Atherton City Council
October 16, 2024

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
October 2024
190

3.841 Shared
Housing
The Town will continue to support the Human Investment Program (HIP), a non-profit organization that matches people needing housing and people owning a home who desire additional income and/or companionship. The Town will make information about the Home Sharing program available at Town Hall and will publicize the effort on the Town’s website. The Town will mail information on the program to all property owners in Town. The Town projects 1 home share match each year.

Timeframe: Ongoing. The Town hosted a homesharing event in 2023 Agency Responsible: Planning Department, City Manager
Funding Source: General Fund
AFFH Metric: Eight homeshare matches (lower-income households) during planning period, beyond the Quantified Objectives of this housing element.

Addresses AFFH Issue A: Lack of housing that accommodates lower income households

3.842 Housing
Compliance and
Monitoring
The Town will partner with the County or other jurisdictions to share housing staff or hire a third party to manage the Town’s affordable housing portfolio. This will be an important task in helping Atherton lay the groundwork for an effective affordable housing compliance and monitoring process.

Timeframe: Ongoing. The Town shares a dedicated housing planner with a coalition of jurisdictions within San Mateo County. Pending state-certification of the Housing Element and initiation of affordable housing programs, this partnership will facilitate management of the Town's affordable housing portfolio.

Agency Responsible: Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council, City Manager
Funding Source: General Fund

3.843 Water and
Sewer Providers -
Priority for Affordable
Housing
Water and sewer service providers must establish specific written procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Upon adoption and certification of this Housing Element, the Town will send the document to water and sewer service providers in Atherton.

ATTACHMENT 1

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
October 2024
191
Timeframe: Within one month after Housing Element certification Agency Responsible: Planning Department, Building Department, Planning Commission, City Council, City Manager
Funding Source: General Fund
Reason for Inclusion: Meeting State and HCD requirements

3.844 (A) By-Right
Permanent
Supportive Housing
The Town will revise the zoning code to allow Permanent Supportive Housing as a by-right use in zones where multifamily and mixed-uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651. To be consistent with AB 2162, the Town will allow by-right 100% affordable housing that has 25% or 12 units of permanent supportive housing, where multifamily or mixed-use housing is permitted.

Timeframe: Revise zoning code by end of 2024
Agency Responsible: Planning Department, Building Department, Planning Commission, City Council, City Manager
Funding Source: General Fund

3.844 (B) By-Right
Low-Barrier
Navigation Centers
The Town will revise the zoning code to allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers to be a use-by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65660.

Timeframe: Revise zoning code by end of 2024
Agency Responsible: Planning Department, Building Department, Planning Commission, City Council, City Manager
Funding Source: General Fund

3.844 (C) Approval of
Mobile Homes and
Manufactured
Housing
The Town will revise the zoning code to ensure mobile homes and manufactured housing on a permanent foundation are approved in the same manner as single-family homes.

Timeframe: Revise zoning code by end of 2024
Agency Responsible: Planning Department, Building Department, Planning Commission, City Council, City Manager
Funding Source: General Fund

3.845 Zoning, Fees
and Other
Development
The Town will continue to ensure that all fees, zoning requirements and development standards are posted on the Town’s website, updating regularly, pursuant to Government Code section 65940.1(a)(1).

ATTACHMENT 1

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
October 2024
192
Standards
Transparency
Timeframe: Ongoing. The Town includes all program information on its website
Agency Responsible: Planning Department
Funding Source: General Fund

3.846 (A) PubliclyOwned Sites:

Gilmore House
The Town will promote housing development on the Gilmore House site in the Town-owned Holbrook-Palmer Park. Procedures to develop housing shall be consistent with the Surplus Land Act to provide affordable housing developers a right of first refusal (AB 1846). The process will include the following milestones:
• Solicit proposals and conduct a feasibility study to assess site (end of December 2024)
• Issue RFP for affordable (moderate or lower income) on Gilmore House site (end of July 2025)
• Seek to complete development of up to four units of housing (end of December 2028)
Timeframe: As per bullets in lists above
Agency Responsible: Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council, City Manager
Funding Source: General Fund
AFFH Metric: Develop up to four units of multifamily housing on Gilmore House site.

Addresses AFFH Issue B: Predominance of single-family housing Reason for Inclusion: Meeting HCD requirements to give timeline for development and committing to an AFFH metric to meet HCD requirements

3.846 (B) PubliclyOwned Sites: Cal
Water Site
The Town will collaborate with Cal Water to facilitate the development of their property in Atherton (APN: 073-192-060) with affordable housing. Procedures to develop housing shall be consistent with the Surplus Land Act to provide affordable housing developers a right of first refusal (AB 1846). Continue to meet with Cal Water and facilitate development of housing with incentives as appropriate. Incentives could include:
• Waivers from development standards as necessary to
develop housing
• Priority development processing
• Facilitating communication with housing developers
Timeframe: Ongoing
Agency Responsible: Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council, City Manager
ATTACHMENT 1

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
October 2024
193
Funding Source: General Fund
Reason for Inclusion: Meeting HCD requirements to give timeline for development ATTACHMENT 1

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
October 2024
194

PROMOTING HOUSING MOBILITY
In addition to meeting RHNA through quantified objectives, as shown in Table HE-36, Atherton has several housing element AFFH-focused programs that promote housing mobility by improving equitable access to opportunity, addressing Atherton’s fair housing issues as defined in Section 3.390: Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Town Actions. Promoting housing mobility primarily improves Fair Housing Issues A (lack of lowerincome housing) and B (diversity of housing types). Fair Housing Issue C (high land acquisition cost) is a lower priority and programs addressing this fair housing issue can enable more productive programming options for future cycles, as there are simply few opportunities for a small jurisdiction to mitigate the high land acquisition costs within its boundaries.

