Item No. 5
Town of Atherton
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT – PUBLIC HEARINGS
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: BRITTANY BENDIX, TOWN PLANNER
TOM FORD, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2026
SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE THAT
AMENDS THE ATHERTON MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADDRESS
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER SENATE BILL 79
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council add Chapter 17.59 “Regulations and Objective Standards for Development Projects Sought Pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.157 (SB 79)” and to amend Chapter 17.60 “Definitions” in the Atherton Municipal Code (AMC) with the purpose of establishing development standards in response to the state-enabled massing and density of Senate Bill 79.
BACKGROUND:
Senate Bill (SB) 79 is a new housing law that focuses on residential developments near transit stops. The bill requires that a housing development project, within a certain distance of a transitoriented development stop, be a permitted use on any site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development, if the development complies with requirements of SB 79. Projects submitted under SB 79 do not require review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), unless they trigger discretionary actions. The bill is effective July 1, 2026. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) oversees compliance with SB 79.
Review of the ordinance by HCD is required for the adoption of any local development standards.
HCD has up to 90 days to review the ordinance and make findings that determine if the ordinance is compliant with SB 79. To meet the HCD review timeframe, a local ordinance must be submitted to HCD by April 1, 2026, to ensure effectiveness before the law takes effect. HCD is not required to produce any guidance before the law takes effect. The text of SB 79 is provided for reference as Attachment 1.
February 18, 2026, City Council Staff Report
SB 79 Ordinance Amendments
On December 3, 2025, the City Council held a study session and received a presentation outlining the eligible sites within the Town and the requirements for a potential housing development pursuant to SB 79, which is now Government Code Section 65912.157. The presentation reviewed tier-specific development standards established under SB 79 based on transit frequency and intensity. These standards vary by transit-oriented development (TOD) stop type and distance from the stop, and include limited standards related to height, minimum density, minimum floor area ratio (FAR), and affordability requirements. Based on a one-quarter-mile distance from the Menlo Park Caltrain station, there are seven properties in Atherton that are eligible for SB 79, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: SB 79 Eligible Lots in Atherton
The state standards do not include requirements for setbacks, architectural design, vehicular circulation, parking, privacy screening, or landscaping. Therefore, these elements would be at the discretion of the applicant unless a local jurisdiction has existing standards that are applicable at the densities required by SB 79. At the study session City Council directed staff to pursue the enactment of an ordinance to address potential SB 79 projects and create standards for development in the Atherton Municipal Code (AMC). While the Town may adopt and enforce local development standards, including inclusionary zoning requirements, such standards may not, individually or collectively, preclude the achievement of the applicable SB 79 development standards. The remainder of this report presents efforts by staff to bring standards to the City Council for consideration. A link to the December 3, 2025, study session agenda, video and staff report is provided as Attachment 2.
ANALYSIS
This section of the report describes the development requirements set by SB 79, their applicability to eligible sites in Atherton, feedback from a public workshop and the Planning Commission, and an overview of the draft ordinance.
SB 79 Required Development Parameters
The requirements of SB 79 that staff must consider in the development of supplemental standards applicable to eligible sites include:
February 18, 2026, City Council Staff Report
SB 79 Ordinance Amendments
• Density. The Town is precluded by SB 79 from establishing a maximum density designation that is less than 120 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). If a proposed project does not meet a minimum density of 30 du/ac, it is ineligible to use any component of SB 79. • Height. The Town is precluded by SB 79 from establishing a maximum height that is any less than seventy-five (75) feet. To lower this height limit the Town must find ways to incentivize a developer to do so voluntarily.
• FAR. The Town is precluded by SB 79 from establishing a maximum floor area ratio (3.5) that is any less than 3.5. As a reminder, “floor area ratio” means the proportionality of a building’s floor area to its lot size. An FAR of 1 could mean a single-story building that covers an entire lot, or a two-story building that covers half of the lot. Similar to height, lowering the FAR of a project would necessitate incentives by the Town. • Unit Size. SB 79 directs that the average total floor area of the proposed units in a project shall not exceed 1,750 net habitable square feet.1 There is no maximum unit size, only the requirement that the average of all units in the project do not exceed this amount.
