Atherton planning commission recommends council adopt housing-element revisions responding to HCD comments

On Jan. 29, 2025, the Atherton Planning Commission voted 3-0 to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve revisions to the Town of Atherton general plan housing element and limited municipal code changes intended to respond to a Dec. 30, 2024 comment letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Town planner Brittany Bendix told the commission, “Our recommendation tonight is that the planning commission adopt a resolution that recommends that the council adopts these revisions to the Atherton general plan and municipal code to comply with the Dec. 30, 2024 letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development or HCD.”

The commission’s recommendation covers several narrowly described edits staff said are intended to secure HCD’s finding of substantial compliance so the housing element can be certified. The changes staff outlined include adding site-plan analysis for two nonvacant properties cited by HCD (Menlo School and Sacred Heart), expanding redevelopment indicators in housing-element tables, clarifying ministerial approval paths for multifamily standards in RM‑20 and RM‑40 zones when projects provide at least 20% lower-income units, and some program-language updates.

Most significant in practice, staff said, are the new exhibits and short explanatory text meant to “show our work” to HCD on why certain existing institutional sites and other nonvacant parcels are suitable for some multifamily yields. Consultant Asher Cohn said HCD “wanted us essentially to show our work to add more information there,” and staff added map exhibits and 2–3 sentences of explanatory context in the housing element (staff indicated the site-plan discussion appears in attachment B, pages 92–94).

Staff also said Table HE‑17 was modified to add columns (staff identified the new columns as “redevelopment indicators” appearing on attachment B, pages 97–99 and 102) to document factors a developer might consider, such as improvement-over-land-value ratios, building age, developer interest and pre‑development floor‑area ratios. A separate cross-reference to Table HE‑18 was used to show where assessors’ data were not available and are marked “not applicable.”

In addition, staff added language clarifying two approval paths in the PFS (public/semipublic) zones: a ministerial path consistent with the housing element assumptions for RM‑20 and RM‑40 standards when projects meet the element’s affordability targets, and a discretionary conditional‑use path for other multifamily proposals. Staff said the municipal‑code edits that capture that change are in attachment D and that the main housing‑element edits are on pages 119–120 of attachment B.

Other program changes described to the commission include added context about the Clovis decision and its application to Atherton (section 3.42, staff note), a revision to program 3.811(b) to identify alternatives for an SB 9 mid‑cycle check‑in, and a suggested objective for program 3.812 to document that the town has already achieved an 8‑unit objective for extremely low income households through its annual progress reporting (APR); staff indicated those references appear in attachment B around pages 176–181.

Bendix told the commission staff will meet with HCD before the council hearing and that the town has some flexibility to fine‑tune text before the council’s Feb. 19 hearing. If the council adopts the changes, staff said the package would be submitted to HCD for review; HCD then has 60 days to respond, per staff. Staff also noted the legal requirement that code changes still require council hearings (an introduction/first reading on Feb. 19 and a likely second reading in March).

Public commenters raised site‑specific concerns. A caller identified as Mr. Riddle of 97 Frederick Avenue said the town had not addressed “the request from the state to provide further information on the public facilities and services available to suitable inventory sites,” and argued that some proposed RM‑10 sites on Bay Road lack transit and nearby services. He also urged removal of 999 Ringwood Avenue from the rezoning and housing‑element inventory on safety and circulation grounds, saying, “There are no services. There’s no public transportation.”

Another speaker who identified himself as Doug, a Menlo Park resident and longtime member of that city’s planning commission, said, “My concern is traffic,” and described heavy peak‑period turning movements near Bay Road and Ringwood that he said would worsen with additional units. A third commenter, Zach Whitman of Selby Lane, said the “presence of services is irrelevant” to some residents who lack cars and argued that transportation access should not be a disqualifier.

Commissioners discussed those public comments and repeatedly flagged two broader issues: neighborhood traffic and the risk of a builder’s‑remedy application during the state review window. Commissioners noted the commission had previously recommended removing some Ringwood and Bay Road parcels from the inventory and that the council and HCD conversations were more advanced than commission members had realized. Staff said the commission’s recommendation and the staff package would be transmitted to council along with public comments.

A motion to adopt the resolution recommending council adoption of the amendments to the general plan and municipal code carried 3‑0, with two commissioners absent. Chair Terri Lane announced the item will go to the City Council on Feb. 19 for introduction and first reading; staff indicated the council’s second reading is likely in March, after which the full package will be submitted to HCD for its 60‑day review.

The commission’s action is procedural: it recommends limited edits and supporting exhibits intended to address HCD’s December letter. The revisions are described by staff as modest in page count (staff said they changed “maybe 10 pages at most” of the attachment) but targeted to document the town’s methodology and provide the additional site analysis HCD requested. The town now awaits the council hearings and the state review period.