Atherton City Council
September 18, 2024

From:

To: "Brittany Bendix" <[email protected]>
Date: 5/27/2024 7:04:18 PM
Subject: Comment
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
We agree on the proposal project of the 6th Cycle of the town of Atherton's Housing Element. I received a postcard regarding this to 91 Loyola Avenue, Menlo Park.

Thank you
Edith Bravo

6/13/2024

June 6, 2024
By Email
Brittany Bendix, Contract Town Planner
Town of Atherton
Planning Department
80 Fair Oaks Lane
Atherton, CA 94027
[email protected]
Re: Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Updates
Dear Ms. Bendix:

Please accept the following comments on the above-referenced draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Town of Atherton’s current draft Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates (“Project”), submitted on behalf of the Atherton Housing Coalition, an unincorporated entity managed by Atherton Vision, LLC, a not-for-profit entity organized to promote sensible land use planning and development policies in the Town of Atherton.

The IS/MND’s disclosure and analysis of the Project’s potential environmental impacts assumes a fixed, defined set of ten (10) multi-family residential opportunity sites of mostly about 1 acre, each with a specified development capacity. These sites are listed in Table 4 of the IS/MND. Together, these multi-family sites are expected to accommodate 85 units. While the IS/MND discusses potential plan-level impacts from future development of each site individually in accordance with the Housing Element, it scarcely mentions the cumulative impacts that may result from the build-out of all sites in combination with one other. This omission is cause for concern.

June 6, 2024

CEQA defines cumulative impacts as: “ two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” (CEQA Guidelines, 14 C.C.R. § 15355.) Importantly, CEQA affirms that “cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” (Id., subd. (b).) A CEQA analysis may not conclude a cumulative impact is insignificant merely because the project’s own individual contribution to an unacceptable existing condition is, by itself, relatively small. (Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1025-1026.)
Here, given the current number of sites identified for development in the Housing Element, the potential for significant cumulative impacts may well be limited, and the IS/MND’s perfunctory conclusion that no such impacts will occur accordingly justifiable. However, any subsequent increase in the number of sites developed under the Housing Element may result in one or more significant cumulative impacts, especially with regard to biological resources/habitat and traffic.

For this reason, the IS/MND should expressly acknowledge that its conclusions regarding impact significance are predicated upon the number of sites identified for development remaining fixed. The IS/MND should further expressly acknowledge that in the event additional sites are added to the Housing Element, whether pursuant to the Town’s own initiative or in response to directives from the Department of Housing and Community Development, a revised IS/MND will need to be prepared and circulated before any such amended Housing Element may be considered or approved by the Town.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments and concerns.

Yours very truly,

M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
Mark R. Wolfe
On behalf of Atherton Vision, LLC

From:

To: "Brittany Bendix" <[email protected]>
Date: 6/6/2024 3:02:23 PM
Subject: Public Comments: CEQA: Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates [The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Brittany.

Please accept these comments to the CEQA: Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates.

Section 5.13 NOISE
We are concerned about the likely generation of a substantial temporary and permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project(s).

In the proposed zoning, it is reasonable to expect significant excess ambient noise from the construction of conforming structures. This is likely to be exacerbated by the conduct of much of the construction work above the fenceline should structures be built to the proposed height limits.

We are also concerned with the more permanent ambient noise from the following likely sources:
a. the operation of multiple HVAC units concentrated near fence lines or from positions on the roof of larger structures.
b. the operation of service vehicles for trash/recycling removal, including backup beeping, and the operation of dumpsters.
c. grounds maintenance
Section 5.17. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
c) Dangerous Intersections
The proposed re-zoning of the Ravenswood properties near the intersection of Middlefield Road and Ravenswood would be located at an already dangerous intersection, where traffic patterns, especially during peak school and commute hours already exceed the effective capacity of the intersection - is a significant concern for local residents including us. Neighbors in the area already experience the negative effects of heavy vehicles idling for significant periods at this intersection. Pedestrians approaching crossing at these intersections already encounter difficulty safely cross these streets, navigating the NW corner of the intersection. Bicycles using this intersection face competing streams of traffic that create hazards for safe navigation. The proposed rezoning, and anticipated rezoning in adjacent jurisdictions would likely increase traffic through this intersection significantly - and create a more unsafe intersection.

5.19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
We are also concerned that the intersection Middlefield and Ravenswood is already subject to flooding and occasional closure due to heavy rain and inadequate storm water drainage. We challenge the assertion that the proposed zoning changes would result in Less Than
Significant Impact as any additional impermeable lot coverage in the area would adversely impact stormwater management and increase flooding in the area. Such flooding is already at risk of carrying pollutants into San Francisco bay from impacted garages and other areas where property managers store supplies and or waste.

We have observed a consistent pattern of stormwater flooding resulting in blockage of what minimal stormwater drainage exists.

5.21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (CAL. PUB. RES. CODE §15065) b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? YES. The potential impact of increased development at the Ravenswood sites, combined. with the anticipated impacts of high-density housing development across Ravenswood at the SRI site and other nearby sites, threatens to dramatically expand the population, traffic, emissions, and all other forms of impact in the area.

6/13/2024

Rather than concentrating these impacts in one area, the town should distribute the impacts across more areas.

Thank you for incorporating our comments into consideration of the proposed changes.

Woodson and Kelly Martin
580 Middlefield Road
Atherton, CA 94027
(408) 838-0332
(650) 823-9799

6/13/2024

REPLY TO RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE INITIAL

STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
TOWN OF ATHERTON 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT

AND ZONING CODE UPDATES
Dated: August 12, 2024
John and Pamela Riddle
97 Fredrick Avenue
Atherton, CA 94027

2 This correspondence addresses the proposed inclusion of 999 Ringwood Avenue, 352 Bay Road, 318 Bay Road and 296 Bay Road (the “Properties”) in the 2023-2031 Atherton Housing Element. The selection of these homes is arbitrary and capricious. The town undertook an extensive analysis of potential lots in Atherton that would meet the Town’s expressly stated Goals, Objectives and Policies.

The diligent review by the responsible parties identified 17 such sites that would meet most if not all of the stated objectives. The four properties in question were not included as potential sites in the initial extensive review and selection because they do not meet the mandated criteria and in fact grossly violate most of the enumerated Goals, Objectives and Policies that set the standards for potential inclusion. The 17 properties initially identified as best meeting the Objective Criteria for MultipleHousing have been removed from consideration. The residents of Lindenwood are only asking for the same consideration as was provided to those properties.

A visit to the site makes it obvious the that said proposed Multi-Housing Units are not “…Visually harmonious and compatible with the neighborhood character.” The average size home facing Bay road for almost a mile in each direction are single family homes of 1,700 to 2,500 square feet and the properties on Fredrick Avenue abutting the selected properties are about 25% of the approximately 20,000 FAR proposed for these Multi-Family units. The Multi-Unit structures proposed for the Properties would be intrusive, dominating, non-compatible, unharmonious and inconsistent with the neighborhood character. This is similar to putting in four Extended Stay Hotels that are forty feet tall and house ten to fourteen families across the street, adjacent to and overlooking the otherwise scenic, semi-rural residential atmosphere and vision that currently exists in the neighborhood.

The proposed Multi-Home zoning of the Properties violates every standard of Privacy. The immutable right to Privacy that is repeatedly stated in the Town’s Charter and that is integral to the nature of Atherton is so grossly violated by the Ten to Fourteen families with a direct sight line into every room on the back of the adjoining neighbors’ homes, direct observation of every activity undertaken in their homes, in their back yards and numerous other intrusions on the daily activities of these neighboring properties is abhorrent to the conscience. This is not analogous to a multi-story single family home where one family, that you probably know, lives there. It is much more obtrusive in size and ten to fourteen times more intrusive by the number of families with direct lines of site into your most intimate activities.

The noise arising from these proposed Multi-Dwelling units would reasonably be expected to create 9 to 13 times more noise than the single-family homes that are currently present and which represent and set the standard for the Town ‘s current rural residential character. This offensive intrusion specifically violates the Town’s directive to protect the peace and health of Atherton citizens from “…unreasonable noise produced by any Person (or Persons).” The noise generated by ten to fourteen families with their cars, recreation, pets and other daily activities will produce an unconscionable and intrusive level of sound. No amount of vegetative screening or fencing will effectively reduce the unacceptable noise or for that matter reduce the invasion of privacy discussed above.

The additional traffic to the local streets, cross town driving and traffic patterns in the immediate and extended vicinity substantially impairs the safety of children riding their bikes or walking to school. This is a substantial increased hazard. Less life threatening, but still of significant impact, is the vehicle traffic entering and exiting the properties, especially individuals that are trying to turn left onto

3 Bay Road and/or Ringwood during morning or evening rush hours. Delays, accidents and conflicts are apparent on the face of this proposal.

The properties are already in a High VMT area, and these developments would only exacerbate the already problematic situation. The general courses of action, such as instituting a public transit system, carpooling, bike-sharing or car sharing which have been available but have not been effective to date provides no basis to believe these hypothetical measures would be instituted successfully, or at all, to alleviate the already high vehicle miles traveled on these roads that has already been identified by state and local government or the substantial safety issues.

In Reply to the Town of Atherton Response to Comments on the initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (hereinafter “Response”) several additional comments should be addressed.

Aesthetics: The description provided in the Town’s Response concerning the Bay Road homes across the street from the Properties does not acknowledge the significant difference in character these multi-family housing structures would provide These multi-family structures are vastly different in size, height, activity level and are not “visually harmonious” or “compatible” with the Bay Road homes.

Further, these proposed multi-family structures are not “visually harmonious” or “compatible” with the Atherton R-1 homes on Fredrick Avnenue. The Response also references to other multiple dwellings on Bay Road. This limited number of two-story units are almost 1 mile away from the Properties. They are effectively located at the intersection of Bay Road and Highway 101. This area is not in any way similar to or related to the area of the Properties addressed herein.

Privacy: The Response to the acknowledged invasion of privacy is to use Vegetative Screening and Fencing which is wholly inadequate and does not address the Privacy issue. The criteria referenced does not provide privacy and omits the more important consideration that not one family, but ten to fourteen families have direct sight line to all areas of the adjoining properties. Further attempting to address this acknowledged deficiency by raising sill heights on upper level of non-bedroom windows only means that anyone under four feet in height will have to stand on a step stool to invade the neighbors’ privacy. And, the upper floor setbacks only mean the parties will have to not be quite as close when they invade other homeowners’ privacy. At the end of the day there are still ten to fourteen families with direct line of site into area homes.

Parking: As to the site parking, the proposed carport enclosed on three sides is illusory. The three-sided structure that would be needed to address two cars per home would be a minimum of 200 to 280 feet long. It would be impossible to fit on the sites. More importantly, the Response does not address the lack of on-street parking on Bay Road. Adding that many additional families onto Bay Road without any of the called for on street parking is untenable. Further, the potential for on-street parking on adjoining streets is a call to more dangerous driving, dangerous bicycling and dangerous pedestrian travel, not to mention a substantial degradation of the character of the adjoining areas.

4 Air Quality/Public Transportation: There is no reasonable access to Public Transportation for the Properties as is mandated in the Town’s Climate Action Plan. As previously stated the Response attempts to address this defect by relying upon unspecified courses of action, and other deficient or ineffective actions such as instituting an accessible public transit system, carpooling, bike-sharing or car sharing which have been available but have not been effective to date and there is no reason to believe these hypothetical measures would be instituted successfully, or at all, to alleviate the significant deficiencies in meeting the mandated Goals, Objectives and Policies set forth in the selection for MultiFamily Housing.

Noise: The Response discusses construction noise and trash collection noise. The Negative Declaration and the Response do not address the Primary Concern which is the 24 hours a day seven days a week noise and activity associated with ten to fourteen families living in your back yard or even across the street. The inclusion of the Properties in the 2023-2031 Housing Element violates the specifically enumerated Goals, Objectives and Policies for selection of Multi-Unit Housing sites such as maintaining the serene atmosphere of the Town, protecting the peace of Atherton citizens from unnecessary and unreasonable noise produced by any person or persons, preserving the Town’s Character and retaining the quality of life existing in the Town’s residential neighborhoods. Each and every one of these criteria are grossly violated in the selection of the Properties to be included in the Housing Element Zoning Amendment.

Population Displacement: The response of “Deciding whether to move or relocate is a personal decision for any Town resident” is callous and disingenuous. Making a voluntary decision to move is one thing. However, if after living in a home for 30 years, raising your children in that home, enjoying all of life’s treasures in that home and making a conscious decision to stay in that home through your “Golden Years” an arbitrary Government decision causes a complete change in the character of that neighborhood, an intolerable violation of privacy, the presence of intrusive noise and increased traffic all result in a loss of the life you lived, the devaluation of the property you owned and the loss of the future you dreamed of is the reason for being forced to sell that is quite different, and hardly voluntary.

It is Inverse Condemnation,
EIR: The Mitigated Negative Declaration does not address many of the deficiencies identified and the proposed Mitigation Measures for many others are on their face deficient. Further, the Draft Housing Element expressly states the Element is consistent with and will not violate the Atherton General Plan, Climate Action Plan or other government documentation. Which is untrue for the reasons discussed above and needs to be addressed in a compete EIR. The inclusion of the Properties raises substantial issues that require complete EIR.

From personal contact I can state that all the residents on Fredrick Avenue, all those residents on Bay Road facing the Properties, numerous other homeowners in Lindenwood, and additional residents on Bay, Ringwood, Del Norte, Almanor and other surrounding streets all strongly object to the proposed Zoning Change of the Properties set forth in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Also, an owner of one of the Properties has told me that he purchased this home as his forever home and does not intend to sell the property in the 2023-2031 time period. A second owner of one of he Properties is adamantly opposed to the proposed Zoning Change.

For all the above reasons, and numerous others, it is clear that the inclusion of the Properties proposed to be included in the zoning overlay would violate the Atherton General Plan, their stated Goals, Objectives and Policies, Climate Action Plan and other Government standards and should be

5 removed from the proposed Housing Element. The four properties were not included as potential sites in the initial objective review because they violate most of the enumerated Goals, Objectives and Policies that set the standards for potential inclusion. The 17 properties initially identified as best meeting the Objective Criteria for Multiple-Housing have been removed from consideration. The residents of Lindenwood are requesting the same consideration that was provided to those properties.

Thank you for your consideration.

Housing Element 2023-2031 Update
Town of Atherton Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

ATHERTON HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

COMPLETION OF

IMPLEMENTATION

ACTIVITY DATE

COMPLETED

AIR QUALITY
AQ-1: During all construction activities associated with future development facilitated by the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, the contractor shall implement the latest BAAQMD recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control for fugitive dust and exhaust as follows:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material shall be covered.

3. All visible mud and dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.

The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as practicable. Building pads shall be laid as soon as practicable after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.

7. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.

8. Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

9. A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints shall be posted on the project site prior to the initiation of construction activities. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone  During
Construction
 Project
applicant
 Building
Department

Housing Element 2023-2031 Update
Town of Atherton Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

ATHERTON HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

COMPLETION OF

IMPLEMENTATION

ACTIVITY DATE

COMPLETED
number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

AQ-2: Require multi-unit residential projects, larger than 10 units, and within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors, as defined by BAAQMD to prepare a project-specific construction health risk assessment (HRA). If the HRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Town, that the health risk exposures for adjacent receptors will be less than BAAQMD project-level thresholds, then additional mitigation would be unnecessary. However, if the HRA demonstrates that health risks would exceed BAAQMD project level thresholds, additional feasible mitigation shall be analyzed and adopted to further reduce risks below the BAAQMD project-level thresholds. Measures to avoid significant construction health risks impacts that could be included in projects, depending on the results of an HRA could include the following:

1. Use Tier 4 engines for all off-road equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities.

2. Use diesel trucks with 2010 or later compliant model year engines during construction.

3. Use renewable diesel during construction.

4. Implement enhanced measures to control dust emissions, as recommended by BAAQMD.

5. Use portable electrical equipment where commercially available and practicable to complete construction. Construction contractors shall utilize electrical grid power instead of diesel generators when: (1) grid power is available at the construction site; (2) when construction of temporary power lines are not necessary in order to provide power to portions of the site distant from existing utility lines; (3) when use of portable extension lines is practicable given construction safety and operational limitations; and (4)  Prior to
Construction
 Project
Applicant

Housing Element 2023-2031 Update
Town of Atherton Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

ATHERTON HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

COMPLETION OF

IMPLEMENTATION

ACTIVITY DATE

COMPLETED
when use of electrical grid power does not compromise the construction schedule.

AQ-3: Prior to commencing construction activities on sites identified for residential development in the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, the applicant/contractor shall prepare a site-specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for projects affected by Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) sources. If the HRA demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Town, that the health risk exposures for sensitive receptors will be less than BAAQMD project-level thresholds, then additional mitigation would be unnecessary. However, if the HRA demonstrates that health risks would exceed BAAQMD project level thresholds, additional feasible on- and off-site mitigation shall be analyzed by the applicant to help reduce risks below the BAAQMD project-level threshold. Such measures to be evaluated may include enhanced ventilation systems with filtration capable of reducing TAC exposure such that health risks are reduced to acceptable levels.  During Construction  Project
Applicant
 Building
Department

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1: Prior to the Town of Atherton’s approval of development on the proposed Housing Element Update sites, special-status plant surveys shall be conducted by a qualified botanist in appropriate habitats during the appropriate period (congdon’s tarplant’s blooming period is from May through November; crystal springs lessingia’s blooming period is from July through October; smallflowered monolopia’s blooming period is from March through July; white-rayed pentachaeta’s blooming period is from March through May; and fragrant fritillary’s blooming period is from February through April) in which the species are most identifiable. Project construction shall not be initiated until all specialstatus plant surveys are completed and subsequent mitigation, if deemed necessary by the qualified botanist, is implemented. If the special-status plant species are identified in these surveys, those individuals or populations shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible. If avoidance is not possible, then other suitable measures and mitigations shall be developed in consultation with  Prior to Approval  Project
Applicant
 Planning
Department

Housing Element 2023-2031 Update
Town of Atherton Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

ATHERTON HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

COMPLETION OF

IMPLEMENTATION

ACTIVITY DATE

COMPLETED
agencies that are responsible for the protection of the subject plant species, based on its protection status [i.e., Town of Atherton (for plants protected by CEQA), CDFW (plants protected by California law/regulation) or USFWS (protected by federal law regulation)]. Appropriate mitigation prescriptions for impacts on special-status plants shall be included as conditions of project approval.

BIO-2: Unless otherwise recommended in site-specific biological assessments prepared for future development of sites identified in the Housing Element, to avoid impacts to the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, a species of special concern, a survey prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities or vegetation removal on subject parcels with suitable vegetation. Since woodrats use their nests year-round, surveys for the rodent species can be conducted at any time of the year. If the woodrat nests are identified, they shall be flagged and delineated on project site maps.

If any woodrat nests are identified, then CDFW shall be contacted immediately to coordinate mitigation. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests no more than 30 days prior to the onset of site grubbing/grading or construction activities within 50 feet of construction zones. The identified nests shall be avoided, where possible. If avoidance is not possible, the nest(s) should be manually deconstructed when helpless young are not present, typically during the nonbreeding season which is October through January. If it is determined that young may be present during the pre-construction survey, a suitable buffer, depending on the type of impact, nest location, and topography of the nest location, shall be established by the qualified biologist. The non-disturbance buffer typically ranges from 20 to 50 feet. This buffer shall remain in place around the nest until the young are independent enough to successfully move from the nest.
 Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
 Project
Applicant
 Planning &
Building
Departments

Housing Element 2023-2031 Update
Town of Atherton Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

ATHERTON HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

COMPLETION OF

IMPLEMENTATION

ACTIVITY DATE

COMPLETED
BIO-3: Unless otherwise recommended in site-specific biological assessments prepared for future development of the Cal Water site identified in the Housing Element, to avoid impacts to burrowing owls protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code (§3503, §3503.5 and §3513), a preconstruction survey for burrowing Owls shall be conducted at the Cal Water site (MFO-10) 14 days prior to ground disturbance. Since burrowing owls can recolonize a site only after a few days, time lapses between project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys, including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance to ensure that the species is not present. Between April 1st and October 15th, low disturbance and medium disturbance activities should have a 200-meter buffer while high disturbance activities should have a 500-meter buffer from occupied nests.

Between October 16th and March 31st, low disturbance activities should have a 50-meter buffer, medium disturbance activities should have a 100-meter buffer from occupied nests, and high disturbance activities should have a 500- meter buffer from occupied nests. No earth-moving activities or other disturbances within the aforementioned buffer zones of occupied burrows.

These buffer zones shall be fenced as well. If burrowing owls are present on the proposed project area, then a qualified biologist would need to delineate the extent of the western burrowing owl habitat on the site.  Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
 Project
Applicant
 Planning
Department

Housing Element 2023-2031 Update
Town of Atherton Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

BIO-4: Unless otherwise recommended in site-specific biological assessments prepared for future development of sites identified in the Housing Element, to avoid impacts to birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code (Section 3514), construction activities, including the removal of trees, should occur outside of the bird-nesting season between September 2nd and January 31st. If work occurs between February 1st and September 1st, a pre-construction bird nesting survey shall be conducted within seven days prior to any proposed ground disturbance or vegetation removal on subject parcels that require nesting bird surveys. The bird nesting survey shall include an examination of all buildings onsite, and trees and shrubs onsite and within 200 feet of the subject parcel (i.e., within a zone of influence of nesting birds), not just trees slated for removal. The zone of influence includes areas outside of the project site where birds could be potentially disturbed by earth-moving vibrations and/or other construction-related noises. If any active bird nests are identified onsite or within a zone of influence, then a qualified ornithologist or biologist shall establish a temporary protective construction buffer around the nest(s), conduct a survey to establish behavioral baseline of birds using each nest, and conduct monitoring to ensure it is not disturbed. The nest buffer will be staked or fenced with orange construction fencing to establish a construction exclusion perimeter and shall be adjusted by a qualified biologist as needed to avoid disturbance. The buffer shall be of sufficient size to protect the nesting site from construction-related disturbance. Typically, adequate nesting buffers are 50 feet from the nest site or nest tree dripline for small birds and up to 300 feet for sensitive raptors. Upon completion of nesting surveys, if nesting birds are identified a qualified ornithologist/biologist shall prescribe adequate nesting buffers to protect the nesting birds from harm while the project is being constructed. If continuous monitoring is not feasible, conservative nodisturbance buffer(s) should be established, with the buffer distance based on the tolerance level of the nesting species.

No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within any established nest protection buffer prior to September 1st unless determined by a qualified ornithologist/biologist responsible for monitoring nesting behavior that the young have left the nest and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid construction zones, or that the nesting cycle is otherwise completed. At the end of the nesting cycle and the fledging from the bird nest, as determined by a  Prior to Building
Permit Issuance, if
applicable
 Project
Applicant
 Planning &
Building
Departments

Housing Element 2023-2031 Update
Town of Atherton Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

qualified biologist, temporary nesting buffers may be removed, and construction may commence in established nesting buffers without further regard for the nest site.

The biologist/ornithologist conducting the surveys shall provide the Town of Atherton with a report detailing the results of the survey and any recommendations required for establishment of protective buffers, if vegetation removal or any ground disturbance occurs between February 1st and September 1st.

Housing Element 2023-2031 Update
Town of Atherton Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

ATHERTON HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

COMPLETION OF

IMPLEMENTATION

ACTIVITY DATE

COMPLETED
BIO-5: Unless otherwise recommended in site-specific biological assessments prepared for future development of sites identified in the Housing Element, to avoid impacts to roosting pallid bats or other special-status bat species, building or tree removal shall only be conducted during seasonal periods of bat activity, between August 31 and October 15, when bats would be able to fly and feed independently, and between March 1 and April 1 to avoid hibernating bats, and prior to the formation of maternity colonies. A biologist with at least two years of experience surveying for bats, shall conduct a pre-construction survey of all buildings and trees that would be impacted within 14 days prior to removal or commencement of site improvement activities. If no special-status bats are found during the surveys, then the biologist shall provide a memo summarizing the results of the survey to the Town, and construction activities may commence. If bat roosts are found, then a plan shall be developed by the qualified biologist for removal and exclusion, when there are not dependent young present, in conjunction with the CDFW.