Additionally, SB 79 does not require that the Town facilitate this average unit size, it is a tool used by the state to encourage family-sized units or a mix of units (studios vs. three or more bedrooms).
• Affordability. Any development of 10 units or less is exempt from the affordability requirements of SB 79, however, local requirements would still apply. SB 79 directs that a proposed project includes housing for lower income households by complying with one of the following requirements:
o At least 7 percent of the total units are dedicated to extremely low-income households, or
o At least 10 percent of the total units are dedicated to very low-income households, or
o At least 13 percent of the total units are dedicated to lower income households.
On January 21, 2026, the Council introduced and held a first reading on the Town’s first inclusionary housing ordinance that would set the local inclusionary housing requirement for an SB 79 project at 20 percent, dedicated to moderate income households or lower. A project that meets the SB 79 requirement listed above and provides any additional units needed to meet the Town’s 20 percent requirement would comply. Although affordability does not inherently influence the building mass in a global manner, SB 79 does grant concessions from local development standards on a project-by-project basis.
Considering the requirements of SB 79 discussed above, the development potential for the seven SB 79 eligible lots in Atherton is shown in Table A.
1 “Net habitable square footage” is defined in SB 79 to mean the finished and heated floor area fully enclosed by the inside surface of walls, windows, door, and partitions, and having a headroom of at least six and one-half feet, including working, living, eating, cooking, sleeping, stair, hall, service, and storage areas, but excluding garages, carports, parking spaces, cellars, half-stories, and unfinished attics and basements.
February 18, 2026, City Council Staff Report
SB 79 Ordinance Amendments
Table A: Attributes and Development Potential for SB 79 Eligible Lots Development Parameters Applied to Atherton
To understand the shape and form of potential development on Atherton SB 79-qualifying lots, staff used modeling exercises and identified four specific development components that the Town could use as tools to control the resulting built form. Staff then shared these models and highlighted the tools at a public workshop held on January 20, 2026. The following are the standards that were used to set and test the modeling parameters:
• Density. 120 du/ac density was set as the absolute maximum. The Town could consider raising this amount as an incentive to comply with more restrictive height and massing standards; however, a project could also accomplish that effort through the state’s density bonus project. Therefore, staff has not recommended raising the maximum density. • Height. 75 feet was set as an absolute maximum for initial models. The Town could raise this amount, in exchange for the lowering of building heights where they are adjacent to property lines shared with single-family neighbors.
• FAR. A 3.5 FAR was set as the absolute maximum. The Town could consider raising this amount, in exchange for the lowering of building heights or providing greater setbacks along property lines shared with single-family neighbors. • Setbacks. Setback standards provide the greatest flexibility, because they are not regulated by SB 79 and can be maximized to buffer development from adjacent R1-A and R1-B lots.
Additionally, the Town can establish setback standards according to lot size with one set of standards applying to lots less than one half acre (99 Victoria Lane) and the other set for lots larger than one-half acre.
Staff examined a series of alternatives that modeled potential development envelopes guided by the interplay of the above components. Given the Town’s existing standards for RM-40, staff first applied the RM-40’s 40-foot setback on all sides to test the FAR and height. However, the 40-foot setbacks pushed the massing above the 75-foot height limit. This is demonstrated in Figure 2.
February 18, 2026, City Council Staff Report
SB 79 Ordinance Amendments
Figure 2: Modeling RM-40 Setback Standards
To fit below the height limit, staff then tested models that located the built form closer towards a street frontage, while also lowering the side and rear setbacks. An example of this approach, which guided a large part of the community workshop, is illustrated in Figure 3, using a one-acre lot as an example. Please note that the models illustrate maximum development envelope and not a potential building.
