Atherton City Council
January 31, 2023

• Not to overlook, that no amount of screening would provide the privacy against the proposed 40’feet multi-unit buildings height.
• The multi-unit proposed setbacks would destroy not only the privacy but would bring the associated noise to the single-family homes left on Valparaiso.

Additionally, I would like to find out whether the Council has considered an option of overlaying the train corridor lots, which are already adversely affected by the train noise. If the developers are able to build the multiunit housing developments along the train tracks, it would be a great sound barrier to the Town as a whole, while the owners of the homes that are adjacent to the tracks would benefit from being able to offer their parcels to the developers, thus their lots’ value would increase. At the same time, overlaying Valparaiso lots would drastically decrease the value of those lots for the reasons stated above.

This is all to say for all the reasons above I strongly urge you to remove the five lots of the Valparaiso side of the Victoria Manor from the proposed Valparaiso overlay you may be considering.

Thank you so much for everything you do for the town. This is a difficult decision, but I trust you'll only include properties in the plan that have a realistic chance to safely be developed.

Please get back to us at your earliest convenience and provide us with the documentation and explanation re the issues address above.

Sincerely,
Anna Chase
cc: Anna Chase (via e-mail only)
From: albert cheung
To: Council
Subject: 23 Oakwood Blvd Rezoning
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 7:47:05 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 Council,
We, Al and Jennifer Cheung, commend you for listening to the 23 Oakwood neighbors' concerns about the development density and detrimental impacts from that development. The decreased density outlined in the latest zoning iteration is on the right track, but we believe the density should be decreased further.

The increase of nearly 40 cars into a complex intersection as well as the lot's proximity to a walking and biking neighborhood as well as to the intersections of Selby Lane and El Camino, will cause too many safety hazards at that intersection and neighborhood streets and intersections.

Currently, the proposed zoning plans do not explicitly require safety and traffic calming studies and implementation of any recommended measures to be mandatory in any development plan.

Furthermore, Atherton has not addressed stormwater management and water conservation requirements such as mandatory swails in any proposed development. Finally, the proposal does not include plans to preserve heritage trees on the property and adjacent lots.

Consequently, we respectfully request you to remove 23 Oakwood from the rezoning plan until you have fully and comprehensively addressed all requirements for any development in Atherton. If you cannot integrate traffic and safety concerns into the state's high density housing requirements, we suggest that you reduce the zoning to allow a maximum of four residences per acre, which would be more in keeping with the Redwood City neighborhood, would reduce the amount of total cars on the neighboring streets in both Atherton and Redwood City, would have a lower impact on pedestrian and cyclist safety, and would not greatly exacerbate the safety hazards at the Oakwood and Oakwood intersection, Selby and El Camino intersection, as well as the Oakwood and Selby intersections.

We wish we could be present at the meeting today to speak in person about this issue, but the 2:00pm time of the meeting precludes us from attending when we are both at work. Thank you for accepting this email as a public statement into the records.

Sincerely,
Al and Jennifer
ned to a public official
nt directly to this email
al course of business,
From: Daphne Chou <d
Date: January 31, 2023 at 1:45:19 PM PST
To: George Rodericks <[email protected]>
Subject: Urgent: Regarding the Draft 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.]
Hi George,
I hope this email finds you well. I am the owner of Drive.

SInce I have a very important meeting coming up and can't go to the special Meeting today. I want to address my concern.

Atherton was built as the most high-end city in the US mainly because there are only single family residences with large lots, quiet, tree-lines streets etc.

As a realtor for almost 20 years, I moved to Atherton because for these reasons.

However, mixing the multifamily near our residential area is not a good idea at all. Every city that I saw with multi-family zone, there is full of cars, garbages, illegal parking etc. all the time which will ruin our city.

However, if it's a must to do (although I don't really like to), I suggest the area next to Redwood City near 5th Ave and Middlefield. On the other side of 5th Ave has already the image of it! Your decision is very important for the impact of the city. Please make sure to take my vote for it.

Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me anytime.

Thank you very much!
Daphne Chou, Ph.D.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

CONFIDENTIALITY: This email message, and any attachments thereto, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510-2521, and may be privileged. The contents of this message, including any attachments, are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains a private, confidential communication protected by the attorney client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this email is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you very much.

From: Brian Clarke
To: Bill Widmer
Cc: Council
Subject: Re: Objecting to Rezoning of the lot at 23 Oakwood Blvd. to R10 Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 10:12:57 AM
Mr. Mayor,
Your or any official’s recusal may be required even though you may be less than “a close friend” of the owner receiving this windfall; in other words, I’m not sure “close friend” is the standard.

I appeal to the sensibilities of you and the council of what it is about to do and the unmitigated impact it will have on the neighborhood and town immediately adjacent to your Town. The Town of Atherton and all municipalities that are part of our wonderful State of California are mandated to make space for more housing; more people and less affluent people drive this requirement.

Your Town has done and continues to do the bare minimum steps, with the State pushing back on each occasion that your Town has not met its obligations. So in a last ditch (minimum) effort your Town is trying to push a high density plan on a parcel at the very edge of your Town that will have untold and unmitigated traffic and safety impacts on our/my much less affluent town/zip-code.

There are so many options you and the council could have explored to accept your Town's responsibility for being part of the State of California and the burdens that come along with that responsibility. You and the council, to the extent you considered any of those options, dismissed them out of hand stating some excuse why it couldn’t be done, but making no effort to make it happen because you preferred for it not to happen in fear of the retribution from owners of the tens-of-million-dollar estates adjacent to those options. Also, the idea that you and the council can state with a straight face that these smaller lots will be combined some day in the reasonable future to meet the Town’s obligations, is laughable on its face; it’s wholly untenable from an economic perspective that some developer will buy 3 adjacent lots (assuming they even came up for sale) and plan a development having any prayer of making a reasonable margin.

It’s pretty clear to just about everyone what is happening here.

Brian Clarke
WARNING - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION:

The information contained in this e-mail may contain confidential and privileged information and is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Any re-transmission, dissemination or other use of this email or any attachments by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized and prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments.

On Jan 31, 2023, at 9:34 AM, Bill Widmer <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Brian.

The Mayor has already given a report that the owner called him afew months ago.

No contact since.

I am not a close friend of the owner.

Best Regards,
Bill Widmer
Mayor
On Jan 31, 2023, at 6:02 AM, Brian Clarke
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.] <Mail Attachment.eml>
From: Christine David
Subject: Re: Town high density housing meeting TODAY, 2-3 pm, Town Council Chambers
Date: January 31, 2023 at 11:25:50 AM PST
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Neighbors and FriendsToday, at our new Town Council chambers, between 2-3:00 pm, our council members will be hearing from us one final time before determining the most recent proposal to be sent to the state by January 31st regarding this complex housing issue.

I plan to attend and speak up against these existing proposals because, as many have stated, this dumps the entire problem directly in our area of town instead of sharing the pain and proposed discomfort equally across all of Atherton.

If you are available and able, please consider attending this important meeting and speaking out on this critical issue. Just FYI, each speaker is only allowed 3 minutes to speak while members of town council may listen but are not allowed to respond directly to your concerns.

Come with your concerns outlined, speak clearly and respectfully, if possible, and know that your 3 minutes will be timed by Anthony Suber.

Thank you all so much for already taking your time and effort to speak your mind to our council members in writing. Speaking in person will gain the medias attention and the four council members who have voted for these proposals 4/1, Rick being the only voice of reason for a fair and shared approach instead.

Please also keep in mind that our neighborhood represents one of the most dense areas in town and, for those intending to seek re-election in the coming years, we represent a great deal of voters. Our opinions matter so please consider attending and speaking if possible.

We are in this together. Hang-in there!
Christine
Sent from my iPhone
Christine David
e:

On Jan 28, 2023, at 7:32 PM, christine david < m> wrote:

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 <
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 27, 2023, at 8:04 AM, Christine David
<c
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
On Jan 27, 2023, at 7:52 AM, Christine David
<c
Ashfield Area Residents-
As 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
.com
Begin forwarded message:

From: Michael David <d
Date: January 25, 2023 at 8:27:28 PM PST
To: Christine David <c
Subject: Fwd: Town high density housing along El Camino Begin forwarded message:
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
>;
A >;
a
k
D
<
<
< >;
la
< e
K
< ;
M
< ;
C
<
S
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 <[email protected]> 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
Jan 25, 2023, at 6:53 PM, Julie Quinla
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, 49 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
<IMG_3445.jpeg>

or Los Arboles
Atherton, CA 94027
January 31, 2023
Atherton City Council
80 Fair Oaks Lane
Atherton, CA 94027
Dear Council Members:

I honestly did not think that I would be writing to you again today after my lengthy six-page communication of yesterday. I am quite certain that you are sick of hearing from me, and I’m tired of writing. That said, I have just finished reading the latest Almanac issue and have learned --- as you undoubtedly know – that Portola Valley has decided not to submit its Housing Element today. Rather, they will wait until early March. Their action is not intended to be obstructionist but is a reflection of the fact that too much work remains for the municipality to say to residents and the HCD, in good conscience, that all of the requisite studies and analyses have been satisfactorily completed.

The Almanac article further states that Portola Valley’s Town Attorney, Cara Silver, has concluded that the builders remedy is unlikely to be applied until May and that the HCD has so many plans to review that they may allow a little “breathing room” for a municipality that is trying in good faith to meet the State’s mandate but needs a bit more time to complete studies that are requisite for Housing Element finalization. She further states that HCD has not yet imposed fees on Southern California cities that are months out of compliance. I believe that Atherton faces a similar situation to Portola Valley. In spite of Herculean efforts on the part of the Council and city staff to submit our Housing Element by today’s deadline, I have doubts that we are actually ready. In fact, yesterday’s very detailed letter from the Atherton Housing Coalition reinforces this. That letter requires serious Town consideration.

Certainly the inclusion of Valparaiso in Atherton’s Housing Element necessitates a traffic impact study.

That will not be done today. You’ve picked one of the busiest streets in Atherton AND Menlo Park. It’s not just about Atherton’s 22 parcels being included (of which few will ever be developed for multifamily). It’s also about the potential impact on 41 single-family Menlo Park homes that front Valparaiso between University and Camino Por Los Arboles. It is hard for me to believe that Atherton has engaged in conversations with Menlo Park about Valparaiso, not when you only added the street on January 19th. Nor have you provided the 41 Menlo Park property owners with adequate notice and an opportunity for input.

The Almanac highlights that Menlo Park plans to use downtown parking lots as possible sites for multifamily development. Some of those lots are several blocks from Valparaiso. So, we have school traffic, a large amount of regular traffic on Valparaiso, and potential multifamily development on parking lots in close proximity. Further, the intersection of Valparaiso and El Camino is already heavily congested from the on-going construction along El Camino. Just how much more traffic can be absorbed within a 4-5 block radius --- and you want to add to it with multifamily housing along Valparaiso, with no traffic impact study?
Portola Valley also cites incomplete review of their Housing Element by the fire district. Where is Atherton in this regard? We’ve had a number of changes to the parcels being considered. Some of the parcels are small (predominantly 1/3 acre). Is there adequate access to these parcels for fire trucks, adequate fire hydrant water and pressure, and adequate distance between properties for a defacto fire break? I do note that the Town has addressed fire suppression on Page 79 of the Housing Element. That said, has the Menlo Park Fire District officially “blessed” Atherton’s plan? If not, the Town should wait for submission until the District has concluded its review and declared that there are no safety concerns.

