Atherton introduces SB 79 ordinance to allow higher-density development near Menlo Park Caltrain station
Loading...
Summary
After an extended presentation and debate, the council introduced an ordinance to amend Atherton’s municipal code to implement SB 79 for seven parcels near the Menlo Park Caltrain station; the first reading passed and staff will submit the draft to HCD for review ahead of the July 1 effective date.
Atherton Town Council introduced, as amended, an ordinance to implement Senate Bill 79 standards on seven parcels within a quarter mile of the Menlo Park Caltrain station, and found the ordinance exempt from CEQA.
Town planner Britney Bennix led a comprehensive presentation explaining SB 79’s core statutory requirements: "So what is SB 79? It overrides our Atherton ability to have zoning limitations for denser buildings, particularly if they are within a quarter mile of a pedestrian entry to the Menlo Park Caltrain Station," she said, and noted the law requires allowing building heights up to 75 feet, a maximum density of no less than 120 dwelling units per acre and a minimum floor area ratio of 3.5. Bennix also explained the average unit size cap (1,750 square feet) and affordability options available under the statute.
Because SB 79 prescribes density, height and FAR minima, staff said Atherton's available local controls are setbacks, parking, access, open space and design standards. Staff proposed a 15‑foot front setback for street frontages, differentiated side/rear setbacks next to R‑1 parcels, a 10% minimum common/private open space requirement, limitations on balconies and patios facing R‑1 lots, and façade articulation standards (base/middle/top, modules and towers) intended to break large facades into human scale.
Council probed technical and neighborhood impacts across several topics: parcel‑by‑parcel yield modeling (noting small parcels such as 99 Victoria could qualify with as few as 10 units), sidewalk and edge‑treatment obligations, potential noise from mechanical equipment, parking (no state minimum is permitted within the quarter mile, so the town may set maximums and performance incentives), and safety/fire access constraints that could limit buildable height on constrained sites. Staff repeatedly cautioned that HCD review could redline the draft and that HCD interpretation and future guidance might require further changes.
Council members debated amenity rules and privacy protections. Several members urged prohibiting rooftop pools or open upper‑story active recreation that would expose neighbors to noise, while staff said pools and similar features can count toward the open space minimum but active recreation has setback limits (for example, no active recreation within 40 feet of an adjacent R‑1 lot line). Council discussed approaches to ensure affordability units are comparable in size and amenities to market units.
A motion to introduce the ordinance as amended and to find it exempt from CEQA was made and seconded; the council then confirmed the motion in a formal roll‑call sequence where the clerk recorded "yes" votes from Council Member Lane, Council Member Widmer, Elizabeth Lewis, Vice Mayor DeGolia and the Mayor. Staff said the ordinance will return for second reading on March 18 and that staff aims to submit the draft to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by April 1 so HCD review can be completed before the July 1 implementation deadline.
Council members expressed differing views about the statute’s effects; one councilmember said the laws are "development time bombs" that risk undermining neighborhood character and recommended using the ordinance to preserve as much local oversight as possible and to press state elected officials for changes. Staff noted practical limits imposed by building and fire codes that may prevent certain parcels from achieving the theoretical maximums under SB 79.
