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.
response included in section 3.360
ATTACHMENT 5/
Exhibit B
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 at- risk 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). response included in section 3.360
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 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).
included with multifamily rezone sites
Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element should reassess 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. included with multifamily rezone sites
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.
revised
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.
revised
Overpayment: The element must quantify and analyze overpayment by tenure (i.e., renter and owner), for both the overall population and lower-income households.
cost burden response included in section
3.360
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 enforcement agency, or information from knowledgeable builders/developers, including non-profit housing developers or organizations.
updated
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). included
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. included
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. included with multifamily rezone sites
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. will revise based on Council direction on sites
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 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. updated
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. included with multifamily rezone sites
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. revised
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 publicly- owned 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 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. revised to expand school discussion (privatly
owned), removed CalWater
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 wording added in section 3.843
• 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 by- right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).) included timeline for all rezoning to occur
within one year of Housing Element
certifiation
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. updated
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. added section 3.844
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/housingelement/index.shtml#element for a copy of the form and instructions. The Town can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.
revised - attachment 5
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 (e.g., six months) if needed. The element must also address affordability assumptions for ADU projections. revised ADU program description and
timelines for implementation. Added
monitoring program in section 3.845
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. added section 3.853
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.
added section 3.852
By-Right Permanent Supportive Housing : Supportive housing 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 65651. The element must demonstrate compliance with these requirements and include programs as appropriate.
added section 3.846
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.
added section 3.847
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.
added section 3.848
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. included multifamily sites
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 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. revised ADU program description and
timelines for implementation, including
program to update zoning ordinance,
expanded discussion of HIP program, and
added monitoring program
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 addressed with changes to PFS and new
multifamily sites
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). added section 3.849
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. updated
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 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.
revised
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. revised
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. revised
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. revised section 3.516 and added section 3.850
These housing types should not be excluded from residential zones, most notably low- density 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. Availability of Financing: The element must describe the availability of financing, including private financing and government assistance programs, is generally available in the community. inlcuded
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.
will revise
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. noted with new multifamily
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. revised
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:
revised throughout
• 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. expanded discussion in section 3.814
• 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. expanded discussion in section 3.815
• Program 3.821 (Seniors) : The program should include outreach for the existing programs listed as well as include specific timing for implementation.
expanded discussion in section 3.812
• Program 3.822 (Disabled and Developmentally Delayed Persons) : The program should include proactive outreach and specific timing for implementation.
expanded discussin in section 3.822
• 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. updated timing
• 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. added section 3.853
• 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. revised section 3.841
• 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.
revised seciton 3.842
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:
updated
Program 3.813 (Multifamily Housing Development on School and other Properties): This program should be revised to include specific incentives for implementation and clarify 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). updated
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.
new multifamily sites identified
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). added program in section 3.851
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. revised
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.
As noted in Findings B5 and B6, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental 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: 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.
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.
revised
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).) T he 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. updated
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. updated
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. updated
HCD Comment letter – track responses
10/31/22
# Comment Statutory Authority
1 A 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
Government Code Section 65588(a):
"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 the housing element goals, policies and related actions to meet the community's needs, pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583."
Government Code Section 65583(a)(7):
"The element shall contain…[a]n analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the elderly; persons with disabilities, including a development disability, as defined in Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; large families, farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter.
2 B.1 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.
Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(i):
"In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall…[a]ffirmatively further fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2. The program shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction that shall include…[a] summary of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction and an assessment of the jurisdiction's fair housing enforcement and fair housing outreach capacity."
3 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
Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(ii)-(iii):
"In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall…[a]ffirmatively further fair ATTACHMENT 6
# Comment Statutory Authority
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. housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2. The program shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction that shall include…[a]n analysis of available federal, state, and local data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. The analysis shall identify and examine such patterns, trends, areas, disparities, and needs, both within the jurisdiction and comparing the jurisdiction to the region in which it is located, based on race and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title) and Section 65008…" and "[a]n assessment of the contributing factors, including the local and regional historical origins and current policies and practices, for the fair housing issues identified under clauses (i) and (ii)." 4 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)).
Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(ii):
"In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall…[a]ffirmatively further fair housing …. The program shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction that shall include…[a]n analysis of available federal, state, and local data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. The analysis shall identify and examine such patterns, trends, areas, disparities, and needs, both within the jurisdiction and comparing the jurisdiction to the region in which it is located, based on race and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title) and Section 65008…"
5 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
Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(ii):
"In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall…[a]ffirmatively further fair housing …. The program shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction that shall include…[a]n analysis of available federal, state, and local # Comment Statutory Authority
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.
data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. The analysis shall identify and examine such patterns, trends, areas, disparities, and needs, both within the jurisdiction and comparing the jurisdiction to the region in which it is located, based on race and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title) and Section 65008…"
6 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 at- risk 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).
Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(ii):
"In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall…[a]ffirmatively further fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2. The program shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction that shall include…[a]n analysis of available federal, state, and local data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. The analysis shall identify and examine such patterns, trends, areas, disparities, and needs, both within the jurisdiction and comparing the jurisdiction to the region in which it is located, based on race and other characteristics protected by t he California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title) and Section 65008…"
7 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 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
Government Code Section 65583(a)(3):
"An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include all…
[a]n 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, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing."
# Comment Statutory Authority
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).
9 Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element should reassess 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.
Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(iii)
"In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall include…[a]n assessment of the contributing factors, including the local and regional historical origins and current policies and practices, for the fair housing issues identified under clauses (i) and (ii)."
9 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.
Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(iv) –(v):
"In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall include…[a]n identification of the jurisdiction’s fair housing priorities and goals, giving highest priority to those factors identified in clause (iii) that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance, and identifying the metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved" and "[s]trategies and actions to implement those priorities and goals, which may include, but are not limited to, enhancing mobility strategies and encouraging development of new affordable housing in areas of opportunity, as well as place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing, and protecting existing residents from displacement."
10 2 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.
Government Code Section 65583(a)(1):
"The element shall contain…[a]n assessment of housing needs and an inventory or resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include…[a]n analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and project housing needs for all income levels, including extremely low income households, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 50105 and Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code…Local agencies shall calculate the subset of very low income households …that qualify as extremely low income households."
# Comment Statutory Authority
11 3 Overpayment: The element must quantify and analyze overpayment by tenure (i.e., renter and owner), for both the overall population and lower-income households.
Government Code Section 65583(a)(2):
"The element shall contain…[a]n assessment of housing needs and an inventory or resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include…[a]n analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition."
12 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 enforcement agency, or information from knowledgeable
builders/developers, including non-profit housing
developers or organizations.
Government Code Section 65583(a)(2):
"The element shall contain…[a]n assessment of housing needs and an inventory or resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include…[a]n analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition."
13 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).
Government Code Section 65583(a)(2):
"The element shall contain…[a]n assessment of housing needs and an inventory or resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include…[a]n analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition."
14 4 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.
Government Code Section 65583(a)(3):
"The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.
The element shall contain all of the following:
…
(3) 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 # Comment Statutory Authority
public facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing."
Government Code Section 65583.2(b)(2):
"The inventory of land shall include…[t]he size of each property listed…and the general plan designation and zoning of each property."
15 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.
Government Code Section 65583.2(c):
"[A} city or county shall determine whether each site in the inventory can accommodate the development of some portion of its share of the regional housing need by income level during the planning period, as determined pursuant to Section 65584. The inventory shall specify for each site the number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site and whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate-income housing…
“The city or county shall determine the number of housing units that can be accommodated on each site as follows:
“(1) If local law or regulations require the development of a site at a minimum density, the department shall accept the planning agency’s calculation of the total housing unit capacity on that site based on the established minimum density. If the city or county does not adopt a law or regulation requiring the development of a site at a minimum density, then it shall demonstrate how the number of units determined for that site pursuant to this subdivision will be accommodated.
“(2) The number of units calculated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements requirement identified in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, the realistic development capacity for the site, 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.”
16 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
Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(2)(A)-(B):
# Comment Statutory Authority
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.
"(A) A site smaller than half an acre shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that site of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as project for the site or unless the locality provides other evidence to the department that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing. (B) A site larger than 10 acres shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality provides other evidence to the department that the site can be developed as lower income housing. For purposes of this subparagraph, 'site' means that portion of the parcel or parcels designated to accommodate lower income housing needs pursuant to this subdivision." 17 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 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.
Government Code Section 65583.2(b)(3):
"The inventory of land shall include…[f]or nonvacant sites, a description of the existing use of each property."
Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(1) and (2):
"(1) For sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) [nonvacant sites], the city or county shall specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period and shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential. The methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, the city's or county's past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current market demand for the existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites. "(2) In addition to the analysis required in paragraph (1), when a city or county is relying on nonvacant sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) to accommodate 50 percent or more of its housing need for lower income households, the methodology used to determine additional development potential shall demonstrate that the existing use identified pursuant to # Comment Statutory Authority
paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element. An existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential development, absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.”
18 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.
Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3):
"For the number of units calculated to accommodate its share of the regional housing need for lower income households pursuant to paragraph (2), a city or a county shall do either of the following:
(A) Provide an analysis demonstrating how the adopted densities accommodate this need. The analysis shall include, but is not limited to, factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, or information based on development project experience within a zone or zones that provide housing for lower income households.
(B) The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households:
…
(iii) For a suburban jurisdiction: sites allowing at least 20 units per acre. …"
19 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 Government Code Section 65583.1(a):
"The inventory of land shall include…[f]or nonvacant sites, a description of the existing use of each property."
Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(1):
"(1) For sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) [nonvacant sites], the city or county shall specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period and shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential. The methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, the city's or county's past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current market demand for the existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or # Comment Statutory Authority
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. prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites.” 20 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 publicly- owned 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 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.
Government Code Section 65583.2(a):
"…As used in this section, 'land suitable for residential development' includes all of the following sites that meet the standards set forth in subdivisions (c) and (g):
…
(3) Residentially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at a higher density, including sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county. (4) Sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for residential use, and for which the housing element includes a program to rezone the site, as necessary, to permit residential use, including sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county."
Government Code Section 65583.2(b):
"The inventory of land shall include all of the following:
…
(2) The size of each property listed pursuant to paragraph (1), and the general plan designation and zoning of each property.
(3) For nonvacant sites, a description of the existing use of each property. If a site subject to this paragraph is owned by the city or county, the description shall also include whether there are any plans to dispose of the property during the planning period and how the city or county will comply with Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5." 21 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:
Government Code Section 65583.2(c):
"Based on the information provided in subdivision (b), a city or county shall determine whether each site in the inventory can accommodate the development of some portion of its share of the regional housing need by income level during the planning period, as determined pursuant to Section 65584. The inventory shall specify for each site the number of units that can # Comment Statutory Authority
• 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 by- right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, §
65583.2, subd. (c).)
realistically be accommodated on that site and whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower-income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate-income housing. A nonvacant site identified pursuant to paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (a) in a prior housing element and a vacant site that has been included in two or more consecutive planning periods that was not approved to develop a portion of the locality's housing need shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate a portion of the housing need for lower income households that must be accommodated in the current housing element planning period unless the site is zoned at residential densities consistent with paragraph (3) of this subdivision and the site is subject to a program in the housing element requiring rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households…."
22 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 lowerincome households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately
deliver the housing element to water and sewer
service providers.
Government Code Section 65583.2(a)(5):
"(A) A description of existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply, including the availability and access to distribution facilities." (B) Parcels included in the inventory must have sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan, including a program or plan of a public or private entity providing water or sewer service, to secure sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply to support housing development. This paragraph does not impose any additional duty on the city or county to construct, finance, or otherwise provide water, sewer, or dry utilities to parcels included in the inventory." Government Code Sectioon 65589.7(a):
“The housing element adopted by the legislative body and any amendments made to that element shall be immediately delivered to all public agencies or private entities that provide water or sewer services for municipal and industrial uses, including residential, within the territory of the legislative body.”
23 Electronic Sites Inventory: Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), upon adoption of the
housing element, the Town must submit an electronic
Government Code Section 65583.3(a):
# Comment Statutory Authority
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/housingelement/index.shtml#element for a copy of the form and instructions. The Town can reach out to HCD at
[email protected] for technical assistance.
"For a housing element or amendment adopted on or after January 1, 2021, the planning agency shall submit to the department an electronic copy of its inventory of land suitable for residential development developed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and subdivision (b) of this section with the copy of its housing element or amendment submitted pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 65585. The local government shall ensure, to the best of its knowledge, that the inventory of land submitted to the department is true and correct."
24 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 (e.g., six months) if needed. The element must also
address affordability assumptions for ADU projections.
Government Code Section 65583.1(a):
" The Department of Housing and Community Development, in evaluating a proposed or adopted housing element for substantial compliance with this article, may allow a city or county to identify adequate sites, as required pursuant to Section 65583, by a variety of methods, including, but not limited to, redesignation of property to a more intense land use category and increasing the density allowed within one or more categories. The department may also allow a city or county to identify sites for accessory dwelling units based on the number of accessory dwelling units developed in the prior housing element planning period whether or not the units are permitted by right, the need for these units in the community, the resources or incentives available for their development, and any other relevant factors, as determined by the department. Nothing in this section reduces the responsibility of a city or county to identify, by income category, the total number of sites for residential development as required by this article." Government Code Section 65852.2(m):
“A local agency may count an accessory dwelling unit for purposes of identifying adequate sites for housing, as specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65583.1, subject to authorization by the department and compliance with this division.” 25 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
Government Code Section 65583(a)(4):
"(A) The identification of a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. The identified zone or zones shall include sufficient capacity to accommodate the # Comment Statutory Authority
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.
need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7), except that each local government shall identify a zone or zones that can accommodate at least one year-round emergency shelter. If the local government cannot identify a zone or zones with sufficient capacity, the local government shall include a program to amend its zoning ordinance to meet the requirements of this paragraph within one year of the adoption of the housing element…. The local government shall also demonstrate that existing or proposed permit processing, development, and management standards are objective and encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters. Emergency shelters may only be subject to those development and management standards that apply to residential or commercial development within the same zone except that a local government may apply written, objective standards that include all of the following:
(i) The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the facility.
(ii) Sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone.
(iii) The size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas.
(iv) The provision of onsite management.
(v) The proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart. (vi) The length of stay.
(vii) Lighting.
(viii) Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation. (B) The permit processing, development, and management standards applied under this paragraph shall not be deemed to be discretionary acts within the # Comment Statutory Authority
meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code)."
26 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.
Health & Safety Code Secctioon 17021.5(b):
(b) Any employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees shall be deemed a single-family structure with a residential land use designation for the purposes of this section. For the purpose of all local ordinances, employee housing shall not be included within the definition of a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, dormitory, or other similar term that implies that the employee housing is a business run for profit or differs in any other way from a family dwelling. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of employee housing that serves six or fewer employees that is not required of a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone. Use of a family dwelling for purposes of employee housing serving six or fewer persons shall not constitute a change of occupancy for purposes of Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 17910) or local building codes.
Health & Safety Code Section 17021.6:
(b) Any employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household, or that is approved pursuant to Section 17021.8, shall be deemed an agricultural land use for the purposes of this section. Except as provided in Section 17021.8, for the purpose of all local ordinances, employee housing shall not be deemed a use that implies that the employee housing is an activity that differs in any other way from an agricultural use. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other discretionary zoning clearance shall be required of this employee housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone. The permitted occupancy in employee housing in a zone allowing agricultural uses shall include agricultural employees who do not work on the property where the employee housing is located.
27 By-Right Permanent Supportive Housing: Supportive
housing 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 65651. The element must demonstrate
Government Code Section 66583(c)(3):
"In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall…[a]ddress and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental # Comment Statutory Authority
compliance with these requirements and include programs as appropriate.
constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. … Supportive housing, as defined in Section 65650, shall be a use by right in all zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, as provided in Article 11 (commencing with Section 65650)."
28 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.
Government Code Section 65662:
“A Low Barrier Navigation Center development is a use by right in areas zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, if it meets the requirements of this article.”
Government Code Section 65661(b):
“(b) “Use by right” has the meaning defined in subdivision (i) of Section 65583.2. Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code shall not apply to actions taken by a public agency to lease, convey, or encumber land owned by a public agency, or to facilitate the lease, conveyance, or encumbrance of land owned by a public agency, or to provide financial assistance to, or otherwise approve, a Low Barrier Navigation Center constructed or allowed by this section.”
29 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.
Government Code Section 65583(c)(1):
"Sites shall be identified as needed to affirmatively further fair housing and 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, singleroom occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing." 30 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 Government Code Section 65583(a)(5):
"An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include…[a]n 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 # Comment Statutory Authority
should be included to address and remove or modify these constraints.
paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7)." Government Code Section 65583(c)(1):
" Sites shall be identified as needed to affirmatively further fair housing and 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, singleroom occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing." 31 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 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.
Government Code Section 65852.2(h):
(1) A local agency shall submit a copy of the ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption. After adoption of an ordinance, the department may submit written findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with this section.
(2) (A) If the department finds that the local agency’s ordinance does not comply with this section, the department shall notify the local agency and shall provide the local agency with a reasonable time, no longer than 30 days, to respond to the findings before taking any other action authorized by this section.
Note: This statement has been included in most housing element reviews, but most cities, including Atherton, have not actually received any comments. 32 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
Government Code Section 66583(a)(5):
# Comment Statutory Authority
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.
"An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include…[a]n 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, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.
The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7)." 33 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).
Government Code Section 66583(a)(5):
"An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include…[a]n 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, …."
Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1):
(a) (1) A city, county, or special district that has an internet website shall make all of the following available on its internet website, as applicable:
(A) (i) A current schedule of fees, exactions, and affordability requirements imposed by that city, county, or special district, including any dependent special districts, as defined in Section 56032.5, of the city or county applicable to a proposed housing development project. # Comment Statutory Authority
(ii) The city, county, or special district shall present the information described in clause (i) in a manner that clearly identifies the fees, exactions, and affordability requirements that apply to each parcel and the fees that apply to each new water and sewer utility connection.
(iii) The city, county, or special district shall post a written fee schedule or a link directly to the written fee schedule on its internet website.
(B) All zoning ordinances and development standards adopted by the city or county presenting the information, which shall specify the zoning, design, and development standards that apply to each parcel. (C) The list required to be compiled pursuant to Section 65940 by the city or county presenting the information.
(D) The current and five previous annual fee reports or the current and five previous annual financial reports, that were required pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 66006 and subdivision (d) of Section 66013. (E) An archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost of service studies, or equivalent, conducted by that city, county, or special district on or after January 1, 2018. For purposes of this subparagraph, “cost of service study” means the data provided to the public pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 66016.
34 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.
Government Code Section 66583(a)(5):
"An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include…[a]n 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, …”
# Comment Statutory Authority
35 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 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.
Government Code Section 66583(a)(5):
"An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include…[a]n 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, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.
The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 …."
36 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.
Government Code Section 66583(a)(5):
"An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include…[a]n 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, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. ….."
37 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.
Government Code Section 66583(a)(5):
"An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include…[a]n 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 # Comment Statutory Authority
enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, …." NOTE: This comment states that the Town must develop procedures to process an SB 35 application. The statute is too long to copy here. In addition, currently the Town is not subject to SB 35 streamlining. 38 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 low- density 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.
Government Code Section 66583(a)(5):
"An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include…[a]n 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, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.
The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7)." Government Code Section 66583(c)(3):
“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 accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.” Government Code Section 65583(c)(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 # Comment Statutory Authority
status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.”
39 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.
Government Code Section 65583(a)(6):
" An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include…[a]n analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, …” 40 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.
Government Code Section 65583(a)(6):
" An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include…[a]n 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 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 Section 65584. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality’s planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing.”
41 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
Government Code Section 65583(a)(7):
"The assessment and inventory shall include …[a]n analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability, as defined in Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. The need for emergency shelter shall be assessed based on the capacity necessary to accommodate the most recent homeless point-in-time count conducted before # Comment Statutory Authority
homelessness in the Town. the start of the planning period, the need for emergency shelter based on number of beds available on a year-round and seasonal basis, the number of shelter beds that go unused on an average monthly basis within a one-year period, and the percentage of those in emergency shelters that move to permanent housing solutions. …An analysis of special housing needs by a city or county may include an analysis of the need for frequent user coordinated care housing services. "
42 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.
Government Code Section 65583(a)(8):
"The assessment and inventory shall include…[a]n analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development. Cities and counties are encouraged to include weatherization and energy efficiency improvements as part of publicly subsidized housing rehabilitation projects.
This may include energy efficiency measures that encompass the building envelope, its heating and cooling systems, and its electrical system." 43 C1 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:
• 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.
Government Code Section 65583(c)
"The element shall contain…[a] program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, that 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 through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available, and the utilization of moneys in a low- and moderateincome housing fund of an agency if the locality has established a redevelopment project area pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Division 24 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code)…."
# Comment Statutory Authority
• 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.
44 2
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 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).
Government Code Section 65583(c)(1)(A):
"Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, rezoning of those sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards, for jurisdictions with an eight-year housing element planning period pursuant to Section 65588, shall be completed no later than three years after either the date the housing element is adopted pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 65585 or the date that is 90 days after receipt of comments from the department pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 65585, whichever is earlier, unless the deadline is extended pursuant to subdivision (f). Notwithstanding the foregoing, for a local government that fails to adopt a housing element that the department has found to be in substantial compliance with this article within 120 days of the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element, rezoning of those sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element." # Comment Statutory Authority
45 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.
Government Code Section 65583(c)(1)(B):
"Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 65583.2. The identification of sites shall include all components specified in Section 65583.2."
Government Code Sections 65583.2(h) and (i):
“(h) The program required by subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 shall accommodate 100 percent of the need for housing for very low and low-income households allocated pursuant to Section 65584 for which site capacity has not been identified in the inventory of sites pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) on sites that shall be zoned to permit owneroccupied and rental multifamily residential use by right for developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households during the planning period. These sites shall be zoned with minimum density and development standards that permit at least 16 units per site at a density of at least 16 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), shall be at least 20 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clauses (iii) and (iv) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) and shall meet the standards set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b). At least 50 percent of the very low and low-income housing need shall be accommodated on sites designated for residential use and for which nonresidential uses or mixed uses are not permitted, except that a city or county may accommodate all of the very low and low-income housing need on sites designated for mixed use if those sites allow 100 percent residential use and require that residential use occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed-use project. “(i) For purposes of this section and Section 65583, the phrase “use by right” shall mean that the local government’s review of the owner-occupied or multifamily residential use may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or # Comment Statutory Authority
approval that would constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. Any subdivision of the sites shall be subject to all laws, including, but not limited to, the local government ordinance implementing the Subdivision Map Act. A local ordinance may provide that “use by right” does not exempt the use from design review. However, that design review shall not constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. Use by right for all rental multifamily residential housing shall be provided in accordance with subdivision (f) of Section 65589.5.” 46 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).
Government Code Section 65582.3(g)(3):
"Notwithstanding any other law, and in addition to the requirements in paragraphs (1) and (2), sites that currently have residential uses, or within the past five years have had residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of low or very low income, subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power, or occupied by low- or very low income households, shall be subject to a policy requiring the replacement of all those units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on the site. Replacement requirements shall be consistent with those set forth in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915." 47 3 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.
Government Code Section 65583(c)(1):
"A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, that 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 through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available, and the utilization of moneys in a low- and moderate-income housing fund of an agency if the locality has established a redevelopment project area pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Division 24 # Comment Statutory Authority
(commencing with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code). In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community…"
Government Code Section 65583(c)(2):
“Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income households.” 48 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.
Government Code Section 65583(c)(1):
"A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, that 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 through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available, and the utilization of moneys in a low- and moderate-income housing fund of an agency if the locality has established a redevelopment project area pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Division 24 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code). In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community…"
Government Code Section 66583(c)(3):
“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 accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.” Government Code Section 65583(c)(5):
“Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless # Comment Statutory Authority
of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.”
49 4 As noted in Findings B5 and B6, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental 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:
See citations below.
50 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.
Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(iv) –(v):
"In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall include…[a]n identification of the jurisdiction’s fair housing priorities and goals, giving highest priority to those factors identified in clause (iii) that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance, and identifying the metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved" and "[s]trategies and actions to implement those priorities and goals, which may include, but are not limited to, enhancing mobility strategies and encouraging development of new affordable housing in areas of opportunity, as well as place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing, and protecting existing residents from displacement."
51 6 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.
Government Code Section 65583(c)(7):
"In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall…[d]evelop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. For purposes of this # Comment Statutory Authority
paragraph, 'accessory dwelling units' has the same meaning as 'accessory dwelling unit' as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 65852.2." 52 D 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.
Government Code Section 65583(b):
(1) A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to affirmatively furthering fair housing and to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing.
(2) It is recognized that the total housing needs identified pursuant to subdivision (a) may exceed available resources and the community’s ability to satisfy this need within the content of the general plan requirements outlined in Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300). Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs. The quantified objectives shall establish the maximum number of housing units by income category, including extremely low income, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time period." 53 E 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.
Government Code Section 65583(c)(9):
" In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall…[i]nclude a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort."
54 F 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 Government Code Section 65583(c)(8):
"In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall…[i]nclude an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of various actions and the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals."
# Comment Statutory Authority
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.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
October 31, 2022
George Rodericks, Town Manager
Town of Atherton
80 Fair Oaks Lane, 1st Floor
Atherton, CA 94027
Dear George Rodericks
RE: Town of Atherton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the Town of Atherton (Town) draft housing element update received for review on August 2, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a conversation on October 14, 2022 with yourself and consultant Lisa Costa Sanders. In addition, HCD considered comments from Wesley Arrington, YIMBY Law, Greenbelt Alliance, Campaign for Fair Housing Elements, and Housing Leadership Council, pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).
The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).
The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the Town should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.
Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.
For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to make prior identified sites available or accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory ATTACHMENT 7
George Rodericks, Town Manager
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
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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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:
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 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 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.
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.
1 Anthony Suber
From: Shirin2b <
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 2:58 M
To: Council
Cc: Bill Widmer; [email protected]; Elizabeth Lewis; Stacy Miles Holland; Rick DeGolia Subject: Housing Element. Upzoning Gresham Lane properties. [The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
To Honorable Mayor and all Council Members;
My name is Shirin Bronner and I am resident of 85 Gresham Lane , Atherton, Ca for over 33 years.
Over the past few days all property owners on Gresham Lane , Selby Lane, and El Camino Real have been in shock with a sudden notification that the City of Atherton is planning to UPZONE our properties. The map of the area was not included in the original notice and we were notified by a kind neighbor that our properties have been targeted for upzoning on January 15, 2023.
Our neighborhood is a well established residential and family oriented community. We are very disappointed that the City of Atherton has not done a fair assessment and feasibility studies of large properties and empty lots available to fulfill their requirements to the HCD. This is not a well vetted plan and we all strongly feel that we are being sacrificed and targeted to meet the deadline of January 31,2023.
Our properties are not empty lots and are not available to developers to build.
The clear fact is that not only our properties, but all the large properties across to ours on Gresham lane and all Selby lane homes will be impacted in any way you can imagine including economically.
This bad faith decision will change the entire Atherton forever and will not have a good outcome.
As we have voiced our concerns in the last two meetings, we are not selling our properties to any developer to put a multifamily units in our neighborhood . We are not allowing anyone to put any new restrictions to prohibit us to develop our property or sell or let our children inherit it the same way as other properties in town of Atherton.
We all have paid our taxes and performed our civic duties to the city of Atherton. This looks nothing less than picking on the weakest link to fulfill an unattended obligation.
We respectfully seek a fair resolution to this matter and urge you not to consider changing the nature of our neighborhood.
Best Regards,
Shirin Bronner
1 Anthony Suber
From: Thom Bryant
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023 1:21 PM
To: Council; Robert Polito
Subject: ECR Up Zoning
[The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Given the Council’s decision to upzone 17 lots fronting ECR, and assuming that HCD will accept 20 units/acre in lieu of BMR multifamily housing, I believe it will help to restate the case for tall expensive single family homes on small lots. There are two important points to consider. First, single family homes are consistent with the Town’s current policy. Second, there is a market for tall, expensive homes. See SummerHill’s North 40 development in Los Gatos as one example: Bellaterra at North 40 ‐ TownFlats ‐ Plan 5 ‐ SummerHill Homes (focus360.com) This is a 3 story, 2100 sqft row house with a $2.1M asking price, with no yard and located adjacent to Hwy 17.
I suggest a third residential zoning category with the following standards:
4,000 sqft minimum lot size
60% FAR
40% Bonus FAR when an attached ADU is included
Attached ADU’s (either 500 or 800 version) are exempt from FAR 10’ minimum front setback
30’ minimum rear yard setback
0’ minimum side setback
34’ maximum height limit
There are at least four generic single family housing models that would work with these zoning standards:
Free standing, zero lot line, 2 story, 2,400 sqft house @ 10 units/acre Free standing, zero lot line, 3 story, 4,000 sqft house with attached ADU @ 20 units/acre Row house (modern brownstone), 2 story, 2,400 sqft @ 10 units/acre Row house 3 story, 4,000 sqft house with attached ADU @ 20 units/acre Conceptually, the 17 lots along ECR could be redeveloped with as many as 140 units, if the Builder(s) all opted for the 40% FAR bonus (net add of +/‐ 120 units) or 70 single family homes without ADU’s. This could be done with 50’X80’ lots with the 80’ depth dimension running parallel along ECR, and a shared driveway accessing ECR every 160’. The Gresham and Cebalo Lane side of the property could be redeveloped with 40’X100’ lots. Alternatively, the Gresham 2 and Cebalo sides of the property could be redeveloped with 100’X100’ (or larger) lots, if the increased density along ECR was sufficient to meet HCD requirements.
The advantage of the approach as outlined is its alignment with Atherton’s current policy for single family residences and ADU’s. Secondly, the likely sales prices for these units would not necessarily devalue adjacent properties. Third, this approach could be the template for up zoning in future RHNA cycles. But there are at least two other development options that would also be consistent with recent Council decisions. First would be to up zone the 17 lots for mid rise buildings similar to the Menlo College plan. Assuming owner occupied units instead of apartments, its not clear that ADU’s make sense. So, in order to achieve the magic 20 units/acre, the development conceptually might entail seven 6 story buildings with 5 floors of 4 units each and parking on the ground floor and basement. The second alternative would be to up zone for townhomes similar to what is proposed for Oakwood. Since townhomes (as commonly understood in California) are condominiums, it is also not clear how ADU’s would be accommodated in a condominium structure? Therefore, achieving 20 units/acre might require building 140 townhomes vs. 70 large single family homes on small lots.
I am confident that the proposed zoning standard can work from a design view point but Council may wish to consult with some area developers about feasibility, price points and market demand.
Best//Thom
1 Anthony Suber
From: Cathy Castillo
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 4:24 PM
To: Anthony Suber; Stephanie Corey; Contact-Erin Callaghan Subject: Oakwood Blvd. project.
[The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Jan. 18, 2023
Atherton Town Council
I am a retired widow. My home, on East Oakwood Blvd, is my most valuable asset. I have a serious stake in Atherton’s proposal to permit building on the Atherton portion of East Oakwood.
I have two concerns about the project.
First, that the proposed construction actually produces high quality housing that will be affordable to low income families who, according to your report, would need an income of $140,000 for a family of three. A city maintenance worker, a hospital janitor, or a librarian should be able to afford this housing.
Second, I am concerned about traffic patterns. Oakwood Blvd. is a sub‐standard street without sidewalks. Unless traffic from this development can exit via Selby Lane or El Camino Real, I am opposed to it. I want there to be no access to this development via Oakwood Blvd.
I am much less concerned about a multi‐family development being built near me. We already have apartments, duplexes, and senior memory care facilities within a block. There is a group home for the disabled on our street. My image is not that this housing will attract the type of residents I don’t want to live near. What I do not want is cheap, substandard housing that will quickly decay or dozens more cars, delivery vans, mail trucks and school buses speeding down my street.
Atherton has not earned a reputation as a good neighbor from residents in my neighborhood. The city has repeatedly opposed adding a stop light at the intersection of El Camino Real and Selby Lane so we put up with traffic cutting through to make a left turn at ECR. And I believe I received only one communication from Atherton announcing a public hearing about the housing proposal.
2 The town cannot solve its low‐cost housing issue by renting pool houses and adding ADUs. It’s time to grow up and join the rest of the Peninsula in working to meet the needs of “average” residents. Price of the average single‐family home sold in Redwood City is about $800,000. The average home in Atherton goes for just under $8 million. If the minimum lot size is an acre that should be enough space for the multi‐million dollar houses to shield themselves from having to look at homes and apartments where the other half can afford to live.
Cathy Castillo
cell
1 Anthony Suber
From: Carol Collins
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 3:23 PM
To: Anthony Suber
Subject: Jan 11 Council Meeting Comment- 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.]
Dear Council Members,
I do appreciate all your work on the Housing Element. Rather than dismissing it as a non‐starter, I would like the Council to further consider new housing at Holbrook Palmer Park. Picking and choosing individual properties within our town seems random and most unfair to those nearby. It might be considered more fair to add housing to the park or just rezone all properties in Atherton.
I really do not like the whole situation (the state mandating changes to our zoning) but here we are, and we must make choices.
Thank you,
Carol Collins
1 Anthony Suber
From: Stephanie Corey
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2023 12:12 PM
To: Anthony Suber
Subject: 23 East Oakwood - Public Comment
[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,
We hear that 23 East Oakwood is back on the consideration list for high density housing. As you know, the immediate neighbors, as well as the entire Redwood Oaks community opposes this action.
This property doesn't just border Redwood City, it is actually partly located in Redwood City. Our streets are designated as substandard already, there is no drainage, there are no thoroughfares, no sidewalks, no parking, and no public transit nearby. The streets are inordinately narrow compared to the rest of Atherton. Because of this, our city would never recommend high density housing in this location, yet here you are.
As far as we can see, this is a problem of your own making for your years and years of unwillingness to build proper housing. Redwood City is not in the same boat. We've done more than our share so that communities like yours could continue to be a haven for the obscenely wealthy. But we have no desire to pay the price for your inaction. Please find a better location, or please be prepared to invest in the infrastructure needed for high density housing which will entail redoing the entire street to add proper drainage, sidewalks, and underground parking.
Regards,
Stephanie Corey
Redwood City
1 Begin forwarded message:
From: stephen curry
Subject: 23 Oakwood
Date: January 18, 2023 at 3:18:22 PM PST
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
[The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Mayor Widmer, City Manager Rodericks,
As Atherton residents ‐ ‐ we have been following along with the Housing Element updates with special interest in the 23 Oakwood property. We were pleased when the December meeting concluded with leaving multi‐family housing off of private properties and the Council's recognition that 23 Oakwood does not contribute to the very‐low or low income numbers required by the State.
We hesitate to add to the "not in our backyard" rhetoric, but we wanted to send a note before today's meeting. Safety and privacy for us and our kids continues to be our top priority and one of the biggest reasons we chose Atherton as home. With the density being proposed for 23 Oakwood, there are major concerns in terms of both privacy and safety with three‐story townhomes looming directly behind us.
We kindly ask that the Town adopts the new Housing Element without the inclusion of 23 Oakwood. Should that not be sufficient for the State, we ask that the Town commits to investing in considerably taller fencing and landscaping to block sight lines onto our family's property.
Thank you for your consideration,
Thanks and God Bless
Stephen and Ayesha Curry
2 1
Anthony Suber
From: michael demoss <l
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 5:22 PM
To: Council
Subject: Suggestion
[The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Rick DeGolia and members of the Atherton City Council:
In my opinion:
The state of California has overstepped their authority.
You might consider doing what these cities are doing:
“Standing up”
Michael DeMoss
2 3
4 5
Sent from my iPhone
1 Anthony Suber
From: Peter Hutton
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:29 PM
To: Council
Subject: Opposition to planning development
[The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
I would like to formally oppose the plans to create a new multi home dwelling at 23 E Oakwood Boulevard. There are a number of reasons why this development makes no sense ‐ primarily because building on this one property only scratches the surface of high density housing, and because the individual property is so inappropriate.
This is a quiet area with a large community of runners and dog walkers. It already is used as a ‘rat run’ by drivers, and struggles to cope with the existing traffic volume. Adding more housing with no recreational area and no closure of the ‘circle’ will add further pressure to an area already identified by Redwood City Government as in need of traffic control.
The property has at least 26 heritage trees on it in an area that is increasingly being ‘concreted’ over. This seems a decision that does not look at the wider challenges of the area, and just makes a token move without understanding the pressure on the local residents.
Peter Hutton
‐‐
Peter Hutton
From: Ellen Jamason
To: Anthony Suber
Cc: Giacomo Marini; Serena Marini
Subject: Public Comment for January 11 City Council Study Session Date: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 11:38:09 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 City Council,
Thank you for your dedication and hard work in connection with the Housing Element update. We applaud your continuing efforts to meet the requirements of the law while addressing the concerns of Atherton residents.
We believe that planning for more housing in our community is vital to our region’s vitality and survival. We believe Atherton can be a part of a regional housing solution while maintaining its character of a family-oriented residential community.
We are supportive of the proposals to increase permitted density of housing at Menlo College and Menlo School, as well as the idea of making it easier to build ADUs in Atherton.We also support an inclusionary housing fee that could generate funds to support affordable housing.
However, we do not believe that in the long run, the school sites and ADUs will prove sufficient to generate Atherton’s fair share of regional housing needs.
We therefore strongly urge the Council to identify practical strategies to allow more homes to be built for all income levels.
We would support strategies including reducing minimum lot sizes and dimensions, adding multifamily overlay zones, and allowing higher density at sites on Oakwood and Atherton Avenue, especially where owners are interested in developing denser or multifamily housing. We also support the idea of exploring multifamily housing on Town property including a portion of Holbrook-Palmer Park.
We believe that even if the state accepts our housing element in January without these features, it is likely that the Town will need to identify additional housing units before the end of this 8-year cycle, and that the Town should start preparing for that situation now.
More importantly, we believe that we all benefit by welcoming neighbors of diverse income and cultural backgrounds, and that there is room for more here in Atherton.
We support Council Member Hawkins Manuelian’s proposal to develop principled criteria for location of denser housing, such as vicinity to existing roads and other infrastructure.
We urge the City Council to adopt this approach in developing longer range housing policies.
Thank you once again for all your efforts in connection with the Housing Element.
Sincerely,
Ellen E. Jamason
Giacomo Marini
Serena Marini
Atherton, CA
1 Anthony Suber
From: Dianne Jensen
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 4:18 PM
To: Anthony Suber
Subject: Jan 11, 2023 question and comment
[The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Hello:
I share a fence with Las Lomitas School and the Atherton drainage channel on my other fence. Should I be financially responsible for the water flow flooding my home and yard? What actions does the Town of Atherton plan to take to remediate flooding and clean up the effects? What actions will the Town of Atherton plan to implement to prevent such catastrophic events in the future? When will these actions be implemented?
There are many problems with the way the excess water flows to Los Lomitas School and then how this water flows to my backyard on it's way to the drainage channel.
I had an In‐law unit that could be part of the California state requirement. That cottage is now uninhabitable.
I expect a timely response from the town council.
Thank you in advance.
Dianne Jensen
Atherton, CA 94027
1 Anthony Suber
From: Andrea Luskin
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:01 AM
To: Council
Subject: Housing Element Plan
[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 Council members Widmer, DeGolia, Lewis, Holland, and Hawkins-Manuelian, Firstly, I want to thank those of you who have taken the time to connect with us, members of the Victoria Manor neighborhood, be it through neighborhood walk-thrus over the summer, discussion via a group Zoom, or attending our neighborhood get togethers or drills. I know that those who have engaged with us understand the uniqueness of both our neighborhood geography in Victoria Manor and the tight knit neighborhood community we've developed over many years of neighborhood gatherings, emergency planning, and other safety advocacy efforts such as securing a government grant and cooperation between Atherton and Menlo Park to install the cross jurisdictional lighted crosswalk on Valparaiso at Hoover.