Some jurisdictions have indicated a need for further infrastructure review. The Housing Element does go into considerable detail about the adequacy of Atherton’s existing infrastructure. It is well known, however, that PG&E’s transponders are inadequate for existing power needs along a number of Atherton streets. At our Adam Way project, we waited six months to get temporary power installed after PG&E told us that the existing transponder had to be replaced to support the new house behind ours (on Stockbridge) as well as our own. That’s a transponder replacement for just two houses. PG&E also advised us that the current wait time to convert from temporary power to permanent is one year.

What will happen when you have 16 proposed townhouse units at 23 Oakwood? Is there adequate infrastructure --- not electrical power. Has Atherton had discussions with PG&E as to how the utility is going to support planned multifamily rollouts? With only three work crews in the Bay Area (down from 8); they can’t. There goes your implementation schedule.

Last night, I decided to actually read the 150 pages that constitute the “meat” of the Housing Element. I was surprised at some of the content: mention of mobile home guidelines, group homes for the disabled, rental assistance programs, housing that meets the needs of seniors, senior workshops, fair housing training for property owners and realtors, landlord voucher training, and an additional fee for new single-family construction that does not include an ADU (on top of current permit and school impact fees, which have amounted to over $71,000 on our Adam Way project). I suggest that you analyze whether the proposed Inclusionary Fee might actually be a tax versus a fee. Hopefully, our city staff will have time to facilitate everything that’s being promised. If not, how many more personnel do you plan to hire to meet the obligations? The plan goes overboard.

Lastly, I feel that it is premature to submit the Housing Element until the Town has a better feel for whether Menlo College can actually raise $30M for 40-60 units (even with the Town’s help). I did not get a warm feeling from the president’s letter. Even if they raised $30M, that’s only 50-75% of the school units in the plan. The outcome of Menlo College is game-changing, especially when HCD is likely to continue to find the ADU numbers “suspect”, not in their entirety, but in actual low-income rentals.

And, if Menlo College only builds 40 units, where are the other 40 coming from? If they build none, the 80 school units are simply not achievable. What’s the alternative? I ask you to honestly answer whether Atherton has really completed a comprehensive analysis of traffic, safety, infrastructure and environmental issues, as well as feasibility. If not, then the question is whether you should do as Portola Valley and delay submission by a brief period. Personally, I think there are some fundamental issues that require more study, including the Jan. 30 letter from the Atherton Housing Coalition.

Respectfully,
Carol Flaherty
CC: George Rodericks
From: Paul Getty
To: George Rodericks; Rick DeGolia
Cc: Jan Getty; Council
Subject: Affordable Housing Update Status Requested
Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 1:19:40 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Hi George and Rick,
Thanks to you and other council members for participating in the long hearing yesterday and for your combined efforts to evaluate suitable options.

When can we expect to receive an update on the status of the affordable housing initiatives for Atherton?
I listened to the hearing last evening and it appears that residents are against all current proposals.

This morning’s news indicated more than 50% of impacted communities had not responded by the deadline. Did we and, if so, what was our response? We prefer that the town joins forces with other similar communities to challenge and hopefully overturn forced affordable housing mandates. To the extent that affordable housing is truly needed, it should be left to each community and its residents to decide.

We also believe that much more research needs to be completed on the impact of adding more residents to our neighborhoods. Traffic is already unbearable during school opening/closing hours. This morning I struggled to get from our home to 280 at around 8 am and found the traffic on Valparaiso and through the neighborhoods to be bumper to bumper almost to 280.

There are many other potential negative impacts that must be researched before we add more residents.

Paul Getty
Brittany Meadows
From: Tom Giorgi
To: Council
Subject: Public comment regarding housing element
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 12:55:15 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Atherton Council,
Thank you for your hard work in considering all the input from the community regarding the housing element. I hope you take the recommendation from the planning commission to add an overlay zone, one parcel deep, along the entirety of the El Camino and also Valparaiso. 110 multi family housing sites is a major change from the previous submittal to HCD and believe they will see the effort to balance Atherton’s character with what it is they are looking for. I do not pretend to understand the ins and outs of HCD, but in my opinion, having intently watched and listened to every meeting since June of 2022, I believe you will have your element approved if you add the 110 multi family sites as recommended by planning, and all on major arteries. By also not including 23 Oakwood (the 111th multi family housing site) it creates a consistent template that is defensible in theory, not just with HCD but also with any other private property owners down the line who want to push for out character density on non-arterial streets.

There are inconsistencies with 23 Oakwood according to the guidelines Council has established for consideration of multi family sites that have been voiced often and do not need to be repeated here, except for the two most salient: 1) Oakwood is not an arterial road, the site is at a confusing intersection that is already hazardous for pedestrians and already bollarded for traffic control. 2) The site is not close to public transit, is a 45 minute walk to the nearest train station.

The neighbors are all, and I mean all, I have spoken with them all, against this and collectively scoff at the audacity of the plan, but also realize you have had to consider many things, including less than ideal multi family sites. Now, with the recommendation from planning believe that keeping 23 Oakwood in the element is a mistake for the precedent it creates and that it is superfluous. City Manager and staff have previously suggested that having multiple densities for multi family sites (R10 and R20) could be favorably looked upon by HCD. The recommendation from planning has this without including 23 Oakwood. Also, as Oakwood is R10 it does not count for RHNA #’s. Of course, if they are built they are counted, so what Atherton is willing to trade for 3 low income units? Are you willing to trade these 3 units for future headaches from this planning inconsistency? Are you willing to put your own skin in the game with Gilmore House or the City Center? These could be easily actionable projects and more appropriate than Oakwood, if it is actionable you feel you need and 3 extra low income units.

The appearance of Council’s inclusion of Oakwood is not good either. Mayor Widmer seems to have pushed for this, and it turns out has a relationship with the property owner. Previously, Mayor Widmer has recused himself from voting on matters relating to Oakwood but at the 1/11 meeting was the driving force to bring it back on. There is more to this story, sure to be uncovered and pushed to the press if this goes through. Also, it is a matter of record that Council originally considered Oakwood at its position ‘on the periphery’ of town. This concept reinforces that Council has operated with a lack of consideration for the neighborhood in Redwood City where this abuts.

The threat from the property owner that he will exercise the builders remedy if he does not get what he wants should not justify the inclusion of Oakwood in the element. Atherton is not a Town to be bullied by a resident (he will not be for long) even if there have been some past favors by the resident.

So, for all these reasons, and the countless others that have been voiced regarding Oakwood’s inclusion, I implore you to please remove Oakwood from your re-submittal to HCD.

Thank you,
Tom Giorgi and Stephanie Sargent
From: Dolores Glendon
To: George Rodericks; Council
Subject: Housing Element - 348 new multifamily housing units Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 12:47:19 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
My wife and I are vehemently opposed to the proposal of adding housing units along Valparaiso Avenue. We have lived in Menlo Park for
almost 40 years and we have experienced increased traffic along Valparaiso and the entire area worsen year after year. The proposal to add more
housing along this corridor is unthinkable. The window for getting around town without traffic when schools are in session has decreased steadily.

The increasing traffic generated by the six schools in our area is already overloaded and untenable currently. Adding more housing to an already overloaded area is just plain wrong and without merit.

We are both early morning regular walkers and we can no longer walk on Valparaiso in the morning due to the traffic noise and fumes (pollution) from the vehicles inching along the street. Crossing the street is almost impossible for ones safety.

If one of us have to drive at that hour and need to use Valparaiso, just "being allowed" to merge onto the street is stressful.

The quality of life in Menlo Park and the surrounding area continues to be impacted by additional housing and development. The decisions made by cities and towns need to be properly assessed by its residents. What are the impacts to our environment, police and fire etc. The increased amount
of noise in our area due to construction and traffic is ongoing and very disturbing.

We would like the Atherton City Council to delay their decision and allow the residents and City of Menlo Park to participate in a meaningful discussion regarding the decision to add new multifamily housing units as currently proposed. Thank you.

David & Dolores Glendon
Hesketh Drive, MP
From: Mary
To: Council
Subject: REZONE of roperty at 23 Oakawood Boulevard
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 10:11:09 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 City Councel of the toown of Atherton, CA
I live on West Oakwood and have lived here for over 60 years…..The house was built in 1948 by my Father in Law and someone from the family has lived in it since 1948……until the last few years it has a always been an small comunnity and a wonderful place to raise children…….as like all else it has become more of a traffic hazzard of cars taking the side roads to travel from Woodsie Road to Selby Lane..and more building has produced more traffice. It will not only create more traffiic and become more danagerous, it will reduce property values at an alarming rate….we have all worked so hard over the years to keep the area safe and a great place to live……if the project shoulld be approved, which I do not feel is the right thing to do, and you can bet it this was NOT the border for Atherton and Redwood City, this would NOT be happening…it is because Atherton can do this because it is accross ther street from Atherton……..athe project should be required to provide parking and more that just one parking per unit……a parking garage, otherwise †here will be a makor parking issue….there is all ready a parking issue……..I would like to cast my opion…..TIS IS NOT THE TIME TO APPRPPVE THIS BUILDIMG REQUEST..

Marylou Graziani
Oakwood Blvd
Redwood City, CA. 94061
January 31, 2023
Town of Atherton City Council
Town of Atherton, Anthony Suber, City Clerk
80 Fair Oaks Lane
Atherton, CA 94027
[email protected]
[email protected]
Dear Atherton City Council and City Clerk Suber:

This letter shall serve as a public comment to the January 31, 2023 Special Meeting to discuss the Town of Atherton 2023-31 Housing Element.

I understand that adopting the Town of Atherton 2023-31 Housing Element is a complex and politically charged issue. The majority of Atherton residents do not want to change the current housing zones that are in place, and they definitely do not want multifamily units next door to their homes; people move to Atherton because they love the existing landscape.

However, as a community, we have to understand that the State is applying pressure to the Town of Atherton to be compliant with state mandates.

The Preferred Solution
The best option for the Town of Atherton is to NOT include a multifamily upzone or a multifamily overlay in the Housing Element. Either of these two options will result in law suits from impacted residents and the Town of Atherton will have to direct precious funds towards unnecessary court cases. It is clear wherever lines are drawn, the residents of the neighborhoods in what will be the newly zoned areas, are upset, scared and angry.

Instead of an upzone or an overlay, I firmly believe that we can reach our required numbers by building new ADUs and JADUs, and by reporting ADU and JADU usage. I have personally spoken to six Atherton homeowners over the past ten days who are willing to build an ADU on their property. I think our town focus should be to both encourage the development of ADUs, and to explain to residents the importance of renting out their ADUs. Currently with the “30-Day use restriction,” Atherton residents have not been encouraged to rent their ADUs, or report when their units are occupied.

In reality, Atherton ADUs are being used, but the majority of that use is not being quantified. If the Town of Atherton makes it clear that renting an ADU is not only allowed, but encouraged, and the Town clearly explains to residents how to report that use through conducting a massive public awareness campaign which would include an overview of the income brackets that qualify for the state mandate, I believe Atherton would get to the required numbers. Especially now with so much publicity surrounding this issue; let’s, as a unified town, rollout the road map of how we will successfully comply with the state mandate, without severly impacting Atherton homeowners and neighborhoods.