If building or tree removal must occur outside the seasonal activity periods (i.e., between October 16 and the end of February, or between April 2 and August 30), then a qualified biologist, shall conduct pre-construction surveys within 14 days of tree removal, and determine if there are young present (i.e., the biologist will determine if there are maternal roosts). If a maternity site is found, impacts to the maternity site shall be avoided by establishment of a fenced, nondisturbance buffer until the young have reached independence (i.e., are flying and feeding on their own) as determined by a qualified biologist. The size of the buffer zone shall be determined by a qualified biologist at the time of the surveys. If the qualified biologist finds evidence of roosting bats but not a maternity site with young, then a plan shall be developed for removal and exclusion, in conjunction with the CDFW. The biologist shall provide the Town with a report detailing the results of the survey and any recommendations, as  Prior to Tree
Removal
 Project
Applicant
 Planning
Department

Housing Element 2023-2031 Update
Town of Atherton Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

ATHERTON HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

COMPLETION OF

IMPLEMENTATION

ACTIVITY DATE

COMPLETED
warranted, required for establishment of protective buffers for bat roosts, if identified.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1: Upon submittal of site-specific development proposals for housing opportunity sites identified in the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, a projectspecific archaeological study should be undertaken for each development project proposed within the Subject Properties. An archaeological study should consist of a record search at the NWIC/CHRIS, a literature review, a pedestrian field survey, a site-specific assessment of the potential for subsurface archaeological resources to be present, and preparation of a report with project-specific recommendations. A geophysical survey and/or subsurface testing should be required for properties that have a high potential for buried archaeological resources, including Property V2, which is adjacent to the previously recorded Native American archaeological resource P-41-000278.  Prior to Approval  Project
Applicant
 Planning
Department

CUL-2 If an archaeological deposit is encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a Secretary of Interior-qualified Archaeologist assesses the find, consults with agencies and Native American tribes as appropriate, and makes recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If avoidance of the archaeological deposit is not feasible, the archaeological deposit shall be evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the CRHR or as a unique archaeological resource. If the deposit is found to be eligible, all efforts should be made to avoid impacts to the resource. If avoidance is not feasible, adverse impacts shall be mitigated. Mitigation may include excavation of the archaeological deposit in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation that may include data recovery using standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; preparation of a report detailing the  During
Construction
 Project
Applicant
 Planning &
Building
Departments

Housing Element 2023-2031 Update
Town of Atherton Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

ATHERTON HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

COMPLETION OF

IMPLEMENTATION

ACTIVITY DATE

COMPLETED
methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; and accessioning of archaeological materials and a technical data recovery report at a curation facility. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report to document the methods and results of the assessment. The report shall be submitted to the NWIC/CHRIS upon completion of the resource assessment.

CUL-3 In the event that human skeletal remains are uncovered during grounddisturbing activities, all work shall immediately halt and the San Mateo County Coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains and following the procedures and protocols pursuant to Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall contact the NAHC, pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and all excavation activities shall cease within a 50-foot radius of the find until appropriate arrangements are made. A Secretary of Interior-qualified Archaeologist should also evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional human remains to be present, and provide further recommendations for treatment of the resource in accordance with the MLD recommendations and the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Adherence to CUL-3 would ensure that development carried out under the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact from potential disturbance of human remains, specifically those interred outside of formal cemeteries.  During
Construction
 Project
Applicant
 Planning &
Building
Departments

GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS
GHG-1 If the Town has not adopted a GHG reduction strategy that is consistent with current State goals or that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), then Town shall take the following actions:

1. Require all new or remodeled housing to include all-electric appliances and electric plumbing, in addition to any natural gas infrastructure.  Building Permit Plan
Check
 Project
Applicant
 Building
Department

Housing Element 2023-2031 Update
Town of Atherton Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

ATHERTON HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

COMPLETION OF

IMPLEMENTATION

ACTIVITY DATE

COMPLETED

2. Require all new housing to include electric vehicle charging infrastructure that meets or exceeds current Building Code CALGreen Tier 2 compliance.

3. Implement the VMT Mitigation measure for proposed projects in the “highVMT area” that do not meet other screening requirements (i.e., generate less than 110 trips per day or located within a high-quality transit corridor).

The TDM measure is described in the Atherton HEU Transportation Analysis, prepared by Hexagon, dated February 13, 2024.

NOISE
NOI-1: The following best management practices shall be implemented to reduce noise from construction activities near sensitive receptors:
 Pursuant to Municipal Code, restrict noise generating activities at the construction site or in areas adjacent to the construction site to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and prohibit construction activities on Saturday, and Sunday and State, Federal or Local Holidays.
 Consider temporary noise barriers during construction phases involving earth moving equipment (e.g. grading operations) where they would be effective in reducing the construction noise impact, when directly adjoining sensitive receptors.
 Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
 Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.  Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and portable power generators as far away from adjacent receptors.  Acoustically shield stationary equipment located near adjacent receptors with temporary noise barriers.
 Locate staging areas and construction material as far away as possible from adjacent receptors.
 During
Construction
 Project
Applicant
 Building
Department

Housing Element 2023-2031 Update
Town of Atherton Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

ATHERTON HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

COMPLETION OF

IMPLEMENTATION

ACTIVITY DATE

COMPLETED
 Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.  Route all construction traffic to and from the project site via designated truck routes and prohibit construction related heavy truck traffic in residential areas where feasible.
 Control noise from construction workers’ radios to the point where they are not audible at existing residences that border the project site.  Notify all adjacent receptors of the construction schedule in writing.  Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented.  Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction.

Housing Element 2023-2031 Update
Town of Atherton Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

ATHERTON HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

COMPLETION OF

IMPLEMENTATION

ACTIVITY DATE

COMPLETED
NOI-2: Prior to the approval of site-specific development of housing on properties with the RM-10, RM-20 and RM-40 overlay zones and identified in the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, groundborne vibration shall be prepared by qualified professionals in accordance with industry-accepted methodology where heavy construction activities involving significant site grading, underground, or foundation work will occur within 25 feet of residential or other vibration sensitive uses. The industry-accepted methodologies include the recommended vibration assessment procedure and thresholds provided by public agencies such as Caltrans or the Federal Highway Administration. The studies should identify necessary construction vibration controls to reduce both human annoyance and the possibility of cosmetic damage. Controls shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
 A list of all heavy construction equipment to be used for this project known to produce high vibration levels (tracked vehicles, vibratory compaction, jackhammers, hoe rams, etc.) shall be submitted to the Town by the contractor. This list shall be used to identify equipment and activities that would potentially generate substantial vibration and to define the level of effort for reducing vibration levels below the thresholds.  Place operating equipment on the construction site as far as possible from vibration-sensitive receptors.
 Use smaller equipment to minimize vibration levels below the limits.  Avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers near sensitive areas.  Select demolition methods not involving impact tools.  Modify/design or identify alternative construction methods to reduce vibration levels below the limits.
 Avoid dropping heavy objects or materials.
 Prior to Approval  Project
Applicant
 Planning
Department

Housing Element 2023-2031 Update
Town of Atherton Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

TRANSPORATION AND CIRCULATION
TRAN-1. Submittals of site-specific development proposals for housing sites identified in the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element that are located in a high-VMT area shall include a VMT analysis that identifies travel demand management (TDM) measures and/or physical measures (i.e. Tier 1 through Tier 4 strategies) to reduce VMT impacts to less than significant. Additional measures may be proposed by individual projects and/or required by Town staff to achieve the necessary VMT reductions or to meet applicable TDM reduction requirements. programs.
 During application
process
 Planning
Department

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TCUL-1: Implement Mitigation Measure CUL-2.  During
Construction
 Project
Applicant
 Planning &
Building
Departments

DRAFT TOWN OF ATHERTON
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ATHERTON,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ANALYZING THE TOWN OF ATHERTON’S 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT AND

ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Town of Atherton has been diligently working on an updated Housing Element for the 2023-2031 cycle to identify and address the Town's housing needs; and WHEREAS, the California Legislature has found that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and
WHEREAS, the Legislature has further found that “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and WHEREAS, the Legislature adopted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) which states that “In 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units per capita… California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth, and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over 7 years;” and WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the Town of Atherton (Town) regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 348 housing units, comprised of 94 very-low income units, 54 low-income units, 56 moderate- income units, and 144 above moderate-income units; and
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2023, the City Council of the Town of Atherton approved Resolution 2023–2 adopting an updated Housing Element for the 2023-2031 cycle, which did not constitute a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and submitted the Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review and certification; and
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2023, the State Department of Housing and Community Development sent a letter to the Town of Atherton indicating that while the adopted housing

element addresses many statutory requirements, additional revisions are necessary to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the California Government Code); and WHEREAS, the Town of Atherton has continued diligently to address those comments and adopt any related amendments to the Atherton Municipal Code beyond the statutory deadline of January 31, 2023; while also continuing to work on the zoning amendments to facilitate housing sites as identified in the adopted Housing Element; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq., the Town of Atherton has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration on the 2023-2031 Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates (“Project”). The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration disclosed that all potential impacts from the Project would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures, and there was no substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment;
WHEREAS, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2024050574) was released for a 31-day public comment period beginning on May 10, 2024 and no substantial public comments were received that altered the analysis or conclusions of the Initial Study; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2024, the Planning Commission of the Town of Atherton held a duly noticed public hearing to review the 2023-2031 Housing Element and Zoning Code Update project and an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2024050574) to consider public comment and voted to continue the project for further discussion; and WHEREAS, on August 28, 2024, the Planning Commission of the Town of Atherton held a duly noticed public hearing to review Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2024050574) and consider public comment and voted to recommend adoption; and WHEREAS, on September 18, 2024, the City Council of the Town of Atherton held a duly noticed public hearing to review the 2023-2031 Housing Element and Zoning Code Update project and an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2024050574) to consider public comment and voted to continue the project for further discussion; and WHEREAS, on October 16, 2024, the Planning Commission of the Town of Atherton held a duly noticed public hearing to review Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2024050574) and consider public comment and voted to recommend adoption; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Atherton does hereby finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, that:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.

2. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
a. The City Council has considered the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2024050574), and other information in the record, prior to acting upon the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update project. b. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update project have been completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA.
c. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update project represent the independent judgement and analysis of the City as lead agency.
d. The revisions to the Housing and Zoning Code Update project made after circulation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration do not alter the analysis set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and no revisions are required to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
e. There is no substantial evidence in the record that the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment.

3. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and reporting Program for the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update project.

4. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e), the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council has based its adoption are located in an may be obtained from the Town of Atherton, Planning Department at 80 Fair Oaks Lane, Atherton, CA 94027.

5. The Town Planner is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with respect to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk of San Mateo County.

6. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2024050574), which was prepared for the 2023-2031 Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates project, complies with the California Environmental Quality Act.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the Town of Atherton on this 16th day of October 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Diana Hawkins-Manuelian, Mayor
ATTEST:

Anthony W. Suber, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Mona Ebrahimi, City Attorney

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
1 Table of Contents

3.000 HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031 UPDATE) 3

3.100 INTRODUCTION 3

3.110 Purpose of the Housing Element 3

3.120 Definition of Income Categories 4

3.130 RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) 2023 - 2031 (6th Cycle) 6

3.140 Relation to Other Elements (including General Plan Consistency Analysis) 7

3.200 ASSESSMENT OF HOUSING NEEDS 8

3.210 Housing Needs Detailed Analysis 8

3.211 Summary of Key Facts 8

3.300 ATHERTON FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 17

3.310 Introduction – What is Fair Housing? 17

3.320 Section Content and Organization 21

3.321 Primary Findings 22

3.330 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity 24

3.340 Integration and Segregation 29

3.350 Access to Opportunity 42

3.360 Disparate Housing Needs 57

3.370 Site Inventory Analysis 764

3.380 Local Data, Knowledge, and Other Relevant Factors 764

3.390 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Town Action Plan 76

3.400 HOUSING RESOURCES 79

3.410 Inventory of Sites Suitable for Residential Development 79

3.411 6th Cycle RHNA 79

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
2 3.412 Pipeline Projects 83

3.413 Accessory Dwelling Units 84

3.414 Multi-Family Overlays (RM-20 and RM-40) 85

3.415 Underutilized Parcels 96

3.416 SB9 Subdivisions 96

3.417 AFFH and Identified Sites 99

3.418 Environmental Constraints Analysis 101

3.419 Infrastructure Description 102

3.420 Zoning Shortfall Analysis 105

3.421 Analysis of Zoning that Encourages and Facilitates a Variety of Housing Types 107

3.430 Other Housing Resources 112

3.500 CONSTRAINTS ON HOUSING 113

3.510 Governmental Constraints Analysis 113

3.511 Land Use Controls 115

3.512 Codes and Enforcement 116

3.513 On and Off-Site Improvement Requirements 117

3.514 Fees and Exactions 117

3.515 Processing and Permit Procedures 126

3.516 Constraints on Persons with Disabilities 130

3.517 Constraints on Emergency Shelters 132

3.520 Non-Governmental Constraints Analysis 133

3.521 Land Prices 133

3.522 Availability of Financing 136

3.600 REVIEW OF 2015-2022 HOUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE 138

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
3 3.610 Effectiveness of the Element 138

3.620 RHNA Progress in Implementation 138

3.630 Review of Prior Housing Element Programs 139

3.640 Implementation Status and Analysis of 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs 148

3.700 HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES 155

3.800 HOUSING PROGRAMS 160
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES 160
PROMOTING HOUSING MOBILITY 183

3.900 EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 184
APPENDICES 187

3.000 HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031 UPDATE)

3.100 INTRODUCTION

3.110 Purpose of the Housing Element
The State of California Government Code § 65588(e)(2) requires that all cities within the San Francisco Bay Area update the Housing Element of their General Plan by January 31, 2023. The purpose of this document is to meet this requirement by evaluating the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of Atherton, evaluating existing policies and programs aimed at the preservation, improvement and development of housing and where appropriate, identifying new priorities.

The contents of this update include an analysis of housing needs, statements of goals and policies, a schedule of programs and actions and an estimate of the number of housing units the Town expects to be developed, improved and maintained in the local housing stock. Programs and policies included in the existing Housing Element were evaluated and modified where necessary to reflect changing market conditions and policy priorities.

Atherton, shown in relation to San Mateo County in Figure HE - 1 is a residential community of approximately 7,200 residents with a land area of approximately six square miles. The Town is bordered by Menlo Park, Woodside, Redwood City and unincorporated San

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
4 Mateo County. Founded in the early 1920’s, Atherton is characterized by large lot residential land use, where minimum lot size is 1/3 to 1 acre throughout the Town. There is no commercial or industrial land use in Atherton. There are eight schools in Town, three of which are private.

FIGURE HE - 1: TOWN LOCATOR
Source: San Mateo County GIS

3.120 Definition of Income Categories
Since the determination of housing need is often discussed in terms of income categories, it is important to define the categories used in this update at the outset. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has established household income categories based on a proportion of the area’s median family income as summarized in Table HE –

1.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
5 TABLE HE – 1: HCD INCOME CATEGORIES
Income Category Definitions
Acutely Low 0 – 15% of area median income
Extremely Low 15% - 30% of area median income
Very Low 30%-50% of area median income
Lower 50%-80% of area median income
Moderate 80%-120% of area median income
Above Moderate Above 120% of area median income
Source: HCD Income Limits
The income categories established by HUD are used by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to calculate income limits for counties throughout the state. The income limits established by HCD for San Mateo County in 2021 are presented in Table HE – 2. This information also provides the maximum income limits based on the number of persons per household. Table HE – 3 identifies the monthly maximum affordable housing cost by number of people in a household and income category of the household for San Mateo County in 2021. The monthly amount is calculated as 30 percent of the household’s annual income.

TABLE HE -2: HCD INCOME CATEGORIES DEFINED
Income Category Definitions
Acutely Low 0 – 15% of area median income
Extremely Low 15% - 30% of area median income
Very Low 30%-50% of area median income
Lower1 50%-80% of area median income
Moderate 80%-120% of area median income
Above Moderate Above 120% of area median income
Source: HCD Income Limits
1 Term may also be used to mean 0% - 80% of AMI

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
6 TABLE HE -3: ANNUAL INCOME LIMITS BY HOUSHOLD SIZE – 2021(US$) San Mateo County Income Limits (2021)
(
Number of Persons Per Household*
(Maximum Income)
Income Category 1 2 3 4 5
Extremely Low $38,400 $43,850 $49,350 $54,800 $59,200
Very Low $63,950 $73,100 $82,250 $91,350 $98,700
Low Income $102,450 $117,100 $131,750 $146,350 $158,100 Median Income $104,700 $119,700 $134,650 $149,600 $161,550 Moderate Income $125,650 $143,600 $161,550 $179,500 $193,850 *The HCD State Income Limits goes up to a family size of 8. Because so few families are 6-8 persons, only 1 through 5 are listed here.

Source: HCD State Income Limits 2021 and State CDBG and HOME Income Limits TABLE HE - 4: MONTHY MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE – 2021 (US$)
San Mateo County Income Limits (2021)
Number of Persons Per Household
(Maximum Income)
Income Category 1 2 3 4 5
Extremely Low $960 $1,096 $1,234 $1,370 $1,480
Very Low $1,599 $1,828 $2,056 $2,284 $2,468
Low Income $2,561 $2,928 $3,294 $3,659 $3,953
Median Income $2,618 $2,993 $3,366 $3,740 $4,039
Moderate Income $3,141 $3,590 $4,039 $4,388 $4,846
Source: HCD State Income Limits 2013 and State CDBG and HOME Income Limits, calculations by Good City Company.

3.130 RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) 2023 - 2031 (6th Cycle) The Regional Housing Needs Allocation in the Bay Area is a process managed by ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) and MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission), whereby the housing needs for the Bay Area are distributed to the various

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
7 County and city jurisdictions. The 2023 - 2031 period is the 6th RHNA cycle since the beginning of the process. The Town of Atherton has been assigned the allocations by income category, listed in Table HE - 5 for this cycle:

TABLE HE - 5: ATHERTON’S 6TH CYCLE RHNA
Income Category Number of Units
Very Low Income 94 dwelling units
Low Income 54 dwelling units
Moderate Income 56 dwelling units
Above Moderate Income 144 dwelling units
Total 348 dwelling units
Source: HCD

3.140 Relation to Other Elements (including General Plan Consistency Analysis) The Housing Element is closely related to the Land Use, Open Space and Circulation Elements. In the Housing Element, residential land use is translated into terms of household units to be accommodated in the future. Lands designated for residential use are identified in the Land Use Element; the location, site area and terrain suitable for housing is related to both open space and land use; and the capability of serving residential neighborhoods by an efficient circulation system is discussed in the Circulation Element.

State law requires that all elements of the general plan be consistent with each other.

The General Plan was reviewed to ensure that the goals and policies of this Housing Element are consistent with the other elements of the Town’s General Plan.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
8 3.200 ASSESSMENT OF HOUSING NEEDS

3.210 Housing Needs Detailed Analysis
See Appendix 2 for detailed Housing Needs Analysis provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

To assist local jurisdictions in the preparation of their housing elements, MTC/ABAG provides data on topics of population, demographics, employment, and households for individual jurisdictions, counties and the region. An assessment of this information and related housing needs is provided in this section of the Housing Element.

3.211 Summary of Key Facts
This section provides a brief summary of key facts about people, jobs, housing and households, and special housing needs within Atherton. These facts give a demographic background for the town, highlighting its small population, relatively high income, and the rarity of in-town employment. Atherton’s fair housing analysis, housing resources, and constraints are best understood in the context of these facts. In depth analysis of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) and housing needs is included in section 3.300.

Housing resources are described in section 3.400, and constraints on housing are provided in section 3.500.

People
● Population – Atherton’s population has been declining, unlike the rest of San Mateo County and the Bay Area region. While the city’s population decreased by

0.3% from 2000-20202
, both the county and the Bay Area’s populations have
increased (by 8% and 15% respectively)3
. In Atherton, this has been the result of
almost complete buildout of the Town in accordance with the General Plan, aging population, the escalating cost of land, and policies that restrict land use to low density residential and minimum lot sizes of 1 acre or ⅓ acre. The increase in population throughout the region is mostly due to natural growth (births minus deaths) and a strong economy drawing new residents to the region. ● Income – Atherton has a lower percentage of lower income households than the rest of the county and region, with 17% of households earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI)4 compared to 40% of households in San Mateo County and 39% of households in the Bay Area as a whole. Of those that are 2 U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Census Table P1, 2000 Decennial Census Table DP1. 3 Ibid.
4 The Area Median Income (AMI) is the middle spot between the lowest and highest incomes earned. The 2021 AMI for the county is $104,700 for a single person, $119,700 for a household of two and $149,600 for a family of four.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
9 considered lower income in Atherton, approximately 6.3% are considered very low-income (earning less than 50% of AMI) and 6.5% are considered extremely low income (earning less than 30% of AMI).
● Age – Community members in Atherton, as a group, are older than in the past, and compared to San Mateo County and the Bay Area as a whole. The median age in Atherton has increased from 45.1 in 2000 to 47.4 in 2019. The median age in San Mateo County was 39.7 in 2019, and median ages in counties of the greater Bay Area range from 37.1 in Santa Clara County, to 46.8 in Marin County. In 2019,

22.3% of the population of Atherton was under 18 years old and 22.4% was over 65 years old. In San Mateo County, 20.8% of the population was under 18, and

15.8% was over 65, while for the Bay Area as a whole, 20.6% was under 18 and 15% was over 65.
5 Race/Ethnicity – Atherton is less diverse than San Mateo County and the Bay Area as a whole. In 2019, 69% of the population of Atherton was White, 21% was Asian, 4.4% was Latinx, and 0.8% was African American. By comparison, in San Mateo County, 39% of the population was White, 28% was Asian, 24% was Latinx, and 2% was African American. The population of the Bay Area by race was 39%, 26%, 24%, and 6%, respectively.6 The population of Atherton broken down by race is included in Figure HE – 2.

FIGURE HE - 2: ATHERTON POPULATION BY RACE (2019)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002. 5 U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates Table S0101. 6 U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates Table DP05.

American Indian
or Alaska Native,
Non-Hispanic
0%
Asian / API, NonHispanic
21%
Black or African
American, NonHispanic
1%
White, NonHispanic
69%
Other Race or
Multiple Races, NonHispanic
5%
Hispanic
or Latinx
4%
Atherton Population by Race, 2019

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
10 ● Poverty – Currently, people of color in San Mateo County and the Bay Area as a whole are more likely to experience poverty. The group with the highest poverty rate in Atherton is Asian/Pacific Islander residents (5.3%). White (Hispanic and NonHispanic) residents have the lowest poverty rate (3.5%).7 Jobs
● Employment – Generally, having a similar number of jobs and employed residents produces more benefits for a community, such as reducing traffic and climate impacts, and allowing people who work in the community to also live there. San Mateo County is job rich, meaning it has more jobs than employed residents. The 2018 jobs-to-resident-workers ratio for San Mateo County is 0.96, compared to 0.95 for the greater Bay Area. In contrast, Atherton is job poor. In 2018, there were 2,995 employed residents and 2,570 jobs8,9 in Atherton, resulting in a jobs-to-residentworkers ratio of 0.86. However, the estimation of jobs likely includes commercial enterprises within the nearby County-unincorporated area as the Town has no commercial land use. The Town believes that a more accurate number for jobs in Atherton is far less and has advised ABAG/MTC of this concern during each Plan Bay Area review. Actual jobs with physical locations in Atherton are limited to Town employees, public and private school employees, country club employees and Cal Water employees. There are, however, a number of service industry jobs that are located in Atherton, such as construction, delivery, and household staff.

Unfortunately there is no data readily available to more accurately represent local jobs. Unemployment – Jurisdictions throughout the region experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020. As of January 2021, Atherton’s unemployment rate was 6.1%, which was higher than the county unemployment rate of 5.9%, slightly lower than the regional unemployment rate of 6.6%, but much lower than its pandemic-related high rate of 14.6% in April 2020. Atherton’s pre-pandemic unemployment rate in January 2020 was 2.8%.10
7 Some demographic groups do not have reported poverty rates or may have over/underestimated rates as a result of having a limited sample for the particular group. 8Employed residents in a jurisdiction are counted by place of residence (they may work elsewhere) while jobs in a jurisdiction are counted by place of work (they may live elsewhere). 9 U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018
10California Department of Employment Development, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Subcounty areas monthly updates, 2010-2021.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
11 Housing and Households
● Housing Units – The growth in the number of homes in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of housing units in Atherton increased by 7% from 2010 to 2020, which is driven by the number of new ADUs within the town. The growth rates for San Mateo County and the region’s housing stock during the same time period were 3% and 5% respectively. 11 Home Prices and Rents – Housing prices in Atherton are not seen as affordable to most residents and workers in the region. Given high job growth and low housing growth in the county and the greater Bay Area, the cost of housing in Atherton has increased significantly in the past decade:
o Sales Price – In 2020, the average sales price of a single-family home in Atherton was approximately $7,897,800. Home prices increased by 196% from 2010 to 2020.12 In comparison, the average sales price of a singlefamily home in San Mateo County was $2,153,231, 13 and $2,049,216 in the
greater Bay Area.
14 shows the change in average home sales prices in
Atherton between 2010 and 2020.
11 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2010 and 2020 5-Year Estimates Table B25001. 12 San Mateo Association of REALTORS Annual Reports 2010-2020 13 Ibid.
14 California Association of REALTORS California Housing Market Update

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
12 FIGURE HE - 3: ATHERTON AVERAGE HOME SALE PRICE (2010-2020) Source: San Mateo Association of REALTORS Annual Reports 2010-2020 o Rental Prices – According to the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 5-Year Datasets, rental prices in Atherton increased by 60% from 2009 to 2019. The median rent in 2019 was $3,200. To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $128,320 per year.15 Although Atherton’s housing stock is primarily single-family residential, there are multifamily units provided on institutional sites that are rented. However, data distinguishing between the actual unit types is not available. There are not a sufficient number of rental units (only 150 in the town)16 for the US Census to break this number down by housing type. The rental data gathered by the Census does not necessarily corroborate with Atherton’s internal data that tracks attested rents for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), the most recent of which is from 2023. The Town’s internal data includes 41 ADUs rented for a median of $0 – that is, the property owner is not charging rent on the occupant – and an average rent of $765. Higher prices in census data may reflect larger homes than the lower cost of ADU rental in Atherton.
● Housing Type – In 2020, 98% of homes in Atherton were single family detached, 2% were single family attached, 0.2% were small multifamily (2-4 units), and 0% were 15 Note that contract rents may differ significantly from, and often being lower than, current listing prices. 16 This number comes from the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 5-year Datasets and is an estimate. It may not corroborate with the Town’s internal sources of data. $1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
Atherton Average Home Sales Price

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
13 medium or large multifamily (5+ units). Moreover, Atherton’s housing consists of more detached single-family homes than the region as a whole (98% as compared to 52% in the Bay Area, and 66% in San Mateo County). ● Housing for Large Families - Large families are generally served by homes with 3 or more bedrooms, of which there are 2,093 units in Atherton (94% of the housing).