Due to the small size of the town and lack of distinguishing fair housing characteristics between its neighborhoods, there is no program-by-program geographic targeting.

Some programs (such as multi-family residential overlays and SB 9 lot splits) target specific parcels and will have a neighborhood effect. But because the fair housing issues are so acute throughout the town, as described in sections 3.320 through 3.380, there is no area of Atherton that requires more mitigation than other areas of the town.

Through Program 3.811 (C), the Town is committed to facilitating the development of 96 multifamily units at the following affordability levels:
• 57 for Very Low income
• 14 for Low income
• 25 for Moderate Income
Other notable programs with specific commitments towards promoting housing mobility, increasing housing choice and affordability throughout the city, include:
• Program 3.811 (B) – SB 9 Implementation: 24 SB 9 lot splits • Program 3.812 (A) – ADU Construction: 208 ADUs to be developed (186 affordable units and 22 market-rate units)
• Program 3.812 (B) – Deed-Restricted ADUs: 18 ADUs deed-restricted to lowerincome households (as part of 186 affordable units identified in Program 3.812 (A))
• Program 3.815 – Unit Rehabilitation: 4 rehabilitated units • §Program 3.841 – Shared Housing: 8 shared home agreements ATTACHMENT 1

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
October 2024
195

3.900 EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Extensive public engagement is an essential component to the housing element update process. During this Planning Period, Atherton held several public meetings to discuss the proposed strategies with the community. The Town also partnered with 21 Elements and the Let’s Talk Housing effort to engage with current and potential beneficiaries of housing programs and services and their advocates (e.g., lower income representatives, tenants of affordable complexes, groups targeted for special housing needs consideration, community-based organizations, health and human service providers, homeless shelter and service providers) in the update process. The participation of development professionals including local buildings, for and nonprofit developers, architects, trade labor unions, realtors, mortgage bankers and brokers, area lenders and others have been invited to participate.

The Town also created a Housing Element webpage to advertise meetings, post resources, the Draft Housing Element and a portal to provide public comments.

The community outreach effort coordinated with 21 Elements included virtual community meetings and webinars on the following topics: Introduction to the Housing Element, All About RHNA Webinar, Stakeholder Listening Sessions and Creating an Affordable Future webinars (four-part series).

In addition to the 21 Elements coordinated outreach efforts, the Town held several public meetings to discuss Housing Element programs, policies and strategies as follows:
• City Council meeting on November 4, 2020 to discuss the RHNA allocation process.
• A Joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council was held on April 28, 2021 to discuss key strategies to meet the RHNA obligation. • City Council meeting held on January 12, 2022 to refine the housing element strategies.
• City Council meeting on February 24, 2022 to discuss the housing element strategies.
• City Council meeting on March 16, 2022 to discuss the housing element strategies.
• City Council meeting on May 18, 2022 to review comments from the community outreach meeting and further discuss the housing element strategies.
• Special City Council meeting on May 24, 2022 to provide further direction on the housing element strategies.
• City Council meeting on July 19, 2023 to discuss multi-family sites ATTACHMENT 1

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
October 2024
196
• City Council meeting on September 20, 2023 to further discuss multi-family sites and environmental analysis
• Special Planning Commission and City Council study session on April 25, 2024 to discuss Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements • Planning Commission meetings on July 24, 2024 and Augst 28, 2024 to review CEQA analysis, Housing Element and Zoning Code updates and provide recommendations to City Council
• City Council meetings on September 18, 2024, October 2, 2024, and October 16, 2024 to review CEQA analysis, Housing Element and Zoning Code updates before sending Housing Element update to HCD for review and certification.

The Town held a public engagement/discussion meeting in the evening on April 26, 2022.

A special edition of the Town newsletter was prepared and physically mailed to every address in Town describing the proposed Housing Element programs and announcing the community meeting. The event was also promoted through the Town’s email newsletter list, Town website and posted at the Town’s Civic Center. Approximately 60 community members attended. An open discussion/engagement format was used rather than the typical presentation/public hearing and response format. Community leaders (City Council members and others) mixed with community members to discuss a wide variety of housing issues. Some engagement issues included:
• Education on the magnitude of the challenge facing the Town, the need for collaborative solutions, and the impact of non-compliance. • Issues relating to a proposed multifamily overlay zone, proposed locations and details about the zoning district.
• Some community members truly want to solve the housing problem by adding or registering their ADU or JADU.
• Other community members were interested in being a part of the proposed multifamily overlay zone.
• Questions were raised about how the multifamily overlay zone works for numbers of units produced.
• Better definition of how a density bonus works.
• There were concerns raised about aesthetics and design, however that was not a primary issue for most.
• There was a lingering issue about diminished property values; single-family home adjacent to multifamily complex.

The meeting eventually transitioned to a question-and-answer format, which was helpful, but only after an extensive engagement format which provided an opportunity for education and discussion.

ATTACHMENT 1

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
October 2024
197
Key lessons from the meeting were that senior housing is an important topic for residents.

Many residents feel passionately that they want to continue to live in Atherton as they age. Some are worried that their current houses do not meet their needs and are looking for options to stay.

The Draft Housing Element was published on the Town’s website for a 30-day public review and comment period on June 10, 2022. Notice of the availability of the document was provided via email to Housing Advocates, published in the Almanac Newspaper and announced to residents via the Town’s e-notify system and social media outlets. The City Council, at its June 15, 2022 regular meeting discussed comments they have received individually and provided an opportunity for the public to provide comments.