Our neighborhood understands the considerable pressure you feel (due to concerns of potential HCD fines being levied and the builder's remedy being applied) to submit a Housing Element Plan that won't flat out be rejected by HCD. However, as with the first plan submitted, we urge you to best advocate for our town's citizens and way of life by submitting a plan that may be just reasonable enough to have some chance of being accepted while not sacrificing dozens of homes and entire neighborhoods unnecessarily. This truly is a balancing act. And while it's the town consultants and planners goal to have HCD fully approve the next plan with no modifications required, potentially at the expense of much more property than necessary, it should be your goal to protect as much as possible and to utilize the knowledge you've acquired, that nonresident consultants aren't privy to, to discern what areas to focus on.
As the latest Planning Commission plan is constructed, the one neighborhood in Atherton that has been held up as an example for others to replicate, our neighborhood, Victoria Manor, is set to be crushed on all 4 sides by huge development. We have Menlo College bordering us on the North where you've already designated 60 units can be built by right, Menlo School bordering us on the West where you've designated another 20 units, and El Camino on the East and Valparaiso on the South where you're now considering an overlay zone You already determined previously, and rightly so, that our 28 home neighborhood on 3 cul de sacs is not suitable for dense housing:
there's only one ingress/egress into the neighborhood and as is, is very difficult to get in and out of due to its location on Valparaiso within yards of the El Camino intersection. Additional cars would be incredibly unsafe. the homes on Victoria Drive bordering El Camino are on 1/3 acres lots so are too small to support multi-family on their own and are also not deep enough to support multi-family parking, even if one tried to engineer access via El Camino. the tiny 5 house long cul-de-sac of Douglass Way, which backs up to Valparaiso, could in no way support the car traffic from multi-family housing. And Valparaiso, a single lane 2 in each direction, with its 2 private schools directly on it and Hillview Middle School just a block off, with hundreds of school kids and bikes on it everyday is already beyond burdened with traffic so trying to have dozens or potentially hundreds of more cars accessing multifamily housing on Valparaiso so close to El Camino would be a safety disaster.
Even if you don't look at all the significant reasons the homes in our area are an awful choice for multi-family development, surely you can't feel it's reasonable to designate 15 of the 28 homes in a tiny 3 street cul-de-sac'd neighborhood with a multi-family overlay, surrounding the few homes not in the overlay on all 4 sides with development . You would be endangering the most organized, cohesive, emergency-ready neighborhood in all of Atherton.
Additionally, because these homes and this neighborhood isn't suitable for this kind of development for the reasons listed above, and most, if not all of the neighbors have no intention of selling in the next 8 years, it would be disingenuous to include them in any plan. If included, the neighbors will promptly send a letter to HCD letting them know they have no intention of selling during this cycle, and even if they sold in a future cycle their homes aren't realistic building locations for multifamily housing.
This is all to say for all the reasons above we strongly urge you to remove ALL of the homes in Victoria Manor from any El Camino and Valparaiso overlay you may be considering.
Thank you so much for everything you do for the town. This is a difficult challenge and I certainly don't envy the position you're in but I trust you'll only include properties in the plan that have a realistic chance to safely be developed.
With sincerity and appreciation,
Andrea Luskin
Douglass Way
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, Staff, Neighbors, and members of the public, My name is Jenny Michel from the Coleman Place Neighborhood Block. A bit about me:
● born and raised here including having lived on Placitas Avenue, ● attended Notre Dame in Belmont and took the train from the now decommissioned Atherton Caltrain Station during the 90's,
● am currently renting on Willow Road next to the VA for about 15 years, ● recovering homeless teacher from Menlo Park,
● a parent of an IEP student at Laurel Elementary,
● a former Luxury Real Estate Agent in Menlo Park, with Alain Pinel Realtors, ● a former manager with Orchard Commercial, having worked for Joe Lewis, Council Member Lewis’s late husband, and
● currently, a commercial property manager, representing private commercial Landlord interests along San Mateo County.
I’ve been active in the City of Menlo Park and San Mateo County’s Housing Element as someone on the frontline having dealt with the housing crisis my entire life.
I believe that HCD is looking for:
Analysis - How is Atherton affirmatively furthering fair housing? Atherton is synonymous with exclusion. That is by design. Based on the City Council meetings I’ve attended and viewed, Atherton isn’t providing a robust analysis of how it drove the housing crisis the State is looking to remedy.
● Bottomline, our zoning prohibits fair housing. Specifically, our min 1 acre lot size is the start.
○ We know this and have been proud that we feel like a rural town. ○ Our exclusionary practices set the bar to other municipalities. ○ To your point, adding density would infringe upon this sanctuary. ■ But what if that sanctuary was coming at a cost, a cost that is no longer palatable to the market.
○ The remedy: change the zoning; either eliminate min lot sizes or reduce to Menlo Park or Redwood City min size lots.
● As leaders, I’d expect this Dais to lead the analysis as to what is driving our exclusion. ○ We house billionaires that lead the way in driving climate collapse. HCD wants us to piece together our own story.
■ The use of CO2 in tons per household, on scale to the rest of us, isn’t even in the same ballpark.
● The Climate Impact of your neighborhood - Mapped; New York Times 12.13.2022
● Using the most tons of CO2 per household are visual:
Hillsborough, Atherton into Woodside, and Los Altos HIlls into Cupertino Hills.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/13/climate/climate-fo otprint-map-neighborhood.html
■ Based on all the services you demand for your day to day, how many of those providers live within your municipality?
■ Based on all the services that you use, your attorney, your landscapers, your security, your chef, your nanny, your assistant, where do they live? Where do they get food and provide for their own needs? Atherton does not carry the load it generates. Atherton is uniquely set-up to rely on others to provide the goods and services. HCD is asking us to understand the toll that takes and how that drives housing instability. ● In other words, you need to house your private jet pilot down to your grocery clerk, or you need to consider them in your zoning for different types of use.
■ By mandating that the service providers live outside the town, you drive climate collapse and hardship for the rest of us. We are dealing with finite limited resources, and all y’all are consuming more of them at a disproportionate rate, without remorse.
○ Owners typically offset the below market rate units by providing retail on the ground level. Atherton isn’t zoning for these types of developments. ■ Would you grant for retail use, or even allow workers to sleep in their vehicles on your Avenues? What about a mobile home park? Starter homes?
■ Many of you have grown children, so where are you expecting your grandchildren to live? Where are you suggesting they live or how they live?
Market Force and Market Interest for Fair Housing in Atherton: The key to building affordable and fair housing, which is considered forty (40) units or more in the project, is market force. Atherton is void of market force for affordable housing. We saw an outburst last night with a member of the public. I blame those of us in luxury real estate. ● There are a handful of real estate agents who work with Sellers in Atherton. ○ I personally worked next door to several of them here in Menlo in 2011. ○ These agents have a lock on the market as well as who is allowed to gain entry into the community.
○ They are the negotiators on behalf of the sellers.
○ The seller has discretion. If the seller has no interest in seeing Atherton build housing on their parcel, then they will not sell the parties with that intent. ○ Meaning, we discourage market interest at the source where it originates from. ● What work or program or outreach has this Dais made to these brokers and brokerages? ● To that end, what brokerage has an SB9 campaign? How exactly are they helping to drive market interest and force to assist us in meeting our housing requirements? ● How is Atherton amending its zoning to include SB9 projects? If I saw the highest and best use of my parcel to subdivide, your zoning prohibits me from building in accordance with State mandate.
● In a more formal City like Menlo, I’d recommend the Dais send a formal letter. But Atherton is more personal. You know who has the relationship with sellers. Why not have a conversation with Mary and Brent? Why aren’t they spearheading the campaign to get working class folks into Town to stabilize us?
● Touting your billions of dollars in assets sold is no longer a virtue, it’s telling the story of exclusion, causing human pain and suffering, let alone biodiversity loss among others.
Just cause you can see nature from your window, does not mean that you live to protect it. Your carbon use sells you out.
● 193 James is on the Market - listed as Build Your Dream Home on This Gorgeous Mature Landscaped 42,164+-/SF Lot. Why not purchase that parcel and build? https://www.kerinicholas.com/properties/
● 132 Encina is also still available - with a large 1.5 acre lot size. This would be ideal for a dense affordable housing project. The applicant can even help to fund a shuttle program to get our mobility impaired folks safely to their destination without relying on a single use vehicle. https://gullixson.com/Properties/Current-Listings Thank you for your time and consideration,
Jenny Michel
DRE #01900228
Cell:
1 Fwd: Housing Element Meeting
From: Gail Parsons
Subject: Housing Element Meeting
Date: January 17, 2023 at 3:21:12 PM PST
To: [email protected]
[The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear Mr. Rodericks,
We live 3 houses away from 23 Oakwood. We have serious objections to building 16 units near the Oakwood circle properties. There has been little thought to the traffic impact, lack of parking, etc. We have all expressed the many reasons why this particular property is unacceptable for development. Our main objection is lack of access to a major commuter street (El Camino), plus ruining our “walk” streets.
I would also like to add that we received the notice of tomorrow’s meeting on the 18th TODAY (the 17th). This leaves us no time to plan for in person attendance.
We love our neighbors and our neighborhood… please keep it that way! Sincerely,
Gail Parsons
Dr. Richard Fischer
Also, it has been rumored that a member of the city council has a financial interest in this decision which should be concerning to all.
Sent from my iPhone
2 1
Anthony Suber
From: Anne Paulson
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 1:09 PM
To: Council
Subject: Upzoning some parcels on El Camino
[The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Jan 13, 2023
Dear City Council and City Manager,
I congratulate Atherton for planning to upzone some sites in El Camino for low income housing. That is a politically courageous step, and I thank the Council for taking it. As a YIMBY, I want jurisdictions in our state to plan for more housing, and that’s just what you’re doing. So thank you very much.
I’m concerned, however, that HCD might not accept these sites for low income housing. HCD requires that sites designated for low income housing that are smaller than half an acre be justified. The jurisdiction must demonstrate “development of housing affordable to lower income households is realistic or feasible.” You’re planning a lot consolidation program. I urge you to check with HCD right away and make sure that this is enough and they will accept it. It would be terrible if you took the big step to vote to upzone the sites on El Camino, and then got rejected by HCD. I know that you are making a good faith effort to satisfy HCD’s requirement and I want it to succeed, just as you do.
Again, thanks for working hard on this. I hope your housing element is accepted by HCD.
Sincerely,
Anne Paulson
Number of Units Per Acre Allowed to Be Built 20
Total Land Acres 1.11
Number of Units to Be Built 22.2
Address Acres Zillow Values
Developer Acquisition Cost
Per Unit (Total Zillow/36.4)
2 Selby 0.33 $ 3,629,400
8 Selby 0.37 $ 4,295,100
94 Cebalo 0.41 $ 3,800,200
97 Cebalo
98 Cebalo
Total 1.11 $ 11,724,700 $ 528,140
6.6 Number of Units Per Acre Allowed to Be Built 20
Total Land Acres 1.82
Number of Units to Be Built 36.4
Address Acres
Zillow Values as
of 1/18/23
Developer
Acquisition Cost Per
Unit (Total
Zillow/36.4)
2 Selby 0.33 $ 3,629,400
8 Selby 0.37 $ 4,295,100
94 Cebalo 0.41 $ 3,800,200
97 Cebalo 0.37 $ 3,860,400
98 Cebalo 0.34 $ 3,268,700
Total 1.82 $ 18,853,800 $ 517,962
Income Level Annual Income 30% of Income Down Payment House I can Afford at 4.25% Very Low $ 82,000 $ 24,600 $ 100,000 $ 380,600
Low $ 131,000 $ 39,300 $ 40,000 $ 597,300
Median $ 134,000 $ 40,200 $ 50,000 $ 622,700
4.25% is the interest rate effective Jan 1st for low income and very low income borrowers Searhc Google on "How much house can I afford" and use any of the calculators 1 Anthony Suber
From: Ognjen Pavlovic
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 4:37 PM
To: Council
Cc: Anthony Suber; Aline Ng
Subject: Re: Housing Element Public Comment Jan 19th
Attachments: Atherton1.xlsx
[The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Pls discard the previous email. This one includes the attachment.
From: Ognjen Pavlovic <
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 4:35 PM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element Public Comment Jan 19th
Hello,
We are residents of 8 Selby Lane for the past 18 years. Your plan to upzone the lots on Selby/Ceballo and Gresham makes no sense at all and it’s truly being proposed in bad faith to HCD on behalf of the town and their residents.
Specifically, the plan submitted to HCD needs to make sense and Mona Ebrahimi, Atherton City Attorney on Jan 12th stated the following on video ( around 35:00min): “It’s very important to HCD that the programs that are offered in the town’s housing element are capable of being accomplished and are feasible. So, they don’t want us to simply identify projects for the sake of identifying them projects that we believe there is no way of realistically coming to fruition.” In light of this comment, here are several reasons for why inclusion of these properties makes no sense at all:
#1) Current Owners Do not WANT to sell
Many if not all of the owners of the properties in question along this land stretch during the Jan 18th meeting have CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY stated that they don’t plan to sell their properties at any time over the next 8 years. How can you in good faith submit these properties when the residents have said they don’t plan to sell? #2) Size of the lots.
HCD published guidelines state that lots smaller than 1 acre are not suitable for affordable/low income housing. This specific comment has been sent back by the HCD to pretty much every town who already submitted the plans under the heading “Small Sites” in the HCD responses. A 2 min google search will let you see the same HCD response to Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Menlo Park and the list goes on. How can Atherton in good faith propose the same that has already been provided as a non‐acceptable guideline by the HCD. #3) Low Income/Affordable Housing does not pass any logical and financial test.
Specifically, in order to build MFH a min of 3 properties need to be consolidated. Calculating the value of the land for the 3 properties from a sample of properties along the stretch comes out to $518K. That is the price of that land only! Now, lets add construction and developer profit and what would these new units need to sell for? $1.5 million, 2 2Mil, 2.5Mil? How is that you can in good faith claim that you are up‐zoning these properties to build an affordable housing and submit these properties in the proposal.
Attached is a more detailed spreadsheet with the land cost calculation at today’s cost. #4) Income / Affordability
On June 23rd 2022, Lisa presented the income requirements for the low income/affordable housing. Video. Starts around 1hr56min. Lisa stated: “for a 2 Bed Unit Max Income is $82 (very low income), $131K (low), $134(median).” Based on the national mortgage/financing and Lisa’s guideline, 30% of income is what any family is expected to pay. So, based on those income levels, a very generous down payment, any calculator you choose will tell you that noone with those income levels won’t be able to even buy a land. Here is the table.:
Sites: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community‐development/housing‐ element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf
From the document: If the parcel is more than 0.5 acres or less than 10 acres, is the size of the site automatically considered appropriate to accommodate lower income RHNA? Not necessarily. If the size of the parcel in combination with the allowable density and accompanying development standards cannot support a housing development affordable to lower income households, further analysis and programs may be needed to demonstrate the suitability of that site to accommodate the portion of the RHNA for lower income households.
The above 2 points clearly state that it’s not possible to provide affordable housing. How can you in good faith claim that these properties present an opportunity for affordable housing? #5) Finally, a recommendation by the consultant (Barbara ) on Dec 15th 2022 video (around 41m.57) that I heard was a totally IRRESPONSIBLE comment without any regard to residents due process. Specifically, Barbara said through laughter: “You submit the plan and lets say you get a rejection HCD letter, but you should still go ahead with the re‐ zoning recommendations”. This is despite the fact that the residents and the town don’t want these recommendations.
Now, I grew up in a communist country. I immigrated to the US for a better opportunity and I truly came to the US with $60 in my pocket back in 1998. In communist countries the govts take away/change the property rights of the owners at their will and this actually happened to my family as well I have never in my life thought that a similar thing would happen to me in the United States. NEVER. EVER. How can you even fathom to attempt to put selling restrictions on my property? How can you even think that changing from SFT and forcing us to sell the property as MFR ONLY is acceptable.
And even worse, that the only way to sell as MFR only is that I have to agree to do the same with 2 other property owners. How can that be plan that the town agrees to.
Thank you.
Ognjen Pavlovic and Aline Ng
While I have never been a believer in the “all ADU”
strategy, I grudgingly went along with my colleagues in that strategy as a starting point while on the Council. We have all learned a lot in the past six months, and I have become even less enamored with that strategy. The
world of 25’ building height, 4’ setbacks and multiple
ADU’s per parcel is NOT something that belongs in
Atherton, and the unintended consequences will be felt
throughout our Town.
As I’ve stated in these meetings before, a handful of well planned, well located and carefully controlled projects allowing multi family construction will be much less
impactful on Atherton, and can lead to an approved
housing element from HCD, which is essential for the
Town to avoid costly litigation and the catastrophic
possibilities presented by the Builders’ Remedy
scenarios.
There are a number of possible locations the council has looked at for these multi family projects, but I want to propose a location that I believe is much preferable to “dropping” such a project into a residential area like
Oakwood or Bay Road. I also want to propose a
rudimentary path forward to bring some low income
housing to fruition in Atherton, get our housing element approved with minimal negative impact to our residents, while maintaining maximum possible control over the
project.
The ECR corridor at the north end of Town is a bit out of character with the rest of Atherton. The east side is
covered with a variety of commercial buildings running
south well past Fifth Avenue. On the west side are a
number of smaller Atherton properties that either back
up to or enter on the ECR. Specifically, 5 on Cebalo, 9 on Gresham, two on ECR and a last one at the corner of ECR and Stockbridge. These properties, based on 2021 and
2022 sales data, will range in price from $3M to $4.5M, well below property values in most of the Town. I
believe these properties offer the best opportunity for the Town to develop some lower income housing,
suitable for city workers, teachers, etc, and hopefully in the least invasive way possible, with significant
mitigation potential for the neighbors (walls, trees,
vegetation and setbacks along both Cebalo and
Gresham). No solution is perfect, but this one is pretty good.
I would further propose that the Town develop a plan to ACTIVELY pursue the purchase of these properties, either directly with a combination of GF money and low interest debt, or indirectly working with a suitable developer(s) of lower income housing. Even two of these parcels to start would give us enough space to produce a significant
number of high density, worker affordable units for THIS housing cycle. Furthermore, a legitimate commitment by
the Town to identify, zone, fund and develop a significant number of lower income units should put us over the
hump with HCD, which is where we need to be!!
Finally, I believe time is of the essence. Your submission on the 31st will at best be given a D by HCD. We need to be ready with a well vetted, acceptable plan to submit
for multi family BEFORE litigation and Builders’ Remedy scenarios have a chance to blossom. Please give this
proposal serious and immediate consideration.
1 Anthony Suber
From: JENNIFER RYAN
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:48 PM
To: Council
Cc: George Rodericks
Subject: El Camino Real Upzoning - Request for Information [The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear Councilmembers,
Thank you for listening to our comments last night at the meeting.
I spoke yesterday on the record in more detail but wanted to follow up my comments with an email reiterating the following:
1. The El Camino lots are too small and cost two times as much per square foot than other large lots for sale along major arteries in town. And less expensive, acre plus lots are available to purchase far more often than ours. As such, the El Camino lots are financially infeasible and unattractive for developers of low income housing. No developer will want to pay so much more for less, especially when they have to include 20% low income housing.
2. The families on the El Camino lots have told you en masse that they DO NOT want to move and do not plan on moving in this next housing cycle.
Based on these two points, Atherton cannot in good faith, or with much honesty, say to the state that the city assumes there is a likelihood of building multifamily low income housing on these lots in the next cycle. You simply CANNOT make that assumption with the information that you have.
Additionally, I would appreciate if you could provide me with the name and contact information for the developer that approached the Town with an interest in acquiring our lots. A few of the homeowners are interested in talking with them to get an understanding of what the “vision” is for our street.
I ask for this information in the spirit of transparency and with the understanding that Pacific Peninsula Group’s name was disclosed publicly in reference to possible MFH development of the Polhemus property during last year’s June 23rd planning meeting.
Thank you very much for your time and assistance.
I look forward to receiving details on the developer’s name as soon as possible.
Best regards,
Jennifer Ryan
1 Anthony Suber
From: Susan Speicher
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 7:02 PM
To: Council
Subject: Housing mandate
[The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Let me begin by thanking all of you for your service to our community. Living in Atherton is a privilege that none of us should take for granted, in large part due to your dedicated work on our behalf.
Today I took the time to watch your December 15 housing meeting video. You all brought a calm, determined focus to the nearly impossible task. I realize that the state has handed you a “one size fits all cities” mandate and you are working to make it fit by concentrating on ADUs as the best solution. However, I worry that in asking the residents who would agree to build an ADU , you didn’t dig deep enough to do more than push the problem down the road.
You offered significant enticements ( modified setbacks, loosened height limitations, relaxed square footage requirements as well as lower fees) without a corresponding commitment from the homeowner to rent on the open market, to the public at large, and to do so to low, low income people at a less than market rate price that is set by the state. And I don’t think many homeowners know that it might also include deed restrictions. I fear we are going to end up with lots of built and unrented guest houses with kitchens.
Beyond this, I worry about cars trying to pull out of shortened setback driveways on to El Camino Real. And finally I wonder how this helps the most vulnerable among us, low income families.
Unfortunately, I don’t have a solution and maybe pushing the problem down the road is the only option. I urge you to try another survey with a fuller picture of what would be required of homeowners for their ADUs to count in meeting the mandate.
Respectfully,
Susan Speicher
Sent from my iPad
1 Anthony Suber
From: Lisa Thomas
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 5:48 PM
To: Council
Subject: In the name of fairness please read this before passing judgement on Gresham Lane [The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear Councillor,
I am a homeowner of Gresham lane, Atherton and I would like to address you in regard to the proposed upzoning of my neighbourhood. Even though this email is a little long, I would ask in the name of fairness to your proposed plans if you read it open mindedly in its entirety.
It seems to me that in your haste to find a solution to the state housing requirements you have lost sight of why the State of California passed Assembly Bill 686 in the first place. Whether we agree or disagree with it, the bill requires public agencies to further fair housing, and take no action inconsistent with this obligation. This means taking meaningful actions to combat discrimination, overcome segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity. By targeting what is often referred to as the ‘poverty pocket’ in Atherton as the ONLY areas on which you are willing to develop multi-family housing, I believe you are in direct violation of this obligation. By placing ALL your proposed upzoning development sites into one concentrated area along El Camino Real, you are demonstrating a willful neglect to address the issue of segregated living patterns and are demonstrating no intent to truly integrate and balance the community, which is a fundamental requirement of the HCD. By proposing 17 lots all adjacent to each other on the same road, on the outer limits of the town, some of which are directly behind the city limit of Atherton sign, you are demonstrating that you do not care about the very principle the bill is addressing: that of integration. In making this proposal, I think you have failed to understand and comply with the most fundamental part of the bill and on this basis alone; it will be rejected. By singling out this swath of properties along El Camino, you are echoing the enforcement of racial covenants that happened after the war which forced poorer minorities into neighborhoods in the least desirable areas of town, next to highways and such. In our modern day case it is; El Camino Real. An area which does not meet the AFFH access to opportunity rules as it is unsafe for families with young children due to it being a high traffic corridor and hazardous to health because of the pollution. Bill 686 was designed to rectify the consequences of people housing financial minorities in concentrations and along highways and yet here you are proposing the very same solutions. This is not the only manner in which the proposal does not comply with the, ‘access to opportunity’ stipulation of the AFFH act. NONE of the proposed multi-family sites provide them with equal opportunity to access the preferred public schools of our town. The proposed sites depend on Redwood city district schools alone. Including Adelante Spanish immersion school, an institution that according to state test scores has 35% proficiency in math and 42% in reading rates. Compared to 87% & 82 % percent at central Athertons Las Lomitas school. From an outside view it looks very much like you are purposely doing your best to keep low income renters out of your best schools and affluent parts of town. Selby lane school already has a 24:1 student teacher ratio compared to 15:1 and Encinal and Las Lomitas The proposed plan places the excess burden of increased population on one sole school district, a district that is already over-crowded when compared to other schools in town. So why place all your housing requirements in that one school district? Why would you not share the burden with other districts? Do you think the HCD will not notice this? It appears you are quite intentionally avoiding construction in “highest resource” neighborhoods. Something they stipulate as being essential to their 2 compliance regulations. Why else would you propose to condemn nine lots occupied by families with NO immediate desire to sell on one small Cul de sac of Gresham Lane when there are plenty of vacant lots and willing sellers for a lower price per sq ft all over town? It’s almost as if you are trying to create a special enclave to contain low income residents in one area. This is not a good optic for Atherton. Your ‘access to transportation story,’ does not hold up either. Alameda is a main artery, Atherton Ave, Valparaiso ave, Marsh, Bay road to name a few, we have many. Infact Gresham lane is a terrible location for low-income housing as it is not a walk to town neighborhood, which is another stipulation of the AFFH’s ‘access to opportunity’ criteria. We are a 36 minute hazardous walk to Redwood city Sequoia station, 52 minutes to Menlo downtown. Valparaiso would offer low income families the ability to walk to town. Again. Access to shops is another criteria you have missed. You claim we are next to density and commercial shops, we have only Selby's high end restaurant and K&L wines.
Atherton ave and Valparaiso are way closer to shops and amenities than we have. Yet you have offered only one small corner of Atherton for development, the corner that straggles Redwood city and the real reason for that we all know is not transportation no matter how loud you profess it. So, why is one sole neighborhood, in particular one small street. A street of diverse and hard working families that have fought to pay for their homes. Why should we be expected to carry the burden of a whole town? All of which are more affluent than us? Once again the least wealthy are the ones to bear the brunt of loss in property value, the construction disruption and destruction of our communities. Again, you seem to have missed the point and the core values needed to meet the approval of Sacramento. This is a responsibility that needs to be shared by the whole town and it is written into the bill.
They expect that. Redwood city council tried to avert you to this element in a meeting in November, she told you they had achieved upzoning throughout the city, not just poverty pockets and that she would be happy to help you to do the same. Whilst I understand the task before you is not an easy one, concentrating all the property development projects into one street on one corner of town is quite simply not compliant with the goals of HCD.
Especially if you include a street with small lots and where NONE of the home owners will ever sell. If you take this tact, you will not gain the approval you seek. We will be forced to inform the town hall that you targeted the small, low income homes of Atherton, one of the few existing pockets that already contains genuine diversity… How do you think it will look when we demonstrate to them that you are quite literally picking on the only diverse neighborhood in town, and proposing to add even more low income renters and diversity in the only place those two things already exist? It is obvious to everyone you are keeping low income renters as far out of town as you can. What you are proposing appears to be totally discriminatory and a clear and flagrant attempt at red lining all over again. We do not want to hurt our town or forever skew the optics the state has of Atherton. We love our town. So please. Really, truly try to understand what the state wants, what bill 686 expects of you, and realize the hard fact that this proposal will not pass. It is a bad faith offering on the part of Gresham lane because our lots are too small and we will not sell. You will never get two lots together to be able to build multi-family units. I believe you know that this is an infeasible project for our street. But please realize this, all you are achieving is putting a noose around our property's neck and financially crippling families that cannot afford to shoulder that cost. Please, please reconsider the proposal and consider how this will reflect on the town of Atherton which already has the reputation of keeping out anyone who is not white or wealthy. This move is bad optics for the town. You offered not one single central, affluent Atherton lot or even close to that. You gave those lots months to fight their cause and us 3 days with a notice deficient of a map. You protected those with the biggest lots, the most financial muscle to fight you and you picked on the little, low income areas. Sacramento will not take kindly to this and neither will the press.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Lisa Thomas
1 Anthony Suber
From: Jin Wang
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 5:35 PM
To: Council; Anthony Suber
Subject: Oppose Rezoning proposal
[The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Oppose - 2 Selby Ln
We raise our family in Atherton on a single-family residential property just as everyone else. This plan disproportionally asked our neighborhood to burden for multi-family low-income housing without sufficient support.
The media exposed the rezoning prior to us who are affected. We suffer from an immediate negative impact on the property value, and uncertainty of future. Our child goes to school nearby, Atherton home is valuable to us and generations to come.
If Atherton’s “fair share” of state housing requirement is becoming inevitable, we would like our elected officials to make long-term vision and plan a priority. A rushed proposal helps no one. We have rights to seek for advice.
Jin Wang
1 Anthony Suber
From: Jing Yi
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 5:14 PM
To: Council
Subject: Opposing to the Housing Elements
[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,
Good afternoon! Thanks so much for all your hard work in managing our beautiful city. Hope you had a great weekend.
I am the homeowner of Gresham Ln, with my husband Wei and two daughters Aris and Sarina who go to Sacred Heart Schools. We wholeheartedly support making affordable housing available, but we are strongly against the proposed upzoning of Gresham Ln for the following reasons:
1 Economic infeasibility
Like most of the houses on Gresham Ln, my house is about 0.32 acres. In order to get 1 acer land, one would need to at least purchase three and adjacent houses. The most recent sale of a single family house on Gresham Ln is >= 4M. Therefore it's at least 12M to get 1 acer land, very likely more. There are open houses on the market with more than 1 acer land with much less price. It does not make any financial sense to consider Gresham Ln.
2. We won't sell
Many of us who live on Gresham Ln have at least two kids who go to local schools and have lived here for many years. We won't sell our house for the next 8 years or longer. We would like to pass the house to our children and grandchildren. Our house may be small but it's precious to us. Upzoning removes the capability of my children selling the house as a single family house. It's emotionally, logistically and economically difficult for us to change homes. We ARE the low income housing in Atherton. Without our agreement of selling the house, this proposal will NOT be feasible.
3. Bad faith
The letter of Jan 12 from the Town of Atherton was the first notice to us (even that, a map was NOT included) that my house may be a part of the final plan. There is only TWO days notice of the Town meeting and only two week notice before presenting the plan to the state. If this is for your house, or your kids' house, how would you react to a decision that you may not have time to address? In addition, this targeted approach for a specific area in Atherton is shocking and discriminatory. There are many vacant lots spread across Atherton and why are they not in the proposed final plan? We need time to understand more fully what is being proposed and how the town came to this decision.
We will seek legal representations to protect our own house. Brown Act and exposure of the vacant lot in Atherton will be included in the lawsuit.
2 4. Safety
The Gresham and Selby streets are already very congested with heavy traffic. Gresham is not a through street.
Building apartment buildings in this area will exponentially worsen the current traffic and safety. There have been many accidents and fatalities in recent years at the intersection of Selby and El Camino.
We appreciate the huge effort to address the low income housing in our beautiful Atherton. We want to help but pls don't move this current plan forward as it won't be successful. The upzoning ruins the economic value of the targeted residents and it's a selective downgrading. That's a severe restriction on my property rights. We should spread the burden around. Overlay is an HCD guideline and preserves economic value and makes more sites available. Overlay is a better win-win plan!!! All the best,
Jing
1 Anthony Suber
From: Wei Yu
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 8:48 PM
To: Council
Subject: Opposing the Upzoning plan of ECR
[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 the residents of Gresham Ln. I am writing to leave the record of opposing your proposed plan of Upzoning ECR to HCD on behalf of the town and all residents.
Your plan to upzone the lots on Gresham and Selby is in bad faith to HCD and will put everyone in a lose‐lose situation, including the town of Atherton and the residents. I know you have been putting tons of effort into this mission (and it is not an easy job). But this plan is infeasible at all. Submitting it to the State puts the town in HUGE risk and will be a waste of all efforts and time to meet the HCD requirements.
I have attended both the Special Meeting on 18th and the Planning Committee meeting on 19th. I share all the sentiments of my neighbors and strongly oppose your plan. I won't repeat all the points made by my neighbors at the meetings but share a personal point. My family has been through tough years during the pandemic (as all of us). After these years of time and effort, we finally settled down in the current home, which is close to my daughters' school, Sacred Heart Schools. They will stay here till graduating from high school, if not longer. We paid $4,000,000 for the house. In addition, we put hundreds of thousands $ into this house to make it our dream house. Emotionally, how can you possibly think we will sell our home at any time in the next 8 years, before my daughters' graduation? Economically, at what price do you think we would like to ask for this house? Considering the plan has even to consolidate the adjacent more than 2 lots to work, it sets the plan in the fate of failure at its beginning. How can that be possible that you believe it will be proved by the State, when knowing the opinions from all homeowners? We will contact the HCD if the current plan is submitted, exposing your misrepresentation of the truth.
Only a plan with more feasibility will work. Instead of upzoning the area, overlay will be more acceptable to me. I urge you to please support the overlay and modify the current plan. It will make things easier for all of us.
Best,
Wei
‐‐
\\\|///
\\ .‐?.‐ //
( .@.@ )
+‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐oOOo‐‐‐‐‐(_)‐‐‐‐‐‐oOOo‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐+
| |
| Oooooooooooooops |
| |
+‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐.oooO‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Oooo.‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐+
( ) ( )
2 \ ( ) /
\_) (_/
1 Anthony Suber
From: Phil Abrahamson
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 10:16 PM
To: Council
Cc: Dana Shelley
Subject: comment on Jan 20 2023 letter describing proposed Overlay aspect of 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.]
Dear City Council,
First, we want to express our gratitude for the hard work you've done, and continue to do, on the 2023-2031 Atherton Housing Element.
Second, we want to request that any proposed Housing Overlay not include the 10 Victoria Manor properties adjacent to El Camino, nor the 5 additional Victoria Manor properties adjacent to Valparaiso.
As you know, we are not "NIMBY." When we wrote to you last Summer, we endorsed the inclusion of multi-family housing on the Menlo College and Menlo School campuses. This housing would have an impact on the Victoria Manor neighborhood, but seemed to be a sensible element (no pun intended) of Atherton's plan to meet the state's request for additional housing.
We believe that the burden of meeting the state's requirements should be shared with some degree of equity across the Town. Your letter to residents, dated January 20, 2023, describes a housing overlay zone affecting 111 properties, 15 of which are in Victoria Manor.
Victoria Manor consists of only 28 properties zoned R-1. According to the Town's website, there are about 2,700 R-1 properties in total. Thus, while the overlay affects 111/2700 = 4% of the Town's properties, it affects 15/28 = 54% of the Victoria Manor properties. It is unreasonable to ask our neighborhood to absorb 13 times its nominal share of the affected properties.
We understand that proximity to transportation may be an important consideration. However, the identified 15 properties in Victoria Manor do not satisfy this criterion - even though it's easy to say "well, they're right on El Camino and Valparaiso, so they have access to transportation." The El Camino / Valparaiso intersection is horribly crowded at many times of the day, including the morning commute. Those streets and that intersection cannot support the additional vehicle flow that would result from multi-family development on these 15 properties. Ingress/egress would be impossibly difficult and dangerous.
Victoria Manor is a wonderful, tiny neighborhood. We hold well-attended neighborhood events a few times a year, to which we have invited the Chief of Police and other Town officials. We work closely and productively with our Menlo College and Menlo School neighbors. We are probably the most active area in the entire Town regarding ADAPT - even to the point of being asked by Town officials to assist in training other neighborhoods.
2 Including these 15 properties in an overlay zone has the potential to decimate our neighborhood. Please don't do it.
Thanks for your consideration,
Phil Abrahamson & Dana Shelley
Douglass Way
(Phil's mobile)
From: Albert Franklin
Date: January 28, 2023 at 3:21:58 PM PST
To: George Rodericks <[email protected]>, [email protected], Cc: Jessica Mattos , San Mateo County Republican Party
<[email protected]>, Carlmont Academic Foundation
<[email protected]>, The Texas Tribune <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: CURRY'S OBJECT TO HOUSING PROJECT
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
28 January 2023
Re: CURRY'S OBJECT TO HOUSING PROJECT
Town of Atherton
Office of Town Manager
80 Fair Oaks Lane
1st Floor
Atherton, California 94025
City Council:
What seems to be missing from this report, is when Selby Lane Elementary demanded that the City Manager of Redwood City ( Mr. James Smith) to conduct summer school during the summer of 1974 due to the findings that when the now supposedly fifty years of successful:
East Redwood City's Summer Youth Program, as six week long summer school which should still be running out of Hoover Elementary.
Seeing that that program was funded during the War of Poverty era when BJL developed his War on Poverty and the Great Society.
If this program in 1973 sparked Professor Jaime Escalante's national academic movement along with Fresno County, then why is the homeless rate for both Redwood City and San Mateo so astronomically high? If each six week session cost the county $20,000 per year,of which $600 per year should have been my pay then this summer the county should have already allocated some $1,000.000.00 over the past fifty years with a grand total of some $600.00 per year or $30,000.00 to myself.
If both Fresno County and Doctor Escalante started their academic climb in 1974, the same year in which summer school at Selby Lane Elementary began, then why is the wealthiest county in America even thinking about helping the homeless on such a large scale? If the Curry's, who now live in Atherton object to any number of the homeless living in the Town of Atherton, then someone needs to explain why there today are so many of the homeless in both Redwood City and San Mateo County in light of the academic success which I developed for the East Redwood City community in just six weeks.
Albert B. Franklin
East Palo Alto, California 64303-1124
From:
To: Council
Subject: Housing Plan
Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 5:32:31 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Council Members,
I just recently heard about the housing plan to add in the townhouses near Holbrook Palmer Park.
As a resident of Burns Avenue, I would like to voice my strong support for the improvements made in this plan. The Bay area desperately needs more housing and it is great that Atherton is modifying its housing plan to add some additional housing that the Bay Area desperately needs.
My only complaint would be that the plan could go further. I would fully support allowing a higher density and a wider area zoned for higher-density housing.
Additionally, I would suspect that you may have received some emails in opposition to this plan citing concerns such as traffic. I should note that most of the traffic on the street is through traffic from the El Camino to Middlefield. The addition of these new residents will hardly be noticeable.
There are a few great methods that could be used to limit the use of cars for the new residents if this is truly a large concern. Most car trips are for common trips such as going to work, picking up groceries, going to dinner or other common occurrences. Celia's is a great restaurant in Menlo Park within walking distance that has certainly reduced car trips by people being able to walk over to get dinner. The trouble is that the sidewalk disappears after crossing the train track. If the sidewalk could be extended to make it up the 101 that would make it far easier for people to walk to Celia's. Additionally, if there could be a sidewalk from Holbrook Palmer Park to the library this would be another great step to reducing the need for people to drive.
Lastly, adding mixed-use high density zoning to allow for a corner store would be a great idea.
This would encourage people to walk over to a local store rather drive to downtown Menlo Park, downtown Palo Alto or downtown Redwood City. Athertonians being forced to travel to other cities for access to basic services generates more traffic within Atherton which could be alleviated with mixed use zoning.
Thanks,
Wesley Arrington
Burns Ave.
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
01404.0001/854534.1
Atherton Housing Coalition
January 30, 2023
Dean Mayor Widmer and Members of the City Council,
Atherton Housing Coalition is a group of Atherton residents who are concerned about making sure that the Town of Atherton fulfills its RHNA obligations in a thoughtful manner to maintain the character of our town. We are submitting this letter to outline Atherton Housing Coalition’s proposal for alternative housing inventory sites and zoning options that will not only meet, but exceed, the Town’s RHNA obligations and provide for planning and development consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town and the existing character of our community. We hope that the City Council seriously considers this proposal as part of the Town’s 6th cycle Housing Element.
Members of the community have been involved in discussions about the Housing Element for over a year and have reviewed several different properties for potential inclusion in the Housing Element so that Atherton achieves its goal of planning for 348 housing units allocated among the four income levels in Atherton’s RHNA allocation.
Atherton Housing Coalition’s proposal for the Housing Element complies with HCD requirements and incorporates ideas that have a higher likelihood of coming to fruition than what is in the current draft of the Housing Element. Furthermore, this proposal will create more lower income housing units than the proposed rezoning of eighteen properties along El Camino Real. Furthermore, the residents of the properties proposed for rezoning have made it clear that none of them will sell their houses to a developer during the 2023-2031 planning period, so the rezoning plan is unlikely to produce any new housing units.