Among these 3+ bedroom units, 6% are renter-occupied and 94% are owneroccupied, compared to 37% renter-occupied and 63% owner-occupied in San Mateo County, and 39% renter-occupied and 61% owner-occupied in the greater Bay Area.
● Cost Burden – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30% of its income on housing costs. A household is considered “costburdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In Atherton, 14% of households are cost burdened, while an additional 18% of households are severely cost burdened. In San Mateo County, 19% of households are cost burdened, with 17% of households severely cost burdened, while the same proportions of households (19% and 17%, respectively) are cost burdened in the Bay Area as a whole. ● Neighborhood Equity – Some neighborhoods are identified as “Highest Resource” or “High Resource” by the State of California’s Tax Credit Allocation Committee and HCD based on a range of indicators such as access to community resources – quality schools, proximity to jobs and economic opportunities, low pollution levels, and other factors.17 However, neighborhoods do not always receive an equitable share of these community resources and may be designated as “Low Resource” if they lack these amenities. Approximately 40% of residents in Atherton live in neighborhoods identified as “Highest Resource” or “High Resource”, while no residents live in areas identified by this research as “Low Resource”. While one of the census tracts is identified as “Moderate Resource,” Atherton, as a whole, is commonly understood and accepted as a high-resource community. ● Displacement & Gentrification – Displacement, or the inability of residents to afford to remain in their homes, is a major concern in the Bay Area due to increasing housing prices. Displacement has the most severe impacts on low- and moderate17 “The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map identifies areas in every region of the state whose characteristics have been shown by research to be most strongly associated with positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families – particularly long-term outcomes for children – when compared to other neighborhoods in the same region.” For more information on the “opportunity area” categories developed by HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, see this website:
https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
14 income residents. When individuals or families are forced to leave their homes and communities, they lose their support network. A related concern is the impact of gentrification or exclusion—when neighborhoods have limited or no housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents.

Low-income households are excluded from virtually all of Atherton’s neighborhoods due to the high cost of land. No households in Atherton live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement, or in areas at risk of or undergoing gentrification.18
The notable exception to this is accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (JADUs) throughout town. The Town supports and encourages an active and successful home-sharing program through HIP Housing. Lastly, Menlo College provides extensive dormitory use for students that would otherwise be housed and renting affordable units off campus. By supporting multi-family housing on campus, the Town is able to assist in opening up scarce affordable housing resources throughout the region.

Special Housing Needs
Some population groups may have special housing needs and may have greater difficulty in finding decent, adequate, and affordable housing due to mobility and accessibility barriers. For instance, individuals with disabilities are often unable to work and live off of a fixed income, such as Supplemental Security Income. They also may require accessibly designed housing to accommodate needs related to their specific disabilities, employment and income, family characteristics, disability, and/or household characteristics.
● In Atherton, 7.8% of residents have a disability of any kind and may require accessible housing. People with disabilities face challenges when looking for housing, especially housing that is “visitable,” or able to be entered and used by someone in a wheelchair or other mobility device. There is a limited supply of handicap accessible, generally affordable housing, and the supply is especially limited near transit. Proximity to transit is important because many people with disabilities cannot drive. People with disabilities are also often extremely lowincome due to the challenge of securing long-term employment and higher medical bills. Additionally, some people with disabilities, particularly developmental disabilities, have lived with their parents and often do not have rental or credit history. This makes it harder for them to compete for the limited housing that is available.
18 For more information on the University of California, Berkeley Urban Displacement map, see this website:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/maps/california-estimated-displacement-risk-model/

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
15 ● Seniors (individuals 64 years of age or older) are another segment of the population with special housing needs. As previously mentioned, 22.4% of Atherton’s population, or 1,596 individuals, were seniors in 2019. As the large baby boomer population ages, Atherton, like the rest of San Mateo County, is expected to see a growing population of seniors. Currently, there are no senior housing units in Atherton. However, as the population of the Town continues to age, there may be a greater need for more senior housing (i.e. smaller, multifamily units, or accessible units), spurred by a growing trend by many to age-in-place or downsize to remain in their communities. In Atherton, 13% of households are larger households with five or more people sharing the same home. These households likely need larger housing units with three bedrooms or more. Since 0% of the large households in the Town are considered very low-income and 94% of the units in the Town are three or more bedrooms, the high cost of housing in the Town has not prevented a majority of these large families from securing adequate housing.

However, larger households needing three or more bedrooms often have difficulty in finding adequate and affordable housing. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden compared to the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity. ADUs typically cannot achieve three or more bedrooms within realistic square footage limitations and do not necessarily meet the needs of low-income or cost burdened larger households. ● In Atherton, 5.4% of households are female-headed families, which can be of greater risk of housing insecurity, or losing their home. Households headed by a single parent can have special needs due to the economic limitation of earning only one income, and the challenges of childcare without a partner. Although gender equality has made strides over the past 50 years, women continue to earn lower incomes than men. Therefore, female-headed households have specific housing needs that must be addressed: low-cost housing, suitability for children and located near schools and childcare facilities. Difficulty in finding affordable housing can result in disproportionate cost burden on female headed families compared to the rest of the population and can also increase the risk of housing insecurity.
● In the 2022 San Mateo County One Day Homeless Count and Survey, there were 3 homeless individuals in Atherton, or less than 1% of the town’s population.

Atherton historically has one of the lower homeless counts in San Mateo County.

Shelters and homeless assistance programs are the main resources available to homeless residents of San Mateo County. San Mateo County’s Center on Homeless, a program overseen by the County Human Services Agency, coordinates the provision of homeless services within the County, including those by non-governmental entities. The Center on Homeless provides information to

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
16 county residents and referrals, administers self-sufficiency programs, and develops homeless resources. There are also several specialized shelters for people with substance abuse problems, mental illnesses, victims of domestic violence and for the youth. The nearest large homeless assistance facility is the Shelter Clearinghouse at the Fair Oaks Community Center in Redwood City. This is an information resource and reference point that provides shelter referrals to homeless individuals and families and works in close with San Mateo County Human Services to provide individuals and families much-needed support to stabilize their living situations. Limited housing affordability and availability increases the risk of continued housing insecurity for homeless individuals. ● Extremely Low Income (ELI) Households – ELI households earn 30% of the Area Median Income or less. This amounts to an annual income of $54,800 or below for a family of four in San Mateo County. According to HUD data, there are 149 households with extremely low incomes (out of 2,305 total households, or 6.4%).

Of these households, 130 are owner occupied (87% of all extremely low income households) and 19 are renter occupied (13%).

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
17 3.300 ATHERTON FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT

3.310 Introduction – What is Fair Housing?
The State of California’s 2018 Assembly Bill (AB 686)
requires that all public agencies in the state
affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) beginning
January 1, 2019. Public agencies receiving funding
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) are also required to demonstrate
their commitment to AFFH. The federal obligation
stems from the fair housing component of the federal
Civil Rights Act mandating federal fund recipients to
take “meaningful actions” to address segregation and
related barriers to fair housing choice. The Town does
not receive HUD funding.

AB 686 requires all public agencies to “administer
programs and activities relating to housing and
community development in a manner that
affirmatively furthers fair housing, and take no action inconsistent with this obligation”19
AB 686 also makes changes to Housing Element Law to incorporate requirements to AFFH as part of the housing element and general plan to include an analysis of fair housing outreach and capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and current fair housing practices.

History of segregation in the region
The United States’ oldest cities have a history of mandating segregated living patterns— and Northern California cities are no exception. ABAG, in its recent Fair Housing Equity Assessment, attributes segregation in the Bay Area to historically discriminatory practices—highlighting redlining and discriminatory mortgage approvals—as well as “structural inequities” in society, and “self-segregation” (i.e., preferences to live near similar people). The narrative below applies regionally and is not solely specific to the Town of Atherton.

Researcher Richard Rothstein’s 2017 book The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America chronicles how the public sector contributed to the segregation that exists today. Rothstein highlights several significant developments in 19 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 9.

This history of segregation
in the region is important
not only to understand
how residential settlement
patterns came about—but,
more importantly, to
explain differences in
housing opportunity
among residents today. In
sum, not all residents had
the ability to build housing
wealth or achieve
economic opportunity.

This historically unequal
playing field in part
determines why residents
have different housing
needs today.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
18 the Bay Area region that played a large role in where the region’s non-White residents settled. the Bay Area region that played a large role in where the region’s non-White residents settled.

Pre-civil rights San Mateo County faced resistance to racial integration, yet it was reportedly less direct than in some Northern California communities, taking the form of “blockbusting” and “steering” or intervention by public officials. These local discriminatory practices were exacerbated by actions of the Federal Housing Administration which excluded low-income neighborhoods, where the majority of people of color lived, from its mortgage loan program.

According to the San Mateo County Historical Association. San Mateo County’s early African Americans worked in a variety of industries, from logging, to agriculture, to restaurants and entertainment. Expansion of jobs, particularly related to shipbuilding during and after World War II attracted many new residents to the Peninsula, including the first sizable migration of African Americans. Enforcement of racial covenants after the war forced the migration of the county’s African Americans into neighborhoods where they were allowed to occupy housing. Typically, this housing was segregated into less desirable areas, such as next to highways, and concentrated in public housing and urban renewal developments.

The private sector contributed to segregation through activities that discouraged (blockbusting) or prohibited (restrictive covenants) integrated neighborhoods. The segregationary effect of blockbusting activities in the County is well-documented in East Palo Alto. In 1954, after a white family in East Palo Alto sold their home to an African American family, the then-president of the California Real Estate Association set up an office in East Palo Alto to scare white families into selling their homes (“for fear of declining property values”) to agents and speculators. These agents then sold these homes at overinflated prices to African American buyers, some of whom had trouble making their payments. Within six years, East Palo Alto—initially established with “whites only” neighborhoods—became 82% African American. The FHA prevented re- integration by refusing to insure mortgages held by white buyers residing in East Palo Alto.

Throughout the county, neighborhood associations and city leaders attempted to thwart integration of communities. Although some neighborhood residents supported integration, most did not, and it was not unusual for neighborhood associations to require acceptance of all new buyers. Builders with intentions to develop for all types of buyers (regardless of race) found that their development sites were rezoned by planning councils, required very large minimum lot sizes, and\or were denied public infrastructure to support their developments or charged prohibitively high amounts for infrastructure.

The timeline of major federal acts and court decisions related to fair housing choice and zoning and land use appears on the following page.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
19 As shown in the timeline in Figure HE - 4 exclusive zoning practices were common in the early 1900s. Courts struck down only the most discriminatory and allowed those that would be considered today to have a “disparate impact” on classes protected by the Fair Housing Act. For example, the 1926 case Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co. (272 U.S. 365) supported the segregation of residential, business, and industrial uses, justifying separation by characterizing apartment buildings as “mere parasite(s)” with the potential to “utterly destroy” the character and desirability of neighborhoods. At that time, multifamily apartments were the only realistic housing options for people of color, including immigrants.

The Federal Fair Housing Act was not enacted until nearly 60 years after the first racial zoning ordinances appeared in U.S. cities. This coincided with a shift away from federal control over low-income housing toward locally-tailored approaches (block grants) and market-oriented choice (Section 8 subsidies)—the latter of which is only effective when adequate affordable rental units are available.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
20 FIGURE HE - 4 MAJOR PUBLIC AND LEGAL ACTIONS THAT INFLUENCE FAIR ACCESS TO HOUSING20 20 Moore, Eli, Montojo, Nicole, and Mauri, Nicole. Roots, Race, & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing in the San Francisco Bay Area (Othering and Belonging Institute at the University of California, Berkeley: October 2, 2019. Available at: https://belonging.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
21 3.320 Section Content and Organization
This Fair Housing Assessment follows the April 2021 State of California State Guidance for AFFH. The study was conducted as part of the 21 Elements process, which facilitates the completion of Housing Elements for all San Mateo County jurisdictions, with modifications made after consultation with HCD:

Section 3.330. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity reviews lawsuits/enforcement actions/complaints against the jurisdiction; compliance with state fair housing laws and regulations; and jurisdictional capacity to conduct fair housing outreach and education.

Section 3.340. Integration and Segregation identifies areas of concentrated segregation, degrees of segregation, and the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation.

Section 3.350. Access to Opportunity examines differences in access to education, transportation, economic development, and healthy environments.

Section 3.360. Disparate Housing Needs identifies which groups have disproportionate housing needs including displacement risk.

Section 3.370. Site Inventory Analysis provides an analysis of sites identified to meet RHNA obligations for their ability to affirmatively further fair housing.

Section 3.380. Local Data, Knowledge, and Other Relevant Factors provides additional information and context about fair housing in Atherton.

Section 3.390. Contributing Factors and Fair Housing Action Plan identifies the primary factors contributing to fair housing challenges and the plan for taking meaningful actions to improve access to housing and economic opportunity.

Fair Housing Appendices
Fair Housing Appendices that provide additional AFFH data are provided alongside the other Housing Element appendices, at the end of the element.  3.3-A: Resident survey results—findings from a survey of San Mateo County residents on their experience finding and remaining in housing  3.3-B: Disparate Access to Educational Opportunities—findings from a countywide analysis of access to education and educational outcomes by protected class.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
22  3.3-C: State Fair Housing Laws and Regulations—summary of key state laws and regulations related to mitigating housing discrimination and expanding housing choice
 3.3-D: Fair Housing Organizations in San Mateo County—mission, services, and contact information

3.321 Primary Findings
This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for Atherton including the following sections: fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and contributing factors and the town’s fair housing action plan.  From 2017 to 2021, 57 fair housing complaints in San Mateo County were filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—there were no complaints identified for Atherton. Compared to nearby Redwood City and Menlo Park, Atherton does not appear to have any housing stock currently used by renters with housing vouchers. The Town does not have an inventory of income assisted rental units and to our knowledge, no one has requested the use of vouchers.
 Atherton stands out for its affluence and high ownership rates, with a median income of over $250,000 (the highest census cut-off) and a homeownership rate of 93%, compared to a median income of $149,907 and a homeownership rate of 60% in San Mateo County. Racial and ethnic minorities living in Atherton are wealthier compared to the county. However, in general, Appendix 2 data indicates the following about Atherton:
o In the county, households of other or multiple races experience higher rates of cost burden—56% are extremely cost burdened, compared to 16% in Atherton overall. Lower income households are also more likely to experience housing cost burden. One out of seven households with income below 80% AMI are severely cost burdened.
o Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than non-Hispanic White households to experience overcrowding. Other races (21% of households), and Hispanic households (19%), experience the highest rates of overcrowding.
o Disparities by race and ethnicity are prevalent for home mortgage applications, particularly in denial rates. Hispanic (60% denial rate) and

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
23 Asian/API (29%) have the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019, compared to non-Hispanic White households (18%).
 Population growth in Atherton since 2010 has been slower than the County’s and the town has not reached the population level it had prior to the late 1900’s).

Despite the low population growth, home values accelerated since 2014.

Atherton is part of Silicon Valley and home prices have been driven by the regional economy that has generated significant value. Atherton is one of the region's most expensive communities. Though it is separately incorporated, its economy and home prices are largely due to regional growth and demand.  However, growth in home prices has not translated to more building activity.

According to the ABAG Housing Data Workbook, the majority of the housing inventory in Atherton was constructed from 1940 to 1959, with 1,087 units built between 1940 to 1959 compared to 180 units built in 2010 or later. However, actual Town building permit records reflect that from 2010 forward more than 320 new single-family home building permits were issued.
 Atherton has relatively the same share of residents with a disability compared to the county. In general, residents living with a disability in the town are more likely to be unemployed. Finally, the aging population in the county is putting a strain on paratransit access countywide. Unemployment is disproportionately high among residents living with a disability at 11% compared to 5% for residents without a disability in Atherton—particularly when compared to the county.  Atherton is served by the Menlo Park City, Redwood City, and Las Lomitas Elementary School Districts, and the Sequoia Union High School District.

Countywide 27% of Hispanic students met or exceeded mathematics testing standards and 40% met or exceeded English testing standards. Hispanic students in Menlo Park City Elementary, Las Lomitas Elementary, and Redwood City Elementary, which includes Atherton’s Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School, performed better compared to the county (55%, 44%, and 34% respectively in mathematics and 62%, 65%, and 43% in English).
 Overall, 31% of public-school students in San Mateo County qualify for reducedprice lunch in the 2022-2023 school year. 21 In Redwood City Elementary School
21 Data collected by the California Department of Education (CDE) through the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS).

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
24 District, which includes Atherton, 61% of students qualify for free and reducedprice meals. This number is far higher than Menlo Park City Elementary School District (10%) or Las Lomitas Elementary School District (6%). County-wide, 21% of public-school students are English learners. Again, this rate is higher at Redwood City Elementary School District, where 38% of students are English learners, compared to Menlo Park City Elementary School District (7.3%) or Las Lomitas Elementary School District (13%).
 At the high school level, Sequoia Union High School district (which includes Atherton) has the highest dropout rate in the County (10%), and dropout rates among Pacific Islander (20%), Hispanic (16%), and Black (12%) students are much higher (Appendix 3: AFFH Atherton Map and Data Packet).

3.330 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
This section discusses fair housing legal cases and inquiries, fair housing protections and enforcement, and outreach capacity.

Fair Housing Legal Cases and Inquiries
California fair housing law extends beyond the protections in the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). In addition to the FHA protected classes—race, color, ancestry/national origin, religion, disability, sex, and familial status—California law offers protections for age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic information, marital status, military or veteran status, and source of income (including federal housing assistance vouchers).

The California Department of Fair Employment in Housing (DFEH) was established in 1980 and is now the largest civil rights agency in the United States. According to their website, the DFEH’s mission is, “to protect the people of California from unlawful discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations (businesses) and from hate violence and human trafficking in accordance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and Ralph Civil Rights Act”.22 DFEH receives, evaluates, and investigates fair housing complaints. DFEH plays a particularly significant role in investigating fair housing complaints against protected classes that are not included in federal legislation and therefore not investigated by HUD.

DFEH’s website provides detailed instructions for filing a complaint, the complaint 22 California Department of Civil Rights,
https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/aboutcrd/

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
25 process, appealing a decision, and other frequently asked questions.23 Fair housing complaints can also be submitted to HUD for investigation.

Additionally, San Mateo County has a number of local enforcement organizations including Project Sentinel, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto. These organizations receive funding from the County and participating jurisdictions to support fair housing enforcement and outreach and education in the County.

From 2017 to 2021, 57 fair housing complaints in San Mateo County were filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)— none of the complaints were in Atherton. The data below reflects complaint data submitted for the county.

Countywide, most complaints cited disability status as the basis (56%) followed by race (19%), and familial status (14%). No cause determination was found in 27 complaints followed by successful conciliation or settlement with 22 complaints. Fair housing inquiries in 2020 were submitted primarily from the City of San Mateo, Redwood City, Daly City, and Menlo Park.

Fair housing complaints filed with HUD by San Mateo County residents have been on a declining trend since 2018, when 18 complaints were filed. In 2019, complaints dropped to 5, increased to 11 in 2020, and had reached 6 by mid-2021.

Nationally, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) reported a “negligible” decrease in the number of complaints filed between 2019 and 2020. The primary bases for complaints nationally were nearly identical to San Mateo County’s: disability (55%) and race (17%).

Familial status represented 8% of complaints nationally, whereas this basis comprised 14% of cases in the county.

NFHA identifies three significant trends in 2020 that are relevant for San Mateo County:
 First, fair lending cases referred to the Department of Justice from federal banking regulators have been declining, indicating that state and local government entities may want to play a larger role in examining fair lending barriers to homeownership.  Second, NFHA identified a significant increase in the number of complaints of harassment—1,071 complaints in 2020 compared to 761 in 2019.  Finally, NFHA found that 73% of all fair housing complaints in 2020 were processed by private fair housing organizations, rather than state, local, and federal government 23 California Department of Civil Rights. Complaint Process, https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/complaintprocess/

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
26 agencies—reinforcing the need for local, active fair housing organizations and increased funding for such organizations.24
There were no complaints filed against the Town. Residents in Atherton are either not confronted by housing discrimination, or, if they are, have the financial power to overcome it without filing a complaint. There are affordable housing opportunities at Menlo College for students, staff, faculty, and their families; as well as accessory dwelling units throughout Town rented at affordable rates. There too, there have not been any housing complaints filed.

In preparing this AFFH, the San Mateo County jurisdictions participating in 21 Elements participated in a discussion with the local fair housing organizations Legal Aid of San Mateo County and Project Sentinel to learn about fair housing trends and concerns, as well as to discuss best practices in AFFH. Following this discussion, the consultant team contacted local fair housing organizations to obtain local data on fair housing complaints and lawsuits beyond what was available in HCD and HUD datasets.

Consultants also obtained and analyzed data from HUD. These datasets were compared for duplicate cases and analyzed and appear in the graphics and tables in this section.

Outreach and Capacity
Outreach and capacity. The Town of Atherton has posted its Draft Housing Element for 2023-2031 and advertised to residents an ADU survey, held multiple special meetings and study sessions with the City Council, and held community forums in January to gain input on the final Housing Element. The outreach was conducted via direct mailers to each property owner, use of social media, e-blasts to the Town’s registered email list and emails to housing organizations requesting notification.

The Town of Atherton does not currently have a fair housing outreach and enforcement program, and rather receives complaints from independently informed, interested stakeholders. The Town has not developed a fair housing enforcement and outreach program due to Atherton’s small size and extremely low incidence of fair housing complaints. There were no fair housing inquiries between 2013 to 2021. Distribution and basis of fair housing complaints and inquiries in San Mateo County between 2017 and 2021 are included in Figure HE – 5.

That said, the Town acknowledges that it has a responsibility to conduct proactive outreach to ensure residents are aware of their rights regarding fair housing issues. These changes shall be discussed below.
24 National Fair Housing Alliance Report on Housing Harassment, https://nationalfairhousing.org/2021/07/29/annual-fair-housing-report-shows-increase-in-housingharassment/

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
27 The Town of Atherton will improve the accessibility of fair housing information on its website and resources for residents experiencing housing discrimination. Information on housing resources can be expanded on the town’s website as well as information or resources for residents experiencing discrimination in housing or the Fair Housing Act. This includes providing contact information for local fair housing organizations, legal assistance, and general information about the Fair Housing Act and discrimination. The Town shall receive and compile fair housing complaints by conducting proactive, annual outreach to homeowners and renters. The Town shall also conduct proactive educational outreach to increase awareness of fair housing rights and responsibilities within the jurisdiction. After receiving and aggregating complaints, the Town will make regular monthly referrals to local enforcement agencies and non-profits. An annual review of the effectiveness of this program will be carried out in tandem with the educational outreach process.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
28 FIGURE HE - 5: FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS AND INQUIRIES Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
29 3.340 Integration and Segregation
This section discusses integration and segregation of the population by protected classes including race and ethnicity, disability status, familial status, and income status. The section includes analyses of:
 Race and Ethnicity in Atherton
 Racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence  Dissimilarity Index
 Disability Status
 Familial Status
 Household Income
Integration and Segregation
“Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area.

Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area.”
Race and Ethnicity
As shown in Figure HE - 6, Atherton became more diverse between 2000 and 2019, during a time when the town’s population declined. However, Atherton is less racially and ethnically diverse than San Mateo County. The largest proportion of the population is non-Hispanic White (69% v. 39% countywide), followed by Asian/Asian Pacific Islander (API) (21% v. 30% countywide). Residents of other or multiple races make up 5% of the population, Hispanic residents make up 4% of the population, and Black or African American residents make up 1%.25 Figure HE - 7 shows the differences in racial makeup in Atherton, San Mateo County, and the greater Bay Area. 25 The share of the population that identifies as American Indian or Alaska Native is less than 1%.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
30 FIGURE HE - 6: RACE AND ETHNICITY IN ATHERTON
Source: American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates FIGURE HE - 7: RACE AND ETHNICITY IN ATHERTON, SAN MATEO COUNTY, AND THE BAY AREA
Source: American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates Atherton is predominantly white, but Redwood City and areas of unincorporated San Mateo County to the town’s north are predominantly non-White, as shown in Figure HE –

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
31 8. There are no particularly unique racial concentrations within the town. Older residents of Atherton are less diverse than the town as a whole, with 89% of the population older than 65 years identifying as White compared to 61% of the population for children less than 18 years old.

FIGURE HE - 8: PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL NON-WHITE POPULATION IN ATHERTON AND

SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence A Racially Concentrated Area of Poverty or an Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) represent opposing ends of the segregation spectrum from racially and/or ethnically segregated areas with high poverty rates to affluent predominantly White neighborhoods.26 Historically, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has paid particular attention to R/ECAPs as a focus of policy and obligations to AFFH. Recent research out of the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs argues for the inclusion of 26 Goetz, E. G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. (2019). Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
32 RCAAs to acknowledge current and past policies that created and perpetuate these areas of high opportunity and exclusion.27
It is important to note that R/ECAPs and RCAAs are not areas of focus because of racial and ethnic concentrations alone. This study recognizes that racial and ethnic clusters can be a part of fair housing choice if they occur in a non-discriminatory market. Rather, R/ECAPs identify areas where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity, and conversely, RCAAs are meant to identify areas of particular advantage and exclusion.