During the 30-day public review period, the Planning Commission held a Special meeting on June 23, 2022 to receive comments from Commissioners and the public. The Town received over 300 written comments on the Draft Housing Element in addition to verbal comments provided at the meetings listed above.

At the July 20, 2022 City Council meeting, the Council discussed public comments received on the Draft Housing Element and directed staff to revise the Draft Housing Element to incorporate public feedback. Specifically, with respect to the overwhelming public comments in opposition of the multi-family overlay concept, the Council directed this program be removed from the Element. Council also requested revisions to several housing programs as suggested by the Housing Leadership Council, including expanding the Accessory Dwelling Unit program.

The City Council, at its July 27, 2022 Special meeting reviewed the revised Draft Housing Element and authorized transmission to HCD for its preliminary review and comments.

Public meetings on the housing element were re-initiated in 2024. A Planning Commission/ City Council workshop was held on April 29, 2024 to discuss new revisions regarding sections 3.100, 3.200, 3.300, and 3.600 – focusing on issues of feasibility, fair housing, and geographic equity. An additional ADU-focused workshop took place on May 20, 2024. The revised housing element (including revisions directed at the April 29 and May 20 meetings) was presented to Planning Commission on July 24, 2024 and August 28, 2024 for recommendation on adoption alongside Zoning Code changes and new Inclusionary requirements. These documents were then brought to City Council for adoption on September 18, 2024.

ATTACHMENT 1

Town of Atherton 2023-2031 Housing Element – DRAFT
October 2024
198

APPENDICES

1. 21 Elements Resident Survey Analysis, 4/14/2022

2. ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report - Atherton

3. AFFH Atherton Map and Data Packet

4. San Mateo County-wide Housing Needs Final Report, 11/3/2021

5. Electronic Housing Element Site Inventory Form

6. Menlo College Faculty and Staff Housing Considerations ATTACHMENT 1

ATHERON MUNICIPAL CODE

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
OCTOBER 16, 2024
Text in Red reflects changing to existing (Black) text.

Chapter 17.30 USE DISTRICTS DESIGNATED

17.30.080 Zoning Overlay Districts
A zoning overlay district allows for specified uses to be developed on lots with an underlying zoning designation. The uses of land allowed by an overlay zone in each zoning district are listed in tables by zoning district category in subsequent chapters of this division. For the purposes of this title, the town is divided into the following classes of overlay districts as shown on the maps hereinafter included by reference:

A. Parker Avenue Overlay Districts (P)
B. Multifamily Overlay District (RM-10)
C. Multifamily Overlay District (RM-20/40)
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Chapter 17.32 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT R1-A

17.32.030 Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
Table 17.32.030-1 (Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for Residential District R1A) identifies the allowed uses in the R-1A zoning district subject to the development standards of this chapter and all other provisions of this title. Allowed use provisions are symbolized in the table as follows:

P =Land use permitted by right
CUP=Land use permitted with approval of a conditional use permit Table 17.32.030-1. Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for Residential District R-1A
Land Use
Zoning District
R-1A
Single-family dwelling1,3 P
Employee housing4 P
Group homes for persons with
disabilities
P
Home occupations P
Mobile and manufactured
housing8
P
Multifamily residential5, 6, 7 P
Second dwelling unit 2 P
Single room occupancy P
Churches and places of worship CUP
Public utilities or facilities CUP
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Notes:
1 Includes associated accessory uses, accessory buildings, and accessory structures (Note: Garages are accessory buildings).
2 Subject to compliance with section 17.32.040 (Development Standards) and chapter 17.52 (Accessory Dwelling Units).
3 Includes residential care facility (defined as a facility serving six or fewer persons).
4 Agricultural employee housing for six (6) or fewer employees shall be treated as a single-family structure pursuant to California Health and Safey Code Section 17021.5.
5 Shall only be permitted on lots with a Multifamily Overlay District (RM-10) designation. Subject to compliance with objective design standards in section 17.35 (Multifamily Overlay District RM-10).
6 Pursuant to Government Code Section 65651, a 100% affordable housing development that provides 25% of its total units, or 12 units, as permanent supportive housing, is principally permitted within the multifamily overlay. 7 Pursuant to Government Code Section 65660, a low-barrier navigation center is principally permitted on any parcel within the multifamily overlay. 8 Mobile homes and manufactured housing shall be constructed on a permanent foundation.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Chapter 17.33 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT R1-B

17.33.030 Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
Table 17.33.030-1 (Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for Residential District R1B) identifies the allowed uses in the R-1B zoning district subject to the development standards of this chapter and all other provisions of this title. Allowed use provisions are symbolized in the table as follows:

P =Land use permitted by right
CUP=Land use permitted with approval of a conditional use permit Table 17.33.030-1. Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for Residential District R-1B
Land Use
Zoning District
R-1B
Single-family dwelling1,3 P
Employee housing4 P
Group homes for persons with
disabilities
P
Home occupations P
Mobile and manufactured
housing5
P
Second dwelling unit 2 P
Single room occupancy P
Churches and places of worship CUP
Public utilities or facilities CUP
Notes:
1 Includes associated accessory uses, accessory buildings, and accessory structures (Note: Garages are accessory structures).
2 Subject to compliance with section 17.33.040 (Development Standards) and chapter 17.52 (Accessory Dwelling Units).