We recognize that the City Council wants to submit what it hopes to be the final draft of the Housing Element to HCD on January 31, 2023. We appreciate that the City Council is limited in its ability to conduct Town-wide deliberations at this juncture, given the existing time constraints to adopt and self-certify the Housing Element as of January 31, 2023. However, we implore you to consider directing staff to submit a revised Housing Element, without the El Camino Real and Valparaiso rezonings or any changes to the Senate Bill 9 ordinance. Instead, Atherton Housing Coalition urges you to consider Atherton Housing Coalition’s proposal for the Housing Element, which is compliant with state law, exceeds the RHNA requirement of 348 new housing units, and meets the requirements for all income categories. Our proposal for the Housing Element is in contrast to the latest version of the Housing Element posted on January 20th and amended as of January 23rd, which we believe contains ideas that are not acceptable to either Atherton residents or HCD.
We request that the City Council incorporate our proposal into the Housing Element after making the required public noticing requirements, by voting to adopt a revised version of the 01404.0001/854534.1
Housing Element. Since the City Council is not able to add our recommendations to the Housing Element on January 31st, it is our hope that you will adopt a revised Housing Element at the earliest possible date in February and thereafter submit it to HCD for final review and certification. In order to consider the ideas and revisions proposed by the Atherton Housing Coalition’s proposal and incorporate them into the Town’s Housing Element, we recommend that the City Council take the following actions:
a. Adopt the Housing Element on January 31, 2023, without making the changes recommended by the Town’s Planning Commission (for the reasons stated below in this letter),and submit said Housing Element to HCD for review and certification. The Town may also want to inform HCD that the Town is also considering incorporating additional points from the Atherton Housing Coalition’s proposal and intends to submit an updated Housing Element for review as soon as possible after proper noticing requirements and approval by the City Council.
b. Provide the proper noticing requirements for hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council (most likely in February, and potentially early March 2023) to consider the incorporation of Atherton Housing Coalition’s proposal into the Housing Element. Simultaneously, Town staff will need to analyze and incorporate Atherton Housing Coalition’s proposal into the updated Housing Element. c. Hold the required public hearings before the Planning Commission and subsequently the City Council on the adoption of the updated Housing Element that includes Atherton Housing Coalition’s proposal.1 Then the Town should provide the updated Housing Element to HCD for review and certification.2
A. Planning Commission Recommendations and Draft Housing Element dated January 23, 2023
On January 19, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised draft Housing Element and made three main recommendations for the City Council to consider as part of the final draft Housing Element. Atherton Housing Coalition recommends that the City Council reject all three recommendations for the following reasons:
1. El Camino Real:
Atherton Housing Coalition opposes the creation of a new multi-family “overlay zone” for eighty-eight (88) properties along both sides of El Camino Real (one property deep) that would allow for developments of up to twenty (20) units per acre. Residents were not properly notified about such a significant change to their neighborhood, and nobody has had time to study the consequences of such an action. Residents will undoubtedly 1 The Town is authorized to update its General Plan, including its Housing Element, up to four (4) times per year, under Government Code Section 65358.
2 If HCD has not completed its 60-day review of the Town’s January 31, 2023 Housing Element, HCD will simply begin reviewing the subsequently adopted Housing Element from February/March 2023 without having to complete the review of the January 31, 2023 Housing Element. HCD will then have an additional 60 days from the date it receives the February/March 2023 Housing Element to certify said Housing Element.
01404.0001/854534.1
voice their opposition to this proposal. We oppose the creation of the RM 20 zone for this area.
As you are aware, Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(2) requires the Town to demonstrate the projected residential development capacity of the sites identified in the Housing Element can realistically be achieved. Based on the opposition of existing residents of the subject properties, market demand, land costs, future development, and past production trends, it is clear that the proposed overlay zone fails to meet the statutory realistic development capacity requirement.
Also, we support the Planning Commission’s recommendation to remove the rezoning of eighteen (18) properties because residents are prepared to send letters to HCD to object, since none of them expect or want to move out of their houses.
2. Valparaiso Avenue:
Atherton Housing Coalition opposes the creation of a new “overlay zone” which would allow up to ten (10) units per acre on the twenty-two (22) lots on the Atherton side of Valparaiso Avenue. The neighbors were not properly notified of this proposal, and there has been insufficient time to properly analyze the consequences and adverse impacts of such an action. Furthermore, many residents on Valparaiso Avenue have voiced their opposition to this idea. We oppose the creation of the RM 10 zone for this area. Similar to the proposed overlay zone on El Camino Real, the opposition of existing residents of the subject properties, market demand, land costs, future development, and past production trends demonstrate that the Valparaiso Avenue overlay zone fails to meet the realistic development capacity requirement under Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(2).
3. Senate Bill 9 (SB9) Residency Requirement:
Atherton Housing Coalition strongly opposes the Town making any changes to its SB9 ordinance, which was adopted shortly after the State approved the bill in 2021, particularly to remove the owner residency requirement for lot splits. State legislation has a residency requirement specifically stating: “A local agency shall require an applicant for an urban lot split to sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split.” (Gov. Code § 66411.7(g)(1) [emphasis added].)
Therefore, the Town is legally mandated to require the owner residency requirement for any and all lot sizes, and any amendment to the Town’s SB 9 ordinance that eliminates such a requirement, or a lack of enforcement of such a requirement, is in violation of State law. Accordingly, the Town should not make any local modifications to its SB9 ordinance as part of the Housing Element that is contrary to State law; doing so exposes the Town to legal liability.
01404.0001/854534.1
Additionally, the draft Housing Element dated January 23, 2023 includes the following ideas and proposals that Atherton Housing Coalition considers detrimental to the Town and unnecessary in achieving the required 348 housing units in the appropriate income categories required under the RHNA obligations:
New RM10 and RM20 Zones
The draft Housing Element dated January 23, 2023 mentions the creation of two new residential zones that permit multi-family housing by right, RM10 (up to ten (10) dwelling units per acre) and RM20 (up to twenty (20) dwelling units per acre). The proposed RM10 and RM20 zones will be rezoned on nineteen (19) private residential properties, plus the Planning Commission recommends the inclusion of an additional one hundred and ten (110) single family residences.
The purpose of this is to provide for a variety of housing types and purportedly to affirmatively further fair housing.
Atherton Housing Coalition strongly opposes the new zones because the existing zoning code already allows multifamily housing to be developed in the PFS zone. Furthermore, the draft Housing Element will amend the zoning code to allow multifamily developments in the PFS zone by right up to 20 units per acre with a possible forty (40) units per acre at Menlo College.
The removal of a required master plan, environmental review, and use permit, along with the increased density of up to twenty (20) units per acre, will already increase and improve the variety of housing types within the Town. It will also affirmatively further fair housing to provide a diverse type of housing options on all properties that are zoned PFS. Under this proposal, where property is owned and controlled by the Town or other public agencies, multifamily housing has a more realistic chance of being developed and constructed, without having to rezone private property with existing single-family homes, whose residents have already firmly stated that they will not sell or subdivide their properties for multi-family developments during this planning period.
Goal: Facilitate Development of Faculty and Student Housing On or Near Campus One of the goals listed under Section 3.370 includes facilitating development of faculty and student housing on or near campuses. Atherton Housing Coalition opposes the multifamily housing “near” campus, as we believe adequate multi-family faculty and student housing can be located wholly on campus, rather than off campus near the schools. Atherton Housing Coalition believes the goal has been and should continue to be the provision of housing on campus within the PFS zone. There is abundant and underutilized land suitable for multifamily faculty and student housing in the PFS zone, and as stated above and in previous sections, utilizing the PFS zone provides a greater and more realistic likelihood of property being developed for multi-family developments. Accordingly, “or near” should be stricken to provide for on-campus housing only.
01404.0001/854534.1
Goal: Development of Multi-Family Housing On Private Property As previously stated, the Atherton Housing Coalition strongly opposes the development of multi-family housing on private property. As already provided for in the existing Housing Element or the draft Housing Element dated January 23, 2023, there is abundant property located in the PFS zone owned by public agencies that can provide for multi-family developments without having the need to re-zone private property with existing single-family homes. There is no justification for this proposal, as multi-family developments are already permitted or will soon be permitted by right. Furthermore, the Atherton Housing Coalition proposal demonstrates that more than the required housing units under the RHNA allocation, including all within the appropriate income category, can be developed without the inclusion of multi-family developments on existing single family residential lots. Doing so would add nothing to increasing variety in housing types, diversity in households within the Town, or affirmatively furthering fair housing. In addition, such multi-family developments do not have a realistic development capacity requirement under Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(2), since the residents have already objected and will continue to assert that they will continue using the property as a single-family residential development.
B. Atherton’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation
HCD is requiring Atherton to plan for 348 new housing units as part of the Town’s RHNA obligations. The breakdown of the housing units by income levels is:
Income level # Percentage of total
Very Low Income 94 27.01%
Low Income 54 15.52%
Moderate Income 56 16.09%
Above Moderate Income 144 41.38%
Total 348 100.00%
The tables below present summaries of the number of proposed dwelling units projected to be constructed in Atherton, according to the Atherton Housing Coalition Proposal. The Atherton Housing Coalition Proposal contains 434 dwelling units, which represents a buffer of 86 units more than the required 348 units.
Atherton Housing Coalition - Summary of Projected Dwelling Units ADUs and JADUs 280 35 housing units per year
SB 9 lot splits 48 6 housing units per year
Vacant sites 12 1.5 housing units per year
Multi-Family:
Menlo College 60
Menlo School 20
Gilmore House 6
Corporation Yard 4
Menlo Park Fire District 4 28 Almendral Avenue
01404.0001/854534.1
Total 434
RHNA allocation 348
Buffer 86 buffer is 25% of Atherton’s RHNA allocation
Atherton Housing Coalition - Summary of Projected Dwelling Units by income categories Very low to low Moderate Above Moderate Total
ADUs and JADUs 112 76 92 280
SB 9 0 0 48 48
Vacant sites 0 0 12 12
Multi-family:
PFS – Private Schools 40 34 6 80
Gilmore House 3 1 2 6
Corporation Yard 2 1 1 4
Menlo Park Fire 1 0 3 4
Total 158 112 164 434
RHNA Allocation 148 56 144 348
Excess over RHNA 10 56 20 86
C. The Atherton Housing Coalition Proposal
Overall, the Atherton Housing Coalition proposal includes 86 more units than the Town’s RHNA allocation of 348 units. Moreover, the proposal provides for the appropriate number of units across all income levels, as required by HCD. It is important to note that HCD requires the Town’s Housing Element to address the required 348 housing units but leaves discretion to where the Town will plan for the development of these units and through what type of zoning.
Nowhere in statutory law or HCD’s guidelines is there a mandatory requirement to provide for these 348 housing units through multi-family housing. Likewise, there is no legal requirement to establish multifamily residential zones, if it can be shown that a city can meet its RHNA obligations through other types of residential zoning (e.g., single family residential zones, common interest development zones, etc.)
1. ADUs and JADUs:
The construction of 280 ADUs and JADUs during the 2023-2031 planning period is calculated at a total of 35 ADUs and JADUs per year, which should be achievable, given the number of ADU and JADU applications that have been approved within the past few years. For example, in 2020, thirty-four (34) ADUs were permitted, while in 2021, thirty three (33) ADUs were permitted. The construction of ADUs and JADUs has significantly increased in Atherton since the Town modified the rules in 2020 so that the square footage of both ADUs and JADUs are exempted from the calculation of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of eighteen (18%) percent. This allows residents to build more square footage on their properties than before the rule was changed in 2020. While it is too early to know the breakdown between new ADUs and JADUs, it is reasonable to assume, 01404.0001/854534.1
based on historical data, that the Town can expect a total average of thirty-five (35) ADUs per year or more during the planning period, which could end up being twentyfive (25) to thirty-five (35) new ADUs and five (5) to ten (10) new JADUs per year.
The current draft of the Housing Element states that two (2) ADUs will be permitted on a property, but this was not discussed in public. There may have been a discussion at a City Council meeting of allowing two ADUs on a property, but only if the lot size is two acres or greater. The Atherton Housing Coalition supports two (2) ADU’s per residential property if the parcel size is two (2) acres or greater. Otherwise, only one (1) ADU and one (1) JADU should be allowed per property.
Atherton will work with its residents to assist in the conversion of pool houses and garages to ADUs and JADUs. The rental rules for pool houses will be changed to permit the inclusion of these structures into the inventory of ADUs.
2. Senate Bill 9:
SB9 lot splits will contribute to forty-eight (48) new housing units, which is an average of six (6) new housing units per year from within the 2023-2031 planning period.
3. Vacant sites:
Vacant sites should contribute twelve (12) new housing units, which is an average of 1.5 new housing units per year.
4. Multi-Family Development - Schools:
Multi-family projects should be permitted at both public and private schools. The current draft of the Housing Element plans for eighty (80) new housing units at the schools. The plan is for Menlo College to build a faculty housing project of sixty (60) new housing units. Menlo School is planned to build twenty (20) new housing units.
Atherton should also provide Sacred Heart Schools and all the public schools in town with the same zoning rights in case any want to building housing on campus.
In addition, all school properties are zoned PFS, which allows multi-family residential uses that could accommodate housing for lower income households, when such uses are ancillary to the primary non-residential use of property on the same site. So providing for affordable, multi-family developments does not require additional re-zoning of single family residential zones, since multi-family residential housing is already permitted in all PFS zones through location and environmental reviews under the Town’s existing zoning code.
5. Multi-Family Development - Town-owned properties:
Atherton has two Town-owned properties which have been discussed at public meetings but were not included in the January 18th and January 23rd versions of the 01404.0001/854534.1
Housing Element. The Town should designate these two properties for residential development of housing units. These two developments should comply with the current height restrictions for residential buildings.
Gilmore House
Atherton owns a public park called Holbrook Palmer Park where there is a single-family residence called the Gilmore house. The residence is occupied by the Police Chief, but it is assumed that the residence will be available for development between 2023 and 2031.
Atherton Housing Coalition proposes that Atherton plan for up to six (6) housing units on this property. Thirty-three (33%) percent of the new housing units should be deed restricted for low-income individuals.
Atherton Housing Coalition is familiar with the decree of distribution for the estate of Oliver H. Palmer filed in 1959. In accordance with the decree requirements, the Town of Atherton can continue maintaining the park in a manner that is appropriate for a highclass public recreation park. Any housing located on the premises will be built as a replacement for the Gilmore House and will be an incidental use featuring high quality architecture which will not interfere with the primary use and enjoyment of the park.
Atherton will not be violating the terms of the will or deed restrictions and will obtain appropriate legal assurances before any project is started. Thus, the Town will not be put in a position where it could be subject to liability or risk losing the park to Stanford University.
Land around the Town Center and the Corporation Yard
Atherton owns property around the Town Center which includes a parcel near the Atherton train tracks called the Corporation Yard.
Atherton Housing Coalition recommends that the Town study the entire property to come up with a parcel where it can plan for a building with four (4) housing units. Fifty (50%) of the new housing units should be deed-restricted for lower income individuals.
The Town-owned properties have the possibility of creating five (5) new affordable housing units which is greater than the four (4) new affordable housing units which are planned for in the proposed rezoning of El Camino Real. Under Atherton Housing Coalition’s proposal, the Town creates more affordable housing units without the risks and uncertainties of a rezoning where neighbors will not sell their houses to a developer.
In addition, all Town-owned properties are zoned PFS, which allows multi-family residential uses that could accommodate housing for lower income households, when such uses are ancillary to the primary non-residential use of property on the same site.
So providing for affordable, multi-family developments does not require additional rezoning of single family residential zones, since multi-family residential housing is 01404.0001/854534.1
already permitted in all PFS zones through location and environmental reviews under the Town’s existing zoning code.
6. Multi-Family Development – Menlo Park Fire Protection District The Menlo Park Fire Protection District owns an L-shaped property at 28 Almendral Avenue, which is 39,843 square feet (0.91 acre). The property is improved with a small house that is being used as a gym and storage area. The size of this parcel is far greater than the Fire Station parcel of 13,068 square feet.
The property at 28 Almendral should be re-zoned to the PFS zone. The fire station at 32 Almendral is already in the PFS zone, so it is logical and reasonable to rezone all property owned by the Menlo Park Fire Protection District to PFS. PFS-zoned property already allows multi-family residential housing under the existing zoning code, as stated above.
In conjunction, Atherton Housing Coalition recommends that the Town work with the Menlo Park Fire Protection District to approve a plan for four (4) housing units located on this property. The units would be limited to employees of Menlo Park Fire Protection District who protect the safety of our community. There is demand for fire fighters to have housing near the fire station, since many of them drive several hours for their shifts and are already sleeping at the fire station.
7. Affordable Housing Fund:
Atherton’s Housing Element indicates a plan to start charging an inclusionary fee on all new construction. The town will propose fees after a comparison with peer cities.
The Atherton Housing Coalition wants Atherton to commit to create an Affordable Housing Fund, which will receive the proceeds from the new inclusionary fees. The Affordable Housing Fund should also be available for charitable donations to increase the size and scope of the affordable housing effort. The Affordable Housing Fund will be used for the preservation, rehabilitation, and production of affordable housing in Atherton.
8. 23 Oakwood
Atherton Housing Coalition opposes the rezoning of 23 Oakwood for up to ten (10) units per acre. In addition, it is understood that the property owner desires to rezone this property for multi-family residential development, whereas the surrounding properties are all single-family residential development. The nearest multi-family residential zone is located beyond the Town’s boundaries in Redwood City and is not adjacent to the subject property. All residential uses surrounding the subject property are single family residential uses.
01404.0001/854534.1
State law requires that city zoning regulations must be uniform within each class or kind of building, or land use within each zone. Under state law, the uniformity requirement means a city may not approve a use of property that is not allowed by applicable zoning rules without a formal amendment to the rule. Nor can a city get around the uniformity requirement by granting an exception from existing zoning by adopting a zone that is different from all other zones adjacent to the property (aka “spot zoning”.) Spot zoning occurs where a small parcel is restricted and given lesser rights or greater rights than surrounding properties, such as when a lot in the center of a single-family residential zone is allowed to develop multi-family units, thereby creating an island in the middle of a larger area devoted to other uses.
In this instance, the re-zoning of 23 Oakwood to multi-family residential development would likely be considered spot zoning. The neighbors and other interested parties of the affected parcel may challenge the zoning as unreasonable, and a court may agree and invalidate the zoning as applied to that parcel.
D. Housing Goals, Quantified Objectives and Policies
Atherton Housing Coalition supports the Town’s housing goals, quantified objectives, and policies outlined in the Housing Element, with the exception of goals 3.712, 3.730, 3.732, and
3.740 discussed above. We understand the need to address housing and affordable housing in the Town and the region.
Atherton’s Housing Element relies heavily upon ADUs, since the cost of land at approximately $8,000,000 per acre makes the development of affordable housing extremely challenging.
Development is further complicated with increased construction costs, high interest rates, and a weakening economy. There is not enough money available in the form of grant money and other sources of subsidies typically used by non-profit developers to construct affordable housing in California. The ADU and JADU plan under the Atherton Housing Coalition proposal takes advantage of residents’ willingness to construct these housing units either on land they already own or as part of a new construction project. We believe that overall, the Atherton Housing Coalition proposal furthers the Town’s housing goals, objectives, and policies and should be incorporated into the Housing Element.
E. Additional Legislative Relief
One additional approach regarding the Housing Element adoption process includes lobbying the State for emergency legislation to allow cities within ABAG a grace period of up to six months or one year to have a HCD-certified housing element, at least with respect to the threeyear rezoning requirement. Under Government Code Section 65583(c)(1)(A), if HCD does not certify a housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline, a city must complete the rezoning of various sites identified in its housing element, including adopting minimum density and development standards, within one year, while under normal circumstances that city would have three years to complete its rezoning.
01404.0001/854534.1
Having a one-year rezoning requirement is very onerous task for a city to complete, since there are complicated analyses related to CEQA and noticing requirements that must be completed prior to rezoning. Since it is unlikely that more than a handful of cities within ABAG will have HCD-certified housing elements within 120 days of the January 31st deadline, most cities in the ABAG region will be subject to the one-year rezoning requirement. Thus, it will be beneficial for cities to seek emergency legislation applicable to ABAG jurisdictions to maintain their threeyear rezoning requirement if cities have HCD-certified housing elements within six months of the January 31, 2023 deadline, which is July 31, 2023 (or up to a year, which is January 31, 2024), which is a much more realistic deadline for both cities (to submit their final adopted housing elements) and for HCD (to review and certify said housing elements).
This same issue was addressed through legislation under SB 197 for jurisdictions in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region. Because none of the 197 cities within the SCAG region had adopted and HCD-certified housing elements by the statutory deadline of October 15, 2021, SB 197 allowed those jurisdictions one additional year to get their housing elements adopted and certified, by October 15, 2022, to maintain the three-year rezoning requirement, provided that the participating jurisdictions met other requirements.
Although such proposed legislation to extend will not shield cities from Builder’s Remedy project applications, it will greatly help cities to be in compliance without being exposed to additional penalties. ABAG has 109 member jurisdictions, and it is likely that fewer than 10 jurisdictions will have adopted and certified housing elements by the January 31, 2023 deadline.
Therefore, it is likely that emergency legislation applicable to ABAG will have a lot of support from local cities in the area. We strongly urge that the City Council explore this potential legislation with other cities for the benefit of the Town and the entire ABAG region.
We recognize that this is a difficult time for everyone and gratefully appreciate your efforts on behalf of the Town to ensure the character of the community is maintained, while we plan to satisfy our RHNA allocation. It is our hope that you will discuss our plan at the City Council meeting on January 31, 2023.
1 Begin forwarded message:
From: Lindsay Balzer <l
Subject: Housing element
Date: January 27, 2023 at 9:16:06 AM PST
To: Rick.Degolia.External <[email protected]>, George Rodericks <[email protected]> Cc: David Addison
<a
[The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Hello,
As you know, I’m not a fan of high density housing and think we need to pursue other options, perhaps legal action against the state.
In the meantime, I’m trying to come up with some other ideas for overlay zoning. I highly dislike high density housing allowed on all lots of El Camino. If it has to be considered, I think putting the overlay zoning on one side of El Camino only‐see highlighted map below. This would allow for less congestion/traffic. As we can see in Menlo Park, their high density housing has caused noticeable increase in traffic and it’s only on one side of the street. Having overlay zoning on both sides of el Camino would be disastrous.
I also think we should revisit previous suggestions and that one side of marsh and bay road should have overlay zoning 2 as it’s near the freeway and could be less disruptive to the surrounding neighborhood.
To be fair, high density housing should be spread across Atherton, not just concentrated in one area.
Thank you,
Lindsay
Sent from my iPhone
3 4
1 Anthony Suber
From: Adam Berlew
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 2:35 PM
To: Council
Subject: 23 Oakwood Blvd, Atherton Proposed Multi-Family Housing [The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear Council
I am a resident at Oakwood Blvd, Redwood City. I am writing you to strongly object to the proposal for a multi family housing project at 23 Oakwood Blvd, Atherton. There are many reasons this proposal should not be approved. They include:
Councils decision to add the property at 10 units per acre was a last minute hasty and therefore did not consider many decisions or recommendations from the Planning Commission: Planning Commissions recommendation to impose a multifamily overlay zone along the entirety of the El Camino at 20 units per acre and Valparaiso at 10 units per acre. Allowing this density on arterial roads will appease HCD. The proposed development at 23 Oakwood does not follow Atherton Council’s initial list of development principles they used to ID possible multi family housing sites at the outset of their process of identifying sites for rezoning.
The property has at least 26 heritage trees on it.
23 Oakwood is not on an arterial road or on a high traffic corridor. 23 Oakwood is not adjacent to density or commercial property. 23 Oakwood is a 42‐48 minute walk to the nearest train stations. The property is long and narrow and would be extremely congested at the proposed density, how would emergency services get access?
The Oakwood oval and Oakwood neighborhood is one of the most desirable neighborhoods in Redwood City, a walking circle, and have existing traffic control bollards in place, adding 30+ cars is a safety concern. Concern for children walking to school and their safety, as the proximity to Selby Lane creates a funnel for school children walking in the mornings and afternoons.
I hope you consider the above and reject the proposal.
Regards
Adam Berlew
From: Betsy Bradford
To: Anthony Suber
Subject: latest overlay zoning proposal
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 11:39:15 AM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Hello Mr. Suber,
I just opened up and read the information on the proposed new overlay zones. I know that this has been a difficult process, but I want to go on record as a someone who is OPPOSED to this new proposal. Making a blanket statement that “all homes on El Camino” can have 20 units per acre, sounds like a bad idea. Our street, Nora Way, is already busy with cars driving down either Adam Way, Stockbridge, and Almendral Ave…and while many if the homes in the area have been rebuilt within the last 10-15 years, there are still plenty of homes that are original and would possibly qualify to hold 20 homes! This “along El Camino” proposal would not only affect the homes along El Camino, but also all the other homes in the neighborhood. Nora Way is used, and is part of, a big thriving neighborhood already! Allowing 20 homes per acre would cause more cars, and more traffic…and would not only change to look and feel of our street but also the look and feel of all the streets that surround and feed into it.
Not all the lots “along El Camino’ are the same. Some are more closed off to the a larger neighborhood and do not have through traffic. All the newly built homes, including mine, were thoughtfully placed on the lot and thoughtfully landscaped considering the homes that surround it. It just is not right to completely change the look and feel (and therefore the value of) our brand new home!
We bought our house 25 years ago and raised our 4 children here. We finally rebuilt it just a few years ago… thinking we would sail off into retirement in this same beautiful spot. Having 20 unit building here is the wrong use of space in this already thriving neighborhood.
PLEASE CONSIDER MY THOUGHTS HERE.
I will be on the Zoom call on Jan 25th as well, but I want everyone to know that this proposal is not the right one.
Thank you,
Betsy Bradford, Nora Way
From: Brosterhous Phil and Chris
To: Council
Subject: Housing Development Plan
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 1:02:16 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 Council members,
Thanks for your willingness to use your time, energy, and skills, yet again, to deal with a thorny issue that Atherton faces.
We are writing to request you remove the Victoria Manor overlays from the Housing Development Plan being submitted to the state on Jan. 31. We are not knee-jerk NIMBYs who want to fight the idea of affordable housing in our community.In fact, we support the proposed building of high-density housing on Menlo School and Menlo College campuses, both of which are contiguous to Victoria Manor. We have simply concluded that our neighborhood Victoria Manor is actually the worst location for high density housing in Atherton for the following reasons:
1. Please visualize trying to exit a density housing unit onto El Camino or Valparaiso from Victoria Manor parcels, then trying to merge into fast and heavy traffic, just seconds before the El-Camino/Valparaiso intersection, with cars jockeying for position to turn left, or right, or u-turn.This busy and dangerous intersection of El Camino and Valparaiso is very near, and in one case, literally next to the Victoria Manor parcels identified for overlay in the present Housing Development Plan.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->a.<!--[endif]-->In 2011, 38,000 cars traveled El Camino in this very area EVERY DAY.* Based on calculations of the increase in traffic on other roads in Atherton, it can be estimated that present traffic may be 50,500 in 2023.*** <!--[if !supportLists]-->b.<!--[endif]-->In 2011 13,000 cars traveled Valparaiso EVERY DAY.* This may exceed 17,500 in 2023.***
<!--[if !supportLists]-->c.<!--[endif]-->Consequences of this traffic: One study found Menlo Park had 86 cyclist accidents in a 5-year period, with 76 Biker injuries, and it was noted that “…most crashes of all types happen at intersections.”** We could find no data Valparaiso intersection accidents, but we do note that signs and poles are frequently take out at that corner, and the safe pad for standing as you wait to cross has been run over by cars and trucks!
<!--[if !supportLists]-->d.<!--[endif]-->It is reasonable to conclude that merging traffic from density housing that is placed extremely close to such a busy and dangerous intersection cannot be not a good idea.
2. With this data it is also reasonable to conclude that the Victoria Manor properties tapped by the council for high density housing will almost certainly NOT be allowed to ingress/egress directly onto El Camino or Valparaiso, because of the close proximity to the dangerous Valparaiso/El Camino intersection. Cars from these high-density units would almost certainly have to be shunted onto Victoria Drive, the only entrance/exit for the Victoria Manor neighborhood. This causes two serious safety problems: 1) All Victoria Drive traffic dumps onto Valparaiso a mere 30 yards or so from the same dangerous Valparaiso/El Camino intersection; and, 2) Victoria Drive is narrow, devoid of sidewalks, lined with big trees and homes, and filled with neighborhood kids AND Menlo College students, who use it as a thoroughfare to walk to downtown.
3. In the vicinity of the El Camino/Valparaiso intersection are the college and two schools, and several more schools are on a direct travel route through the intersection. Visit this intersection, and you will see many students biking and walking through here before and after school. These children would be at even greater risk under the proposal that puts density housing and its merging traffic so close to the intersection.
4. Both Victoria Manor neighbors, and the El Camino/Valparaiso intersection traffic, will ALREADY be adversely impacted by the need for density housing in our area.Menlo School, Victoria Manor’s western border, is reported to have 20 high density units to help meet its needs, while Menlo College, its northern border, has been slated for 60 units, which, of course will add traffic and danger to the congested intersection and feeder roads.
5. The addition of the Victoria Manor properties on both El Camino and Valparaiso were only added to the state Housing Development Plan after Jan. 19. We received a letter notifying us of this Jan. 23, despite the fact that the proposal must be submitted to the state on Jan 31, and there is no additional council meeting scheduled before the 31st. To our knowledge, no one in the neighborhood was notified of this plan until a few days ago. This opens up the council to criticism from the state that the addition of the 15 El Camino and Valparaiso Victoria Manor overlays was last-minute and made without consideration of the obvious and dangerous traffic situation that would be intensified.
6. Additionally, we are unaware of anyone in Victoria Manor who is desirous of selling anyway, which could make the state question the intent of the council’s plan to begin with.
While our main concern is safety, we would like to at least mention an issue of fairness also.Victoria Manor has 28 homes, encircled by Valparaiso, El Camino, Menlo School and Menlo College.Of the 28 homes, 15 are offered in The Housing Development Plan as an overlay of potential multi-family sites. That means that about 54% of the Victoria Manor units have been included in the overlay. No other area approaches this level of administrative targeting in the town’s plan. This is especially relevant given the total potential impact on our homes, our close-knit neighborhood, our financial security, and our lives, not to mention the safety issues discussed earlier.
For all of these reasons, we request that the 15 Victoria Manor lots on both El Camino and Valparaiso be removed from the overlays included to the state Housing Development Plan before it is submitted to the State on Jan. 31.
Before we sign off, though, a “thanks” is also in order to the council.
As a homeowner in Victoria Manor for the
last 38 years, this process is scary, since, like many in our communities, our home equity is insurance against financial loss during our years of retirement.When we saw that the council adopted a solution of overlays, we were relieved, since it at least allows us to update our properties as our needs change during our retirement and our aging, though we do hate to admit it.So thank you for changing the zoning-up to overlays. *Menlo Park Specific Plan EIR.208581:Study Intersections and Roadway Segments https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/417/413-Transportation-Circulation-and-Parking?bidId= ** https://www.dubrovskylawyers.com/blog/new-study-identifies-most-dangerous-san-mateo-roads-for-cyclists/ *** https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/04/06/atherton-says-menlo-parks-report-underestimates-traffic-impact-ofproject/ **** https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2014/07/30/menlo-park-studies-lane-changes-to-el-camino-real Thank you for your time and efforts.
Sincerely,
Chris and Phil Brosterhous
Victoria Drive
1 Anthony Suber
From: Peter Buhl
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2023 12:13 P
To: Bill Widmer; Council
Subject: Atherton Housing Element Plan
[The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Hi Bill and Council Members,
As a long time Lindenwood resident, I wanted to express my concern regarding the most recent Housing Element proposal. While I understand the need to meet the state’s housing requirements, I think the town should be more surgical/specific in its proposal in order to minimize the impact on the town’s neighborhoods.
I’m referring to the El Camino/Valparaiso area and specifically to the Victoria Manor neighborhood. Please note that I do not live in Victoria Manor, but Victoria Manor provides a very specific instance where a somewhat broad overlay proposal unnecessarily and dramatically impacts one neighborhood in a very negative way as follows:
The single, narrow exit from Victoria Manor (VM) on to Valparaiso so close to El Camino is already a hotspot for traffic & pedestrian issues….adding high density to VM would further exacerbate the traffic problem and greatly impact VM livability in a negative way.
VM is already potentially impacted on 2 sides due to the proximity of Menlo School and Menlo College. Given the overlay and VM’s location, it appears that 15 of the 29 properties in VM would be subject to high density conversion, potentially creating a fish bowl around the 14 homes in the center of VM ‐ clearly a disproportionate and unfair burden on existing VM neighbors.
I can understand applying some overlay / high density provision to specific properties that are more isolated, and that currently enter/exit directly onto Valparaiso or El Camino, but the current proposal so dramatically and negatively impacts one neighborhood (Victoria Manor) and does not seem proper or necessary.
I hope you see fit to remove the overlay specifically for Victoria Manor, and to perform a review to ensure that other elements of the overlay do not so dramatically impact other existing neighborhoods.
Thanks for your consideration.
‐ Pete Buhl
From: Anna Chase
To: Council
Subject: Proposed Rezoning Plan
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:26:48 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 Counsel Members:
I am incorporating my email below that I sent to Diana Hawkins, as I originally did not send it to the right email address. Please review it, and in addition, I am submitting the following information:
1. My home is the impacted property by the proposed overlay - located at Douglass Way;
2. I do not intend to sell my property/offer it for the development, even if it were to be rezoned, as I just spent almost 3 years building a custom new home based on Atherton's original planning department setbacks and zoning restrictions;
3. I do oppose including 22 Valparaiso lots in the proposed overlay.
In addition, I have a question: the lots that are adjacent to the caltrain - and are already adversely affected by the train noise - can actually benefit to be converted to have multi unit buildings built on them - with potentially "sound barrier back wall" to contain the noise - and the multi unit buildings would also help the rest of the town to contain the train noise... was that even considered?
Thank you,
Anna
Date: Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: question re: R-10 along Valparaiso
To: Diana Hawkins <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Dear Diana,
Thank you for providing the explanation that the proposed R-10 Zoning means 10 dwelling units on acre with building height up to 40 feet - which is quite a step up from the building height of single family dwelling homes.
The logic behind Including the larger 22 Valparaiso lots in the proposed overlay does not make sense. I can understand the up-zoning of El Camino Lots - and actually the homeowners of smaller lots with older homes will get the financial benefit of this change - as their lot values will go up, but I do not understand the up-zoning of Valparaiso 22 lots - all of them are larger lots, and majority of the homeowners have rebuilt their homes:
Since the up-zoning of the 22 Valparaiso lots, the value of the rebuilt single family residences will dramatically decrease in value, while only a few homeowners with older homes, which are a "tear down" land value only - would rip the financial benefit of developers buying up their lots.
Not to say that the proposed height increase - for the multi-family units - would never provide the screening privacy that single family residences enjoy - so the quality of life will never be the same.
the proposed setbacks - the multi unit buildings would not have to comply with the setbacks we have to comply with - hence, our loss of privacy, increase in noise, etc...
If the town will change the zoning of the 22 Valparaiso lots - how would the town compensate the homeowners for the economic loss of the value of their properties, which will be substantial?
Using your logic, if the town wants to do the overlay - it seems that the entire Victoria Manor neighborhood then needs to be changed and dealt with as a one area - but the town does need to compensate the owners of the larger rebuilt homes for the economic loss, while some of the lots would benefit - especially adjacent to Menlo College - are already owned by the schools/college - and are occupied by the college/school related personnel - so they benefit by building school related housing, and being able to walk/enter/exit from their lots directly onto the college/school property. Small El Camino Lots - also benefit - by their land value increasing substantially by having developers bid up the land value for future development projects. Of course, there are homeowners like me - whose home value would plummet and would go down substantially - not to mention the quality of life, given that it will go from small quiet single family neighborhood to multi-unit developments - with all of the corresponding car traffic, noise, privacy, etc...
Please advise:
What is the Town's proper process to submit formal objections to this change? What is the deadline to submit them?
Do I need to attend the Town's Public Hearing scheduled for 1.31.23 at 2pm? If the town does adopt the overlay Plan as proposed, what is the next step to challenge it? Injunction relief? Motion to stay? What is the remedy to get compensation from the town for the economic loss suffered by this overlay?
Thank you,
Anna
p.s.
I have copied Elizabeth and Rick - as they are the only two other counsel members whose email addresses I know, other than yours, in case they can provide the information. I am happy to have a discussion about this - as I am really at a loss re logic behind this proposed overlay.
From: Angela Chen
To: Council
Subject: Town proposal
Date: Friday, January 27, 2023 7:11:19 AM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Hi town council members,
I wanted to voice my concern of the proposal of creating new multi family developments near my home.
I think this will create a lot of congestion and we already are living In small lots. There would be too much traffic near our streets, let alone more foot traffic for robberies.
We moved here for the quiet neighborhood and to be away from city like environment and creating these developments will
Make our town look not create the same beautiful environment Atherton is known for.
Please consider other alternative solutions before finalizing this proposal.
Thank you,
Angela Chen
walnut ave
From: Christine David <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Town high density housing along El Camino [The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Ashfield Area ResidentsAs we all know, the state mandated housing requirements are currently being discussed then proposed again to the state during a town meeting slated for 2-3:00 pm on Jan. 31st, Town Council chambers.
Each residence has received, by mail, now far below from Julie Quinlan’s initial e-mail, a description outlining current proposed options, one from the council and one from the planning commission.
Since there has been a lot of confusion regarding this complex issue I have asked fellow Atherton Resident and local contractor/consultant Loren Gruner to outline the issue and possible solutions in professional and laymen’s terms.
I feel Loren’s recommendations are the most reasonable and fair path forward through this very difficult and critical situation.
Upon review, should you agree and have comments and concerns of your own, I URGE you to forward this explanation plus your views to every member of the town council, per Loren Gruner’s links below (see attachment).
Please be SURE to also copy George Roderick’s, Town Manager at the following link:
[email protected]
Please send your e-mail prior to next Tuesdays special Town Council meeting on this subject set for 2-3:00 pm on the 31st.
As always, I thank you for hearing me out on these important issues as they affect us all.
Below is Loren’s explanationMy best,
Christine
Sent from my iPhone
Christine David
Begin forwarded message:
From: Michael David
Date: January 25, 2023 at 8:27:28 PM PST
To: Christine David
Subject: Fwd: Town high density housing along El Camino Michael David
Begin forwarded message:
From: Alex Keh
Date: January 25, 2023 at 12:35:52 PM PST
Subject: Re: Town high density housing along El Camino
This is definitely NOT a done deal. The odds of this new proposal being accepted during the January 31 meeting is very unlikely. The proposal came from the planning commission only. It has not been vetted by the council nor have residents been given adequate opportunity to comment on it. While immediate approval is unlikely, it doesn't hurt to let the council know your opinion on the matter during or before the January 31 meeting.
If you need one email to reach the entire council, you can use: [email protected]
The city manager and city clerk will be cc:ed and your feedback becomes part of the public record.
With that said, California's housing department is very likely to reject any Atherton proposal without much more multi-family housing.
Increasing the likelihood of state acceptance is the basis for the planning commission's proposal.
Assuming the council rejects the planning commission's proposal and submits the council's current plan largely intact, the state is likely to reject it. If it does get rejected, the town will most likely have to accept some, all, or more compromises that the planning commission plan has.
The challenge council has is to find a compromise that will satisfy the state and be acceptable to the residents, both as a whole and to the parts of town that more housing will be planned for. The state is not only looking for a target number of homes that will be added to Atherton, they also require a good portion of the new homes to be affordable for low-income residents.
If Atherton relies mostly on new accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to meet its housing requirement, the question becomes whether they will be rented to low-income residents and providing documentation proving that. The state says if 20 units/acre is zoned for a parcel and the property is at least half an acre, then it can be assumed to be affordable for low-income residents. No additional proof is required, which is why ECR was given that level of upzoning in the overlay.
