Agenda packet — Atherton City Council, December 15, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Please be aware, if the Town fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until rezones to accommodate a shortfall of sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c) (1) (A) and Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c) are completed.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the Town will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

We are committed to assisting the Town in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Connor Finney, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
ATTACHMENT 4
Town of Atherton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 1 October 31, 2022

APPENDIX

TOWN OF ATHERTON
The following changes are necessary to bring the Town’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/building-blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Review and Revise
Government Code (GC) Section 65588 requires: “Each local government shall review its housing element as frequently as appropriate to evaluate all of the following: (1) The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal. (2) The effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community's housing goals and objectives. (3) The progress of the city, county, or city and county in implementation of the housing element.” (4) The effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions to meet the community’s special housing needs. GC 65583(a)(7).”
A thorough program-by-program review is necessary to evaluate Town's performance in addressing housing goals. While the element describes actual results of the prior element’s programs, it must provide a description of how the objectives and programs of the updated element incorporate changes resulting from the evaluation.

As part of the review of programs in the past cycle, the element must analyze the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female headed households, farmworkers and persons experiencing homelessness). Programs should be revised as appropriate to reflect the results of this evaluation.

B. Housing Needs Resources and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity: While the housing element includes a summary of fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, it should describe any fair housing lawsuits and related enforcement actions. In addition, this section should address how outreach will occur throughout planning period.

ATTACHMENT 4
Town of Atherton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 2 October 31, 2022
Local Data and Knowledge: The element must include local data, knowledge, and other relevant factors to discuss and analyze any unique attributes about the Town related to fair housing issues. The element should complement federal, state, and regional data with local data and knowledge where appropriate to capture emerging trends and issues, including utilizing knowledge from local and regional advocates and service providers, Town staff and related local and county planning documents and should include an analysis of the history of exclusionary zoning in the Town.

Integration and Segregation: The element provided some data regarding segregation and integration, but it should also describe concentrations of race both locally and regionally (i.e., geographically within the Town, as well as comparing the Town to the region). In addition, the element must discuss and analyze data on persons with disabilities regionally and over time. The element must describe and analyze concentrations of familial status both locally and regionally. Lastly, the element must describe what contributes to the high incomes geographically within the Town and provide a regional analysis.

Racial/Ethnic Areas of Concentration of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Affluence (RCAA): The element must also address concentrated areas of affluence both locally and regionally.

The analysis should evaluate the patterns and changes over time at a local (e.g., neighborhood to neighborhood) and regional level (e.g., Town to region) and include programs as appropriate (not limited to the regional housing need allocation (RHNA)).

Disparities in Access to Opportunity: While the element included some data, it should discuss what contributes to the lower education score in the Town west of El Camino Real. In addition, the element must analyze the disparities in access to jobs by protected classes and analyze what contributes to the varied access to jobs within the Town. The element must also provide a regional analysis for access to opportunity for employment and environment. Lastly, while the element describes a 2018 transit study, it must describe and analyze access to transit both locally and regionally.

Disproportionate Housing Needs, Including Displacement Risk: While the element includes some discussion on disproportionate housing needs, this discussion should also address the patterns within the Town and evaluate any similarities with other components of the assessment of fair housing. In addition, the analysis should include both local and regional discussions of cost burden by tenure. In addition, the element must include a regional analysis for overcrowding and substandard housing. The element should also analyze any demographic data available for persons experiencing homelessness. The analysis on displacement risk should be expanded beyond units atrisk of losing subsidy and also describe the high risk of residents experiencing exclusion. Lastly, the element must describe and analyze areas sensitive to displacement risk due to disaster (e.g., earthquake, fire, and flood).

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) and Sites Inventory: While the element includes a summary of fair housing related to the sites inventory, it must analyze how the identified sites contribute to or mitigate fair housing issues. An analysis should ATTACHMENT 4
Town of Atherton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 3 October 31, 2022
address all of the income categories of identified sites with respect to location, the number of units by all income groups and how that affects the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, access to opportunity). This analysis should specifically address whether the ADU strategy to accommodate lower-income households contributes to continued exclusion and disparities in access to opportunity. If sites exacerbate conditions or isolates the RHNA by income group, the element should identify further program actions (not limited to the RHNA) that will be taken to promote equitable quality of life throughout the community (e.g., housing mobility and new opportunities in higher resource areas).

Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element should re-assess contributing factors and particularly prioritize those factors then formulate appropriate policies and programs. Currently the element only includes one contributing factor. The element should address potential contributing factors such as barriers like exclusionary zoning or a lack of state and federally funded developments. Once additional factors are identified, they should then be prioritized.

Goals and Actions: The element must be revised to add or modify goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, discrete timing or milestones, geographic targeting and metrics or numerical targets. As appropriate, actions must address housing mobility, new housing choices and affordability in higher resource or higher income areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection.

2. Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).)
Extremely Low-Income (ELI) Households: The element must quantify the number of existing and projected ELI households, and also analyze their housing needs. The analysis of ELI housing needs should also evaluate ELI households by tenure.

3. Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).) Overpayment: The element must quantify and analyze overpayment by tenure (i.e., renter and owner), for both the overall population and lower-income households.

Housing Conditions: The element includes the number of substandard housing units from Census data. However, the element must include an estimate of the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. For example, the analysis could include estimates from a recent windshield survey or sampling, estimates from the code ATTACHMENT 4
Town of Atherton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 4 October 31, 2022
enforcement agency, or information from knowledgeable builders/developers, including non-profit housing developers or organizations.

Housing Costs: While the element includes estimated rents for residents, it utilizes American Community Survey (ACS) data. The element should supplement census data with other sources (e.g., local knowledge).

4. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Sites Inventory: While the sites inventory includes many requirements, it must include the general plan designation. Additionally, there are some discrepancies between cited sites and the inventory. For example, two of the school sites do not list any units in the inventory and the numbers in the inventory do not match what is stated in the analysis.

Additional sites will likely need to be identified to accommodate the RHNA.

Realistic Capacity: The element must provide assumptions for the calculation of residential capacity on identified sites included in the inventory and must also provide support for these assumptions. For example, the element should demonstrate what specific trends, factors, and other evidence led to the assumptions. The estimate of the number of units for each site must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities.

Small and Large Sites: Sites smaller than a half-acre and larger than ten acres in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size and affordability were successfully developed during the prior planning period or unless the housing element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower-income housing (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A).). The element lists small and large sites but also should evaluate whether those sites are suitable to accommodate housing for lower-income households and add or modify programs as appropriate. For example, the element could list past consolidations by the number of parcels, number of owners, zone, number of units, affordability and circumstances leading to consolidation and then relate those trends to the identified sites or could explain the potential for consolidation on a site-by-site basis.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element includes a description of the identified sites, it must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for additional development on nonvacant sites. Specifically additional details on the school sites and Cal Water site.

The description of existing uses should be sufficiently detailed to facilitate an analysis demonstrating the potential for additional development in the planning period. In addition, the element should analyze the extent that existing uses may impede ATTACHMENT 4
Town of Atherton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 5 October 31, 2022
additional residential development. For example, the element includes sites identified as a private college, a school site, and a reservoir site, but little analysis was provided to demonstrate whether these existing uses would impede development of these sites within the planning period. The element can summarize past experiences converting existing uses to higher density residential development, include current market demand for the existing use, provide analysis of existing leases or contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent additional residential development and include current information on development trends and market conditions in the Town and relate those trends to the sites identified. The element could also consider indicators such as age and condition of the existing structure expressed developer interest, existing versus allowable floor area, low improvement to land value ratio, and other factors.