Figure 3: Modeling Development Potential
This model in Figures 2 and 3 is based on a real property, 110 Glenwood, which is a useful test case given its regularized shape and location as a corner lot at the intersection of Laurel Street and Glenwood Avenue. Staff also modeled 99 Victoria, given it is the smallest lot and its corner location presents on-site circulation challenges. Using a corner lot with two street-facing frontages February 18, 2026, City Council Staff Report
SB 79 Ordinance Amendments
as an example, the alternative potential development envelopes shown in Figure 3 use differing front and side/rear setbacks while accommodating the SB 79 mandated FAR and are able to be accommodated within a 75-foot height limit.
As staff proceeded with the examination of the above controls, consideration was also given to the following development issues:
• Street Frontage. A primary reason for SB 79 is to implement transit-oriented residential development that enables greater potential for pedestrian access. Without street frontage standards, developers may apply their own choice of street frontage improvements which could result in an incongruous streetscape and pedestrian realm. Therefore, staff has applied minimum requirements for street frontages to include sidewalks widths that will accommodate lighting and street trees. The Town is in the process of updating the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan with recommended sidewalk improvements at the frontages of SB 79 lots.
• Site Access. Consideration was given to adequate access points and dimensional requirements for service vehicles and resident vehicles. In the initial stages of developing the draft development standards, Town staff met with the Fire Marshall to gain input. • Parking. Staff anticipates that the scale of development will result in underground or structured parking to accommodate the allowed density. However, the standards also include setback requirements to address above-grade surface parking.
Initial Public Feedback
The public workshop was held on January 20, 2026, to receive feedback on the modeling and contribute to the development of SB 79 additional standards. The workshop was conducted in a hybrid format, with both Zoom and in-person participation, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Approximately 10 members of the public attended in person and six attended via Zoom.
The presentation was divided into three sections. The first section provided the project schedule key milestones for achieving HCD review and approval in advance of the enactment of SB 79 on July 1, 2026, and an overview of the SB 79-related development implications for building heights, minimum residential density, and floor area.
The second section of the workshop used diagrams to illustrate how development would be implemented under the SB 79 standards for height and base FAR. As noted above, two parcels, 110 Glenwood and 99 Victoria were used as examples due to their unique shape, size, and orientation within Atherton. The final section of the presentation provided alternative development scenarios with alternative setback dimensions and the corresponding development implications for massing, building height, and distribution of the FAR-required buildout. The illustrations were used to prompt workshop participants to consider and discuss which controlling features are more important: Setbacks, Building Height or FAR.
Workshop participants understood the importance of maximizing setbacks for multiple reasons, including privacy and adherence to the development character of Atherton. However, there was no measurable support for achieving greater setbacks if it could only be achieved by allowing greater height or allowable floor area as incentives. Therefore, as staff continued to prepare the February 18, 2026, City Council Staff Report
SB 79 Ordinance Amendments
draft development standards after the workshop, the methodology for meeting State-mandated development requirements for density, height, and FAR, was to establish the greatest possible setback distances, while ensuring adequate pedestrian-oriented frontages.
Additional concerns expressed by workshop participants follow, with an updated response from staff in italics.
• Would the setbacks be reduced on smaller parcels to accommodate the mandated FAR? Yes. The draft ordinance establishes differing setback standards based on lot sizes – lots
0.5 acres or smaller have different setback requirements than lots that are larger than 0.5 acres.
• Is there a possibility that in the future, more lots would be eligible for SB 79 if BRT improvements are implemented on El Camino Real?
Yes. That would become a possibility if there is a dedicated transit lane. That decision, if made by SamTrans, would include a long lead time and give the Town more time to address changes to the AMC specific to the expansion of SB 79 to a broader extent of El Camino Real.
• How would SB 79 projects count towards the Housing Element? Affordable dwelling units could count towards the Town’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) for the current or future cycles. However, for a project to count towards the Town’s RHNA requirement, there must be an issued building permit.
During the workshop, staff shared the anticipated hearing schedule for this effort, consistent with what has been outlined in this report. Members of the public are encouraged to contact staff throughout this process to provide rolling feedback.