Specific decisions on setbacks and building codes are being decided later. Right now, the proposal that has to be submitted is just on zoning and planning.
Regards,
Alex
From: Julie Quinlan
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 7:29 AM
Subject: Re: Town high density housing along El Camino
Hi Yvonne,
This zoning change is different and separate from the rules connected to the alternative dwelling units/ADU's.
Julie
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023, 06:34:49 AM PST, Yvonne Nomizu <
Does this mean the concept/workaround/ projections for achieving the required residential adds via small dwelling structures was rejected? Based on the survey?
Yvonne
On January 24, 2023 10:18:46 PM Paul Quinlan <q
wrote:
The proposal the Town Council is considering at the meeting is to allow all properties along El Camino to be developed as single family residential or multifamily developments up to a density of 20 units per acre. There is no mention of waiving setbacks or the building code for the existing residences.
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 10:04:18 PM PST, MJ Davey :
Thanks for passing this along. We are out of town but will review.
I heard for people with undersized lots, that this is a great opportunity to expand your home as they are waiving traditional setback issues and other building codes. They are not requiring that you make it available for rent if you add onto your home. Does that sound accurate ?
MJ
On Jan 25, 2023, at 6:53 PM, Julie Quinlan
> wrote:
Dear neighbors,
Yesterday we received a letter from the Town proposing to approve a new “overlay zone” allowing multi-family
developments on ALL lots bordering El Camino Real (88 in all). You should have received this letter too. This means that apartments or other sorts of high density housing could be built there.
The Town Council will meet January 31 at 2 pm to consider formally adopting this recommendation. It is NOT a done deal.
If you have views or concerns about the impact of high density housing at the end of our streets, you need to speak up quickly or lose the opportunity, as the Council is most likely going to make a decision on that date.
Attached is a copy of the letter. You can share your concerns with Council members by emailing them (addresses below).
Feel free to forward this message to any neighbors you don’t see listed above. We must all be informed about this change and how it will affect us, and speak up before it’s too late.
Sincerely,
Julie and Paul Quinlan, Maple
PS the Jan 31 meeting will be in-person at the new Council Chambers and can also be accessed virtually:
Teleconference Dial 1-669-900-6833 US
Meeting ID 506 897 786
weblink
https://zoom.us/j/506897786
Council member emails:
Rick DeGolia
Elizabeth Lewis
Bill Widmer
Diana Hawkins-Manuellian
and/or
[email protected]
Stacy Holland. [email protected]
<IMG_3445.jpeg>
From: Suzanne Couch
To: Council
Subject: Please Remove the Victoria Manor from the Housing Development Plan Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 4:34:40 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 Council Members,
With gratitude for your service to our town and empathy for the challenges you face to satisfy the state's requirements while maintaining the town's integrity, we join fellow Victoria Manor neighbors to express concern and objection to including Victoria Manor in the State Housing Development Plan and request the removal of Victoria Manor from the overlays.
Contrary to the thoughtful due diligence the Council demonstrated in preparation of the first proposals, this, almost last-minute new proposal seems to include a little bit of everything, covering all the bases ostensibly to gain approval without evaluating the ramifications or the feasibility of actually constructing multi-family units.
Our home - Victoria Drive backs up to El Camino and is included as part of the new planners' proposal. While we do not plan to sell, our 1/3 of an acre lot is only 100 feet deep with
Victoria Drive itself only 20 feet wide. (Average neighborhood street width is 24' to 28'). We realize the specific building requirements haven't been determined yet, however considering setbacks and multi-family parking, building on our lot is not feasible.
While a multi-family unit would not be feasible on our lot, we do think an ADU would be possible and indicated so on the Town's survey. If our home and Victoria Drive were to be included in the overlay, thus reducing our property values, it would not be financially possible for us to build an ADU.
Our neighborhood has partnered with you since early July to help evaluate the consultants' proposed plan. Building multi-story buildings on the Menlo School and Menlo College Campuses will impact Victoria Manor on two sides of our neighborhood. With only 28 homes in Victoria Manor and 15 included as part of the overlay (54%), we would be carrying an unfair amount of the potential disruption.
Especially during drive time, our neighborhood has egress and ingress issues for vehicles of which the Town is well aware. Pedestrian safety at the entrance to the neighborhood is also of major concern, not only for us and the children of the neighborhood but particularly for Menlo College students.
With these considerations in mind, we ask for the removal of the 15 homes in Victoria Manor from the final state Housing Development Plan.
Thank you for your consideration and your service to the Town of Atherton.
Suzanne and Bob Couch
@gmail.com
From: Rick DeGolia <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Input from Maple Ave Re: ECR discussion
Date: January 26, 2023 at 9:27:02 AM PST
To: "
Cc: George Rodericks <[email protected]>
Dear Mary Jane:
I am responding to you from this email address because I’m trying to keep all of my Housing Element emails in one place, under the Town’s email umbrella. I 100% understand your concerns with this proposed overlay zoning for all Atherton properties that connect to ECR. I agree with you that any development of multi-family units on Atherton’s small side streets will adversely impact residents on those streets by increasing traffic, congestion and other impacts. I also understand that the Town Center community has been seriously impacted by the construction that has occurred there over the past 5+ years. Nevertheless, the state of California appears to be requiring Atherton and all other jurisdictions to add to its housing mix multi-family housing even if that housing makes no sense for that jurisdiction. This is a one-size-fits-all solution and I don’t think that it works for Atherton because the cost of our land is so high that if land is bought by a developer, then there is no way that what gets developed, no matter how dense, can be affordable. Accordingly, I don’t think that this proposed solution will result in any affordable housing, which is what I am targeted on finding a pathway to achieve.
If this overlay zone gets created, then it is especially important to let HCD know your opinions and for property owners directly affected to let HCD know if they have no interest or willingness to sell their land to developers.
Thank you for your important email. Please stay involved in this critical issue and please give my best to John, Rick
Rick DeGolia
Atherton City Council
Atherton, CA 94027
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From:
Date: Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 7:48 AM
Subject: Input from Maple Ave Re: ECR discussion
To: <[email protected]>
Hello Town Council,
I wanted to share our opinion against upzoning or overlays that may significantly develop properties in our neighborhood near the Town Center. This area has already undergone major development over the last few years to support Atherton’s Town Center project.
On our street there are several oddly shaped and flag lots bordering El Camino, which will enable another significant project if consolidated and developed. We feel this will continue to trend this neighborhood towards high development, benefiting developers and hurting residents without actually producing truly affordable housing.
We understand the challenging situation you must navigate, I hope a good outcome that reduces impact on current residents can be found.
MJ Davey
Background Information on the issue:
The Town is currently finalizing its Draft Housing Element to address State housing mandates for the 2023– 2031 Housing Cycle. The Housing Element is one of the nine required elements in the General Plan. However, the Housing Element is the only element that must be revised every eight (8) years.
The State mandates require that the Town provide and plan for land use housing opportunities that meet very- low, low, moderate and above moderate, income levels. (If interested definitions for these income levels are attached).
The Town must plan for 348 new housing units distributed across these affordability categories, which includes 148 new housing units at the very-low and low income categories.
While the Housing Element must be adopted on or before January 31, 2023, any actual development would occur over the next eight (8) plus years. As part of this process, the Town must also identify properties that are allowed, by law, to be developed as multi-family units and at sufficient densities to satisfy the State’s mandate.
Notes:
These state mandates do not align with how Atherton has been zoned through the years so it is a very challenging issue for all residents of Atherton. The majority of residents in Atherton do not want zoning to change but the Planning Commission and the City Council are being forced to come up with a Housing element dictated by State Law.
The draft of the town of Atherton 2023-31 Housing Element is on the Town of Atherton Website. The City Council will be voting to adopt that Housing Element on January 31, 2023.
Within that document there are currently properties that were selected by the City Council to be up zoned to a new category called RM 20. This is extremely bad because the current home owners of these properties would not be able to demolish their homes and build a new singlefamily home, instead if at any point further development were to take place on the property, the only option the home owner would be to sell to a developer and have multi-family units built.
If the Council decides to move forward with the up zone option as it is currently written, then the property values of those properties, and the properties around them, may fall which is not good for Atherton home owners.
To find a better solution the Atherton Planning Commission came up with an amendment that calls for an overlay rather than a up zone. An overlay means that an additional zoning category would be added to the identified properties, but a homeowner would not be forced to adopt the new zone, but instead can chose to keep their existing single-family zoning; they would not be forced to sell their property to a developer or have multi-family units build on their property. Instead, a homeowner would still be allowed to function under their current zoning rules and could rebuild their single-family home if that chose to.
This overlay revision drafted by the Planning Commission on January 19, 2023 would address the State Mandate of identifying potential locations along a public right-of-way close to services, transit and jobs that potentially could be developed, but this solution would not force any homeowner to lose their right to keep their single-family home and retain their property value.
Please email each member of the City Council and ask each of them to adopt the revised Draft Housing Element with the Planning Commission recommended Changes. We do not want any properties in Atherton to be up zoned!!!
[email protected]
Dhawkins[email protected]
[email protected]
Sholland.ci.atherton.ca.us
[email protected]
Council Members
To contact all members of Council - [email protected]. Best to send individual emails if you want any reply.
Definitions of Income Catagories
From: Julie Johnson Davis
To: Council
Cc: George Rodericks
Subject: Housing Element Update Response
Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 6:16:12 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 Council Members,
Per the letter issued by the town of Atherton dated January 20, 2023, whereby a new Housing Element Update was proposed to place an overlay on both sides of El Camino Real between Redwood City and Menlo Park, I reject this proposal on the basis that:
--[if !supportLists]-->A.<!--[endif]-->The January 20 notice has effectively blindsided us with an 11th hour proposal of an overlay that completely ignores the areas assessed in prior planning meetings. The overlays should be spaced out and reviewed for other transit areas such as Middlefield Ave., Marsh and Bay Roads, Encinal Rd., and the Alameda. Including these would parse out areas in the town, rather than creating a conglomeration along El Camino.
B. El Camino is a dangerous road. Placing multi-family housing of any kind along El Camino is promoting a dangerous lifestyle and putting those new residents’ lives at risk. At present, El Camino is teeming with a litany of hazard calls such as and not limited to speeding, DUIs, drug arrests, and sadly the vehicle collisions with 5 victims trying to bike, run, or walk across El Camino— which resulted in slow and costly attention of any kind from the state to finally place 3 cross walks. Adding multiple clusters of foot and vehicle traffic in these areas will add to El Camino’s hazards and placing lives in peril. See:
https://apd.crimegraphics.com/2013/default.aspx
Respectfully,
Julie Davis
Maple Avenue
From: Carole DeCosse
To: Anthony Suber
Subject: Jan 31 Council meeting on "Overlay zone" on ECR Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 5:10:18 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Mr. Suber,
Could the Council address what this would mean for El Camino Real as it passes through Atherton? As properties become denser with residential units/town houses, apartment buildings along ECR, will there be more driveways directly onto ECR? Will the speed limit be reduced to allow for entry and exit of residents? Would there be more traffic lights to slow down the traffic?
Is the Council considering putting sidewalks along ECR? If so, would ECR be narrowed? Or would land be claimed by eminent domain from the properties along ECR? Already the water runoff from ECR is collected along the side of the road (private property, I think) until it runs off into the drainage pipes which can't handle the volume now. There is no space for sidewalks and water runoff now!
Is there a plan to increase the capacity of the water sewers with the increased amount of residential sewage?
Gratefully,
Carole DeCosse
From: Paul Demers
To: Council
Subject: 23 Oakwood traffic - narrow streets
Date: Sunday, January 29, 2023 7:29:41 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
I live on West Oakwood. I'm on the other side of the E/W Oakwood oval.
The project at 23 Oakwood will impact traffic on East, West Oakwood Blvds, and Oakwood Drive. Except for a short section of East Oakwood, all three of the streets are sub-standard. They are too narrow for modern standards. The city engineer once told me that West Oakwood is 15 feet too narrow, it is only 25' wide vs the modern standard of 40'. The blind curve at the end of West Oakwood, where it meets Carlos Avenue, is especially narrow, and curved, too.
Other streets in the area are also too narrow, including the outlets to Woodside Road, Carlos Ave, between East Oakwood and Orchid Drive, Central Ave between Carlos and Woodside Road, and Cyprus Street between Carlos and Woodside Road.
Also, street parking is not "ample", especially along Oakwood Drive and my part of West Oakwood. That same blind curve always has cars parked on the street, overflow from the duplexes along Carlos Ave.
More cars driving on these narrow roads is not a good thing, especially once all the cars from 23 Oakwood are parked on them.
Thank you for reading.
Demers
Oakwood
From: Scott Feamster
To: Bill Widmer; Diana Hawkins-Manuelian; Elizabeth Lewis; Rick DeGolia; Stacy Miles Holland; Council Cc: George Rodericks
Subject: Overlay Zoning Questions
Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 8:53:08 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 Bill, Diana, Elizabeth, Rick, and Stacy,
At 2:00 pm on Tuesday, January 31, The Town of Atherton Planning Commission will ask the Town Council to approve lots along Valparaiso Avenue for “overlay zoning.” This would apparently involve 22 lots and about 132 multifamily units. The benefits to Atherton residents are not obvious. The harm to Atherton residents seems overwhelming. Changes of this magnitude require significant trade-offs that merit detailed analyses and comprehensive discussions.
We could not find any analyses on the Town website for this major disruption of our “rural heritage” — and it seems inconsistent with our beliefs in “transparency, equitable treatment, and a well-informed electorate” (appended).
A. What do we learn from detailed cost-benefit analyses; i.e., who benefits and who suffers?
1. How will non-resident developers and distant state officials benefit?
2. How will adjacent residents and local school communities suffer?
3. How can we prevent a few residents from bearing the burden? B. What are our plans to significantly improve Town infrastructure to accommodate new residents?
1. How will we improve bicycle and pedestrian safety on a much busier Valparaiso? There are no curbs; cyclists and joggers share the narrow shoulder.
2. How will we improve Valparaiso capacity to reduce already long transit times? Due to school and work traffic, residents suffer access issues.
3. How will we compensate residents whose property values decline? All of us will suffer at least some reduced quality of life.
C. What options other than El Camino Real and Valparaiso Avenue have been comprehensively analyzed? Your approval irreparably changes the character of Atherton. We would greatly appreciate receiving all the analyses for all the options considered by the Town Council.
Thank you very much for your detailed evaluation of this extremely important Council decision.
Very truly yours,
Scott and Carolyn Feamster
Park Lane
Atherton, CA 94027-5411
___________________________________
TOWN OF ATHERTON
"Mission Statement
The Town of Atherton is committed to…preserving our rural heritage. "We Believe:
* That the business of government must be conducted with the utmost in transparency… * that providing an environment of open decision-making… with clear communication… * … built on equitable treatment, openness, respect, and civility; * and that visionary leadership includes a well-informed electorate.” ___________________________________
From: Grace Ferrando
To: Council
Subject: High density housing
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 4:46:53 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 members of the Town council of Atherton,
As a 32 year resident of Atherton, It saddens me and sickens me to think of what is being proposed for our beautiful town. In short, I am deeply concerned about the impact of safety of our residents, including traffic safety. Town Center beautifully just completed and now a “bulldozer“ heading our way once again? Haven’t the residents of el Camino area been through enough in the last few years with street closures, and construction for that project? Please reconsider a plan that benefits residents and not the greedy developers who are taking over.
Sincerely,
Grace Ferrando
Sent from my iPhone
1 | P a g e
10 Camino Por Los Arboles
Atherton, CA 94027
January 31, 2023
Atherton City Council
80 Fair Oaks Lane
Atherton, CA 94027
Dear Council Members:
I was surprised to read the City Manager’s January newsletter and learn that homes that border Valparaiso (i.e., one lot deep) have now been added to the list of overlay candidates for multi-family, low-income housing per SB-9. Regrettably, my husband and I were out of the country for the Council’s three public meetings earlier in the month, so I have not been party to the neighborhood discussions.
Nor, did we see the Town’s January 19th letter that included Valparaiso until this past week. I believe that it is ill-advised to include Valparaiso for the reasons cited below, and that it will not achieve the Town’s objective of getting developers to acquire the properties and actually build multi-family, lowincome housing over the next 8 years. It won’t happen.
When Atherton was first considering which streets, areas and lots to designate for multi-family, lowincome housing, it appeared that the Town was more focused on individual parcels versus “swaths” of properties on the same street or in the same neighborhood. With the designation of the entirety of Valparaiso, that appears to have changed, along with Cebalo and Gresham Lane. While I would agree that it is not fair to target specific neighborhoods, it is also not fair to target specific streets. The “pain” needs to be shared across the entire town and that likely means taking another look at individual parcels, wherever they are located. If you have to ask the State for an extension of the deadline to reconsider various parcels, then you need to do so. Atherton is probably the only town in California that has no commercial parcels, no city-owned property that can be developed, is almost fully built, and has a majority of properties that cannot be redeveloped for multi-family, low-income housing at a reasonable ROI.
Let’s start with the Jan. 19th statement that there are 22 lots along Valparaiso that might be overlay candidates. Not so. There are 5 corner lots that could be “tear downs” and possibly two others. That’s seven properties, NOT 22. The other 15 parcels have multi-million dollar two-story homes that won’t be redeveloped within the State mandate. Candidly, it’s “crazy” to think that you will even get 5 Valparaiso parcels that might be redeveloped in the next 8 years. You won’t.
Let’s talk traffic:
As each of you know, Valparaiso is the main access to Sacred Heart and Menlo School. Both junctions have an enormous amount of traffic in the early morning, mid-afternoon (when school is out) and evening as people leave or return from work. Multifamily housing along Valparaiso would make an already difficult traffic situation that much more intolerable. With a housing density of 10-20 units per acre, that’s probably 15 additional cars per parcel (if you have 1.5 cars per unit and 10 units per parcel).
That’s another 75 cars, from 5 parcels, in less than a mile of distance – at intersections that already have hundreds of vehicles from the schools and regular Menlo Park traffic. I do not see how you can designate Valparaiso without a prior traffic impact study showing that your decision will not add 2 | P a g e
substantially to the existing back-up that already extends for half the length of the street? I am quite certain that it would show that additional traffic should NOT be added to Valparaiso. Further, does Menlo Park need to be involved in the traffic analysis and the Town’s decision to add a multi-family overlay to the street? Menlo Park shares Valparaiso. I doubt that Menlo Park property owners will be happy with Atherton’s decision, especially on streets beyond the schools which are exclusively singlefamily homes.
Before we even get to traffic though, Valparaiso has feeder streets that lead to Park, one of the most expensive streets in Atherton. These feeder streets have homes with values of $13M to over $50M.
You have decided to designate corner parcels on some of the more expensive streets in this town as “optional” candidates for multi-family, low-income. Make no mistake, “optional” will not be optional when some of the more self-serving Bay Area developers decide to take advantage of the situation. This cannot possibly result in anything other than a significant devaluation of properties along these streets.
Let me be more specific.
You have designated Park itself. Park is an L-shape. Both portions of the L have some of the most expensive homes in Atherton. At the corner of Park and Valparaiso (#298), there is a likely “tear down”. Diagonal to that house is a newer construction home (#289) that would be valued well above $22-$25M. That home’s valuation will be destroyed if multi-family, low-income housing is allowed at #298. If the newer home (#289) were to come up for sale, you would not be able to give it away. Further, you have two large homes currently under construction at #278 and #282 Park. These will also be negatively impacted, too. Each will be well over $20M when construction is completed. So, three houses in close proximity --- all above $20M --- will be “trashed”.
You have designated the 1.4-acre vacant lot at Santiago and Valparaiso (#97). That developer has indicated an interest in multi-family. The adjoining neighbor has a 1.5-acre parcel that will be financially ruined by multi-family, low-income housing on either of the corner parcels. Across from #97 (on the opposite corner of Santiago and Valparaiso) is a “tear down” candidate. So, you have two corner lots that could have even greater impact to neighboring properties than any other street along Valparaiso – because there are two corner lots that could be built on, not one as exists on the other streets. To compound the situation, three properties sold on Santiago this year in excess of $10M, $15M and $20M. Each will have new homes. These new homes will be amongst the more expensive in Atherton and will most assuredly be devalued by your action.
None of these buyers had any idea that multi-family, low-income housing could potentially be down the street, except possibly the buyer of #47 Santiago. If #47 and #97 Santiago are allowed to be redeveloped for multi-family, it will destroy the street and possibly impact the main portion of Park, as well. In fact, the new home, built by PPG, at the corner of Park and Santiago is quietly being marketed for sale. I’m told that the asking price is over $60M. It, along with other existing homes along Santiago, will be unsellable except at a hefty financial discount and lengthy sales cycles, if then.
You have designated the corner lots on Camino Por Los Arboles. One parcel (#95) has a newer two-story home that would not be a “tear down”. The other, #98, would be. Camino Por Los Arboles, however, has three of the most expensive homes in all of Atherton in close proximity to #98. At #55, you have the Frank Gehry-designed home, in which the owner has already invested $48M+. Your multi-family, low-income housing will be three parcels away. The impact will be devastating to the value of this property. The next parcel over, #47, sold for over $30M five years ago. That value has appreciated significantly since then and --- along with all the other homes on the street --- will be seriously devalued. The home to the left of #47 also has a value 3 | P a g e
well in excess of $30M. So, you have three of the most expensive homes in Town sitting on one small street where you are going to allow multi-family, low-income housing. Candidly, I’ve lived on this street for 22 years. I know the homeowners on Camino Por Los Arboles. They are my neighbors. I can assure you that we will not tolerate this. We can’t. We have millions of dollars at stake in property values, as do all of the feeder streets. We will not allow Atherton to “tank” our home investments. If it takes legal action, so be it. In fact, I have received an email from a resident stating that a group has already formed and hired an attorney to stop the planned action. My husband and I will be joining that group. Besides legal action, I will personally collect letters from the property owners of the “optional” multi-family candidates --- letters that state that no sale of the property is anticipated nor will it occur within the next 8 years. These letters will be submitted to the governing agency. I think it is important to realize, however, that we --- the West Atherton residents --- would collectively prefer to be part of a solution and not add to the town’s woes. We do not want to take legal action against the Town, but we feel that we are being forced to. Most of us are long-time residents who love Atherton. My husband and I have lived here 37 years. We don’t want to the Town harmed.
I have highlighted just three streets with significant issues resulting from the Valparaiso inclusion, but the list goes on. I fully appreciate that there is NO property owner in Atherton who will embrace multifamily, low-income housing next to their own home. And, I am aware that the Town does not have the option of ignoring the State mandate. I also feel that the Council and city staff have gone to extraordinary means to try to be fair and identify parcels that would have minimum impact. That said, when you designated sites along streets listed on Pages 124-127 of the Housing Element, those properties can be acquired for a fraction of the Valparaiso parcels. There is a huge difference in impact.
Further, the neighborhoods are not comparable.
There is another consideration. For a developer to build multi-family, low-income housing, it must be financially viable. As a long-time Atherton developer, my husband and I are well aware of construction costs. Besides our current Adam Way project, we have just completed 12 homes in Idaho. I deal with construction costs every day. I do not believe that it is financially viable to purchase a parcel along Valparaiso, construct an 8,000-10,000 square foot building, including underground parking, and have a reasonable ROI. In fact, I believe that purchasing and building on these parcels will be a financial loss.
You’ll pay $8M for the parcel and $5M (minimum) in construction. Then, you have property tax ($150K/year) and realtor fees to sell ($500K). And, where is the developer going to find an investor to purchase the redeveloped site for $14M-15M when that investor will only realize a 1.5%-2% return? Do the math: if you rent 10 units for $1,500/mo. on a $13M investment, the ROI is less than 1.4%. If you rent 10 units for $3,000/mo., that’s still a 2.7% ROI (excluding carrying costs such as taxes and maintenance). This is anemic. You can’t borrow money at 7-8% on a construction loan and stay solvent with a 1.5%-2.7% return. Further, the developer isn’t going to hold the property. So, who can he sell it to? No investor is going to buy these properties at a 1.5%-2.7% ROI when they can currently buy treasuries at close to 5% and dividend stocks at up to 7%.
The Valparaiso multi-family units would need to sell in excess of $14M-$15M if the parcel cost were $8M, but you’ll only have rent from a maximum of 10 tenants. That’s not workable, even with state and federal subsidies. And, who wants the possibility of low-income tenants down the street from their $12M-$50M home? So, the Town is likely to face two scenarios: (1) the Valparaiso neighbors won’t tolerate the designation and will take whatever action is necessary to thwart it, including law suits, and (2) developers won’t touch these properties. It is almost certain that Atherton will have a State plan that will never be implemented as regards Valparaiso. It is much better to designate parcels that can be 4 | P a g e
purchased at half the Valparaiso entry cost and have a reasonable chance of actually being developed within the mandatory time period. The chance of that happening along Valparaiso is zero.
This weekend, I toured each Atherton street that feeds into Valparaiso. Here is what I found, starting at El Camino:
The first street along Valparaiso, starting at El Camino, is Victoria. It is full of older single-story homes that would be “tear down” candidates. Half of the properties back to El Camino. “Tear down“ house numbers are: 19 (backs to the schools) 27, 37, 45, 55, 63, 73, 98 and 99. Only two corner lots border Valparaiso, but Victoria homes could likely be purchased well under $8M. Bus routes are easily accessible. There are few re-developed properties that would be negatively impacted. The impact on those could be minimized via strict design standards. And, it is directly across from commercial sites. By my count, there are 9 parcels that could be designated multifamily if you took the entire street into consideration. That’s far more than the 5-7 prospect lots that you will get with your current Valparaiso designation. This street is “fringe” and would have much a more reasonable ROI for a developer. In fact, my husband and I might be interested in developing one or more sites if the entire street were included. We will not consider the corner lots.
The next street is Michaels Way. One corner lot has a two-story home that would not be torn down. The other corner has a potential tear down. The street, however, ends in a culdesac. It has not been redeveloped. It seems to me that most of the street (which is really four houses leading to a culdesac) should be considered for multi-family. This would include house #85, 89, 97 and 98. This street adjoins the schools and has lower property value to begin with.
Developers can get a more reasonable ROI.
Following Michaels Way, you have Emilie and the schools. I believe that Atherton should consider individual parcels adjacent to the schools. While not on Valparaiso, they are still within close proximity to jobs, bus transit and Menlo Park shopping. Perhaps you should consider the following parcels: 10 and 95 on Howard Way (across from the schools), and 87 MacBeth. Again, because these sites are in such close proximity to St. Josephs and Sacred Heart, their value is already diminished, and the streets do not have the high value properties that I sited earlier.
They would also have a greater likelihood of lower-income renters from school personnel.
There are other Atherton streets that should be considered:
#1 Prado Secoya is directly across from Sacred Heart. It has a one-story “tear down” on the corner. Why not consider that parcel, although the rest of the street has been redeveloped? You can’t ask property owners along Park, Santiago, Camino Por Los Arboles and all the other designated House Element addresses to bear the brunt of multi-family, low-income housing and not consider an already-devalued parcel right across from Sacred Heart. #69 Alejandra should be considered. It abuts the Menlo College athletic field. It has great bus access and could hardly be more compromised by location than it already is. This parcel is a “no brainer”.
Why have you not designated parcels (other than 190 Selby) near Selby Lane Elementary? There are short adjacent streets that could (and should) be redeveloped. These parcels also have lower valuations due to their school proximity.
You have listed three properties along Selby Lane (#2, #8 and #190). All of the portion of Selby Lane that abuts Redwood City should be considered.
Karen Way and Callado Way are small streets coming off Alameda de las Pulgas. Were they considered?
5 | P a g e
Walsh should not be excluded per parcels close to the Alameda. The same with McCormick and Virginia off Fair Oaks.
There’s no reason that Glenwood should be excluded, in its entirety, if Valparaiso is added, in its entirety, to the list of candidates.
What happened to properties along Bay? I don’t see them in the Housing Element. You can’t possibly put Valparaiso on the list and not include Bay. The dichotomy is flagrant and invites legal action.
To continue with the Valparaiso issues:
I have a very hard time understanding why you would have extended the Valpariso designation all the way from El Camino to the west end of Atherton (at Camino Por Los Arboles). There is NO commercial use after Elena. Rather, there are single family homes on both sides of Valparaiso. In fact, your designation not only adversely impacts the Atherton parcels but the single-family Menlo Park homes on the other side of Valparaiso, as well. I dare say that these Menlo Park property owners will have an explosive reaction once they learn of Atherton’s proposal. Bottom line --- the multi-family, low-income parcels should end at Elena. There is no reason to include Atherton Oaks (no tear down corner parcels), Park (devasting to $22M+ homes and only one potential parcel), Santiago (same situation as Park), and Camino Por Los Arboles (only one parcel that could be developed but negative impact to three $30M- $50M homes). These four streets will only yield four corner parcels AT MOST, and there is a high likelihood that only one might be developed due to the exorbitant entry cost. So, what have you achieved? Nothing. Instead, you will have mobilized the neighbors, myself included, to take whatever action is necessary to preserve our property values and stop the City’s plan.
My husband and I would like to be part of the solution, not the problem. As developers, we are willing to work with the Town to consider development of multi-family housing (designed as a single family home) on parcels that make financial sense. That would not include any property on Valparaiso. These parcels will simply be too expensive in terms of acquisition cost. You need to be able to acquire a property in the $3M - $6M range and then put no more than $3M-$5M into construction. Evenso, you’re talking about a MINIMUM investment of $7M-$10M. The town’s focus should be on parcels in this price range, not on streets that will require 30-45% or more in acquisition and construction cost.
I do note that pages 124-128 of the 2023-2031 Housing Element list the parcels that are candidates for redevelopment. All but 5 are substantially less than one acre. In fact, this is where the Town should be focused: properties that are less than a half-acre. They can be acquired for far less and will have considerably less construction expense due to the smaller number of units. This is the “sweet spot.” Having thought through the issues and realizing that NO ONE wants multi-family, low-income housing next to them, there are things that would help.
1. If you reduced the number of housing units to 4-6 per parcel and increased the number of parcels, this would help. Ten (to 20) multi-family housing units on an acre is not palatable to anyone. To think that cars will be parked underground is delusional. To think that the trash will stay in container areas is absurd. My husband and I own fourplex units in Boise. There’s constant trash, and no one closes the dumpster enclosure doors. Animals are a problem, eating the trash. Then, there’s the noise. What can do you do to minimize these issues? You reduce the number of units per parcel – either by reducing the size of the parcels (to a half acre or less) or by reducing the number of units allowed on a one acre lot. With 4 units, for example, one 6 | P a g e
could build an attached 4-car garage and not need to spend $400K on underground parking (which you need with 10 units). That alone is a huge savings to a developer. And, you’d have half the trash and half the noise.
2. I am gratified to learn that Menlo College is interested in Atherton’s help in acquiring financing for additional housing units. I am interested in learning more.
3. Have you come to final resolution per the single family home in Holbrook Palmer Park? Would it trigger a transfer of the park to Stanford if the house were repurposed?
4. I understand that you don’t want to target specific neighborhoods, but have you explored going deeper into the area that lies between El Camino and Middlefield and Watkins and 5th Ave. in Redwood City? This “square” sells as low as $2-3M per parcel. This area would include Jennings, Belleau, Wilburn, Snowden, Fairfax, Normandy, Placitas, etc. It borders Redwood City and, candidly, needs redevelopment. At some point, you have to be realistic about which parcels will be attractive to developers. Neither I, nor anyone else, has a right to suggest someone else’s property, but the Town does need to exercise some degree of pragmatic discretion. It does no good to identify streets or parcels that will never be built on. This merely kicks the can down the road in terms of state rejection and potential penalties.
There is no easy solution to Atherton’s SB-9 problems. Picking parcels along the most expensive streets in town though only adds to the issues. I encourage you to: (a) remove the Valparaiso designation entirely or limit it to streets between El Camino and Elena, where commercial enterprises and multifamily housing already exists, (b) reduce the number of units per parcel to no more than 6 per acre to minimize neighborhood impact, (c) expand the number of designated parcels, focusing on those that are less than a half-acre, (d) focus on financially viable properties where developers will actually buy and build, and (e) continue efforts to secure low-interest financing for Menlo School to build.
Lastly, let me thank each of you and the city staff for your tireless efforts to communicate with residents, hold meetings, and try to find a compromise solution. Few of us are willing to serve on the City Council, “take the heat”, and engage in the hard work at hand. You deserve our eternal gratitude.
Respectfully,
Carol Flaherty
CC: George Rodericks
From: Claeton Giordano
To: [email protected]
Cc: Council
Subject: Re: Notice of Public Hearing
Date: Sunday, January 29, 2023 6:52:39 PM
Attachments: Valparaiso51.jpg
Valparaiso4.jpg
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
We received your Jan 20, 2023 letter, postmarked Jan 23, 2023, from the Town of Atherton providing only a few days Notice of a Public Hearing next Tuesday January 31st. This hearing regarding the adoption of the Housing Element, adding 348 new multifamily housing units, is being held on the last day before the statutory deadline to submit the Housing Element to the State. A genuine solicitation for participation in the public hearing from potentially impacted parties would have provided notice more than a few days prior to the hearing and much earlier in the process.
We object to the proposal and request that the new housing units be located in light of existing mass transit resources, capacity of existing roadways, and likely future development. It is unacceptable for new housing to be located so far down Valparaiso, too far from Caltrain, El Camino and commercial areas. Responsible climate change policy demands that new housing be constructed close to these resources to reduce our energy consumption. Increasing the traffic loads on Valparaiso, which is already overloaded with traffic from six schools (Sacred Heart, St. Joseph Elementary, Menlo School, Hillview Middle, Los Lomitas, and St.
Raymond’s), is irresponsible and poor planning. It is puzzling that you and Atherton are advancing a proposal that ensures future unnecessary increases in emissions. Further, we request the issues listed in Appendix C be considered.
There are better alternatives. Reportedly, Menlo College quietly markets its 20 acre property, seeking to relocate and to add substantially to their $25M endowment. Near term redevelopment of Menlo College's multi-family zoned parcel is not factored into this proposal.
A solution with more foresight would promote multifamily development on the 19 parcels in the Victoria Drive area adjacent to El Camino and Valparaiso and contiguous with Menlo College, instead of spreading it across 22 parcels along Valparaiso. Victoria Drive has excellent access to El Camino at the Encinal and Valparaiso stoplights and, located within 1/2 mile of Caltrain, requires only 0.5 parking-space per bedroom. Further, if eventually combined with the Menlo College parcel, it creates a 35 acre multifamily zone. See Appendix A for more details.
All North-South travel in Menlo Park is carried on Valparaiso and Santa Cruz. There are no side street get-arounds. Your unilateral plan to dump traffic from 300+ new households onto Valparaiso thoughtlessly threatens the quality of life in Menlo Park. And, more over-capacity traffic means more idling cars and more greenhouse gas emissions. Your letter is a reminder that the traffic situation on Valparaiso is already both untenable and dangerous to public safety. The time has come for Menlo Park to evaluate potential mitigations.
As Menlo Park encompasses Valparaiso's northbound lane from Elder Ave to El Camino Real, we favor prohibiting left turns off of Valparaiso into Atherton at Camino por los Arboles, Park, Santiago, Elena, and Emilie. Similarly, prohibiting left turns from these streets on to Valparaiso will be considered. These measures will redirect some Atherton-bound traffic off of Valparaiso to other points of entry and redirect some traffic exiting Atherton towards other exits. Valparaiso truck traffic, much of which is destined for Atherton construction sites, also presents an opportunity for traffic mitigation. We will evaluate prohibiting truck traffic in the northbound lanes from Elder to El Camino, and, since Valparaiso is 100% within Menlo Park's border from Lemon to Elder, prohibiting truck traffic in both directions on that section. Collectively, these measures will materially reduce traffic, noise, and excess emissions from idling vehicles on Valparaiso while increasing emergency vehicle response times and bicycle safety. Though there will likely be a period of fine tuning and public adjustment prior to code enforcement, Menlo Park and Atherton will be better prepared for the coming housing growth. See Appendix B for more details.
In light of the proposed Housing Element, Menlo Park should act now to protect its quality of life.
We strongly oppose Atherton's proposed Housing Element.
Happy to discuss further as we move forward.
Regards,
Claire and Claeton Giordano
------------------------------------------------------------ Appendix A: Alternatives
Reportedly, Menlo College has been quietly marketing its property for some time, seeking to relocate and to substantially add to their $25M endowment. With that as a real possibility, allow multifamily development on the 19 parcels in the Victoria Drive area adjacent to El Camino and Valparaiso and contiguous with Menlo College. This area is between the Encinal and Valparaiso stoplights on El Camino. Already connected to El Camino at Valpo, access would be facilitated by using eminent domain to connect Victoria Dr to the stoplight on El Camino at Encinal that serves Menlo College. Here's the Victoria Drive area (in addition the parcels along El Camino):
Valparaiso4.jpg
Since this area is also within 1/2 mile of the Caltrans station, parking requirements would be capped at 0.5 spaces/bedroom. And when Menlo College's property is redeveloped, we would have a 35 +/- acre multifamily district with excellent access to road, rail and commercial retail.
Appendix B: Valparaiso Traffic Mitigation 2023
Valparaiso51.jpg
Appendix C: Other Issues
Increased traffic on Valparaiso and the surrounding streets will impact public safety.
Increased noise pollution will harm wildlife and degrade quality of life.
Known and unknown endangered flora and fauna will be impacted.
Reduced permeable ground area will impact storm water runoff system and increase risk of local flooding.
Increased heavy vehicle traffic will damage Menlo Park roadbeds.
Release during construction of chemicals known to the state of California to cause human disease.
Loss of privacy impacts on surrounding parcels.
Impairment of quiet enjoyment.
Loss of trees
Sufficiency of water supply to support additional housing units.
Construction and occupation of additional housing units will increase green house gas emissions and energy consumption undermining local measures to reduce the same.
Impact of a sale of Menlo College's parcels on long term Housing Element planning Menlo Fire District capacity to serve the additional housing units.
From: Drew Haydel
To: Council
Subject: Victoria Manor
Date: Friday, January 27, 2023 1:57:33 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 Council members Widmer, DeGolia, Lewis, Holland, and HawkinsManuelian, I am the owner of Leon Way, in the Victoria Manor neighborhood of Atherton. I am writing to express my concerns about the residential overlay that is proposed for both El Camino and Valparaiso, as both streets are borders for our small neighborhood.
Approving the overlay on the borders of our neighborhood will mean that the neighborhood will be surrounded by high density housing and schools on all sides. In short it will permanently alter our neighborhood, creating increased traffic and safety issues that will greatly hurt our close knit community. I believe that this is an unintended consequence of a broader effort to create a path for more housing in Atherton. I urge you to consider the devastating effects the proposed overlay will have on Victoria Manor and adjust the proposal to exclude the lots in Victoria Manor from the overlay.
I want to thank those of you who have taken the time to connect with us, members of the Victoria Manor neighborhood, be it through neighborhood walk-thrus over the summer, discussion via a group Zoom, or attending our neighborhood get togethers or drills. I know that those who have engaged with us understand the uniqueness of both our neighborhood geography in Victoria Manor and the tight knit neighborhood community we've developed over many years of neighborhood gatherings, emergency planning, and other safety advocacy efforts such as securing a government grant and cooperation between Atherton and Menlo Park to install the cross jurisdictional lighted crosswalk on Valparaiso at Hoover.
Our neighborhood understands the considerable pressure you feel (due to concerns of potential HCD fines being levied and the builder's remedy being applied) to submit a Housing Element Plan that won't flat out be rejected by HCD. However, as with the first plan submitted, we urge you to best advocate for our town's citizens and way of life by submitting a plan that may be just reasonable enough to have some chance of being accepted while not sacrificing dozens of homes and entire neighborhoods unnecessarily.This truly is a balancing act. And while it's the town consultants and planners goal to have HCD fully approve the next plan with no modifications required, potentially at the expense of much more property than necessary, it should be your goal to protect as much as possible and to utilize the knowledge you've acquired, that non-resident consultants aren't privy to, to discern what areas to focus on.