Zoning for Lower-Income Households: The element must demonstrate zoning appropriate to accommodate housing for lower-income households. For sites with zoning meeting specified densities or default densities (20 units per acre in Atherton), no analysis is required. Otherwise, the element must include analysis based on statutory factors, including but not limited to financial feasibility and experience within the zone.

SB 9 Sites: The element identifies SB 9 as a strategy to accommodate the part of the Town’s RHNA. To support these assumptions, the analysis must include experience, trends and market conditions that allow lot splits and missing middle uses. The analysis must list the potential SB 9 sites and demonstrate the likelihood of redevelopment, including whether existing uses constitute as an impediment for additional residential use. The analysis should describe how the Town determined eligible properties, whether the assumed lots will have turnover, if the properties are easy to subdivide, and the condition of the existing structures. The analysis should also describe interest from property owners as well as experience. The analysis should provide support for the units being developed within the planning period. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the element should add or modify to establish zoning and development standards early in the planning period and implement incentives to encourage and facilitate development as well as monitor development every two years with and identify additional sites within six months if assumptions are not being met. The element should support this analysis with local information such as local developer or owner interest to utilize zoning and incentives established through SB 9.

Publicly Owned Sites: The element identifies multiple publicly-owned sites including the Public Facilities and Schools District, the Menlo School, and Cal Water Bear Gulch Reservoir sites. The element must include additional discussion on each of the publiclyowned sites identified to accommodate the RHNA. Specifically, the analysis should address general plan designations, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).

In addition, the housing element, where appropriate, must include a description of ATTACHMENT 4
Town of Atherton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 6 October 31, 2022
whether there are any plans to sell the property during the planning period and how the jurisdiction will comply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.

Previously Identified Nonvacant and Vacant Sites: If nonvacant sites identified in a prior adopted housing element or vacant sites identified in two or more consecutive planning periods, the sites are inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income households unless:
• The site’s current zoning is appropriate for the development of housing affordable to lower-income households by either including analysis or meeting the appropriate density and
• The site is subject to a housing element program that requires rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use byright for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).) Infrastructure: The element must demonstrate sufficient existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply capacity, including the availability and access to distribution facilities, to accommodate the RHNA.

For your information, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers.

Electronic Sites Inventory: Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), upon adoption of the housing element, the Town must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to [email protected].

HCD has not received a copy of the electronic inventory. Please note, the Town must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml#element for a copy of the form and instructions. The Town can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The element projects approximately 35 ADUs per year over the eight-year planning period. This trend is inconsistent with HCD records of 19 ADUs per year. To support assumptions for ADUs in the planning period, the element should reduce the number of ADUs assumed per year and reconcile trends with HCD records, including additional information such as more recent permitted units and inquiries, resources and incentives, other relevant factors and modify policies and programs as appropriate. Further, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time ATTACHMENT 4
Town of Atherton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 7 October 31, 2022
(e.g., six months) if needed. The element must also address affordability assumptions for ADU projections.

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Emergency Shelters: The element should clarify shelters are permitted without discretionary action and discuss available sites, acreage, including typical parcel sizes and the presence of reuse opportunities, proximity to transportation and services and any conditions inappropriate for human habitability. The analysis should also list and evaluate all development standards and address the constraints on spacing and shelter size with a program. Finally, the element should analyze whether parking requirements comply with AB139/Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A) or include a program to comply with this requirement.
• Housing for Employees: The Employee Housing Act permits housing under specific provisions. Section 17021.5 requires employee housing for six or fewer employees to be treated as a single-family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Section 17021.6 requires employee housing consisting of no more than 12 units or 36 beds to be permitted in the same manner as other agricultural uses in the same zone. The element must demonstrate compliance with these requirements and include programs as appropriate.
• By-Right Permanent Supportive Housing: Supportive housing shall be a use byright in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651. The element must demonstrate compliance with these requirements and include programs as appropriate.
• Low Barrier Navigation Centers: Low Barrier Navigation Centers shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65660. The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include programs as appropriate.
• Mobile Homes: The element must clarify whether mobile homes on a permanent foundation in the PFS zone are approved in the same way as single-family homes, if not a program should be added as appropriate. • Multifamily Housing: The element states that multifamily housing is allowed only in PFS zone with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and master plan. The element must analyze and demonstrate realistic opportunities for multifamily and analyze the CUP requirement for multifamily as a potential constraint on housing supply and affordability. The analysis should identify findings of approval for the CUP and their potential impact on development approval certainty, timing, feasibility and cost. If constraints are identified, programs should be included to address and remove or modify these constraints.
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The element indicates the Town modified its zoning code to ease barriers to the development of ADU’s. However, after a cursory review of the Town’s ordinance, HCD discovered several areas which ATTACHMENT 4
Town of Atherton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 8 October 31, 2022
are not consistent with State ADU Law. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU non-compliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should include a program to update the Town’s ADU ordinance to comply with state law. For more information, please consult HCD’s ADU Guidebook, published in December 2020, which provides detailed information on new state requirements surrounding ADU development.

5. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).).

Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The analysis should analyze land use controls independently and cumulatively with other land use controls.

The analysis should specifically address requirements related to parking, heights, lot coverage and allowable density ranges. The analysis should address any impacts on cost, supply, housing choice, affordability, timing, approval certainty and ability to achieve maximum densities. For example, the element should describe allowed uses and typical densities in the PFS zone. In addition, the element notes that zones include a 34-foot height restriction, the element should clarify whether three stories are allowed in zones that allow multifamily or add a program to address the constraint. The required setbacks and maximum lot coverage requirements should also be analyzed as a constraint in the PFS zone. Lastly, the element states that low allowable densities are a constraint on housing; the element should include a program to mitigate the identified constraint.

Zoning Fees and Transparency: The element must list all fees and clarify its compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning and development standards, and fees for each parcel on the jurisdiction’s website pursuant to Government Code section 65940.1(a)(1).

Fees and Exaction: While the element provides a cumulative analysis of fees for single family developments, it should also provide this analysis for multifamily developments.

In addition, the element should list all the various planning and impact fees associated with development, including but not limited to general plan amendments, zone changes, site plan or master plans, specific plans, environmental fees, and water/sewer fees.

Lastly, the element should analyze the proportion of total fees and the proportion to the development costs of both single family and multifamily housing.

Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element describes some of the use permit procedures, it must further describe and analyze the Town’s permit processing and approval procedures by zone and housing type. The analysis must evaluate the processing and permit procedures’ impacts as potential constraints on housing supply ATTACHMENT 4
Town of Atherton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 9 October 31, 2022
and affordability. For example, the element should clarify whether design review is required. In addition, the element must describe the CUP findings and procedures as well as describe master plan review requirements for multifamily development and analyze these as constraints on housing development. Based on the outcomes of the analysis, the element should add or modify programs to streamline approval of multifamily housing and promote approval certainty.

Local Ordinances: The element must analyze any locally adopted ordinances that directly impacts the cost and supply of residential development. While the element states that the Town has a short-term rental ordinance, it should be analyzed for constraints on housing development.

Streamlining Provisions: The element must clarify whether the Town has procedures in place consistent with streamlining procedures pursuant to Government Code section 65913.4 and include programs as appropriate.

Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element must include an analysis of zoning, development standards, building codes, and process and permit procedures as potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. For example, the element must describe the findings and approval procedure for the Town’s Reasonable Accommodation procedure. In addition, the element must describe and analyze how group homes for seven or more are allowed within the Town and add programs as appropriate. For your information, zoning should simply implement a barrier-free definition of family instead of subjecting, potentially persons with disabilities, to special regulations such as the number of persons, population types and licenses.

