Town Square

Post a New Topic

Woodside: Residents seek right to build larger homes

Original post made on May 29, 2014

Woodside Heights, though within the borders of Woodside, is a community apart: It sits east of Interstate 280 and it is adjacent to West Atherton, where market values tend to be higher by comparison. And the houses tend to be larger, an issue for the Woodside neighbors.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, May 29, 2014, 7:28 AM

Comments (13)

Posted by Bob
a resident of Woodside: Woodside Heights
on May 29, 2014 at 12:27 pm

Particularly amusing (not really) was the suggestion from Shanahan that having a larger primary residence would increase the number of occupants per parcel as compared to having two secondary buildings such as guest houses or pool houses that could be occupied separately. It seems VERY likely that separate rentable buildings will result in more total residents than somewhat larger main houses would attract larger families.

Posted by Hypocrite
a resident of Woodside School
on May 29, 2014 at 12:59 pm

Councilman Shanahan frequently professes libertarian views. His position on this issue is totally inconsistent with those beliefs. He wishes to use planning and zoning regulations to control family size in Woodside. Shame on you Councilman for imposing governmental control on the most basic of family decisions. It is time for you to get off your high horse, and admit that you hold a highly hypocritical viewpoint on this issue.

Posted by Jon Castor
a resident of Woodside: Woodside Heights
on May 29, 2014 at 5:33 pm

Jon Castor is a registered user.

The proposal from residents living in Woodside Heights doesn't seek to change the fundamental character of this lovely neighborhood. I hope the promised study and a second look produces a better result for us.

Posted by johngslater
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 29, 2014 at 5:52 pm

I don't object to people living in 5500' homes, I am just very surprised that 95% of the people living in homes of only 4000' feel constrained by their home's size.

Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 29, 2014 at 7:43 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

"I am just very surprised that 95% of the people living in homes of only 4000' feel constrained by their home's size."

A first world problem if I've heard one.

Posted by WS stranglehold
a resident of Portola Valley: Westridge
on May 30, 2014 at 12:48 pm

Cluster structures are absolutely more likely to attract more multi-family use
How else might a town like WS, PV or Atherton address it's housing element or make way for more affordable housing though? NIMBY to be sure.

Aside from the aesthetics of the structure, I've never understood why a planning commission has SO much power over the homeowners who are paying so much in taxes anyway. Won't a +1500sf addition only add to that tax revenue? And might the leveling of the code lead to more "investment" in an otherwise somewhat undervalued neighborhood? (by comparison) Atherton may be extravagant but they are consistently attracting investment and creating jobs by re-creating their neighborhoods and that benefits the entire region.

Posted by Former Los Lomitas Parent
a resident of Atherton: other
on May 30, 2014 at 2:15 pm

We lived in Woodside Heights for many years and loved the neighborhood and our neighbors. The one thing we didn't love was the crazy zoning laws or the imperious nature of the town council. We have since moved to Atherton where we are very happy. Population density? Really? Does anyone really think that this change would meaninfully impact the population density in the neighborhood? Woodside Heights probably has 75 homes in an area roughly equivalent to the size of downtown Menlo Park. If this change added an aggregate of more than a handful of residents I'd be shocked. Good for Greg for pushing this. Wish him the best.

Posted by Long time Woodside resident
a resident of Woodside: Woodside Heights
on May 30, 2014 at 4:09 pm

In reply to johngslater and Menlo Voter's comments, we do live in a very "well developed" part of the world. I suspect that most Woodside residents don't feel constrained by living in a 4000 sq ft home, having just downsized to one that is less than half of my previous Woodside home. I would like the freedom of choice to develop my property and allocate buildable space so that it benefits my lifestyle and enhances property value. This does not mean to over develop the land but do it in a responsible way that takes into consideration the natural beauty of the rural landscape. These protections are still provided by the ASRB process, which can also be improved. The proposal does not allow for houses as large as in Atherton or as densely populated as Menlo Park. Overall it seems to be very well thought out. I think we need to look at what residents want taking into account the overall good of the community.

Posted by Long time Woodsider
a resident of Woodside School
on May 30, 2014 at 10:32 pm

The last thing Woodside needs is bigger houses. The limits already allow houses much bigger than the stated size limits because basement space does not count at all, and a second story counts less than full-size if it has side walls below a certain height, which is quite easy to do. Meaning, you can already build at least a 10,000 square foot house in Woodside on a lot allowing "4,000" square feet. It is not possible that anything larger could be needed. If you want a bigger house move to somewhere that welcomes them - Atherton and Los Altos Hills come to mind. Please don't ruin Woodside by making more like places that many of us couldn't be paid to live in. "Rural" is not a more than 10,000 square foot home.

Posted by pogo
a resident of Woodside: other
on May 31, 2014 at 7:34 am

pogo is a registered user.

Sorry, Long Time Woodsider, you are factually incorrect. You cannot build a 10,000 square foot home in Woodside (you could have in the past, not any more). You should read the building codes for our town.

Using all of the factors in floor area calculations, the largest "single structure" home you could build today is a little over 6,000 square feet. That's not tiny, but it's not the 10,000 square feet you suggested. And depending upon the size of your property, you can build one or more additional 1,500 square foot "accessory living structures," but those are not considered the main residence.

Posted by Long time Woodsider
a resident of Woodside School
on Jun 1, 2014 at 10:14 pm

@Pogo, I love it when people just state things as facts with no proof. The Woodside Municipal Code Chapter XV, 153.047 (Web Link states that on a "conforming lot" a 6,000 square foot home is allowed. With an "exception," which is almost always granted, this can be increased to 8,000 square feet. Basements do not count in the square footage (also right there in the code) so that doubles the size allowed right there. A second story measurement is based on plate height. It is rather complicated, but basically if a side wall is less than 11 feet tall a square foot counts as less than a square foot. So a second floor with side walls of only five feet counts as only half its square footage. I think we're up to 20,000 square feet, and that's without the funny exception written in to allow up to 600 square feet to have side walls of up to 16 feet be only counted as one-story. If you have a knowledgeable architect you can build a house big enough to hold a the biggest ego around right in Woodside. Ask Larry Ellison.

Posted by Long time Woodsider
a resident of Woodside School
on Jun 2, 2014 at 4:09 pm

Whoops - I realize I made a mistake in those calculations. Where allowed an 8,000 square foot home (which I would guess is more than half of Woodside) you could have a two-story home with a basement, with each level 5,000 square feet. The basement doesn't count, the first floor is 5,000 and the second story with 5-foot sidewalls counts as 2,500. So there you have a 15,000 square foot that the town counts as only 7,500 square feet. The reasoning behind these rules, if I remember correctly, is that people don't like the appearance of a massive home, so what you don't see can't hurt you.

Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Atherton: West of Alameda

on Sep 24, 2017 at 10:10 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Almanac Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

E-Bikes on Open Space Trails: Yes or No?
By Sherry Listgarten | 17 comments | 4,764 views

Gifts and Belongings
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,983 views

Mountain View's Castro Street opens up for an eat-and-greet to rally support for businesses
By The Peninsula Foodist | 0 comments | 1,716 views

The questionable morality of abortion
By Diana Diamond | 7 comments | 1,626 views

Idaho Hot Springs and Yellowstone – Travelin’ Solo
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 912 views