|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
At the conclusion of a five-hour meeting that at times got rowdy with staff asking members of the public to stop interrupting on Wednesday evening, Oct. 16, the Atherton City Council unanimously voted to adopt the third version of the town’s housing element update. The city will now submit it to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
The HCD has rejected two previous versions of the town’s housing elements, which were submitted in summer 2022 and January 2023. HCD told Atherton in September that it had to finalize a revised housing element to submit to the state by the end of the council’s Oct. 16 meeting or face consequences such as monthly fines ranging between $10,000 and $100,000, ineligibility to receive state funding and grants, and the loss of all local land use authority.
When discussing whether to remove some of the properties from the plan on Wednesday night, Mayor Diana Hawkins-Manuelian said that “you have to weigh the individual rights of the people whose houses (are nearby), and believe me, that breaks my heart.”
“But you have to weigh the fact that if we start to incur $50,000 a month, we’re putting the entire city’s finances in jeopardy,” she said. “There’s a whole bunch of hammers and more coming.”
‘But you have to weigh the fact that if we start to incur $50,000 a month, we’re putting the entire city’s finances in jeopardy.’
Atherton Mayor Diana Hawkins-Manuelian
Council member Rick DeGolia said that the council was forced to act in response to feedback from residents during the meeting who asked the council to delay a vote on the plans.
“Nobody should have any imagination that we want to be authorizing multifamily housing,” he said. “We’re doing this because we’re required to.”
After tweaking the town’s housing element plans over several meetings during the last month, the council landed on a final housing plan, which includes the following notable elements:
- A 10-unit per acre multifamily zoning overlay applied to eight sites throughout the town, which are currently zoned for single-family housing, as well as the Gilmore house in Holbrook-Palmer Park, the Menlo Circus Club and land owned by Cal Water;
- Twenty-unit and 40-unit per acre multifamily zoning overlays applied to school sites and open space sites throughout town. The town expects these overlays, along with the 10-unit per acre overlay, will create 96 units of housing, 71 of which are projected to be affordable at the low and very-low income levels;
- Programs to encourage the construction of ADUs throughout the town. The town expects ADUs to create 208 units of housing throughout the town, 124 of which are projected to be affordable at the low and very-low income levels;
- Direction that the Gilmore House site be considered for the development of five or more units, with the provision that town staff clear any legal issues related to the underlying deed provisions on the site;
- Objective design standards for multifamily housing developments that restrict the maximum height of such developments to 34 feet, restrict the sidewall height of such developments at the front of the lot to 28 feet and the sidewall heights at the side setbacks to 21 feet;
- Ministerial review for multifamily developments that conform to town zoning standards and objective design standards.
In total, Atherton is planning for 433 units of housing throughout the town this eight-year cycle (2023-31), to provide a buffer for the state’s required regional housing needs allocation of 348 units.
The town is required to plan for multiple kinds of housing, including multifamily housing, in order to meet the state’s requirements to “affirmatively further fair housing.” In order to affirmatively further fair housing, Atherton cannot opt to place all of their multifamily rental housing on schools, private clubs and colleges — as the town previously attempted to do — because renters would have to be affiliated with those institutions to gain access to the housing.
Locations for multifamily housing
Though most decisions regarding the housing element update were made in the prior Oct. 2 meeting, the council had one last big decision to make: which sites throughout town will actually be included in the zoning overlay for multifamily housing?
Several single-family home sites were identified for inclusion in the 10-unit per acre multifamily zoning overlay. These sites include 197 Ravenswood Ave., 175 Ravenswood Ave., 185 Ravenswood Ave., 999 Ringwood Ave., 352 Bay Road, 318 Bay Road, 296 Bay Road and 23 Oakwood Blvd. The plans also include the Gilmore House property at Holbrook-Palmer Park, which will now be under the 10-unit per acre zoning overlay as well.
There are also sites on several school and college campuses included in the town’s housing element update — Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton; Menlo School; and Menlo College — for students and/or staff at a density of 20 or 40 units per acre, depending on the site. Several park and open space sites are also included in the housing element plans, such as a section of the Menlo Circus Club and California Water Service land, which are eligible to be redeveloped for staff members.