As the latest Planning Commission plan is constructed, the one neighborhood in Atherton that has been held up as an example for others to replicate, our neighborhood, Victoria Manor, is set to be crushed on all 4 sides by huge development. We have Menlo College bordering us on the North where you've already designated 60 units can be built by right, Menlo School bordering us on the West where you've designated another 20 units, and El Camino on the East and Valparaiso on the South where you're now considering an overlay zone You already determined previously, and rightly so, that our 28 home neighborhood on 3 cul de sacs is not suitable for dense housing:
there's only one ingress/egress into the neighborhood and as is, is very difficult to get in and out of due to its location on Valparaiso within yards of the El Camino intersection. Additional cars would be incredibly unsafe. the homes on Victoria Drive bordering El Camino are on 1/3 acres lots so are too small to support multi-family on their own and are also not deep enough to support multi-family parking, even if one tried to engineer access via El Camino. the tiny 5 house long cul-de-sac of Douglass Way, which backs up to Valparaiso, could in no way support the car traffic from multi-family housing.
And Valparaiso, a single lane in each direction, with its 2 private schools directly on it and Hillview Middle School just a block off, with hundreds of school kids and bikes on it everyday is already beyond burdened with traffic so trying to have dozens or potentially hundreds of more cars accessing multi-family housing on Valparaiso so close to El Camino would be a safety disaster.
Even if you don't look at all the significant reasons the homes in our area are an awful choice for multi-family development, surely you can't feel it's reasonable to designate 15 of the 28 homes in a tiny 3 street cul-de-sac'd neighborhood with a multi-family overlay, surrounding the few homes not in the overlay on all 4 sides with development . You would be endangering the most organized, cohesive, emergency-ready neighborhood in all of Atherton.
Additionally, because these homes and this neighborhood isn't suitable for this kind of development for the reasons listed above, and most, if not all of the neighbors have no intention of selling in the next 8 years, it would be disingenuous to include them in any plan. If included, the neighbors will promptly send a letter to HCD letting them know they have no intention of selling during this cycle, and even if they sold in a future cycle their homes aren't realistic building locations for multifamily housing.
This is all to say for all the reasons above we strongly urge you to remove ALL of the homes in Victoria Manor from any El Camino and Valparaiso overlay you may be considering.
Thank you so much for everything you do for the town. This is a difficult challenge and I certainly don't envy the position you're in but I trust you'll only include properties in the plan that have a realistic chance to safely be developed.
Sincerely,
Drew Haydel
Leon Way
From: Andy Jeffrey
To: Council
Cc: George Rodericks
Subject: Atherton housing plan - overlays and Victoria Manor Date: Friday, January 27, 2023 5:27:45 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,
My family has lived in Victoria Manor for 20 years. We chose to move here from Menlo Park because it is an amazing neighborhood with wonderful neighbors and a great place to raise our, now adult, children.
I am very concerned about the Planning Commission's latest recommendations regarding housing and its impact on our neighborhood.
Before detailing my concerns, let me acknowledge the incredible challenge the State and HCD have put on our City Council – you must meet their requirements without significant negative impact to our wonderful town. A very tough task.
With that in mind, I urge you to remove the overlay from the Victoria Manor with the following justifications:
- Overburdened - Victoria Manor, unlike any other neighborhood, would be impacted on all four sides of our neighborhood (Menlo College and School zoning and the El Camino and Valparaiso overlays) with more than half the homes in our neighborhood in these new overlays. Hardly fair.
If everything that could be built is built, you'd be left with less than half our single-family homes all surrounded by large, dense structures. Even if only a fraction of this is built, the neighborhood would lose so much of its character.
Note – everyone in our neighborhood that I have spoken to is a YIMBY when it comes to building at the schools even though we will certainly be negatively impacted by it. In other words, we are willing to be impacted, but not so drastically as what the overlays would do. - Safety - increased car, bicycle, and foot traffic (including Menlo College's regular use of Victoria Dr. as a walk/scooter/bike way) would compound the already challenging ingress/egress issues. There's only one way in and out of our neighborhood, and it is already a significant and dangerous bottleneck. Even if multi-family units were required to not use the interior roadways, they would add to the traffic nightmare at ECR and Valpo.
- Emergency Vehicle Access - increased density would make it even harder for fire, ambulance, and police to access this (and nearby) neighborhood(s).
- Unrealistic Housing Opportunity - first, in discussing this with all of Victor Manor residents that can be reached, they have all stated that they no interest in selling their lots for multi-unit development. Second, the lots along Victoria Drive that back up to El Camino are some of the smallest in Atherton. Even if they were all combined, they would not provide a suitable footprint on which to build for density – the lots are too shallow from front to back. - Assumptions - I have heard from City Council members that this overlay provides the city with control over the type of development that can be done and that we'll have three years to fine-tune the details to our liking. Even if one believes the City Council would try their best to limit our pain, it seems likely that the State will intervene to remove local jurisdictions' oversite on this type of zoning. It seems inevitable with what the State has already done that they would take away the city’s control.
- Overlay Impact on Property Values - Since the overlay is extremely unlikely to actually stimulate any multi-unit building in Victoria Manor, the main impact for us will be reduced property value due to the overlays' overhang, i.e., lots will be valued less because there "could" be nearby high-density buildings.
Again, I, like I know you have heard from many in our neighborhood, urge you to remove Victoria Manor from the overlays.
Thank you,
Andy Jeffrey
Douglass Way, Atherton, CA
From: Jeanette Kennedy
To: Planning Commision; Council
Cc: Jeanette Kennedy; Kevin Kennedy
Subject: Citizen Comment on Atherton Housing Element - Planning Commission Recommendation from January 19, 2023 Date: Friday, January 27, 2023 4:37:23 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 Members and Planning Commission Members, We are writing to raise concerns related to the City of Atherton's revisions to its Draft Housing Element as reflected in the letter from George Rodericks, Atherton City Manager, dated January 20, 2023 as well as the email dated January 21, 2023.
We would like to specifically comment on the additional proposal to designate a new overlay zone allowing R-10 along Valparaiso Avenue (the email defined this as residential multi-family at 10 units per acre).
We have the following concerns:
Notification and Process. To our knowledge, the proposal relating to Valparaiso Avenue was raised for the very first time at the Planning Commission meeting on January 19, 2023. We received a notification of it by letter dated January 20, 2023. Again, to our knowledge, this is the first time a Valparaiso proposal was publicly discussed. And yet we understand that this proposal is scheduled to be considered and approved by the City Council for submission to the State on January 31, 2023. This is simply not enough time for such a significant last minute revision to be introduced into the plan. The home owners will not have had a sufficient opportunity to consider the impact or raise objections to this proposal in seven business days.
The proposed modification would be dangerous and unsafe.There are three schools located on or immediately adjacent to Valparaiso Avenue. These schools serve children as young as five years old. Every day there are a significant number of children walking or biking on Valparaiso Avenue to reach these schools. Cars routinely illegally drive in the bike lane during school drop off and pick up hours during which Valparaiso already experiences a significant amount of traffic. Children have on numerous occasions been struck by vehicles on their way to or from school. Adding a significant number of additional housing units to this street with the additional attendant number of cars coming in and out of properties would significantly increase this danger to these children. This is unsafe and we do not believe this has been studied.
No mass transit. We understand that one of the criteria in determining whether to create these overlay zones relates to the access to mass transit. Valparaiso has literally no such access, other than a single bus stop at which no bus seems to stop. The only bus observed on Valparaiso is one leaving Hillview School once a day after school. There is no way for someone living on Valparaiso to reach a job without a car or walking miles to Menlo Park. We would note that other areas of Atherton have greater access to actual mass transit (Caltrain or SamTrans busses) than Valparaiso Avenue.
Most of Valparaiso is not adjacent to current "high-density housing."Despite statements that homes on Valparaiso are close to high density development, most of the 1.5 miles of Valparaiso is not near current high density housing in Menlo Park. There are a few townhouses and multihousing units in a single two block stretch of the street near El Camino and Menlo School, but the vast majority of Valparaiso Avenue, particularly that in the western section, is near single family residences some of which are on large lots (Robert S. Drive, for example). Adding up to 10 multi-family units on a single acre in this area would be no more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood than would be adding them to the Circus Club neighborhood.
Other major streets in Atherton seem to be more logical. Given the above, why has the Planning Commission not proposed a similar overlay zone other major roads in town? Middlefield Road is far more of a thoroughfare, much less of a neighborhood and bus service is much more prevalent than elsewhere.
How about on Stockbridge Avenue where there are no schools or children travelling regularly, which is as long as Valparaiso Avenue and already has greater housing density with the abutting homes in Redwood City than Valparaiso Avenue does with the abutting homes in Menlo Park? Why is there not an overlay zone proposed for Alameda de Las Pulgas which is close to significant commercial developments already and has much better access to buses than Valparaiso Avenue? Furthermore, Atherton Avenue has no schools and much less traffic currently than travels on Valparaiso. There are compelling reasons why each of these would be a better option for an overlay than all of Valparaiso Avenue.
Each of these concerns are reasons that the Planning Commission and City Council must provide more time for citizen input, for studying adverse impacts and for finding better alternatives before voting to include the Valparaiso Avenue overlay as part of the Housing Element.
Regards,
Jeanette & Kevin Kennedy
Atherton Residents
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kevin Kennedy
Subject: Re: Citizen Comment on Atherton Housing Element - Planning Commission Recommendation from January 19, 2023
Date: January 27, 2023 at 11:27:50 PM PST
To: Rick DeGolia <[email protected]>
Cc: George Rodericks <[email protected]>, Jeanette Kennedy >
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Rick, thank you for response. It is greatly appreciated. We very much understand that this is not what anyone involved in Atherton city government signed up for and that this is being forced on the town by an ill-conceived statewide mandate. The idea that California’s affordability and homelessness crisis will be solved by taking the most expensive zip code in the US and requiring it to adopt multi-unit zoning is absurd.
With that in mind, if we cannot solve this by taking the only true commercial corridor in the town (El Camino) or the quasi-highway that is Middlefield and creating an overlay for them only we should just consider multiple types of overlays covering the entire town and be done with it. I am confident that developers will not be interested in losing money by building townhouses in the heart of Atherton.
But regardless, the Valparaiso 10-unit overlay seems to be a particularly bad solution for the reasons we discussed.
Thank you again for your consideration.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:59 PM Rick DeGolia <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Jeanette and Kevin:
First, I seriously want to thank you for your email and your involvement in this extremely difficult and challenging issue. The Council needs to hear from residents, so expression of your concerns and perspectives is essential.
Second, the only constant in this entire exercise is that almost every resident who contacts the council informs us why a proposed upzoning of property near them is the wrong thing.
It’s always wrong for a series of reasons, but the bottom line is that it would adversely impact the quality of life as we know it.
Third, the Council is under enormous pressure from the state and our planning consultants and town staff to cave in to the demands from the state to increase density in the town with the continuous threat that if we don’t increase density then we will not get a qualified Housing Element and the result will be that the state will take over all zoning arrangements in the Town. I state this because I’d like you, as well as other residents, to understand that our honest, unpaid council members are trying to do what they believe is in the best interests of our residents. We aren’t necessarily right in their judgements but we are doing their best to represent you. Their opinions will only change when you and other residents engage with them and help them to understand your concerns and perspectives.
Finally, I don’t believe that the proposed overlay zone on Valparaiso makes any sense and I don’t believe that there will be support on the council to include that in our Housing Element. There are many reasons for this conclusion, but we will have to see how this plays out at the council meeting. I won’t support the proposed inclusion of Valparaiso.
I really appreciate your email and I hope that you will remain involved in this important and very difficult issue, Rick
Rick DeGolia
Atherton City Council
Atherton, CA 94027
650.793.2800 (m)
From: Jeanette Kennedy
Reply-To: Jeanette Kennedy
Date: Friday, January 27, 2023 at 4:37 PM
To: Planning Commision <[email protected]>, Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeanette Kennedy < , Kevin Kennedy
Subject: Citizen Comment on Atherton Housing Element - Planning Commission Recommendation from January 19, 2023
[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 and Planning Commission Members, We are writing to raise concerns related to the City of Atherton's revisions to its Draft Housing Element as reflected in the letter from George Rodericks, Atherton City Manager, dated January 20, 2023 as well as the email dated January 21, 2023.
We would like to specifically comment on the additional proposal to designate a new overlay zone allowing R-10 along Valparaiso Avenue (the email defined this as residential multi-family at 10 units per acre).
We have the following concerns:
Notification and Process. To our knowledge, the proposal relating to Valparaiso Avenue was raised for the very first time at the Planning Commission meeting on January 19, 2023. We received a notification of it by letter dated January 20, 2023.
Again, to our knowledge, this is the first time a Valparaiso proposal was publicly discussed. And yet we understand that this proposal is scheduled to be considered and approved by the City Council for submission to the State on January 31, 2023. This is simply not enough time for such a significant last minute revision to be introduced into the plan. The home owners will not have had a sufficient opportunity to consider the impact or raise objections to this proposal in seven business days.
The proposed modification would be dangerous and unsafe.There are three schools located on or immediately adjacent to Valparaiso Avenue. These schools serve children as young as five years old. Every day there are a significant number of children walking or biking on Valparaiso Avenue to reach these schools. Cars routinely illegally drive in the bike lane during school drop off and pick up hours during which Valparaiso already experiences a significant amount of traffic. Children have on numerous occasions been struck by vehicles on their way to or from school.
Adding a significant number of additional housing units to this street with the additional attendant number of cars coming in and out of properties would significantly increase this danger to these children. This is unsafe and we do not believe this has been studied.
No mass transit. We understand that one of the criteria in determining whether to create these overlay zones relates to the access to mass transit. Valparaiso has literally no such access, other than a single bus stop at which no bus seems to stop. The only bus observed on Valparaiso is one leaving Hillview School once a day after school.
There is no way for someone living on Valparaiso to reach a job without a car or walking miles to Menlo Park. We would note that other areas of Atherton have greater access to actual mass transit (Caltrain or SamTrans busses) than Valparaiso Avenue.
Most of Valparaiso is not adjacent to current "high-density housing."Despite statements that homes on Valparaiso are close to high density development, most of the 1.5 miles of Valparaiso is not near current high density housing in Menlo Park.
There are a few townhouses and multi-housing units in a single two block stretch of the street near El Camino and Menlo School, but the vast majority of Valparaiso Avenue, particularly that in the western section, is near single family residences some of which are on large lots (Robert S. Drive, for example). Adding up to 10 multifamily units on a single acre in this area would be no more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood than would be adding them to the Circus Club neighborhood.
Other major streets in Atherton seem to be more logical. Given the above, why has the Planning Commission not proposed a similar overlay zone other major roads in town? Middlefield Road is far more of a thoroughfare, much less of a neighborhood and bus service is much more prevalent than elsewhere. How about on Stockbridge Avenue where there are no schools or children travelling regularly, which is as long as Valparaiso Avenue and already has greater housing density with the abutting homes in Redwood City than Valparaiso Avenue does with the abutting homes in Menlo Park? Why is there not an overlay zone proposed for Alameda de Las Pulgas which is close to significant commercial developments already and has much better access to buses than Valparaiso Avenue? Furthermore, Atherton Avenue has no schools and much less traffic currently than travels on Valparaiso. There are compelling reasons why each of these would be a better option for an overlay than all of Valparaiso Avenue.
Each of these concerns are reasons that the Planning Commission and City Council must provide more time for citizen input, for studying adverse impacts and for finding better alternatives before voting to include the Valparaiso Avenue overlay as part of the Housing Element.
Regards,
Jeanette & Kevin Kennedy
Atherton Residents
From: Mari Korematsu
To: Council
Cc:
Subject: Re: 75 Cebalo Lane
Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 2:37:05 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear Council members,
Prior to the meeting scheduled on Jan 31 2023 I would like to voice my opposition to having my property upzoned as per Draft Housing Element dated January 2023.
If you adopt Planning Commission recommendations of removing the up zoning of 17 properties abutting ECR that would leave my property and 23 Oakwood.
I am 95 years old and do not have the will or resources to develop my property. This has been my home for many decades and I wish to live the remainder of my life without all of this uncertainty looming over me.
Please take all of this into consideration as you make your decision. If you have parents think of how this would adversely impact them.
Thank you
Mari Korematsu
From: Joseph Laria
To: Council
Subject: OPPOSE up-zoning proposal (petition attached)
Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 9:07:45 AM
Attachments: selby-cebalo-petition.pdf
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Hi Town Council:
I live at Selby Lane. I am submitting a petition on behalf of my neighbors to OPPOSE the UPZONING proposed in the January 12, 2023 version of Atherton's 2023-31 Housing Element.
The
petition is signed by a majority of the owners of the lots on Selby Lane and Cebalo Lane have been targeted for up-zoning. We STRONGLY disagree with the up-zoning plan.
This plan disproportionally puts the burden of meeting the state requirement for moderate income multifamily on our small community. This up-zoning plan is unfeasible for the following reasons
1. My family and other neighbors are not planning to sell. Our lots should not be considered when the state is assessing the viability of multi-family development.
2. It is not economically feasible to build low income housing in Atherton. The land cost alone is $8M per acre.
3. The up-zone plan restricts our property rights. If our kids want to live here, they can't rebuild a single family home.
I am raising a family in Atherton because I like the quality of life in the town. We are planning to be here for the long term, and keep the property in the family.
There are other options available that can meet the spirit of the Housing Element given the unique character of Atherton. I hope the town council considers better alternatives. The Up-zoning proposal should NOT be passed.
Respectfully,
Joseph Laria
From: Michael Lebenbaum
To: Council
Cc:
Subject: 23 Oakwood Blvd
Date: Friday, January 27, 2023 1:57:21 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
An absolute NO to such a large development. We’ve been on West Oakwood for many years and have dealt with the buildup of traffic.
There have been 15 large new homes and 1 small home built on 6 divided lots over the last years on just West Oakwood.
It may not be an arterial road but lots of traffic with am and pm cut throughs from Woodside Rd to Selby Lane! Regards,
Barbara and Mike Lebenbaum
West Oakwood blvd
Redwood City, Ca 94061
Sent from my iPad
From: jackie leonard-dimmick
To: Council
Subject: Housing
Date: Saturday, January 28, 2023 2:28:26 PM
Atherton Town Council Members:
You probably read the comments I made for the January 25 Planning Meeting on "Housing". After reading articles in the Jan. 25, 2023 issue of "The Almanac" a question came very strongly to me. "Is it possible that we, along with Sacramento, are being mesmerized and hypnotized by the belief that there is not enough good to go around for everyone, (in this case housing)?" There is a need for all of us, our state government included, to change our thinking in how we perceive this issue. Yes, it would be beneficial if most of us were more conscious in how our actions affect others. We must Wake Up and see how our individual needs have already been met, moment by moment - and be GRATEFUL! Thank you.
Jackie Leonard-Dimmick
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE NOTICE:
This email and any attached files were sent from an email account assigned to a public official for the Town of Atherton. This email, replies to this email, or emails sent directly to this email account may constitute a public record and, if retained during the normal course of business, may be subject to disclosure to any person upon request.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sharon Lichtenfeld
Subject: Housing needs of Atherton
Date: January 26, 2023 at 10:54:56 AM PST
To: [email protected]
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear George,
My husband and I live at Watkins Avenue, and are very disturbed to hear that the town is considering putting housing units into Holbrook Palmer Park. We live across the street form the park and it is our haven. You have to know that it will change the beautiful atmosphere of the park for the worst to have housing there. We know of no other park in any city that would have housing put in.
This is the only park in our town and is used by families from the surrounding areas such as Redwood City, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park. Atherton residents have and continue to contribute to maintain the beauty of the park which would be undone by people living in it.
The house that is currently there that is typically only used by one family is fine - it nearly always houses a City Manager or Police Chief and so is a way of attracting quality personnel to the town of Atherton. Additionally, Watkins Avenue is already a very busy thoroughfare for cars and our street is often backed up with traffic. Imagine how much worse it would be with housing in the park?
While our neighborhood is small, we and are neighbors are very proud of it and do not want this housing across the street from us. The new library is beautiful, but that would have been the perfect place to add housing and now is obviously not possible. Housing should be on a street, not in a park.
Thank you for noting our concerns.
Best,
Sharon Lichtenfeld
the normal course of business,
may be subject to disclosure to any person upon request.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rick DeGolia <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Housing Element plans potential impact on Victoria Manor neighborhood MORE
Date: January 26, 2023 at 9:30:42 AM PST
To: Andrea Luskin <
Cc: George Rodericks <[email protected]>
Andrea,
While this feels like the last minute because we have a deadline of approving a plan on January 31, this isn’t by any means the last minute. We can amend whatever we file and we are very likely to be rejected by HCD because that is what they do. I expect this to continue in an intense discussion with HCD as we seek to get them to approve a plan that the Town self-certifies and I expect that process to last more than a year, so this isn’t the last minute.
Rick
Rick DeGolia
Atherton City Council
Atherton, CA 94027
From: Andrea Luskin <
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 8:22 PM
To: Rick DeGolia <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Housing Element plans potential impact on Victoria Manor neighborhood MORE [The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Rick, one additional and I believe highly important point just dawned on me:
The traffic congestion that would be caused by the addition of any additional cars beyond those generated from 60 new units at Menlo College and 20 new units at Menlo School on these two little .3 mile strips of road would likely result in the inability of emergency vehicles - be it ambulances, fire or police to access our neighborhood. It might already be problematic solely with the addition of the Menlo School and College building the council is planning to authorize.
If this wasn't sprung on us at the last limit, I'm highly confident an inquiry to the powers in charge at the Fire District would result in a response that even more dense building in this tiny block would be hazardous, and any decision to do so negligent.
Would love to hear your thoughts on this and all below.
Regards,
Andrea Luskin
Douglass Way
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023, 01:59:54 AM PST, Andrea Luskin > wrote:
Dear Rick,
Thank you so much for your comprehensive response. A few minutes before your letter arrived I included you in a new letter I sent to the whole council but I'd like to take the opportunity here to directly address the thoughts you shared in your letter below.
As I stated in the group letter, I really do appreciate the incredibly difficult position the state is putting the town in.
I agree with your premise that the only realistic way affordable housing will be built is if it's on land already owned, which mostly means ADU's and Schools (though also could include Oakwood, and the huge lot on Atherton Ave, and perhaps the house at the park, though I know there are complications with that)
Regarding the schools, I have no issue with the Site approved for a 4 story Menlo College building. I think its very important we have some reasonably priced housing for teachers and staff and that seems like an excellent location for multi-story high density housing as it's set far enough away from single home residences as to not adversely impact their privacy, solitude, and character of the neighborhood . Regarding Menlo School, however, the Council draft plan posted on Jan 11th includes language directly referencing allowing 48 ft tall buildings, by right, requiring an only 75 ft setback from the Douglass Way cul de sac border, directly behind two Douglass Way homes. (I've included the language that appears on the plan that addresses this (from pages 69 and 70) at the bottom of this email). As mentioned above, I 'm in support of affordable housing for teachers and staff, however the same thoughtfulness as to the height and location of high density housing at Menlo School should be applied as was at Menlo College, and this is currently not the case.
Regarding an overlay, I agree that this is substantially better for existing homeowner than a rezone. I also understand HCD doesn't look at this as favorably as a rezone and therefore the advice from consultants is to expand the area.
Regarding ingress/egress, I'm also of course in full agreement with you that having ingress and egress to a multifamily building onto a cul-de-sac or small lane would cause significant adverse impact.
Because of this, it's imperative that plots be identified that allow the volume of cars associated with multi-family housing to safely enter and exit on roads that are large enough to handle them without putting all those who already use those roads at risk.
Neither the homes on Victoria Drive that border El Camino, nor the homes on Douglass Way that border Valparaiso meet this safety criteria.
In the case of the homes in Victoria Manor that border El Camino, below are the many reasons why high density housing would be unsafe there:
the lots are too shallow to accommodate multi-family parking and safe ingress and egress on to El Camino.
the intersection of El Camino and Valparaiso is already overly congested and due to the right turn only lane on this section of El Camino, all these cars would be forced to turn West up Valparaiso.
This creates another safety issue, as the entrance to Victoria Manor is just about 50 ft. up from this intersection and is already incredibly difficult to enter and exit additionally, Valparaiso being a one lane road, supporting 3 nearby schools and hundreds of school children and bicycle riders is like a parking lot during certain times of the day.
Not only is it dangerous to school children to add all these additional cars to Valparaiso but the cars coming out of housing on El Camino that are forced to turn West on Valparaiso when they really want to head South, East, or North will attempt to turn off of Valparaiso as soon as they can, which means trying to turn left on Hoover (or Crane if they miss Hoover), which can create a back-up all the way back into the El Camino intersection, as well as completely blocking the entrance and exit into Victoria Manor furthermore, when the authorized development takes place at Menlo College and Menlo School, another huge number of additional cars will be dumping out on this one tiny section of road. It's unfathomable how the roadway could possibly handle all of this.
In the case of the homes on Douglass Way that border Valparaiso, below are the many reasons high density housing would be unsafe there:
there would be no way to safely enter and exit onto this section of Valparaiso that is so close to El Camino
Valparaiso is a one lane road, filled with hundreds of kids and bike lanes that is so congested at times it barely moves
all the residents exiting multi-family housing onto Valparaiso would be forced to turn West even if that's not the direction they need to head, therefore they would back up all the traffic behind them as they attempt to turn left across bikes lanes, and if they're attempting to drive the other direction during the morning or during afternoon school release time, they would need to execute turns cutting through gaggles of children on their way to and from school.
adding to the safety hazard, just a few more yards up the road, another new huge source of congestion that will clog Valparaiso will result from the planned development of high density housing at Menlo School.
Rick I understand your sentiment that if you feel "forced" to offer up multi-family sites that you don't just want to put all the burden on the North end of El Camino. However, I don't see how anyone could feel it's reasonable to paint one or two geographical swaths of land (El Camino and Valparaiso) with a multi-family overlay without taking into consideration the constraints of the particular sites.
Including sites such as those in the Victoria Manor neighborhood that can in no way safely handle the density is clearly not the right thing to do.
Additionally, using the reasoning you referenced in your thoughts that it's unfair to place so much burden on just one small North section of El Camino, you would be doing the same thing to Victoria Manor by including any part of it in the overlay, as you're already going to be impacting the neighborhood with highly dense housing on 2 of our 4 borders at Menlo College and Menlo School. It would therefore not only be incredibly unsafe but also massively inequitable to place this amount of burden on Victoria Manor by including it in an overlay.
It's hard to imagine that HCD is going to have an issue if the 10 homes on Victoria Drive that border ECR are not on the overlay and the plan instead includes 78 homes rather than 88 homes on El Camino. Likewise, it's inconceivable that the removal of 5 homes on Douglass Way is going to negatively impact their assessment of the plan. To the contrary, you're much more likely to get approved if you include sites that have a realistic chance for development.
Given the above information I've shared with you, I don't see how any of the council members could reasonably believe that including the 2 remaining borders of Victoria Manor in an overlay is the best way to proceed.
Rick I hope this more detailed reasoning explaining why I'm requesting the council pull Victoria Manor from the overlay is clear. And likewise, I hope you'll advocate for this position.
Please let me know your thoughts, if there's anything you disagree with in the above, and if there's anything more I can or should do to persuade you or others to vote for a plan that does not include Victoria Drive and Douglass Way in an overlay zone.
I really appreciate your open mind and willingness to take the above into full consideration.
Best,
Andrea Luskin
Douglass Way
---------------------------------------------------
From the Jan 11 Housing Plan Draft...
pg 69
"Based on discussions with the College President and a review of site improvements, two viable locations on the property for multifamily housing have been identified.
Site 1: The existing O’Brien surface parking lot at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Alejandra Avenue is approximately 75,000 square feet (1.7 acres) in area. The site is level and currently contains a paved parking lot.
The lot is surrounded by mature vegetation. Construction of a multi-family housing building is feasible at this location with podium parking at ground level and 3 stories of housing above, or below grade parking. The town does not have on-site parking requirements. Parking would be replaced to meet the needs of the college. The Town will rezone this site to permit 40 units per acre by right with objective design standards. The College has expressed interest in developing 60 dwelling units at this site.
Site 2: There are four residences located on the campus in WWII barracks that are currently utilized for faculty housing. Demolition of these residences would accommodate 30 apartment units, resulting in a net increase of 26 multifamily housing units.
Both housing sites on the Menlo College campus are located near a public transportation route (SamTrans bus route on El Camino Real) and would therefore qualify for State mandated reduced parking provisions. To accommodate the new housing development, the zoning will be amended as follows:
● Rezone Site 1 to permit multifamily housing at a density of 40 units per acre and rezone Site 2 to permit multifamily housing at a density of 20 units per acre
● Reduce the minimum front yard setback to 30 feet
● Amend the height limit to allow 4 stories at 48 feet
● Permit multifamily housing by right with objective design standards With the zoning amendment, new multifamily housing would be feasible at the Menlo College campus and would provide housing for a range of income categories, most notable in the very-low to low and moderate income range. The new multifamily housing would also provide accessible units." pg. 70 MENLO SCHOOL
"Two housing sites have been identified on the Menlo School campus following a review of site improvements:
Site 1: An approximate 56,000 square foot (1.28 acre) surface parking lot located in the southwest corner of the campus with frontage on Valparaiso Avenue and the school entry drive. A 75-foot setback for buildings higher than 22 feet is required by the zoning along the west property line (adjacent to single family homes). An emergency access road required by the Menlo Park Fire District exists within this 75- foot setback (perimeter fire road). At a density of 20- units per acre, this site could yield 25 dwelling units.
With the zoning amendment, new multifamily housing would be feasible at the Menlo College campus and would provide housing for a range of income categories, most notable in the very-low to low and moderate income range.
Parking to meet school demand would need to be provided either below grade or in a structure Site 2: An approximate 44,000 square foot (1 acre) surface parking lot is located in the southeast corner of the campus with frontage on Valparaiso Avenue and the school entry drive. (this is the part of the parking lot directly behind the end of Douglass Way) A 75-foot setback for buildings higher than 22 feet is required by the zoning along the east property line. An emergency access road required by the Menlo Park Fire District exists within this 75-foot setback (perimeter fire road). At a density of 20- units per acre, this site could yield approximately 20 dwelling units.
To accommodate the new housing development, the zoning will be amended as follows:
● Rezone sites 1 and 2 to permit multifamily housing at a density of 20 units per acre ● Reduce the minimum front yard setback to 30 feet (along Valparaiso Road) ● Amend the height limit to allow 4 STORIES of 48 feet
● Permit multifamily housing by right with objective design standards With the zoning amendment, new multifamily housing would be feasible at the Menlo School campus and would provide housing for a range of income categories, most notable in the very-low to low and moderate income range. The new multifamily housing would also provide accessible units.
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023, 10:06:05 AM PST, Rick DeGolia <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Andrea,
I know that I have been slow in responding to you. This is a very difficult and challenging issue for which there are no actual solutions, given the relentless and extremely unfair push from Sacramento.
To respond in brief, nobody wants multi-family housing near where they live. According to our consultants, we will either have to accept it or the state will take over our zoning and they will force it. Fighting them legally is occurring in the state. Atherton isn’t a good plaintiff because we are a total target for the housing advocates who will attack us relentlessly and who actually want us to fight them because of that.
I believe that the only way affordable housing can get built in Atherton is if land doesn’t have to transfer ownership.
The cost of land is just too high. If you accept that premise, then there are only two options: ADUS or multi-family housing on school property. The schools desperately need staff housing. People who work for Atherton residents need affordable, local housing. The council approved upzoning all school property, subject to reasonable, protective setbacks and height limits. We approved a four story building on Menlo College because it faced ECR without any residents close by. We approved upzoning Menlo School for housing in its parking lots (or elsewhere with reasonable setbacks). We did not approve increases the height on Menlo School property to 4 stories.
With respect the zoning on ECR, the council approved upzoning 17 properties facing ECR on the north end of town.
In my opinion, the problem with that proposal is that it targeted only 17 of 88 Atherton properties that touch ECR.
Further, it proposed a total zoning change, rather than an overlay which would give the property owner control over what goes on their property. And, finally (and perhaps most importantly), it didn’t require that the entrance and exit of any new multi-family development must be on ECR. With the driveway remaining on the current side street or cul-de-sac, then there would be a significant adverse impact on every other property that uses that side street and that is an unnecessary impact.
While I do not support the requirement that Atherton zone for multi-family housing on our single family lots, and I believe that the only way that affordable housing in Atherton can be built is if there is no land transfer (meaning that the only real affordable housing will come from ADUs and multi-family housing on existing school property), if forced I could support a multi-family overlay on all properties on ECR; however, that is not what I want and I don’t think that it will result in any newly available affordable housing.
I am very interested in your thoughts on this. I listened carefully to your comments at the council meeting and I very much appreciate your involvement. Please stay involved.
Rick DeGolia
Atherton City Council
Atherton, CA 94027
From: Andrea Luskin
Date: Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 1:44 PM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Rick DeGolia <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Housing Element plans potential impact on Victoria Manor neighborhood ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Andrea Luskin <[email protected]>
To: Atherton City Council Rick DeGolia <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023, 08:49:14 PM PST
Subject: Housing Element plans potential impact on Victoria Manor neighborhood Hi Rick,
Hope you and your family enjoyed some peace and joy during the holiday break! Writing to get your thoughts and ask for your advice re advocating for scaling back some of the excessive changes that were included in the housing draft plan posted online on Jan 13 AND now the new Planning Commission recommendation.
Regarding both the Jan 13 draft and the new proposal from the Planing Commission, many in our neighborhood are alarmed that the council is considering offering up by right privileges for Menlo School to build a 48 ft tall, 4 story, 20 unit building on their South East parking lot within just 75 feet of the end of our Douglass Way cul-de-sac. A building of that height there will destroy the privacy and peace of almost our entire street as well as part of Leon way.
Personally, we're 3 houses down from the cul-de-sac on the North side of Douglass. Our family room, kitchen and bedroom, the rooms where we spend 95% of our time in our house have that exact view, which currently is trees and sky, as does much of our backyard.
Seems to me, that as was done with the proposed Menlo College locations, if 3 and 4 stories multi-family units are going to be approved by right at Menlo School, they should be in the center of campus and/or away from the property lines of residences. If there's not sufficient empty land in the center and Menlo wants to build (though we've heard repeatedly from Than Healy, the head of school, that they don't), then they should add on to or convert existing buildings to housing and replace any lost classroom space with 2 story buildings in the parking lots.
I know Bill Widmer was objecting to this piece of the plan realizing the damage it would do to our neighborhood, am wondering what your thoughts are on this piece, if you believe there are other Council members who would be willing to vote to alter this part of the plan, and at this point are emails, whether they're a single email representing the thoughts of most of our neighborhood or many individual emails at all helpful in advocating for change? Regarding the Planning Commission's Jan 20th recommendation to include all of El Camino and Valparaiso in a multi-family overlay, that would mean between the Menlo College and Menlo School building sites, the ENTIRE PERIMETER. all 4 sides, OF OUR beautiful, peaceful NEIGHBORHOOD would be subject to high density, 4 story buildings. How is that in any way reasonable?
The Jan 13 draft plan already has approx. 30% more housing units identified than the RHNA requires. I think I'm probably preaching to the choir with you, but my thinking is I'm not sure why the council would offer even more up. If the planning commission wants to alleviate pressure on the north end of El Camino and spread the pain, why not include homes near the north end of Middlefield where residents could easily walk to the nearby school and grocery store and jobs on the border of Redwood city? Or homes all along Middlefield since there's a bus route there? Or, homes off of Alameda within blocks of commercial activity on Woodside road?, or select some other neighborhood, like Shearer Drive, that's close enough to El Camino for residents to access transportation on El Camino and shopping and jobs at the Target shopping Center. I'm wondering how certain council members would decide to move forward if it was their entire neighborhood that was being offered up for destruction.
If the council feels like it needs provide more solutions beyond ADU'S, Menlo College, and Oakwood, (I don't think it does), rather than destroying entire neighborhoods and the value of people's investments in those neighborhoods due to the threat of development, even if development doesn't happen, seems like a more equitable approach would be to overlay the whole town and stipulate that just 1 multifamily development can take place within a neighborhood/part of town and any others need to be a specified distance away - say 1/2 mile.
And, in those locations, allow higher density BUT limit the height of multifamily developments to the existing max of 34 feet so while traffic and quiet will be impacted at least people's views won't be destroyed.
Rick, thank you for reading through all of this and trying to advocate to protect our way of life and most valuable assets.
Look forward to hearing your thoughts and suggestions!
Best,
Andrea
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023, 10:06:05 AM PST, Rick DeGolia <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Andrea,
I know that I have been slow in responding to you. This is a very difficult and challenging issue for which there are no actual solutions, given the relentless and extremely unfair push from Sacramento.
To respond in brief, nobody wants multi-family housing near where they live. According to our consultants, we will either have to accept it or the state will take over our zoning and they will force it. Fighting them legally is occurring in the state. Atherton isn’t a good plaintiff because we are a total target for the housing advocates who will attack us relentlessly and who actually want us to fight them because of that.
I believe that the only way affordable housing can get built in Atherton is if land doesn’t have to transfer ownership.
The cost of land is just too high. If you accept that premise, then there are only two options: ADUS or multi-family housing on school property. The schools desperately need staff housing. People who work for Atherton residents need affordable, local housing. The council approved upzoning all school property, subject to reasonable, protective setbacks and height limits. We approved a four story building on Menlo College because it faced ECR without any residents close by. We approved upzoning Menlo School for housing in its parking lots (or elsewhere with reasonable setbacks). We did not approve increases the height on Menlo School property to 4 stories.
With respect the zoning on ECR, the council approved upzoning 17 properties facing ECR on the north end of town.
In my opinion, the problem with that proposal is that it targeted only 17 of 88 Atherton properties that touch ECR.
Further, it proposed a total zoning change, rather than an overlay which would give the property owner control over what goes on their property. And, finally (and perhaps most importantly), it didn’t require that the entrance and exit of any new multi-family development must be on ECR. With the driveway remaining on the current side street or cul-de-sac, then there would be a significant adverse impact on every other property that uses that side street and that is an unnecessary impact.
While I do not support the requirement that Atherton zone for multi-family housing on our single family lots, and I believe that the only way that affordable housing in Atherton can be built is if there is no land transfer (meaning that the only real affordable housing will come from ADUs and multi-family housing on existing school property), if forced I could support a multi-family overlay on all properties on ECR; however, that is not what I want and I don’t think that it will result in any newly available affordable housing.
I am very interested in your thoughts on this. I listened carefully to your comments at the council meeting and I very much appreciate your involvement. Please stay involved.
Rick DeGolia
the normal course of business,
may be subject to disclosure to any person upon request.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rick DeGolia <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Housing Element plans potential impact on Victoria Manor neighborhood MORE
Date: January 26, 2023 at 9:30:42 AM PST
To: Andrea Luskin <
Cc: George Rodericks <[email protected]>
Andrea,
While this feels like the last minute because we have a deadline of approving a plan on January 31, this isn’t by any means the last minute. We can amend whatever we file and we are very likely to be rejected by HCD because that is what they do. I expect this to continue in an intense discussion with HCD as we seek to get them to approve a plan that the Town self-certifies and I expect that process to last more than a year, so this isn’t the last minute.
Rick
Rick DeGolia
Atherton City Council
Atherton, CA 94027
From: Andrea Luskin <
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 8:22 PM
To: Rick DeGolia <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Housing Element plans potential impact on Victoria Manor neighborhood MORE [The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Rick, one additional and I believe highly important point just dawned on me:
The traffic congestion that would be caused by the addition of any additional cars beyond those generated from 60 new units at Menlo College and 20 new units at Menlo School on these two little .3 mile strips of road would likely result in the inability of emergency vehicles - be it ambulances, fire or police to access our neighborhood. It might already be problematic solely with the addition of the Menlo School and College building the council is planning to authorize.
