Woodside

Woodside received its certification letter on January 29, 2025. HCD specifically called out the below programs for tracking:

​

• Programs H1.3-a-f (Accessory Dwelling Units)

• Programs H2.1-b-d (Senate Bill 9 Lot Splits)

• Program H2.1-k (Town Center Area Plan)

• Program H2.1-l (Housing Mobility)

• Program H2.2-g (Rental Assistance)

• Program H3.3-a (Reduce Fees)

• Program H3.3-c (State Density Bonus Law)

• Program H4.1-a (Reasonable Accommodations)

• Program H4.1-c and H4.3-b (Group Homes/Supportive Housing)

• Program H4.2-c (Surplus Housing Sites)

• Program H4.3-a (Emergency Shelters)

• Program H4.3-c (Low Barrier Navigation Centers)

• Program H4.3-d (Single Room Occupancy)

• Program H4.3-e (Farmworker Housing)

• Program H6.2-c (Western Hills Development Standards)

HCD told them that they didn't do their re-zoning correctly, but only required small changes. They should get re-certified soon.

​

County grand jury has recently found that ADU-heavy housing-element strategies are bad. TBD whether the grand jury finding will matter to HCD.

Three general policy changes were discussed:

​

1. Rezoning: previous draft relied on rezoning primarily in the North Fair Oaks to meet the county's RHNA affordable quota. Housing advocates provided public comment urging the board to expand rezoning to also include higher opportunity neigborhoods. Supervisor started the conversation in firm support for this effort, and Pine and Corzo backed him up. Mueller suggested the Board not weigh in on the issues and essentially let the planning department work it out, which was met with criticism

​

1. Tenant protections: Corzo and Pine have been working on a tenant protection ordinance to strengthen just cause standards and explore options of a rental registry, etc. Advocates called on the county to incorporate these updates into the housing element. The county attorney provided clarification to the board that the housing element would have supremacy over an ordinance, and any future ordinance would need to comply with the element. The board generally agreed that since the ordinance is already in the works, there was no need to further slow down the element drafting process by incorporating tenant protections

​

Housing for special needs: Board discussed a number of options that would strengthen the element's language regarding supportive/accessible housing. One such revision they seemed in favor of regarding lowering minimum parking requirements for housing for disabled individuals. The board agreed that that policy "made sense." 

​

The Board ultimately pushed final decisions on these measures to the next meeting. The Board also discussed how the supervisors intended to allocate their Measure K money, but I didn't stick around for that. 

https://sanmateocounty.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=998929&GUID=0D46FA6C-A477-4001-8780-87E9B4ED1E73&G=1088EC25-A43A-408F-A57C-73C0A70269AB

It was a general public study session where feedback was provided to support more affordable housing in our city in support of state laws

I listened to the audiotape of this meeting. There could be some inaccuracies, because I couldn't see the slides. Woodside does not provide a video record of their meetings, only audio.

​

Staff and the consultant gave information to Council about their recent meeting with HCD, and solicited comments from the public and council. Woodside had gotten their scathing letter of determination, and in response provided a 32 page response. 

​

Woodside had tried to claim 20 ADUs per year, but HCD said you better give us better documentation and monitoring if you go above the 15 ADUs you historically get. Woodside wants to get away without any multifamily, except for the 75 completely bogus units they're claiming at Cañada College, but HCD wants to see some low income housing available to the general public, and also wants to see a diversity of unit types, not just ADUs. 

​

Woodside wanted to just show enough sites to satisfy their RHNA, without any buffer. HCD nixed that plan. 

​

HCD suggested that Woodside solicit deed-restricted ADUs to justify more than 15 ADUs per year. But HCD also said that deed-restricted ADUs by themselves did not satisfy the diversity of housing requirement for affordable housing.

​

There was council discussion of how homeowners could thwart the purpose of deed restriction by using the ADUs for family or employees. OK maybe not thwart, but those ADUs are not satisfying HCD's desire for housing available to the general public. 

​

The staff is planning to gather feedback, from this meeting and future community meetings, and come back with a draft for approval on Jan. 31. No word on when the 7 day public comment period on the draft will occur—I have an email to the Planning Director about that.

​

OF COURSE the council talked about Woodside and how unique it is. The day before, it was Belvedere talking about what a special snowflake it is. 

​

The initial staff plan, last summer, was to produce housing on three town-owned sites at 10 du/acre. The council nixed that, because Horrors! Multifamily housing! But HCD wants to see some multifamily housing, and they want it at the Mullin density of 20 du/acre at least. The consultant suggests including one of the town-owned sites, at 20 du/acre.

​

Councilmember Dick Brown said that in meetings with constituents, he asked whether they'd want to rent to, e.g., teachers, but they wanted ADUs for family members, or for extra space, and wouldn't want to deed-restrict them. He doesn't think it would work.

​

The Council squirmed, trying to figure out how to avoid any multifamily units. Can they come back in two years with more ADUS, and say we're making lots of ADUs so we can avoid multifamily? Consultant patiently explains that HCD wants a diversity of housing.

​

HCD told Woodside they want more justification for affordability claims, other than the ABAG formula, if going over the 15 ADUs/yr historical average. That's what the deed restriction would accomplish.

​

Councilmember asks how deed-restriction would be implemented.  Staff says it's difficult: code enforcement, or requiring owner to report rent yearly, or other method, to make sure that the deed restriction is obeyed.

​

https://www.woodsidetown.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/towncouncil/meeting/33718/tcmeetingaudio-_2023-01-10.mp3 1:13:55

Councilmember asks if the city can put a town-owned site on the site inventory at 20 du/acre, and then intentionally build it up at a lower density to get around HCD regulations. Consultant says Yes. 

​

Apparently no one there has heard of the Surplus Land Act.

​

1:54:50 CM Dombkowski muses on how to game deed restrictions, and also how to game the du/acre requirement—listing something at 20 du/acre with a wink and a nod that the city will never allow it.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

William Gibson - presented on (reduced) constraints, concerns from community re housing, HE goals, # of pipeline projects and ADUS. Commissioner comments. Inappropriate parcels should be identified directly to him. 

​

Comments by Green Foothills, community members, including advocate for senior housing and advocates against sprawl. Commenters focused on the numbers being high and incorrect assumptions (e.g. ADUs = housing and all vacant SFH lots will be built out).

​

Commission voted to submit as-is to the Board of Supervisors (did not respond to any of the public comments).