The three sites along Bay Road and the site on Ringwood Avenue have been subject to much discussion over the last few months of the housing element update process. When the housing element plans were reviewed by the Atherton Planning Commission on Aug. 28, commissioners recommended that the City Council remove those four properties from consideration for multifamily housing.
Multiple neighbors had complained to the planning commission and City Council about the possible unsuitability of those sites for multifamily housing due to the sites’ proximity to single-family homes, and the increase in traffic at that intersection.
Neighbors allege that the additional traffic coming in and out of multifamily homes would add to safety issues for kids biking and walking to the several schools located nearby.
“I feel like we are not addressing the No. 1 concern: the safety of these children,” said Elizabeth Jenson, an Atherton resident who lives one street away from the four Bay Road and Ringwood Avenue properties. “(I am afraid) that you are adding more (traffic) to a place that is already congested, that is already unsafe. … We are not protecting our children by building these multifamily housing (units) on these four lots at the corner.”
The town’s environmental analysis of the sites found that traffic and noise would not be an issue at those four sites, or that the traffic issues could be mitigated. However, several residents commented saying that they believe that the town’s analysis did not accurately assess the impacts of the sites, given that several large developments, such as Menlo Park’s Parkline development on the SRI campus and educator housing project on the former site of the Flood School, are expected to be built.
Atherton City Attorney Mona Ebrahimi said that the town could not mandate that new applicants fix an issue that is pre-existing, such as the traffic that already troubles the intersection of Bay Road and Ringwood Avenue. Another issue is that Atherton does not have rights for Bay Road or Ringwood Avenue, as both roads are under Menlo Park’s jurisdiction. This limits the mitigation that Atherton can do on either road.
Town pPlanner Brittany Bendix had said in the staff report for the meeting that planning staff was not confident that the state would approve Atherton’s housing element if those four properties were struck from the plan, and urged the council to keep the four lots. Bendix said that if the council had opted to include more sites in the town’s environmental analysis, they would have more flexibility at this point in time.
“At the council meeting on Sept. 20, 2023, the council voted against staff’s recommendation to analyze more sites and to analyze sites at a (higher) density of 20 dwelling units per acres, which would have provided more options for removal,” she said.
The council also considered removing just the lot on the corner of the intersection, 999 Ringwood. Council members DeGolia and Bill Widmer each said that they met with planning commissioners separately before the meeting, and each council member said that planning commissioners regretted recommending the removal of all four properties, and if they could go back, would recommend the removal of just the Ringwood property. The council ultimately decided to deal with all of the properties as a block.
All five City Council members agonized over whether to include these four properties in the town’s housing plans.
“This is one of the hardest decisions that we are making,” said Vice Mayor Elizabeth Lewis. “I’ve been on the council for 16 years, and this is one of the hardest motions (to make).”
Mayor Hawkins-Manuelian agreed, saying that these properties “would not be the properties that I would pick,” but that she is more worried about state enforcement should HCD not approve the housing element.
The council ultimately unanimously voted to include the four properties in the list that will be subject to the 10-unit per acre zoning overlay, with the provision that town staff work with the town of Menlo Park to expedite the process of alleviating traffic impacts and improving bike and pedestrian safety at the intersection of Bay Road and Ringwood Avenue.
Gilmore House
The council also discussed how many units to place on the site of the Gilmore House in Holbrook-Palmer Park, where Atherton’s police chief currently resides.
At a meeting earlier this month, the council opted to limit the number of units of housing that could be built on the site to a maximum of four, despite the theoretical maximum that could be allowed on the site under the 10-unit per acre zoning overlay being nine.
The council reconsidered this stance at the Oct. 16 meeting, and opted to allow a higher number of units on the site.
“I believe that we have an obligation to show the town that we have some skin in the game,” said Widmer. “I’m not saying we’re going to develop it … but the opportunity to be developed, I think, should be there. I’m changing my vote to support (the higher) number.”