These housing types should not be excluded from residential zones, most notably lowdensity zones, which can constrain the availability of housing choices for persons with disabilities. Requiring these housing types to obtain a special use or CUP could potentially subject housing for persons with disabilities to higher discretionary exceptions processes and standards where an applicant must, for example, demonstrate compatibility with the neighborhood, unlike other residential uses. The element should add or modify programs to address the constraint as appropriate.

6. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).)
Availability of Financing: The element must describe the availability of financing, including private financing and government assistance programs, is generally available in the community.

ATTACHMENT 4
Town of Atherton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 10 October 31, 2022
Approval Time and Requests for Lesser Densities: The element must include analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those identified, the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits. The element must address any hinderance on the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need.

7. Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).)
Special Needs: While the element quantifies the Town’s special needs populations, it must also analyze their special housing needs. For a complete analysis of each population group, the element should discuss challenges faced by the population, the existing resources to meet those needs (e.g., availability senior housing units, # of large units, # of deed restricted units, etc.), an assessment of any gaps in resources, and proposed policies, programs, and funding to help address those gaps. In addition, the element must quantify and analyze the number of large households, elderly persons, and persons experiencing homelessness in the Town.

8. Analyze the opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development. (Gov. Code, § 65583(a)(8).)
The element must include analysis of energy conservation opportunities in residential development. The analysis should facilitate the adoption of housing element policies and programs. For example, programs could provide incentives to promote higher density housing along transit, encourage green building techniques and materials in new construction and remodels, promote energy audits and participation in utility conservation programs, and facilitate energy conserving retrofits upon resale of homes.

C. Housing Programs

1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and address the goals of the housing element, programs must be revised with discrete timelines (e.g., at least annually or month and year) or timeframes earlier in the planning period. Additionally, programs should include specific commitment and actions toward beneficial impacts or housing outcomes. Program language such as “discuss”, “review”, “develop” and “explore” should be complemented or replaced with commitment such as adopt, pursue, apply or identify. Programs to be revised include the following:

ATTACHMENT 4
Town of Atherton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 11 October 31, 2022
• Program 3.814 (Adoption of an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance): The element should include additional information on the inclusionary fee and include a specific date of implementation.
• Program 3.815 (Conservation and Rehabilitation of Existing Units): The program should specify what actions will be taken and clarify how the Town will assist property owners.
• Program 3.821 (Seniors): The program should include outreach for the existing programs listed as well as include specific timing for implementation. • Program 3.822 (Disabled and Developmentally Delayed Persons): The program should include proactive outreach and specific timing for implementation. • Program 3.823 (Equal Housing Opportunity): The program should include implementation timing for each action listed as well as how often outreach will occur during the planning period.
• Programs 3.824 (Emergency Shelters, Transitional and Supportive Housing) and

3.831 (Energy Conservation): The programs must include clear actions for implementation as well as specific timing.
• Program 3.841 (Shared Housing): The program should be revised to include specific timing, identify a responsible party, funding, and objective. In addition, the program should include proactive outreach and describe how the Town will provide the identified support.
• Program 3.842 (Housing Compliance and Monitoring): The program should be revised with specific commitment beyond “consider” for the identified actions. In addition, the program should clarify the action being taken and include specific timing for implementation.

2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding B4, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the Town may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:

Program 3.813 (Multifamily Housing Development on School and other Properties): This program should be revised to include specific incentives for implementation and clarify ATTACHMENT 4
Town of Atherton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 12 October 31, 2022
what actions will be completed as part of the program. In addition, the element must commit to the rezones and discuss the densities that will be allowed with the rezone.

The program currently references timing associated with adoption of the element. The Town should be aware that if the adoption is not complete by the start of the planning period (January 31, 2023), the Town will be subject to right requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).

Shortfall of Adequate Sites: If the element does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower-income households, it must include a program(s) to identify sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate the regional housing need within the planning period. The program should identify the shortfall by income group, acreage, allowable densities, appropriate development standards and meet all by right requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i), including but not limited to permitting multifamily uses by-right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households.

Replacement Housing Requirements: The housing element must include a program to provide replacement housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(3).) The replacement housing program must adhere to the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c), paragraph (3).

3. The Housing Element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderateincome households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).) The element must include a program(s) with specific actions and timelines to assist in the development of housing for extremely low-income households. The program(s) could commit the Town to adopting priority processing, granting fee waivers or deferrals, modifying development standards, granting concessions and incentives for housing developments that include units affordable to extremely low-income households; assisting, supporting or pursuing funding applications; and outreach and coordination with affordable housing developers.

In addition, the element must also include a program(s), as appropriate, to assist in the development of housing for all special needs households (e.g., elderly, homeless, farmworkers, persons with disabilities, female-headed households). Program actions could include proactive outreach and assistance to non-profit service providers and developers, prioritizing some funding for housing developments affordable to special needs households and offering financial incentives or regulatory concessions to encourage a variety of housing types.

4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable ATTACHMENT 4
Town of Atherton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 13 October 31, 2022
accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Findings B5 and B6, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and non-governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the Town may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:

5. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
The element must include actions that promote AFFH opportunities as stated in Finding B1. For example, the element could include a program committing to implement Government Code section 8899.50, subdivision (b) which requires the Town to administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to AFFH and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to AFFH. Programs should address enhancing housing mobility strategies; encouraging development of new affordable housing in high resource areas; improving place-based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing; and protecting existing residents from displacement. The programs should also include specific commitment, milestones, geographic targeting and metrics or numerical targets for meaningful outcomes and fair housing results.

6. Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).) Program 3.812 (New Construction of Affordable Accessory Dwelling Units): The program must clarify the actions that will be implemented to incentivize ADUs beyond “consider”. In addition, the program should include implementation timing for each specific action. Lastly, as mentioned above, the Town should adopt a program to comply with state ADU law, monitor production and affordability of ADUs throughout the planning period and identify additional actions as needed.

D. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).)
The element did not address this requirement. The element must include quantified objectives for new construction, rehabilitation, and conservation by income group, including extremely low-income households. Please see the Building Blocks for additional information.

ATTACHMENT 4
Town of Atherton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 14 October 31, 2022
E. Public Participation:

Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) While the element includes a general summary of the public participation process, the element should also demonstrate diligent efforts were made to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. The element could describe the efforts to circulate the housing element among low- and moderate-income households and organizations that represent them and to involve such groups and persons in the element throughout the process. In addition, the element should also summarize the public comments and describe how they were considered and incorporated into the element. Lastly, the element should describe whether translation services were available during the process.

F. General Plan Consistency
The Housing Element shall describe the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).) The element must describe how consistency was achieved and how it will be maintained during the planning period. For example, the element could include a program to conduct an internal consistency review of the General Plan as part of the annual General Plan implementation report required by Government Code section 65400. The annual report can also assist future updates of the housing element.

ATTACHMENT 4
From: Steve Boom
To: Council
Cc: Rick DeGolia; Bill Widmer; Elizabeth Lewis; Diana Hawkins-Manuelian; Robert Polito; Lisa Boom Subject: Housing Element -- Bear Gulch Reservoir
Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 11:57:24 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Hello,
We are writing to provide our feedback regarding the staff’s proposal to consider adding high-density housing on parts of the Bear Gulch Reservoir land. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend the council meeting on Thursday.

We are residents at , all the way at the end of the Walsh Road corridor and a few hundred feet from California Water.