Whether a renter is a student teacher, a set of grandparents, a student at Stanford or Menlo College, a librarian, a single parent, a gardener, a summer intern, a police officer, a nanny, an eldercare specialist, a 22+ young adult moving to the Bay Area after completing college, or a commuter who stays in the Bay Area 3 nights a week; there are wonderful, respectable, and considerate renters who will be grateful to live in our community.

An Overlay is better than an Upzone
In following this issue, I appreciate that the Atherton Planning Commission took time to review the proposed Housing Element and that they made recommendations. If, as a Council Member, you believe that Atherton ABSOLUTELY has to include a multifamily zone option within this version of the Housing Element, then I would like you to consider the following.

I believe it is critical to do whatever possible to retain property values for ALL Atherton residents, and to allow homeowners the right to retain and improve their homes. I am completely OPPOSED to the UPZONING of any neighborhood in Atherton, as that will strip the homeowner of the ability to rebuild a single family home. Yes, homeowners can “improve” their homes, but why should one neighborhood be singled out to take the hit for all of Atherton? Instead, by putting on an expanded multifamily OVERLAY zone across a larger portion of Atherton, as the Planning Commission has suggested, the burden of the state rules is shared across many neighborhoods, so no one area will be hit with a drop in property values. With this option, all homeowners will retain their rights to keep their home. It is better to adopt the Town of Atherton 2023-31 Housing Element with the Planning Commission’s recommendations, than to move forward with an UPZONE. With UPZONING, the only option for a new built is a multifamily complex. An UPZONE will immediately change the character of a neighborhood and the current property owners will lose substantial property value. In the future State Mandates may change, so let’s make the best choice now to retain as much of Atherton’s character and value as possible.

Atherton residents are intelligent; they may not always agree with one another, but they are educated individuals. By working as a team, I believe we can meet or exceed the required State Mandates through the current and planned ADU infrastructure. I agree with the idea of waving fees to build ADUs during the next two years, and making the process as easy as possible. I do not, however, believe that homeowners should be required to pay an Inclusionary Fee as outlined in item (3.814).

Most importantly, educating Atherton residents about what are considered Low and Very-Low income levels, and how to rent ADUs to meet the State requirements, is critical. I believe that Atherton residents will adjust to meet the State Mandate. Let’s make the process of reporting ADU usage to the town and state as seamless as possible, so Atherton is compliant.

Sincerely,
Loren Gruner
Atherton, CA 94027
From:

To: Council
Subject: Opposition to the Re-zoning of 23 Oakwood Boulevard Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 1:12:28 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Good Morning – I am a Redwood City resident who lives at Oakwood Drive. I was just made aware of plans the City of Atherton has to add 10 units of housing per acre at 23 Oakwood Blvd. Unfortunately, I am not able to attend the meeting scheduled for this afternoon but want to strongly voice my opposition to this plan. I routinely walk by this location during my frequent walks in the neighborhood. Oakwood Drive already has more traffic utilizing our street to access the intesection at El Camino Real and certainly doesn’t need any additional cars in the neighborhood. In addition, given the lack of sidewalks on the Oakwood streets, it poses additional risk for the safety of walkers, runners and bikers many of whom are children & seniors.

Please reconsider this decision as there is more than enough space available in Atherton proper to meet the state’s affordable housing requirement without invading this location and it’s not appropriate or right for your town to impose and inconvenience the
residents of this neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration.

Karen Haga
Oakwood Drive
Redwood City, CA 94061
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Susan Honda Eady
To: Council
Cc: Jerry Eady; Tamiko Mom Honda
Subject: 23 Oakwood development
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 1:00:05 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 Atherton City Council
Please do not allow the development of 23 Oakwood.

We are concerned about traffic, parking and safety in the adjacent Oakwood Blvd area.

Especially without addressing those issues to include a signal at Selby Lane and El Camino.

Thank you.

Susan Honda Eady
Tamiko Honda
Jerry Eady
E Oakwood Blvd, Redwood City, CA 94061
Thank you.

From: Ellen Jamason
To: Anthony Suber
Cc: Giacomo Marini; Serena Marini
Subject: Re: Public Comment for January 31 City Council Study Session Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 1:15:20 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Anthony, please forward this to the members of the City Council.

Dear Members of the Atherton City Council,
We again applaud your sincere efforts on the Housing Element update. We appreciate the difficult considerations that must be considered to address residents’ concerns as well as to meet the requirements of the law.

We would support designation of multifamily zoning or overlay zones along El Camino Real and Valparaiso, as recently recommended by the Planning Commission.

We support allowing increased density on Oakwood, with reasonable development standards to mitigate impacts on neighbors.

We would also support multifamily housing on Town-owned property.

As we have stated previously, we believe that Atherton can and should allow more development as part of our fair share of regional housing needs.

Thank you again for your continued work on this difficult issue.

Ellen E. Jamason
Giacomo Marini
Serena Marini
Marymont Avenue
Atherton, CA
From: Ellen Jamason <e
Date: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 11:38
To: Anthony Suber <[email protected]>
Cc: Giacomo Marini <
Subject: Public Comment for January 11 City Council Study Session 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
Marymont Avenue
Atherton, CA
From: Jenna Johnson
To: Council
Subject: 23 Oakwood BLVD
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 11:20:23 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 Atherton City Council
As a homeowner at E. 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.

My husband and I moved here 8 years ago as we were expecting our first child. We now have three children who are 8, 6 and 4 years of age and are expecting our fourth any day now. I have watched my children learn to ride their bikes on these streets with much stress and anxiety. Taking a family walk with our dogs is equally stressful as there are no sidewalks in our neighborhood or leading out to Oakwood BLVD and Selby Lane. As East Oakwood is already a "cut through" street to get to Woodside Road or El Camino I watch drivers daily speed through our neighborhood, barely stop at the stop signs and disregard speed bumps and signs. Adding 18 more units to this neighborhood would only add to the unsafety of our neighborhood streets.

Through the pandemic we watched our neighborhood streets become slower and safer. We welcomed the "slow streets" as East and West Oakwood became less of a cut through from Selby to Woodside. Many people felt more comfortable walking with their families, strollers, pets or alone. The fear of my children's safety lessened as the constant flow of cars subsided.

Again, I stress that adding 18 units at 23 Oakwood with only one way in and out would be detrimental to our neighborhood. The infrastructure in place is already lacking for the amount of cars that have started to flow back through the neighborhood and the added cars from your development would only further this problem. Especially as West Oakwood remains a slow street, most through traffic has been pushed to our street, East Oakwood, where now I get nervous even having my kids grab the mail as cars zoom past.

Furthermore, it is clear to anyone with a brain that the Town of Atherton is trying to push these mandated housing developments to the outskirts of their borders where they will not soil their pristine Atherton Streets. Doing so will not affect your residents but me and my neighbors living in a less affluent neighborhood right next door.

I implore you to reconsider this rezoning. If not for the safety of the families and neighbors than for the fact that adding 18 more homes to our street would simply be irresponsible and a display of poor, haphazard planning.

Thank you for your time,
Jenna Johnson
From: Tris Kosasih
To: Council
Cc: Bill Widmer; George Rodericks; Elizabeth Lewis; Rick DeGolia Subject: Proposed Overlay - GRESHAM LANE
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 12:24:23 PM
Importance: High
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear Sir or Madam,
My name is Trisna Kosasih, and I have been living on Gresham Lane for over 25 years, across from the proposed area that’ll be included for overlay.

I am writing to you to let you know that I am strongly against the UPZONING of my area, GRESHAM LANE.; and I reserve the right to support the overlay.

I felt that the selection of my area, Gresham Lane is prejudicial given that Gresham Lane houses consist of many minorities owner and lower value houses.

This selection is also done in bad faith, the timing of the notification which left out the detail map, was sent out only a few days before the general public meeting. Almost no one in the Gresham Lane residents were aware of this till a good neighbor from other side notified each one of us.

In addition, I strongly believe that the city must show that the completion of CEQA review of the general plan amendment before approving it.; and I would like the city stated on the record that they have done so before sending it to the STATE.

I truly hope that you will take my concerns into serious consideration and withdraw this proposal because it will fail the state requirements.

And All my neighbors have signed a petition of not selling their houses, we will send a letter to the state stating that city is aware of the petition and still going through with the recommendation to the state.

Lastly I will stand alongside my neighbors with everything to make sure this proposal fails.

Please include this email when submitting to the state.

Thank you for your attention,
Best regards,
Trisna Kosasih
Lane.

Atherton, CA 94027
From: Debra Leylegian
To: Council
Subject: notice
Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 5:51:56 AM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Good Morning:

A long afternoon and 15 months had by all. I had asked for a question towards the end of the meeting and then hit a button that disconnected me. I had asked about the MP available apartments that have sprung up in droves and the occupancy vs the immediate rush for Atherton to create. I understand the State imposing their will but wonder under a Democracy why the Town , whose residents oppose the options presented, have to comply? I agree with Mr Morris to push back(understand the threat of a lawsuit but we know how that goes).

I trust you will speak for the community to push back in whatever way you can.

Thank you,
Debra Leylegian
From: David J. Lipman
To: Bill Widmer; [email protected]; Elizabeth Lewis; Rick DeGolia Cc: Council
Subject: high density housing
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 1:11:52 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear Council members:

I have been following the email threads on this issue and trying to get a better understanding of this issue. I appreciate the time and thought you all have put into this complex matter and I recognize there are no easy answers.

My initial reaction to the proposed plans was frustration that, after having our little neighborhood disrupted for > 2 years because of the work on the town center - the noise, the limited access, scuttling along El Camino every day to walk our dog - our neighborhood will now undergo further disruption related to construction on the other end of our street (Ashfield). But having read a number of the messages from other neighbors, I realize that the more significant issue is the particular configuration of our streets (Maple, Walnut, and Ashfield), the Town Center, and the railroad tracks and the ongoing consequences of additional housing density in the plan.

Our neighbor, Karthik Ramgopal, made this point clearly and concisely in the message he sent to you and forwarded to our neighbors and I want to repeat this message [below] as it is far more substantive than the temporary disruption any additional construction would generate.

I had not sent a message until now because I did not want to participate in "NIMBY"ism. But Mr. Ramgopal's message made explicit what had been concerning me: that the creation of increased density alongside our streets would have an especially profound and negative impact.

Please consider this as you review your position on this issue. And thank you for your service to the town of Atherton. I apologize for not attending this afternoon as I will be in work meetings.

Sincerely,
David J Lipman, MD
Ashfield Rd
Atherton, CA 94027
Dear Town Council,
Thank you for your hard work and commitment in navigating our community through these challenging state mandates. As a resident of Ashfield Road near the new library and Town Center, I would like to advocate for the following points:

The small roads that feed into El Camino Real (Ashfield/Maple/Walnut) were not built to handle large volumes of traffic. These roads are already being stretched by the additional traffic to the library and the town center.

There are frequent traffic snarls on El Camino Real, especially on weekdays (Sometimes making us wait quite a while before we can turn from Ashfield onto El Camino) which I expect will worsen further if high density housing with entrances on El Camino Real are built.

