|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
When Atherton City Council came together for a study session on Wednesday, Nov. 2, afternoon to discuss how to respond to the state’s feedback on its draft housing element, one council member urged his fellow members to do more to try to satisfy the state’s demands.
The town received a letter from the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on Monday, Oct. 31, noting that the town is overestimating how many Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and duplexes it will help produce over the next eight years. Council member Bob Polito said that town staff and consultants told the council “from day one” that the plan would not be approved by HCD. He said HCD’s response was essentially giving Atherton an “F” grade.
{video 100 2871}
The council included multifamily housing overlays in an earlier version of Atherton’s draft housing element, which must plan for 348 additional units under the state’s 2023-31 Regional Housing Needs Allocation, a jump from the 93 units it was assigned the previous cycle. The council scrapped those multifamily housing plans in July following complaints from residents about a shift away from life as a single-family home community.
“Am I the only one of our council members that thinks there should be consideration of a Plan B instead of moving forward with something that’s going to fail again?” he said. “We’re just kicking this can down the road.”
Council members Elizabeth Lewis and Bill Widmer worried in September that a Plan B with multifamily overlays would undercut its current ADU-focused plan. Council member Diana Hawkins-Manuelian, like Polito, also wanted to see backup plans.
“I’m like a lot of people that think the state is ‘overreaching’ into local land use issues with SB 9 (et al) and the entire RHNA process, and that maybe the next election cycle will include some relief via referendum,” Polito said in an email to The Almanac after the meeting. “But I think there is real danger for the town to not make every effort to produce an approved housing element, and do so promptly.”
Polito said “YIMBY” group lawsuits, invalidation of the town’s general plan and threats of so-called builder’s remedy projects that sidestep local zoning rules all pose “significant risk” for Atherton. He said his colleagues now need to consider a Plan B that will almost certainly include multifamily housing.
Polito, who stepped in last year to fill in when former Vice Mayor Mike Lempres moved to Paris, is not seeking office this fall and will leave the council in December. He has said that he believes a handful of well planned, high-quality multifamily projects would be vastly better for the town than the plan the council currently supports. He said in September that he would support his fellow council members in the current draft housing element until the state rejects the submission.
“Trying to achieve the state’s requirement of 348 new housing units via SB 9 lot splits and hundreds (literally) of new ADUs with as little as a 4 feet setback to a neighboring property will generate negative consequences throughout the town that are way beyond what anyone realizes,” he said in a Sept. 7 email.
Widmer said he thought the town’s grading was more likely a “C-.” He said it seems the state mostly wants more details and analysis completed.
“Parts of the letter are overly harsh,” he said. “Some parts are an overreach on their (the state’s) part.”
Mayor Rick DeGolia said he was “pleasantly surprised” by the content of the letter, agreeing with Widmer that it seemed like the state is focused on the town gathering more analysis.
“The council has judged that if a developer must purchase land in Atherton, then it is nearly impossible to deliver affordable housing because the cost of land is so expensive,” DeGolia said in an email. “That leaves Atherton with the opportunity to enable affordable housing with multifamily development on school properties and to create programs to incentivize people to build and rent ADUs at affordable rates.”
DeGolia said it remains to be seen whether this strategy will succeed, but he described it as the “best (and only) bet” to provide affordable housing in an area with high land costs.
At the Nov. 2 meeting, Lewis asked staff if there had been any traction on lawsuits against the state by any coalition and what punitive actions the state has taken against jurisdictions without achievable plans.
Town Attorney Mona Ebrahimi acknowledged Lewis’ frustration with the increased housing quotas, but courts seem to be backing HCD.
“There’s nothing promising I could tell you that would lessen the burden,” Ebrahimi said.
Town consultant Barbara Kautz said the results are much worse if the courts take over the process. Kautz said the press and courts have portrayed cities and counties unhappy with their RHNA numbers as “the bad guys.”
Consultant Diana Elrod has been following the housing element process for years and said that the town’s letter this year was average length. Letters are about eight times longer than they were in the past, they said.