The presentation and recording of the workshop are provided on the Town’s Multi-Family Housing Webpage. This website will be updated throughout this project:
https://www.athertonca.gov/672/Multi-Family-Housing
Planning Commission Direction
The draft ordinance was reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission at its January 28, 2026, meeting. A link to the staff report is provided as Attachment 3. During the discussion of the item Commissioners understood staff’s approach to developing standards with the prioritization of maximum setbacks. However, the Commission discussed that the required allocation of open space could be overly permissive and lead to privacy and noise conflicts with adjacent R1 development. Ultimately, Commissioners Polito, Tonelli, Leugers and Levison voted to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed standards and directed staff to further evaluate the proposed open space standards, including potential privacy impacts on adjacent residential properties, overall project feasibility, and a review of comparable open space development practices. Commissioner Seabolt voted against the recommendation with concerns relating to the allowance of any open space. An overview of open space standards analysis is provided in the “Proposed Development Standards” section below.
February 18, 2026, City Council Staff Report
SB 79 Ordinance Amendments
Proposed Development Standards
Since the January 28, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, staff has revised the draft ordinance to incorporate Commissioner feedback, including revisions to the open space standards and has made minor refinements for consistency and clarification. This section lists the development standards included in staff’s proposed amendments to the Atherton Municipal Code (AMC) and provides a summary or explanation for each requirement. The full text of each standard is provided at Attachment 4. These standards are based on the preliminary analysis and standards set by the state, with consideration of community concerns and comments received at the community workshop. Staff prepared the draft ordinance, which is provided as Attachment 4. • Purpose. A preliminary section asserts the locational and approval regulatory requirements set by the state, under which Chapter 17.59 was prepared. Since the Planning Commission meeting staff has added language to assert this section only applies to SB 79 qualifying lots that are located within one-quarter (¼) mile of the Menlo Park Caltrain station. If the applicability of SB 79 broadens, the Town will need to revisit standards accordingly.
• Characteristics of the District. This section provides the minimum development standards set by the state, including building density and affordable housing requirements for proposed development.
• Height. The maximum height is 75 feet, in line with State-mandated SB 79 requirements.
But applies the Town’s methodology for the measurement of height and treatment of dormers.
• Setbacks. Front setbacks are fifteen feet and include frontage requirements for improvements to facilitate pedestrian circulation. For lots 0.5 acres or smaller, the side and rear setbacks are 25 feet; for lots larger than 0.5 acres, the side and rear setbacks are 40 feet. These dimensions are necessary to ensure the FAR allowance is not pushed above the height limit. Additionally, staff revised this section to require all non-impervious areas between the sidewalk and a building frontage to be landscaped and maintained. • FAR. The maximum floor area ratio is 3.5, in line with State-mandated SB 79 requirements.
• Site Design. This section of the Chapter provides standards for vehicle access, including dimensions for ingress and egress to below grade parking, driveway dimensions, and the visibility triangle; pedestrian access, including pathways and access to building entries; and streetscape design, including minimum requirements for sidewalks, streetlighting and street trees. This section is built from the Town’s existing standards for multifamily development and modified to address the more intense scale of development.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff has adjusted the required distance between the location of any vehicle entries and street intersections from 200 feet to a minimum of one hundred (100) feet. This adjustment reflects the practical implementation of this standard given the size of the lots currently subject to SB 79. • Open Space Design. This section establishes development and design standards for open space, a common standard for multifamily development. There are two types of open space; common open space is shared by residents of a development, and private open space is specifically tied to individual dwelling units. Standards for both categories address issues including privacy, setback distances, landscape screening, lighting, and the February 18, 2026, City Council Staff Report
SB 79 Ordinance Amendments
permitted locations of balconies and decks. The Town does not currently apply open space requirements to other zoning districts, as required setbacks typically provide front, side, and rear yard areas that accommodate open space needs. Based on direction from the Planning Commission at its January 28, 2026 meeting, staff analyzed and revised this section.