Given the above reasons, I propose that any feeder streets into the library/town center be excluded from upzoning. Instead, the town should consider areas like Middlefield/Marsh Road (Closer to public transit), Laurel Avenue (Menlo park side already has some MFH), or Lloyden Park (given sidewalks and wider roads) for upzoning.

Since the objective is to increase housing availability for residents, and given the historic purely residential nature of Atherton, short term rentals and Airbnbs should be banned in any new multi family housing that is built.

Multi-family housing should adhere to height restrictions in the current zoning to avoid any regressions in privacy and uniformity of the neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Karthik Ramgopal
Atherton, CA 9402
From: Xiaochen Liu
To: Council
Subject: Strongly objecting to rezoning at 23 Oakwood
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 3:17:38 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Athernton City Council,
Below is your reply to my previous email that opposes 23 Oakwood rezoning. I am surprised that the only sentence I read from your message is "it's all CA gov problem, please blame them and it's none of our business". Please, you are the local governor and you are responsible for your people and your neighbors' safety, not those politicians in Sacramento. If the bill goes through and 23 Oakwood rezoned, it is Athernton residents' kids to risk their lives passing that area, not Gavin Newson's colleagues. As the leader elected for Athernton, you should take your responsibility to speak for Atherton, not for funding, but for the duty that you're here for.
"It is truly unfortunate that Atherton, and every other municipality in CA is being forced by the state housing dept to increase density. This is not something that we support or want to do, but the consequences of not doing it are dire and that is forcing every municipality into this.

The issue with 23 Oakwood is that it has the only single family residence property owner in Atherton who has indicated an actual desire to build town houses on his property. This isn’t in any way discriminatory to RWC residents or county residents. It is a reality. I oppose the proposed 20 units an acre; however, we are told by the state that they will not question the affordability of any development that is zoned for at least 20 units an acre and if they were to question the affordability, it may well be that none of these contemplated units would be deemed to be affordable. As it stands, it appears that the state will accept 6 deemed units as affordable if it is zoned at 20 units an acre. I still don’t support that, but I believe it will likely be approved. The state has tied our hands and this is the only owner who wants to do this." Xiaochen
---Original Message-----
From: Leo Lovi
Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2023 2:12 pm
Subject: 23 Track House Neighborhood
Hi, Resending This, I sent you this for the meeting but found it had returned back.

Did anyone ever bring up the safety/danger issue that this property would pose @ its intersection of the Oakwood circle bike & walking path in the aspects as it resides a block away from the 3 memory care facilities Kengston, Oakwood House, & Sunrise in which caregivers utilize the circle to exercise residents with walkers & wheelchairs. Further complicated by the lack of pedestrian access for the volume of foot traffic with the new storm drainage project @ Oakwood drive Its clear that Atherton is serving their needs at the expense of destroying redwood cities neighborhood.

From: Jeanne McCarthy
To: Anthony Suber
Subject: Atherton Place
Date: Thursday, February 2, 2023 3:39:12 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
We are a 38 unit community with Atherton address (3521El Camino Real) but considered unincorporated San Mateo County.

There are 6 below market units within. Perhaps include us in the city of Atherton and the number of units needed to match State requirements could be of use. We are supporters of Atherton Library and would be happy being considered wanted neighbors
Just a thought.

Sent from my iPhone
From: Susan Miranda
To: Council
Subject: Why do Currys get special treatment?
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 12:16:56 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 am not a resident of Atherton, but after reading in the news the special treatment the Currys requested I felt the need to write. Why are they special? MONEY!! I would love to keep out the elements that are a threat to my family's safety and privacy. I would also love to have privacy in my backyard and to keep out high density housing for numerous reasons. I have little to no sway with my town council since I am not a famous athlete nor have a lot of money. If you allow the Currys to influence your decisions it will make it clear how the city council feels about diversity, equity, and inclusion in their city. Make the right decision for the entire town, not just the Currys or other residents who want to throw their clout around.

Regards,
Susan Miranda
From: Nash, Betsy
To: Council
Subject: Housing Element revision to include Valparaiso Avenue Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 12:21:12 PM
Attachments: CMP_Email_Logo_100dpi_05d92d5b-e8e3-498f-93a6-d0da509bd602111111111.png [The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Hello Mayor Widmer, Vice Mayor Hawkins-Manuelian, Councilmember DeGolia, Councilmember Holland, and Councilmember Lewis,
I write in my personal capacity and not on behalf of the Menlo Park City Council.

I was surprised to learn that Atherton is suddenly considering revising and finalizing its Housing Element in a manner that significantly affects your neighboring city of Menlo Park. This news was brought to my attention by affected residents, some of whom received a letter due to their proximity to newly-proposed zoning along Valparaiso Avenue. The letter (dated January 20, 2023) references this as follows: “Add an additional overlay zone allowing R-10 along Valparaiso Avenue. This would apply to 22 lots.” https://atherton.primegov.com/portal/viewer? id=526&type=2
Since Valparaiso Avenue is the border between Atherton and Menlo Park, any development on this road impacts residents of both Menlo Park and Atherton. Notably, new development along Valparaiso is likely to have traffic, noise, air quality and other environmental impacts on both your residents and ours, which Atherton should consider thoughtfully before making a policy choice of this nature. Please consider this in making your Housing Element decisions.

The Menlo Park City Council is also finalizing our Housing Element update tonight, so I understand the complexities of the decisions you are making.

Sincerely,
Betsy Nash
Menlo Park Councilmember, District 4
[cid:CMP_Email_Logo_100dpi_05d92d5b-e8e3-498f-93a6-d0da509bd602111111111.png] Betsy Nash
City Councilmember
City Hall - 2nd Floor
701 Laurel St.
tel
menlopark.gov<http://www.menlopark.gov/>
*Note our emails have changed to @menlopark.gov
From: Caroline Oung
To: Council
Cc: Elizabeth Lewis; Bill Widmer; George Rodericks; Tris Kosasih Subject: Proposed Overlay on GRESHAM Lane
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 11:54:56 AM
Importance: High
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear Sir or Madam,
My name is Caroline Oung, and I have been living on Lane for over 25 years, across from the proposed area that’ll be included for overlay.

I am writing to you to let you know that I strongly do not support the UPZONING of my area, GRESHAM LANE.; and I reserve the right to support the overlay.

When I first purchased the property, I chose Atherton for both the safety and tranquility that the city was famous for. I selected the Cul-de-sac (Gresham Lane) specifically with the idea that my kids and future grandkids could safely ride their bikes outside and enjoy the tight-knit community. Now all the aspects that I valued so dearly will be taken away from me.

I did not inherit the property that I live on, I inherited nothing at all; I worked very hard to be able to buy a house in Atherton. Seeing the potential for my life to be upended completely, I honestly am at a loss as to what to do.

I additionally feel very targeted by this move, knowing how many options were available to the town council in terms of volunteered parcels and opportunities , and the selection of our area, which has some of the highest concentration of minorities and smallest houses in all of Atherton. Gresham lane is a small and Cul-De-Sac, over 90% of the houses are owned lived in by the owners, not rented.

As I look towards what life might look like with the proposed overlay, I cannot see how our lives will be unaffected. The Multi Stories unit looking down my properties and my neighbors will invade our privacy. And the safety of letting our children play around this cul-de-sac are no longer possible.

In addition the traffic corner of Gresham and El Camino Real, where I've seen so many accidents already, will only see more heavy traffic. I'm worried about how heavily impacted my community will be.

I truly hope that you will take my concerns into serious consideration and withdraw this proposal. If you do continue with sending the proposal to the state, I will stand alongside my neighbors in fighting it with everything I can, because it is my family’s safety, happiness and future that I am fighting for.

Please include my email/letter when you submit to the STATE.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Best regards,
Caroline Oung
Lane.

Atherton, CA 94027

rsdays from 8 a.m. – 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 4
ePlan-Submittal
t assigned to a public official for the Town of
to this email account may constitute a public
be subject to disclosure to any person upon
n.ca.us>; George Parsons
ing of 23 Oakwood Blvd.
se do not open attachments or click
George and Sarah Parsons
Ralph Robinson,
Associate Planner
80 Fair Oaks Lane
Atherton, CA 94027
[email protected]
[email protected] January 30, 2023
Dear Mr. Robinson:

We are writing in response to the recent notice from the Town of Atherton regarding the proposed rezoning of 23 Oakwood Blvd. in Atherton to increase housing density.

While we support increasing housing density statewide to allow for more affordable housing for local populations, we have several concerns with the current proposal for the Town of Atherton. We oppose the plan to add multi-family housing near our home as this increase in housing density will have direct consequences for our personal safety, our quality of life and our equity in our home.

We feel strongly that there are better locations to consider for the large-scale rezoning. For example, the El Camino and Valparaiso areas are better suited to put high density housing in as they are major streets that can accommodate the increased traffic that denser housing will create. Not in our small neighborhood of Oakwood Blvd, which has very limited capacity.

Thank you for reading and considering the safety issues below:

Safety Problems: This lot is very narrow and long (approx. 140’ x 488’, based on tax records) it seems reckless to allow so many units on this size of a lot especially with the fires we have had recently. How will emergency vehicles get in to respond to emergencies? Traffic and Safety Problems: The additional homes will bring additional cars which will create a significant traffic impact on Oakwood Blvd, which is a non-major thoroughfare.

There are no sidewalks in the area, it is this is a busy walking area for local residents, children walk to school, and it is also a known bike path the additional cars will add a significant safety hazard to the area.

This road and Selby floods in heavy rain, what will be done to correct this? Traffic is already bad on Oakwood Circle due to the addition of 6 homes and the fact that the public is using our circle as a way to avoid El Camino. Adding residences will inevitably add more cars in our little neighborhood due to this addition and will most definitely be a safety issue.

Inequity: This allowance for 23 Oakwood to construct up to 10 units per acre, will more than double the density compared to the other Atherton sites, despite them all being in similar residential areas this appears to be Inequity with the singling out of the denser home construction ONLY on the site bordering the lower socioeconomic status and higher diversity of Redwood City.

A significant negative impact on local parking constraints with new residents and their guests potentially now parking on East and West Oakwood Blvd as well as Selby Lane. ·
Multifamily housing should be located at places zoned for higher density already or on larger streets not in small residential areas that cannot accommodate the traffic (such as 23 Oakwood), or are not connected to public transportation hubs, etc. and multifamily dwellings are inconsistent with the neighborhoods in this area.
·
After much research and seeing the original plan, it did not originally include 23 Oakwood but it was added due to an owner request (haphazard, self-servicing to increase a particular property’s value, and this is bad policy process overall). ·
The units will be constructed with lot sizes out of proportion with the local community (where lots are on average 8,000+ sq.ft.) There is some confusion about the actual size of this property, tax records show this as a 1.52-acre site however the sellers are stating that is 1.62-acres.

We believe that the current proposal has not considered these impacts adequately and strongly suggest that the density of new construction should at the very least be equitable across regions. Further, we suggest that proper evaluation of traffic impacts, safety impacts, school impacts and the negative property value impact to local neighborhoods should be performed before agreeing on a proposal, I, Sarah Parsons, am an active local Realtor with over 30 years’ experience and I know this will have a direct negative effect on our homes equity. Our opinions are shared by many who have not managed to attend meetings or write letters and emails.