During the public comment period, City Council candidate Greg Conlon, said he doesn’t understand why the council hasn’t “raised hell” about its assigned number of units being too high.
“Somebody needs to take a hard look at those numbers,” he said.
Multifamily housing
Planning Director Lisa Costa Sanders said that, based on the letter, HCD wants Atherton to add multifamily housing, by right, with objective design standards.
A staff report notes the town may need to revisit multifamily overlay zone sites and additional sites for housing as part of the resubmitted housing element in order to reach compliance.
HCD considers a density of at least 20 units per acre as a “default” density that counts as meeting affordable housing requirements; however, the town isn’t required to zone for density at that level to achieve certification. The town can create density at lower levels, provided that the town is able to show projects at these lower densities are feasible for affordable housing production under RHNA.
The following were previously considered and approved locations for zoning overlays by a majority the City Council:
• The property at 23 Oakwood Blvd., approximately 1.52 acres which borders Redwood City, was set at 16 units per acre. It passed 3-1-1, with DeGolia voting no and Widmer abstaining.
• The property at 97 Santiago Ave., approximately 1.42 acres, was set at 6 units per acre. 3-2, with Lewis and DeGolia opposed.
• The property at 170 Atherton Ave. in West Atherton, which is about 4 acres, was set at eight units per acre. Three council members voted yes, while DeGolia and Hawkins-Manuelian abstained from voting.
• The property at 290 Polhemus Ave. near Alameda de Las Pulgas and Stockbridge Avenue, is approximately 5 acres, was set at eight units per acre. The overlay was approved unanimously.
ADUs and SB 9
Town staff note that Atherton will also be required to create an ADU monitoring and reporting program to show affordability success. Staff has already explored this with the local nonprofit HIP Housing, which provides home sharing services.
The town expects to have its ADU resident survey completed in early December, said City Manager George Rodericks.
DeGolia said he is 100% “Yes in My Backyard,” referring to building ADUs, not the pro-housing movement of the same name.
Kautz said the town faces the issue of whether ADU units fall into the low-income housing category. She also noted that HCD is “very suspicious of any community claiming a significant number of SB 9 units.”
SB 9, the state duplex law that took effect in January, requires local agencies to grant ministerial approval to certain lot splits and up to two primary units on each resulting lot, with 4-foot minimum side and rear setbacks. SB 9 projects do not need to be approved by the Planning Commission or City Council, and are handled by town staff without discretionary review or a hearing.
The state may demand to know exactly where those units are going to be located, and may not accept the plan without multifamily zoning at 20 units per acre.
Next steps
The City Council will have a special meeting on Thursday, Nov. 17, at 5:30 p.m. Staff will go through the HCD letter, paragraph by paragraph, to articulate what is being asked of the town; advise whether the requests are grounded in state statute; and determine how the town can address the issues raised in the letter, Rodericks in an email. From that meeting, there will likely be some policy direction questions raised by council that staff will need to analyze and report back to the council on before the council provides direction.
During a second study session on Thursday, Dec. 15, the council will try to narrow down the policy issues that will then be presented at a couple of community meetings and distributed neighborhood meetings.
“The hope is to work toward a refined document for adoption at the end of January and submission to the state,” Rodericks said. “But, if we don’t get there, we’re at least well on our way toward more public engagement, refined and committed policies, and a document in the works.”
Read HCD’s letter to Atherton here.
Watch the Nov. 2 meeting here:
The wealthiest zip code in America ignores state law, is hostile to public transport, and even disallows sidewalks or bike lanes on extremely busy roads like El Camino.
Yet they want to use the public schools, trains, and other higher density amenities of their neighbors.
Definition of selfish, and unneighborliness.
Maybe they can build dense housing in Holbrook/Palmer park? lol
Kudos to the Atherton Town Council for working to find an acceptable solution.
Those who try to impede this effort should realize that if the Council does not have an approved solution by Jan 31, 2023 then the “builder’s remedy” kicks in. This is a 1990 amendment to the Housing Accountability Act informally called the “builder’s remedy” which says that “noncompliant cities must allow housing at any density and any height, anywhere in the city, as long as at least 20% of the new homes are affordable.”