To be honest, we were shocked to read the staff’s proposal to consider two housing sites on the Reservoir property, each of which could be as large as 40-60 units and stand 4 stories tall. Not only would such a proposal completely alter the very nature of the entire neighborhood (and thus the property values), but the addition of so many new residents to this area would create significant traffic and pedestrian safety issues as well as create high-density housing in a fire-prone area. We strongly oppose this proposal.

We purchased our property in 2016 because of the unique character of the Walsh Road corridor. For us, the Walsh Road corridor felt like — and continues to feel like — “Portola Valley but in Atherton.” In other words, the Walsh Road corridor has a uniquely rural feel to it, unlike any other area in Atherton. This sets it apart from Atherton Ave and its surroundings, which feel more like “Beverly Hills but in Atherton”, or the area of Atherton closer to El Camino Real which is more like surrounding suburban towns such as Menlo Park. Adding multi-story buildings to the Reservoir would, in one swift action, destroy the unique character of the Walsh Road corridor and, with it, the property values forhomeowners such as ourselves who invested in the area. From a property value perspective, the unique, rural character of our neighborhood offsets its biggest downside which is proximity to I-280 and the attendant highway noise. If you remove the rural character of the neighborhood, it will be unrecognizable and drive property values down.

In addition, the proposal under consideration would add material population density to the neighborhood, which will cause significant traffic and pedestrian safety issues. Inevitably, the ingress and egress to these new multi-story buildings will cause significant congestion — and there is no reasonable way to mitigate it. And there is no public transportation anywhere nearby. The Reservoir is tucked away at the end of 1-way in, 1-way out narrow residential streets. There’s no reasonable way to widen the roads, add lanes, or add new ingress or egress points. That means substantially higher traffic in residential areas that were not designed for it. And it will also add traffic to Alamada de las Pulgas, which is already congested at Las Lomitas during school hours and also around the Alamade/Atherton Ave intersection which already sees traffic backed up both northbound and southbound at multiple times during the day.

The residents of the neighborhood — as well as adjacent neighborhoods — enjoy walking the streets of the Walsh Road corridor at all hours of the day. To be honest, the situation is already somewhat unsafe because there are a some blind curves on Walsh Road, the area is very dark once the sun starts to go down, and there seems to be constant truck traffic due to the Reservoir and also construction. Adding a significant number of new residents will only increase both the foot traffic and the car traffic, which will only make walking more unsafe. And given the fact that Walsh Road is a 1-way in, 1-way out street, there is no real alternative route for people to walk in the neighborhood away from the primary vehicular route. Pedestrians can’t take a side street because there aren’t any — all of the side streets are dead ends. People’s options will be to walk down a more heavily trafficked road or to get in their cars to drive to another neighborhood in order to go for a walk. To call this counterproductive is a massive understatement.

Finally, the Walsh Road corridor is the area of Atherton most at risk for wildfires. A couple of years ago when there were significant fires in the Santa Cruz mountains, the residents of our neighborhood were prepared to evacuate because of our proximity to the mountains as well as all of the vegetation that surrounds us (which creates the rural character). And now there is a proposal to add multi-story buildings and materially increase population density? How can this be viewed as anything but an unnecessary increase in public safety risk, not only to the new residents but also to existing residents? Evacuation routes along our 1-way in/1-way out roads will be that much more congested, which has the potential to cause significant harm.

In short, we strongly oppose any proposal to build high-density housing on the Bear Gulch Reservoir. In reviewing the overall proposal, there are clearly other sites which are more suitable for high-density housing and are in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Steve and Lisa Boom
1 Anthony Suber
From: albert cheung >
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 7:10 PM
To: Anthony Suber; Council
Subject: Re: 23 Oakwood Blvd Development Proposal
[The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Please accept my apologies. The previous email should be dated December 14, 2022. The corrected version is below.

Thank you,
Jennifer Cheung
December 14, 2022
Dear Mr. Suber and Atherton Council:

Nearly six months later, we write again in response to the recent notice from the Town of Atherton regarding the proposed rezoning of several properties in Atherton to increase housing density. In particular, we are writing in regard to 23 Oakwood Blvd, which is close to our home on East Oakwood Blvd.

As we mentioned in June, we do support the statewide mandate to increase housing density to allow for more affordable housing for local populations, and yet we have several concerns with the current proposal for the Town of Atherton’s proposal for 23 Oakwood Blvd. Listed below are our concerns, which we respectfully request you to consider.

1. 23 Oakwood Blvd continues to have a much higher density plan than other parcels in the Atherton proposal.

Council members indicated that since it was on the edge of Atherton, it was easier to place it there. That may win a popularity vote but may not actually be the best choice for public safety. Please address why 23 Oakwood Blvd is suitable for the higher density, even though the access road is limited and joins into a complex intersection with no traffic controls.

2. The current Atherton zoning proposal would allow a developer to construct up to 20 homes per acre on this ~1.5-acre site. This is a small decrease from this summer; while we thank you for recognizing the original proposal was too high, we do ask that you evaluate how the cars from 30 homes will access the intersection of Oakwood and Oakwood. In addition, please address how the increased traffic will affect the intersection of Selby and Oakwood as well as the overall traffic on Selby.

3. Selby and Oakwood are used as part of the Peninsula bicycle route and for pedestrians (including children walking to school), but the roads do not have sidewalks. This fall Jennifer was almost hit by a car coming from Atheron as it veered onto the Oakwood Circle. This is, unfortunately, becoming a more frequent occurrence as traffic returns to pre-pandemic levels. We respectfully request Atherton to address this safety hazard that would be created by a large development on Oakwood Blvd. 2 4. In addition, during morning rush hour, Oakwood Blvd already backs up significantly due to the high density of traffic on Selby Lane. How will the developer and Atherton address the increased number of cars needing to access Selby Lane during rush hour.

5. The 23 Oakwood Blvd lot is long and narrow. We all need to be vigilant that firefighters can access areas quickly and safely. Please address how you will ensure emergency vehicles will be able to access the roads with the complex circle entrance and traffic backup at Selby and Oakwood.

6. In the past ten years, the west side of Oakwood Blvd has already added two small lanes with an additional six homes. The circle was not designed to become a major thoroughfare but is already becoming so. We request that you require any developer near Oakwood Blvd address traffic flow and management with remedies such as but not limited to a traffic light at Selby Lane and El Camino Real, funding for sidewalks on the Oakwood Blvd circle, and a stop sign (with appropriate traffic studies) at the the intersection of Oakwood and Oakwood.

7. The impact of an increased population on our schools and community recreation centers. Currently, these children would need to cross El Camino to access their local school, unless they attend Selby Lane School. Where will the children play? Will there be recreational opportunities on the property? Knowing that the children will be on the border of two communities but in the same school, can the developer open the recreational areas to the larger community?

8. Atherton in general and the 23 Oakwood Blvd area has a significant amount of flooding during the rainy season. Lately there have been flood warning signs on Selby and neighboring streets. With the increasing housing and impervious surfaces, how will Atherton address stormwater management? What remedies will be taken to ensure that flooding issues will be diminished, rather than exacerbated?

9. 23 Oakwood Blvd has beautiful trees on the property. How will Atherton ensure that any heritage trees and other plants that provide shade, thus reducing warming, will be protected during construction?

10. We reiterate the request we made this summer that you expand your communication circle to include all of Oakwood Blvd and not just the 500 feet beyond 23 Oakwood Blvd. As stated in the Bible, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." We hope that Atherton can be as caring of its Redwood City neighbors as it can of its Atherton residents.