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

3 Includes residential care facility (defined as a facility serving six or fewer persons).
4 Agricultural employee housing for six (6) or fewer employees shall be treated as a single-family structure pursuant to California Health and Safey Code Section 17021.5.
5 Mobile homes and manufactured housing shall be constructed on a permanent foundation.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Chapter 17.34 PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT (POS)

17.34.030 Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
Table 17.34.030-1 (Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for POS District) identifies the allowed uses in the POS district subject to the development standards of this chapter and all other provisions of this title. Allowed use provisions are symbolized in the table as follows:

P =Land use permitted by right
CUP=Land use permitted with approval of a conditional use permit Table 17.34.030-1. Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for POS District Land Use
Zoning District
POS
Agriculture P
Ecologic study P
Employee housing2 P
Group homes for persons with
disabilities1
P
Multifamily residential 1, 4 P
Permanent supportive housing1, 3 P
Public park, recreation, or open
space uses
P
Single room occupancy 1 P
Uses of historic and cultural
value
P
Watershed land and
groundwater recharged land
P
Country clubs CUP
Home occupation CUP
Public utilities and facilities
uses and structures
CUP
Caretaker housing CUP
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

1 Shall only be permitted on sites with a Multifamily Overlay District (RM-10) designation. Subject to compliance with objective design standards in section 17.35 (Multifamily Overlay District RM-10).
2 Agricultural employee housing must comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5.
3 Pursuant to Government Code Section 65651, a 100% affordable housing development that provides 25% of its total units, or 12 units, as permanent supportive housing, is principally permitted within the multifamily overlay. 4 Pursuant to Government Code Section 65660, a low-barrier navigation center is principally permitted on any parcel within the multifamily overlay.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Chapter 17.36 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SCHOOLS DISTRICT (PFS)

17.36.030 Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
Table 17.36.030-1 (Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for PFS District) identifies the allowed uses in the PFS district subject to the development standards of this chapter and all other provisions of this title. Allowed use provisions are symbolized in the table as follows:

P =Land use permitted by right
CUP =Land use permitted with approval of a conditional use permit L/ER=Land use permitted with location and environmental review Table 17.36.030-1. Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for PFS District Land Use
Zoning District
PFS
Public library P
Public school P
Town corporation yard P
Town hall and associated
community uses P
Accessory dwelling unit in
conjunction with multifamily
residential uses
P
Emergency shelters P4
Multiple-family residential
uses that accommodate
housing for very low- and lowincome households
associated with primary
nonresidential use of property
on same site
P5
Single room occupancy P5
Churches and places of
worship
CUP
Convents CUP
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Country clubs CUP
Residential associated with
primary nonresidential use of
property on same site1
CUP
Private schools CUP2,3
Public utilities and facilities,
uses, and structures
CUP
Transportation terminal
facilities
CUP
Notes:
1 Examples include dorms or teacher housing associated with school site, convent when associated with religious institutions, etc. and not located on sites with a multifamily overlay.
2 Where a master plan for a private school has been prepared and filed with the town for public record, any application for a conditional use permit shall be compared to the master plan for consistency with that document. All building and/or faculty changes, improvements, or new construction shall require a conditional use permit.

To that end, all conditional use permit applications shall include the following:
a. Maps and diagrams showing the proposal in relation to the master plan layout; b. History of student and faculty growth and projections of future growth, including an analysis of that growth’s consistency with the master plan projections; c. A traffic and parking analysis of the proposal and comparison to the master plan projections;
d. A circulation plan showing how the traffic and pedestrian circulation will function upon implementation of the proposals; and
e. Other information that might be required for specific proposals, such as noise analyses, lighting plans, landscape screening plans, heritage tree locations, and other similar information.
3 In addition to other conditions of approval, the planning commission shall require the following items where relevant:

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

a. Identification of the approved uses and hours of operation; and b. Clustering of high intensity or noise-intense structures and uses (such as gymnasiums, theaters, athletic facilities) away from neighboring residential uses, where possible.
4 Emergency shelters shall be permitted only when located within the Town Civic Center property and pursuant to Section 17.36.060; defined as Lots 1, 2, 24, 25 and 26, Watlinton Park RSM (Resubdivision Maps) 5/8.
5 Where a master plan for a private school has been prepared and filed with the town for public record that includes multifamily residential uses that could accommodate housing for very low- and low-income households, such multifamily residential uses shall be subject to planning commission public hearing and review of the location, size, proximity to heritage trees and environmental aspects of the project but shall not result in the denial of the use.
5 Shall only be permitted on sites with a Multifamily Overlay District (RM-20/40) designation. Subject to compliance with objective design standards in section

17.36.070 (Multifamily Overlay District RM-20/40).

17.36.060 Standards for Emergency Shelter Operation
The objective and predictable standards listed below apply to emergency shelter operations permitted in the PFS District.

A. Size. Emergency shelters shall not exceed one thousand square feet in floor area.

B.A. Beds and Population. The maximum number of client beds permitted in each emergency shelter shall be three fifteen and the maximum client population permitted to be served nightly by the facility shall be threefifteen.

Any additional beds or population shall require a Conditional Use Permit.

C. Location. Each emergency shelter shall not be located within a one-thousandfoot radius of another emergency shelter.

D.B. Parking. Parking will be provided at a number sufficient to accommodate staff and will not exceed the required parking standards for other uses in the PFS zone. At least one standard size car parking space per emergency shelter bed shall be provided within fifty feet of the emergency shelter.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

E. Waiting and Client Intake Areas. On-site waiting and client intake areas shall be located within the emergency shelter and shall not exceed two hundred fifty square feet in floor area.

F.C. Handicap Accessibility. Each emergency shelter shall be completely handicap accessible.

G. On-Site Management. Space for on-site management shall not exceed five hundred square feet and shall not include more than two beds.