“All Bay Area cities have until Jan. 31, 2023, to certify a compliant housing element. Until last week, many cities, including San Francisco, incorrectly assumed they had a “grace period“ of a further 120 days before penalties started.
They don’t.
These cities will likely be unprepared to submit a compliant plan before Jan. 31. If that happens, builder’s remedy applications would open on Feb. 1.”
“Maybe they can build dense housing in Holbrook/Palmer park? lol”
Not a bad idea, and could be what this is coming to. It’s actually the only “fair” solution given this crazy law.
Thoughtful:
I don’t honestly know where else there is land available in Atherton that could house the density. There’s several acres on Atherton Ave. that are for sale, but you can be guaranteed the neighbors will file lawsuit after lawsuit to stop it from going in there.
How about buying properties on El Camino to make up the difference of what was submitted to the state that they liked and would approve, Refine that number, It may be minimal, There are parcels next to commercial as a place to start, Then offer to buy any contiguous parcels at market value, or at a bonus value, and or other incentives for property owners who choose to sell, Such as some form of tax relief on their next property or anything the Town has control over. Some people may choose to sell, Some people may choose to stay. It should be voluntary. Include FAR incentives for their next property etc. Then build those properties at medium density. Then resell those contiguous properties at what may be a little less than market rate, but gets the job done, Send out notices to all property owners now to get a preliminary response. Lots of parcels on El Camino,
I don’t know but does the state give any incentives for building units on high-traffic and bus routes
Did the state already give a number of how many units they will be short after the last proposal?
“There’s several acres on Atherton Ave. that are for sale, but you can be guaranteed the neighbors will file lawsuit after lawsuit to stop it from going in there.”
I don’t think filing lawsuits is going to be an effective strategy to hold this off.
I think of this more like a Prisoner’s Dilemma. Today there are a few acres available on Atherton Avenue. Next year it will be another area, and before you know it, the street you live on or even adjacent to your home.
Before it comes to that, Atherton should bite the bullet and re-zone the park.
“Before it comes to that, Atherton should bite the bullet and re-zone the park.”
Under the terms of the gift to the Town if that park stops being used as a park or is used for housing then it reverts to Stanford University.
Buy it from Stanford. Puts the $35M put into the Town Center into perspective. Which is going to affect residents more?
The park is 22 acres and at current market prices would be worth more than $150 million.
Let’s see mp build affordable housing on its open and park space. Oh wait, our council prohibited that.
Let’s see mp set the example and remove the restrictions for building affordable housing on its open spaces and park spaces.
@Menlo Voter, Sharon Heights or billionaire’s way along Sandhill Rd would be ideal places to start. “Lol.”
Private Citizen:
Sand Hill would actually be pretty good place, of course it would require rezoning. And government subsidies as land and construction costs preclude it it being done without subsidies.
“HCD considers a density of at least 20 units per acre as a “default” density that counts as meeting affordable housing requirements”
I thought the figure in our Metropolitan Area is 30 du/acre. Is Atherton under a different standard?
You can see how the State is encouraging cities to zone for density under false pretense. Market rate units at 20du/acre are still luxury units. House Silicon Valley while pretending to create opportunity for lower income families.
If the State really wished to be fair and create true affordable units it could do as it does with one of the builder’s remedies. It could require the 20du/acre overlay to be all-affordable (deed restricted) to moderate income levels. Simply create a state recognized “AHO” affordable housing overlay, that allows the high-density but only when it is deed restricted.
Athertonians may still howl if such a project is built but at least it will be occupied by the correct target market, and if the land economics of Atherton don’t lend itself to housing for moderate incomes, then Atherton won’t have to undergo an endless State beat down to pretend that it does.
California is pushing for Denmark’s housing policy under an American tax regime.
Housing as a human right requires massive subsidies. In expensive Bay Area towns we can ask if those subsidies would be spent most efficiently. So the AFFH goal of income integration clashes with the real goal of housing production.
Count me in for the referendum.