Thank you for your continued service and support of our community.

Sincerely,
George and Sarah Parsons
What's My Home Worth?
Free Home Search App!
"Persistence in Spite of All Obstacles...Equals Success!" From: Maggie Pringle
Date: January 30, 2023 at 4:56:57 PM PST
links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Dear George,
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
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
From: Karthik Ramgopal
To: Council
Cc: George Rodericks
Subject: High Density Housing along El Camino Real
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 8:32:35 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 Town Council,
Thank you for your hard work and commitment in navigating our community through these challenging state mandates. As a resident of Ashfield Road near the new library and Town Center, I would like to advocate for the following points:

The small roads that feed into El Camino Real (Ashfield/Maple/Walnut) were not built to handle large volumes of traffic. These roads are already being stretched by the additional traffic to the library and the town center.

There are frequent traffic snarls on El Camino Real, especially on weekdays (Sometimes making us wait quite a while before we can turn from Ashfield onto El Camino) which I expect will worsen further if high density housing with entrances on El Camino Real are built.

Given the above reasons, I propose that any feeder streets into the library/town center be excluded from upzoning. Instead, the town should consider areas like Middlefield/Marsh Road (Closer to public transit), Laurel Avenue (Menlo park side already has some MFH), or Lloyden Park (given sidewalks and wider roads) for upzoning.

Since the objective is to increase housing availability for residents, and given the historic purely residential nature of Atherton, short term rentals and Airbnbs should be banned in any new multi family housing that is built.

Multi-family housing should adhere to height restrictions in the current zoning to avoid any regressions in privacy and uniformity of the neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Karthik Ramgopal
ield Road
Atherton, CA 94027
From: Planning <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 1:02 PM
To: Kevin Riley <[email protected]>
Cc: Christabel Soria-Mendoza <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Developing multi-family units on 23 Oakwood Blvd, Redwood City [The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Hello Kevin,
Unfortunately, this is something that the City of Sacramento cannot assist with. If there is opposition to a particular project, I have included the Christabel Soria-Mendoza, who is the contact listed on the Atherton Planning Department webpage. You will need to refer to the Atherton contacts for your requests going forward.
!
Thanks Steffane,
We will be at the meeting with our neighbors. The problem is this is Atherton who has deep pockets and a lot of money and power rezoning and building high density housing in a Redwood City residential neighborbood they refer to as the poverty pocket.

We need help from Sacramento to stop them.

Do you know who I can contact from an SB209 standpoint.

Thanks,
Kevin
From: Planning <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 5:12 PM
To: Kevin Riley < >
Subject: RE: Developing multi-family units on 23 Oakwood Blvd, Redwood City Hello Kevin,
Unfortunately, with this type of concern, our Planning Division does not have any jurisdiction with this matter. The City of Sacramento’s jurisdiction is solely for Sacramento City.

If projects in Atherton are like the City of Sacramento, then I recommend reaching out to their Planning Department for more information on this project.

I was able to look up their contact information:

Atherton Planning Departments:
80 Fair Oaks Lane
Atherton, CA 94027
Phone: : 650-752-0544
Here is a link to their Planning Department page, and you can voice a concern on their website as well.

Kind Regards,
Steffane Lui | Assistant Planner
Community Development Department
300 Richards Boulevard, Third Floor,
Sacramento, CA 95811
Advisory: All-electric NEW construction requirements begin on January 1, 2023! From: Kevin Riley >
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 10:04 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Developing multi-family units on 23 Oakwood Blvd, Redwood City Thanks Pamela,
The City of Atherton is going to rezone and build high density multifamily units on an adjacent Redwood City street.

This will ruin our street, but Atherton has alot of money and can do what they want. They are doing this to appease the SB209 mandate from Gov. Newsome.

I put the city of sacramento on the cc as I am not sure if you can stop the madness. This will completely ruin our neighborhood.

Do you know who we can contact from Sacramento to help put some sanity to this crazy plan? Thanks again,
Kevin
From: Planning <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 6:04 PM
To: Kevin Riley <k
Subject: RE: Developing multi-family units on 23 Oakwood Blvd, Redwood City Hello @Kevin Riley,
Your email is very important but in reading it below it appears you are from Redwood City? You would need to submit to Redwood City to voice opposition.

This is the city of Sacramento.

Have a nice day.

Kind regards,
Pamela Morgan on behalf of City Planning
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
300 Richards Boulevard, Third Floor,
Sacramento, CA 95811
Open by appointment only.

City Operator 311 or 916-264-5011
Advisory: All-electric NEW construction requirements begin on January 1, 2023! TO LOOK UP ZONING, design review districts, historic districts, parking district, SPD etc. please copy this link into your URL:
https://cas5-0-urlprotect.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query? url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.arcgis.com%2fapps%2fwebappviewer%2findex.html%3fid%3d6f8e021cb286482b9a649e33ac6e67ea&umid=7 8091149-9c22-4d0b-b962-3e1a07bf0cb7&auth=0c78d5381d8efeba9ba4477b3ca23a49d0ab462fe1a109dc7802075235111f0f630a63fae1984c9a From: Kevin Riley <
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2023 5:24 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Planning <[email protected]> Subject: Developing multi-family units on 23 Oakwood Blvd 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: Nancy Ryde
To: Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Housing Plan
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 1:43:32 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 Members of the Atherton Town Council
We are writing to you to express our lack of support for the most recent proposed housing plan approved by the town’s Planning Commission that advocates placing an overlay on all properties along the El Camion corridor.

We feel that this plan is misguided in many ways. The portion of El Camino that runs through Atherton has a long history of accidents and pedestrian fatalities. Encouraging more people to live in this area can’t help but raise the probability of more accidents in the future and increase the risk of more lives lost along this highway.

Adding large developments along El Camino will drastically affect the traffic along El Camino as well as the small streets that intersect it. These small side streets are ill equipped to handle increased traffic and are already dangerous when Wayz and other apps recommend rerouting traffic through town.

As has been mentioned before, adding 20 homes on one acre drastically changes the character of our town. Not that the state cares about that, but most of the people who actually live here do care. We have read that some council and planning commission members have stated, in essence, that El Camino is already busy and crowded so let’s just take advantage of that and dump the required housing there. The fact is, that the stretch of El Camino that runs through Atherton is nothing like the parts of El Camino that run through the adjacent towns. Building multi family housing developments there will most certainly change the character of that part of our town and that area is as much a part of our town as any other part.

In addition, this plans targets one part of our town to bear the brunt of the state’s one-size-fits-all solution to providing multi family housing which seems to be patently unfair. If building housing on a major road is the only possible solution, then that housing should be distributed on Marsh Road, Bay Road, Middlefield Road, Encinal, Atherton Avenue and Alameda de las Pulgas.

We are in favor of the concept of placing the multi family housing on the campuses of the private schools in our town. It is our understating that these schools need and want housing for their faculty and staff and, in the case of Menlo College, their students. This plan actually puts housing in a place that NEEDS housing, thus achieving the spirit of the California mandate. In addition, placing housing for faculty, staff and students on the campuses will alleviate some of the numerous, dangerous traffic issues associated with these schools. The likelihood of actually achieving very low and low income housing under this scenario seems to be much higher than hoping that a developer will purchase numerous small lots on El Camino at a price of $8 million per acre and take a loss by renting or selling those units far belong market value.

The idea that a developer would make this type of financial decision is clearly unrealistic.

We thank you all for the time and effort that has gone into this process and we appreciate that it is very difficult decision for everyone. However, we hope that you will do what is right for our town and push back on the state to create a solution that is the right one for our community.

Respectfully,
Nancy and Magnus Ryde
Winchester Drive, Atherton CA
From: Dale Sakai
To: George Rodericks; Bill Widmer; Diana Hawkins-Manuelian; Elizabeth Lewis; Rick DeGolia; Stacy Miles Holland Cc: Council
Subject: HCD
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 1:01:10 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 hope you all had a Happy New Year!
We are long time Atherton residents and wanted to weigh in on the HCD draft that the town is considering. Most importantly, I think we can all agree that the state has no business mandating housing policy to towns and cities. Having said this, the recent proposal you are considering seems to be discriminatory at best. It disproportionately burdens those residents that own the smallest land parcels. These folks should not have to bear the burden of such an ill-formed mandate. Not to mention, the optics look absolutely terrible.

If one of the tenants of the draft is to identify parcels that are on major thoroughfares, there are several; Marsh Road, Bay Road, Middlefield Road, Oak Grove, Valparaiso, El Camino Real, Atherton Avenue, Alameda de las Pulgas. Including parcels on all of these thoroughfares in the draft would be more egalitarian, and would serve to dilute the associated traffic and density-driven challenges; but would still place unfair burden on the associated residents. While sub-optimal, the only fair way to identify multi-family parcel opportunities would be to randomly pick parcels in the entire town.

Frankly, I think the entire state mandate to be folly. I would rather see the town band together with other towns and cities to fight the mandate. I understand the mayor of Los Gatos is actively doing just this. We know that Woodside is also working hard to figure out how to deal with this ill-formed mandate. Apparently, towns and cities throughout the state are opposed to the mandate. Why not take more of a leadership role.

None the less, randomly selecting parcels for potential multi-family development is potentially the ONLY fair solution to the problem. The current proposal will only be found to be discriminatory and will forever tie the town up in litigation.

Regards,
Dale Sakai
Lindenwood

From: Vipul Sheth
To: Council
Subject: Exclude current plan for 23 Oakwood from Atherton Housing Element Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 9:52:04 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 Council,
I am writing to register my opposition to the inclusion of 23 Oakwood for rezoning at 10 units per acre. As a neighbor residing, I can attest that this level of density is out of character with the neighborhood, the lot's narrow profile makes it unrealistic to expect this level of density, and the additional traffic is a safety hazard in the neighborhood which lacks sidewalks and is heavily used by pedestrians. Placing this kind of dense zoning on the border of Atherton suggests the council is simply trying to meet the state requirement and dumping the development issues on the neighboring town. The proposed rezoning should be reduced to allow a maximum of 4 residences per acre which better matches the adjacent neighborhood in Redwood City.

Vipul Sheth
Oakwood Blvd
Redwood City, CA 94061
From: Marla Simon
To: Council
Subject: Oppose 23 Oakwood
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 9:47:58 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 Atherton council board members,
I liven the border of Atherton and Redwood City. I utilize Sellby lane and other roads through Atherton on a daily basis. I oppose the development of 23 Oakwood as it will bring more traffic to the interior roads which are already overloaded. Cars are constantly cutting though my road at very fast speeds. Please consider your main road arteries to expand this housing. Thank you for your consideration - our small neighborhood is already bursting at the seams.

Marla Simon
Rutherford Ave
Redwood City, CA 94061
1 January 31, 2023
Via Electronic Mail
To: Anthony Suber, City Clerk ([email protected]) RE: Comments on January 31, 2023, Town Council Agenda Item 1 (Consideration of Resolution Adopting General Plan Amendment)
Dear Mayor Widmer and members of the Town Council:

I am writing on behalf of Greenfire Law, P.C., legal counsel to Pamela Silvaroli, in opposition of the proposed rezoning of Ms. Silvaroli’s home and seventeen other parcels along northern El Camino Real to RM 20. Greenfire Law is a boutique environmental law firm in Berkeley, California that focuses on the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and land use litigation. The deficiencies in the proposed Housing Element being considered by the Town Council today are very similar to violations that have been the basis for this firm overturning other ordinances in court.