To evaluate the open space requirement, staff conducted research into the open space standards employed by other jurisdictions, including Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Mateo, and Campbell. While each jurisdiction applies a different approach to open space requirements, these standards all take an approach that requires a minimum amount and generally seek to balance resident livability with development feasibility at higher densities. Open space requirements for these jurisdictions are provided in Table B, below.
Table B: Open Space Minimums in Neighboring Communities Jurisdiction Open Space Minimum
Menlo Park Twenty-five (25) percent of lot area, includes setbacks, walkways, and landscape areas.
Redwood City Three hundred (300) square feet per unit, open space must be usable.
San Mateo Grants a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus up to a maximum of 0.3 in exchange for open space features such as landscaping and recreation spaces.
Campbell Ten (10) percent of net lot area.
Staff also re-evaluated the approach of setting a maximum amount of open space rather than a minimum. Staff found that while minimum usable open space requirements are common to ensure support for resident well-being, maximum open space limits are not typical in high-density zoning given existing market and regulatory incentives to maximize the floor area of the units. The proposed development standards presented in Attachment 4 reflect this direction.
Finally, staff re-evaluated the proposed standards related to privacy impacts on neighbors and upper-level setback distances for sightline and noise impacts. These were determined to be realistic and would not affect project feasibility given the setbacks required from shared property lines.
Following this analysis and evaluation, staff determined that an approach to providing open space as a percentage of lot area can provide sufficient common and private open space proportional to the scale of development. This approach maintains development feasibility and addresses the Planning Commission’s concerns that the amount of open space would increase the size of a project. The revised draft ordinance establishes a minimum open space requirement of ten (10) percent of the “net lot area.” This is a change from the draft ordinance reviewed by the Planning Commission that directly tied the provision of open space to a square-foot-minimum for each proposed unit.
Staff also recommends that AMC Chapter 17.60 be amended to include definitions for:
o “Open Space”
o “Common Open Space”
o “Private Open Space”
• Landscaping. This section provides standards for the location and planting of landscape materials and links landscape screening adjacent to R1 lot lines to the existing zoning chapter 17.50.
February 18, 2026, City Council Staff Report
SB 79 Ordinance Amendments
• Façade Organization. The potential development associated with SB 79 lots will implement buildings that have the potential to be taller, broader or both when compared to the existing built form of the Town. This section of the proposed standards provides rudimentary rules for the façade organization of taller buildings. Specifically, standards are provided for the vertical and horizontal organization of building facades. These standards do not attempt to impose a design style on proposed development, but rather, provide organizational order to building façades. Horizontal standards implement a base, middle, and top for proposed buildings. Vertical standards define a system of modules and bays across a building façade.
• Building Massing. This section provides standards and massing features to regulate the perceived bulk of proposed buildings. Standards are provided for the maximum length of a building façade and the tools for modulating the length. Allowed features to modulate the primary mass include building projections, building recesses, upper level step backs, and tower elements, which are allowed to be implemented on building corners or midfaçade. Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff has revised this standard to allow massing features to encroach into the required setback up to a maximum of five (5) feet.
This clarifies that the primary building façade shall be maintained at the setback line. • Entries and Openings. This section provides standards for residential entries, either to individual dwellings or to a shared lobby entrance. The standards are based on the Town’s existing RM-20 and RM-40 standards. Additional standards are also provided for window openings and privacy requirements for windows on upper floors. Since the Planning Commission meeting, Staff has revised this standard to allow required frontage typologies to encroach into the required setback up to a maximum of five (5) feet. Staff has also revised this standard to require a common entry to provide access to all residential units located above the ground floor.
Previously, the standards required all units to be accessed from a common entry. This amendment clarifies that ground-floor units may be accessed from individual, private entries. The provision of individual entries at the ground level can help to articulate a more active pedestrian-scaled frontage at the ground floor level.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff revised the upper-floor window requirements to include translucent glazing as an option for achieving a fifty-four-inch minimum sill height for all windows facing an adjacent R-1 lots. • Facade Materials. This section lists prohibited materials and is similar to regulations in RM-20 and RM-40 regulations. Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff amended this section to provide that any change in material on a building’s façade must occur at an interior corner.