H.D. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be shielded or downlit so the source of light is not visible from other properties.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Chapter 17.35 MULTIFAMILY OVERLAY DISTRICT (RM-10)

17.35.010 Purpose.

This chapter establishes development standards for multifamily uses in the residential multifamily overlay zone with a density of up to ten (10) units per acre. The purpose of this chapter is to establish objective criteria for the evaluation of multifamily housing so that it can be permitted by right on specific parcels that are identified in this document and in the Housing Element of the General Plan, or on additional parcels as designated by the City Council.

17.35.020 Characteristics of the District.

The residential multifamily 10 overlay zone (RM-10) allows multifamily development of up to ten (10) units per acre on parcels zoned for single-family development (R-1A and R-1B), and park and open space (POS). To apply the standards within the RM-10 overlay zone a development must have a minimum lot area of one half (0.5) acre and include a minimum of five residential units exclusive of accessory dwellings units. Parcels zoned as POS shall be exempt from the minimum unit and lot area requirements.

17.35.030 Development Standards.

The approval of multifamily development on any parcel in the RM-10 overlay district shall be considered by-right when the proposed development is in compliance with these standards.

However, this does not preclude other actions that may require discretionary review (i.e. Lot Redesignations, Variances, or Special Structure Permits).

Accessory Buildings and Structures: see chapter 17.40.

A. Height
The maximum height for main buildings shall be thirty-forty (34) feet.

1. Vertical sidewalls and columns built at the setback line shall not exceed twenty-eight (28) feet at the front setback, and twenty-one (21) feet at the side and rear setbacks. Sidewall and column height can exceed these limits with an additional setback that is increased by a ratio of one (1) foot for each one (1) foot increase in height. See figure 17.35.030-1 (Sidewall Height).

2. Height measurement: see chapter 17.42.030.

3. Dormers can exceed the vertical sidewall height and shall be in compliance with development standards in chapter 17.32.040(A)(4)(a and b).

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Figure 17.35.030-1: Sidewall Height

B. Setbacks
A setback shall be required from all property lines.

There is an additional setback requirement on side and rear property lines that are adjacent to a parcel with an R-1 zoning designation. This requirement shall not apply if the adjacent parcel has an RM-10 overlay designation and is developed with a multifamily dwelling or has an active application for development of a multifamily dwelling.

Minimum setback requirements are:

1. Front Yard.

Main building, interior, and corner lots: thirty (30) feet minimum. Where the main building height at the front yard setback is more than twenty-eight (28) feet, the minimum front yard setback shall increase by a ratio of one (1) foot for each one (1) foot increase in height above thirty (30) feet. See figure 17.35.030-2 (Front Setback).

Up to ten (10) feet may be subtracted from the front yard required setback if an identical amount is added to the required rear yard setback.

On corner lots where two or more property lines face a public right-of-way, the property line with the greater length shall be considered the front.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Figure 17.35.030-2: Front Setback

2. Side Yard.

Minimum side yard requirements are shown in Table 17.35.030.B.2-1; however, where the main building height at the side yard setback is greater than twenty-one (21) feet, the side yard setback shall increase by a ratio of one (1) foot for each one (1) foot increase in height above twenty-one (21) feet. See figure 17.35.030-3 (Side/Rear Yard Setbacks).

Minimum side yards shall be required on each side of a lot as specified in the following Table:

Table 17.35.030.B.2-1. Minimum Side Yard Requirements
LOT WIDTH Minimum Side Yard
From To Standard R-1-adjacent*
170’ or over 20’ 40’
165’ 170’ 20’ 38’
160’ 165’ 19’ 36’
155’ 160’ 18’ 34’
150’ 155’ 17’ 32’
145’ 150’ 16’ 30’
140’ 145’ 15’ 28’
140’ or less 15’ 25’
* R-1-adjacent setback does not apply to parcels with an RM-10 overlay designation and existing or proposed multifamily development.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

3. Rear Yard.

Minimum rear yard requirements are shown in Table 17.35.030.B.3-1; provided, however, where the main building height placed at the setback is between twenty-one (21) and thirty-four (34) feet, the rear yard shall be increased by a ratio of one (1) foot for each one (1) foot increase in height. See figure 17.35.030-3 (Side/Rear Setbacks).

A minimum rear yard shall be required as specified in the following Table:

Table 17.35.030.B.3-1. Minimum Rear Yard Requirements
LOT WIDTH Minimum Rear Yard
From To Standard R-1-adjacent*
170’ or over 20’ 50’
165’ 170’ 20’ 47’
160’ 165’ 20’ 45’
155’ 160’ 20’ 43’
150’ 155’ 20’ 41’
145’ 150’ 20’ 39’
140’ 145’ 20’ 37’
140’ or less 20’ 35’
* R-1-adjacent setback does not apply to parcels with an RM-10 overlay designation and existing or proposed multifamily development.

Figure 17.35.030-3: Side/Rear Setbacks
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

C. Floor Area Ratio
The maximum floor area ratio shall be forty-five hundredths (0.45) of the lot size.

The floor area ratio can be increased up to an additional one-tenth (0.10) of the lot size, to a total of fifty-five hundredths (0.55), if all resident parking is below grade. Lots with a combining designation of POS shall designate a project site and floor area standards shall be applied. Habitable basement space and below grade parking shall not count towards floor area ratio.

D. Lot Coverage
The maximum lot coverage for buildings, including accessory buildings, shall be forty (40) percent of the lot size. The maximum coverage for all impervious surfaces, not including buildings, shall be twenty (20) percent. The maximum total coverage of all buildings and impervious surfaces shall be fifty (50) percent.