The Gilmore House is the only property owned by the town of Atherton that was eligible for multifamily housing.
Lewis said she was opposed to going above four units on the site, as it would “really change the character” of the park. DeGolia was worried about legal issues with the site’s deed. Olive Holbrook-Palmer deeded her family’s estate to the town in 1959 on the condition that the town only use it for recreational purposes, and that if the property ceased being used as a park, it would go to Stanford University.
Ebrahimi said that the town could consider seeking a court order to declare its rights to the property, which could mean the town could have the property free and clear of the deed restrictions.
The council voted 3-2, with DeGolia and Lewis in opposition, to change the phrasing to allow “five or more” units on the Gilmore House site. The council included the provision that town staff clear any legal issues related to the underlying deed provisions on the site before redevelopment.
Residents push back
Throughout the housing element update process, Atherton residents have pushed back against the prospect of adding more housing to the town, which has historically been zoned for only single-family homes.
“You’re going to vote tonight on something that’s going to likely devastate our privacy,” said Redwood City resident Tom Georgie, whose property backs up to 23 Oakwood Blvd. and has vocally opposed the project at past meetings. “That there isn’t more understanding from HCD on the process for Atherton, I think that’s maybe a leadership issue. I think you guys should be spending a lot of time trying to speak to Sacramento, because Atherton is not like any other city.”
‘You’re going to vote tonight on something that’s going to likely devastate our privacy.’
Redwood City resident Tom Georgie
Residents also accused the town and the town’s planning contractors, M-Group, of “fear mongering” about consequences from the state and urged the council to take more time on the plan, despite HCD giving the town a hard deadline of Oct. 16.
“I think you’re hearing loud and clear that this is not the right thing, nor is it the voice of your constituents,” said resident Warren Jenson.
Housing advocates have also pushed back against Atherton’s newest housing element plans. Jeremy Levine, the policy manager for the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County, said that the organization “appreciates the progress” Atherton has made, but believes that it is not enough.
“Despite the progress the town has made, Atherton’s housing element continues to rely on indefensible assumptions, undermining the effectiveness of the plan and preventing the city from meeting Atherton’s full housing needs,” wrote Levine in a letter to the City Council.
Levine suggests that the town is overestimating the affordability of ADUs, and exaggerating the development potential of school sites. He also suggests that the limited rezoning of single family homes fails to truly affirmatively further fair housing in the exclusive town.
HLC, which aims to expand the range and supply of adequate, accessible, and affordable housing for residents and county workers, suggests that Atherton could remedy some of these issues in the future by selecting more sites to rezone at a density of 20 or 40 units per acre. It also suggests removing constraints on housing by loosening zoning restrictions for multifamily properties and promoting ADUs by allowing more ADUs on lots over one acre.
Next steps
Atherton planning staff will implement all changes requested by the City Council at the Oct. 16 meeting. After a seven-day public review period, where the fully updated housing element document is made public, Atherton staff can then submit the document to HCD.
Atherton City Manager George Rodericks said that once the full housing element package is submitted to HCD, the department will review it and provide the town with a formal comment letter. This process is expected to take 45 to 60 days.
HCD could find that the town is in “substantial compliance,” meaning that it could suggest no or minimal revisions to the town’s housing plans. In which case, the town will have to begin immediately implementing all of the programs, policies and goals laid out in its housing element. Atherton is only shielded from builder’s remedy proposals — a state provision that allows developers to streamline building application processes and bypass local land-use regulations if a city does not have a compliant housing element — once the housing element is fully certified by the state.
On the other hand, HCD could find that Atherton’s newest housing element draft is not in substantial compliance with state requirements. In this case, the department would provide the town with a formal comment letter outlining the changes that need to be implemented for the housing element to be approved.
If HCD once again rejects Atherton’s housing plans, the town would need to return to discussions with the planning staff, City Council and the planning commission to address the comments made.
Excellent article, Eleanor. It was well-written and covered the story in detail.
Ditto to Tom’s message above. Eleanor, thank you for the excellent coverage!