Sincerely,
Albert T Cheung, MD and Jennifer Pollock Cheung

Redwood City, CA 9406
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 7:07 PM albert cheung <[email protected]> wrote:

June 22, 2022
Dear Mr. Suber and Atherton Council:

First, we do wish to express our disappointment that Atherton has chosen to not be better neighbors with us. If it were not for another Redwood City neighbor, we would not h ave known you were considering this property for high density development again. We hope that in the future you will make the effort to respect and care for all your neighbors, regardless of a municipal boundary line. 3 As we mentioned in June, we do support the statewide mandate to increase housing density to allow for more affordable housing for local populations, and yet we have several concerns with the current proposal for the Town of Atherton’s proposal for 23 Oakwood Blvd. Listed below are our concerns, which we respectfully request you to consider.

That may win a popularity vote but may not actually be the best choice for public safety. Please address why 23 Oakwood Blvd is suitable for the higher density, even though the access road is limited and joins into a complex intersection with no traffic controls.

4. In addition, during morning rush hour, Oakwood Blvd already backs up significantly due to the high density of traffic on Selby Lane. How will the developer and Atherton address the increased number of cars needing to access Selby Lane during rush hour.

Redwood City, CA 9406
From: Stephanie Corey
To: Anthony Suber
Subject: High Density Housing Plan
Date: Monday, December 12, 2022 6:40:00 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear Atherton City Council,
I recently found out about your proposed high density housing plan at 23 Oakwood Drive. As a Redwood Oaks neighbor, I would like to formally oppose the proposal. Redwood City has added a massive amount of high density housing in the last decade, and the residents have had to absorb the congestion that comes with this development. The very last thing our neighborhood wants is more high density housing quite literally yards away from our already overcrowded streets. A simple search on Google maps will show just how overcrowded Redwood City is in comparison to the properties in Atherton. Please find another way to deal with the state mandates without putting this undue burden on us.

Regards,
Stephanie Corey, Redwood City
1 Anthony Suber
From: Susan Honda Eady <
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 11:52 PM
To: Anthony Suber
Subject: Atherton’s proposed 23 Oakwood Blvd development [The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
December 14, 2022
Dear Mr. Suber and Atherton Council,
We write again in response to recent notice of the meeting to discuss Atherton’s proposed 23 Oakwood Blvd development down just down the street from us. And again, we only hear about this via other neighbors – nothing from the town of Atherton. I realize that we do not live in Atherton but our family has lived here for over 50 years ‐ and hope to continue to do so ‐ safely.

We do support the statewide mandate to increase housing density to allow for more affordable housing for local populations, and yet we have several concerns with the current proposal for the Town of Atherton’s proposal for 23 Oakwood Blvd.

1. 23 Oakwood Blvd continues to have a much higher density plan than other parcels in the Atherton proposal. Council members indicated that since it was on the edge of Atherton, it was easier to place it there. That may win a popularity vote but may not actually be the best choice for public safety. Please address why 23 Oakwood Blvd is suitable for the higher density, even though the access road is limited and joins into a complex intersection with no traffic controls.

2. The current Atherton zoning proposal would allow a developer to construct up to 20 homes per acre on this ~1.5‐acre site. This is a small decrease from this summer; while we thank you for recognizing the original proposal was too high, we do ask that you evaluate how the cars from 30 homes will access the intersection of Oakwood and Oakwood. In addition, please address how the increased traffic will affect the intersection of Selby and Oakwood as well as the overall traffic on Selby.

3. Selby and Oakwood are used as part of the Peninsula bicycle route and for pedestrians (including children walking to school), but the roads do not have sidewalks. It is more and more dangerous to walk as traffic returns to pre‐pandemic levels. We respectfully request Atherton to address this safety hazard that would be created by a large development on Oakwood Blvd.

6. In the past ten years, the west side of Oakwood Blvd has already added two small lanes with an additional six homes. The circle was not designed to become a major thoroughfare but is already becoming so. We request that you require any developer near Oakwood Blvd address traffic flow and management with remedies such as but not limited 2 to a traffic light at Selby Lane and El Camino Real, funding for sidewalks on the Oakwood Blvd circle, and a stop sign (with appropriate traffic studies) at the the intersection of East Oakwood, West Oakwood and Oakwood Blvd, coming from Atherton – right in front of the proposed development.

10. We reiterate the request we made this summer that you expand your communication circle to include all of Oakwood Blvd and not just the 500 feet beyond 23 Oakwood Blvd. We hope that Atherton can be as caring of its Redwood City neighbors as it can of its Atherton residents.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Susan Honda Eady
Jerry Eady
Tamiko Honda

Redwood City, CA 94061
From: Stephanie Sargent
To: Anthony Suber
Subject: Fwd: Proposed Plan at 23 Oakwood Drive
Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 10:18:42 AM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Hi Anthony,
Public comment for December 15th meeting from Erin Callaghan.

From: Erin <
Date: December 13, 2022 at 10:05:20 AM PST
To: [email protected]
Council-Diane Howard
<[email protected]>,
Subject: Proposed Plan at 23 Oakwood Drive
Dear Atherton City Council,
I live in the Redwood Oaks neighborhood of Redwood City, immediately adjacent to Atherton’s border. Our streets are narrow with no sidewalks, similar to the rural design in Atherton. We have pedestrians, bikers, joggers and especially children riding their bikes to school on Selby Lane going through our neighborhood. We also have a large amount of cut-through traffic moving between El Camino and Woodside Road and 101 and 280 freeways. Due to the nature of our smaller properties, many people must park on these overburdened streets, sending pedestrians and bicyclists into the street where they must share the narrow road with cars, impacting an already very dangerous situation.

I recently found out about your proposed high density housing plan at 23 Oakwood Drive. I urge you to reject this proposal in light of the burden it would place on already overused streets that were not designed to carry the amount of traffic seen in this area, which also includes streets in Atherton.

Several months ago I participated in another Zoom meeting about a similar (but smaller) proposal for this same lot and there were many people from both Atherton and Redwood City requesting that Atherton rethink a proposal of that size. Considering this is even denser and nothing has changed in the design of our streets, I hope that Atherton will want to be good neighbors. Please find a better way to comply with state mandates rather than create a more dangerous situation on the Atherton/Redwood City border.

Sincerely,
Erin Callaghan
Redwood City
1 Anthony Suber
From:

Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 9:21 AM
To: Anthony Suber
Cc: Goly Barar
Subject: 23 Oakwood Housing Element
[The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Re-submitting this email to register our objections & support to all points below.

December 15, 2022
Dear Mr. Suber and Atherton Council:

Sincerely,
Andrew Faulkner & Goly Barar
, Redwood City

Atherton, CA 94027
December 13, 2022
Atherton City Council
80 Fair Oaks Lane
Atherton, CA 94027
Dear Council Members:

I was intrigued to read the package for the special housing meeting on Dec. 15th. Let me first remark that the Council and town staff have done an extraordinary job of trying to find land areas that could accommodate multifamily housing without significantly altering the character of the existing town. Well done!
It appears that the focus of this meeting is to further study potential land development spaces. The sites that are contained in the analysis would appear to be optimal with minimal impact to existing homes. I do have a few comments as to the recommendations:

1. Soils reports will be extremely important as regards the water table for the Bear Gulch area. My husband and I have built two homes on that side of the Alameda. At one property, we hit water at 5 feet and at 9 feet. I have no idea if there are water issues at Bear Gulch, but the question needs to be asked if a four-story building is contemplated. As you know, PPG has built extensively through the Walsh Road area and may have insight.