I. Adoption of a Housing Element does not Qualify for a CEQA Exemption.

The CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations) specifically provide that “the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof” is considered a “project” under CEQA. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15378(a)(1).) This straightforward declaration of law flatly contradicts the unsupportable assertion in the Staff Report 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).”
The related claim that the amendment “is a planning study and will not have any impacts to the environment” is an egregious mischaracterization. A “planning study” is preliminary Ariel Strauss, Of-Counsel
2748 Adeline Street, Ste. A
Berkeley, CA 94703
510-900-9502 x 702
[email protected]
www.greenfirelaw.com
2 analysis in advance of future, actual legislative action. Such studies previously occurred in the Town Council meetings listed on page 2 of the Staff Report. In contrast to a “study,” the instant amendment (whether approval of a new multi-family zones, creation of overlay zones, removal of SB 9 residency requirements, or other residential density-increasing legislation) is the action arising out of those studies that directly imposes a multifold increase in allowable density.

The Staff Report’s fallback notion that the General Plan amendments are “Regional Housing Needs determinations” (“RHNA”) exempted by CEQA Guidelines, section 15283, is equally plainly erroneous. A RHNA under Government Code, section 65584(g) is a tabulation of the net quantity of units needed in a given locality. As stated on page 2 of the Staff Report, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined on December 16, 2021, that Atherton’s share of housing is 348 units. That determination by ABAG, the environmental impact of which was impossible to quantify as the Town would implement it on the ground in unknown ways, was exempt. But the action being considered today by the Council is an amendment of the General Plan to concretely enable the addition of those housing units in particular locations and by specific methods here in Atherton, an action that will certainly have a significant and foreseeable environmental impact.1
Among other environmentally significant consequences, the proposed amendment enables multifamily housing, an entirely new type of zone (whether as a rezoning or overlay zone), in a town that currently only has R-1 residential districts. Predictably, increasing density from 1 to 3 units per acre to 10 or 20 units per acre will plainly have manifest impacts on traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, water usage, sewage and runoff, electricity consumption, and physical changes to surface features, as well as many other consequences. Numerous public comments attached to the Staff Report recount valid concerns of pollution, traffic impacts, emergency services access, flooding, and other consequences of up-zoning.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.2(a), among other elements, an environmental impact report must analyze “changes induced in population distribution, population concentration, the human use of the land (including commercial and residential 1 Notably, the text of the proposed resolution itself does not mention CEQA and does not state that the amendment qualifies for any exemption.
3 development), health and safety problems caused by the physical changes, and other aspects of the resource base such as water, historical resources, scenic quality, and public services.” (See, generally, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15126.2 (discussing broad categories of impacts that must be considered).)
Sections 5 and 6 of the draft resolution declare that the Housing Element would become effective immediately upon enactment by the Council. (See also, Atherton Code, § 17.23.060.) Under SB 330 (Skinner 2019), if any up-zoned sites are “identified as suitable or available for very low, low, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element,” a developer will be entitled to build on those lots at the maximum the density level allowed by the General Plan “even though it is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(d)(5)(A).) This means that the Housing Element will have the immediate legal consequence of enabling new development even before the Council implements a more detailed ordinance or HCD confirms the amendment. As a result, the potential environmental impacts of the amendment must be considered within the CEQA framework, before the Housing Element can be enacted into law.

The Town has an obvious duty to assess the significance of the impacts and weigh various alternatives. Yet it has blatantly failed to do so despite years of discussion. The Council’s reliance on facially inapplicable exemptions and the consequent refusal to conduct mandatory environmental review will invalidate the Housing Element, whether it contains an amendment, zoning overlay or other densification measures. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21168.5.) II. Rezoning only Seventeen Small Parcels on El Camino Real does not Generate Realistic Additional Residential Capacity. An Overlay is a Better Option.

Under the up-zoning scenario, the Town is gaming the RHNA system by counting potential units along northern El Camino Real that are unlikely to be built. The Staff Report correctly recounts that on January 19th, the “property owners within the upzoning area presented the Commission with a signed petition indicated they had no interest in selling their property or developing multifamily housing. They further indicated that the lots are small with relative high land cost.” As also recognized in the Staff Report, only development that is likely to realistically 4 occur during this eight-year planning cycle can be counted toward the Town’s RHNA numbers.

In making this assessment, the Town must consider “typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction[.]” (Gov. Code, § 65583.2(c)(2).)
Attachment 5, Exhibit B, includes the following HCD comments regarding 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.

The Town notes that this comment has been addressed but it no meaningful detail is shown in the provided draft. Similarly, regarding the suitability of nonvacant sites, HCD comments that the Town
must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for additional development on nonvacant sites. . . 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.

Here too, the Town notes that the proposed amendment has been updated but the analysis is still missing.

Additional development will only occur on the seventeen parcels proposed to be rezoned RM-20 if the existing homes are demolished and multiple lots are combined to meet the half-acre minimum threshold. The targeted lots are much more expensive per-square foot and developers will encounter hold-outs, further driving up the cost the of development in this area (see, e.g., comments of Jennifer Ryan). The Staff Report relays that HCD takes “seriously” the owners’ letter stating they have no intention of selling within the current housing cycle. The owner’s statements are not idle threats but actual reflections of near-term intentions based on their 5 children’s current school attendance and other conventional considerations (see, e.g., comments of Jin Wang and Jing Yi).

HCD will recognize that the RM 20 zoning scheme is a superficial and hasty contrivance.

Rather than submitting a transparently shoddy proposal that staff and the Commission do not support, the Council should take the necessary time to make changes that actually will meet the Town’s housing allocation obligations.
2 The zoning overlay proposal, which is supported by staff and the Commission and includes roughly five times as many parcels, affords a much more realistic potential for meeting the Town’s housing allocation.

III. Procedural Errors Pervade the RM 20 General Plan Amendment Proposal.

The record reflects procedural violations leading up to today’s vote. As documented in the communicates attached to the Staff Report, the residents along Gresham Lane did not receive more than a few days’ notice of the January 18
th City Council meeting and the January 19th
Planning Commission meeting in violation of Government Code, section 65091, et seq.

Moreover, no map was included with the notices, preventing residents from understanding whether the proposed changes affected their homes. This deficiency was acknowledged by the City Council on January 18th, as well as pointed out by members of the public at that time.

Furthermore, it appears that Councilmember Holland may reside within 500 feet of the proposed expanded overlay zone. If this is the case, the Councilmember is presumed to have a conflict of interest under the Fair Political Practices Act and should have recused herself from any previous discussions touching on the topic of up-zoning additional stretches of El Camino Real, including the consideration on January 18th. (2 Cal. Code Regs §18702.2(a)(7).) The Staff Report recounts several study sessions discussing various possibilities, including sessions at which Councilmember Holland was present. If Councilmember Holland’s residence is adjacent to areas considered for rezoning, and participation contributed to the inappropriately narrow focus on the seventeen parcels along the northern portion of El Camino Real, rather than a more 2 Several members of the public recommended that the Town instead seek to meet its RHNA targets by providing workforce housing to teachers, municipal workers and emergency service personnel on existing vacant or larger lots.

Other members of the public recommend reducing minimum lot sizes throughout the town to allow more singlefamily homes in a more naturally integrated manner better aligned with the historic R-1 pattern. 6 realistic, broader approach to meeting the RHNA requirement, such actions would be subject to reversal. Councilmember Holland must address on the record concerns about the location of her residence and recuse herself today if her residence’s proximity constitutes a reasonably foreseeable financial conflict.

IV. Rezoning only Seventeen Parcels on the Edge of Town Constitutes Spot Zoning.

As Lisa Thomas explained in her comments attached to the Staff Report, the proposal to rezone seventeen smaller parcels along the northern El Camino Real corridor, if somehow brought to fruition, unreasonably overburdens these residents in a manner out of proportion with the realistic benefits to the community. The Commission and staff do not support the RM 20 approach and instead recommend a zoning overlay on 88 parcels (Staff Report at p. 5). The focus on only seventeen parcels ignores many others that are equally and more capable of supporting additional units. Courts recognize that “spot zoning” may apply to increasing density and areas of various shapes; the core consideration is whether the legislative action “is discriminatory with respect to owners of property similarly situated.” (Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1312, quoting Case v. City of Los Angeles (1956) 142 Cal.App.2d 66, 67; see also Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1270.) The RM 20 proposal is also irrational as, according to staff, the Commission and the overall record, it is unlikely to achieve the Town’s asserted objective of meeting HCD requirements as explained above. The Council should not subject only a small strip on the edge of town to a sudden, multi-fold increase in density but rather distribute new housing opportunity sites across suitable parcels throughout the Town.

V. The Town Lacks the Authority to Remove the SB 9 Residency Requirement.

The Staff Report and draft Housing Element repeatedly declare that the Town will “Remove the residency requirement for lots of 1 acre in size or more that subdivide under SB9.” (Staff Report, p. 6.) SB 9 (Atkins 2021) created exceptions from the usual procedures and standards for lot splits that are imposed by the Subdivision Map Act and other provisions of California law. Nevertheless, SB 9 states that the Town “shall require an applicant for an urban 7 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).) As a result, state law mandates that if the Town approves a lot split under the expedited procedures of SB 9, rather than a conventional process that, for instance, affords neighbors more participatory rights or affords the Town more oversight, it must (i.e. “shall”) impose a three-year residency requirement. The statute affords no discretion for larger lots and the Staff Report cites no authority for a proposal that runs contrary to the express requirement of SB 9. Consequently, the Town has no authority to waive the residency requirement.

VI. Conclusion
As explained in the comments above, the Council must perform CEQA review of any proposed change to zoning standards and implement a fair approach to meeting the Town’s RHNA obligations that will realistically provide the required number of units.

Sincerely,
Ariel Strauss
From: Toni Tarango
To: Council
Subject: About Affordable Housing fears…
Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 7:47:58 AM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
As a response to Ayesha Curry’s concerns:

Perhaps we shouldn’t really be surprised?! The wealthy (even those much less so) never want “those people” living too close to them. It’s par for the course! Without knowing any of “those people” they become a source of fear. Wealth insulates folks from everyday life. The Atherton AH project will likely house families not unlike like those who have been recipients of their Eat, Learn, Play program. In other words, people who also want their children to have a home and who also value privacy and safety.

Toni Tarango
Former Resident Services Coordinator provider in various Affordable Housing communities
"The human race can be roughly divided into two categories: Ailurophiles and ailurophobes — cat-lovers and the underprivileged." – David Taylor From: Lisa Thomas
To: Council
Subject: Related to the consideration of housing element.

Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 2:00:29 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Lisa Thomas
Gresham lane
Atherton
Jan 31 2023
Hon Mayor Widmer and Hon. Members of the Atherton Town Council, Related to the consideration of a resolution adopting a Housing Element. We own the property at 48 Gresham Lane and hereby object to any Housing Element that includes the upzoning or overlay of properties on Gresham Lane, Atherton. By this letter, we hereby make any and all objections and oppositions to any Housing Element that upzones or overlays properties on Gresham Lane and preserve all legal rights to challenge any Housing Element adopted by the Town of Atherton in a civil proceeding, including but not limited to, seeking judicial review.

We are strongly opposed to the proposed upzoning and overlay project of Gresham Lane, Atherton, which would include the possibility of building multi-family housing units. As homeowners on Gresham lane, facing the proposed multi-family site we would be severely impacted by this upzoning. The presence of multi story buildings overlooking our land would severely infringe on our privacy rights. It would mean windows that would look directly into my teenage childrens bedrooms and overlook our garden, representing an invasion of privacy and threatening the security of my children. It would also destroy our quality of life as we currently live on a no-thru traffic cul de sac which is peaceful and safe for our children to play in the street. The traffic created from multifamily residences would be an unacceptable nuisance and compounded existing pollution issues. The towns failure to conduct mandatory environment review pursuant to CEQA section 15126.2 will invalidate this housing element. The development would greatly impact our existing scenic quality, air quality, noise pollution and thereby be detrimental to our quality of life. As well as negatively impact the value of our property. Additionally, there were due process and procedural violations relating to this matter. We did not receive due notice from the town of Atherton that Gresham lane was being considered for inclusion in the list of properties in the Housing Element before the Jan 11 vote was taken. There has been no specific mention or public comment in prior town hall meetings whatsoever to alert us that Gresham Lane, specifically, was being considered for multi family upzoning. Furthermore residents did not receive more than a few days notice of the Jan 18th council meeting, in violation of Government code section 65091. Moreover the Jan 12th letter that served as notice of the upzoning proposal to residents of Gresham lane indicated that there was a map attached highlighting properties that were designated for upzoning, but the map was not included. A fact that was acknowledged by the city manager at the Jan 18th council meeting.

Upzoning or overlaying Gresham lane does not meet HCD or AFFH requirements, nor will it result in achieving the Towns multi family housing objective, for the following reasons; Gresham Lane does not meet multi-housing requirements as all lots are under 0.5 acres, all but one of the proposed sites on Gresham Lane are 0.32 acres. The HCD states, ‘A site smaller than half an acre shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing needs” As per California Government Code Sec. 65583.2. The state requires justification pertaining to the likelihood for redeveloping non-vacant sites. The majority of residents on Gresham lane have signed a petition that they do not want or intend to sell their homes in the next eight years. This renders the proposal infeasible as the lots are not vacant and the owners have no intention to sell. Therefore the Town cannot count our lots in their RHNA numbers as, “Only developments that are likely to realistically occur during this 8 year planning cycle can be counted toward the Town’s RHNA numbers.”
Development of multi-family units on Gresham Lane can only occur if the non vacant existing homes are demolished and multiple lots are combined to meet the ½ acres threshold. The probability of two lots being sold together is extremely unlikely given that residents have stated they do not want to sell. Furthermore the project of building low income housing here is not economically feasible as at current market value 0.32 acres on Gresham lane sells for $4 million dollars. Since two lots would be needed to meet the mandatory ½ acre, it would cost $8 million dollars. In contrast there are one acre lots selling for $5 to $ 7 million all over town. Currently there is a one acre lot on 95 Mulberry lane, adjacent to a transportation route and bike lanes of Alameda de las Pulgas, selling for $5.5 million dollars for example.

Inequity: State law requires all elements of the housing proposition be in accordance with the AFFH act. Proposing Gresham lane is in direct violation of that act as it places all extremely low and low income multi family units in proximity to the only corner of Atherton that borders R/ECAPS zones; along the western edge of Town bounding El Camino Real.

Proposed upzoning should at the very least be equitable across all areas of town and not choose to stigmatize or discriminate against one single area of our town. The goal of AFFH stipulates you should aim to integrate low-income families throughout Atherton. The proposed upzoning is selectively restrictive and does not comply with the threshold requirement for California Government Code sections 65583.2 ( including (c), (2), (A), (B),( C)“size of sights’ analysis. Furthermore, AFFH demands that identified sites should not be concentrated in low-resourced areas (lack of access to high performing schools or in locations disproportionately exposed to pollution ) or areas of segregation and concentrations of poverty. Yet the proposal targets homes in one concentrated area, along one of our busiest, unsafe and most polluted traffic corridors.

The proposed plan does not comply with the AFFH’s ‘access to opportunity’ stipulations as it 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. Selby lane school already has a 24:1 student teacher ratio compared to 15:1 and Encinal and Las Lomitas. Furthermore the proposal does not allow access to the higher performing schools in town, for example the proposed zone would depend on 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. TCAC’s composite opportunity score for Atherton shows census tracts west of El Camino Real fall within moderate resource areas whereas all other areas of Atherton fall into high resource. The town has failed to share the responsibility of multi-family housing developments across high resource areas in order to meet the equal access to opportunity requirement.

In further violation to AFFH’s ‘access to opportunity’ criteria the proposed area for upzoning has no bike lanes, and is not a walkable neighborhood. We are a 36 minute hazardous walk to Redwood city Sequoia station, 52 minutes to Menlo downtown. There are no sidewalks in the area and this is a high speed high traffic density road with very few pedestrian stop lights. This adds significant safety concerns. Unlike other major transportation corridors in town such as Valparaiso and Alameda de la Pulgas, El Camino Real has no bike lanes. This is dangerous for children who bike to school.

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. 1.

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.

For the aforementioned reasons please remove Gresham Lane from the list of properties listed in the multi-family up-zoning and overlay section of the housing element that is to be submitted to the state. Sufficient alternatives to meet state requirements. Atherton can meet state numbers by overlaying the 22 acre park it owns or one of the innumerous already vacant lots throughout the town. Several willing developers have come forward.

Please include this letter in any proposal you submit to the State Department of Housing and Community Development concerning this matter to help them evaluate whether it is reasonable to think an upzone or overlay on my property would increase housing in the next 8 years.

Respectfully
Lisa Thomas

From: Rufino Urrutia
To: Council
Cc: Cbs
Subject: Re: Racial and economic diversity
Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 10:49:46 AM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Racial and economic diversity really needs discussions soon. It's a Pandora's box. Hard to undo specially for kids.

It's easy to see more resentment, Drugs, tensions, truancy in schools if social classes are mixed without fairness.

If Atherton goes down, then help us all.

Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 1, 2023, at 10:25 AM, Rufino Urrutia <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> How can racial and economic diversity be fairly achieved? >
> Right now it seems it’s to drag the rich down. Take from the rich to give to the poor. >
> NIMBY is a form of bullying. In the name of racial and economic diversity, that’s what socialists or the have-nots say to those trying to protect ones equity and legacy. I wonder how they'd feel if shoes is on the other side. >
> Houses are priced and bought based on schools and lifestyles. Then, all that will be turned upside down by folks who wants to pull neighborhood. Soon neighborhoods will have 5 cars parked all over in one house. Schools are now in chaos and standards are lowered. Noise and crimes are up.. Is that fair? How do we buy houses in the future? No more better schools/neighborhoods is that where we're headed? >
> Race and economic equity needs to be discussed to understand how it can be applied fairly - how to uplift all but not pull anybody down.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
From: Rufino Urrutia
To: Council
Cc: Cbs
Subject: Re: Racial and economic diversity
Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 10:49:46 AM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Racial and economic diversity really needs discussions soon. It's a Pandora's box. Hard to undo specially for kids.

It's easy to see more resentment, Drugs, tensions, truancy in schools if social classes are mixed without fairness.

If Atherton goes down, then help us all.

Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 1, 2023, at 10:25 AM, Rufino Urrutia <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> How can racial and economic diversity be fairly achieved? >
> Right now it seems it’s to drag the rich down. Take from the rich to give to the poor. >
> NIMBY is a form of bullying. In the name of racial and economic diversity, that’s what socialists or the have-nots say to those trying to protect ones equity and legacy. I wonder how they'd feel if shoes is on the other side. >
> Houses are priced and bought based on schools and lifestyles. Then, all that will be turned upside down by folks who wants to pull neighborhood. Soon neighborhoods will have 5 cars parked all over in one house. Schools are now in chaos and standards are lowered. Noise and crimes are up.. Is that fair? How do we buy houses in the future? No more better schools/neighborhoods is that where we're headed? >
> Race and economic equity needs to be discussed to understand how it can be applied fairly - how to uplift all but not pull anybody down.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
From: Rufino Urrutia
To: Council
Subject: CA Housing mandate
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 6:58:50 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
CA affordable housing mandate:

More residents are moving out of California . SF lost 125,000 residents between 2020-2022 according to census data published 2023. And the trajectory is more will be leaving.

So then why the mandate to build 441,000 new homes by 2030? I agree with Atherton. Let’s go litigate. Let’s see the data. Is it housing shortage or Racial and economic Justice that’s driving the change?
So is the desire to make Atherton have homeless or low income who have no skin in the game as their residents? Sent from my iPhone
From: Rufino Urrutia
To: Rufino Urrutia
Cc: Council
Subject: Re: CA Housing mandate
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 7:29:01 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
SF lost 125,000 between 2021-2022 alone
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 31, 2023, at 6:58 PM, Rufino Urrutia <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> CA affordable housing mandate:
>
> More residents are moving out of California . SF lost 125,000 residents between 2020-2022 according to census data published 2023. And the trajectory is more will be leaving. >
> So then why the mandate to build 441,000 new homes by 2030? >
> I agree with Atherton. Let’s go litigate. Let’s see the data. Is it housing shortage or Racial and economic Justice that’s driving the change?
>
> So is the desire to make Atherton have homeless or low income who have no skin in the game as their residents? >
> Sent from my iPhone
From: Rufino Urrutia
To: Cbs
Cc: Council
Subject: Affordable housing
Date: Thursday, February 2, 2023 2:33:46 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Not all cities are one size fits all. Some cities are exclusive. Most if not all have good parts and bad parts of town.

And due to its own policies, some have homeless issues and some don’t.

But In all cases all have their own varying priorities and values that makes it unfair and unreasonable to make all follow ONE rule.

Only two cities have been certified past deadline (and both have same needs and profile) Maybe builders and cities who have been certified can begin building and see how that works? PS about Curry’s case:

Putting ourselves in his shoes: Now our backyard is not safe for our family to enjoy anymore. Anybody at anytime can have cameras and binoculars that can free for all to use. So, yeah, right to say NIMBY.

Sent from my iPhone
From: Lori wainen linberg
To: Council
Subject: Affordable Housing?
Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 10:43:47 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 and Residents, including The Curry Family.

As a teacher for 30 years serving many children from Atherton, I am very disappointed in your lack of care for building more affordable housing in an area that has a shortage of all the frontline people we need. Presently we have a shortage of teachers, EMT’s, social service workers, mental health workers, bus drivers, even nurses, ER staff and even doctor’s, due to the high cost of housing in this area. As Atherton is such an affluent community, I think you could afford to support our necessary frontline workers and build your own fence or move yourself as San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties have a shortage of any affordable housing for our necessary frontlines to move to.

This is the problem with wanting to become a privileged gated community, it affects the well being of the whole. I hope you will reconsider becoming a DEIB community for the sake of all.