If this wasn't sprung on us at the last limit, I'm highly confident an inquiry to the powers in charge at the Fire District would result in a response that even more dense building in this tiny block would be hazardous, and any decision to do so negligent.
Would love to hear your thoughts on this and all below.
Regards,
Andrea Luskin
Douglass Way
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023, 01:59:54 AM PST, Andrea Luskin > wrote:
Dear Rick,
Thank you so much for your comprehensive response. A few minutes before your letter arrived I included you in a new letter I sent to the whole council but I'd like to take the opportunity here to directly address the thoughts you shared in your letter below.
As I stated in the group letter, I really do appreciate the incredibly difficult position the state is putting the town in.
I agree with your premise that the only realistic way affordable housing will be built is if it's on land already owned, which mostly means ADU's and Schools (though also could include Oakwood, and the huge lot on Atherton Ave, and perhaps the house at the park, though I know there are complications with that)
Regarding the schools, I have no issue with the Site approved for a 4 story Menlo College building. I think its very important we have some reasonably priced housing for teachers and staff and that seems like an excellent location for multi-story high density housing as it's set far enough away from single home residences as to not adversely impact their privacy, solitude, and character of the neighborhood . Regarding Menlo School, however, the Council draft plan posted on Jan 11th includes language directly referencing allowing 48 ft tall buildings, by right, requiring an only 75 ft setback from the Douglass Way cul de sac border, directly behind two Douglass Way homes. (I've included the language that appears on the plan that addresses this (from pages 69 and 70) at the bottom of this email). As mentioned above, I 'm in support of affordable housing for teachers and staff, however the same thoughtfulness as to the height and location of high density housing at Menlo School should be applied as was at Menlo College, and this is currently not the case.
Regarding an overlay, I agree that this is substantially better for existing homeowner than a rezone. I also understand HCD doesn't look at this as favorably as a rezone and therefore the advice from consultants is to expand the area.
Regarding ingress/egress, I'm also of course in full agreement with you that having ingress and egress to a multifamily building onto a cul-de-sac or small lane would cause significant adverse impact.
Because of this, it's imperative that plots be identified that allow the volume of cars associated with multi-family housing to safely enter and exit on roads that are large enough to handle them without putting all those who already use those roads at risk.
Neither the homes on Victoria Drive that border El Camino, nor the homes on Douglass Way that border Valparaiso meet this safety criteria.
In the case of the homes in Victoria Manor that border El Camino, below are the many reasons why high density housing would be unsafe there:
the lots are too shallow to accommodate multi-family parking and safe ingress and egress on to El Camino.
the intersection of El Camino and Valparaiso is already overly congested and due to the right turn only lane on this section of El Camino, all these cars would be forced to turn West up Valparaiso.
This creates another safety issue, as the entrance to Victoria Manor is just about 50 ft. up from this intersection and is already incredibly difficult to enter and exit additionally, Valparaiso being a one lane road, supporting 3 nearby schools and hundreds of school children and bicycle riders is like a parking lot during certain times of the day.
Not only is it dangerous to school children to add all these additional cars to Valparaiso but the cars coming out of housing on El Camino that are forced to turn West on Valparaiso when they really want to head South, East, or North will attempt to turn off of Valparaiso as soon as they can, which means trying to turn left on Hoover (or Crane if they miss Hoover), which can create a back-up all the way back into the El Camino intersection, as well as completely blocking the entrance and exit into Victoria Manor furthermore, when the authorized development takes place at Menlo College and Menlo School, another huge number of additional cars will be dumping out on this one tiny section of road. It's unfathomable how the roadway could possibly handle all of this.
In the case of the homes on Douglass Way that border Valparaiso, below are the many reasons high density housing would be unsafe there:
there would be no way to safely enter and exit onto this section of Valparaiso that is so close to El Camino
Valparaiso is a one lane road, filled with hundreds of kids and bike lanes that is so congested at times it barely moves
all the residents exiting multi-family housing onto Valparaiso would be forced to turn West even if that's not the direction they need to head, therefore they would back up all the traffic behind them as they attempt to turn left across bikes lanes, and if they're attempting to drive the other direction during the morning or during afternoon school release time, they would need to execute turns cutting through gaggles of children on their way to and from school.
adding to the safety hazard, just a few more yards up the road, another new huge source of congestion that will clog Valparaiso will result from the planned development of high density housing at Menlo School.
Rick I understand your sentiment that if you feel "forced" to offer up multi-family sites that you don't just want to put all the burden on the North end of El Camino. However, I don't see how anyone could feel it's reasonable to paint one or two geographical swaths of land (El Camino and Valparaiso) with a multi-family overlay without taking into consideration the constraints of the particular sites.
Including sites such as those in the Victoria Manor neighborhood that can in no way safely handle the density is clearly not the right thing to do.
Additionally, using the reasoning you referenced in your thoughts that it's unfair to place so much burden on just one small North section of El Camino, you would be doing the same thing to Victoria Manor by including any part of it in the overlay, as you're already going to be impacting the neighborhood with highly dense housing on 2 of our 4 borders at Menlo College and Menlo School. It would therefore not only be incredibly unsafe but also massively inequitable to place this amount of burden on Victoria Manor by including it in an overlay.
It's hard to imagine that HCD is going to have an issue if the 10 homes on Victoria Drive that border ECR are not on the overlay and the plan instead includes 78 homes rather than 88 homes on El Camino. Likewise, it's inconceivable that the removal of 5 homes on Douglass Way is going to negatively impact their assessment of the plan. To the contrary, you're much more likely to get approved if you include sites that have a realistic chance for development.
Given the above information I've shared with you, I don't see how any of the council members could reasonably believe that including the 2 remaining borders of Victoria Manor in an overlay is the best way to proceed.
Rick I hope this more detailed reasoning explaining why I'm requesting the council pull Victoria Manor from the overlay is clear. And likewise, I hope you'll advocate for this position.
Please let me know your thoughts, if there's anything you disagree with in the above, and if there's anything more I can or should do to persuade you or others to vote for a plan that does not include Victoria Drive and Douglass Way in an overlay zone.
I really appreciate your open mind and willingness to take the above into full consideration.
Best,
Andrea Luskin
Douglass Way
---------------------------------------------------
From the Jan 11 Housing Plan Draft...
pg 69
"Based on discussions with the College President and a review of site improvements, two viable locations on the property for multifamily housing have been identified.
Site 1: The existing O’Brien surface parking lot at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Alejandra Avenue is approximately 75,000 square feet (1.7 acres) in area. The site is level and currently contains a paved parking lot.
The lot is surrounded by mature vegetation. Construction of a multi-family housing building is feasible at this location with podium parking at ground level and 3 stories of housing above, or below grade parking. The town does not have on-site parking requirements. Parking would be replaced to meet the needs of the college. The Town will rezone this site to permit 40 units per acre by right with objective design standards. The College has expressed interest in developing 60 dwelling units at this site.
Site 2: There are four residences located on the campus in WWII barracks that are currently utilized for faculty housing. Demolition of these residences would accommodate 30 apartment units, resulting in a net increase of 26 multifamily housing units.
Both housing sites on the Menlo College campus are located near a public transportation route (SamTrans bus route on El Camino Real) and would therefore qualify for State mandated reduced parking provisions. To accommodate the new housing development, the zoning will be amended as follows:
● Rezone Site 1 to permit multifamily housing at a density of 40 units per acre and rezone Site 2 to permit multifamily housing at a density of 20 units per acre
● Reduce the minimum front yard setback to 30 feet
● Amend the height limit to allow 4 stories at 48 feet
● Permit multifamily housing by right with objective design standards With the zoning amendment, new multifamily housing would be feasible at the Menlo College campus and would provide housing for a range of income categories, most notable in the very-low to low and moderate income range. The new multifamily housing would also provide accessible units." pg. 70 MENLO SCHOOL
"Two housing sites have been identified on the Menlo School campus following a review of site improvements:
Site 1: An approximate 56,000 square foot (1.28 acre) surface parking lot located in the southwest corner of the campus with frontage on Valparaiso Avenue and the school entry drive. A 75-foot setback for buildings higher than 22 feet is required by the zoning along the west property line (adjacent to single family homes). An emergency access road required by the Menlo Park Fire District exists within this 75- foot setback (perimeter fire road). At a density of 20- units per acre, this site could yield 25 dwelling units.
With the zoning amendment, new multifamily housing would be feasible at the Menlo College campus and would provide housing for a range of income categories, most notable in the very-low to low and moderate income range.
Parking to meet school demand would need to be provided either below grade or in a structure Site 2: An approximate 44,000 square foot (1 acre) surface parking lot is located in the southeast corner of the campus with frontage on Valparaiso Avenue and the school entry drive. (this is the part of the parking lot directly behind the end of Douglass Way) A 75-foot setback for buildings higher than 22 feet is required by the zoning along the east property line. An emergency access road required by the Menlo Park Fire District exists within this 75-foot setback (perimeter fire road). At a density of 20- units per acre, this site could yield approximately 20 dwelling units.
To accommodate the new housing development, the zoning will be amended as follows:
● Rezone sites 1 and 2 to permit multifamily housing at a density of 20 units per acre ● Reduce the minimum front yard setback to 30 feet (along Valparaiso Road) ● Amend the height limit to allow 4 STORIES of 48 feet
● Permit multifamily housing by right with objective design standards With the zoning amendment, new multifamily housing would be feasible at the Menlo School campus and would provide housing for a range of income categories, most notable in the very-low to low and moderate income range. The new multifamily housing would also provide accessible units.
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023, 10:06:05 AM PST, Rick DeGolia <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Andrea,
I know that I have been slow in responding to you. This is a very difficult and challenging issue for which there are no actual solutions, given the relentless and extremely unfair push from Sacramento.
To respond in brief, nobody wants multi-family housing near where they live. According to our consultants, we will either have to accept it or the state will take over our zoning and they will force it. Fighting them legally is occurring in the state. Atherton isn’t a good plaintiff because we are a total target for the housing advocates who will attack us relentlessly and who actually want us to fight them because of that.
I believe that the only way affordable housing can get built in Atherton is if land doesn’t have to transfer ownership.
The cost of land is just too high. If you accept that premise, then there are only two options: ADUS or multi-family housing on school property. The schools desperately need staff housing. People who work for Atherton residents need affordable, local housing. The council approved upzoning all school property, subject to reasonable, protective setbacks and height limits. We approved a four story building on Menlo College because it faced ECR without any residents close by. We approved upzoning Menlo School for housing in its parking lots (or elsewhere with reasonable setbacks). We did not approve increases the height on Menlo School property to 4 stories.
With respect the zoning on ECR, the council approved upzoning 17 properties facing ECR on the north end of town.
In my opinion, the problem with that proposal is that it targeted only 17 of 88 Atherton properties that touch ECR.
Further, it proposed a total zoning change, rather than an overlay which would give the property owner control over what goes on their property. And, finally (and perhaps most importantly), it didn’t require that the entrance and exit of any new multi-family development must be on ECR. With the driveway remaining on the current side street or cul-de-sac, then there would be a significant adverse impact on every other property that uses that side street and that is an unnecessary impact.
While I do not support the requirement that Atherton zone for multi-family housing on our single family lots, and I believe that the only way that affordable housing in Atherton can be built is if there is no land transfer (meaning that the only real affordable housing will come from ADUs and multi-family housing on existing school property), if forced I could support a multi-family overlay on all properties on ECR; however, that is not what I want and I don’t think that it will result in any newly available affordable housing.
I am very interested in your thoughts on this. I listened carefully to your comments at the council meeting and I very much appreciate your involvement. Please stay involved.
Rick DeGolia
Atherton City Council
Atherton, CA 94027
From: Andrea Luskin
Date: Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 1:44 PM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Rick DeGolia <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Housing Element plans potential impact on Victoria Manor neighborhood ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Andrea Luskin <[email protected]>
To: Atherton City Council Rick DeGolia <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023, 08:49:14 PM PST
Subject: Housing Element plans potential impact on Victoria Manor neighborhood Hi Rick,
Hope you and your family enjoyed some peace and joy during the holiday break! Writing to get your thoughts and ask for your advice re advocating for scaling back some of the excessive changes that were included in the housing draft plan posted online on Jan 13 AND now the new Planning Commission recommendation.
Regarding both the Jan 13 draft and the new proposal from the Planing Commission, many in our neighborhood are alarmed that the council is considering offering up by right privileges for Menlo School to build a 48 ft tall, 4 story, 20 unit building on their South East parking lot within just 75 feet of the end of our Douglass Way cul-de-sac. A building of that height there will destroy the privacy and peace of almost our entire street as well as part of Leon way.
Personally, we're 3 houses down from the cul-de-sac on the North side of Douglass. Our family room, kitchen and bedroom, the rooms where we spend 95% of our time in our house have that exact view, which currently is trees and sky, as does much of our backyard.
Seems to me, that as was done with the proposed Menlo College locations, if 3 and 4 stories multi-family units are going to be approved by right at Menlo School, they should be in the center of campus and/or away from the property lines of residences. If there's not sufficient empty land in the center and Menlo wants to build (though we've heard repeatedly from Than Healy, the head of school, that they don't), then they should add on to or convert existing buildings to housing and replace any lost classroom space with 2 story buildings in the parking lots.
I know Bill Widmer was objecting to this piece of the plan realizing the damage it would do to our neighborhood, am wondering what your thoughts are on this piece, if you believe there are other Council members who would be willing to vote to alter this part of the plan, and at this point are emails, whether they're a single email representing the thoughts of most of our neighborhood or many individual emails at all helpful in advocating for change? Regarding the Planning Commission's Jan 20th recommendation to include all of El Camino and Valparaiso in a multi-family overlay, that would mean between the Menlo College and Menlo School building sites, the ENTIRE PERIMETER. all 4 sides, OF OUR beautiful, peaceful NEIGHBORHOOD would be subject to high density, 4 story buildings. How is that in any way reasonable?
The Jan 13 draft plan already has approx. 30% more housing units identified than the RHNA requires. I think I'm probably preaching to the choir with you, but my thinking is I'm not sure why the council would offer even more up. If the planning commission wants to alleviate pressure on the north end of El Camino and spread the pain, why not include homes near the north end of Middlefield where residents could easily walk to the nearby school and grocery store and jobs on the border of Redwood city? Or homes all along Middlefield since there's a bus route there? Or, homes off of Alameda within blocks of commercial activity on Woodside road?, or select some other neighborhood, like Shearer Drive, that's close enough to El Camino for residents to access transportation on El Camino and shopping and jobs at the Target shopping Center. I'm wondering how certain council members would decide to move forward if it was their entire neighborhood that was being offered up for destruction.
If the council feels like it needs provide more solutions beyond ADU'S, Menlo College, and Oakwood, (I don't think it does), rather than destroying entire neighborhoods and the value of people's investments in those neighborhoods due to the threat of development, even if development doesn't happen, seems like a more equitable approach would be to overlay the whole town and stipulate that just 1 multifamily development can take place within a neighborhood/part of town and any others need to be a specified distance away - say 1/2 mile.
And, in those locations, allow higher density BUT limit the height of multifamily developments to the existing max of 34 feet so while traffic and quiet will be impacted at least people's views won't be destroyed.
Rick, thank you for reading through all of this and trying to advocate to protect our way of life and most valuable assets.
Look forward to hearing your thoughts and suggestions!
Best,
Andrea
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023, 10:06:05 AM PST, Rick DeGolia <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Andrea,
I know that I have been slow in responding to you. This is a very difficult and challenging issue for which there are no actual solutions, given the relentless and extremely unfair push from Sacramento.
To respond in brief, nobody wants multi-family housing near where they live. According to our consultants, we will either have to accept it or the state will take over our zoning and they will force it. Fighting them legally is occurring in the state. Atherton isn’t a good plaintiff because we are a total target for the housing advocates who will attack us relentlessly and who actually want us to fight them because of that.
I believe that the only way affordable housing can get built in Atherton is if land doesn’t have to transfer ownership.
The cost of land is just too high. If you accept that premise, then there are only two options: ADUS or multi-family housing on school property. The schools desperately need staff housing. People who work for Atherton residents need affordable, local housing. The council approved upzoning all school property, subject to reasonable, protective setbacks and height limits. We approved a four story building on Menlo College because it faced ECR without any residents close by. We approved upzoning Menlo School for housing in its parking lots (or elsewhere with reasonable setbacks). We did not approve increases the height on Menlo School property to 4 stories.
With respect the zoning on ECR, the council approved upzoning 17 properties facing ECR on the north end of town.
In my opinion, the problem with that proposal is that it targeted only 17 of 88 Atherton properties that touch ECR.
Further, it proposed a total zoning change, rather than an overlay which would give the property owner control over what goes on their property. And, finally (and perhaps most importantly), it didn’t require that the entrance and exit of any new multi-family development must be on ECR. With the driveway remaining on the current side street or cul-de-sac, then there would be a significant adverse impact on every other property that uses that side street and that is an unnecessary impact.
While I do not support the requirement that Atherton zone for multi-family housing on our single family lots, and I believe that the only way that affordable housing in Atherton can be built is if there is no land transfer (meaning that the only real affordable housing will come from ADUs and multi-family housing on existing school property), if forced I could support a multi-family overlay on all properties on ECR; however, that is not what I want and I don’t think that it will result in any newly available affordable housing.
I am very interested in your thoughts on this. I listened carefully to your comments at the council meeting and I very much appreciate your involvement. Please stay involved.
Rick DeGolia
Atherton City Council
Atherton, CA 94027
From: Andrea Luskin <
Date: Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 1:44 PM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Rick DeGolia <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Housing Element plans potential impact on Victoria Manor neighborhood [The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Hi Rick,
In case the email I used below wasn't correct, I'm forwarding my email to the other addresses I have for you as well. Best, Andrea
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Andrea Luskin <[email protected]>
To: Atherton City Council Rick DeGolia <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023, 08:49:14 PM PST
Subject: Housing Element plans potential impact on Victoria Manor neighborhood Hi Rick,
Hope you and your family enjoyed some peace and joy during the holiday break! Writing to get your thoughts and ask for your advice re advocating for scaling back some of the excessive changes that were included in the housing draft plan posted online on Jan 13 AND now the new Planning Commission recommendation.
Regarding both the Jan 13 draft and the new proposal from the Planing Commission, many in our neighborhood are alarmed that the council is considering offering up by right privileges for Menlo School to build a 48 ft tall, 4 story, 20 unit building on their South East parking lot within just 75 feet of the end of our Douglass Way cul-de-sac. A building of that height there will destroy the privacy and peace of almost our entire street as well as part of Leon way.
Personally, we're 3 houses down from the cul-de-sac on the North side of Douglass. Our family room, kitchen and bedroom, the rooms where we spend 95% of our time in our house have that exact view, which currently is trees and sky, as does much of our backyard.
Seems to me, that as was done with the proposed Menlo College locations, if 3 and 4 stories multi-family units are going to be approved by right at Menlo School, they should be in the center of campus and/or away from the property lines of residences. If there's not sufficient empty land in the center and Menlo wants to build (though we've heard repeatedly from Than Healy, the head of school, that they don't), then they should add on to or convert existing buildings to housing and replace any lost classroom space with 2 story buildings in the parking lots.
I know Bill Widmer was objecting to this piece of the plan realizing the damage it would do to our neighborhood, am wondering what your thoughts are on this piece, if you believe there are other Council members who would be willing to vote to alter this part of the plan, and at this point are emails, whether they're a single email representing the thoughts of most of our neighborhood or many individual emails at all helpful in advocating for change? Regarding the Planning Commission's Jan 20th recommendation to include all of El Camino and Valparaiso in a multi-family overlay, that would mean between the Menlo College and Menlo School building sites, the ENTIRE PERIMETER. all 4 sides, OF OUR beautiful, peaceful NEIGHBORHOOD would be subject to high density, 4 story buildings. How is that in any way reasonable?
The Jan 13 draft plan already has approx. 30% more housing units identified than the RHNA requires. I think I'm probably preaching to the choir with you, but my thinking is I'm not sure why the council would offer even more up. If the planning commission wants to alleviate pressure on the north end of El Camino and spread the pain, why not include homes near the north end of Middlefield where residents could easily walk to the nearby school and grocery store and jobs on the border of Redwood city? Or homes all along Middlefield since there's a bus route there? Or, homes off of Alameda within blocks of commercial activity on Woodside road?, or select some other neighborhood, like Shearer Drive, that's close enough to El Camino for residents to access transportation on El Camino and shopping and jobs at the Target shopping Center. I'm wondering how certain council members would decide to move forward if it was their entire neighborhood that was being offered up for destruction.
If the council feels like it needs provide more solutions beyond ADU'S, Menlo College, and Oakwood, (I don't think it does), rather than destroying entire neighborhoods and the value of people's investments in those neighborhoods due to the threat of development, even if development doesn't happen, seems like a more equitable approach would be to overlay the whole town and stipulate that just 1 multifamily development can take place within a neighborhood/part of town and any others need to be a specified distance away - say 1/2 mile.
And, in those locations, allow higher density BUT limit the height of multifamily developments to the existing max of 34 feet so while traffic and quiet will be impacted at least people's views won't be destroyed.
Rick, thank you for reading through all of this and trying to advocate to protect our way of life and most valuable assets.
Look forward to hearing your thoughts and suggestions!
Best,
Andrea
From: Jan MacKenzie
To: Council
Subject: Last minute housing proposal
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 3:59:53 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 Council Members Widmer, DeGolia, Lewis, Hawkins-Manuelian, and Miles-Holland, We want you all to know that we are most grateful to those of you who have worked with our neighborhood over the years, coming to our meetings, sharing your views, listening to ours, attending emergency drills and sharing ADAPT goals for a safer, emergency ready Atherton. We are fully aware of your frustration with unreasonable state demands, and thank you for the hours spent on this issue, too many to count. I moved to Atherton at age 12, and love this Town.
We in Victoria Manor received the Town letter January 23rd stating that our Victoria Manor neighborhood would be included in the Overlay plan as part of the State housing requirement, due on January 31st.
This overlay would include 15 of the 28 homes, including our home of 51 years. Over the last twenty five years, we have organized as Victoria Manor Homeowners, helped by Scott Barnum, who started ADAPT, in order to meet regularly to promote safety, mutual assistance, and emergency preparedness. In fact, our neighborhood has been held up as a model of the benefits of cohesive organization and readiness, and we have been happy to spend time sharing our procedures, including yearly emergency drills. We are saddened to see that your proposal would be opening the door to development that would impact our neighborhood disproportionately.
We feel 15 of 28 homes is concentrating the burden in one area, and is completing the total surround, as we are bordered by Menlo College on one side, and Menlo School on another. We are supportive of any development they have completed and may conduct in the future. Despite the impact and over the years we have worked well with both schools. Our neighborhood gained a Caltrans grant to install the HooverValparaiso lighted crosswalk, that benefits us, but also the many students and faculty walking to town are now assured of a safer route. The new plans for development in our neighborhood would counteract the hard won safety we have achieved.
As you recall, we worked hard to help you understand why we were a poor area for consideration last summer, and we have attended most, if not all, housing meetings since. To have this sudden change and no opportunity to meet for discussion does not seem fair, to say the least.
As your plan needs to be submitted by January 31, we ask you to remove the 15 homes, 10 backing onto El Camino on Victoria, and 5 on Douglass backing onto Valparaiso, from the plan. You appear to have enough coverage to meet State criteria without this important corner. Since our sole ingress and egress is so close to the El Camino-Valparaiso intersection, it is hard to fathom the horrendous safety issue, not only for us, but for all the children biking to and from the several schools in the area, and walkers. We have had to wait to get onto Valparaiso for long periods of time even now, and cannot imagine a less safe, more congested situation should we be in the Overlay and open to all four sides to development.
Further, the properties on Victoria Drive are small in size, and likely to need several in a row for any development. We have no intention of selling our property in this 8 year cycle and are prepared to let the HCD know. There are certainly others who feel similarly. Our inclusion is not a realistic plan that could safely be implemented.
We do know you are struggling, and are tired. We strongly urge you to remove the Victoria Manor homes from the final proposal to the state. We don’t feel that these 15 lots would significantly affect the outcome, and inclusion would result in a huge safety problem for many.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely, Jan and Jim Mackenzie
Victoria Drive
Attn: Atherton City Council and City Manager
The undersigned* Atherton residents respectfully request that the homes in the Victoria Manor neighborhood bordering Valparaiso & El Camino be excluded from any zone identified as a Multi-Family overlay in the 2023 Atherton Housing Element Plan.
The state requires that the town conduct a thorough analysis of its properties and subsequently submit a plan that has a realistic chance of coming to fruition.
Due to the location of the Victoria Manor neighborhood, sandwiched between the very short blocks of road emanating from the already over-burdened El Camino and Valparaiso intersection, the Menlo College campus, and the Menlo School campus, and taking into consideration the additional highly dense development proposed to be built at Menlo College and Menlo School, there's no realistic way for the portion of El Camino and Valparaiso bordering Victoria Manor to safely support additional high-density development.
• cars would lack safe ingress and egress on these portions of both El Camino and Valparaiso
• school children and other residents walking and riding on the single lanes of Valparaiso would be put at serious risk
• the traffic congestion that would be caused by the addition of any additional cars beyond those generated from 60 new units at Menlo College and 20 new units at Menlo School on these two little .3 mile strips of road would result in the inability of emergency vehicles - be it ambulances, fire or police to quickly and effectively access our neighborhood
Additionally, we believe the town could be held liable for any accidents and deaths caused by the safety hazards that would be created due to their decision to unsafely zone Victoria Manor for high-density housing.
Also, as related to the viability of high-density housing in Victoria Manor, the 1/3 acres lots on Victoria Drive are of course too small to support multi-family housing.
The likelihood 2 or 3 next-door neighbors would want to sell at the same time is so improbable, that it would be disingenuous to include this as an option.
Furthermore, all of us who live in the potential zone you're considering including in an overlay have no intention of selling our home during the upcoming housing element cycle.
Jan and Jim MacKenzie Victoria Drive
Maria Burgato Victoria Drive
Shala Mostofi Victoria Drive
Adam, Shu-shen, Aaron, & Gour-Tsyh Yeh & Irene Change Victoria Drive Donna and Gary Wada Victoria Drive
Suzanne and Bob Couch 3 Victoria Drive
Fun Yuen Victoria Drive
Roopa and Sunil Shah Victoria Drive
Chris and Phil Brosterhous Victoria Drive
Sumiko and James Yoshida Leon Way
Narmina Sharifova and Cetin Ozbutun Leon Way
Drew Haydel Leon Way
Kana & JM Yujuico Leon Way
Megan and Parker Fields Leon Way
Shirley Ilg Leon Way
Deborah Blake Leon Way
Tracy and Ali Satvat Douglass Way
Homeowners Douglass Way
Phil Abrahamson and Dana Shelley Douglass Way
Anna Chase Douglass Way
Andrea Luskin and Andy Jeffrey Douglass Way
Tomi Miller Douglass Way
Denise and Nic Persson Douglass Way
Dick Shyoe Douglass Way
Natalya Guterman Douglass Way
Jan 29, 2023
* We have a hard copy signature sheet from all those home, and email requests from all those away and reachable confirming their inclusion.
From: Jan MacKenzie
To: Council
Cc: Andrea Luskin; Phil Abrahamson; Jeffrey Andy; Nic Persson Subject: Updated Petition from Victoria Manor Homeowners Date: Sunday, January 29, 2023 9:56:46 PM
Attachments: VM 129 Homeowners Housing Element Petition.pdf [The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear Council Members,
In addition to the 24 homes represented in our previously submitted petition, we would add another name, R.A.Shupe at Douglass Way, received today.
This brings the petition to 25 of the 28 homes in Victoria Manor. You may have thought there were 29 homes, but 98 Leon, the home of the President of Menlo College, was apparently re-zoned at some point in the past, as we recently discovered.
The remaining 3 residences not on the petition, are homes of neighbors currently out of the country, or out of town and unable to be reached.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jan Mackenzie, Victoria Drive
1 From: Mary Alexander >
Subject: Support of Overlay Proposal for Atherton Housing Element Date: January 23, 2023 at 1:23:58 PM PST
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> [The e‐mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear City Manager Rodericks:
I was very pleased to find in my mailbox today your letter stating that the Planning Commission recommends that the Housing Element plan remove the proposed upzoning of the 17 properties on Gresham Lane and replace it with an overlay zone on El Camino and Valparaiso.
This is to express my support for the plan for an overlay zone.
I was at the meeting on January 19 and expressed my concern regarding traffic and safety if there was if Gresham Lane was upzoned. I have owned and lived at 50 Gresham Lane for 33 years. Though my property was not one of the 17 lots along El Camino, I would be greatly adversely affected by the upzoning of those properties. All of us at that meeting are in favor of the overlay.
2 Thank you to the Council and you for considering the recommendation of the Planning Commission and I urge the Council to approve the overlay plan on January 31.
Sincerely,
Mary Alexander
Gresham Lane
Atherton
From: Katie McCormick
To: Council
Subject: Concerns about the development of 23 Oakwood Blvd Atherton Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 2:36:15 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 members,
I live in the Oakwood neighborhood across from the proposed development of 23 Oakwood Blvd Atherton. The Oakwood oval was originally a racetrack, if local lore is correct. It does not have a standard traffic flow at the top of the oval where 23 Oakwood Blvd is located. I live at the top of the oval on the West Oakwood side, and I drive through there every day. It is downright dangerous when multiple entities (cars, pedestrians, delivery trucks, etc.) are trying to negotiate right of way through that section at the same time. The addition of the traffic bollards has only made things worse, as competing vehicles face off at the single open lanes, playing a game of chicken to see who will get to go through first.
Add to that the school traffic on Selby Lane, and I am at a loss to understand how a plan like this could be proposed, much less approved. The infrastructure simply isn't there to support it. And that is just one of the many factors that make this plan a bad idea.
Sincerely,
Katherine McCormick
Oakwood Blvd.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Michael McPherson
Subject: Fwd: Housing at Holbrook Palmer Park
Date: January 30, 2023 at 1:11:03 PM PST
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Reply-To: Michael McPherson
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
George;
Please accept this email as evidence of my dissent to what I understand is a proposal to place multifamily housing in Holbrook Palmer Park.
As you may recall, at a previous Town Council meeting, where you brought up the possibility of workforce housing there, I made a public comment that I would not be opposed to a small amount of workforce housing.
The single-family home in the park, not on a separate parcel, has always, I believe, been utilized as workforce housing. City Managers, Chiefs of Police, and rank and file officers staying there between shifts have been the only inhabitants, again to my knowledge, for 35 years.
I object to any proposal that does not continue that long-standing principle. Once this housing is no longer desired or necessary, it would enhance the park to incorporate this additional square footage as usable space in the park.
The location does not provide for convenient public transportation, nor any accessible services, retail, etc., for those who are not entirely self-sufficient As I understood the criteria that has been established,
accessibility to public transportation and services are considered important.
I understand well the pressure the Council is under to satisfy this State mandate. Without upzoning, or overlaying parts of the town, I think it highly unlikely that a plan will pass HCD. To sacrifice space in the town's only park, which is well used by neighboring communities, makes no sense. Please allow the Town Consultants to give their opinion of this plan passing HCD scrutiny before impacting the Town's only park.
Thank you for your consideration.
Michael McPherson
Watkins Ave.
Please pass this along to members of the Town Council
From: Francine Miltenberger
To: Council
Subject: 23 Oakwood Blvd.
Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 4:40:13 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
To Atherton City Council
As a homeowner at W. Oakwood Blvd, I am writing to oppose the rezoning of the lot at 23 Oakwood Blvd. to R10. The R10 zoning would allow a developer to build up to 18 dwellings on the
1.5-acre parcel. That density is irresponsible and unconscionable for the location and frankly violates your own stated principles for identifying multi- family locations for your State mandated housing plan.
This location is not on a major arterial road or adjacent to commercial property. The neighborhood is designated as a walking neighborhood . Redwood City has installed bollards to restrict the number of cars travelling through the neighborhood. Our streets are actively used every day, by residents walking by themselves, with children, or with pets.
A development of that density would add 36 plus cars to the neighborhood and our infrastructure cannot support such an increase. We have no sidewalks, or traffic lights, it would create hazards for the people walking the neighborhood and fire safety challenges.
My fellow homeowners and I are no strangers to the trend toward greater housing density. In the last five years we have seen 2 single family lots turn into 9 single family homes and it is clear that will likely play out in our neighborhood on other selected lots. However, the proposal you are entertaining for 23 Oakwood is over the top. If you continue to keep that zoning in your proposal, you are showing a callous disregard for our safety and disrespect for your neighbors.
The lot in question is landlocked and has only one entrance /exit option onto Oakwood Blvd which concentrates the impact in one small corner of the neighborhood. No reasonable person would see the proposed density as fair or appropriate. In fact, some of you have even publicly acknowledged the inappropriateness of that much density at that location.
I have been following the iterations of the Atherton housing plan and applaud your planning commission for putting forward a reasonable overlay proposal at their last meeting.
For once, I
believe the scope and flexibility reflected in that plan gives Atherton a strong chance of passing the state review.
I know you have been running scared of losing control of your zoning . I also know you are faced with an aggressive developer who is bullying you on the 23 Oakwood Blvd. zoning. He has no respect for the neighborhood and will be gone after the building damage is done. We the residents will be left with the chaos and safety issues. I appeal to your better selves to do the right thing here and eliminate the R10 zoning on 23 Oakwood from your plan.
Regards,
Francine Miltenberger
Jaleh and Manou Movassate
Santiago Ave
Atherton, CA
Dear Town Council members,
We live on Santiago Avenue near the intersection of
Santiago and Valparaiso. We are very concerned about
the overlay zoning strategy that is being proposed for 22 lots along the Valparaiso/Atherton border.
It is hard to imagine multifamily housing units along this corridor because they would dramatically impact traffic patterns that are already extremely challenging.
What we most object to is that, while some neighborhoods are being penalized in order to meet new state housing
mandates, most are untouched by these requirements.
This is simply unfair.
We ask you to find better, more equitable solutions than are now on the table.
Thank you,
Jaleh and Manou Movassate
From: [email protected]
To: Council
Subject: curry
Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 10:11:30 PM
Attachments: image001.jpg
image002.jpg
image003.jpg
image004.jpg
[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
The people of California are outraged that NBA player Stephen Curry is not just a liberal Democrat but also a hypocrite. Despite being part of a nonprofit that “aims to promote economic equality and opportunity,” Curry and his wife are opposing construction of affordable housing development near their mansion. It’s classic NIMBY – Not in my back yard. We are furious Curry is opposing construction of a low-income multifamily unit next to his $30 million mansion, saying he has “major concerns” for his “privacy” and “safety.” Curry, who joined a nonprofit in 2021 focused on “bridging the racial wealth gap,” wrote a letter with his wife Ayesha asking the city reconsider the construction of a 16-unit property near their estate, and we demand construction to proceed NOW! “We hesitate to add to the ‘not in our backyard’ (literally) rhetoric, but we wanted to send a note before today’s meeting,” the couple wrote in the letter. “Safety and privacy for us and our kids continues to be our top priority.”
Atherton officials must meet a Tuesday deadline imposed by the state for cities to submit plans to build more affordable housing, and DENY the Currys’ request for higher fencing and landscaping to block sight lines between the properties. While the Golden State Warriors guard opposes affordable housing in his own neighborhood, Curry in 2021 joined the nonprofit NinetyToZero, which aims to promote economic equality and opportunity. "Bridging the racial wealth gap is one of the biggest challenges of our generation," Curry said at the time. "Uncovering solutions and creating opportunities is something I’m profoundly committed to." Curry is a longtime Democrat. He joined Obama for a town hall on racial equality in 2019. A year later, he put his kids in front of a camera during 2020 DNC to endorse Biden. He gave $10,000 to Colin Kaepernick-linked charities and called Trump’s 2024 run a ‘threat.”He wants to help the little guy, as long as it doesn’t happen in his neighborhood. The city has rich residents, does no need to Curry favor with NBA or anyone, so we demand MORE affordable housing, and the project expedited NOW! This message and any attached document is sent privately in the public interest and may contain humor, parody, satire, memes, candid, open, and truthful advice, recommendations, opinions, proposals, and information that is privileged, proprietary, non-public and exempt from disclosure, confidential or otherwise protected by law, and may be subject to executive, deliberative process or other privilege and is intended solely for the recipient and not for disclosure or distribution. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are prohibited from reviewing, retransmitting, printing, copying, scanning, disseminating, uploading or otherwise using in any manner this email or any attachments to it. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, modified, corrupted, lost, destroyed, manipulated, incomplete, arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors, revisions or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of email transmission or unauthorized disclosure or distribution.
From: Geoffrey Nudd
To: Council
Cc: George Rodericks
Subject: proposed overlay zone
Date: Saturday, January 28, 2023 3:48:54 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 Town Council,
Thank you for your hard work and dedication in managing our community through this challenging time. As a resident of Maple Avenue near the new library, I would like to advocate for the following points:
The new zoning should be distributed across Atherton instead of concentrating it on just two streets (El Camino and Valparaiso).
Any new multi-family housing should be required to prove that it will not negatively impact traffic, parking, and emergency access on small through-streets such as Maple Avenue. Clear standards should be established as a requirement for approval.
Properties on El Camino that are near access roads to the new Atherton Town Center (specifically Maple Ave, Walnut, and Fair Oaks) should not be included in the new zoning, as traffic has already dramatically increased due to the new library and poses a threat to safety on small streets that were not built to accommodate it.
Short term rentals and AirBnBs should not be allowed in any new multi-family housing.
Multi-family housing should adhere to height restrictions in the current zoning to preserve privacy and screening that has been established over decades.
I appreciate your leadership and service in tackling these challenges and considering the views of all residents.
Sincerely,
Geoff Nudd
41 Maple Avenue
Atherton, CA 94027
From: Geoffrey Nudd
To: Council
Cc: George Rodericks
Subject: proposed overlay zone
Date: Saturday, January 28, 2023 3:48:54 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 Town Council,
Thank you for your hard work and dedication in managing our community through this challenging time. As a resident of Maple Avenue near the new library, I would like to advocate for the following points:
The new zoning should be distributed across Atherton instead of concentrating it on just two streets (El Camino and Valparaiso).
Any new multi-family housing should be required to prove that it will not negatively impact traffic, parking, and emergency access on small through-streets such as Maple Avenue. Clear standards should be established as a requirement for approval.
Properties on El Camino that are near access roads to the new Atherton Town Center (specifically Maple Ave, Walnut, and Fair Oaks) should not be included in the new zoning, as traffic has already dramatically increased due to the new library and poses a threat to safety on small streets that were not built to accommodate it.
Short term rentals and AirBnBs should not be allowed in any new multi-family housing.
Multi-family housing should adhere to height restrictions in the current zoning to preserve privacy and screening that has been established over decades.
I appreciate your leadership and service in tackling these challenges and considering the views of all residents.
Sincerely,
Geoff Nudd
Maple Avenue
Atherton, CA 94027
From: Mari Korematsu
To: Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 75 Cebalo Lane
Date: Saturday, January 28, 2023 2:51:48 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Question to the Atherton City Council,
My 95 year old mother resides at 75 Cebalo Lane and has for many decades.
Her correspondence dated Jan 12 2023 did NOT include an accompanying map which highlighted properties under consideration for upzoning. I don't know if this omission was intentional but it seems disingenuous at best as it showed her neighbors highlighted on this map.
Why is her house now included in this upzoning? Her property is larger than the others listed.
Could it be because 78 Cebalo threw their hat in the ring and City Council decided to lop off the whole end of Cebalo Lane cul-de-sac? Your reasoning for consolidating smaller properties does not ring true for her.
My mother is 95 years old. Is she being singled out because she is elderly? Does she have to spend her waning years wondering if her property will be developed or listening to the sound of construction encroaching upon her peace? Did you hope she wouldn't read the long Draft Housing Element which at the last minute included her property? A response to these concerns would be appreciated.