2. I see no mention of potential housing at Holbrook Palmer Park. I have been told that the terms of the land gift were that it must remain as a park or be deeded to Stanford University. I wonder though if the restriction applies to the location of the existing house that, I’m told, the police chief resides in? If that house were demolished or remodeled and a two or three-story multifamily building erected, would that violate the terms of the parkland gift? The town would merely be trading housing-for-housing. It would have no impact on the beauty or use of the park itself, since the existing house is at the perimeter and out-of-sight.

3. I see no mention of the Sacred Heart campus. This implies that the school is not willing to entertain housing. My children went to St. Joseph’s, so I am somewhat familiar with the campus. It used to have a number of small units where retired nuns resided. I assume the units are still there? Perhaps this space could be redeveloped into multi-story housing for staff and faculty? Maybe the town, or a private investment group (of residents), could incentivize the school by offering low interest construction loans that would convert to a long-term mortgage? Interest could even be deferred until the new units were leased, costing the school nothing.

4. Is there any possibility of closing the Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School and using the land for multifamily housing instead? Few Atherton residents have children there, although I realize that the elementary school is of benefit to the neighboring communities.

5. While the brownstone concept for Bay Rd. and Ringwood is interesting, I fear that it has the potential to devalue the surrounding homes. The proposal is for 3+ story buildings to be added to a largely one-story neighborhood. Granted, Bay Road is not that attractive, but that doesn’t mean that its existing homeowners should bear the burden of 92 high density housing units within a relatively close distance. 999 Ringwood, for example, is valued at $4.9M on Zillow.

Putting 18 housing units on that property would most certainly devalue the adjacent homes, especially if the new structure were a three-story configuration. If the town decides to pursue this, then underground parking should be mandatory. Architectural design will be very important. It is also possible that two-story multifamily housing units could be made to look like single family homes rather than three-story townhouses. You would not get as much density as with the higher configuration, but it would better maintain the existing character of the neighborhood. Joe Comartin did this 10+ years ago at the corner of Fremont in Menlo Park (i.e., built two-story multifamily units that actually resemble single-family units). Those “brownstones” are quite attractive and do not diminish the neighborhood. They blend in quite nicely. It might also be possible to design a third story pitched-roof “attic” unit with large dormer windows. This would give the benefit of three stories of housing with a two-story appearance.

6. If you allow three-story buildings, you should consider raising the fence height limits and mandate extensive landscape shielding.

7. I believe that parking for all multifamily housing should be underground unless it is at Bear Gulch or on the school campuses where parking lots would not detract. You are talking about a significant number of cars on each parcel. For example, the 18 proposed housing units at Ringwood could have as many as 27-36 vehicles (assuming a predominance of two working adults per unit). You’ll also have a fair number of trucks with lower-income inhabitants. They are hard-working people, many of whom may be in the trades.

8. Trash enclosures have to be carefully considered, too. With this many units on one parcel, you are likely talking about contained dumpsters, either in the underground garage or within fenced enclosures. I have owned several fourplexes. I can tell you that trash containment was one of my biggest headaches. I also don’t think you want to see 18 mailboxes out front, so this needs appropriate restriction. While I realize that your primary focus is on achieving the statemandated 348 housing units, there are other considerations besides the structures.

The housing mandate is a horrendous set of issues for Atherton, and the Council and staff have worked arduously to find resolution. There are no easy answers. Thank you for the monumental amount of time and energy that you have already devoted. I look forward to meetings in the new year as you contemplate additional options and seek community input. You have done an excellent job of outreach already.

Respectfully,
Carol Flaherty
From: Peter Hutton
To: Anthony Suber
Subject: 23 Oakwood Drive
Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 12:09:39 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear Atherton City Council, I would like to formally oppose the proposal for high density housing at 23 Oakwood Drive.

The recent traffic alterations in Redwood City already drive through traffic onto East Oakwood Boulevard and in front of the proposed address. This is already a hazard in a residential area which is not designed to cope with a significant influx of new occupants.

The residents in both Atherton and Redwood City in the nearby areas will be significantly effected by a development of this size whilst the environmental impact is hugely depressing in an already overcrowded area.

Peter Hutton
--
From: Clay Judd
To: George Rodericks; Rick DeGolia; Elizabeth Lewis; Bill Widmer; Diana Hawkins-Manuelian; Robert Polito Subject: Special Meeting December 15th, 80-120 Housing Units on Reservoir Road and 80-120 Housing Units on Moore Road on Cal Water property.

Date: Thursday, December 15, 2022 7:23:19 AM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear Mayor DeGolia and Council Members,
I have just recently become aware of your recent Staff Report suggesting 80-120 housing units be built on the Cal Water property at the end of Reservoir Road along with an additional 80-120 housing units be built on the Cal Water property on Moore road.

It is hard to believe what I’m actually reading, and shocking that this is on the Staff Report. How could this have possibly been suggested when there are so many reasons this site is not suitable for development of this nature? The original Cal Water proposal of 4 units for employees, was what the public was told prior to the December 15, 2022 meeting. How does the Staff Report suddenly add potentially 240 units to a Cal Water site, which is designed and built to provide water to the community?
If the City wants to build housing of this magnitude it should be built in a location closer to basic services and supporting roads. Neither Walsh road or Moore road could handle this kind if traffic.

I personally think the State mandate for added housing for every city and town is the wrong approach as Community Development requires advance planning and design for infrastructure to accommodate growth. The State should eliminate the housing requirement.

There are many neighbors in the Wash Road and Moore Road area that will be totally against your new housing proposal. Please rethink this new proposal and delete the Cal Water property from City Housing Update.

Sincerely,
Clay Judd
From: kathy klebe
To: Anthony Suber
Subject: Opposition to development at 23 Oakwood dr.

Date: Monday, December 12, 2022 7:18:22 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Atherton City Council,
As a Redwood Oaks neighbor, I would like to formally oppose the multi unit housing proposal for 23 Oakwood Dr. This high density housing on this streetwill add more cars to very busy walking/biking route. Dozens of school children walk the East and West Oakwood Bl. streets daily on their way to Adelante Selby Lane school. You need to find another way to fulfill the state mandates without putting this undue burden and safety hazard in our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Kathy Klebe
--
Kathy
From: Deborah Kranz
To: Council; Rick DeGolia; Bill Widmer; Elizabeth Lewis; Diana Hawkins-Manuelian; Robert Polito Cc: Deborah Kranz
Subject: Walsh Road - Housing Element
Date: Thursday, December 15, 2022 2:15:33 AM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Atherton Council Members and Mayor:

I recently learned about the recommendation to consider designating two portions of the California Water Service Reservoir property at the end of Reservoir Road in the Walsh Road area to accommodate 40-60 units on both Potential Site 1 and 2 for a total of 80 to 120 new units in the heart of the Walsh Road neighborhood and permitting to build 4 stories or 48 feet within 30 feet of the property line. Setting aside the safety elements of having a dense development in the wildfire zone of Atherton and in the flood inundation zone of a failed dam, it is completely inappropriate to designate Atherton’s most rural area for its most dense development.

You should take into consideration that there have already been traffic issues identified by the city to get onto Alameda that backs up traffic both mornings and evenings which will only worsen. This impacts the Los Lomitas School as well and endangers our children. It is also unsafe to have this many residents traveling on a “not through” street. It would be far better to:
,

1. Not do anything until you work with the residents to build a case as to why they should consider ADU’s. I do not believe that a case has been made to justify wy ADU’s should be counted. Many of us have rented our ADU’s for years to students, teachers, Stanford Professors and visiting fellows, as well as young families that want our school district but cannot afford the homes. ADU’s can also be offered to local public school teachers, local police, firemen and government workers.