R/ECAPs
◼ HCD and HUD’s definition of a Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty is:A census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) or, for non-urban areas, 20 percent, AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or more; OR ◼ A census tract that has a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majorityminority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County, whichever is lower.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021.

For this study, the poverty threshold used was three times the average tract poverty rate for the County – or 19%. In addition to R/ECAPs that meet the HUD threshold, this study includes edge or emerging R/ECAPs which hit two thirds of the HUD defined threshold for poverty – emerging R/ECAPs in San Mateo County have 2 times the average tract poverty rate for the county (12.8%). Figure HE – 9 identifies all R/ECAPs within the region.

There are no R/ECAPs within San Mateo County.
27 Ibid.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
33 FIGURE HE - 9: RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer RCAAs. HCD’s definition of a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence is a census tract that has a percentage of total white population that is 1.25 times higher than the average percentage of a total white population in the given COG region, and a median income that was 2 times higher than the COG AMI.

The purpose of identifying R/ECAPs is to locate areas where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity. Conversely, RCAAs are meant to identify areas of particular advantage and exclusion. For the purpose of the fair housing assessment, these designations are indicators of integration and segregation of a population based on race and ethnicity, and income status.

Atherton is considered an RCAA (based on 2019 data) because its total white population is 67% while that of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is 40%. The map below shows Atherton’s proximity to other RCAAs. Atherton is largely surrounded by communities that are also RCAAs. These include portions of Menlo Park, Woodside, Portola Valley, Palo Alto and Redwood City. As one travels West on El Camino Real

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
34 towards Redwood City, there are fewer RCAAs. Although maps are not available through time, analysis shows that the white population has remained the majority demographic throughout Atherton’s history. Atherton has consistently had high home prices compared to San Mateo County and the Bay Area, suggesting that high income people are drawn to the area and are willing to pay a high price for large homes in the residential town.

The Stanford area has more racial and income diversity from its student body and staff.

The Palo Alto area is still expensive, and many employees of the University likely bypass Atherton and Menlo Park for cheaper housing in Sunnyvale and Redwood City.

FIGURE HE - 10: RACIALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF AFFLUENCE Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
35 FIGURE HE - 11: PERCENT OF ATHERTON HOUSEHOLDS IN POVERTY BY RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUP
Source: American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates Although poverty rates within Atherton are very low, there are still minor disparities by race. For example, 5.3% of Asian and Asian Pacific Islanders are in poverty compared to

3.5% of white households. While the percentage is zero, Black, American Indian and Alaskan Native populations may also face poverty in Atherton, but this should be interpreted with caution as the sample is far too small to draw conclusions. This change shows that, although the area is considered a RCAA, within Atherton’s small Black Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) population there are variations of experience.

Dissimilarity Index
The Dissimilarity Index, or DI, is a common tool that measures segregation in a community.

The DI is an index that measures the degree to which two distinct groups are evenly distributed across a geographic area. The DI represents the percentage of a group’s population that would have to move for each area in the county to have the same percentage of that group as the county overall.

DI values range from 0 to 100—where 0 is perfect integration and 100 is complete segregation. Dissimilarity index values between 0 and 39 generally indicate low segregation, values between 40 and 54 generally indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
36 The isolation index is interpreted as the probability that a randomly drawn minority resident shares an area with a member of the same minority, it ranges from 0 to 100 and higher values of isolation tend to indicate higher levels of segregation.

As shown in Figure HE - 12, per the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) Data Viewer, the entire census tract for Atherton has a high racial segregation, characterized by a population that is greater than 60 percent White. This contrasts with the low- and medium-segregation areas immediately outside of jurisdiction boundaries, particularly in areas north of Atherton. Analysis of the DI between 2010-2020 indicates that surrounding jurisdictions made some improvement regarding racial integration from 2010-2020; however, during the same time period Atherton maintained the same or similar level of racial segregation, even with a growing diversity of residents. The Town acknowledges that it is critical to be aware of these circumstances and use it to inform the development of proactive policies and implement these practices to achieve higher incremental racial integration, as much as possible, within the jurisdiction.

FIGURE HE - 12: RACIAL SEGREGATION IN ATHERTON AND SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
37 Disability Status
The share of the population living with at least one disability is 8% in Atherton, which is the same as in San Mateo County and slightly more than the 7% in the Bay Area, according to census data. This has changed little over time, as the population was 7% in 2012. The three most common types of disabilities among those Atherton residents who indicated they were disabled are ambulatory difficulties (4.5%), cognitive difficulties (3.0%) and hearing difficulties (3.0%). There are no census tracts in the Town with a share of the population living with a disability above 10%, as shown in Figure HE - 13FIGURE HE - 13.

Geographic concentrations of people living with a disability may indicate the area has ample access to services, amenities, and transportation that support this population.

In addition, there are an estimated 18 individuals in Atherton with developmental disabilities, which include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Of those in Atherton with a developmental disability, 27.8% are children under the age of 18 and 72.2% are adults. The most common living situation for individuals with developmental disabilities in Atherton is the home of a parent, family member or guardian; the second most common is independent or supported living facilities.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
38 FIGURE HE - 13: DISABILITY STATUS
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table S1810 Familial Status
In Atherton, 67% of households are married couples and 65% of all households have children under 18 present. This is compared to 55% married and 67% households with children for San Mateo County, and 51% married couples and 68% households with children for the Bay Area region. The town is home to fewer single-person households (13% in Atherton v. 22% countywide v. 25% for the Bay Area region). This is up from 61.7% of married-couple families in Atherton in 2010. The large, expensive homes in the area may draw prosperous couples in while also making it necessary to have income of two people to be able to afford the cost of living. Atherton has a similar share of families with children as both the county and the region (35% v. 33% countywide v. 32% for the Bay Area). It would appear that the greater concentration of large, single-family homes in Atherton compared to the region has little impact on the presence of children in a household.

The vast majority of households in Atherton are homeowners (93%). The number of housing units available by number of bedrooms and tenure is consistent with the familial status of the households that live in Atherton.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
39 In Atherton, the concentrations of households with children are found in the census tract east of El Camino Real, as shown in Figure HE - 14FIGURE HE - 14; however, there are very few households of individuals living alone are found in the entire jurisdiction. This is likely due to older households with children having grown up and left the household in the areas west of El Camino Real. In Atherton, 35% of households have one or more children under the age of 18, compared with 33% in San Mateo County and 30% in the Bay Area region.

FIGURE HE - 14: HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table S1101 Household Income
The household income distribution by percent of area median income (AMI) in Atherton is much more concentrated at above 100% AMI compared to the county (79% v. 49% countywide), and the Bay Area as a whole (52%). As shown in Figure HE - 15FIGURE HE - 15, there are no census tracts in the town with concentrations of poverty rates over 10%.

The Town has fewer extremely low-income and very low-income households, both at 6%, that the County as a whole at 13% and 11%, respectively.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
40 FIGURE HE - 15: POVERTY RATE
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table S1701 Throughout the jurisdiction, fewer than 0.2% of households are low to moderate income, or below the poverty level. Surrounding jurisdictions, including East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Redwood City have broader bands of incomes and have significantly more households earning less than $136,837; the 2021 median income in San Mateo County.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
41 FIGURE HE - 16: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table S1903

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
42 FIGURE HE - 17: SEGREGATION AND INTEGRATION
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

3.350 Access to Opportunity
This section discusses disparities in access to opportunity among protected classes including access to quality education, employment, transportation, and environment.

HCD’s definition for access to opportunity is defined in the text bow below.”

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
43 Access to Opportunity
“Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes. Access to opportunity oftentimes means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods28. This encompasses education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including recreation, food and healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 34.

The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) in collaboration with HCD developed a series of opportunity maps that help to identify areas of the community with good or poor access to opportunity for residents. These maps are based on the research on how positive economic, educational, and health “domains” (as outcomes are described) for low-income families are correlated to geographic factors and were developed to align funding allocations with the goal of improving outcomes for lowincome residents—particularly children. 29 The opportunity maps highlight areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource and high segregation and poverty. TCAC provides opportunity maps for access to opportunity in quality education, employment, transportation, and environment. Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.

TCAC maps identify Atherton south of El Camino Real as “Moderate Resource” and east of El Camino Real as “High Resource.” This is due to the relatively low Education score in Atherton tracts, as Atherton is commonly understood and accepted as a high-resource community. Table HE - 6 below describes the TCAC scoring in each of Atherton’s two census tracts across the three domains (Education, Economic, and Environment) as well as its overall opportunity category.
28 Neighborhoods with the greatest access to public parks, transit, schools, grocery stores, and health facilities.
29 For more information, visit the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee’s CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps website at https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
44 TABLE HE - 6: TCAC OPPORTUNITY SCORES BY TRACT AND DOMAIN Tract 6114 Tract 6115
Education 73 81
Economic 40 61
Environment 64 74
Overall Opportunity
Category
Moderate Resource High Resource
Source: California State Treasurer’s Office California Tax Credit Allocation Committee Education
TCAC’s education score is based on math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate. According to TCAC’s educational opportunity map, census tracts in Atherton score between 0.25 and 0.75—opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes. The census tract scoring between 0.25 and 0.50 is located south/west of El Camino Real and the census tract to the east scores between 0.50 and

0.75, as shown in Figure HE - 18FIGURE HE - 18 below. These relatively low education scores impact the TCAC Opportunity Mapping for Atherton. In outreach with Atherton residents, individuals state that the relatively worse-performing schools do not make a significant impact on ameliorating housing costs in Atherton. On the contrary, Atherton residents note that they often prefer spending on private education, adding to the cost of living in the town.

Patterns within San Mateo County reveal that over the last decade, schools have become increasingly more diverse, with Hispanic students making up 38% of enrollments.

Ravenswood and Redwood City, to the West and Northeast of Atherton respectively, have the highest number of Hispanic students in the County at 84% and 70%. In Redwood City Elementary, which includes Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School in Atherton, more than one-third of students are English learners. Ravenswood serves the census tract that scored between 0.25 and 0.50. Therefore, the significant number of English learner students could be skewing down the educational outcomes in that census tract compared to schools with more proficient English speakers An astounding 30% of students at Ravenswood Elementary are experiencing homelessness compared to the county-rate of 2%. Without a stable place to complete schoolwork and, most importantly, feel safe and secure, students are unable to reach their full potential and thus have lower education scores. There are limited affordable housing options in Atherton and other jurisdictions surrounding Ravenswood for families to access once they are displaced.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
45 FIGURE HE - 18: TCAC EDUCATION SCORES
Source: California State Treasurer’s Office California Tax Credit Allocation Committee Atherton is served by the Menlo Park City, Redwood City, and Las Lomitas Elementary School Districts; and the Sequoia Union Unified High School District.

Menlo Park City Elementary experienced an increase in enrollment of 6% from 2010 to 2020, while enrollment in Redwood City Elementary and Las Lomitas Elementary decreased 11% and 16% respectively. This represents a much larger decrease than the one percent decrease experienced in the county.

Enrollment in Sequoia Union Unified High School District increased by 18% from 2010 to 2020. Enrollment at Menlo Atherton High School is approximately 2,400 students, with 5% of those students residing in Atherton.

Enrollment composition by race and ethnicity varies by district. Menlo Park City Elementary and Las Lomitas Elementary have a higher share of White students than San Mateo County (55%, and 53% respectively, v. 26%). Redwood City Elementary has a much higher share of Hispanic students than San Mateo County (70% v. 38%). The enrollment composition in Sequoia Union High School District is similar to the countywide distribution.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
46 Atherton has received an average of 18 short-term enrollments of migrant student workers per year according to California Department of Education data. This is significantly fewer than the county level, which sees an average of 416 per year.

Overall, 29% of public-school students in San Mateo County qualify for reduced lunch.

This number was substantially higher in Redwood City Elementary School District (which includes Atherton’s Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School), where 56% of students qualify for reduced lunch. County-wide, 20% of public-school students are English learners. Again, this rate is higher at Redwood City Elementary, where 38% of students are English learners.

In contrast, the share of students who qualify for reduced lunch, are experiencing homelessness, or are English learners is lower in Menlo Park City Elementary and is significantly lower in Las Lomitas Elementary than the countywide share.

Countywide 27% of Hispanic students met or exceeded mathematics testing standards and 40% met or exceeded English testing standards. Hispanic students in Menlo Park City Elementary, Las Lomitas Elementary, and Redwood City Elementary, which includes Atherton’s Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School, performed better compared to the county (55%, 44%, and 34% respectively in mathematics and 62%, 65%, and 43% in English). Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school. Of the high school districts in San Mateo County, Sequoia Union had the highest rate of graduates who met such admission standards at 69% followed by San Mateo Union High with 68%. Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black students in the Sequoia Union district were less likely than their peers of other races and ethnicities to meet the admission standards with rates of 38%, 55%, and 50%, respectively.

Despite the high share of students meeting college admission standards, Sequoia Union has the second to lowest college going rate in the County, at 70%. The highest rate was 77% in San Mateo Union High.

In addition, Sequoia Union district has the highest dropout rate in the County (10%) and dropout rates among Pacific Islander (20%), Hispanic (16%), and Black (12%) students are much higher. Students with disabilities and those learning English dropped out at the highest rate at 24% and 27%, respectively. This is a sign that the district does not offer adequate support for students facing barriers because of their race, language skill, and disability. However, there are promising increases in diversity of school staff that serve as an advantage to a diverse student body.

Another possible reason can be traced to chronic absenteeism, which means students miss more than 10% of school days. 17% of students in the Sequoia Union High School

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
47 District struggle with chronic absenteeism, which drastically lowers test scores and social engagement with peers and mentors. Black and Hispanic students were more likely to be chronically absent. Schools with more homeless students also saw more chronic absenteeism, illuminating a connection between school performance and stable housing.

Menlo College has a student population of more than 825. Demographics of the College are 29% White, 6% Black, 22% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 1% American Indian/Alaskan, 2% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 8% Two or More races, 14% International and 9% Race Unknown.

Employment
According to ACS data, top three industries by number of jobs in Atherton include professional and managerial services, health and educational services, and arts and recreation services. In the terms of job holders, the top industries are professional and managerial services, and health and educational services. The chart below shows employment by industry and region.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
48 FIGURE HE - 19: EMPLOYMENT BY FIELD FOR ATHERTON, SAN MATEO COUNTY, AND THE

BAY AREA
Source: Housing Needs Data Report: Atherton, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021.

Atherton has a lower job to household ratio at 1.14 when compared to the county at

1.59. The town has a slightly higher unemployment rate than the county, but saw a sharp incline in the unemployment rate in 2020 that has yet to return to pre pandemic levels.

TCAC’s economic opportunity score is comprised of poverty, adult educational attainment, employment, job proximity, and median home value. The entire town area scores more than 0.75 for economic opportunity—highest economic outcome.

HUD’s job proximity index shows the eastern part of the town in relatively close proximity to jobs (score between 60 to 80) while the western part scores between 40 and 60— on a scale from zero to 100 where 100 is the closest proximity to jobs.

There are several barriers to high paying jobs for protected classes, most of which can be traced back to educational opportunities and outcomes. As highlighted in the previous education section, Black, Hispanic, and English language learners have the highest school absenteeism and drop out rate in the school district covering Atherton. The majority of employment in Atherton is in the financial and professional service sector and the health and educational services sector. Most of these jobs likely require education beyond high school. Because Black and Hispanic students are more likely to drop out,

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
49 employment options that will provide adequate pay to financially qualify for housing in Atherton are drastically reduced.

In general, new jobs continue to outpace new homes, and especially new affordable homes, in the county. Since 2010, the county has added 100,000 jobs but only 10,000 new homes. Jobs are expected to increase 22 percent between 2020 and 2050 based on ABAG projections. While residents in the county may technically have more employment opportunities, the lack of affordable housing near these jobs will continue to act as a barrier to accessing these employment opportunities.

FIGURE HE - 20: JOBS PROXIMITY INDEX
Source: HUD
Transportation
This section provides a summary of the transportation system that serves Atherton and the broader region including emerging trends and data relevant to transportation access in the town. The San Mateo County Transit District (SMCTD) acts as the administrative body for transit and transportation programs in the county including SamTrans and the Caltrain commuter rail. SamTrans provides bus services in San Mateo County, including Redi-Wheels paratransit service.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
50 In 2018, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which covers the entire Bay Area region, adopted a coordinated public transit and human services transportation plan. While developing the coordinated plan, the MTC conducted extensive community outreach about transportation within the area. That plan—which was developed by assessing the effectiveness of how well seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and people with low incomes are served—was reviewed to determine gaps in services in San Mateo and the county overall. Below is a summary of comments relevant to San Mateo County overall. There were no comments specific to Atherton. “San Mateo’s PCC and County Health System, as well as the Peninsula Family Service Agency provided feedback. The most common themes expressed had to do with pedestrian and bicycle needs at specific locations throughout the county, though some covered more general comments such as parked cars blocking sidewalk right-of-way and a desire for bike lanes to accommodate motorized scooters and wheelchairs.

Transportation information, emerging mobility providers, and transit fares were other common themes.

While some comments related to the use of car share, transportation network companies (TNCs), or autonomous vehicles as potential solutions, other comments called for the increased accessibility and affordability of these services in the meantime.”30
A partnership between the World Institute on Disability and the MTC created the research and community engagement project TRACS (Transportation Resilience, Accessibility & Climate Sustainability). The project’s overall goal is to, “stimulate connection and communication between the community of seniors and people with disabilities together with the transportation system– the agencies in the region local to the San Francisco Bay, served by MTC.”31
As part of the TRACS outreach process, respondents were asked to share their compliments or good experiences with MTC transit. One respondent who had used multiple services said, “it is my sense that SamTrans is the best Bay Area transit provider in terms of overall disability accommodation.”
30 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan, https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/MTC_Coordinated_Plan.pdf 31 World Institute on Disability Transportation Accessibility Resources, https://wid.org/transportationaccessibility/

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
51 The San Mateo County Transit District updated their Mobility Plan for Older Adults and People with Disabilities in 2018. According to the district, the county’s senior population is expected to grow more than 70% over the next 20 years and the district is experiencing unprecedented increases in paratransit ridership. The plan is targeted at developing effective mobility programs for residents with disabilities and older adults including viable alternatives to paratransit, partnerships, and leveraging funding sources.32 MTC also launched Clipper START—an 18-month pilot project— in 2020 which provides fare discounts on single transit rides for riders whose household income is no more than double the federal poverty level.33 In 2020, Caltrain voted to close Atherton’s station due to low ridership. There were some residents that thought this would be harmful to those who do not have access to a car or cannot drive, such as the elderly and disabled community; however, there were alternative resources identified such as the nearby Menlo Park Train Station and associated bus lines on El Camino Real and Middlefield Road.34
Environment
TCAC’s opportunity areas environmental scores are based on the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 indicators, which identify areas disproportionately vulnerable to pollution sources such as ozone, PM2.5, diesel PM, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites. 32San Mateo County Transit District Senior Mobility Action Plan, https://www.samtrans.com/Planning/Planning_and_Research/Mobility_Plan_for_Older_Adults_and_Peopl e_with_Disabilities.html
33 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Clipper Start, https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/clipperr-startsm 34Zachary Clark, “Residents react to plan to close Atherton’s Caltrain Stop,” The Daily Journal, August 4, 2020
https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/residents-react-to-plan-to-close-atherton-s-caltrainstop/article_3070cdd2-d539-11ea-ad6b-4b3eeab63a6c.html

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
52 According to TCAC’s opportunity map, as shown in
,
census tracts in Atherton score between 0.50 and 0.75 – opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.

The town scores the highest on the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of southern California (PHASC). The HPI includes 25 community characteristics in eight categories including economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare.35 35 See “The Healthy Places Index”, https://www.healthyplacesindex.org/

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
53 FIGURE HE - 21: TCAC ENVIROMENT SCORES
Source: California State Treasurer’s Office California Tax Credit Allocation Committee Disparities In Access to Opportunity
Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in moderate resource areas compared to non-Hispanic White residents.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
54 FIGURE HE - 22: tcac POPULATION COMPOSITION OF SELECT RESOURCE AREAS Figure HE – 22 details the percentage of households by race living in resource areas.

Note that there are no households in Atherton living in a low resource area. 71% of Hispanic households live in moderate resource areas compared with 29% in high resource areas. Similarly, 77% of Black households live in moderate resource areas and 23% live in high resource areas. Non-Hispanic, multiple race households have the highest population in high resource areas, however this population is relatively small with 323 households compared with 4,966 white households. Racial and ethnic minorities living in Atherton are wealthier compared to the county and Atherton is home to a disproportionately small share of residents with limited English proficiency (1% compared to 7% countywide).

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
55 FIGURE HE - 22: TCAC POPULATION COMPOSITION OF SELECT RESOURCE AREAS Source: California State Treasurer’s Office California Tax Credit Allocation Committee TCAC’s composite opportunity score for Atherton shows census tracts west of El Camino Real fall within moderate resource areas while the rest is within high resource areas, as shown in Figure HE - 23. This is an artifact of data, particularly the relatively low education scores in that tract, and belies Atherton’s other exclusive high-resource and highopportunity indicators.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
56 FIGURE HE - 23: TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS
Source: California State Treasurer’s Office California Tax Credit Allocation Committee The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the CDC—ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster—includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation. The index, presented in Figure HE - 24FIGURE HE - 24 shows the entirety of Atherton as a low vulnerability area.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
57 FIGURE HE - 24: SOCIAL VULNERABILITY INDEX
Source: CDC
Atherton does not have any disadvantaged communities as defined under SB 535, “disadvantaged communities are defined as “the top 25% scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.”36
Disparities Specific to the Population Living with a Disability Eight percent of the population in Atherton are living with at least one disability, as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in the text box below, the same share as in the county (7% live with a disability in the Bay Area region). The most common disabilities in the town are ambulatory (4.5%), cognitive (3.1%), and hearing (3.0%). For the county and Bay Area region, the most common are ambulatory difficulty (4% in San Mateo County, 5% in region), independent living difficulty (3% and 4%, respectively) and a cognitive difficulty (3% and 4%, respectively). 36 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
58 “Disability types include hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.” Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 36.

For the population 65 and over the share of the population with an ambulatory or independent living difficulty increases. As mentioned above under access to transportation, San Mateo County is rapidly aging, therefore this population with a disability is likely to increase.

Unemployment is disproportionately high among residents living with a disability, at 11% compared to 5% for residents without a disability in Atherton—particularly when compared to the county. High unemployment rates among this population points to a need for increased services and resources to connect this population with employment opportunities.

Disability

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
59 FIGURE HE - 25: ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

3.360 Disparate Housing Needs
This section discusses disparate housing needs for protected classes including cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing conditions, homelessness, displacement, Extremely Low Income (ELI) households, and other considerations.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
60 Disproportionate Housing Needs
“Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.” Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 39.

Housing Needs
The town experienced a sharp loss in population between 1990 and 2000 and again between 2009 and 2010. Since 2010 population growth has been slower than the county’s and region’s, as seen in Figure HE - 26FIGURE HE - 26, and the town has not reached the population level it had prior to the 2008-’09 financial crisis. However, the town does not appear to have experienced a sharp population decrease in 2020, with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
61 FIGURE HE - 26: POPULATION CHANGE IN ATHERTON, SAN MATEO COUNTY, AND THE BAY AREA REGION 1990-2020 (USING 1990 AS “INDEX” YEAR OF 100 Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
Since 2015, the housing permitted to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate-income households, with 78 units permitted for above moderateincome households compared to 35 for very low-income households, 15 for low-income households, and 3 for moderate income households. The Housing Needs Data Report for Atherton indicates new construction is slower than the rest of the Bay Area24 and has not kept pace with demand throughout the Bay Area, “resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness.” 37 One reason for this may be that Atherton has very low turnover in its housing stock. People may become Athertonians when they begin a family, but they often stay through 37 Housing Needs Data Report: Atherton, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021. 90 95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
Index (Year %s = Index 100)
Index
Atherton
Index
San Mateo County
Index
Bay Area

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
62 retirement. This presents a unique challenge for housing mobility and is also connected to the need for senior resources identified elsewhere in this document.

One example of a group who has found workforce housing hard to come by are the employees of the Atherton Police Department. In 2018, employees advised the City Council that they faced long commutes on top of twelve-hour shifts and had little time to sleep. The commute was necessary because there are limited affordable options in the region for their families. In the past, the town had used a town-owned property in a deedrestricted park as a place for police to sleep. This solution was not sustainable for the town or police officers, who wanted to spend more time with their families instead of commuting.25 This makes recruitment and retention difficult.

The variety of housing types available in the town in 2020 are predominantly single family (98%), as shown in Figure HE – 27. Six multi-family homes were added in 2020. Single family detached saw a decline in units (2,453 from 2,514, or -2.4%) and single family attached saw a substantial increase (46 from 16, or 6188%). Due to its land use and zoning, Atherton has developed far fewer multi-family units than the region. 38 FIGURE HE - 27: HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE IN ATHERTON IN 2010 AND 2020 Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
According to the ABAG Housing Data Workbook, the majority of the housing inventory in Atherton was constructed from 1940 to 1959, with 1,087 units built between 1940 to 1959 38 Housing Needs Data Report: Atherton, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
63 compared to 180 units built in 2010 or later However, actual Town building permit records reflect that from 2010 forward more than 320 new single-family home building permits were issued. Compared to San Mateo County, the Town’s owner-occupied housing market has a greater share of units priced above $2 million. Ninety percent (90%) of units in Atherton fall within this price range compared to 19% in the county. According to the Zillow home value index, home prices have experienced exponential growth in the town and the county. The town is an outlier, with the Zillow home value index at $6.6 million for Atherton compared to the county’s $1.4 million.