Patricia Oda
From: Mari Korematsu
To: Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Cebalo Lane
Date: Saturday, January 28, 2023 2:51:48 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Question to the Atherton City Council,
My 95 year old mother resides at Cebalo Lane and has for many decades.
Her correspondence dated Jan 12 2023 did NOT include an accompanying map which highlighted properties under consideration for upzoning. I don't know if this omission was intentional but it seems disingenuous at best as it showed her neighbors highlighted on this map.
Why is her house now included in this upzoning? Her property is larger than the others listed.
Could it be because 78 Cebalo threw their hat in the ring and City Council decided to lop off the whole end of Cebalo Lane cul-de-sac? Your reasoning for consolidating smaller properties does not ring true for her.
My mother is 95 years old. Is she being singled out because she is elderly? Does she have to spend her waning years wondering if her property will be developed or listening to the sound of construction encroaching upon her peace? Did you hope she wouldn't read the long Draft Housing Element which at the last minute included her property? A response to these concerns would be appreciated.
Patricia Oda
From: Mari Korematsu
To: Council
Cc:
Subject: 75 Cebalo Lane
Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 8:32:45 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 Council Members,
Thank you for allowing my mother and I to submit our comments regarding the proposed upzoning to properties in the Draft Housing Element dated January 2023.
Our understanding from the correspondence provided to us thus far is that 17 properties that were targeted for upzoning in the Draft Element Housing were singled out because they were adjacent to ECR and were substantially less than one acre. I would like to respectfully point out that 75 Cebalo Lane is not adjacent to ECR and the property is approximately one acre.
So our belief is that 75 Cebalo does not meet the requirements as set forth in the Draft Housing Element and thus at the very least, should be deleted from being one of those properties being targeted for the upzoning,
Additionally we would like to point out that the original correspondence which was dated January 12, 2023 and was sent to the owner of 75 Cebalo Lane, did not include 75 Cebalo Lane as one of the properties targeted for the upzoning. The January 12, 2023 correspondence also did not include any map showing the targeted properties so our assumption was that 75 Cebalo Lane was not included on the list of targets for potential upzoning. However, on the next correspondence dated January 20, 2023, 75 Cebalo Lane was now included in the proposed list of properties targeted for upzoning.
Accordingly, we would like to request any and all written correspondence, minutes, notes or any other records, which would show how and why 75 Cebalo Lane was then included on the list of proposed properties being targeted for upzoning.
Once again, we would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to testify against the proposed upzoning of these 17 or 18 parcels in Atherton. In the alternative, or at the very least, delete 75 Cebalo Lane from the list as it is apparent that 75 Cebalo Lane does not meet the criterias as set forth in the Draft Housing Element.
Mari Korematsu
Maureen Lee
Patricia Oda
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE NOTICE:
This email and any attached files were sent from an email account assigned to a public official for the Town of Atherton. This email, replies to this email, or emails sent directly to this email account may constitute a public record and, if retained during the normal course of business, may be subject to disclosure to any person upon request.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ognjen Pavlovic
Subject: Re: [External] : Re: Housing Element Public Comment Jan 19th Date: January 23, 2023 at 10:32:02 AM PST
To: Rick DeGolia <[email protected]>
Cc: " George Rodericks
<[email protected]>
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Hi Rick,
Thank you very much for your response. We very much appreciate it. We also fully understand that the state requirements being applied on certain jurisdictions in CA do not make sense and singling out a single set of properties is unfair. We do very much appreciate you working to find a good solution in which the residents of most if not all of Atherton share in the impact and the solution.
We support the broad overlay at least across the ECR and Valparaiso corridor as well as developing the other sites without singling out few properties for simply a compliance reasoning. We’ll continue to be vocal.
Ognjen Pavlovic, Group Vice President
Oracle Cloud HCM
Work: +1.650.506.2809
From: Rick DeGolia <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 at 8:35 AM
To: Ognjen Pavlovic <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, George Rodericks <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] : Re: Housing Element Public Comment Jan 19th Dear Ognjen and Aline:
Thank you for your email. It is really important that Atherton residents reach out to the Council on these issues, otherwise we don’t necessarily understand how to best represent you. I 100% hear you, Ognjen, and am in this position for only one thing: to genuinely represent the interests and concerns of our residents. I did oppose the proposed rezoning of those 17 properties on ECR because I thought that rezoning was unfair to the residents and I am very pleased to know that those residents have unanimously indicated that they will not sell for development. As you indicate, that is very important for HCD to hear because it genuinely carries weight.
The overriding problem here is the state requirement that Atherton increase its housing units by about 15%. I believe that we properly put together a strategy to attempt to achieve this with ADUs, lot splits and multi-family housing at the schools, but that has been rejected by the state. The consequence of not complying with these intrusive requirements is that the state would take over our zoning entirely. We definitely don’t want that because they would allow rezoning everywhere.
My current conclusion is that the best solution is to not upzone any property but to allow an overlay, which gives the property owner the choice of remaining single family or building multi-family. I don’t want that, but I don’t see another way to reasonably seek compliance. I don’t think that this should be limited to one section of ECR. If we are going to do it, I think it should apply to all property on ECR; however, I do think that a condition of any multi-family development is that the new housing would only have a driveway onto ECR and not onto any side street or cul-de-sac. This isn’t what I want, but it seems to be the fairest approach. I would like to see the state requirements overturned, but that is not something that Atherton can be successful in pursuing because we are too much of a target for the housing advocates.
Thank you very much for your concern and I hope that you will remain vocal on this important issue, Rick DeGolia
Rick DeGolia
Atherton City Council
Atherton, CA 94027
From: Ognjen Pavlovic <
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 4:35 PM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Anthony Suber <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element Public Comment Jan 19th
[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 residents of Selby Lane for the past 18 years. Your plan to upzone the lots on Selby/Ceballo and Gresham makes no sense at all and it’s truly being proposed in bad faith to HCD on behalf of the town and their residents.
Specifically, the plan submitted to HCD needs to make sense and Mona Ebrahimi, Atherton City Attorney on Jan 12th stated the following on video ( around 35:00min): “It’s very important to HCD that the programs that are offered in the town’s housing element are capable of being accomplished and are feasible. So, they don’t want us to simply identify projects for the sake of identifying them projects that we believe there is no way of realistically coming to fruition.” In light of this comment, here are several reasons for why inclusion of these properties makes no sense at all:
#1) Current Owners Do not WANT to sell
Many if not all of the owners of the properties in question along this land stretch during the Jan 18th meeting have CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY stated that they don’t plan to sell their properties at any time over the next 8 years. How can you in good faith submit these properties when the residents have said they don’t plan to sell?
#2) Size of the lots.
HCD published guidelines state that lots smaller than 1 acre are not suitable for affordable/low income housing. This specific comment has been sent back by the HCD to pretty much every town who already submitted the plans under the heading “Small Sites” in the HCD responses. A 2 min google search will let you see the same HCD response to Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Menlo Park and the list goes on. How can Atherton in good faith propose the same that has already been provided as a non-acceptable guideline by the HCD.
#3) Low Income/Affordable Housing does not pass any logical and financial test.
Specifically, in order to build MFH a min of 3 properties need to be consolidated. Calculating the value of the land for the 3 properties from a sample of properties along the stretch comes out to $518K. That is the price of that land only! Now, lets add construction and developer profit and what would these new units need to sell for? $1.5 million, 2Mil, 2.5Mil? How is that you can in good faith claim that you are up-zoning these properties to build an affordable housing and submit these properties in the proposal.
Attached is a more detailed spreadsheet with the land cost calculation at today’s cost. #4) Income / Affordability
On June 23rd 2022, Lisa presented the income requirements for the low income/affordable housing.
Video. Starts around 1hr56min. Lisa stated: “for a 2 Bed Unit Max Income is $82 (very low income), $131K (low), $134(median).”
Based on the national mortgage/financing and Lisa’s guideline, 30% of income is what any family is expected to pay. So, based on those income levels, a very generous down payment, any calculator you choose will tell you that noone with those income levels won’t be able to even buy a land. Here is the table.:
Sites: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf From the document: If the parcel is more than 0.5 acres or less than 10 acres, is the size of the site automatically considered appropriate to accommodate lower income RHNA? Not necessarily. If the size of the parcel in combination with the allowable density and accompanying development standards cannot support a housing development affordable to lower income households, further analysis and programs may be needed to demonstrate the suitability of that site to accommodate the portion of the RHNA for lower income households.
The above 2 points clearly state that it’s not possible to provide affordable housing. How can you in good faith claim that these properties present an opportunity for affordable housing? #5) Finally, a recommendation by the consultant (Barbara ) on Dec 15th 2022 video (around 41m.57) that I heard was a totally IRRESPONSIBLE comment without any regard to residents due process.
Specifically, Barbara said through laughter: “You submit the plan and lets say you get a rejection HCD letter, but you should still go ahead with the re-zoning recommendations”. This is despite the fact that the residents and the town don’t want these recommendations.
Now, I grew up in a communist country. I immigrated to the US for a better opportunity and I truly came to the US with $60 in my pocket back in 1998. In communist countries the govts take away/change the property rights of the owners at their will and this actually happened to my family as well I have never in my life thought that a similar thing would happen to me in the United States.
NEVER. EVER. How can you even fathom to attempt to put selling restrictions on my property? How can you even think that changing from SFT and forcing us to sell the property as MFR ONLY is acceptable. And even worse, that the only way to sell as MFR only is that I have to agree to do the same with 2 other property owners. How can that be plan that the town agrees to.
Thank you.
Ognjen Pavlovic and Aline Ng
From: michelle olsen
To: Council
Cc: George Rodericks
Subject: High density/low cost housing
Date: Sunday, January 29, 2023 9:49:01 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 again.
As I’m sure you know, there is a grave concern about how this need for housing will be addressed.
I know that there is no way new construction housing will be “affordable” to a lower income family. The cost of acquiring a property and constructing a multi unit dwelling in Atherton will make that impossible. I believe the council’s idea of focusing on ADU construction is the only way to keep rents low.
For example, I could build an ADU and rent it to my daughter, who has special needs and will receive SSI. Next year, I will be looking at housing for her, and that would be an option.
If you are unable to persuade the state that this is literally the only way to add low rent units in Atherton, I agree with Julie Q that the area around the town center/library should be exempted from the zoning changes. I’ll copy part of her email her, and just add that since construction was completed, there is already a noticeable increase in traffic on Ashfield, Fair Oak and Maple.
“…it is more than reasonable for us to request that the Town Center area be removed from the overlay zoning area. We have already suffered through over two years of construction during a time when we were confined during the pandemic and so were stuck with the noise, trucks, and impeded access to our daily life routines (like going to the Park). Yet we were gracious when the Town asked to allow weekend work, which made our construction experience seven days a week. Opening the door to high density housing makes no sense from an urban planning perspective. Since construction finished we've experienced higher traffic and increased street parking due to library programs and people accessing the Town Center (and the Mademoiselle Collette cafe isn't even functioning yet). Adding the prospect of traffic and other impacts from high density housing is just piling on.
In addition, there are other places that have equivalent or better transportation corridor and service access:
Laurel Street, which already has multifamily housing on the Menlo Park side of the street and is walkable to El Camino and the CalTrain station Marsh Rd at Middlefield which is close to bus stops and closer to 101 and grocery shopping in Marsh Manor
Middlefield Rd which has several bus stops and better access to 101 and in some places closer to CalTrain and walkable to Menlo Park services.”
Thank you,
Dr Michelle Olsen
Ashfield
Sent from my iPad
From: 2DW LLC
To: Council
Subject: Objection to Zoning Overlay for Victoria Manner Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 12:03:33 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 Council members Widmer, DeGolia, Lewis, Holland, and HawkinsManuelian, I write to object to the proposed overlay allowing the development of multi-family homes on Victoria Drive and Douglass Way.
While I'm confident your intentions are good, the effect is not: The proposed overlay would allow 15 of 28 houses to become multi-unit homes. That's a 100%+ increase in families to a neighborhood with only ONE way in and out. More than DOUBLE. Just because it won't all happen on day one doesn't mean that it won't eventually happen.
As our neighbor Andrea Luskin phrased so well: "As the latest Planning Commission plan is constructed, the one neighborhood in Atherton that has been held up as an example for others to replicate, our neighborhood, Victoria Manor, is set to be crushed on all 4 sides by huge development. We have Menlo College bordering us on the North where you've already designated 60 units can be built by right, Menlo School bordering us on the West where you've designated another 20 units, and El Camino on the East and Valparaiso on the South where you're now considering an overlay zone."
Not only does dropping the bulk of Atherton's proposed new housing place an undue burden on our tiny three block neighborhood, it's going to be dangerous. It's already challenging to get in/out of this neighborhood onto Valparaiso during busy times and that's without 2x more houses and people parking on the streets. With that many more people, not only will residents have to wait 5-10 minutes to get out of the neighborhood at times (our egress is often determined by the light at El Camino and Valparaiso), but emergency services will often not be able to get IN.
Pedestrian safety is also a huge issue. Already, when people occasionally park on Victoria Dr., it turns the road into a one lane road. With people routinely parking on Victoria, it will permanently become a one lane road, making it impossible to navigate at certain times of the day and making it all the more dangerous for children who walk down Valparaiso toward El Camino against traffic (which they're forced by the crosswalk to do if they're coming into this neighborhood).
Please come walk this neighborhood if you have not already. Please have your consultants come walk the neighborhood, too. We are uniquely small for Atherton, both in lot size (you're proposing further subdividing 1/3 acre lots in a town with a 1 acre minimum) and number of houses using one means of ingress and egress. I can see how it would "seem" simple to "just" overlay the houses bordering El Camino, but the result for our little pocket of town would be to make the neighborhood impossible to navigate as both drivers and pedestrians. This is obvious when you've got "feet on the ground," but hard to perceive when you're just looking at a map.
As has been stated by so many of the neighbors: I strongly urge you to remove ALL of the homes in Victoria Manor from any El Camino and Valparaiso overlay you may be considering.
Regards,
Owner, 2 Douglass Way
From: Patricia Pellicena
To: Council
Subject: Stop the 23 Oakwood development
Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 10:36:13 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 Council,
I live a block from the proposed site. I believe that the high density housing would burden this small Redwood Oaks neighborhood, with more traffic, noise, and crowded pedestrian streets. Study the traffic pattern. This is an arterial street. We already have several high density housing complexes in this area, and more are being planned on the Redwood City side.
All cities on the peninsula are all contributing to the housing crisis. To this end, a converted hotel serving as a shelter for the unhoused has recently been placed around the corner from the proposed site, my neighborhood. This has had an enormous negative impact on our neighborhood, with for example, prospective tenants waiting outside openly doing drugs or simply passed out on the street. So when Atherton does its part to ameliorate the housing crisis, please consider not burdening this Redwoods Oaks neighborhood further. Consider pushing the comfort level of your residents instead at a different site, so that they are also aware of the crisis on a daily basis and they too can feel that they are doing their part.
Thank you,
Patricia Pell
From: Nic Persson
To: Council
Cc: Denise Persson
Subject: Victoria Manor homeowner comment on the HCD overlay zoning proposal Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 11:25:09 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 council members,
This is a comment on the proposed zoning overlay on my neighborhood, Victoria Manor, and I would like to start by thanking those of you that have graciously spent your time and communicated and interacted with us. I personally attended most of these zoom meetings and I think I speak for the whole neighborhood in that we are recognizing the hopeless situation the state has put you in.
These are complex times. As a homeowner one used to be able to rely on one thing, if you had found a location you loved, and you bought a house, even knowing that it cost a bit more than what was budgeted, at least it would be a good investment in the long run both in terms of quality of life and financially. I mean, if you can’t trust that your single-family neighborhood doesn’t suddenly turn into an apartment complex, how can any American ever dare to buy a house for his/her family? I think we all agree on this.
With that said, I also do feel some disappointment in the way this is being handled locally, and it is as a homeowner hard to understand how something as critical as most families main asset can be used as pawns this late in a game, with dramatic changes in strategy right before the vote. I am an architect by trade, so not unfamiliar with urban planning, and it would seem to me that the proper order here would be to first develop acceptable criteria for multi-family in terms of parking, ingress and egress, emergency vehicle access, proximity to school routes, existing traffic pattern, height and screening, etc. This to me would be the responsibility of a planning commission, and not to spend five minutes using a yellow marker to indiscriminately mark up everything along El Camino Real and Valparaiso.
If this homework had been done we would have had a list of criteria that easily would have identified suitable locations, street by street. Property values are also a consideration, and although I realize that no one in Sacramento will share a tear for a homeowner in Atherton, focusing on those areas with the lowest values would at least give developers a chance to develop low income housing.
Menlo Park has focused apartment housing along the train track, why can’t we? Obviously people would rather live away from those tracks, but it’s a start and hey, some of us would rather live away from multi family. A big part of Stockbridge is close to Woodside Plaza and public transportation.
Everything in Lindenwood against Bay Rd and Marsh Rd is close to Marsh Manor and public transportation. Most on Middlefield Rd would be at minimum just as suitable as Valparaiso. The whole area around Winchester Dr and Maple Ave already has multiple exits towards El Camino Real.
The list goes on, and I’m not saying these are better suited in real life, but if a well-thought-out analysis had taken place there would have been tangible arguments, it would decidedly have had involved more locations and therefore been perceived as more fair, and it would ultimately have had a bigger chance to be approved by HCD. Now we are facing a situation where neighborhoods such as ours will bombard HCD with letters, explaining how their neighborhood being a part of the proposal is indigenous and unrealistic, as its feasibility hasn’t been studied, and where HCD likely will sense that this is not a serious proposal.
This is your cross to bear, and my neighborhood has already argued its case, but in this moment, as an individual homeowner, my only course of action is to remind you that you are all of ours representatives and that it is your fiduciary duty to represent every single home in your town, and if it is deemed that a single property isn’t suitable for this development it has to come off the plan.
Just the fact that a house is on this map has wide repercussions, not just for the individual family’s equity, but for the whole neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Nic and Denise Persson
Douglass Way
Sent from my iPad
From: Maggie Pringle
To: Council
Subject: Fwd: Draft Housing Element
Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 9:36:47 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 Members,
Our family lives on Hesketh Drive in Menlo Park right off of Valparaiso. Yesterday, a neighbor sent us a copy of a letter postmarked January 23, 2023 from the Town of Atherton regarding the Draft Housing Element to address State Housing Mandates that includes allowing all of one side of Valparaiso from El Camino to Alameda de las Pulgas except Menlo and Sacred Heart Schools to be developed as multi-family housing.
We would like to express our strong objection to adding so much density over such a vast area where we are already experiencing extreme traffic surges throughout the day, particularly during commute times. That traffic filters onto our Menlo Park City streets. Much of the housing would not be close to the transportation corridor, so that the main form of transportation for the additional residents would be via automobile.
Building many more homes on such small lots would significantly change the neighborhood and decrease the value of the homes in West Menlo Park, while not directly affecting Atherton residents. It will also reduce the number of smaller single family homes available in our community. It seems that you are making a decision without the voices of your neighboring city.
While we appreciate the difficulty of fulfilling the State Requirements, we feel that better solutions are available closer to the transportation corridor that would not have such a negative impact on current residents, primarily in Menlo Park.
Thank you for considering our concerns.
Maggie Pringle
Hesketh Drive, Menlo Park
Our family lives on Hesketh Drive in Menlo Park.
Yesterday we received your letter dated January 20, 2023 with a postmark of January 23, 2023 from the Town of Atherton providing Notice of a Public Hearing next Tuesdayregarding an amendment to the Town’s General Plan to include 348 new low income housing units. Apart from the lack of timely notice, it is obvious from the map provided that Atherton intends for Menlo Park residents to solely bear the brunt of the increased traffic, construction, and negative impacts arising from the proposed update. This is unfair. Every single new housing element proposed by Atherton is located on Valparaiso Avenue. Five schools feed directly off of Valpraiso Avenue including Sacred Heart Prep, Menlo School, Hillview Middle School, Los Lomitas, and St. Raymond’s. The traffic during mornings and afternoons during the school year is horrible. It will be unmanageable if the proposed Housing Element becomes reality. Atherton should go back to the drawing board and more evenly spread the 348 units throughout the Town.
We strongly object the proposal and request that the new housing units be proposed that is interspersed throughout Atherton such that the impacts are more evenly spread throughout the Town. It is unacceptable for 100% of the new contemplated housing element to be located as planned and for Menlo Park residents living on our near Valpraiso Avenue to be the only ones impacted.
It also seems to us that if you truly desired a public hearing with input from potentially impacted parties, you would have made some effort to mail us the notice is a manner designed to arrive more than a few days for the mid-afternoon hearing. --
Maggie Pringle Grauer
NOTICE:
This email and any attached files were sent from an email account assigned to a public official for the Town of Atherton. This email, replies to this email, or emails sent directly to this email account may constitute a public record and, if retained during the normal course of business, may be subject to disclosure to any person upon request.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Christine David
Subject: Fwd: Town high density housing along El Camino Date: January 30, 2023 at 11:51:52 AM PST
To: Rick DeGolia <[email protected]>, George Rodericks
<[email protected]>
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Didn’t see either of you on this e-mail chain to our area.
Please note Julie Quinlan’s recent comments? I have got to agree with each of her points and hope you all will take these points under serious consideration. Julie beautifully characterized the multitude of comments Ive received from our little neighborhood we call EPA (East part of Atherton). The current proposals are unfair to our area and will radically change our somewhat peaceful lives. It’s not at all fair.
Looking forward to your continuous efforts to find a proposal that shares this weight equally among all Town residents.
Thank you both for all you do for our Town. You have my grateful appreciation.
Christine
Sent from my iPhone
Christine David
Begin forwarded message:
JulieI agree with your comments and hope we will not continue to be the dumping ground for all future housing projects.
Thanks for continuing to educate us all and speak up!
My thanks and appreciation always,
Christine
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Friday, January 27, 2023, 10:37 AM, Julie Quinlan
wrote:
Hi everyone,
While I appreciate Loren's opinion that overlay zoning is less restrictive/onerous than upzoning and that the Town is under pressure, don't kid yourself. Our area will still face a possibility of high density housing being built. This will bring more traffic through our neighborhoods and gum up El Camino. It is NOT in our best interest to simply write the Council and accede to the Planning Commission's proposal.
Instead, it is more than reasonable for us to request that the Town Center area be removed from the overlay zoning area. We have already suffered through over two years of construction during a time when we were confined during the pandemic and so were stuck with the noise, trucks, and impeded access to our daily life routines (like going to the Park). Yet we were gracious when the Town asked to allow weekend work, which made our construction experience seven days a week. Opening the door to high density housing makes no sense from an urban planning perspective. Since construction finished we've experienced higher traffic and increased street parking due to library programs and people accessing the Town Center (and the Mademoiselle Collette cafe isn't even functioning yet). Adding the prospect of traffic and other impacts from high density housing is just piling on.
In addition, there are other places that have equivalent or better transportation corridor and service access:
Laurel Street, which already has multifamily housing on the Menlo Park side of the street and is walkable to El Camino and the CalTrain station
Marsh Rd at Middlefield which is close to bus stops and closer to 101 and grocery shopping in Marsh Manor
Middlefield Rd which has several bus stops and better access to 101 and in some places closer to CalTrain and walkable to Menlo Park services.
This is a back-and-forth process with the state Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). Note that HCD could very well reject the overlay zoning proposal and demand upzoning. If we as residents have simply agreed to the overlay without forcing the Town to acknowledge the extra burdens we've faced due to Town projects and proposals, we will make ourselves easy targets for upzoning. We've already lived through the Town Center project and fended off additional projects targeted for our area (the water treatment facility proposal and a senior housing proposal). It's always us, and that's unfair.
Our area can't continue to be the "go-to" for Town projects. If HCD does accept this zoning overlay, even without upzoning, the prospect of high density housing and its negative impacts will always hang over our heads.
And we can't risk being on "the list" if HCD requires upzoning. Please take 10 minutes to write to the council to say "no" to overlay or ANY high-density housing zoning for the Town Center neighborhood. We've done enough.
Julie and Paul Quinlan
On Friday, January 27, 2023, 09:09:04 AM PST, Joan Cronin < wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 27, 2023, at 8:04 AM, Christine David
<
AllIn case you were unable to open Loren’s document I have copied the same belowBackground Information on the issue:
The Town is currently finalizing its Draft Housing
Element to address State housing mandates for the
2023– 2031 Housing Cycle. The Housing Element is
one of the nine required elements in the General Plan.
However, the Housing Element is the only element that
must be revised every eight (8) years.
The State mandates require that the Town provide and
plan for land use housing opportunities that meet verylow, low, moderate and above moderate, income levels. (If interested definitions for these income levels are
attached).
The Town must plan for 348 new housing units
distributed across these affordability categories, which includes 148 new housing units at the very-low and low
income categories.
While the Housing Element must be adopted on or
before January 31, 2023, any actual development would
occur over the next eight (8) plus years. As part of this process, the Town must also identify properties that are allowed, by law, to be developed as multi-family units
and at sufficient densities to satisfy the State’s
mandate.
Notes:
These state mandates do not align with how Atherton
has been zoned through the years so it is a very
challenging issue for all residents of Atherton. The
majority of residents in Atherton do not want zoning to change but the Planning Commission and the City
Council are being forced to come up with a Housing
element dictated by State Law.
The draft of the town of Atherton 2023-31 Housing
Element is on the Town of Atherton Website. The City
Council will be voting to adopt that Housing Element on January 31, 2023.
Within that document there are currently properties that were selected by the City Council to be up zoned to a
new category called RM 20. This is extremely bad
because the current home owners of these properties
would not be able to demolish their homes and build a
new single-family home, instead if at any point further development were to take place on the property, the
only option the home owner would be to sell to a
developer and have multi-family units built.
If the Council decides to move forward with the up zone optionas it is currently written, then the property values of those properties, and the properties around them,
may fall which is not good for Atherton home owners.
To find a better solution the Atherton Planning
Commission came up with an amendment that calls for
an overlay rather than a up zone. An overlay means
that an additional zoning category would be added to
the identified properties, but a homeowner would not be forced to adopt the new zone, but instead can chose to
keep their existing single-family zoning; they would not be forced to sell their property to a developer or have multi-family units build on their property. Instead, a
homeowner would still be allowed to function under their current zoning rules and could rebuild their single-family home if that chose to.
This overlay revision drafted by the Planning
Commission on January 19, 2023 would address the
State Mandate of identifying potential locations along a public right-of-way close to services, transit and jobs that potentially could be developed, but this solution
would not force any homeowner to lose their right to
keep their single-family home and retain their property value.
Please email each member of the City Council and ask
each of them to adopt the revised Draft Housing
Element with the Planning Commission recommended
Changes. We do not want any properties in Atherton to
be up zoned!!!
[email protected]
Dhawkins[email protected]
[email protected]
Sholland.ci.atherton.ca.us
[email protected]
Council Members
To contact all members of Council -
[email protected]. Best to send individual emails if you want any reply.
Definitions of Income Catagories
<A082B184-92DB-43A4-8115-F2961344731F.png>
<Housing Element Background Information on the issue.docx> Sent from my iPhone
Christine David
e:
On Jan 27, 2023, at 7:52 AM, Christine David
wrote:
Ashfield Area ResidentsAs we all know, the state mandated housing requirements are currently being discussed then proposed again to the state during a town meeting slated for 2-3:00 pm on Jan. 31st, Town Council chambers.
Each residence has received, by mail, now far below from Julie Quinlan’s initial e-mail, a description outlining current proposed options, one from the council and one from the planning commission.
Since there has been a lot of confusion regarding this complex issue I have asked fellow Atherton Resident and local contractor/consultant Loren Gruner to outline the issue and possible solutions in professional and laymen’s terms.
I feel Loren’s recommendations are the most reasonable and fair path forward through this very difficult and critical situation.
Upon review, should you agree and have comments and concerns of your own, I URGE you to forward this explanation plus your views to every member of the town council, per Loren Gruner’s links below (see attachment).
Please be SURE to also copy George Roderick’s, Town Manager at the following link:
[email protected]
Please send your e-mail prior to next Tuesdays special Town Council meeting on this subject set for 2-3:00 pm on the 31st.
As always, I thank you for hearing me out on these important issues as they affect us all.
Below is Loren’s explanation-
<Housing Element Background Information on the issue.docx> My best,
Christine
Sent from my iPhone
Christine David
Begin forwarded message:
From: Michael David
Date: January 25, 2023 at 8:27:28 PM PST
To: Christine David
Subject: Fwd: Town high density housing along El Camino Michael David
Mobile:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Alex Keh
Date: January 25, 2023 at 12:35:52 PM PST
To: Julie Quinlan , Paul Quinlan
This is definitely NOT a done deal. The odds of this new proposal being accepted during the January 31 meeting is very unlikely. The proposal came from the planning commission only. It has not been vetted by the council nor have residents been given adequate opportunity to comment on it. While immediate approval is unlikely, it doesn't hurt to let the council know your opinion on the matter during or before the January 31 meeting.
If you need one email to reach the entire council, you can use:
[email protected]
The city manager and city clerk will be cc:ed and your feedback becomes part of the public record.
With that said, California's housing department is very likely to reject any Atherton proposal without much more multi-family housing.
Increasing the likelihood of state acceptance is the basis for the planning commission's proposal.
Assuming the council rejects the planning commission's proposal and submits the council's current plan largely intact, the state is likely to reject it. If it does get rejected, the town will most likely have to accept some, all, or more compromises that the planning commission plan has.
The challenge council has is to find a compromise that will satisfy the state and be acceptable to the residents, both as a whole and to the parts of town that more housing will be planned for. The state is not only looking for a target number of homes that will be added to Atherton, they also require a good portion of the new homes to be affordable for low-income residents.
If Atherton relies mostly on new accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to meet its housing requirement, the question becomes whether they will be rented to low-income residents and providing documentation proving that. The state says if 20 units/acre is zoned for a parcel and the property is at least half an acre, then it can be assumed to be affordable for low-income residents. No additional proof is required, which is why ECR was given that level of upzoning in the overlay.
Specific decisions on setbacks and building codes are being decided later. Right now, the proposal that has to be submitted is just on zoning and planning.
Regards,
Alex
>;
m>;
Hi Yvonne,
This zoning change is different and separate from the rules connected to the alternative dwelling units/ADU's.
Julie
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023, 06:34:49 AM PST, Yvonne Nomizu Does this mean the concept/workaround/ projections for achieving the required residential adds via small dwelling structures was rejected? Based on the survey?
Yvonne
On January 24, 2023 10:18:46 PM Paul Quinlan
wrote:
The proposal the Town Council is considering at the meeting is to allow all properties along El Camino to be developed as single family residential or multifamily developments up to a density of 20 units per acre. There is no mention of waiving setbacks or the building code for the existing residences.
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 10:04:18 PM PST, MJ Davey Thanks for passing this along. We are out of town but will review.
I heard for people with undersized lots, that this is a great opportunity to expand your home as they are waiving traditional setback issues and other building codes. They are not requiring that you make it available for rent if you add onto your home. Does that sound accurate ?
MJ
, at 6:53 PM, Julie Quinlan
<
Dear neighbors,
Yesterday we received a letter from the Town proposing to approve a new “overlay zone” allowing multi-family
developments on ALL lots bordering El Camino Real (88 in all). You should have received this letter too. This means that apartments or other sorts of high density housing could be built there.
The Town Council will meet January 31 at 2 pm to consider formally adopting this recommendation. It is NOT a done deal.
If you have views or concerns about the impact of high density housing at the end of our streets, you need to speak up quickly or lose the opportunity, as the Council is most likely going to make a decision on that date.
Attached is a copy of the letter. You can share your concerns with Council members by emailing them (addresses below).
Feel free to forward this message to any neighbors you don’t see listed above. We must all be informed about this change and how it will affect us, and speak up before it’s too late.
Sincerely,
Julie and Paul Quinlan,
PS the Jan 31 meeting will be in-person at the new Council Chambers and can also be accessed virtually:
Teleconference Dial 1-669-900-6833 US
Meeting ID 506 897 786
weblink https://zoom.us/j/506897786
Council member emails:
a.us
<IMG_3445.jpeg>
From: Jeanne Quinlan
To: Anthony Suber
Cc: Jeanne Quinlan
Subject: Atherton housing plan
Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 10:45:06 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. January 30, 2023
I’m writing to oppose your housing plan especially along Valparaiso Ave.
Your housing plan puts all the traffic on Valparaiso half of which is Menlo Park. It’s basically a two lane road And the only through road from the Alameda to El Camino. The traffic especially from the local schools, Sacred schools, Menlo School and College and Hillview all dismiss at the same time. Response time for emergency vehicles would be negatively affected. The added traffic is dangerous for walkers and bike riders. Trying to cross Valparaiso takes a long time and is often dangerous .The street is also not wide enough for both cars and busses at the same time.
Trying to solve one need by creating another problem is not progress, and pushing the problem to another jurisdiction is not solving it either. The housing that is needed should be spread throughout Atherton and not just imposed on those living along one narrow road.
The housing proposed along El Camino is also too concentrated .
Jeanne Quinlan
Hesketh Ct.
Menlo Park
Sent from my iPad
From: david randolph
To: Council
Subject: 23 Oakwood oppose
Date: Saturday, January 28, 2023 10:46:09 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 Council,
I strongly oppose the development of apartments at 23 Oakwood in Atherton.
I have a writer’s studio a couple blocks away and walk daily in this beautiful neighborhood.
I admire the 100 year old Monkey Puzzle Tree in the front yard.
Crime & congestion is what you will get with this outrageous plan.
Ridiculous!
David Randolph
El Camino Redwood City
Bella Vista Dr Hillsborough
Sent from my iPhone
From: Kevin Riley
To: Council;
Oakwood Blvd
Date: Sunday, January 29, 2023 5:23:51 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,
I just wanted to voice my opposition for developing on 23 Oakwood Blvd.
Enabling Atherton to rezone and develop 15+ units on a blind Redwood City residential street should simply not be permitted.
This will ruin East and West Oakwood blvd for the Redwood City residents.
East and West Oakwood Blvd simply can not handle the increased traffic and parking congestion.
Please do the right thing and NOT allow high density multifamily units to be built on 23 Oakwood Blvd.
Kevin
From: "Roberts, Todd A."
Subject: Draft Housing Element
Date: January 27, 2023 at 2:13:31 PM PST
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: Debra D Roberts <
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Our family lives on Hesketh Drive in Menlo Park.
Yesterday we received your letter dated January 20, 2023 with a postmark of January 23, 2023 from the Town of Atherton providing Notice of a Public Hearing next Tuesdayregarding an amendment to the Town’s General Plan to include 348 new low income housing units. Apart from the lack of timely notice, it is obvious from the map provided that Atherton intends for Menlo Park residents to solely bear the brunt of the increased traffic, construction, and negative impacts arising from the proposed update. This is unfair. Every single new housing element proposed by Atherton is located on Valparaiso Avenue. Five schools feed directly off of Valpraiso Avenue including Sacred Heart Prep, Menlo School, Hillview Middle School, Los Lomitas, and St. Raymond’s. The traffic during mornings and afternoons during the school year is horrible. It will be unmanageable if the proposed Housing Element becomes reality. Atherton should go back to the drawing board and more evenly spread the 348 units throughout the Town.
We strongly object the proposal and request that the new housing units be proposed that is interspersed throughout Atherton such that the impacts are more evenly spread throughout the Town. It is unacceptable for 100% of the new contemplated housing element to be located as planned and for Menlo Park residents living on our near Valpraiso Avenue to be the only ones impacted.
It also seems to us that if you truly desired a public hearing with input from potentially impacted parties, you would have made some effort to mail us the notice is a manner designed to arrive more than a few days for the mid-afternoon hearing.
Todd A. Roberts
Partner
ROPERS MAJESKI PC
535 Middlefield Road, Suite 245
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Bio | vCard | LinkedIn
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This email is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this email in error, please notify us immediately of the error by return email, and please delete this message from your system. Any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
For more information about Ropers Majeski, please visit ropers.com. In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store, and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy athttps://www.ropers.com/privacy to learn about how we use this information.
From: Steven W Russell
To: Council
Subject: Please do not re-zone 23 Oakwood-keep multifamily housing on El Camino Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 7:51:29 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 Town CouncilThank you for your consideration of additional housing to help Atherton complete its state-mandated housing element. Although I live just outside the Atherton border any large development at 23 Oakwood will directly impact my neighborhood on Oakwood Dr. I have worked with the Redwood City Council to encourage much more housing along transit corridors, including El Camino Real and Caltrain, as well as downtown and along Woodside Road. The proposed multifamily housing at 23 Oakwood will not be on a bus or rail line and all of the traffic in the area currently funnels on to my street, Oakwood Drive. Please do not re-zone 23 Oakwood beyond the 8 units already approved for this parcel.
Thanks again for your consideration of your neighbors as Atherton figures out how to increase multi-family housing in our area.
With warm regardsSteven Russell
Oakwood Dr
Redwood City CA 94061
From: Sunil Shah
To: Council
Subject: Opposed to overlay for Victoria Manor
Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 8:44:32 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 Council members,
I am writing to you to express our sincere opposition to the inclusion of our neighborhood (Victoria Manor) in the Overlay plan. Our concerns relate to the following specific areas:
1. Safety
a.
Victoria Manor only has one way in and one way out (Victoria Drive). This limits the amount of car traffic that can happen on the street. Furthermore, the intersection of Victoria Drive and Valparaiso is a notoriously challenging one, particularly as Valparaiso is used a thorough-fare for a large population from both Atherton and Menlo Park. Making a right or left turn onto Valparaiso is always challenging.
b.
Children and students are usually found walking, biking or playing in our streets. We also have a pass-through to two schools (both Menlo School and Menlo College) that many students use to access the school when returning from downtown Menlo Park. Their lives would be at risk with higher density traffic (note that we have no sidewalks in our neighborhood). c.
This is exacerbated by the Valparaiso / El Camino intersection which is already heavily trafficked. None of the parcels in the plan would allow for ingress/egress onto El Camino or Valparaiso… resulting in all traffic flowing through Victoria Drive. Hence, see the above items (a and b).
2. Adverse impacts
a.
Both Menlo School and Menlo College are already slated to have additional multi-family housing developments built. Our proximity means we will already be adversely impacted from higher traffic in the surrounding area while supporting this increased density. My understanding is that this will already result in 80 new units in the area.
b.
Our neighborhood has been held up as a “role model” for others when it comes to emergency preparedness and our participation with ADAPT. This works largely because we can manage connections and coordination within our community.
3. Fairness
a.
Our community was only notified of our inclusion in the past week! We were not part of the original plan and were not consulted in any fashion. While I appreciate the opportunity to be heard, the last minute notice is questionable at best.
b.
The council has proposed that 54% of our houses be included in their plan, while not having the same level of targeting in any other neighborhoods in the overlay zone. This is unjust.
In this small window of time (since January 19th, when we were added to the plan), no one from the council has even been in the neighborhood to understand the safety implications of this proposal on both residents and children attending the adjacent schools. Given the already proposed housing units at Menlo College and Menlo School, combined with the limited ingress/egress issues we were left off the original plan…. None of those facts have changed! We understand the pressure from the state, but including Victoria Manor unnecessarily is harming (rather than helping) our community.
Lastly, we will share with the council that we have no intention to sell our house in the next eight years and will share this with HDC as well.
We strongly encourage the council to remove Victoria Manor from the Overlay plans for the benefit of all.
Sincerely,
Sunil & Roopa Shah
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE NOTICE:
This email and any attached files were sent from an email account assigned to a public official for the Town of Atherton. This email, replies to this email, or emails sent directly to this email account may constitute a public record and, if retained during the normal course of business, may be subject to disclosure to any person upon request.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Basil Shikin
Subject: Draft Housing Element is Harmfu Menlo Park Residents Date: January 30, 2023 at 9:19:39 AM PST
To: [email protected]
Cc: Maria Kalinina
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear Mr. Rodericks,
Our family lives on Hesketh Drive in Menlo Park.
We have recently learned about Town of Atherton Public Hearing next Tuesday regarding an amendment to the Town’s General Plan to include 348 new low income housing units.
