Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Woodside planning commission directs staff to refine ADU ordinance; keeps initial floor‑area exemption at 1,200 sq ft
Loading...
Summary
The commission reviewed proposed code amendments to chapters 151 and 153 to implement state ADU laws and add local flexibility, including an administrative second‑driveway exception and increased floor‑area exemption. Commissioners generally supported keeping the TFA exemption at 1,200 sq ft and asked staff to return with clarified language and scenario examples.
Planning staff presented a draft resolution of intention and ordinance amendments on April 15 to align Woodside’s municipal code with recent state ADU law changes and to provide additional local flexibility for accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
Staff described an administrative second‑driveway exception for ADUs that would allow, under specified safety and line‑of‑sight standards, a second driveway to be approved without a public hearing when it primarily provides practical access to a proposed ADU. The draft includes limits intended to minimize visual impact and to avoid environmentally sensitive areas or steep slopes.
The commission discussed fire‑department turnaround standards, whether the exception should permit a second driveway to serve more than one ADU, and whether the language should require the driveway to “serve” only the ADU or instead be written so that the driveway is “needed to provide a practical means of access” (a suggested staff edit). Planning staff said they are open to clarifying that the second driveway can serve grouped ADUs and to tweaking the criteria language.
On floor area, staff proposed increasing the amount of square footage that can be exempted from total floor area (TFA) calculations from 800 to 1,200 square feet so that applicants could apply that extra area toward an ADU without it counting against the main residence’s floor‑area limits. Several public letters asked for up to 1,500 square feet; commissioners debated the tradeoffs and several expressed concern that 1,500 could allow near‑house‑sized structures that would change neighborhood character. The commission proceeded by straw poll and generally supported keeping the exemption at 1,200 square feet with the option to revisit based on future data.
Staff also reviewed state provisions allowing a 150‑square‑foot ingress/egress bump‑out and described the state’s legalization pathway for certain unpermitted ADUs (renumbered government code section 663311.7). During public comment, architect and homeowner Carrie Diller said the legalization process can be impractical for older structures if inspectors require extensive structural work; she urged a town‑level advisory or paid pre‑inspection service to reduce barriers. Resident Steve Patrick urged consideration of upslope lots and paved‑area exceptions in SCP zones to avoid forcing property owners to remove existing hardscape to comply.
Commissioners instructed staff to return with clarified ordinance language, example scenarios showing cumulative impacts for typical lot sizes, and options on paved‑area exemptions and up‑slope height adjustments. No ordinance adoption occurred; staff said it will return with revisions and more detail for a future meeting, likely the second meeting in May.