Given the small share of renters in the town, rental price trends are less accurate than the County’s, but appear to have experienced high appreciation since 2014. Compared to the county, Atherton has more expensive rental units according to the US Census Bureau’s ACS data—67% of units rent for more than $3,000 per month in the town compared to 22% in the county. A point-in-time Google search found no home for rent under $5,000 per month, but the attestations of 2023 ADU rentals (41 respondents) have a median ADU rental of cost $0 and an average rental monthly cost of $765. As implied by the low rents, these ADUs are often rented to a close friend or family member and may be difficult to find for workers or other community members. Workers would need higher incomes to qualify for rentals available in Atherton–and are thus inclined to seek out homeownership or lower cost rental opportunities in other communities. However, the Town is in the process of implementing a robust and inclusive ADU program that will facilitate, support, and encourage the development and rental of accessory dwelling units at affordable rates via a Human Investment Project, Inc. (HIP Housing) Program.

Resident survey data provide evidence of more rental inventory, reporting that owners are renting ADUs to senior family members, students, school faculty, and local service workers at significantly reduced or below market rental prices. Many of these rental opportunities are not marketed in the traditional way using Zillow, Craigslist or other platforms. Rather, because Atherton is a small community, property owners will reach out directly to those in need of such housing solutions or offer housing through a local school’s housing referral program.

Low-Income Housing Needs
Extremely Low Income (ELI) households are most likely to face overpayment, overcrowding and substandard housing conditions. The projected housing need for ELI households is 47 units. This is calculated by taking half of Atherton’s Very Low Income RHNA (94 units) because ELI households are approximately half of the Town’s current share of households with incomes 0%-50% of AMI (114 Extremely Low-Income households and 142 Very Low-Income households).

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
64 Housing types suitable for ELI households include affordable rentals, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), emergency shelters, supportive housing and transitional housing. The town will meet this need through ADU construction and programs expanding opportunities for emergency shelters as well as supportive and transitional housing in Atherton.

Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden
A low share of households in Atherton are cost burdened—spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs— compared to the county (27% in Atherton, versus 36% in the County, and 36% in the Bay Area), as shown in Figure HE - 28FIGURE HE - 28.

FIGURE HE - 28: PERCENTAGE OF INCOME USED FOR HOUSING IN ATHERTON, SAN MATEO

COUNTY AND THE BAY AREA
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B2509 Although there are far fewer lower income households, they are more likely to experience housing cost burden. households with income below 80% AMI are severely cost burdened – spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs. Cost burdened households have less money to spend on other essentials like groceries, transportation, education, healthcare, and childcare. Extremely cost burdened

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
65 households are considered at risk for homelessness. Cost burden suggests that wages have not kept up with housing costs in the area. As seen in Table HE - 7, of the 256 households in Atherton with Extremely Low or Very Low incomes, 219 (85%) are extremely cost burdened, spending more than 50% of their income on housing.

When cost burden is broken down by Area Median Income (AMI), there are stark differences. The chart below indicates these disparities. Although those with greater than 100% AMI likely spend the most on housing, their incomes can meet these costs. 80% of those in this group spend 0-30% of their income on housing. In contrast, 88% of those earning 0-30% AMI spend over 50% of their income on housing costs.

TABLE HE - 7: PERCENT OF INCOME USED FOR HOUSING BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME COHORT Percent of Income Used for Housing
Count (Percent) of
Atherton Households
Count (Percent) of
San Mateo County
Households
Count (Percent) of
Bay Area Households
Income Group 0%-30% 30%-50% >50% 0%-30% 30%-
50% >50% 0%-30% 30%-
50% >50%
Extremely Low
(0%-30% of AMI)
4 (0.2%)
10 (0.4%)
100
(4.4%)
5,315
(2.0%)
4,210
(1.6%)
23,190
(8.9%)
63,508
(2.4%)
59,990
(2.2%)
245,825
(9.2%)
Very Low
(31%-50% of AMI)
19 (0.8%)
4 (0.2%)
119
(5.3%)
8,405
(3.2%)
10,045
(3.9%)
11,540
((4.4%)
86,175
(3.2%)

98.055
(3.7%)
109,950
(4.1%)
Low
(51%-80% of AMI)
40 (1.8%)
30 (1.3%)
40 (1.8%)
20,290
(7.8%)
15,550
(6.0%)
6,510
(2.5%)
164,130
(6.1%)
129,050
(4.8%)
57,425
(2.1%)
Moderate
(81%-100% of AMI)
39 (1.7%)
23 (1.0%)
14 (0.6%)
17,555
(6.8%)
7,610
(2.9%)
1,625
(0.6%)
152,050
(5.7%)
76,080
(2.8%)
17,697
(0.6%)
Above Moderate
(> 100% of AMI)
1,454
(64.4%)
238
(10.5%)
125
(5.5%)
113,325
(43.6%)
13,055
(5.0%)
1,590
(0.6%)
1,237,595
(46.3%)
157,574
(5.9%)
18,312
(0.7%)
Totals 1,556
(68.9%)
305
(13.5%)
398
(17.6%)
164,890
(53.5%)
50,470
(19.4%)
44,455
(17.1%)
1,703,458
(63.7%)
520,749
(19.5%)
449,209
(16.8%)
Source: American Community Survey 2015-2019
In Atherton, approximately 95 percent of residents earning under $75,000 annually are overpaying for homeownership. Per Census data, 23% of those making more than $75,000 are overpaying for their homes. However, Census data does not provide additional detail regarding the “more than $75,000” income category, and the lower-income limit for San

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
66 Mateo County is $149,100. This makes it impossible to quantify cost burden by tenure, even if there is data stating that 255 of Atherton’s 2,244 households (11 percent) are cost burdened and that 10 percent of renters are cost- burdened against 12 percent of homeowners. This is seen in Table HE - 8.

TABLE HE - 8: HOUSEHOLDS OVERPAYING FOR HOUSING
Occupant Income
Atherton County Region
Count Percent Percent Percent
Owner-Occupied Less than $35,000 105 100% 80% 73%
$35,000 - $74,999 125 91% 52% 48%
$75,000+ 427 25% 20% 17%
Renter-Occupied Less than $35,000 0 0% 91% 91%
$35,000 - $74,999 0 0% 88% 65%
$75,000+ 25 13% 23% 15%
Source: US Census, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Note: Excludes Households with no income or cash rent
As mentioned previously, racial and ethnic minorities living in Atherton are wealthier compared to the county and Bay Area as a whole. A lower percentage of Asian/API and Hispanic households are less likely to be cost burdened than non-Hispanic white households. Households of other or multiple races experience higher rates of cost burden—56% are extremely cost burdened, compared to 16% in the town overall.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
67 TABLE HE - 9: HOUSEHOLDS OVERPAYING FOR HOUSING BY RACE Racial /Ethnic Group
0%-30% of
Income Used for
Housing
30%-50% of
Income Used for
Housing
50%+ of
Income Used
for Housing
Cost Burden
Not
computed
American Indian or Alaska Native,
Non-Hispanic
0 0 0 0
Asian / API, Non-Hispanic 70% (264) 15% (55) 12% (45) 4% (15) Black or African American, NonHispanic0 0 0 0
White, Non-Hispanic 67% (1,255) 14% (255) 18% (340) 1% (15) Other Race or Multiple Races, NonHispanic44% (8) 0 56% (10) 0 Hispanic or Latinx 85% (45) 8% (4) 8% (4) 0
Totals 68% (1,572) 14% (314) 17% (399) 30
Source: American Community Survey 2015-2019
As discussed, the majority of Atherton’s 2,190 housing units (1,950 or 89%) are owner occupied. Only 240 (11%) are renter occupied. Not only are a larger number of owneroccupied units cost burdened, but proportionally, when compared to renter-occupied units, a higher percentage of owner-occupied units are cost burdened, with 214 homeowners households paying 30% or more of their income for housing (9.77%) and an additional 345 homeowner households (15.75%) paying 50% or more of their income for housing. Only 30 renter households are overpaying for housing: 20 households (.091%) using more than 30% and 10 (.045%) using more than 50% of their income for housing.

TABLE HE - 10: COST BURDEN BY TENURE
Tenure % Cost Burden Number Percent
(of all households)
Owner Occupied 30% or more of income 214 9.77%
50% or more of income 345 15.75%
Renter Occupied 30% or more of income 20 0.91%
50% or more of income 10 0.45%
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (2016-2020 ACS)

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
68 Overcrowding
The vast majority of households (99%) in Atherton are not overcrowded—indicated by more than one occupant per room, compared to 7.9% in the county, and 6.9% in the region.
39 Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than non-Hispanic White households to experience overcrowding. Other races (21% of households), and Hispanic households (19%), experience the highest rates of overcrowding in Atherton as shown in HE -29.

In San Mateo County, 7.9% of households have more than one occupant per room. This is slightly better than the state average of 8.2%.
39 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates Table B25014.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
69 FIGURE HE - 29: OVERCROWDING IN ATHERTON BY RACE
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates Table B25014.

Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to afford the unit.

FIGURE HE - Figure HE - 30 shows where overcrowding in Atherton and surrounding census tracts is more common. East Palo Alto and Redwood City have the highest percentage of overcrowding in the region, likely due to large households – including multigenerational households – trying to fit in to smaller units due to lack of income and/or lack of availability of larger, affordable, units.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
70 FIGURE HE - 30: OVERCROWDING
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Substandard Housing
Data on housing conditions are very limited, with the most consistent data available across jurisdictions found in the American Community Survey (ACS)—which captures units in substandard condition as self-reported in Census surveys. According to data estimates, the share of housing units with substandard kitchen and plumbing facilities in Atherton is zero, despite an aging housing stock. This data estimate is further substantiated by direction from the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer. This could be due to the relative wealth and home-owning status of Atherton residents, making renovations financially and logistically feasible. San Mateo County also has an extremely low rate of substandard housing; 99.9% of households have complete kitchen and plumbing facilities. For the Bay Area region, 99.7% of households have complete kitchens and 99.8% have complete plumbing facilities.

As shown Figure HE - FIGURE HE - 31, residents who do not have complete kitchen or plumbing utilities tend also to live in severely overcrowded conditions, and are severely cost burdened, Atherton has less than 20% of residents in substandard conditions. In East Palo Alto and Southeast Redwood City, however, 40-60% of all households selected at

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
71 least one of the substandard housing issues. Substandard housing congregates in areas of low income because these residents do not have the financial leverage to improve housing conditions, have landlords who are unwilling to make improvements, or do not ask for improvements or report conditions in fear of retaliatory eviction.

FIGURE HE - 31: SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049
Homelessness
In 2019, 1,512 people were experiencing homelessness in the county, 40% of these individuals were in emergency or transitional shelters while the remaining 60% were unsheltered. The majority of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness were in households without children. The majority of people in transitional housing were in households with children. These disparities may indicate there are more resources available in the County for families experiencing homelessness as compared to for single individuals experiencing homelessness. The 2019 count identified one person in Atherton experiencing homelessness. In the Bay Area region, the 2019 count identified 36,701 individuals.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
72 People who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native (6% homeless, less than 1% general population), Black (13%, 2%), White (67%, 51%), and Hispanic (38%, 28%) are overrepresented in the homeless population compared to their share of the general population. The disparities by race can be traced back to discrimination in the housing market and the exclusion of non-white populations from high resource areas. There are few housing options for low-income people in the region. Housing that is available at the market rate likely forces people to spend more than 50% of their income on housing, which puts households at risk for homelessness.

People struggling with chronic substance abuse (112 people), severe mental illness (305), and domestic violence (127) represent a substantial share of the homeless population in 2019. This indicates that there are not enough resources or beds for those experiencing mental illness, substance abuse, and domestic violence in the county.

Displacement
Owner households generally enjoy a greater amount of housing stability whereas renter households are more mobile. Atherton has no inventory of income assisted rental units. In San Mateo County, 417 units are at risk, accounting for 8% of the total assisted housing units in the county. In the Bay Area region, 2,907 (2%) of the region’s 116,459 incomeassisted rental units are at risk.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
73 Displacement Sensitive Communities
“According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities were designated sensitive if they met the following criteria:
◼ They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:
⮚ Share of very low-income residents is above 20%, 2017 AND
⮚ The tract meets two of the following criteria:
− Share of renters is above 40%, 2017
− Share of people of color is above 50%, 2017
− Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017 − They or areas in proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures. Displacement pressure is defined as:
● Percent change in rent above county median for rent increases, 2012- 2017
OR
◼ Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017” Source: https://www.sensitivecommunities.org/
No census tracts in the town are vulnerable to displacement, however, housing cost burden is a risk for displacement and 88% of residents below 30% AMI pay more than 50% of their income on housing. Atherton’s rental cost is far above regional median rent, suggesting that there is displacement pressure in place. Assuming this number trend applies to the Town, that would mean that of the Town’s 149 extremely low-income households, 131 are overburdened by their housing costs.

As shown in Figure HE - 32FIGURE HE - 32, the entirety of Atherton is identified as ‘Stable/Advanced Exclusive,’ meaning that it was a high-income tract in 2000 and 2018, and that housing costs have only increased. Although some of the jurisdictions neighboring Atherton have the same designation, there are also areas that indicate lowPage 1213 of 1727 Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
74 income areas are susceptible to displacement or are undergoing advanced gentrification. Displacement can also occur because of natural disasters. Atherton is in San Mateo County, which is on the San Andreas fault and therefore has a high likelihood of severe earthquakes. Houses in California are generally made to withstand earthquakes, but those who spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs likely cannot save enough to repair severe damage. This means those of lower income are more at risk of displacement.

FIGURE HE - 32: DISPLACEMENT RISK
Source: Urban Displacement Project, urbandisplacement.org Access to Mortgage Loans
Disparities by race and ethnicity are prevalent for home mortgage applications, particularly in denial rates. In San Mateo County, Hispanic (60% denial rate) and Asian/API (29%) have the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019, compared to non-Hispanic White households (18%). These numbers suggest that traditional routes to homeownership are barriers to non-white households. Credit score, assets, and income disparities between races show in denial rates.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
75 FIGURE HE - 33: DISPROPORTINATE HOUSING NEEDS
Source: https://www.sensitivecommunities.org/.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
76 3.370 Site Inventory Analysis
The Site Inventory analysis regarding AFFH is provided in Section 3.417: AFFH and Identified Sites

3.380 Local Data, Knowledge, and Other Relevant Factors The housing element must include local data, knowledge, and other relevant factors to discuss and analyze any unique attributes about the City related to fair housing issues.

This information should complement federal, state, and regional data with local data and knowledge where appropriate to capture emerging trends and issues, including utilizing knowledge from local and regional advocates and service providers. The element must also include meaningful analysis related to historical practices and discuss past, present and future investment practices and other information.

As previously described Section 3.310, the federal Fair Housing Act passed in 1968 prevented denial of housing found to apply to local zoning laws. Since that time, fair housing law continues to evolve at the federal and state levels. This is evident in the State of California’s 2018 passage of AB 686, requiring jurisdictions to address how they Affirmatively Further Fair Housing in their local housing elements. Although there has been no published documentation of explicit exclusionary practices in Atherton, the town’s history is deeply connected to the exclusionary history of the Bay Area. The area that is now Atherton is the aboriginal homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone.40 The Spanish empire colonized the region in the 18th century and in 1795 provided a land grant to Jose Dario Arguello for Rancho de las Pulgas that included what would become portions of San Mateo County and the jurisdictions of San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, Redwood City, Menlo Park and Atherton.41 By 1801 all of the people indigenous to the San Francisco Peninsula had located to Mission Dolores. By 1834, only 37 descendants of native San Franisco Peninsula people remained, and by 1842, the population was 15.42 Throughout this time period the area surrounding present-day Atherton remained rural and agricultural, used predominantly as a cattle range.

Eventually, the Rancho was subsumed into the United States after the Mexican-American War concluded in 1848 and California joined the United States in 1850. As a result of political shifts and the economic pressures of new settlers arriving to California in search of wealth, the Arguello family had to defend their land titles in court. In their claim, the 40 The Association of Ramaytush Ohlone, available at https://www.ramaytush.org/ramaytush-ohlone.html 41 Plat of the Pulgas Rancho, finally confirmed to Maria de la Soledad Ortega de Arguello et al., available at https://oac.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb6d5nb3xp/?brand=oac4 42 Randall Milliken at al. Ohlone/Costanoan Indians of the San Francisco Peninsula and Their Neighbors, Yesterday and Today. Oakland, CA: Archaeological and Historical Consultants, 2009.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
77 Arguellos attested that the Rancho was nearly three times larger than what was ultimately decided by U.S. Supreme Court.43 Therefore, while the family did receive a land grant, they were not successful in receiving their entire claim. Additionally, their holdings were further diminished by a transfer of approximately 25% of their grant to their Attorney Simon Mezes as payment for legal representation.
44 In 1866, the Southern Pacific Railroad established a station in the area in order to ferry newly-wealthy San Franciscans to their second homes in the valley.45 Accessibility between the region’s major city and the large rural lots of the mid-peninsula heightened the attractiveness of Atherton as a residential area. During the mid-nineteenth century California experienced an increased in trade, population, and early industrialized development. Land ownership of the region’s rancheros transferred to increasingly smaller scale properties as a means for Spanish/Mexican owners to quickly gain capital and liquidate assets. Descendants of the indigenous populations, remained disenfranchised.

Atherton was incorporated in 1923 under pressure from neighboring Menlo Park, whose government was attempting to annex the land into its own boundaries in order to bolster their own property tax rolls (this was decades before Proposition 13 limited property tax increases in 1978). From the outset, early residents of Atherton intended to develop a town with large residential lots and no commercial uses (unlike Menlo Park, which had a commercial downtown with smaller parcels).

After its 1923 incorporation, Atherton remained small in the years before World War II, with a population of 1,242 in the 1930 census and 1,908 in the 1940 census. The town nearly doubled after the war, with a population of 3,630 recorded in the 1950 census. By this time Atherton was already established as an exclusive outpost. The family median income of $3,857 was about 17 percent higher than the average family income nationally. There were 237 private household workers (household staff, gardeners, and butlers) employed in the town’s 1,140 homes, or roughly one for every five Atherton households. By the 1960 census, there were 7,717 residents – a 113 percent increase over 1960. However, the number of Black residents, only increased from 75 people in 1950 to 76 a decade later.
43 Arguello v. United States, 59 U.S. 539 (1855)
44 ‘Who was Dona Arguello?” Published in Redwood City VOICE by James O. Clifford, Sr. https://medium.com/redwood-city-voice/who-was-dona-arguello-97075145a74d 45 Town of Atherton “History of Atherton” available at https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/96/History-of-Atherton

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
78 In the 1960s, continued disinvestment and urban renewal in areas surrounding Atherton, such as East Palo Alto, exacerbated housing and education inequality. Frustrated families in East Palo Alto petitioned for redistricting to address their concerns about education.

The lines were drawn and redrawn, and eventually many Black students were bussed to Menlo-Atherton high school. Entrenched housing segregation translated to tension within the school. Black students often felt unwelcome and white students described feeling unsafe in what developed as a microcosm of the exclusionary housing debate formed outside the school walls.46 The District Board of Trustees representing Menlo-Atherton High responded by limiting the policy to include only students living two miles or more from the school, strategically excluding Black neighborhoods as white students mostly had their own transportation. Protests and fighting ensued.

Housing and educational boundaries go hand in hand. Over the years, overt tension has abated, but the effects of District policies and land use decision-making can still be seen.

The zoning code in Atherton limits parcel size to primarily 1-acre parcels. This land use policy impacts student demographics (1) by limiting the overall number of students and (2) by skewing upward the household income level of those students due to the extremely high land cost. The zoning code in Atherton has almost exclusively permitted 1-acre parcels and single-family developments.

3.390 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Town Action Plan The factors contributing to fair housing challenges within Atherton is the high cost of land acquisition, zoning primarily for single family homes, and little affordable housing for those with moderate and low income who work in the town, other than ADUs and housing at local school sites. Per an analysis completed in 2022, the average land acquisition cost for a single acre in Atherton is approximately $7-8 million. The affordability of land is a high bar to the creation of affordable housing and the greatest barrier to development. The Town has taken a muti-pronged approach to address affordable housing. The best opportunities for affordable housing include ADUs and multi family units on school sites where the land is already owned by the entity. In addition, the Town has identified several properties for upzoning to permit multifamily housing. Coupled with the new multifamily zoning districts, the Town will adopt an inclusionary ordinance to ensure a portion of the new multifamily housing units are available as affordable housing to lower income households. These steps will address fair housing issues, including segregation. 46 Tara Madhav, “Community Control and Desegregation in East Palo Alto, California, 1958-1986” (UC Berkeley Charlene Conrad Liebau Library Prize for Undergraduate Research: April 2021), available at https://escholarship.org/content/qt84n6s7t0/qt84n6s7t0.pdf?t=qv7av0

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
79 The Town is continuing to see success in the creation of additional ADU units. The Town estimates that 60% of new rental ADU units will be rented at very low or low-income levels.

Based on existing precedent, these units are often used for housing for a senior family member, employees of the homeowner, students, or in other similar circumstances where the renter would otherwise be unable to find similar accommodations locally.

Consequently, the ADU occupants do not displace others from low-income housing that is available locally.

ADUs have several other advantages. They can be constructed at significantly lower cost than the cost to build a new multifamily unit. They can be located anywhere within the Town, which means such low-income units are geographically spread throughout Atherton. They are also politically popular and easy to permit.

The Town is implementing several strategies to further utilize ADUs as a tool for providing fair housing opportunities, including:
▪ Expanding community outreach to realize additional ADU development. ▪ Developing assistance programs for JADUs to make alterations easier and more cost effective so that additional units can be developed within the existing building envelope of houses and made available at more affordable rates. ▪ Amending the Zoning code to eliminate the occupancy limitation on other accessory units, such as guest houses and pool houses.
▪ Creating an inventory of existing pool houses and guest houses, and then working with a nonprofit to connect homeowners to prospective renters. ▪ Amending the Zoning code to increase the height limit to allow ADUs to be constructed above garages.
▪ Amending the Zoning code to allow two ADUs to be constructed on parcels that are 2 acres or greater.
▪ Amending the Zoning code to allow multiple ADUs to be rented on a property. ▪ Amending the fee resolution to remove the planning review fees for ADUs. ▪ Adopt an affordable housing impact fee on single family construction. The Town will make available funds from this program to provide very low-income rental assistance for eligible households identified by HIP.

The Town’s complete strategy related to encouraging ADU production and the rental of these units is provided in Program 3.812.

Further to provide greater diversity in the housing stock and opportunities for lower income households, the Town has included programs to rezone several properties to allow multi-family housing. These properties have been strategically identified to be near transit and services.

Additionally, the Town will be providing additional fair housing resources and training for property owners, real estate agents, and tenants, per section 3.823 E. This will be provided

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
80 through a collaboration with other cities and towns, Project Sentinel, or other similar organization. This will provide information on reasonable accommodation and issues related to income and other forms of discrimination. This training could be mandated for multi-family developers, property owners and any resident renting an ADU or similar unit.

The Town will also create a webpage to host this information and improve awareness around fair housing training, issues and available programs. The webpage will also provide information on filing fair housing complaints with HCD or HUD.

A. Lastly, as part of its ADU rental strategy, the Town will implement a program (Program 3.823(G)) to affirmatively market low-income units to households that are under-represented in the Town in comparison to neighboring jurisdictions and the County. To examine the effectiveness and interest in the ADU strategy, a survey of potential renters in the area, such as employees of homeowners, school and city staff, and elderly individuals is also being pursued. Atherton has several housing element programs that make specific, measurable, commitments towards affirmatively furthering fair housing. These programs and commitments are covered in section 3.800: Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs. That section includes a matrix identifying Atherton’s primary fair housing issues, their contributing factors, a priority level for the fair housing issues, and Town actions to remediate the issue. The fair housing issues identified are:Lack of housing that accommodates people of lower-income with a disproportionate impact on people of color, resulting in a lack of overall socio-economic and racial diversity in the city. (High Priority)
B. The predominance of single-family detached housing in the city has led to an exclusive and high-priced ownership housing market relative to San Mateo County and the Bay area overall. (High Priority)
C. High land acquisition cost. (Low Priority)

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
81 3.400 HOUSING RESOURCES

3.410 Inventory of Sites Suitable for Residential Development State law requires that the housing element identify adequate sites for housing, including rental and manufactured housing, and make adequate provisions for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. This chapter includes an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public services to these sites.

These remaining sections of this chapter analyze how Atherton will meet its 6th Cycle RHNA. The section will also describe and map each of the housing development categories, analyze the current zoning shortfall, analyze zoning that encourages and facilitates a variety of housing types and then analyze related environmental constraints, infrastructure availability, and other housing resources.