All parts of the lot not covered by buildings or impervious surfaces shall be covered by landscape area. All landscape areas shall be maintained reasonably free of weeds, litter, and debris. All planting shall be maintained in a healthy growing condition and, whenever necessary, replaced with plant materials approved by the town arborist to provide continued conformance with approved plans. All new screening plantings shall be provided with a water-efficient automatic irrigation system to be installed at the time of planting. Landscape areas shall not interfere with heritage tree protection.

On properties with an underlying POS zoning designation the lot coverage requirement shall apply to any area of the site that facilitates the development of multifamily housing, including ancillary buildings and structures.

Table 17.35.030.C-1
Lot Coverage
Building Impervious Surface Lot
40% 20% 50%
E. Site Design
Requirements for design of the site are:

1. All building entries, including garages and parking areas, shall be connected with a pedestrian pathway that is at least three (3) feet in width.

2. Pedestrian pathways are prohibited within ten (10) feet of a property line adjacent to a parcel with an R-1 zoning designation or a single-family dwelling in an RM-10 overlay, with no active proposal for multifamily housing.

3. The minimum distance between main buildings on the same lot is twenty (20) feet.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

4. Communal outdoor kitchens, pools, and playgrounds are allowed within the buildable area. Location of these features in required setback areas may be sought through a special structures permit.

5. Solid masonry walls or wood fencing shall be provided along all side and rear property lines with a height of eight (8) feet.

6. Vehicle Access.
a. An entry to an underground parking garage is allowed within the front setback. Any grade change resulting from an underground driveway approach shall be set back ten (10) feet from the property line. b. Surface parking shall not be allowed within any setback. c. If a vehicle entry gate is provided, it shall be set back from the front property line for a minimum of twenty (20) feet so as to provide a space for vehicle queuing.
d. The maximum driveway width shall be twenty-six (26) feet and in conformance with minimum requirements for waste and recycling removal.
e. Driveways shall conform to the requirements of the Fire Marshal. f. Driveway visibility. All driveways that intersect with a public right-of-way shall maintain a vision triangle delineated by sides of 10 feet along the right-of-way and 10 feet perpendicular to the right-of-way measured from the edges of the driveway. Within this vision triangle, structures, landscaping, and other obstructions shall have a maximum height of 3 feet. Trees are permitted within the vision triangle provided their canopy maintains a clearance of 6 feet above ground level.

7. Pedestrian Access.
a. A pedestrian entry gate shall be required if a vehicle entry gate is provided.
b. A paved pedestrian pathway shall provide direct access to all entries to a main building and connect with a public pathway.
c. Pedestrian pathways shall be demarcated from driveways with decorative paving materials that include brick, patterned or colored concrete, stone blocks, and pavers.

8. Streetscape Design.
a. A public pathway shall be provided for the full length of the front property line.
b. The pathway shall be a minimum width of five (5) feet. c. The pathway shall meet ADA requirements and be free from obstruction.
d. The pathway shall be designed in compliance with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

e. Any tree removal to accommodate a pathway shall be in compliance with heritage tree protections provided in chapter 8.10.

F. Landscape Screening
All property lines shall provide a landscape screening area in conformance with Chapter 17.50 and the standards in this section. Where standards conflict, the most restrictive standard shall apply.

1. Prior to the final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy (unless delay is authorized by the building official) all required landscape screening shall be installed in conformance with the approved plans. In the case of phased building construction, the town building official may permit phased installation of landscape screening. No other exception to this installation requirement shall be allowed, including any in lieu fee or deposit.

2. Plantings shall reach a minimum height of twelve (12) feet within three (3) years of planting.

3. All trees and shrubs shall be evergreen.

4. If the property line is screened with existing landscaping that is at least twelve (12) feet tall and provides opaque screening, no new landscaping is required.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

G. Building Massing
Minimum Building Massing requirements are:

1. The maximum aggregate length of all façade segments facing in a common direction shall not exceed one-hundred and twenty (120) feet per building, as measured wall-to-wall. Overlapping wall segments shall not be counted towards the aggregate. See Figure 17.35.030-4a (Maximum Aggregate Façade Length).

Figure 17.35.030-4a: Maximum Aggregate Façade Length

2. For any building façade facing the front of a lot and located on or within ten (10) feet of the setback, the maximum aggregate length shall be fifty-five (55) feet. Any portion of the front façade that causes the aggregate length to exceed fifty-five (55) feet shall be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet from the front setback line. See Figure 17.35.030-4b (Maximum Aggregate Façade on Front Setback).

Figure 17.35.030-4b: Maximum Aggregate Façade on Front Setback ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

3. For any building façade facing the side of a lot and located on or within ten (10) feet of the setback, the maximum aggregate façade length shall be sixtyfive (65) feet. Any portion of the side façade that causes the aggregate length to exceed sixty-five (65) feet shall be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet from the side setback line. See figure 17.35.030-4c (Maximum Aggregate Façade Length on the Setback).

Figure 17.35.030-4c: Maximum Aggregate Façade Length on Side Setback

4. Locations for Basements. The basement perimeter shall not exceed the buildable area defined by the setbacks of the lot. This shall include any below grade area used for vehicle parking.

H. Façade Design
Minimum Façade Design requirements are:

1. Primary entries: A primary entry provides access to one or more units from the exterior of a main building and shall not be counted as floor area. A primary entry shall conform to the following standards:
a. Any main building shall be limited to a maximum of four (4) primary entries.
b. Primary entries shall face the lot interior or front property line. c. A maximum of two (2) primary entries can face a public right-of-way. d. A primary entry shall not encroach beyond the setback line, awnings and eaves are exempt from this requirement.

