Atherton planning commission forwards SB 79 implementation ordinance to council with open-space refinements

The Atherton Planning Commission voted on Jan. 28 to recommend that the City Council adopt a draft ordinance to implement Senate Bill 79 on seven identified parcels in town, while directing staff to refine open-space language and rooftop setbacks before council consideration.

Senior Planner Tom Ford told commissioners the town must adopt development standards and transmit them to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) promptly so the town’s ordinance can be reviewed by HCD ahead of the July 1 SB 79 deadline. "We want to have an ordinance in place on July 1," Ford said, and staff aims to deliver an adopted ordinance to HCD by April 1 to allow up to 90 days for state review.

Ford summarized SB 79 requirements and the town’s approach: the state overrides some local height, density and floor-area limitations for eligible parcels within a quarter mile of a Caltrain station; for those parcels Atherton must allow at least 75 feet in building height, a maximum baseline of 120 dwelling units per acre (the state minimum maximum), and a baseline FAR in the 3–3.5 range depending on parcel type. Projects must develop at least 30 units per acre to qualify for benefits of SB 79 and must include affordable units at levels specified in state law; average unit size may not exceed 1,750 net habitable square feet.

Staff identified seven parcels eligible under the statute and proposed a local code (draft chapters referenced in the staff report) that uses local controls wherever the state allows discretion — for example, setbacks, sidewalk widths, landscaping, entry design, open-space calculations, facade modulation, and rooftop orientation — while explicitly preserving the ability for a parcel to reach the state-prescribed densities and heights. Ford said the town set the local maximums at the state minimums (120 du/acre and 75 feet) and proposed design standards to encourage articulation, screening, underground parking and pedestrian frontage.

Much of the commission’s discussion focused on open space: whether to require minimum on-site open space, to limit the amount, and how to treat rooftop or elevated open space facing adjacent R1 lots. Commissioners raised concerns about privacy and noise; staff proposed an 80-foot setback from R1 lot lines for elevated open space, screening and possible time limits on rooftop use. "If we require a minimum, and we say you can't put any of it on the roof, we could potentially run the risk of not allowing them to get to 120 dwelling units per acre," Ford said, noting tradeoffs and how density-bonus concessions interact with open-space concessions.

Commissioners also discussed parking strategy (no minimums within a quarter-mile transit area under state rules, but a proposed maximum of 1.25 parking spaces per unit including guest spaces), likely need for underground parking economics on small parcels, and handling for flag lots by calculating net developable area.

After public discussion and several commissioners urging caution on rooftop open-space language, a motion was made to forward the draft ordinance to the City Council "with the qualification that staff take a closer look at the wording associated with open space" and to refine those sections (including rooftop setback, screening, and minimum vs maximum standards). The motion passed with four votes in favor and one opposed.

The recommendation sends the draft chapters to the City Council for first reading and further public hearings; staff said they will bring the ordinance back for council readings in February and March and then transmit the adopted version to HCD for review.

Next steps: the Planning Commission’s recommendation will be included in the Feb. 18 council packet for first reading and public comment; staff emphasized that any substantive changes after submittal to HCD would require restarting the HCD review process.