3.4116th Cycle RHNA
Atherton has a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 348 units, which it will meet with 396 units projected over the 2023-2031 planning period. This provides the Town with a substantial buffer to ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the housing element to accommodate the RHNA throughout the planning period: a 14 percent buffer for units at all affordability levels, and an 18 percent buffer for lower income units.47 Atherton’s RHNA of 348 units is made up of four allocations per income category as shown in Table HE - 11
: 94 units for very low income households (0%-50% of the Area Median Income (AMI)), 54 units for low income households (50%-80% of AMI), 56 units for moderate income households (80%-120% of AMI) and 144 units for above moderate income households (greater than 120% of AMI). These numbers represent new homes Atherton must plan for.48
47 “To ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the housing element to accommodate the RHNA throughout the planning period, it is recommended the jurisdiction create a buffer in the housing element inventory of at least 15 to 30 percent more capacity than required, especially for capacity to accommodate the lower income RHNA.” See “Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook Government Code Section 65583.2” (HCD: June 10, 2020) available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf 48 “Frequently Asked Questions about RHNA” (ABAG: July 2020), available at https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/abag_2023-2031_rhna_faq_-_july_2020.pdf

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
82 TABLE HE - 11: ATHERTON’S 6TH CYCLE RHNA AND INCOME LIMITS Income Level Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
% of AMI ($149,600) 0%-50% 50%-80% 80%-120% >120%
Maximum Household
Income* $91,350 $146,350 $179,520 N/A
RHNA 94 54 56 144
*=Based on family of four persons
Source: Department of Housing and Community Development Strategies for Potential Future Housing
Atherton will meet RHNA through a multi-channel housing strategy that includes the 433 units in the following six categories:
• Pipeline Projects: 52 units
• ADUs: 208 units
• Multi-family Residential Overlays (RM-20 and RM-40): 96 units • Underutilized Parcels: 29 units
• SB 9 Subdivisions: 48 units
These channels are described below in Table HE - 12. Of these, Pipeline Projects, MultiFamily Overlays, Underutilized Parcels, and SB 9 subdivisions are identified in the Site Inventory. ADUs are projected from recent development trends and not identified in the Site Inventory. The channels are described in detail in sections 3.412 through 3.416, below.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
83 TABLE HE - 12: ATHERTON’S PLAN FOR MEETING RHNA BY CATEGORY Income Level
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
RHNA 94 54 56 144 348
Units by Category 120 77 89 147 433
Pipeline Projects 1 1 2 48 52
ADUs 62 62 62 22 208
Multi-family Overlays 57 14 25 0 96
Underutilized Parcels 0 0 0 29 29
SB 9 0 0 0 48 48
Buffer 28% 43% 59% 2% 24%
Source: Town of Atherton
Of these 433 units, 197 are suitable for lower-income RHNA (very low- and low-income households). These lower-income units consist of:
• Pipeline Projects: 2 units with building permits issued with attested rents in Atherton’s annual ADU survey below low income limits
• ADUs: 124 units projected over the 8-year planning period using the ABAG region’s “safe harbor” approach calculating units based on past production (an average of 2021, 2022, and 2023 ADU production).
• Multi-family Residential Overlays: 71 units on parcels with sufficient density and size, factoring in capacity analysis and nonvacant site analysis Section 3.412 through 3.416 provide specific details for each channel of housing production. Figure HE - 34FIGURE HE - illustrates the Site Inventory – the location of the parcels used for each of these housing types:
• 3.412: Pipeline Projects (gold)
• 3.413: Accessory Dwelling Units (not illustrated – projections are not tied to any particular parcel)
• 3.414: RM-20 and RM-40 Multi-family Overlays (red)
• 3.415: Underutilized Parcels (purple)
• 3.416: SB9 Subdivisions (green)

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
84 This figure also includes additional RM-10 rezonings used by the Town to affirmatively further fair housing (red outlines).

FIGURE HE - 34: SITE INVENTORY AND ADDITIONAL REZONINGS Source: Town of Atherton
RHNA on Nonvacant Sites
HCD requires additional findings to be made if a jurisdiction is meeting 50 percent or more of its lower income RHNA with units on nonvacant sites. As shown in Table HE - 13, only 15 percent (22 units) of Atherton’s lower-income RHNA is accommodated on nonvacant sites. ADUs and Pipeline Projects. Therefore, this does not apply to Atherton.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
85 TABLE HE - 13: RHNA ON NONVACANT SITES
Very Low Low
RHNA 84 units 54 units
Total Lower Income RHNA (including buffer) 148 units
Pipeline Projects: Lower Income Capacity 2 units (1%)
ADUs: Lower Income Capacity 124 units (84%)
Lower Income RHNA Accommodated with
Pipeline Projects and ADUs (Percentage)
126 units (85%)
Units Accommodated by Nonvacant Sites
(Percentage)
22 units (15%)
Source: Town of Atherton

3.412 Pipeline Projects
Housing Element law allows jurisdictions to count pipeline projects, or units constructed or under construction between the base year of the RHNA period (January 2022) and the beginning of the new planning period (January 2023), towards the RHNA. In Atherton, there have been 52 units with building permits issued during this period: 25 single-family residences and 27 accessory dwelling units (ADUs). All 25 single-family dwelling units are allocated towards above-moderate income. Of the 27 ADUs, four owners completed Atherton’s ADU rental survey and attested to below-market rate rents: one at very low income, one at low income, and two at moderate income. The location and type of these Pipeline Projects are shown in Figure HE - FIGURE HE - 35.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
86 FIGURE HE - 35: PIPELINE PROJECTS
Source: Town of Atherton
The table of pipeline projects describing the APN, address, permit issue date, building type, and affordability level is in Appendix 5: Electronic Housing Element Site Inventory Form.

3.413 Accessory Dwelling Units
Atherton makes use of ABAG’s “safe harbor option”49 to project future annual Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) production. In this process, the Town takes an average of the 2020 (13 ADUs), 2021 (29 ADUs), 2022 (22 ADUs, and 2023 (27 ADUs) production and multiplies this average by eight to determine the annual number of units built for the 8-year 2023- 2031 6th Cycle planning period. The average of the past 3 years of ADU production is 26 units. Multiplied by 8 (the 8-year planning period from 2023-2031) gives 170.66 ADUs, rounded up to 208 ADUs as seen in Table HE - 14.
49 “Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA” (Association of Bay Area Governments: June 2022), available at https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-06/ADUs-Projections-Memo_final.pdf

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
87 TABLE HE - 14: ADU PROJECTIONS
Year # of ADUs
2021 29
2022 22
2023 27
Average 26
8 Year Accumulative Average 208
Source: Town of Atherton
The Town expects that these ADUs will be divided between very low- (30%), low- (30%), moderate- (30%) and above moderate- (10%) income categories based on ABAG analysis of ADU affordability. The “remainder” rounded-up unit is allocated to abovemoderate, as a conservative estimate. Therefore, it is projected that the number of ADUs produced in the lower income levels would be 102 units; 62 very low income and 62 lowincome units. There are also 621 moderate-income units and 22 above moderateincome units as shown in Table HE - 15 TABLE HE – 15: ADU ALLOCATION
Income Category Number of ADUs Projected
Lower Income 124
Very Low 62
Low 62
Moderate 62
Above Moderate 22
Total 208
Source: Town of Atherton

3.414 Multi-Family Overlays (RM-20 and RM-40)
This section describes specific sites suitable for below market rate residential development so that a comparison may be made with Atherton’s new construction need by affordability category with its residential development capacity.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
88 The RM-10 Multi-family Overlay is not required to meet RHNA and is not included in this section. The RM-10 overlay is used by the Town to provide a greater variety of housing types, in order to affirmatively further fair housing (see “Promoting Housing Mobility” under

3.800 Housing Programs).

Site Inventory
There are 6 sites on 3 parcels covered by the new Multi-family Residential Overlays. There are three sites on Menlo College (APN: 073-601-100), two sites on Menlo School (APN: 070- 360-080), and one site on the Sacred Heart Schools campus (APN: 070-390-010). Of these six sites, two are used to accommodate very low-income households, one is used to accommodate low-income households, two are used to accommodate moderate income households, and one is used to accommodate above moderate-income households. Table HE - 16: Site Inventory below highlights the sites covered by the new Multi-family Residential Overlays and notes their size, general plan designation and zoning, as well as the proposed zoning overlay, resulting density and potential number of units. The table also includes a zoning adjustment factor and an environmental constraints factor to determine site capacity in adjusted units. The site capacity is the number of units that can realistically be developed on a site and is required to be identified by Government Code section 65583.2(c). The adjustment factors are based on HCD Guidelines50 and are explained in more detail in the Adjustment Factors section below.
50 Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook. Found at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-elementmemos/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
89 TABLE HE - 16: SITE INVENTORY
Address APN Lot
Acreage
General
Plan
Land Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Overlay
Overlay
Density
(du/ac)
Gross
Total
Units
Zoning
Adjustment
Factor
Enviro.

Constraints
Adjusted
Units Affordability
Menlo College:

Site 1
(O'Brien Lot)
073-601-00

1.8 PFS PFS RM-40 40 72 0.73 0.8 42 Very Low
Menlo College:

Site 2
(WWII Barracks)
073-601-00

0.3 PFS PFS RM-20 20 6 0.68 0.8 3 Moderate
Menlo College:

Site 3
(Admin. Bldg.)
073-601-00

0.5 PFS PFS RM-40 40 20 0.73 1 15 Very Low
Menlo School:

Site 1
(SE Parking Lot)
070-360-080

1.3 PFS PFS RM-20 20 26 0.68 0.6 11 Moderate
Menlo School:

Site 2
(SW Parking Lot)
070-360-080

1.0 PFS PFS RM-20 20 20 0.68 1 14 Low
Sacred Heart
Reconstruct Hsg.
070-390-010 1.0 PFS PFS RM-20 20 20 0.68 0.8 11 Moderate Source: Town of Atherton
None of these parcels were used in previous housing elements and therefore none require rezoning to be reused in the Sixth Cycle Housing Element. None of these parcels have any environmental constraints that would preclude residential development. In addition, they are all vacant and not used for lower-income housing, and do not require a nonvacant sites analysis. This Site Inventory is organized to ease readability and functionality within the housing element. The Site Inventory is provided in the format required by HCD as Appendix 5: Electronic Housing Element Site Inventory Form.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
90 Sites Used to Accommodate Lower Income RHNA
There are three sites, shown in bold in Table HE - 16: Site Inventory above used to accommodate lower income RHNA: Menlo College Sites 1 and 3, and Menlo School Site

2. None of these sites were used in a prior planning period’s housing element. All of them are zoned for at least the “default” density of 20 du/ac, and all are sized between 0.5 and 10 acres (as they are all smaller, vacant, subsections of larger parcels). Parcels smaller than 0.5 acres, or larger than 10 acres are considered inadequate to accommodate housing affordable to lower income households and require additional analysis as per HCD guidelines51.

Adjustment Factors
As part of its site capacity approach to the 6th Cycle Housing Element, Atherton uses the HCD recommendation52 of five adjustment factors to calculate the projected residential development capacity of the sites in the Site Inventory that can realistically be achieved.

Atherton uses different adjustment factors for each overlay zoning district: RM-20 and RM40 have different adjustment factors for Land Use Controls, Realistic Capacity, and Typical Density.

In addition, there is a site-by-site analysis of Environmental Constraints. There are no identified constraints on Infrastructure Availability on any of the sites. An analysis of each adjustment factor is provided in this subsection.

Land Use Controls
Based on an analysis of the zoning code updates and objective design standards adopted as part of the housing element, there are height and setback constraints that could conceptually have a cumulative impact on the maximum development potential of the opportunity sites. The RM-20 zone is assigned an 80 percent adjustment factor and the RM-40 zone is assigned an 85 percent adjustment factor. Although the development and objective design standards intend to allow for development at maximum potential, the standards could have impacts that would cumulatively limit the physical ability for developments to achieve the maximum allowed densities. These adjustment factors are required 51 Department of Housing and Community Development Analysis of Sites and Zoning. Found at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/buildingblocks/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning 52 Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook. Found at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-elementmemos/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
91 by State53 as a conservative approach to ensuring projections meet housing needs.

Realistic Capacity
There is no history of commercial or mixed-use development in Atherton’s history.

The parcels in the RM-20 and RM-40 do allow non-residential components, even if the objective design standards do not allow non-residential development in the areas covered by the housing element sites. The Realistic Capacity factor for the RM-20 and RM-40 sites is set at 90 percent as a conservative estimate.

Typical Densities
Typical Densities refers to the “typical densities of existing or approved residential developments” in neighboring jurisdictions and is required by Government Code section 65583.2(c)(2) to be one of the factors used to determine the number of units. The densities of developments at lower and moderate-income levels in San Mateo County are typically built above allowed densities for their zoning district.

According to data collected by ABAG/MTC on San Mateo County, 14 lowerincome projects were built on average at 107% of maximum allowable density as established in their respective jurisdictions. 19 moderate-income projects were built at an average of 125% of maximum allowable density. A Typical Densities factor of 90 percent can be considered conservative.

Environmental Constraints
As part of the work for the objective design standards, each site was assigned an Existing Tree Coverage Factor of Low, Medium, or High. These factors are used to understand the Environmental Constraints on a site.
• Low Tree Cover: No Environmental Constraint adjustment factor • Medium Tree Cover: 80 percent Environmental Constraint adjustment factor • High Tree Cover: 60 percent Environmental Constraint adjustment factor As this adjustment factor is applied on a site-by-site basis, it is broken out into a separate column in Table HE - 16: Site Inventory.

The adjustment factors for the two multi-family residential overlay zones follows in Table HE - 17: Adjustment Factors. The adjustment factors noted in Table HE - 16: Site Inventory are rounded.
53 Required by Government Code section 65583.2(c)(2)

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
92 TABLE HE - 17: ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
Site
Category
Land Use
Controls
Realistic
Capacity
Typical
Densities
Infra.

Availability
Total
RM-20 0.8 0.95 0.9 1 0.684
RM-40 0.85 0.95 0.9 1 0.72675
Source: Town of Atherton
Nonvacant Site Analysis
Atherton’s six sites in the Site Inventory are all nonvacant. Government Code section 65583.2(g)(1) requires the housing element to describe the realistic development potential of each nonvacant site within the planning period. Specifically, the analysis must consider:
• The extent that the nonvacant site’s existing use impedes additional residential development
• The jurisdiction's past experience converting existing uses to higher density residential development
• Market trends and conditions
• Regulatory or other incentives or standards that encourage additional housing development on the nonvacant sites.

The RM-20 and RM-40 sites are on parcels with existing educational uses (Menlo College, Menlo School, Sacred Heart Schools). Each required consideration is analyzed in this subsection.

Existing Uses Potentially Impeding Additional Residential Development The sites in the RM-20 and RM-40 multi-family residential overlay zones, which are allocated for lower income housing, have been subject to intensive scrutiny as to whether they support higher-density residential development. Existing uses at Menlo College, Menlo School, and Sacred Heart Schools sites in detail.

Menlo College Menlo College is a private 4-year college located at 1000 El Camino Real sited on 31 acres of property (including 50% ownership of Cartan Athletic Field and Wunderlich Athletic Field) serving approximately 750 students.

Public and private school properties are zoned PFS (Public Facilities and Schools) District in Atherton. The PFS District currently allows multiple-family residential uses that could accommodate housing for very low- and low-income households associated with primary nonresidential use of property on the same site.

Menlo College currently has 567 beds in 5 residence halls for its students with an additional 288 beds added in the fall of 2022. The on-site student housing frees up housing units in the community and addresses the needs of very-low-income students that were

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
93 experiencing homelessness. The College also has 25 housing units for its faculty and staff.

Most of those housing units are rented at rates affordable to low- and moderate-income households.

In recent discussions between the College President and Atherton Planning Staff, the President indicated that the College is very interested in providing additional housing on campus. He stated that there is always a demand for additional housing, that the existing units are almost always 100% occupied, and that shortage of affordable housing is a barrier to hiring. However, funding has been a barrier to housing production in the past.

The College President sent a letter, included as Appendix 6, that indicates that the College could support 40 to 60 additional units (see Appendix 6. Menlo College Faculty and Staff Housing Considerations. .

Menlo School
Menlo School is a private grade 6 – 12 school located at 50 Valparaiso Avenue sited on

26.7 acres of property (including 50% ownership of Cartan Athletic Field and Wunderlich Athletic Field) serving approximately 795 students. The school site currently allows for the development of multiple-family residential uses, and two sites have been identified that can accommodate multifamily units.

Sacred Heart Schools
Sacred Heart Schools is a private preschool, K – 12 institution located at 150 Valparaiso Avenue on 60 acres for property serving approximately 1,195 students. The school site currently allows for the development of multiple-family residential uses, and adjacent parcels that may be acquired by the school in the future would likely be rezoned for such a use. There are currently 5 apartment units on the campus and housing for retired Nuns at Oakwood. The school anticipates this facility being renovated in the future (15-20 years) to accommodate faculty housing. The school has a need for faculty and staff housing. The school anticipates this facility to be rehabilitated in the future to be used for faculty housing (allowed under PFS zoning). The Town will work with Sacred Heart to conserve the 5 apartment units, resident rooms, and facilities for the Oakwood Retirement Community (see Program 3.827 Conservation of Housing).

Redevelopment Factors and Existing Uses
The factors considered in Atherton match the development trends seen in San Mateo County and the Peninsula broadly, as noted in Table HE - -18: Recent Development Trends. Atherton has no history of affordable housing development to draw on, but there is a substantial sample of affordable development in the County and the San Francisco Peninsula broadly. Table HE - 18 shows how the development trends seen in recent housing development in the region, including nearby affordable housing developments, can be applied to the housing opportunity sites in the Site Inventory. These development

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
94 trends indicate the substantial interest in residential development on sites that were previously nonresidential or residential, particularly if the development was only on a portion of a larger parcel and if the parcel was eligible for any transit-oriented development incentives.

The recent development trends are:
• A: Residential development on a previously nonresidential use (industrial or commercial site)
• B: Residential development on a previously residential use (intensification of existing use) or if vacant, a site allowing residential use • C: Development of a portion of a larger parcel with affordable housing • D: Transit-oriented development eligible

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
95 TABLE HE - 18: RECENT DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
Source: Town of Atherton Staff
Key:

A B C D
Gateway Menlo Park 1345 Willow Road Residential: Single Family High Density Residential R4S(AHO) 140 37 40 93% B Crane Place Menlo Park 1331 Crane Street Retirement Home Retirement Living Units District RLU(X) 93 99 97 102% B
Menlo Portal Menlo Park
104 & 110 Constitution
Drive & 115
Independence Drive
Office/Light Industrial Mixed Use Residential R-MU-B 335 104 50 208% A Firehouse Square Belmont 1300 El Camino Real Vacant Village Core VC 81 65 N/A N/A B The Village at Burlingame Burlingame Public Parking Lots F and N Parking Lot Howard Mixed Use HMU 132 157 N/A N/A A Alma Point at Foster Square Foster City 790 Alma Lane Vacant Civic Center C-M/PD/SHO 66 78 35 189% B Arroyo Green Redwood City 707 Bradford Street Parking Lot Mixed Use - Downtown P 117 86 N/A N/A A D 333 Main Street Redwood City 353 Main Street Industrial Mixed Use - Corridor P 125 77 60 208% A D Huxley Apartments Redwood City 1305 El Camino Real Commercial Mixed Use - Downtown P 137 180 N/A N/A A D 1409 El Camino Real Redwood City 1409 El Camino Real Vet Mixed Use - Downtown P 350 213 N/A N/A A D Kiku Crossing San Mateo 480 East 4th Avenue Parking Lot Central Business Support CBD/S 225 93 50 186% A D 1178 Sonora Court Sunnyvale 1178 Sonora Court Industrial Flexible Mixed Use I Zoning District MXD1 176 139 45 309% A D
Eagle Park Mountain View 1701 West El Camino
Real Commercial Village Center P 67 136 80 170% A D
Wilton Court Palo Alto 3703 El Camino Real Commercial Neighborhood Commercial CN 59 128 20 640% A D Edgewood Plaza Palo Alto 2170 W Bayshore Road Commercial Neighborhood Commercial CN 10 11 20 53% A C Villagio Cupertino 20187 Civic Park Lane Commercial General Commercial and Residential P(CG, Res) 150 69 25 275% A C D
210-260 View Street Mountain View 210 View Street Commercial View/Hope Street Residential Transition Area P(19) 8 14 40 34% A C
The Village Residences Mountain View 555 San Antonio Road Commercial Mixed Use Center Subarea P(40) 331 163 80 204% A C D Broadway Plaza Redwood City 1401 Broadway Commercial Mixed Use Corridor - Gateway Broadway MUC-GB 518 37 60 61% A C
12370 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Saratoga 12370 Saratoga
Sunnyvale Road Commercial Commercial Neighborhood CN 20 7 20 37% A C Raines Terrace Sunnyvale Raines Terrace Auto Dealer El Camino Real Corridor ECR 113 19 36 52% A C Development Trends: A: Nonresidential Redevelopment; B: Intensification of Residential Use; C: Residential Development Alongside Nonresidential; D: Transit-Oriented Development (Near transit and using incentives); Units
Proposed
Proposed
Density
(DU/AC)
% of Max
Density
Max. Allowed
Density
(DU/AC)
Project Name (if Applicable) City Address Prior Use Land Use Designation Zoning Development Trends

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
96 Table HE - 19: Existing Uses on Site Inventory includes Atherton’s Site Inventory, the existing zoning and residential zoning overlay, and their existing uses. The table also includes redevelopment factors identified by the Town that demonstrate a market trend or condition that indicates likelihood of redevelopment, as well as regulatory incentives that encourage additional housing development. These factors indicate a likelihood of development on the sites identified. The redevelopment factors that were considered in site analysis include:
• E: Improvement over Land Value Ratio of less than 1.0, indicating that the value of the property is “locked” in the land itself and not the building constructed on it. • F: Existing Building 30 Years Old or More, indicating that the building is near the end of its useful life (dilapidation and/or high vacancy is discussed in the site-bysite analysis) • G: Developer Interest, indicating ongoing conversations between developers and the property owner about residential development on the parcel. • H: Existing Maximum Floor Area Ratio of less than 0.5, indicating that increased development allowance would potentially spur new financial viability of the site.

The following incentives to increase residential development indicate additional enticement for residential developers. These are:
• I: Percentage density increase from previous maximum density, allowed by multifamily residential overlay • J: Location of density overlay. Whether the site is in an RM-20 or RM-40 multi-family residential overlay zone
• K: Ministerial Review. Whether the site allows ministerial review per objective design standards
• L: Proximity to transit. Whether the site falls within an AB 2097-established half-mile from a major transit stop
• M: Resource Availability. Whether the site is in a High/Highest Opportunity Resource Area (2022)

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
97 TABLE HE - 19: EXISTING USES ON SITE INVENTORY
Source: Town of Atherton with calculations by M-Group

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
98 3.415 Underutilized Parcels
There are 29 vacant parcels that are zoned as of 2022 for and are suitable for residential development in Atherton. All of these parcels could potentially support ADUs and JADUs in addition to a single-family residence, but projected ADU/JADU development is credited towards the “Accessory Dwelling Unit” section described above. These 29 parcels can support 41 above moderate-income housing units developed during the planning period.

None of these parcels were used in previous housing elements and therefore none require rezoning to be reused in the Sixth Cycle Housing Element. None of these parcels have any unique constraints that would preclude residential development. In addition, they are all vacant and not used for lower-income housing, and do not require a nonvacant sites analysis
29 parcels developed over the course of the planning period could be considered a conservative estimate. In 2023, there were 49 new single-family dwellings constructed in Atherton (12 on sites with a previously-existing home). In 2022, there were 48 new singlefamily dwellings constructed (21 on sites with a previously-existing home). While the parcels that are still vacant may hold unique development constraints, the high value of land and housing in Atherton does ameliorate these constraints and ultimately allow for development of underutilized parcels.

A full list of these parcels by APN, including address (if applicable) and lot size, are available in the Site Inventory (Appendix 5)

3.416 SB9 Subdivisions
In addition to the 29 underutilized parcels described above, there are 24 parcels that could support SB 9 subdivisions. These parcels can support 2 single-family dwelling each (one lot split per parcel leads to 2 units). All of these parcels could potentially support ADUs and JADUs in addition to a single-family residence, but projected ADU/JADU development is credited towards the “Accessory Dwelling Unit” section described above. These 24 parcels can support 48 above moderate-income housing units developed during the planning period.

Atherton has a strong recent history of SB 9 development due to its large lot sizes and high land value. Since SB 9 was passed in 2021, there have been six recorded lot splits using the law, and three additional lot splits are currently under review. This recent trend of 3 SB 9 lot splits per year from 2022 through 2024 aligns with the SB 9 projection of 24 parcels (eight years of development at three parcels per year).

These 24 parcels were identified based on their existing floor area ratio (FAR). All of the parcels have a very low FAR (under 0.20), indicating plenty of space for an additional single-family dwelling. Based on this analysis and a review of the nine parcels with existing

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
99 SB 9 lot splits, Atherton has identified ideal candidates for a lot split. The selection criteria for identifying these sites is provided in the following section.

TABLE HE - 20: SB-9 SITES
Address APN Existing FAR
30 Atherton Avenue 070-120-130 0.10
29 Atherton Avenue 070-230-270 0.06
260 Oak Grove Avenue 061-232-140 0.06
75 Catalpa Drive 061-211-130 0.00
73 Hawthorne Drive 061-132-100 0.06
198 Fair Oaks Lane 060-220-270 0.09
188 Fair Oaks Lane 060-220-060 0.07
25 Isabella Avenue 070-250-250 0.00
82 Isabella Avenue 070-240-050 0.11
101 Britton Avenue 070-214-110 0.06
131 Britton Avenue 070-214-160 0.05
449 Selby Lane 070-070-170 0.16
196 Tuscaloosa Avenue 070-050-170 0.08
202 Atherton Avenue 070-040-300 0.08
N/A 070-131-010 0.00
254 Atherton Avenue 070-040-510 0.00
260 Atherton Avenue 070-032-440 0.08
223 Stockbridge Avenue 070-022-250 0.05
241 Selby Lane 059-281-010 0.05
191 Selby Lane 059-281-020 0.08
210 Park Lane 070-330-130 0.15
1 Faxon Road 070-180-170 0.19
12 Faxon Forrest Road 070-180-340 0.00
N/A 070-180-350 0.00
Source: Town of Atherton

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
100
FIGURE HE - 36: SB 9 LOT SPLITS
Source: Town of Atherton
SB 9 Nonvacant Site Analysis
A new residence built on a lot created through an SB 9 lot split can use the same setbacks, floor area ratio, building heights and other standards as provided for any existing lot in the same zoning district. This contrasts with the approach taken by several similar jurisdictions to Atherton to limit the size of units on new lots created through SB 9 to a maximum of 800 square feet.