In addition to the standards in H.1, a primary entry shall be designed in accordance with one or more of the five frontage typologies listed in standards H.2 through H.6, below. Frontage typologies can be combined in which case ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

all standards shall apply. If standards contradict, the most restrictive standard shall apply.

2. Common Entry: A common entry provides direct access to a lobby or common space on the ground floor, which provides access to individual units. See figure

17.35.030-5 (Common Entry).

3. Stoop: A stoop is a small, raised entry that shall provide direct access to no more than two (2) units. A stoop shall conform with the following standards.

See figure 17.35.030-6 (Stoop).

4. Porch: A porch is a fully covered structure that projects from or is included as part of the main building façade. A porch shall conform with the following standards. See figure 17.35.030-7 (Porch).

5. Patio: A patio is a private space outside the front door of a unit that is defined by a low wall or hedge extending from the façade. See figure 17.35.030-8 (Patio).

6. Frontage Court: A frontage court is an open-air space on the building frontage with primary entries oriented to the courtyard interior. A forecourt shall conform with the following standards. See figure 17.35.030-9 (Frontage Court).

7. Balconies or decks shall not be allowed on walls that face an adjacent property developed with a single-family dwelling, or on portions of any perimeter wall within twenty-five (25) feet of the setback line from an R-1 parcel. Roof decks shall not be permitted. See figure 17.35.030-10 (Balcony Placement).

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Table 17.35.030.H.2-1. Common Entry Requirements
Common Entry
Minimum Maximum
Depth 18 inches 4 feet
Width 4 feet 12 feet
Height (Clear) 8 feet 12 feet
Weather protection shall be provided with a projection or recession for a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches.

Figure 17.35.030-5: Common Entry
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Table 17.35.030.H.3-1. Stoop Requirements
Stoop
Minimum Maximum
Depth (Landing) 3 feet 8 feet
Width (Landing) 5 feet 8 feet
Width (Stairs) 4 feet 8 feet
Height (Landing) 1 foot 4 feet
Weather protection shall be provided with a projection or recession for a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches.

Figure 17.35.030-6: Stoop
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Table 17.35.030.H.4-1. Porch Requirements
Porch
Minimum Maximum
Depth 8 feet 15 feet
Width 15 feet 40 feet
Width (Stairs) 4 feet 8 feet
Height (Landing) 1 foot 4 feet
Height (Clear) 8 feet 12 feet
The entire porch area shall be covered.

Figure 17.35.030-7: Porch
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Table 17.35.030.H.3-1. Patio Requirements
Patio
Minimum Maximum
Depth (Landing) 5 feet 8 feet
Width (Landing) 15 feet 24 feet
Height (Landing) No Minimum 1 foot
Height (Fence/Wall) 1 foot 4 feet
A patio shall provide direct access to no more than two (2) units.

Figure 17.35.030-8: Patio
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Table 17.35.030.H.6-1. Frontage Court Requirements
Frontage Court
Minimum Maximum
Depth 15 feet 30 feet
Width 25 feet 40 feet
Height (above grade) No Minimum 1 foot
A frontage court shall provide direct access to no more than four (4) units.

The height of sidewalls facing the courtyard shall not exceed a 2:1 ratio to its depth or width.

Figure 17.35.030-9: Frontage Court
Figure 17.35.030-10: Balcony Placement
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

8. Minimum Window Detail requirements are:
a. Windows shall be recessed at least two (2) inches from the exterior wall plane to the window glass. See figure 17.35.030-11 (Window Detail Requirements).
b. Windowsills shall project a minimum of two (2) inches from the surrounding exterior wall plane. See figure 17.35.030-11 (Window Detail Requirements).
c. All windowsills for non-sleeping rooms facing an R-1 district, located on the second floor or higher, shall be elevated a minimum of fifty-four (54) inches above the finish floor. See figure 17.35.030-12 (Sill Height). d. Any window facing an R-1 district, located on the second floor or higher, shall be translucent but not transparent for any part of the window glass less than fifty-four (54) inches above the finish floor. e. Windows shall be vertically oriented and taller than they are wide. f. All privacy windows shall be translucent but not transparent, reflective glass is prohibited.

Figure 17.35.030-11: Window Detail Requirements
Figure 17.35.030-12: Sill Height
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

I. Façade Material Requirements
The following materials shall be prohibited on any main building façade:

1. An exterior insulation finishing system (EIFS).

2. Aluminum lap siding

3. T1-11 siding

4. Vinyl siding
J. Roof and Eave Details
Minimum Roof and Eave Detail requirements are:

1. Roof eaves may encroach beyond the setback line up to a maximum of four (4) feet on the main building.

2. Roof parapets, when included, shall be a minimum of three (3) feet tall and may not exceed the maximum building height. Roof parapets shall be consistent in material and color with the main building.

3. Any equipment placed on the rooftop of a building shall be screened entirely.

K. Site Lighting
Minimum Site Lighting requirements are:

1. No exterior lighting element shall be placed more than height of eight (8) feet above the ground plane unless required by the California Building Code. All exterior lighting shall be directed downward and fully shielded to restrain light to a minimum thirty (30) degrees beneath the horizontal plane of the light source. Lighting shall be arranged so that the light will not shine directly onto any adjacent lot.

2. Up-lighting of trees and permanent lighting within trees is prohibited.

3. Interior lighting of all common areas shall be controlled by motion detecting controls programed to turn off no more than five (5) minutes after movement is no longer detected by the controlling device. Interior “common areas” are spaces used by multiple units generally for circulation purposes having exterior-facing windows.