2. Have the residents pay more tax and pay the fines assessed for not complying

3. Build the additional housing on a main thoroughfare such as El Camino, use Holbrook Palmer park or St Joes Seminary (there are less studying to be priests) where there is street access from both sides . You could assess the residents for the purchase of any property I encourage you to come up with a more creative solution that to endanger lives of residents. I personally believe that by building this many homes in our small community that you will find that Atherton will not longer be ranked as highly as it has been in the past. You have many intelligent and creative residents in the community that you should approach to form a committee to look at the many options that are available vs making a haste decision that will permanently adversely affect our community.

Best,
Deborah & Michael Kranz
Atherton CA 94027
1 From: Stephanie Sargent
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 11:12 PM
To: Anthony Suber; George Rodericks; Council; City Attornery Mona Ebrahimi Subject: Re: Error on agenda
[The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Anthony, George, Mona and council:

The “remote public comments” email address has been incorrect on all agendas since at least September 02,2022 up until the December 15th special meeting agenda. This means any public comments sent in remotely since September ,possibly before, were never received. How many people have not been heard? People should be informed of the mistake Atherton has made and that their remote comments may have not been received or read during any and all meetings since September.

This is a public comment for the December 15th special meeting.

Best,
Stephanie Sargent
> On Dec 12, 2022, at 10:22 PM, Stephanie Sargent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Anthony,
> There is a mistake with your email address on the December 15th special meeting agenda. The link for people to send public comment is wrong. Please fix it asap and resend out the agenda so people are able to email you and not get bounce back messages. You are missing and “a” in “.ca” in [email protected] Please let me know when you fix this and include me in the email. Thank you.
> Best,
> Stephanie Sargent
From: Laurie Shepard
To: Council; Rick DeGolia; Bill Widmer; Elizabeth Lewis; Diana Hawkins-Manuelian; Robert Polito Subject: Housing Element/Bear Gulch
Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 9:08:59 AM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear Members of the Town Council,
I just learned of the Town staff’s most recent recommendation to consider designating two portions of the California Water Service Reservoir property at the end of Reservoir Road in the Walsh Road area. Bear Gulch Reservoir would be designated to accommodate 40-60 units on both Potential Site 1 and 2 for a total of 80 to 120 new units in the heart of the Walsh Road neighborhood. They would also be permitted to build 4 stories or 48 feet within 30 feet of the property line.

This staff recommendation was made without any conversation with any of the affected neighbors, or the Walsh Road community at large, and was obviously not well thought out before being proposed. This suggestion lacks common sense or basic planning precepts, and ignores the many obvious reasons this site is not appropriate, or safe, for high density development:
• The site sits in the middle of the wildfire zone of Atherton • The site is in the flood inundation zone of a failed dam • Large scale development creates threats of contamination to our drinking water supply • The site lacks the necessary infrastructure to support high density development (water, sewer, power, accessibility, etc.).
• The site is only accessible via a single, winding, dead end road, not designed to accommodate high traffic volumes. High density development requires adjacency and accessibility to transportation corridors and public transportation (i.e. train/bus routes)
I would ask that this recommendation be immediately removed from the Town’s submittal, as it would be completely inappropriate to designate Atherton’s most rural area for its most dense development.

Thank you,
Laurie Shepard
1 Anthony Suber
From: Jeffrey Staley
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 5:55 PM
To: Council; Rick DeGolia; Bill Widmer; Elizabeth Lewis; Diana Hawkins-Manuelian; Robert Polito Subject: Opposition to multi-family units at the Bear Gulch Reservoir Site [The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear Mayor DeGolia and Members of the Atherton Town Council, I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed project at the Bear Gulch Reservoir Site, which would include the development of up to 120 dense multi‐family housing units. Please remove the Bear Gulch Reservoir Site from the list of possible properties listed in the Draft Housing Element Update date December 15th, 2022.

Below I have listed numerous significant safety, traffic and quality of life objections that would make this project entirely unacceptable.
1) Safety & traffic
a. The proposed development of 80‐120 densely packed units in a wildfire zone & inundation zone next to a dam is a meaningful safety & traffic hazard b. Housing Site No. 2 (at the end of Reservoir Rd)
i. Reservoir Rd is a cul‐de‐sac and Walsh Rd provides the only entry / exit to the entire neighborhood.
ii. These roads are not designed for the dramatic increase in traffic resulting from 40‐60 units on the Bear Gulch Reservoir Site.  This would create an unacceptable safety and evacuation risk in the event of a natural disaster.  There is already a traffic and safety concern related to the volume of Cal Water trucks that regularly come and go from the Cal Water Corporation Yard via Walsh / Reservoir Rd. iii. Additionally, Walsh Rd feeds all traffic onto Alameda de las Pulgas directly at the Las Lomitas elementary school, which creates a safety issue for Las Lomitas students and families many of whom travel on foot and bike from various surrounding neighborhoods.
iv. The Walsh Rd & Alameda de Las Pulgas intersection is already a significant traffic problem in the mornings and afternoons.  40‐60 additional units would create unacceptable gridlock and safety concerns.
v. Many residents are also extremely concerned about safety for children, pedestrians, and bicyclists on Reservoir & Walsh Rd.  Dozens of children bike to and from their schools on Reservoir & Walsh Road (Las Lomitas, La Entrada, Phillips Brooks, Sacred Heart, Menlo School). 100% of the traffic from the high‐density units in Housing Site No. 2 would be funneled onto Reservoir / Walsh Rd as they are the only route to enter & exit the neighborhood.
c. In addition to the above, there are many other noise and infrastructure questions that concern that residents have related to both Housing Site No. 1 & 2. 2 2) Rural nature of the neighborhood
a. It's entirely inappropriate to designate Atherton’s most rural area for its most dense development.
b. Residents want to maintain the character of this rural Walsh Rd neighborhood and quality of life.  Residents invested in the neighborhood with that expectation.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jeff Staley
Walsh Road Neighborhood Resident
______________________________________
Jeff Staley
1 From: Marion Suarez
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 1:24 PM
To: Council; Rick DeGolia; Bill Widmer; Elizabeth Lewis; Diana Hawkins-Manuelian; Robert Polito Cc: José ICE Suarez; Rod Shepard
Subject: Objection to proposed housing plans at Bear Gulch Reservoir [The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]

Dear Atherton City council members,
I write today to voice my extreme concern and objection to the proposed addition/building of 80-100 new housing units in the Bear Gulch Reservoir area of the Walsh Road neighborhood of Atherton.

I live on Meadow Lane and my family and I have lived in this neighborhood since 2013. One of its most striking and delightful attributes is its proximity to wildlife and its unspoiled natural aspect. Furthermore, the particular area of the Bear Gulch reservoir on Reservoir Road which is being flagged, has been safeguarded even from local residents who might like to walk there, by the Calwater personnel who work there, I thought because they wanted to limit the number of people who could potentially harm the environment there and pollute drinking water in the reservoir (that was the reason given to me when I tried to walk my dog there back in 2013 and was asked to leave by a member of the Calwater team). In all the time I’ve lived in the neighborhood I have not been through the barricade since. The area is blocked off currently to anyone who doesn’t work for the water authority. The area is part of Atherton’s wildfire zone and is also in close proximity to the flood inundation zone of a failed dam, as I understand it. Why then, would it be a good idea to put in multi-storey housing units for 10s to 100s of people there - Atherton’s most dense housing in its most rural area? The disruption to the small roads and access routes of our neighborhood while such a project is being built, would be utterly unthinkable for the entire community currently residing there. Even when one or two new singlefamily residences are being built in our Walsh Road neighborhood, the amount of traffic and congestion increases almost unbearably. The amount of construction vehicles and large trucks, temporary traffic signals or workmen with stop signs, roads being torn up for new drainage, noise, etc., are already pretty unbearable when one builds a single family home. With a project of this scale, being built at the end of a small, limited-access road, I cannot imagine the level of disruption. Furthermore, the immense congestion that would forevermore ensue, with that many people, cars, etc. after completion of such housing, are simply mind-boggling to me as a current resident.