Prior to the adoption of SB 9, the minimum lot size for a subdivision in Atherton was one acre. The Town anticipates that SB 9 applications will be more common on lots of at least one acre in size that contain an older residence. The Town has found that there are 606 lots of an acre or greater in size with a residence built before 1970.

SB 9 sites were selected based on site size and dimensions to ensure that a proposed lot split would still allow potential development to maintain adherence to the R-1A development standards on both parcels. The sites were also specifically selected to avoid historic resources and geographic barriers including liquefaction zones. The SB 9 sites are scattered throughout Atherton as shown in FIGURE HE - Figure HE – 36 above.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
101
SB 9 Constraints Analysis
The Town website includes a fact sheet on SB 9 Urban Lot Splits.54 This includes a checklist and a reference to Chapter 17.53 of the Atherton Municipal Code, which governs SB 9 lot splits. Consistent with state law, the Town requires SB 9 lot splits to follow certain objective standards, including:
• One parcel shall not be less than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel • No parcel may be smaller than 1,200 square feet
• Flag lots shall have minimum access width of 20 feet
• Setbacks must comply with underlying zoning district or be subject to state law regarding ADUs (4 -foot minimum setbacks, maximum floor area of 800 square feet, and maximum height of 16 feet)
• One parking space is required for each dwelling unit
SB 9 lot splits are subject to all impact or development fees related to the creation of a new parcel, with no unique fees. Additionally, the subsequent development of new single family dwelling unit projects on the lots are subject to all impact or development fees.

ADUs on the lots are not subject to Town impact fees. SB 9 projects are subject to ministerial review.

As there is already substantial interest in SB 9 projects, Atherton will continue to facilitate these developments and provide ministerial review to applications, as described in Program 3.811(B).

3.417 AFFH and Identified Sites
A new requirement for this 6th Cycle Housing Element is for the Site Inventory to be consistent with a jurisdiction's duty for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).55 HCD recommends the Site Inventory address:
• Improved Conditions
• Exacerbated Conditions
• Isolation of the RHNA
• Local Data and Knowledge
• Other Relevant Factors
54 “SB 9 Urban Lot Split”, available at https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/640/SB-9-Urban-Lot-Split 55 For more information, see HCD's April 27, 2021 document on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27- 2021.pdf

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
102
In addition to the Site Inventory-specific analysis below, further information on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing is available in Section 3.300: Atherton Fair Housing Assessment.

AFFH Site Inventory Analysis
Atherton affirmatively furthered fair housing by integrating new affordable and marketrate housing in high-resource areas throughout the city. The RHNA is distributed throughout Atherton, focusing on amenity rich areas, and has been refined based on likelihood of development and extensive local outreach. The entire city is located within a high-resource area, so market-rate housing was distributed throughout the city to support integration within the existing communities. Affordable housing was distributed on the Menlo School and Menlo College properties, areas with developer interest and development patterns conducive to support higher density housing.

In addition to the Site Inventory, there are 11 sites rezoned using the RM-10 Overlay, which allows for densities of up to 10 du/ac. These sites also introduce additional opportunities for lower income housing, multi-family housing, and housing that mitigates the high cost of land in Atherton. These sites are included in section 3.420: Analysis of Zoning that Encourages and Facilitates a Variety of Housing Types
Site Inventory and Existing Social Patterns
A complete analysis of the Site Inventory must analyze how the identified sites contribute to or mitigate fair housing issues.

Atherton’s three fair housing issues are:

A. Lack of housing that accommodates people of lower-income with a disproportionate impact on people of color, resulting in a lack of overall socioeconomic and racial diversity in the city. (High Priority) B. The predominance of single-family detached housing in the city has led to an exclusive and high-priced ownership housing market relative to San Mateo County and the Bay area overall. (High Priority)
C. High land acquisition cost. (Low Priority)
The sites in the 6th Cycle Site Inventory utilize the Multi-family Residential Overlay, which consists of parcels predominately allocated towards the City’s very low income RHNA.

This is because Pipeline Projects, Underutilized Parcels and SB 9 lot splits provide the majority of the above moderate income RHNA. The affordable allocations of the Site Inventory are wholly located on two of the Menlo College sites, and one of the Menlo School sites. All of the affordable sites are located in high-resource areas and were located based on extensive community outreach.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
103
The Housing Element’s fair housing strategy is to increase the likelihood of development of affordable housing by incentivizing development in high resource areas on parcels that would support higher density housing. Atherton has historically restricted higher density and multi-family housing typologies within the city. The Housing Element outlines allowances for multi-family typologies within the city for the first time, enabling the development of more affordable units.

Lack of Lower-Income Housing
The Site Inventory improves integration and mitigates segregation by giving lowerincome residents the opportunity to live in a town that has historically been exclusive. The entire town is a high-resource area (even if the high resource identification is not corroborated by TCAC Opportunity Mapping). By increasing densities on select sites within the town to provide affordable housing options, new residents have access to higher-performing school districts and more green space than neighboring jurisdictions, this addresses a fair housing issue.

Diversity of Housing Types
The Site Inventory supports a diversity of housing types by increasing allowed densities. Historically, Atherton has only allowed low-density single-family residences within the town. By expanding the allowed densities on existing lots, more housing typologies are allowed to be developed, including multi-family housing typologies that are supportive of affordability.

High Land Acquisition Cost
The increased densities allowed on Site Inventory parcels supports mitigation of high land acquisition costs by distributing the cost of land among more units, lowering the cost of each individual unit, supporting affordability. SB 9 lot splits additionally distributes the high cost of land into two parcels, making each parcel cheaper than when the parcels were amalgamated.

The Site Inventory, through increased density allowances on select parcels and SB 9 lot splits, allows the high cost of land within Atherton to be broken down among multiple, more affordable lots and units rather than a more expensive single-family home.

3.418 Environmental Constraints Analysis
The analysis of environmental constraints to development of housing is provided in the discussion below.

Areas Subject to Flood Inundation in Event of Dam Failure The areas below Bear Gulch Reservoir and along Atherton Channel are subject to flooding if the Bear Gulch Dam were to fail. This dam is located within about 6,000 feet of

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
104
the Cañada Fault zone and 10,500 feet of the San Andreas Fault zone.56 Residential development is precluded in the area immediately downstream from the dam by ownership by the California Water Service Company and by open space zoning and General Plan designation.

None of the sites included in the Town’s Site Inventory are in this area.

Areas Susceptible to Flooding
According to the Federal Insurance Administration, there are no areas in Atherton identified as flood prone. However, in the 1975 San Mateo County “Seismic and Safety Element” of the General Plan, a few areas in the Town of Atherton were identified as being located within the 100 Year Flood Zone. The main concentration of these areas is along the Atherton Channel with other scattered sites in the area west of El Camino Real.

None of the sites included in the Town’s Site Inventory are in this area.

Areas Subject to Wildland Fire Hazard
Areas identified on the Environmental Constraints map as subject to Wildland Fire Hazard are generally west of Alameda de las Pulgas in the vicinity of Bear Gulch Reservoir and along Walsh Road and Reservoir Road. Residential building is precluded around Bear Gulch Reservoir because of its ownership by the California Water Service Company, and the open space zoning and General Plan designation. The adopted Fire Code requires all buildings exceeding 1,000 square feet be sprinklered and that roofs be constructed of fire-resistant materials. All buildings in the wildland interface must have fire sprinklers to protect the interface from a dwelling fire incident. In addition, the Menlo Park Fire Protection District inspects the area annually and recommends homeowners to clear combustible vegetation near structures.

This could ultimately impact and constrain development, but does not prevent residential construction.

Areas Subject to Seismic Activity
San Mateo County is in the vicinity of several known active and potentially active earthquake faults. These include the San Andreas and the Hayward faults.

All properties in Atherton have an equal exposure to seismic activity. This would constrain development, but does not prevent residential construction.

3.419 Infrastructure Description
Adequate infrastructure exists throughout the entire Town to accommodate the existing and planned density of development. This includes existing paved streets, sewer, water 56 County of San Mateo Geotechnical Hazard Synthesis Map

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
105
supply for domestic and fire suppression purposes and drainage facilities. Available public services include Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, Public Works, Building Inspection and Town Administration.

All of the sites in the Town of Atherton identified as available for housing are in areas served by public sewer systems. Consequently, there are no sites identified as available for housing for any of the several income level households in areas not served by a public sewer system.

All the housing opportunity sites proposed in this Housing Element are on existing developed property connected to or adjacent to all city services. Redevelopment of these infill sites may require infrastructure improvements by the city or the developer to upgrade aging infrastructure or to increase capacity. The provision of on-site improvements, such as streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscaping, utility undergrounding, drainage, water, and sewer infrastructure, are standard conditions of development approval and have not been barriers to housing development in the past.

If off-site infrastructure improvements are required, these are the responsibility of the developer if the upgrade Is not currently in the Capital Improvement Program.

Per Chapter 727, Statues of 2004 (SB 1087), upon completion of an amended or adopted Housing Element, a local government is responsible for immediately distributing a copy of the element to area water and sewer providers. In addition, water and sewer providers must grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include housing units affordable to lower-income households. Chapter 727 was enacted to improve the effectiveness of the law in facilitating housing development for lower-income families and workers. To comply with SB 1087, upon adoption, this Housing Element will be forwarded to the Town’s Public Works Department.

Water
Water is supplied throughout the town by the Bear Gulch District of the California Water Service. Most of the water provided (93%) is purchased or imported through the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, with a remaining 7% supplied by Bear Gulch Reservoir. Cal Water’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) provides detail on available capacity and allocations for each district, with sufficient planned volume through 2045.

Planned water capacity is already sufficient to accommodate the town’s RHNA. The town also anticipates greater efficiency of water use resulting from the type of new development proposed. Atherton residences, compared to regional and state averages, use an inordinate amount of water, primarily due to landscaping. As properties are subdivided through SB 9 to create smaller lots, or new units are created with ADUs, the primary source of local water demand will not be increased. It is reasonable to project that new development of smaller units using ADUs and lot splits will serve to reduce average household water consumption. In addition, Cal Water’s management

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
106
plan projects water consumption for single-family residences to decrease over time due to improved appliance standards, plumbing codes, and conservation programs.57 Wastewater
Most Atherton residents receive sewer services from West Bay Sanitary District, with a portion of the town served by the Fair Oaks Sanitation District operated by the County of San Mateo. Capacity for new development is generally analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Improvements to sewer infrastructure to accommodate development are incumbent on the developer and have not been a barrier to projects in the past.

Wastewater from future developments will be served by Silicon Valley Clean Water (SVCW) treatment facilities which has sufficient capacity to accommodate the town’s RHNA.

Dry Utilities
Development allowed under the Housing Element Update, in combination with cumulative development within PG&E’s service area would increase demand for electricity and natural gas. However, development projects would be required to comply with applicable state and local regulations pertaining to energy conservation.

PG&E routinely updates its long-range plans to incorporate potential growth in its service area. Therefore, the electrical and natural gas infrastructure would be sufficient to serve development allowed under the Sixth Cycle Housing Element.

Electricity and natural gas systems would have capacity and/or be adequate to serve cumulative development, including development allowed under this Housing Element.

Therefore, the Sixth Cycle Housing Element, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity, would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on electricity and natural gas systems, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

The geographic context with respect to telecommunication service is the service areas for the telecommunication providers that serve the city. Development allowed under the Housing Element Update, in combination with cumulative development within the service areas for the telecommunication providers that serve the city would increase demand for telecommunication service. However, similar to the development provided for under the Sixth Cycle Housing Element, cumulative development of underground conduits and overhead cables to facilitate telecommunications services would be

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
107
required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local standards pertaining to underground and overhead utility infrastructure.

3.420 Zoning Shortfall Analysis
HCD requires a housing element to determine whether there is sufficient land suitable and available for residential development to meet the locality’s housing need for each designated income level, or if further program actions are required to accommodate a shortfall. The following section provides a zoning shortfall analysis of the Town’s housing strategies.

Existing Zoning
Atherton has four existing zoning districts. R-1A, R-1B (under the Low Density Single Family Residential general plan land use designation) and PFS (PFS land use designation), listed below, allow residential uses by right. The POS (Parks and Open Space District – under the POS land use designation) does not.
• R-1A (Residential District) – Limits land uses to single-family detached homes on minimum one-acre size lots.
• R-1B (Residential District) – Limits uses to single-family detached homes on minimum size 13,500 square foot (0.31 acre) lots.
• PFS (Public Facilities and Schools District) – Limits land uses to public and private schools including affiliated residential uses, town hall, library and other similar public and quasi- public uses without limitation on lot size. This district also permits single-family and multi-family residences pursuant to a master plan. • POS (Public Open Space District) – Allows residential units as caretake facilities for the principal uses on-site through a conditional use permit.

None of these zoning districts allow residential development at the “default” density of 20 du/ac as identified by Government Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(d)-(f)58 that would support developing units for lower-income housing.

Without existing zoning to support lower-income housing, Atherton can use its Pipeline Projects and Accessory Dwelling Units to make up some of the lower income RHNA, as shown in Table HE - 21: Current Zoning Shortfall of Lower-Income Units. but there is a shortfall of 22 units that must be accommodated. This is calculated by combining the Very Low Income RHNA (94 units) and Low Income RHNA (54) to determine a LowerIncome RHNA of 148 units. From this number, 126 units of capacity are subtracted: 2 58 From the California Department of Housing and Community Development Default Density Standard Option – 2020 Census Update: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/housing-element-memos/docs/defaultdensity2020censusupdate.pdf

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
108
lower-income Pipeline Projects, 124 lower-income Accessory Dwelling units, and 0 Sites with Existing Capacity. This leaves the Town with a Lower Income Shortfall of 22 units.

TABLE HE - 21: CURRENT ZONING SHORTFALL OF LOWER-INCOME UNITS Lower-Income
Very Low
Income
RHNA
Low
Income
RHNA
Moderate
Income
RHNA
Above
Moderate
Income
RHNA
94 54 56 144
Very Low + Low = Lower Income RHNA 148 56 144
Current Capacity Under Existing Zoning 126 64 99
Pipeline Projects 2 2 48
ADUs 124 62 22
Sites with Existing Capacity (Underutilized Parcels) 0 0 29 Lower Income Shortfall
(Lower Income RHNA – Current Capacity Under Existing
Zoning)
22 -8 45
Source: Town of Atherton
Accommodating the Lower Income Shortfall
As part of the Housing Element, Atherton is introducing three new multi-family residential overlay zones. The overlay zones and their respective minimum and maximum allowed densities are included in Table HE - 22: Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zones below.

TABLE HE - 22: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ZONES
Name
Minimum
Allowed
Density
Maximum
Allowed
Density
RM-10 1 10
RM-20 20
RM-40 40
Source: Town of Atherton
The RM-20 and RM-40 multi-family residential overlay zones will be used to make up Site Inventory, which covers the lower-income shortfall. These two zones are applied to sites in the PFS zoning district, which does not otherwise allow by-right residential uses.

Therefore, the Martinez v. City of Clovis ruling on multi-family overlay zones on lowerdensity underlying zoning does not apply.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
109
The sites in the overlay zones will be used to make up Atherton’s current zoning shortfall of lower-income units. To accommodate this shortfall, Atherton will allow all sites in the RM-20 and RM-40 multi-family residential overlay zones to meet the housing shortfall in accordance with the Adequate Sites Program requirements of Government Code section 65583(h) and 65583.2(i). Pursuant to Gov. Code 65583(h) and 65583.2(i)), Program

3.811(C) will rezone to accommodate a minimum of 22 lower income units on a maximum of 1.1 acres (44 units at 20 du/ac). The program would require sites identified for rezoning to meet the following requirements:
• Permit owner-occupied and rental multi-family uses by-right in which 20% or more of the units are affordable to lower income households
• Permit a minimum density of 20 units per acre
• Allow a minimum of 16 units per site
• Accommodate at least 50 percent of the lower income need on sites designated for residential use only, otherwise allow 100% residential use and require residential to occupy at least 50% of the floor area in a mixed-use project.

For more information on the residential overlay zone, see the Multi-family Residential Overlay section, below.

3.421 Analysis of Zoning that Encourages and Facilitates a Variety of Housing Types Government Code Sections 65583 and 65583.2 require the housing element to provide for a variety of housing types including:
• Multi-family rental housing
• Factory-built housing and mobile homes
• Housing for agricultural employees
• Transitional and supportive housing
• Single-room occupancy units
• Emergency shelters
This section analyzes the constraints currently put on these housing types and includes a discussion of the programs included in the Sixth Cycle Housing Element to release identified constraints on the housing types.

Multi-family Rental Housing
In order to provide for multi-family rental housing, HCD requires jurisdictions to have zoned areas of at least 20 du/ac and with development standards that “allow and encourage multi-family rental housing opportunities.” Atherton does not currently have sites that allow multi-family housing of any tenure type, rental or ownership, with the exception of

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
110
on PFS zoned sites as related to the primary site use. Zoning code does not typically define rental or ownership units, but HCD informally makes the distinction by looking for densities of at least 20 du/ac (above typical townhome development densities).

The Sixth Cycle Housing Element’s new multi-family residential overlay zoning districts provide for 14.4 acres of multi-family housing in the town. This includes 5.9 acres under the RM-20 and RM-40 Overlays used for the Site Inventory as well as 9.5 acres under the RM10 Overlay. Collectively, these overlays allow for a development capacity of up to 239 units, not counting any density bonuses utilized by developers.

RM-10 Overlay
The RM-10 overlay goes beyond RHNA commitments in order to include multi-family housing of up to 10 du/ac on 11 sites throughout Atherton, as shown in Figure HE - 37: RM10 Sites below. These sites are a mix of POS and R-1A zoned sites. Most are near transit and commercial areas located outside of the Town of Atherton. The new Residential Multi-family RM-10 Overlay will allow ministerial review of multi-family housing per objective design guidelines. These sites include two publicly-owned parcels (Gilmore House and Cal Water Bear Gulch Reservoir Site) and nine privately-owned parcels. None of the RM-10 overlay counts towards RHNA.

FIGURE HE - 37: RM-10 SITES
Source: Town of Atherton

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
111
The RM-10 sites have been identified through a public process that included Council analysis of potential multi-family opportunities in the town. These sites are included in Table HE - 23: RM-10 Overlay Sites below.

TABLE HE - 23: RM-10 OVERLAY SITES
Address APN Acres General
Plan
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Overlay
Overlay
Density
(du/ac)
Maximum
Units
197 Ravenswood 061-281-150 1 LDSFR R-1A RM-10 10 10
175 Ravenswood 061-281-060 1.1 LDSFR R-1A RM-10 10 11
185 Ravenswood 061-281-050 1.1 LDSFR R-1A RM-10 10 11
999 Ringwood 061-091-080 0.9 LDSFR R-1A RM-10 10 9
352 Bay Rd. 061-091-070 0.92 LDSFR R-1A RM-10 10 9
318 Bay Rd. 061-091-060 0.94 LDSFR R-1A RM-10 10 9
296 Bay Rd. 061-091-050 0.93 LDSFR R-1A RM-10 10 9
23 Oakwood 059-153-080 1.5 LDSFR R-1A RM-10 10 15
Gilmore House 061-310-100 0.9 POS POS RM-10 10 9
Circus Club 070-214-080 POS POS RM-10 10 0
Cal Water Site 073-192-060 0.25 POS POS RM-10 10 3
Source: Town of Atherton
Table HE - 23: RM-10 Overlay Sites includes the General Plan and zoning designations of the RM-10 overlay sites as well as the maximum number of units that would be allowed on each parcel. A narrative description of these sites follows.

R-1A Sites
Of the sites listed in Table HE - 23, the Site Inventory includes eight sites that are zoned R1A. These sites were selected by Council in a series of meetings in 2023 based on the size of the property, the age of existing residences, adjacency to neighborhoods with higher densities, and proximity to amenities such as bus transit, commercial areas, and other attractive services. All eight of these properties are currently in use as single-family residences, and any sale or transfer of the property can present an opportunity for redevelopment.

Gilmore House
The Gilmore House site is located in the northwest corner of Holbrook-Palmer Park, on Watkins Avenue near the Town Center. From 2014-2018, it was used by Atherton Police Department offices as a place to rest between shifts. From 2018 to today, it is used by the police chief as a residence. The property is owned by the Town of Atherton and in 2022 there was interest stated by some Council members to facilitate multi-family housing programs at this location. Program 3.846(A) facilitates the eventual affordable residential

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
112
development of the Gilmore House site without impacting the public use of the larger Holbrook-Palmer Park.

Circus Club
The Menlo Circus Club is a privately-owned club that could potentially develop housing on its land. Although there are no current plans for such development, the property contains at least one existing caretakers’ housing unit. Application of the RM-10 overlay could eventually promote development of additional workforce housing, should Club members increase interest during the planning period.

Cal Water Bear Gulch Reservoir Site
Cal Water owns and operates 99 acres at the Bear Gulch Reservoir in Atherton. The property is located within the Town’s Park and Open Space (POS) zoning district. This district currently allows caretaker housing with a Conditional Use Permit. Due to the high cost of housing and new employee recruitment, Cal Water expressed interest in constructing up to four new affordable housing units at this site. Program 3.846(B) directs the Town to collaborate with Cal Water to remove barriers to development of the site as appropriate to facilitate housing.

Deed-Restricted ADUs
In addition to the RM-10 Overlay, Atherton is allowing missing middle housing – such as multiplexes and cottage courts – through an ADU strategy that also goes beyond RHNA commitments. Atherton adopted an ADU ordinance in 2024 which allows for an extra detached and deed restricted ADU on lots two acres or larger. Program 3.812(B) allows for an additional ADU on a property if the property owner agrees to keep rent at an affordable level. This would allow development that is similar to duplex, triplex, and cottage court development alongside and/or within a traditional single-family detached house in Atherton. This housing type, 18 of which are projected in Atherton during the planning period, could also contribute to multi-family rental housing in the town.

Mid-Cycle Check-In
The Town is committing to a mid-cycle check-in if its multi-family rental housing goals are not being met. As per Program 3.811(D), Atherton staff will review development on RM10 multi-family residential overlay sites at the end of December 2026. If fewer than four of the 11 sites have development or active development proposals at that time, the Town will modify its zoning mid-cycle to allow additional multifamily development. This could include:
• Identification of at least three new RM-10 multifamily residential overlay sites • Adoption of an SB 10 overlay that allows at least three identified sites to be developed with up to 10 units and a process for individual property owners to apply for an SB 10 overlay on their property

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
113
• A different rezoning that would allow additional housing mobility, including multifamily housing, in Atherton
If this action is necessary, City Council will adopt this mid-cycle rezoning by the end of December 2027, to be effective in January 2028.

Factory-Built Housing and Mobile Homes
As required by State law, the Town allows factory-built housing or mobile homes on permanent foundations under the same terms applicable to other single-family homes in the R-1A and R-1B zones. The Town does not have architectural review of new homes, and consequently does not impose architectural review on factory-built housing.

Housing for Agricultural Employees
There are no agricultural jobs and no farm workers living in Atherton. The closest significant location of agricultural employment is located across the Santa Cruz Mountains and at least a 30-minute drive away.

California Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 (Employee Housing Act) requires jurisdictions to permit employee housing for six or fewer employees as a single-family use.

Employee housing shall not be included within the zoning definition of a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, dormitory, or other similar term that implies that the employee housing is a business run for-profit or differs in any other way from a family dwelling.

Jurisdictions cannot impose a conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance of employee housing that serves six or fewer employees that is not required of a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone.

Atherton’s Zoning Code does not currently address small employee housing. As such, Program 3.826 adds a definition and makes provisions for small employee housing as a permitted use in the R-1A and R-1B zones, where single-family is permitted.

Single-Room Occupancy Units
Single-room occupancy units are currently permitted in the PFS zones when included in an approved master plan and with a use permit. Program 3.835 modifies this language to permit single-room occupancy units as a permitted use in any residential zoning district (R-1 or the RM-10, R-20, and R-40 overlay zones).

Transitional and Supportive Housing
In June 2010, Atherton amended the zoning code to explicitly state that any use is permitted if required by State law. Under this revision, supportive and transitional housing only need to obtain the same types of permits and approvals as the same type of residential development in that zone. Residential uses, including transitional and supportive housing, are permitted without discretionary permits in the following zones; R1A and R-1B; and are permitted with a use permit in the PFS zone.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
114
Emergency Shelters
As per 17.36.030-1 in the Atherton Municipal Code, emergency shelters are a permitted use when located within the Town Civic Center property (defined as Lots 1, 2, 24, 25 and 26, Watlinton Park RSM (Resubdivision Maps) 5/8). Within this zone, shelters are permitted without a conditional use permit or other discretionary action.

The current code sets forth standards for operation in 17.36.060, covering size, beds and population, location, parking, waiting and client intake areas, handicap accessibility, onsite management, and exterior lighting. Program 3.824 directs modifications to the current code to comply with AB 139 and Government Code section 65583.