We find this proposal utterly unfair. All of the new construction is clustered around the Valparaiso ave. It means that the residents of that part of Menlo Park and Atherton will bear the brunt of construction, increased traffic and other negative impacts of this proposal. As it is right now Valparaiso traffic in mornings and afternoons is terrible. A 10 minute school commute could take up to 40 minutes due to the school traffic on Valparaiso. Adding 348 units will only exacerbate this problem.
We strongly object the proposal. We believe it will be harmful to both existing and new residents. We believe that alternatives distributing re-zoning throughout the Town of Atherton ought to be considered.
We also believe that residents of Menlo Park living near Valparaiso avenue must be included in the conversation, since they will be impacted as well.
Regards,
Vasily Shikin and Maria Kalinina
January 29, 2023
Dear Atherton City Council and the Atherton Planning Commission, We are writing regarding the recommendations for the Housing Element to be adopted at the special meeting on January 31, 2023.
We are very excited to see that the planning commission has recommended a new multifamily “overlay zone” that would allow existing developments to 88 properties along El Camino Real and to 22 lots along Valparaiso.
This aligns with long term planning needs and can lead to very real opportunities to increase housing in Atherton. These two streets, especially El Camino, provide direct access to transportation and are central throughfares in the area. This also follows a proven strategy of many of our neighbors including Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Redwood City, and San Carlos to build great numbers of additional housing in the area on El Camino.
By making this change to the housing element it will hold credibility about Atherton’s housing commitment to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
However, in the most recent housing element plan, 23 Oakwood Blvd was yet again prioritized for rezoning because even though it is not close to services, transit, jobs and is also without adequate access along a public right-of–way, it is being portrayed as such. This property stands alone as the only proposed property that is not on a major arterial route, the only property without direct access to public transportation, the only property that exits directly into a neighborhood, and the only property that is not contiguous with any other proposed property.
Rather than justify why this property is removed from the plan, we struggle with identifying why this property was ever considered with the current plans. We understand that the current owners are willing to build on this property, but it is not clear to us that this has been the criteria for selecting properties for the housing element or that it should be a criterion now when you are already proposing an effective plan without it.
We are not opposed to increasing density at 23 Oakwood Blvd however 16 units is too many. Less than 8 units are acceptable as they do not compromise the safety of the residents and do not add significantly to the congestion of the area. It appears that with the new plan proposed along Valparaiso and El Camino, that there is no longer a justification for the inclusion of the property at 23 Oakwood outside of the property owner’s interest in building additional units. We commend the council for proposing an effective plan along El Camino and Valparaiso to achieve the goals of the Housing Element and urge the council to remove the multifamily rezone of 23 Oakwood from the Atherton Housing Element.
Sincerely,
Anuj Gaggar MD PhD and Aracely Tamayo PhD
W Oakwood Blvd
Redwood City, CA 94061
From: Marilyn Territo
To: Council
Subject: Atherton Town Hall, January 31, 2023 - Support Against the Re-Zoning of 23 Oakwood Blvd.
Date: Saturday, January 28, 2023 1:02:52 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:
We will be unable to attend your upcoming Atherton Town Hall meeting on January 31, 2023 in which you will be, once again, discussing the rezoning of the 23 Oakwood Housing Element. We want to present for your consideration in this e-mail our CONCERNS about this proposed project in our already densely developed neighborhood.
We recognize the many commitments you have to make as good stewards in carefully and responsibly managing the needs of your town of Atherton. We are very grateful that you had previously extended your stewardship to your Oakwood neighbors by making the decision to remove the dense development of the 23 Oakwood property project from your agenda. Your Council opted to seek development of several other properties that were more appropriate in meeting the needs of Atherton and its adjoining communities.
We, and our collective neighbors, were most grateful that you recognized that the 23 Oakwood property is TOO DENSE and NOT A SAFE CHOICE for your neighboring community. However, now we are deeply disappointed that you made the unexpected decision to no longer honor the concerns and needs of the Oakwood Neighborhood by reintroducing this project to your agenda.
Apparently, there were forces at work in your community that make your Council disregard all other appropriate considerations in order for you to re-focus on the 23 Oakwood location. We are, once again, advising you that the re-zoning and dense development of this property is a decision that will jeopardize the safety of our neighborhood from our young children to our seniors. Please see the bullet points listed below for additional reasons why this property is not suitable for your dense development.
Over a period of time, concerned Oakwood citizens and Redwood City Council members have presented to your Council a myriad of reasons why dense development of 23 Oakwood is inappropriate. It is our hope that you will RESPONSIBLY place at the FOUNDATION of your decision SAFETY FOR ALL CONCERNED and seek to develop the more appropriate properties on the transportation corridor that you had previously considered.
We want to thank you, in advance, for addressing our concerns and for taking the needs and well-being of all the Oakwood Neighborhood into consideration before making your final decision for the 23 Oakwood Housing Element.
Sincerely,
Paula Uccelli, Rossi Lane, Redwood City, CA 94061,
Marilyn Territo, Rossi Lane, Redwood City, CA 94061,
REASONS NOT TO DEVELOP THE 23 OAKWOOD HOUSING DEVELOPMENT:
• Councils decision to add the property at 10 units per acre was a last minute hasty decision. • The council failed to have the foresight to make the large scale rezoning of El Camino, Valparaiso that would appease HCD and so find themselves backed into a corner where they want to put density where it doesn’t belong in our small neighborhood.
• We recommend taking the Planning Commissions recommendation to impose a multifamily overlay zone along the entirety of the El Camino at 20 units per acre and Valparaiso at 10 units per acre. Allowing this density on arterial roads will appease HCD.
• The proposed development at 23 Oakwood does not follow Atherton Council’s initial list of development principles they used to ID possible multi family housing sites at the outset of their process of identifying sites for rezoning.
• 23 Oakwood is not on an arterial road or on a high traffic corridor. • 23 Oakwood is not adjacent to density or commercial property. • 23 Oakwood is a 42-48 minute walk to the nearest train stations. • Concerns about the Arata’s (property owner) representation of their parcel as 1.62 acres when all public records indicate 1.52 acres.
• The property has at least 26 heritage trees on it.
• The property is long and narrow and would be extremely congested at the proposed density, how would emergency services get access?
• The Oakwood oval and Oakwood neighborhood is one of the most desirable neighborhoods in Redwood City, a walking circle, and have existing traffic control bollards in place, adding 30+ cars is a safety concern.
• Oakwood oval is highly used for recreational walkers and their pets, adding traffic is a safety concern for the large amount of foot traffic present.
• During pandemic Oakwood oval was closed to traffic as 1 of 4 RWC sites for community open space walking area. This fact reinforces how much foot traffic is present. • Concern for children walking to school and their safety, as the proximity to Selby Lane creates a funnel for school children walking in the mornings and afternoons. • This is a neighborhood prone to flooding.
• Redwood City Council members have made public comments to Atherton Council of their concerns about the project given the dissimilar density in Redwood City that this project abuts. • The inclusion of this property as multi family housing before the city develops its own land at Gilmore House seems wrong. If one multi family housing site is enough to tip the scales with HCD (it is not) how does the town justify sacrificing our neighborhood over sacrificing their own land. The optics reinforce an appearance of Atherton as an elitist community who jams its required unwanted multi family housing sites up against the periphery of its border instead of a more equitable and far sighted plan all along the major arteries as the planning commission has recommended to the council.
From: Lisa Thomas
To: Council
Subject: CEQA Objection
Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 4:43:28 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Lisa Thomas
Gresham Ln, Atherton CA 94027
Jan 30 2023
To the Town of Atherton City Council:
I object to approval of the Resolution Adopting a General Plan Amendment to Repeal the 2015-2022 Housing Element and Replace it with the 2023-2031 Housing Element (Sixth Cycle) that is set for the special City Council meeting on January 31, 2023, as Agenda Item No.
The ground for this objection is that the General Plan Amendment is a “CEQA project” and the Town must complete CEQA review of the General Plan Amendment before approving it.
The Staff report contends that: “The consideration and adoption of the Town-initiated Housing Element (6th Cycle) is not a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).” This is incorrect because the Council’s decision is discretionary, the General Plan Amendment will lead to increased housing density and population, which will affect the physical environment by increasing air and water pollution, requiring more public services, and increasing greenhouse gas emissions from increased construction of housing and ancillary commercial construction for businesses serving the increased population.
The Staff report contends that: “The consideration and adoption of the Housing Element is alternatively exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15002 as the adoption of the Housing Element is a planning study and will not have any impacts to the environment.” This is incorrect because, as noted above, the General Plan Amendment will lead to increased housing density and population, which will affect the physical environment.
The Staff report contends that: “Further, to the extent the Regional Housing Needs determinations are made, the Project is further exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15283, which provides, “CEQA does not apply to regional housing needs determinations made by the Department of Housing and Community Development, a council of governments, or a city or county pursuant to Section 65584 of the Government Code.” This is incorrect because the General Plan Amendment is not, or is not only, a regional housing needs determination. It is a specific proposal for increasing housing density to accommodate a regional housing needs determination. As such it is not exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 65584 of the Government Code.
Respectfully,
Lisa Thomas
From: Amy Torre
To: Council
Subject: High Density Housing
Date: Friday, January 27, 2023 8:55:11 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 Council Members,
I live on Maple Avenue and I am quite concerned about the high density housing proposal of lots along El Camino. To be honest, I am so tired of the endless construction in our area. While my family was very supportive of the new Town Center, we had to deal with seemingly endless noise and construction traffic on our street. Finally, that has been completed, and here we are again with yet another proposal of more years of construction, traffic, and noise in our area.
In addition, there has been a significant increase in traffic on our street since the construction of the new civic center. My kids have to be extremely cautious when playing outside or walking to the library and park. I fear that additional multi-family homes near us will add to the traffic flow and number of cars that speed down our street.
Aren't there other areas of Atherton that can share some of this civic responsibility? Sincerely,
Amy Torre
Maple Avenue
Attn: Atherton City Council and City Manager
The undersigned* Atherton residents respectfully request that the homes in the Victoria Manor neighborhood bordering Valparaiso & El Camino be excluded from any zone identified as a Multi-Family overlay in the 2023 Atherton Housing Element Plan.
The state requires that the town conduct a thorough analysis of its properties and subsequently submit a plan that has a realistic chance of coming to fruition.
Due to the location of the Victoria Manor neighborhood, sandwiched between the very short blocks of road emanating from the already over-burdened El Camino and Valparaiso intersection, the Menlo College campus, and the Menlo School campus, and taking into consideration the additional highly-density development proposed to be built at Menlo College and Menlo School, there's no realistic way for the portion of El Camino and Valparaiso bordering Victoria Manor to safely support additional high-density development.
• cars would lack safe ingress and egress on these portions of both El Camino and Valparaiso
• school children and other residents walking and riding on the single lanes of Valparaiso would be put at serious risk
• the traffic congestion that would be caused by the addition of any additional cars beyond those generated from 60 new units at Menlo College and 20 new units at Menlo School on these two little .3 mile strips of road would result in the inability of emergency vehicles - be it ambulances, fire or police to quickly and effectively access our neighborhood
Additionally, we believe the town could be held liable for any accidents and deaths caused by the safety hazards that would be created due to their decision to unsafely zone Victoria Manor for high-density housing.
Also, as related to the viability of high-density housing in Victoria Manor, the 1/3 acres lots on Victoria Drive are of course too small to support multi-family housing.
The likelihood 2 or 3 next-door neighbors would want to sell at the same time is so improbable, that it would be disingenuous to include this as an option.
Furthermore, all of us who live in the potential zone you're considering including in an overlay have no intention of selling our home during the upcoming housing element cycle.
Jan and Jim MacKenzie 1 Victoria Drive
Maria Burgato Victoria Drive
Shala Mostofi Victoria Drive
Adam, Shu-shen, Aaron, & Gour-Tsyh Yeh & Irene Change Victoria Drive Donna and Gary Wada Victoria Drive
Suzanne and Bob Couch 3 Victoria Drive
Fun Yuen Victoria Drive
Roopa and Sunil Shah Victoria Drive
Chris and Phil Brosterhous Victoria Drive
Sumiko and James Yoshida Leon Way
Narmina Sharifova and Cetin Ozbutun Leon Way
Drew Haydel Leon Way
Kana & JM Yujuico Leon Way
Megan and Parker Fields Leon Way
Shirley Ilg Leon Way
Deborah Blake Leon Way
Tracy and Ali Satvat Douglass Way
Homeowners Douglass Way
Phil Abrahamson and Dana Shelley Douglass Way
Anna Chase Douglass Way
Andrea Luskin and Andy Jeffrey Douglass Way
Tomi Miller Douglass Way
Denise and Nic Persson Douglass Way
Natalya Guterman Douglass Way
Jan 27, 2023
* We have a hard copy signature sheet from all those home, and email requests from all those away and reachable confirming their inclusion.
From: HG Wada
To: Council
Cc: DJ WADA; Jan MacKenzie; Andrea Luskin
Subject: Response to Letter Dated January 20th, 2023- Notice of Public Hearing regarding the Housing Element for Planning Period 2023-2031.
Date: Friday, January 27, 2023 1:24:14 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Councilmen of the Atherton City Council,
Having reviewed the Planning Commission Recommendation from the special meeting on January 20th, 2023, approved by a 3 of 5 majority of Council members, I am voicing our position as residents of 55 Victoria Dr., one of the subject properties affected by the proposed changes to the Housing Element.
As clearly stated by Andrea Luskin, a fellow Victoria Manor HOA member, there are compelling reasons for not approving the proposed Housing Element. Degradation of the area by the increased traffic that high density housing would bring is a major factor, increasing the risk of injury to pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers alike, particularly in the case of the Victoria Dr overlay, because of the unique position of this neighborhood already surrounded by Menlo College, Menlo School, El Camino Real and Valparaiso streets.
Beyond the safety and environmental degradation of the neighborhood, is the impractically of building high density housing in this neighborhood, where the majority of lots are too small and too expensive to develop as low income, high density housing. We and many of our neighbors are also not inclined to be selling our properties to developers so that they can consolidate lots for such a purpose. Having lived in the same house since 1987, we for one don’t intend to be selling in our lifetime; hopefully, beyond the time horizon of this Housing Element cycle. This in itself should be a non-starter for the currently proposed Housing Element.
Please reconsider your approval of a Plan destined to failure for lack of support from the residences of the affected areas and your town.
Henry G. Wada and Donna J. Wada
Dr., Atherton, CA 94027
CC: Andrea Luskin letter
Dear Atherton Council members Widmer, DeGolia, Lewis, Holland, and HawkinsManuelian, Firstly, I want to thank those of you who have taken the time to connect with us, members of the Victoria Manor neighborhood, be it through neighborhood walk-thrus over the summer, discussion via a group Zoom, or attending our neighborhood get togethers or drills. I know that those who have engaged with us understand the uniqueness of both our neighborhood geography in Victoria Manor and the tight knit neighborhood community we've developed over many years of neighborhood gatherings, emergency planning, and other safety advocacy efforts such as securing a government grant and cooperation between Atherton and Menlo Park to install the cross jurisdictional lighted crosswalk on Valparaiso at Hoover.
Our neighborhood understands the considerable pressure you feel (due to concerns of potential HCD fines being levied and the builder's remedy being applied) to submit a Housing Element Plan that won't flat out be rejected by HCD. However, as with the first plan submitted, we urge you to best advocate for our town's citizens and way of life by submitting a plan that may be just reasonable enough to have some chance of being accepted while not sacrificing dozens of homes and entire neighborhoods unnecessarily.This truly is a balancing act.
And while it's the town consultants and planners goal to have HCD fully approve the next plan with no modifications required, potentially at the expense of much more property than necessary, it should be your goal to protect as much as possible and to utilize the knowledge you've acquired, that non-resident consultants aren't privy to, to discern what areas to focus on.
As the latest Planning Commission plan is constructed, the one neighborhood in Atherton that has been held up as an example for others to replicate, our neighborhood, Victoria Manor, is set to be crushed on all 4 sides by huge development. We have Menlo College bordering us on the North where you've already designated 60 units can be built by right, Menlo School bordering us on the West where you've designated another 20 units, and El Camino on the East and Valparaiso on the South where you're now considering an overlay zone
You already determined previously, and rightly so, that our 28 home neighborhood on 3 cul de sacs is not suitable for dense housing:
there's only one ingress/egress into the neighborhood and as is, is very difficult to get in and out of due to its location on Valparaiso within yards of the El Camino intersection. Additional cars would be incredibly unsafe. the homes on Victoria Drive bordering El Camino are on 1/3 acres lots so are too small to support multi-family on their own and are also not deep enough to support multi-family parking, even if one tried to engineer access via El Camino.
the tiny 5 house long cul-de-sac of Douglass Way, which backs up to Valparaiso, could in no way support the car traffic from multi-family housing. And Valparaiso, a single lane in each direction, with its 2 private schools directly on it and Hillview Middle School just a block off, with hundreds of school kids and bikes on it everyday is already beyond burdened with traffic so trying to have dozens or potentially hundreds of more cars accessing multi-family housing on Valparaiso so close to El Camino would be a safety disaster.
Even if you don't look at all the significant reasons the homes in our area are an awful choice for multi-family development, surely you can't feel it's reasonable to designate 15 of the 28 homes in a tiny 3 street cul-de-sac'd neighborhood with a multi-family overlay, surrounding the few homes not in the overlay on all 4 sides with development . You would be endangering the most organized, cohesive, emergency-ready neighborhood in all of Atherton.
Additionally, because these homes and this neighborhood isn't suitable for this kind of development for the reasons listed above, and most, if not all of the neighbors have no intention of selling in the next 8 years, it would be disingenuous to include them in any plan. If included, the neighbors will promptly send a letter to HCD letting them know they have no intention of selling during this cycle, and even if they sold in a future cycle their homes aren't realistic building locations for multifamily housing.
This is all to say for all the reasons above we strongly urge you to remove ALL of the homes in Victoria Manor from any El Camino and Valparaiso overlay you may be considering.
Thank you so much for everything you do for the town. This is a difficult challenge and I certainly don't envy the position you're in but I trust you'll only include properties in the plan that have a realistic chance to safely be developed.
With sincerity and appreciation,
Andrea Luskin
Douglass Way
Begin forwarded message:
From: Steve Wadsworth
Date: January 30, 2023 at 4:24:03 PM PST
To: George Rodericks <[email protected]>, Lisa Costa Sanders <[email protected]>
Cc: "Rick.Degolia.External" <[email protected]>
Subject: Atherton Housing Element Proposal
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
George, Lisa and Rick -
My name is Steve Wadsworth, and I am a resident of Atherton. I live at Atherton Oaks Lane.
I recently became aware of the new proposal to add a multi-tenant "overlay" on certain properties along Valparaiso.
I apologize for not being closer to this issue sooner, but I was traveling in Europe and came home to find both the letter Notice of Public Hearing for the Planning Commission meeting on January 25th, which I was not in town for, and the letter from George providing information about the overlay plan. I plan to attend the Town Council meeting tomorrow.
I know this is a challenging issue, and I appreciate your work attempting to deal with it.
I have a long list of issues and concerns with the proposal, but I will focus on my primary concern. At least along the Valparaiso corridor, and maybe across all of Atherton, this proposal impacts my property in a unique way. If it moves forward, my property will be the only one that is bordered on two sides by properties that have the multitenant overlay and I do not have the overlay. My concern is that this is uniquely discriminating against my property and will almost certainly have negative implications for the value of my property. If properties on two sides of mine have the right to develop multi-tenant housing and my property is limited to a single family residence, then certainly my property will be less attractive to a buyer or developer. Unfortunately, I will have to challenge this proposal if it moves forward. I hate to spend time and resources challenging this, but I don't see any other choice in a scenario in which the town is applying what appears to me to be an unfair and discriminatory approach to changes in zoning that will uniquely impact the value of my most important asset.
While I would prefer to not see any of the Valparaiso overlay happen, if the current proposal moves forward I would suggest that the Town should also apply the overlay to my property as well. This would at least put my property on equal footing with those around me. My suggestion here is simply an initial thought that would require further consideration.
I plan on attending the Town Council meeting tomorrow, and I am happy to discuss this with any of you at any time.
Best regards,
Steve
From: Daniel Walker
To: Council
Subject: Opposing ECR overlay
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 7:48:37 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 Town Council,
I wanted to share our opinion against upzoning or overlays that may significantly develop properties in our neighborhood near the Town Center. This area has already undergone major development over the last few years to support Atherton’s Town Center project. On our street there are several oddly shaped and flag lots bordering El Camino, which will enable another significant project if consolidated and developed. We feel this will continue to trend this neighborhood towards high development, benefiting developers and hurting residents without actually producing truly affordable housing. We understand the challenging situation you must navigate, I hope a good outcome that reduces impact on current residents can be found.
Thanks,
Dan Walker
Maple Avenue
Begin forwarded message:
From: James White
Subject: Multi family housing at Holbrook Palmer
Date: January 26, 2023 at 10:32:27 AM PST
To: [email protected]
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear Sirs:
As the submittal date approaches for the multifamily housing plans for Atherton, I want to add our names to the list of those opposing the use of Holbrook Palmer park land in the plan.
Our property at Lane Place is adjacent to the park house currently used as the residence of the Police Chief and some part time lodging of officers. A neighbor has said he worries that the property could be submitted in the plan as a site for multifamily housing.
Ask The Almanac article recently reported, this would be in violation of the original gift of the park to the city by Ms. Holbrook Palmer, which stipulates that the park be dedicated to recreational use.
My wife and I walk daily in the park and know it is a cherished part of living in Atherton.
Many families bring children and pets and walk daily there. The Little League and the tennis facilities add to the recreational use also.
I recall when the plans were being made for the new library that the park was suggested as a site for it. That proposal was opposed in a similar way to the current thought of turning the police chiefs house into public apartments.
Please remove the Holbrook Palmer property from the final submittal to the State of California.
It is used on a daily basis by numerous people who cherish it and keep it as clean as any public park you could find because they use it regularly and appreciate it.
Respectfully,
James and Caryn White
Lane Place
Atherton, CA
From: Stephens & Brugato, CPAs, LLP
To: Anthony Suber
Subject: Additional comments for the Special Meeting on January 31, 2023 for the Town of Atherton Housing Element Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 12:00:54 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 Town of Atherton,
See below for additional comments for the Special Meeting, the state will not approve the Housing Element in its current state:
The proposed overlay zone singles out smaller acreage lots on a single street, apparently in an attempt to "have the minimal impact on the remaining town,” according to council member Elizabeth Lewis. However, that runs entirely contrary to the basic requirements of AB 686, which is designed to ensure that affordable fair housing is distributed throughout a community, with a particular focus on parcels larger than half an acre.
First, Cal. Gov. Code 65583.2(c)(2)(A) provides that "[a] site smaller than half an acre shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality provides other evidence to the department that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing." The council does not appear to have explained how it has satisfied this requirement. Likewise, a barrier to affirmatively furthering fair housing is " [p]redominance of single family uses and larger lot sizes in racially concentrated areas of affluence."Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (ca.gov) (p. 26).
Second, relevant guidance regarding this program indicates cities should ensure that "sites zoned to accommodate housing for lower-income households are not concentrated in lower resource areas and segregated concentrated areas of poverty, but rather dispersed throughout the community, including in areas with access to greater resources, amenities, and opportunity."Division of Administration and Management Letterhead (ca.gov) (p.6). Placing an overlay zone on a single street runs afoul of this requirement.
Third, AB 686 requires that the town "identify sites throughout the community," not simply a single street, for potential development. Cal. Gov. Code 65583.2(a) (emphasis added).
Stacey Wilkinson
Victoria Drive
From: Stephens & Brugato, CPAs, LLP
To: Anthony Suber
Subject: Public Comment for the Special Meeting on January 31, 2023 for the Town of Atherton Housing Element Date: Sunday, January 29, 2023 2:40:45 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 Town of Atherton City Council,
I am a homeowner and resident of one of the lots selected for the overlay zone by the City Council for the Housing Element to be submitted on January 31st, 2023. I have owned and lived in this home for 28 years. I do not agree with the current plan to include only these 88 lots in the Housing Element and want my disagreement and the issues for the disagreement included in the public record so the current Housing Element can be challenged in court.
Here are the issues I have with the current Housing Element:
1) The plan only includes 88 lots in Atherton which represents approximately 4% of the homes in Atherton. This is extremely discriminatory to the owners of these lots and the other homeowners surrounding these homes.
2) The selected 88 lots are mostly under one acre. With the current plan, the Town will not be able to meet the low income housing requirement of the Housing Element. The street I live on, Victoria Drive, has ten homes that are all about one-third of an acre. The only way to add low income housing on our street would require the combination of three to four lots on our street. The odds of this happening are very low since the current use would not change and there would need to be multiple adjacent sales at the same time. This would apply to most of the 88 lots.
3) The 88 lots were selected due to the higher traffic along El Camino and Valparaiso Avenue, but the City Council has ignored the following streets in Atherton that have similar busy traffic or are used for cut-through traffic:
Walsh Road
Middlefield Road
Watkins Avenue
Bay Road
Ringwood Avenue
Glenwood Avenue
Atherton Avenue
Alameda De Las Pulgas
Selby Lane
Many of these streets also border the towns of Redwood City and Menlo Park. The Council should consider including more homes along these busy streets. 4) The current Housing Element proposal appears to be the City Council's plan to maintain the town in its current state at the sacrifice of the 88 lots. This quote comes from The San Jose Mercury News article titled "Atherton agrees to rezone it's 'poverty pocket' of multi-million- dollar homes", dated January 11, 2023:
"I've lived in Atherton over 20 years, and I don't want to destroy Atherton's character, but the rationale is to look at locations that will have minimal impact on the remaining town", council member Elizabeth Lewis said. "We've really tried to not do a multi-family upzoning situation, but it looks like we need to take another look at our housing element before we submit."
5) Do any of the Council Members live on one of the 88 lots they are going to include in the plan?
6) Once the 88 lots are submitted to the state as part of the Housing Element and accepted by the state, that fact will have to be disclosed by any property owner of the affected lots if they decide to sell their homes. This could impact the valuation of the homes. Is the Town of Atherton going to indemnify the owners for any immediate or future loss of market value due to their decision?
7) If the Housing Element is rejected by the state, which is highly likely, the Town will be subject to the "builder's remedy" which would allow landowners to build dense housing without the oversight or approval of local officials. This would be the worst possible outcome. The Council should consider making the entire Town subject to the overlay. The Town of Atherton will be subject to more low income housing requirements in the future, so the idea of Atheron remaining in its current state is unrealistic. The overlay on the entire Town would allow the Town to maintain some control of the building standards while allowing homeowners the freedom to continue to use or develop their property subject to these standards.
Stacey Wilkinson
Victoria Drive
Timothy Barklow
American Way
Menlo Park CA 94025
January 31, 2023
Dear Atherton Planning Commission Members:
I, my wife Amarzaya, and three children ages 14,12 & 7 live in unincorporated San Mateo county, American Way, Menlo Park, just one block from the proposed Valparaiso overlay zone. I have owned the American Way property since 1992.
Thank you very much for mailing the notice of the Jan 31 public hearing to nearby residents.
However, I have to say no thank you to whoever added the Valparaiso overlay zone proposal at the very last minute to the Atherton Draft Housing Element. The Valparaiso overlay zone is a grave threat to my family's security, quality of life, and long-term financial wellbeing. Although you point out that residents in the affected lots would not be forced to change how they currently use their property, you can’t just take that assurance and hope against hope that nobody sells their property to commercial interests. You have to consider the consequences of converting all 22 lots along a 0.8 mile continuous stretch of road into multifamily residences, 20 units per acre. Such a development would utterly ruin the character and country road aesthetic of the region. Furthermore, it would magnify many times over an already intolerable traffic situation. The Valparaiso proposal is sheer madness.
Speaking of sheer madness, allow me to say something about SB9. I am disappointed that the city of Atherton hasn’t pushed back on the SB9 mandates. In your summary statements there is the appearance that you cower whenever the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) tells you they don’t like something. Why haven’t you devoted resources to challenging the constitutionality of SB9? This law is an insidious first step toward private property seizure by a central authority – i.e, HCD. If not challenged now, I believe that HCD and the forces behind SB9 will be returning for more blood in the not too distant future.
In summary, I strongly oppose the Valparaiso overlay zone proposal. If adopted I will oppose it with every fiber of my being.
Regards,
Timothy Barklow
From: Stephanie Chenevert
To: Council
Cc: Luis Balenko
Subject: Objecting to Rezoning of the lot at 23 Oakwood Blvd.
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 9:57:40 AM
[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,
As the homeowner to E Oakwood Blvd, which is the property directly adjacent to 23 Oakwood Blvd, we wanted to write to express my objection and concern with your proposal to rezone our neighboring property.
We are joining many of our neighbors in opposing this effort. The proposed density is excessive and unreasonable for the location. It will cause traffic and safety issues for our small community, in addition to potential environmental impacts (including grading and drainage, a significant concern given the recent flooding).
Our community understands the importance of increasing access to housing, but the proposed plan is excessive, and unreasonably places the burden on a small adjacent community. Our community is very concerned that the town of Atherton is moving quickly, without regard to the community's input, and without the appropriate measures to mitigate the significant adverse impact this would have on us.
To be clear:
We the residents request that you remove 23 Oakwood from your rezoning plan.
We the residents request that you reduce the zoning to a more appropriate density.
We the residents request that you require safety and traffic calming studies as part of any rezoning and development agreement.
We the residents request that you require an environmental study, including appropriate drainage measures.
We would be present to discuss these concerns, but a 2pm meeting time is not accessible to us who work full time to support our families.
Respectfully,
Stephanie Chenevert & Luis Balenko
Owners of E Oakwood Blvd
From: Thom Bryant
To: Council; Robert Polito
Subject: Thoughts from Council Meeting
Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 2:37:59 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
At last nights Council meeting, Council Member Hawkins-Manuelian asked for clarification on HCD policy regarding BMR housing. She received one answer from the City Manager and the opposite answer from Council Member DeGolia. The source of the confusion appears to be HCD themselves. This may be due to HCD’s primary all encompassing objective to build more housing coming into conflict with secondary requirements. Council Member DeGolia has expressed the view that the Town should challenge HCD on a number of issues. If the submitted Housing Element is rejected by HCD, then the multifamily/BMR question would clearly be the issue to challenge. I believe such a challenge from the Town, with the appropriate analysis, could be successful with HCD.
I know that rezoning the parcels along ECR is not part of the submitted Housing Element, but I am going to use them as an example since I spelled out the developed scenarios in a prior message. There are 7 lots along Gresham that are the same size. I understand that these owners have all stated that they will not sell, but situations change and houses do come up for sale.
Scenario A: 1 parcel along Gresham comes available to buy. This investor is interested in developing a mid rise building at 20 units/acre of high end condominiums with 20% of the units set aside for BMR housing. They need around an acre of land to realistically support a mid rise building. So the investor acquires the property, rents out the house and awaits for adjacent parcels to come up for sale. Based upon historical sale data, how long would the investor likely have to hold the initial parcel before 2 adjacent parcels came available? What is the probability that the project ROI meets or exceeds the investor’s expectations? The combination of these 2 probabilities determines whether the project is feasible and whether something gets built. In this case I would assume the probability is near zero.
Scenario B: 1 parcel along Gresham comes available to buy. This investor is interested in developing a multifamily building at 20 units/acre with 20% of the units set aside for BMR housing. Since the parcel is 1/3 of an acre, they can build 6 units (apartments/Condo’s/Townhouses). Based upon historical sale data, what is the probability that 1 of the 7 parcels comes available in the next 8 years? What is the probability that the project ROI meets or exceeds the investor’s expectations? The combination of these 2 probabilities determines whether the project is feasible and whether something gets built. In this case, let’s assume that the probability is around 30%
Scenario C: 1 parcel along Gresham comes available to buy. This investor is a small homebuilder. They acquire the parcel, split the lot into thirds and build 3 detached freestanding houses each with: their own lot, 4000 SqFt of living space, attached ADU, private rear yard sufficient for childrens play area or garden or pool and entertainment area. This is equivalent to building at 20 units/acre but without a 20% set aside for BMR housing. Based upon historical sale data, what is the probability that 1 of the 7 parcels comes available in the next 8 years? What is the probability that the project ROI meets or exceeds the investor’s expectations? The combination of these 2 probabilities determines whether the project is feasible and whether something gets built. In this case, let’s assume that the probability is around 70%
This is the Atherton dilemma for HCD: approve a Housing Element that has a low probability that anything at 20 units/acre with a 20% BMR set aside gets built vs. approving a Housing Element with high probability that expensive homes on small lots might actually get built? I could be wrong about HCD but I think its worth the Town investing some consulting dollars to flesh out this analysis, and its worth challenging HCD on multifamily/BMR housing.
The second issue that Council Hawkins-Manuelian raised was why the Planning Commission selected only Valparaiso for an overlay district when the same logic would apply to other streets as well (ignoring ECR). If the submitted Housing Element is rejected by HCD and if the Town is successful challenging multifamily/BMR housing then the challenge for the Council is selecting the location for small lots. In addition to Valparaiso I would include Ringwood, Encinal and the south side of Watkins between the RR and ECR. This, obviously, shifts high density housing to the edge of Atherton, minimizing resistance from most of the Town (the Council’s first instinct). But there are several other important advantages:
· No Atherton neighborhood can claim that it is unduly bearing the impact more than any other.
· Valparaiso, Ringwood and Encinal all have significant stretches devoted to schools. The character of these streets differs from most of Atherton and consequently are a better fit for small lot, high density housing. It might even be a model for the schools should they opt to build teacher housing. (one Council Member thought that increased density would be unsafe. I’m not sure that this correct. I think that there is research that indicates higher density creates safer streets due to the inclusion of sidewalks and the behavior of drivers paying more attention.
But this should be confirmed with traffic engineering)
· Valparaiso, Ringwood and Encinal also differ, with the Menlo Park side having a density as much as 4X that of the Atherton side. And Watkins backs up to commercial space.
· Since the Council does not actually build homes, having an inventory of hundreds of possible lots enables the market to decide when and what to build. This is important since HCD will be monitoring to ensure that housing actually gets built.
· I’ve heard a number of residents ask for a long term plan rather than one off rezonings. An overlay of these four streets would allow for hundreds of new homes to be constructed; sufficient for multiple RHNA cycles.
The development scenarios along any of these 4 streets would be different than along ECR and should be taken into account in the feasibility analysis that I recommend the Town undertake.
Best//Thom
From: Thom Bryant
To: Elizabeth.Lewis.External; Council; Robert Polito
Subject: Re: ECR Up Zoning
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 7:54:53 AM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Thx Elizabeth. I have a few other thoughts that I will forward later, but now I think congratulations are in order for the Council and Town staff. I suspect that most residents do not understand how difficult this process has been (in part due to the Town's unique development pattern). The Council has been great at listening, considering and communicating. Kudo's to all.
Best//Thom
.
From: Thom Bryant >
Date: January 14, 2023 at 1:21:06 PM PST
To: Council <[email protected]>, Robert Polito
<[email protected]>
Subject: ECR Up Zoning
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.] Given the Council’s decision to upzone 17 lots fronting ECR, and assuming that HCD will accept 20 units/acre in lieu of BMR multifamily housing, I believe it will help to restate the case for tall expensive single family homes on small lots. There are two important points to consider. First, single family homes are consistent with the Town’s current policy. Second, there is a market for tall, expensive homes. See SummerHill’s North 40 development in Los Gatos as one example: Bellaterra at North 40 - TownFlats - Plan 5 - SummerHill Homes (focus360.com) This is a 3 story, 2100 sqft row house with a $2.1M asking price, with no yard and located adjacent to Hwy 17.
I suggest a third residential zoning category with the following standards:
4,000 sqft minimum lot size
60% FAR
40% Bonus FAR when an attached ADU is included
Attached ADU’s (either 500 or 800 version) are exempt from FAR 10’ minimum front setback
30’ minimum rear yard setback
0’ minimum side setback
34’ maximum height limit
There are at least four generic single family housing models that would work with these zoning standards:
Free standing, zero lot line, 2 story, 2,400 sqft house @ 10 units/acre
Free standing, zero lot line, 3 story, 4,000 sqft house with attached ADU @ 20 units/acre
Row house (modern brownstone), 2 story, 2,400 sqft @ 10 units/acre
Row house 3 story, 4,000 sqft house with attached ADU @ 20 units/acre
Conceptually, the 17 lots along ECR could be redeveloped with as many as 140 units, if the Builder(s) all opted for the 40% FAR bonus (net add of +/- 120 units) or 70 single family homes without ADU’s. This could be done with 50’X80’ lots with the 80’ depth dimension running parallel along ECR, and a shared driveway accessing ECR every 160’. The Gresham and Cebalo Lane side of the property could be redeveloped with 40’X100’ lots. Alternatively, the Gresham and Cebalo sides of the property could be redeveloped with 100’X100’ (or larger) lots, if the increased density along ECR was sufficient to meet HCD
requirements.
The advantage of the approach as outlined is its alignment with Atherton’s current policy for single family residences and ADU’s.
Secondly, the likely sales prices for these units would not necessarily devalue adjacent properties. Third, this approach could be the template for up zoning in future RHNA cycles. But there are at least two other development options that would also be consistent with recent Council decisions. First would be to up zone the 17 lots for mid rise buildings similar to the Menlo College plan. Assuming owner occupied units instead of
apartments, its not clear that ADU’s make sense. So, in order to achieve the magic 20 units/acre, the development conceptually might entail seven 6 story buildings with 5 floors of 4 units each and parking on the ground floor and basement. The second alternative would be to up zone for townhomes similar to what is proposed for Oakwood. Since townhomes (as commonly
understood in California) are condominiums, it is also not clear how ADU’s would be accommodated in a condominium
structure? Therefore, achieving 20 units/acre might require building 140 townhomes vs. 70 large single family homes on small lots.
I am confident that the proposed zoning standard can work from a design view point but Council may wish to consult with some area developers about feasibility, price points and market demand.
Best//Thom
--
Elizabeth Lewis
Anna Chase, Esq.
Douglass Way
Atherton, CA 94027
January 30, 2023
VIA EMAIL ONLY:[email protected]
Atherton Council Members
Re: Proposed Zoning Overlay
Dear Atherton Council members Widmer, DeGolia, Lewis, Hawkins-Manuelian, and Holland:
Firstly, I want to thank you for taking the time and for serving on the Town’s Council and for doing what is in the best interest of our Town as a whole.
While I understand that you are under the immense pressure to submit a Housing Element Plan that would not be rejected by HCD, I was surprised to discover that Valparaiso lots were recently added to the proposed zoning overlay. Adding Valparaiso lots to the proposed zoning overlay would just crush the Victoria Manor neighborhood as a whole, because it is the only Atherton neighborhood that has two busy corner streets, El Camino and Valparaiso. Yet, the Victoria Manor neighborhood consists of only 28 homes located on small 3 cul-de-sacs.
Even if you choose to proceed with the proposed overlay of El Camino Lots, adding the 5 Valparaiso lots of the Victoria Manor neighborhood does not make any sense at this point for the following reasons:
• The neighbors have no intention of selling during the next 8 years, so it does not get the Town the needed housing. I am one of the homeowners of the Valparaiso lots that is subject to the proposed overlay. Since I just spent almost 3 years building my custom home [the construction was finished in January 2020], I have no intention of selling. Likewise, Nick Perrson, 89 Douglass Way, is in the process of building his custom single-family residence. • the tiny 5 house long cul-de-sac of Douglass Way, which backs up to Valparaiso, could in no way support the car traffic from multi-family housing.
And Valparaiso, a single lane in each direction, with its 2 private schools directly on it and Hillview Middle School just a block off, with hundreds of school kids and bikes on it everyday is already beyond burdened with traffic so trying to have dozens or potentially hundreds of more cars accessing multi-family housing on Valparaiso so close to El Camino would be a safety disaster.
Atherton Council Members
January 30, 2023