• Roof Details. This section provides standards to regulate roof feature and equipment screening and is similar to regulations in RM-20 and RM-40 regulations. • Site Lighting. This section provides standards for the lighting of landscape and other site areas and is similar to regulations in RM-20 and RM-40 regulations. • Accessory Buildings and Structures. This section is similar to regulations in RM-20 and RM-40 regulations, although specific dimensions are recalibrated to SB 79 development.
Standards are provided for location of accessory structures and specific requirements for trash and recycling enclosures as well as mailboxes.
February 18, 2026, City Council Staff Report
SB 79 Ordinance Amendments
• Parking. This section provides standards for the design of parking garages, bicycle parking requirements, and requirements for Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) analysis.
Similar to the RM-20 and RM-40 requirements, incentives are provided to place parking underground. Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff amended the bicycle parking requirements to align with Green Building Code requirements.
Additionally, to ensure that density assignments are based on a reasonable assumption for developable lot area, especially for flag lots, an amendment to AMC Section 17.60 would add a definition for net lot area and net habitable square feet.
FINDINGS:
Chapter 17.18 of the AMC sets the process for zoning code amendments whereby the Planning Commission adopts a resolution with recommendations to the City Council. The Council will then approve, conditionally approve, or deny the zoning amendments. To approve the amendments the Council must find that the changes are consistent with the Town’s General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs, as identified below:
Housing Element Goal 3.710 Facilitate the private development of housing to meet the above moderate income housing need identified for
Atherton.
Housing Element Objective 3.711 Realize the construction of approximately 150 net new housing units in the above-moderate income category in
Atherton from 2023-2031.
Housing Element Policy 3.712 Within the limitations of the private housing market the Town shall work with private developers to encourage
new housing development.
Housing Element Goal 3.760 Encourage special consideration to the maintenance and expansion of housing opportunities for handicapped and
low- and moderate-income homeless persons.
Housing Element Objective 3.761 B. Support the conservation and development of affordable housing for citizens of modest means.
Housing Element Goal 3.770 Meet the needs of seniors, in light of the pending growth of this population in San Mateo County
Housing Element Policy 3.772 B. Support the conservation and development of affordable housing for seniors with lower incomes.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction and feedback at this meeting, which will be incorporated into the ordinance prior to the second reading. Following incorporation of Council direction, staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Atherton Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.59 and amending Chapter 17.60 to establish development standards consistent with Senate Bill 79 and applicable State law.
February 18, 2026, City Council Staff Report
SB 79 Ordinance Amendments
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The project is Categorically Exemption per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15305 relates to Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations, as the ordinance amendments would not result in any changes to land use or density already approved by the state.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with this agenda item being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in print and electronically. Legal advertisement of this hearing was published in The Almanac newspaper. Notice of this hearing was also mailed to all property owners within the Town. Information about the project is also disseminated via the Town’s electronic News Flash and Atherton Online. There are approximately 1,200 subscribers to the Town’s electronic News Flash publications. Subscribers include residents as well as stakeholders – to include, but be not limited to, media outlets, school districts, Menlo Park Fire District, service provides (water, power, and sewer), and regional elected officials.
FORMAL MOTION:
I move that the City Council introduce and conduct the first reading of an ordinance adding Chapter
17.59, “Regulations and Objective Standards for Development Projects Sought Pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.157 (Senate Bill 79),” and amending Chapter 17.60, “Definitions,” of the Atherton Municipal Code, based on the findings and reasons outlined in the Staff Report.
/s/Brittany Bendix
Brittany Bendix, Town Planner
/s/Tom Ford
Tom Ford, AICP, Senior Planner
Attachments:
1. Senate Bill 79 Legislation Text
2. City Council Study Session, link to agenda, video, and staff report, December 3, 2025 https://atherton.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=2404
3. Planning Commission Meeting, link to agenda, video, and staff report, January 28, 2026 https://atherton.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=2475
4. Administrative Draft Ordinance and amended definitions