PS-Seph you lost a fan!
Yours,
Lori Wainen-Linberg
Sent from my iPad
From: Wei Yu
To: Anthony Suber; Council
Cc: Jing Yi
Subject: Opposing the Proposal of Upzoning Gresham Lane Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 12:39:57 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 City Clerk Suber,
We are the owners of the property at 37 Gresham Lane. By this letter, we hereby object to and strongly oppose any Housing Element that includes the upzoning of our property and preserve all legal rights to challenge any Housing Element adopted by the Town of Atherton.

Though the overlay proposal is preferable to upzoning, due to the lack of clarity and details of planning, we also reserve our rights to oppose any overlay plans the Town of Atherton may adopt which incorporate our property.

1. Process/Notice Issues
The letter of Jan 12 from the Town of Atherton was the first notice to us (more than that, a map was NOT included) that our property may be a part of the final plan. There is only TWO days’ notice of the Town meeting and only two weeks’ notice before presenting the plan to the State. Before that, there was no mention of Gresham Lane being upzoned at the December 15, 2022 Town Council Meeting. And there is no discussion about Housing Element at the December 21, 2022 Town Council Meeting. This is a possible violation of notice requirement and basic due process rights.

2. Feasibility Issues
The proposal of upzoning our properties will likely be futile for the intended purpose. We and most of our neighbors have signed the petitions indicating that we have no intention of selling our properties for the next 8 years or longer as we have little kids who go to local schools.

Many of us have also spoken out at the January 18, 2023 Special Meeting and at the January 19, 2023 Planning Committee Meeting and objected to the upzoning proposal. It should be therefore very clear to the Town Council that the proposal of upzoning is NOT practical and feasible.

In addition, it is economically infeasible to develop our lots. Like most of the properties on Gresham Ln, our lot is about 0.32 acres. In order to get 1 acre land, one would need to consolidate three adjacent properties to make the proposal feasible. We paid $4 million for the property, without counting the cost of remodeling. At the current fair market value, consolidating the adjacent 3 lots would cost over at least $12 million, just to purchase them. It sets the plan in the fate of failure at its beginning due to the lack of economic feasibility. In contrast, there are properties offering bigger lands with lower prices, e.g . 1 Odell place: 0.78 Acres & 3 Odell Pl valued at $5,471,500 for 0.81 acres.

3. Safety Concerns
The Gresham and Selby streets are already very congested with heavy traffic. The Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School is less than 1 mile away from the intersection of Gresham and Selby. And we see kids walking/biking to school. Building high density buildings in this area will exponentially worsen the current traffic and safety concerns of our children. There have been many accidents and fatalities in recent years at the intersection of Selby and El Camino Real.

Sincerely,
Best,
Wei Yu & Jing Yi
--
\\\|///
\\ .-?.- //
( .@.@ )
+--------oOOo-----(_)------oOOo---------+
| |
| Oooooooooooooops |
| |
+---------.oooO--------------Oooo.---------+
( ) ( )
\ ( ) /
\_) (_/
From: Karen & Sam
To: Council
Subject: Re: Re:Oakwood Blvd Neighbor Plans
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 11:30:54 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,
I live a block from this proposed re-zoning property. I absolutely do not want this to go forward. As a long time resident I have seen the traffic through this neighborhood get more and more congested to the point where it at times takes me more than a minute just to drive out of my driveway. It is also more and more dangerous to drive into the street from the driveway with traffic appearing to drive more aggressively and fast.

Having this rezoning would certainly increase these problems so I am voiceing that I oppose this.

Thank you,
Sam Woo
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Stan Wu
To: Council
Cc: George Rodericks; [email protected]
Subject: Suggestion on the zoning proposal
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 10:00:00 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,
Really appreciate your hard work on tackling the challenging state mandates for our community. This is Stan and Liting who live on Ashfield Road near the library and town hall, and we would like to share our thoughts:

The 3 small roads (Ashfield/Maple/Walnut) have been taking addition traffic to the library and town hall which already at the limit those roads built for. Upzoning will make the situation worse and jeopardize pedestrians on these roads, so we'd suggest to exclude these roads from upzoning.

We'd also suggest to consider Alameda de las Pulgas for upzoning, as it's wide and with much less crowded traffic than the two proposed roads.

And to align with the goal of the upzoing, short-term rentals and AirBnB should be banned in any new multi family housing that to be built.

To avoid compromise to privacy and uniformity of the neighborhood, height restrictions should remain as current zoning.

Best Regards,
Stan (Shidan) Wu and Liting Shen
72 Ashfield Road, Atherton, CA 94027
From: Stan Wu
To: Council
Cc: George Rodericks; [email protected]
Subject: Suggestion on the zoning proposal
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 10:00:00 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,
Really appreciate your hard work on tackling the challenging state mandates for our community. This is Stan and Liting who live on Ashfield Road near the library and town hall, and we would like to share our thoughts:

The 3 small roads (Ashfield/Maple/Walnut) have been taking addition traffic to the library and town hall which already at the limit those roads built for. Upzoning will make the situation worse and jeopardize pedestrians on these roads, so we'd suggest to exclude these roads from upzoning.

We'd also suggest to consider Alameda de las Pulgas for upzoning, as it's wide and with much less crowded traffic than the two proposed roads.

And to align with the goal of the upzoing, short-term rentals and AirBnB should be banned in any new multi family housing that to be built.

To avoid compromise to privacy and uniformity of the neighborhood, height restrictions should remain as current zoning.

Best Regards,
Stan (Shidan) Wu and Liting Shen
Road, Atherton, CA 94027
From: Nathan Young
To: Council
Subject: Opposition to the re-zoning of 23 Oakwood
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 9:19:48 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 Atherton Council,
My name is Nathan Young, and I am a resident of Redwood City at 446 E Oakwood Blvd, which is on the border of Atherton directly across the street from 23 Oakwood Blvd. In advance of the final consideration and vote on Atherton's Housing Element, I would like to register my opposition to the current inclusion of 23 Oakwood in this Housing Element as a multi-family re-zoning at a density of 10 housing units per acre.

The construction of up to 16 housing units on this property will, in my opinion, present a significant traffic and pedestrian safety concern to our neighborhood. The Oakwood oval is a very popular walking route for families and pets, as well as a designated cycling route, but it does not have sidewalks, meaning that everyone is in the street. At my position on the end of the oval closest to Atherton, I can already see on a daily basis the danger that traffic poses to walkers and cyclists as frequent cars drive to and from Selby with little heed for the presence of walkers and cyclists. That intersection between W/E Oakwood and the Oakwood-to-Selby connector is a terrible accident waiting to happen with its blind corners and lack of adequate traffic control infrastructure.

All roads between 23 Oakwood and the main arteries of El Camino or Woodside are narrow, mostly lacking sidewalks, full of pedestrians, and not at all meant to handle a large volume of traffic. It would, in my opinion, be negligent and completely inappropriate to meaningfully increase the density of housing within this neighborhood without first making significant improvements to the management of traffic flow and pedestrian safety. I do not know what the law allows, but since the city of Redwood City is overwhelmingly affected by the up-zoning of 23 Oakwood, I believe that Atherton should have to have approval from Redwood City or at least work with Redwood City to make improvements that could accommodate the planned increase in traffic density.

If 23 Oakwood is included as currently planned in Atherton's Housing Element, I and my neighbors will leverage Redwood City and the legal system to the extent possible to fight against its development, and we will communicate our concerns to the HSD.

Sincerely,
Nathan Young
446 E Oakwood Blvd
From: Nathan Young
To: Council
Subject: Opposition to the re-zoning of 23 Oakwood
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 9:19:48 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 Atherton Council,
My name is Nathan Young, and I am a resident of Redwood City at 446 E Oakwood Blvd, which is on the border of Atherton directly across the street from 23 Oakwood Blvd. In advance of the final consideration and vote on Atherton's Housing Element, I would like to register my opposition to the current inclusion of 23 Oakwood in this Housing Element as a multi-family re-zoning at a density of 10 housing units per acre.

The construction of up to 16 housing units on this property will, in my opinion, present a significant traffic and pedestrian safety concern to our neighborhood. The Oakwood oval is a very popular walking route for families and pets, as well as a designated cycling route, but it does not have sidewalks, meaning that everyone is in the street. At my position on the end of the oval closest to Atherton, I can already see on a daily basis the danger that traffic poses to walkers and cyclists as frequent cars drive to and from Selby with little heed for the presence of walkers and cyclists. That intersection between W/E Oakwood and the Oakwood-to-Selby connector is a terrible accident waiting to happen with its blind corners and lack of adequate traffic control infrastructure.

All roads between 23 Oakwood and the main arteries of El Camino or Woodside are narrow, mostly lacking sidewalks, full of pedestrians, and not at all meant to handle a large volume of traffic. It would, in my opinion, be negligent and completely inappropriate to meaningfully increase the density of housing within this neighborhood without first making significant improvements to the management of traffic flow and pedestrian safety. I do not know what the law allows, but since the city of Redwood City is overwhelmingly affected by the up-zoning of 23 Oakwood, I believe that Atherton should have to have approval from Redwood City or at least work with Redwood City to make improvements that could accommodate the planned increase in traffic density.

If 23 Oakwood is included as currently planned in Atherton's Housing Element, I and my neighbors will leverage Redwood City and the legal system to the extent possible to fight against its development, and we will communicate our concerns to the HSD.

Sincerely,
Nathan Young
E Oakwood Blvd
From: David Yuan
To: Anthony Suber
Subject: REPEAL THE 2015-2022 HOUSING ELEMENT AND REPLACE IT WITH THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 2:11:39 PM
Attachments: image001.png
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
We hope the town of Atherton will explore the possibility and make an effort of encouraging existing Atherton residents to construct enough ADUs on their property so that it meets the State requirement over the next 8 years without changing zoning of the existing residents, i.e. re-zoning, up-zoning, or overlay.

Regards,
David
David Yuan
Founding and Managing Partner | Redpoint China Ventures 79 Jianguo Road, Unit 08, 26F, Tower 2, China Central Place | Beijing, China 100102 1539 Nanjing Road West, Kerry Center, Tower 2, Suite 1801 | Shanghai, China 200040 2969 Woodside Road | Woodside, CA 94062
27 Maiden Lane, 7th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94108
+8621-62887757
www.rpvchina.com
www.redpoint.com
From: David Yuan
To: Anthony Suber
Subject: REPEAL THE 2015-2022 HOUSING ELEMENT AND REPLACE IT WITH THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 2:11:39 PM
Attachments: image001.png
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
We hope the town of Atherton will explore the possibility and make an effort of encouraging existing Atherton residents to construct enough ADUs on their property so that it meets the State requirement over the next 8 years without changing zoning of the existing residents, i.e. re-zoning, up-zoning, or overlay.

Regards,
David
David Yuan
Founding and Managing Partner | Redpoint China Ventures 79 Jianguo Road, Unit 08, 26F, Tower 2, China Central Place | Beijing, China 100102 1539 Nanjing Road West, Kerry Center, Tower 2, Suite 1801 | Shanghai, China 200040 2969 Woodside Road | Woodside, CA 94062
27 Maiden Lane, 7th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94108
www.rpvchina.com
www.redpoint.com