Further discussion of siting and feasibility is included in section 3.517: Constraints on Emergency Shelters.

3.430 Other Housing Resources
The Town decided to develop a Housing Impact Fee that would be utilized by the Town to encourage and support the development of affordable housing opportunities in Town, as included in Program 3.823(D). The Housing Impact Fee would be collected and segregated by law for its intended purpose. Additionally, the Town is willing to consult with other agencies such as the County of San Mateo or non-profit institutions that work in the County about additional resources that might be available to the Town for affordable housing.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
115

3.500 CONSTRAINTS ON HOUSING
This section contains analyses of potential governmental constraints contained in the Town ordinances, codes and policies that could constitute a barrier to the maintenance, improvement or development of housing for all income levels.

3.510 Governmental Constraints Analysis

3.511 Land Use Controls
The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of a community are two primary tools for planning and regulating land use.

General Plan
The Town of Atherton updated its General Plan in 2020. The land use character of the Town has remained that of a mainly single family residential and institutional (e.g., schools) nature. The General Plan reveals that a significant constraint to housing development is land availability. There is little vacant developable land in the Town, and most of the Town’s land acreage is developed at existing General Plan densities. The lack of land use categories and associated zoning districts that permit multi-family residential development is also considered a constraint to affordable housing development in its traditional sense.

Program 3.811(C) directs amendments to the General Plan land use designations to facilitate multifamily residential development inline with the adoption of the RM-10, RM20, and RM-40 zoning overlays.

Zoning Ordinance
The Atherton Zoning Ordinance designates land uses, height, bulk, density and parking standards throughout the town. The Zoning Ordinance was designed for consistency with the General Plan. The General Plan’s four basic land use designations: Single-Family Residential, Single Family Residential Low Density, Public Facilities and Schools, and Parks and Open Space are directly reflected by the zoning districts of the R-1A (Single Family Residential one acre minimum), R-1B (Single Family Residential – 0.31 acre minimum), PFS (Public Facilities and Schools), and POS (Parks and Open Space). Table HE - 24 resents the Atherton Zoning Categories and Standards of density, setbacks, height limits, floor area ratios, lot coverage and parking requirements.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
116
TABLE HE - 24: ATHERTON’S ZONING CATEGORIES AND STANDARDS Atherton’s Zoning Categories and Standards
Zoning Density
Front
Setbacks
Side
Setbacks*
Rear
Setbacks
Height
Limit FAR
Max Lot
Coverage
Parking
Required
Arch.

Approval
R-1A
(Single Family
Residential)
1 du./ acre 60’ 50’ 60’ 30** 18% N/A None None
R-1B
(Single Family
Residential)
3 du./ac. 30’ 26’ 30’ 28’ 18% N/A None None
PFS
(Public
Facilities and
Schools)
None 60’ 75’ 75’ 34’ N/A 40% None None
POS
(Parks and
Open Space)
None 60’ Varies 60’ 34’ N/A 20% None None
*Side setbacks are on a sliding scale depending on lot size (see Table 17.38.010) ** 34’ maximum with increased setbacks and Special Structure Permit The zoning categories reflect the Town's low-density residential, large lot, single-family character. Commercial and industrial land uses are prohibited. The standards require large setbacks, limited floor area ratios and height restrictions. However, some standards are quite unrestrictive compared to other cities. For example, Atherton does not require on-site parking, nor is architectural or design review required.

New single family residential development permits are processed ministerially and most are submitted concurrently for zoning clearing to the Planning Department and building permit issuance to the Building Department which assists in greatly expediting the permitting process. Consistent with State law, the Town allows factory-built housing or mobile homes on permanent foundations under the same terms applicable to other single-family homes.

Currently multi-family residential uses are permitted in the PFS (Public Facilities and Schools) zoning district when associated with primary nonresidential use of property on the same site. Although multi-family residential, when associated with primary nonresidential use on the same site is a permitted land use, it requires location and environmental review by the Planning Commission. The location and environmental review process includes a public hearing and a review of the location, size, proximity to heritage trees and environmental aspects of the project; however, the result of the location and environmental review shall not result in the denial of the use. Program

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
117

3.811(C) directs amendments to the PFS zoning district to allow multifamily housing byright. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are permitted in both the R-1A and R-1B zoning districts. The zoning ordinance was amended in 2003 and again in 2020 to make Accessory Dwelling Units permitted by right in the R-1 districts, exempt the ADU from floor area, and for compliance with State law. An accessory dwelling unit is allowed to encroach on 20 percent of the setbacks as the main dwelling, and setbacks may be reduced to 4 feet in compliance with State law. However, such an ADU may be limited in size to that allowed by State law. Detached accessory dwelling units are generally limited to 16 feet in height and 1,200 square feet of floor area.

Attached accessory dwelling units (additional living quarters inside homes) are permitted by right in both the R-1A and R-1B zoning districts. These may include a bedroom, a bath and kitchen elements (stove, sink, and refrigerator). Accessory dwelling units are commonly constructed in Atherton (approximately 30 – 35 per year).

The Municipal Code and Ordinance provides a variety of lot sizes with densities ranging from one dwelling unit per five acres to three units per acre. Although the Town’s low allowable densities constitute a constraint to affordable housing development, the impact is offset somewhat by the relatively large proportion of homes containing accessory dwelling units. In addition, Atherton’s large homes provide opportunities for home sharing per Program 3.841. These characteristics of the local housing stock assists the Town in meeting its regional share of affordable housing. Housing associated with the underlying use (including multi-family rental housing and single room occupancy units) is permitted in the PFS (Public Facilities and Schools) Zoning District.

Constraints Posed by Current Land Use Controls
Atherton’s land use controls were designed to ensure single-family residences would be constructed on large lots. While there are several exceptional single-family homes constructed per these land use controls, the development of multi-family housing was not envisioned by the Town.

Concurrent with the housing element, Atherton is adopting objective design standards that will modify the underlying zoning so that it does not serve as a constraint on multifamily housing as per Program 3.811(C).

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
118
TABLE HE - 25: CONSTRAINTS ON MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REMEDIED BY OBJECTIVE

DESIGN STANDARDS
Zoning District
Zoning Constraint R-1 A (existing) RM-10 RM-20 RM-40
Maximum Density 1 unit/parcel 10 unit/acre 20 unit/acre 40 unit/acre Setbacks*
Front 60’ 30’ 20’ 20’
Side 10’-50’ 15’-20’ 20’ 20’
Rear 60’ 20’ 20’ 20’
Maximum Height 30’
40’
(No limit on # of
stories)
48’
(No limit on # of
stories)
48’
(No limit on # of
stories)
FAR** 0.18 0.5 N/A N/A
Maximum Lot Coverage** 18% 40% 40% 40%
Parking Requirement N/A
Min: 1 space/bed
Max: 2 space/unit
No Min
Max: 2 space/unit
No Min
Max: 2 space/unit
Ministerial Review? No Yes Yes Yes
*Front and Rear Setbacks: ”On lots of record prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 146 (April 16, 1946) with a depth of less than two hundred feet, the front and rear yards shall each be thirty percent of the lot depth with a minimum of thirty feet; provided further, where main building heights are between thirty feet and thirty-four feet, the front and rear yards shall be increased by a ratio of five feet for each one-foot increase in height.” (17.32.040(D)(1))
Side Yard Setbacks: Minimum Side Yard requirements are dependent on lot width (Table 17.38.010-1).

Additional Setbacks: Also required if the sidewall of a building exceeds a certain height. (17.36.030(B)(1)(2)(3); 17.37.030(B)(2)(b); and 17.37.030(B)(3)(b); Required if R-1 adjacent (Table

17.36.030.B.2-1; Table 17.36.030.B.3-1; 17.37.030(B)(3)) **FAR and Lot Coverage: Lots smaller than 1 acre have FAR and Maximum/Minimum Lot Coverage determined by the following equation: Floor area in square feet = (lot size in square feet × 0.163) + 726 square feet, with a minimum allowable floor area of 2,250 square feet. (17.32.040(C)) Source: Town of Atherton

3.512 Codes and Enforcement
The latest edition of the Uniform Building Code is enforced in Atherton. The Town’s Building Department sees that new residences, additions, auxiliary structures, and the like meet all of the latest construction and safety standards. Building permits are required for any construction work. The Town has not adopted any local amendments to the State Housing Law or the Uniform Building Code. The Uniform Building Code is imposed by State law and does not pose an unusually significant constraint to housing development, maintenance or the supply and affordability of housing.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
119
The Town has instituted a code enforcement program. This is primarily a land use enforcement, complaint-based program. Typical complaints and violations relate to noise, construction activity without a Building Permit and parking of contractors’ vehicles and has not resulted in housing being deemed unfit for human habitation or vacated.

The code enforcement program does not pose a constraint to housing development, maintenance or the supply and affordability of housing.

3.513 On and Off-Site Improvement Requirements
The on and off-site improvements required for residential development in Atherton are listed below.

TABLE HE - 26: ON AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Category Improvement Required
Street Width 20 feet
Curbs and Gutters Rolled curbs and gutters required for new subdivisions Sidewalks Prohibited in new subdivisions
Water and Sewer Connections Required
Drainage Storage improvements required to prevent increased runoff during storm conditions (required by the San
Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control
Board)
Since Atherton is a completely developed urban area, all streets are paved, water mains and sewer trunks have been installed and major drainage improvements are in place.

Atherton’s improvement standards are substantially less restrictive than those imposed by many communities, which often require wider streets and additional off-site improvements. The on and off-site improvement requirements do not pose a constraint to housing development, maintenance or the supply and affordability of housing.

3.514 Fees and Exactions
Planning Fees in Atherton
Development Impact Fees are one-time charges levied on new developments and serve as tools to mitigate the impacts of new development by funding a range of capital programs required to address needs related to that development, including transportation, parks, and utilities (such as water, sewer, and storm drain). Other than a park in lieu fee under the Quimby Act for subdivisions, the Town does not currently have any impact fees; however, projects that connect to either sewer district are charged fees and construction costs that are outside of the Town’s control. In Atherton development fees are charged for both planning review and building permits. Planning fees are

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
120
charged in order to recover the costs associated with the administration of the Town’s land use regulations. Planning fees for review of projects that do not require Planning Commission action (i.e., Staff level) are charged a flat fee shown in the table below. To ensure transparency of the fees charged by the Town, Program 3.849 directs Atherton to post and regularly update the Town’s website to include complete information about development fees.

TABLE HE - 27: PLANNING REVIEW FEES (STAFFL LEVEL) – 2022-2023 Name Fee

PLANNING FEES
Conditional Use Permit/Special Structure
Permit
$ 2,920
Variance $ 2,920
Heritage Tree Removal Permit $ 2,245
Exception Review
Excessive Height
Lot Line Redesignation $ 2,920
Lot Line Adjustment $ 1,685
Tentative Parcel Map $ 2,920
Final Parcel Map $ 2,920
Appeal $ 842
School Master Plan $ 842
Initial Review/Negative Declaration $ 2,245
Zoning Ordinance Amendment $ 5,615
General Plan Amendment $ 5,615
Zoning Review for Home Occupation Business $107
Pre-Application Review $51
Street Easement Vacation
Code Enforcement – Administrative (Penalty) $ 1,065
Initial Review (2 reviews for fee amount;
additional reviews billed hourly) – per
application:
a. Fence $ 180
b. Accessory Structures (includes pools) $ 506
c. Accessory Buildings $ 1,067
d. Additions $ 1,095
e. New Construction $ 1,570
Revisions to Previously Approved Plans
Technology Surcharge (upgrade and maintain
development technology) (3.60% of fee) 3.60%
Planning fees for projects that require Planning Commission action consist of a nonrefundable fee and a deposit, against which professional planning staff charge to

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
121
provide review services. Charges currently range from $134 to $252 per hour depending upon the level of personnel involved in the review. Unused portions of the deposit are returned to the applicant at the end of the process. The fee structure reflects the Town’s actual cost for the service. The Town reviews its fee structure and levels on a regular basis to ensure they reflect the cost of delivering services. Typical Planning Commission fees are shown in the table below.

TABLE HE - 28: PLANNING FEES (PLANNING COMMISSION) – 2022-2023 Name Fee

PLANNING FEES
Appeal $872.32
Special Structures Permit $3,025.12
Heritage Tree Removal Permit $2,325.12
Tree Protection Zone Exception $2,325.12
Variance $3,025.12
Conditional Use Permit $3,025.12
General Plan Amendment $5,817.15
Initial Review/Negative Declaration $2,325.82
Lot Line Redesignation $3,025.12
School Master Plan $872.32
Tentative Parcel Map $3,025.12
Final Parcel Map $3,025.12
Zoning Ordinance Amendment’ $5,817.15
Environmental Impact Report Actual Cost
*All Fees Include 3.6% Technology Surcharge
The Atherton planning fees are smaller than other San Mateo County jurisdictions, are consistent with similar charges in other small jurisdictions, and do not pose a significant constraint to housing development, maintenance or the supply and affordability of housing.

Building fees are charged to cover costs associated with checking that the building plans conform to requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as well as costs associated with conducting building construction inspections. Fees charged for building permits are based on the valuation of construction. The fee structure reflects the Town’s actual cost for the service. The Town reviews its fee structure and levels on a regular basis to ensure they reflect the cost of delivering services. Currently new construction valuation is determined by use of a standard factor of $350 per square foot for habitable space and $125 per square foot for non-habitable space.

The same factor is used for remodeling projects; however, the Building Department has the option to adjust the permitted value to the actual cost of the remodeling provided

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
122
evidence is presented in the form of an executed contract substantiating the value. The actual building permit fee is determined using the following formula: where construction is valued over $1,000,000 the fee is calculated as $6,193.74 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4.03 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof. An additional 45% of the building permit fee is charged for plan checking. For example, where construction is valued over $1,000,000 the fee is calculated as $6,193.74 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4.03 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof. An additional 45% of the building permit fee is charged for plan checking.

While not imposed by the Town, local school districts charge a fee that is based on the square footage of new construction and must be paid prior to issuance of the building permits. The purpose of the fee is to compensate the school districts for the costs associated with the demand for additional services and classroom space generated by new residential construction. The Sequoia Union High School District collects the fees and distributes a portion to one of the three elementary school districts serving Atherton (i.e., Las Lomitas School District, Menlo Park City School District and Redwood City School District). Currently the Sequoia District is $3.79 per square foot of residential construction with $1.52 (40%) distributed to the Sequoia District and $2.27 (60%) distributed to the Menlo Park District, Las Lomitas or Redwood City Districts. The Town does not have any park, open space, parking or other similar development or impact fees. Nor does it have any in-lieu housing or other fees, below-market-rate housing requirements or specific land dedication requirements for streets, public utility rights-of-way, easements, parks or open space.

Cal Water’s Bear Gulch District charges a service fee for separate water service, ranging from $20,000 to $40,000. They otherwise has no connection fees for areas currently covered by the District, which covers all of Atherton.

Sewer fees are dependent on district:
• Fair Oaks:
o Single Family: $6,153 for connection + $380 development o Multi-family: $24,612 for connection + $380 for development o ADU: Charged proportionate to the burden of the ADU compared to the primary dwelling unit
• West Bay Sanitary District:
o Single Family and Multi-family: $8,501 for connection o ADU: $6,376
A recent survey by 21 Elements (see

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
123
TABLE HE – Table HE- 29) revealed that a 5,000 square foot house built in Atherton would have construction fees of $16,941 and no entitlement or impact fees (except for school fees, discussed above, which were excluded from the analysis). The 21 Elements Fee Survey revealed all jurisdictions in San Mateo County who responded to the survey (18 including Atherton) had development fees for single family homes that were higher than Atherton’s; some had fees 2 and 3 times higher. With fees substantially lower than those of adjacent communities, they do not pose a constraint on housing construction.

Comparison to Other San Mateo County Jurisdictions
To assist jurisdictions in meeting requirements for analysis of fees and permit processing, 21 Elements released a survey to all jurisdictions in San Mateo County. The survey asked about potential government constraints to housing, including impact fees, entitlement fees, building permit fees, and permit processing times. In conjunction with that survey, 21 Elements hired Century Urban, a San Francisco based real-estate consulting firm, to examine the cost of land and labor for new housing development in the County.

Combined, those two data sets provide a basis for a preliminary examination of constraints for jurisdictions in San Mateo County.

Participation in the 21 Elements government restraints survey was excellent, with 18 of 21 jurisdictions participating. While not all the respondents answered all the questions, the high overall participation results in a meaningful look at the landscape of governmentimposed fees in San Mateo County. 21 Elements distributed the survey in November 2021 and accepted results through February 2022.

The survey asked jurisdictions to calculate fees for three hypothetical housing developments: a single-family house, a 10-unit apartment building, and a 100-unit apartment building.

Single-Family Home – Participants were asked to estimate fees for one of two, hypothetical single-family home developments:
● 2,600-square-foot house with 500-square-foot garage. The house is two stories tall with four bedrooms and two bathrooms. The house is constructed on an empty lot in an existing neighborhood and requires no significant grading or other complications.
● 5,000-square-foot house with 1,000-square-foot garage. House is two stories tall with four bedrooms and three bathrooms. The house is constructed on an empty lot in an existing neighborhood and requires no significant grading or other complications.

Atherton, along with Woodside, and Unincorporated San Mateo, chose to estimate fees for the larger house as more representative of the community. All other respondents

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
124
estimated fees for the smaller house. For purposes of comparison, all the data are presented in the same table, regardless of which size hypothetical house was chosen.

Small Multi-Family – Jurisdictions were asked to estimate the fees for a hypothetical development with 10 units with moderate complexity.

Large Multi-Family – Jurisdictions were asked to estimate fees for a 100-unit development.

The Atherton fees estimated for the prototypical single-family project are shown in Table HE - 29 As shown, Town entitlement fees are significantly lower than other communities due to the streamlined and efficient development review process currently practiced.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
125
TABLE HE – 29: FEES FOR A HYPOTHETICAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOME Other Fees Total
Atherton $1,058 $15,941
Brisbane $10,032 $24,940
Burlingame $0 $69,425
Colma $0 $6,760
Daly City $0 $24,202
East Palo Alto $39,576 $104,241
Foster City $0 $67,886
Half Moon Bay $8,300 $52,569
Hillsborough $14,250 $71,092
Millbrae $0 $97,756
Pacifica $0 $33,725
Portola Valley $6,216 $52,923
Redwood City $0 $20,795
San Bruno $0 $58,209
San Mateo $0 $99,003
South San
Francisco $0 $81,366
Unincorporated
San Mateo $0 $36,429
Woodside $0 $70,957
Source: 21 Elements
The total fees per unit are compared to all San Mateo County jurisdictions below in Table HE - 30. Atherton does not currently have fees for multi-unit developments because it has historically not allowed such developments. Program 3.816 directs the Town to adopt multi-family fees into its Master Fee Schedule by the end of March 2024.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
126
TABLE HE - 30: TOTAL FEES PER UNIT COMPARISON: SAN MATEO COUNTY JURISDICTIONS (INCLUDES ENTITLEMENT, BUILDING PERMITS, AND IMPACT FEES) Single-Family Small Multi-Unit Large Multi-Unit
Atherton $15,941 No Data No Data
Brisbane $24,940 $11,678 No Data
Burlingame $69,425 $30,345 $23,229
Colma $6,760 $167,210* $16,795
Daly City $24,202 $32,558 $12,271
East Palo Alto $104,241 No Data $28,699
Foster City $67,886 $47,179 $11,288
Half Moon Bay $52,569 $16,974 No Data
Hillsborough $71,092 No Data No Data
Millbrae $97,756 $6,824 $55,186
Pacifica $33,725 $40,151 No Data
Portola Valley $52,923 No Data No Data
Redwood City $20,795 $18,537 $62,696
San Bruno $58,209 $72,148 $39,412
San Mateo $99,003 $133,658 $44,907
South San Francisco $81,366 $76,156 $32,471
Unincorporated San Mateo $36,429 $27,978 $10,012
Woodside $70,957 $82,764 No Data
Source: 21 Elements.

Total fees as a percentage of total development costs can be found in Table HE - 31.

Atherton’s fees are calculated to be 0% of total development cost, which is among the lowest of the County.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
127
TABLE HE - 31: TOTAL FEES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COSTS Single-Family Small Multi-Unit Large Multi-Unit
Atherton 0% No Data No Data
Brisbane 1% 1% No Data
Burlingame 3% 4% 3%
Colma 0% 17% 2%
Daly City 1% 4% 2%
East Palo Alto 4% No Data 4%
Foster City 3% 6% 2%
Half Moon Bay 2% 2% No Data
Hillsborough 3% No Data No Data
Millbrae 2% 8% 7%
Pacifica 1% 5% No Data
Portola Valley 1% No Data No Data
Redwood City 1% 2% 8%
San Bruno 2% 8% 5%
San Mateo 4% 14% 6%
South San Francisco 3% 9% 4%
Unincorporated San Mateo 1% 3% 1%
Woodside 2% 9% No Data
Note: The above table is calculated using average soft costs (including an average of jurisdiction charged fees) and average land costs for the county. A more precise determination of fees as a percentage of total development costs can be calculated using jurisdiction specific land costs and fees.

Source: 21 Elements.

Atherton’s fees per unit, including the percentage of total development costs and a comparison to the median of fees are shown in Table HE - 32.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
128
TABLE HE - 32: SUMMARY OF ATHERTON FEES COMPARED TO MEDIAN Project Type Fees Per Unit Percentage of Total
Development Cost
Median of Fees for 21
Jurisdictions
Single Family $15,941 0% $55,566
Multi-Family in Small
Project
No data No data $36,355
Multi-Family in Large
Project
No data No data $28,699

3.515 Processing and Permit Procedures
Only two levels of residential permit processing are available: a Conditional Use Permit or a Building Permit. The Town does not have an Architectural Review and approval process.

Most residential construction, including accessory dwelling units and guest houses (estimated 90 percent to 95 percent of building permits) does not require Planning Commission action or permits. Only Planning Department review of the project for conformance with Town zoning standards and Building Department review for Building Code conformance are required. These reviews for zoning clearance by the Planning Department and permit issuance by the Building Department can be processed concurrently, allowing for a much more efficient and streamlined permitting process than may be typically found in other jurisdictions. Staff routinely provides first round plan review comments within 10-working days and follow-up comments within 5-working days.

The following table describes the Town's permit process procedures in general. These processes are required for the development of all housing for all income categories.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
129
TABLE HE - 33: RESIDENTAL PERMIT PROCESSING PROCEDURES AND TIMES Residential Permit Processing Procedures and Times
Type of Construction Use Permit Building
Permit
Plan. Commission
Public Hearing
Typical Time for Staff
Plan Check & Building
Permit Issue (weeks)
Single Family Residential X 4
Accessory Dwelling Unit X 4
Guest House X 4
Housing on PFS Sites59 X X 9
The Town does not have any overlay zones such as community plan implementation zones, hillside overlay zones or environmentally sensitive areas. The multi-family residential overlay zones that will be adopted concurrently with the housing element will ease – rather than complicate – the permitting process.

Atherton has only two residential zoning districts; R-1A where the minimum lot size is 1 acre and R-1B where the minimum lot size is 13,500 square feet. Single family detached dwelling units, second dwelling units and guest houses are permitted by right in these districts. Attached and multiple family dwelling units are not currently permitted in either district. All construction in PFS zoning districts, including attached and multiple family dwelling units and single room occupancy units require a conditional use permit. Housing in PFS zoning districts is permitted when the residential use is associated with a conditional or permitted use in that district. Such residential uses are typically associated with private schools. Housing in POS zoning districts is allowed for caretaker housing associated with the primary use on the site.

Conditional Use Permits
Where Conditional Use Permits or Special Structure Permits are required, the process involves submitting an application to the Planning Commission for review of the proposal.

Per Municipal Code Section 17.12.030, conditional use permits are only granted when the approval authority (i.e., the Planning Commission who provides approval, upon the recommendation of the Town Planner) finds that:
• The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and all applicable provisions;
59 Housing included in a private school master plan on a PFS site will be subject to a Planning Commission public hearing to review the characteristics of the project but cannot result in a denial of the housing use.

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
September 2024
130
• The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case (location, size, design, and operating characteristics), be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use, or the general welfare of the town.

This language, as applied to residential development, acts as a constraint. Program 3.817 directs the revision of the CUP process to make certain housing development ministerial by:
• Expanding by-right uses to include housing in multifamily residential overlay zones
• Removing the requirement of an advertised public hearing • Removing Planning Commission imposition on subjective restrictions on residential development
Building Permits
Building permits must be secured before commencement of any residential construction, reconstruction, conversion, alteration or addition. Approval of permit applications is based on conformity with the Uniform Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance, although the Town has the power to grant variances from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance within the limitations provided in the Ordinance.

The Building Permit process has very little impact on the development of above moderate-income housing in Atherton as evidenced by building activity and the number of replacement housing units being constructed. The Building Department currently has approximately 800 active permits and approximately 25 – 35 houses are demolished and replaced with new houses each year. While removal of the process and reduction of fees might function to reduce costs slightly, there are many other factors that act to deter development of such housing. Factors such as the high cost of land (currently at about $8 million per acre), the limitations on density and non-availability of funds (e.g., in the private educational institutions and from local public sources) are the most likely deterrents to the development of low and moderate-income housing.

As Atherton has historically not allowed multi-family housing except in particular circumstances, there are no requests to develop housing at densities below allowed density ranges that are available to analyze.

In 2023, the only year for which Atherton has data, the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of a building permit application averaged 93 days. This is in line with the time taken in neighboring jurisdictions.