres on 773 Cañada Road, 1-acre at High Road and on the Cañada College campus (the community college’s master plan includes plans to construct new multi-family housing). The state-mandated housing element requires the town to plan for 328 new units of housing from 2023 through 2031.
“Another important component is creating standards that can meet that density of 20 units to an acre,” said Woodside Planning Director Sage Schaan. “HCD (Department of Housing and Community Development) would not look favorably on something that has such restrictions that could not accommodate a feasible development at that density.”
Some public commenters said building housing in these areas will negatively impact traffic and fire safety, protection of wildlife and increase landslide hazards.
Changes to Emerald Lake Hills Specific Plan
The Planning Commission also discussed amendments to the town’s Emerald Lake Hills Specific Plan to extend the sewer line further north to accommodate future housing at 773 Cañada Road. There are currently more than 150 homes in Emerald Lake Hills, according to a staff report.
The overall site is developed with a single-family dwelling, driveways, barn, accessory structures and animal turnout areas, according to the report. The northwest corner of the site includes an open hillside sloping upward from Cañada Road; some of the driveways and accessory structures are located on that portion of the site.
Residents in the area criticized the changes and pushed for the plan to only be applied to areas of dense housing and not for other parts of the area. The current plan does not allow for the extension of sewers for new developments.
Many residents also called for the Planning Commission to reject plans for developments on Raymundo Drive and High Road (both town-owned), and ask the Town Council to reconsider different spaces in Woodside for higher density housing.
The Raymundo site is somewhat flat. The majority of the western side of the parcel is encroached on by adjacent property owner, 166 Raymundo Drive, for an equestrian turnout area. East of the equestrian area are medium sized trees on the north and south sides of the parcel. The area between is used as a Public Works Department green waste staging area, where vegetation trimmings are temporary stored before being disposed outside of town, according to the staff report.
During public comment, Council member Paul Goeld spoke as a private citizen against the development on High Road. He encouraged the Planning Commission to “have the integrity and fortitude. … and deny the zoning.”
As the only parcel in the housing element plan that he opposes, he points out that within the High Road site has a “high pressure and high capacity” gas transmission line. The parcel would also only have one entrance for vehicle access and none for pedestrians.
Woodside resident Sue Poletti said she would like the town to retain the open space on Raymundo Drive to protect the natural land and livestock. She also had concerns about traffic safety for residents on Raymundo Drive, who only have one point of access into the neighborhood. The Raymundo parcel will have two access points.
“Those of us living up at the end of the street don’t want to get caught in a Paradise fire (the 2018 Camp wildfire that was one of the deadliest and most destructive in the state’s history), and be killed in our car trying to evacuate,” said Poletti. “If you’re going to give [the Raymundo parcel] two entrances, please consider giving us a second entrance for safety.”
Others shared the similar concerns about the impacts that the Raymundo Drive developments would have on traffic congestion and fire evacuation safety.
Moving the conversation toward objective design standards, Council member Dick Brown joined the meeting as a private citizen and questioned the 10-foot setback for multi-unit housing when single-family dwellings require a setback of 25 to 50 feet or more.
“At a 35-foot height limit, 10 feet from Cañada Road seems absurd,” added Steve Lubin, former planning commissioner.
Former planning commissioner Marilyn Voelke joined in on the topic of 10-foot setbacks, calling them “skimpy” and suggested the commission reconsider the setback for 773 Cañada Road. Despite other residents against the development of the parcel, Voelke said she wasn’t opposed to it.
The Planning Commission will hold another hearing in the future on the rezoning. It will also meet to review of the draft resolution and environmental impact report.
Redwood City attorney sues ‘First Amendment auditors’ after Menlo Park disputeApril 2, 2026 11:31 am