It would entirely disrupt and change the very nature of our neighborhood which is peaceful, green and remote. It is one of the few neighborhoods in our area to remain this way to this day. The potential detraction of value to the current homes in the neighborhood is also of course a genuine concern.

Furthermore, the hazards and dangers of adding this kind and this volume of housing to a neighborhood which has only one narrow access road out to the Alameda de las Pulgas, is frightening. I’m unsure if council members are aware that Walsh Road has no through-access to the Woodside end of the neighborhood, and it stops in a dead end? Resulting congestion and traffic could be extremely dangerous in the case of an emergency, with so many more residents and cars trying to escape out onto one single access route. I would like to know if Atherton emergency services have been consulted in relation to this proposal? Furthermore, there is no access to any amenities, shops or transit services in our neighborhood. This proposed scheme assumes that all new residents would have private vehicles (and would thus need to incorporate sufficient parking designs, which would entail even more space being allocated to the project as well as further construction, disruption and ultimate destruction of the natural surroundings, etc.) and would be able to drive to work/public transit services. Why not put this type of housing in a part of the town which is closer to the train 2 station or El Camino Real with its access to shopping and transit amenities? That seems like a much more obvious and sensible part of Atherton for a multi-storey housing complex. Or nearer to Marsh Road/Middlefield where there is access to 101 as well as shopping centers, etc.

It concerns and upsets me that our own Town Council should propose this frankly strange suggestion for housing without any consultation to our neighborhood or regard to our community. Our family’s home was a huge personal investment for us, and we chose it with great care and consideration for all the factors that would change as a result of this proposal. I know that many, likely all of my neighbors feel the same way. It is frankly an outrage that you would try to pass this proposal through without consultation, or even much consideration of so many critical and important factors.

I beseech you to reconsider your proposal and to listen to the concerns of your current city residents who rely on you for representation and support.

Yours,
Marion Suarez
1 From: SUSAN VALERIOTE <s
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:50 AM
To: Council; Rick DeGolia; Bill Widmer; Elizabeth Lewis; Diana Hawkins-Manuelian; Robert Polito Cc: Ken goldman
Subject: Bear Gulch/Walsh Rd Proposed rezoning for Housing [The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
To the Atherton City Council,,
Im not sure why anyone who knows about the reservoir would think that changing the zoning rules to allow dense housing would be ok? Drivin on Walsh Road then to Reservoir Road leading into the suggested Site No 2 area is a narrow, dark, undivided by street markings, country road that when absorbing traffic from a dense development would surly have increased accidents . The only outlet now from Walsh Rd is to go back over a mile east to the El Camino to exit or if trapped there is a walk‐thru tunnel only for fires at the end of Valley under 280. This would be dangerous for all folks living there now as well as the proposed multitude of families if you added to the numbers trying to get out of Walsh Rd in a fire.

Lastly, I was told that this reservoir among others had been deemed a security risk since 9/11, thus the gates. When my brother was visiting once and the gates were open on his walk up the road, the police were called and he was escorted off. So changing the zoning rules on land that is Secured for obvious reasons as well as designated Park and Open Space seems counter productive and a bad idea for the dam.

Im not sure where Site No.1 is emptying into Moore Rd? That road, although coming up on Mapquest all the time as a travel route into Walsh Rd, is defiantly not. Moore Rd is also a narrow country road and the security risks given the proximity of a dense population of folks proposed is again a security risk.

I think it is irresponsible to build in Open Space, next to a reservoir and with this kind of density. Please register that I am opposed to this suggestion after living near the end of Walsh Road for 27 years.

Susan Valeriote
Atherton, Ca
From: Xiaochen Liu
To: Anthony Suber
Subject: Strongly Opposing the Building Plan at 23 Oakwood Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 10:39:26 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Hi Atherton Council,
I am the owner of Oakwood Blvd and I am the direct neighbor of 23 Oakwood. I (with my wife) strongly oppose the plan of 23 Oakwood that turns the land for a 32-unit complex. Its move will cause significant safety issues to the neighborhood.

Oakwoob blvd is a very narrow road that cannot hold two SUVs in parallels. It currently serves as the main entrance at the north side of atherton, and there are already more than enough traffic on it. Since the road directly attaches to each household's property, there is no more space for the road to be expanded. Right now all the pedestrians already have to share the road with cars, trucks, bikers, dogs. The 23 Oakwood's plan to build multiple units here will further increase the traffic by an order of magnitude, and will cause immediate safety hazard to neighbor Athernton/Redwood City residents.

All our neighborhoods in Athernton and Redwood City are opposing this plan, which means it is apparently a bad move and will badly harm this area.

Xiaochen
From: Tracey Avery
To: Council; Rick DeGolia; Bill Widmer; Elizabeth Lewis; Diana Hawkins-Manuelian; Robert Polito Subject: Objection to Bear Gulch Reservoir as a Potential Multi-Family Housing Site Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 8:39:05 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
As a 36 year resident of the Walsh Road neighborhood, I strongly object to the consideration of the Bear Gulch Reservoir area for potential development of two sites that would be designated to accommodate a total of 80-120 new housing units.

Here are the reasons for my objections:

RESIDENT TRAFFIC SAFETY IN AN EMERGENCY- Simply put, Walsh Road and it's tributaries cannot handle more traffic. There is only one entrance/exit to Walsh Road- where Walsh meets the Alameda de Las Pulgas. Since we moved to this rural neighborhood in 1985, we have watched traffic increase each year. In 1985 we typically waited behind 1-2 cars before turning onto the Alameda from Walsh. Currently, the wait can be 10-12 cars on a typical day. Increased construction has also led to daily incidents of being stopped by construction workers, which further clogs the traffic on Walsh Road. In an emergency, residents could be trapped in traffic on Walsh Road and unable to exit. If 80-120 housing units are added, with multiple car owners per unit, traffic could increase by 160-240 cars per day. Walsh does not have the infrastructure to support this potential increase in traffic, and the neighborhood would become a death trap during a wildfire or beach of the dam. It is not feasible to add an additional entrance or exit to Moore Road/Woodside Road because it would simply add more traffic to the neighborhood as soon as Waze reveals this "cut-through" for drivers and Woodside High students hoping to avoid Woodside Road and the Alameda. This would be a safety and traffic hazard.

RESERVOIR SECURITY AND SAFETY- the reservoir area is currently closed to the public for safety/security reasons related to the reservoir and dam. Without the current security the reservoir, dam, tanks, etc., Bear Gulch Reservoir could become a target of mischief, crime, or even terrorism.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS- Bear Gulch Reservoir is currently zoned as Open Space, which is a priority in California. And, run-off from multi-family housing in this sensitive area could contaminate the local water supply. California should not be destroying protected open space to accommodate increased housing when there are many sites in less rural areas that would better meet the transportation and infrastructure needs of multi-family housing residents.

Thank you for your consideration of my objections to multi-family housing in the Bear Gulch Reservoir area. I would be happy to discuss this further with any of you.

Best, Tracey Avery (Meadow Lane)

Atherton City CouncilDecember 15, 2022

Atherton City Council
December 15, 2022