Atherton planning commission reviews 2024 housing-element progress, sees ADU and SB 9 production ahead of pace

Town Planner Britney Bendix told the Atherton Town Planning Commission on a timely-call meeting that Atherton’s 2024 Annual Progress Report on the 2023–2031 housing element shows the town is broadly on track to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals.

The report, which the town files annually with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), summarizes building permits, planning approvals and completed units, then breaks production down by income category and by unit type such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs). “This is the report that we then submit to HCD,” Town Planner Britney Bendix said, adding the submittal format is a regimented spreadsheet the state requires.

Bendix told commissioners the town recorded 10 units in the very-low category in 2024, and that Atherton has a goal of 26 ADUs per year — a pace the town met in 2024. She also reported early activity under SB 9: the town anticipated 24 SB 9 applications to meet moderate and above‑moderate RHNA needs; to date the town has 10 SB 9 approvals, five outstanding applications and about five additional potential applicants who have discussed projects with staff.

Why it matters: RHNA and the housing element are the principal metrics HCD uses to assess whether jurisdictions are producing enough housing at varying income levels. Bendix warned that if a jurisdiction falls behind, HCD may scrutinize both the production numbers in Table B and the program language in the housing element; in severe cases HCD has rescinded certifications for larger jurisdictions. “HCD will look at Table B, will take a glance at how we’re doing on our actual numbers. And then if there looks like there’s some delay … they’ll start looking in at the programs,” Bendix said.

Commissioners asked for clarification about how ADUs are being counted when owners report the units will be used by family members or unpaid household employees. Bendix said those self‑reported survey responses suffice to count non‑deed‑restricted units under current housing law, but noted legal and review pressure could lead HCD or local practice to require stronger documentation in the next housing cycle. “It is very likely in our next housing cycle that we actually have to have some sort of deed identification, notification restriction,” she said, referring to ongoing policy discussions and a 2023 grand jury review in San Mateo County.

The commission also discussed the housing-element mid‑cycle check‑in timing that Atherton included in its program schedule. Bendix said the town expects planning-commission review of 2027 annual progress in February 2028 and city-council consideration in March 2028, with any council direction for revisions targeted for a September 2029 ordinance submittal if rezoning or subsequent environmental review were required. Commissioners questioned whether that schedule left sufficient time to respond to a shortfall; Bendix said the mid‑cycle timing was decided earlier by council and that HCD intervention would accelerate the timeline if the state judged production to be substantially deficient.

Bendix reported that the revised housing element language the commission reviewed last month was approved by the city council and posted online for a seven-day period before the town submits it to HCD; she said HCD then has 60 days to respond. She described three relatively minor edits made after commission review: added analysis on Menlo College and Sacred Heart sites to confirm infrastructure and access, additional narrative addressing concerns from a housing leadership coalition about objective design standards for RM‑10/RM‑20/40 programs, and insertion of the word “alternatives” in the SB 9 mid‑cycle language to provide flexibility.

Commissioners and staff also discussed program‑status language in Table D (program implementation). Bendix explained Table D pulls descriptive program wording directly from the housing element and that some entries read “ongoing” because the program language uses that phrasing; she said the town spent much of 2024 developing program specificity to avoid vague “ongoing” entries that HCD could view as insufficiently actionable.

Bendix said the town continues to rely on ADU production as a locally achievable source of lower‑income unit capacity because Atherton has a strong historical ADU production record; that history helped justify state acceptance of a 26‑ADU‑per‑year expectation during HCD review. She also noted that the RM‑10/RM‑20/40 programs and several public‑open‑space sites (including parcels associated with Menlo College and Menlo Circus Club) were identified as potential sources of additional units, but that some property owners (including the utility Cal Water and other site owners) had told staff they do not currently plan development.

No action was required of the commission at the meeting; Bendix said the next steps are for the city council to direct staff to submit the updated element to HCD after the required posting period. She also told commissioners the city manager’s office is planning a joint council‑commission study session on inclusionary housing and the nexus study, likely in April, before staff takes any changes back to council.

The meeting also included a procedural item under which the commission allowed remote participation for Commissioner Paul Tonelli due to an illness; Chair Michael Lane moved to permit remote voting and the motion was seconded. Commissioner Paul Tonelli stated he would abstain on that particular roll‑call vote but participated remotely for the remainder of the meeting under the town’s emergency teleconferencing practice described by staff.