L. Accessory Buildings and Structures
Where standards in this section conflict with chapter 17.40, the most restrictive standard shall apply.

1. Accessory Buildings and Structures
a. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in the front setback. Accessory buildings in the side and rear setbacks shall be set back from the property line for a minimum of ten (10) feet. This requirement shall be ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

fifteen (15) feet when adjacent to a parcel with an R-1 zoning designation or an RM-10 property that is developed with a single-family dwelling and does not have an active proposal to construct multifamily housing.
b. Communal outdoor kitchens, pools, and playgrounds are allowed within the buildable area. Location of these features in required setback areas may be sought through a special structures permit.

2. Garages
a. All garages shall be completely enclosed and include a lockable garage door.
b. Materials and colors on garages shall be consistent with the materials and colors utilized on the main building(s).

3. Trash and Recycling Enclosures
a. Trash disposal and recycling areas shall be within an enclosure and shown on the site plan. Trash will be collected on the subject property. b. Each enclosure shall screen trash and recycling receptacles from public view.
c. Trash and recycling enclosures shall be a minimum of six (6) feet and a maximum of eight (8) feet in height. The enclosure shall be constructed of solid wood or masonry painted the same color as the main building(s).
d. Trash and recycling enclosures shall have a gate and a roof.

4. Mailboxes
a. Mailboxes shall be outside of the public right-of-way. b. Projects with six (6) or more dwelling units shall cluster mailboxes in a common centralized location that is part of or within twenty-five feet of a residential building.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

M. Parking Requirements

1. Vehicle Parking
Minimum parking requirements are:
a. Surface parking shall be enclosed on three sides by landscape screening that is more than three feet from the perimeter of the parking area and comprised of plants with a minimum expected height of eight (8) feet within three years of planting.
b. Resident parking spaces shall be provided at a minimum rate of one (1) parking space per bedroom up to a maximum of two (2) spaces per unit.
c. Up to three (3) resident spaces per unit can be provided if all resident parking for the unit is located below grade.
d. Guest parking spaces shall be provided at a minimum rate of fourtenths (0.4) per unit. e. Total resident and guest parking shall not exceed two-and-four-tenths (2.4) total spaces per unit unless all resident parking is provided underground per Section 17.35.030 (O)(2).
f. Surface parking areas are not permitted within the rear setback.

2. Bicycle Parking
Short-term bicycle parking (Class II bicycle parking facility) consists of racks that support the bicycle frame at two points and allow for the bicycle frame and one wheel to be locked to the rack with a U-lock.

Minimum bicycle parking requirements are:
a. Resident bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum rate of one (1) bicycle parking space per dwelling unit.
b. Bicycle parking facilities shall be located on the ground floor and shall not be located between the building and the street.
c. Bicycle parking that is placed below grade shall not be counted as contributing to the floor area.

3. Vehicle Miles Travelled Analysis.

Development proposals located in a high-VMT area shall include a VMT analysis that identifies travel demand management (TDM) measures and/or physical measures to reduce VMT impacts to less than significant. The VMT analysis should use the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) VMT Estimation Tool.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

N. Underground Parking Requirements
Requirements for underground parking design are:

1. Location. The perimeter of the underground parking structure shall not exceed the buildable area defined by the setbacks of the lot.

2. An entry to an underground parking garage is allowed within the front setback.

Any grade change resulting from an underground driveway approach shall be set back ten (10) feet from the property line.

O. Underground Parking Incentives
Incentives to incorporate underground parking are as follows:

1. Habitable basement space and below grade parking shall not count towards floor area ratio.

2. Up to three (3) resident spaces per unit can be provided if all resident parking for the unit is located below grade.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

17.36.070 Multifamily Overlay District (RM-20/40).

This section establishes development standards for multifamily uses on identified portions of lots that are zoned as public facilities and schools (PFS). The development standards establish objective criteria for the evaluation of multifamily housing so that it can be permitted by right on specific lots that are identified on the zoning map and in the Housing Element of the General Plan, or on additional lots as designated by the City Council.

The residential multifamily 20 overlay zone (RM-20) allows multifamily development of up to twenty (20) units per acre on identified portions of lots that are zoned as public facilities and schools (PFS). Development within the RM-20 district shall have minimum of twelve (12) units per acre.

The residential multifamily 40 overlay zone (RM-40) allows multifamily development of up to forty (40) units per acre on identified portions of the Menlo College Campus (zoned PFS).

Development within the RM-40 district shall have a minimum of twenty-four (24) units per acre.

Where standards in this section conflict with Table 17.36.040, the standards in this section shall apply. However, this does not preclude other actions that require discretionary review (i.e. lot redesignations, variances, or special structure permits). Adjoining parcels with a PFS zoning designation and RM-20 or RM-40 zoning overlay can be treated as a single parcel.

Accessory Buildings and Structures: see chapter 17.40.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

A. Height
The maximum height for main buildings in the RM-20 overlay shall be thirty-four (34) feet.

The maximum height for main buildings in the RM-40 overlay shall be forty-eight (48) feet, provided that the vertical midpoint between the eave and the top of roof does not exceed forty-two (42) feet. If the main building has a flat roof, the maximum height is forty-two (42) feet. See figures 17.36.070-1A (RM-20 Maximum Height) and 17.36.070-1B (RM-40 Maximum Height).

Figure 17.36.070-1A: RM-20 Maximum Height
Figure 17.36.070-1B: RM-40 Maximum Height
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

1. Vertical sidewalls.
a. Within the RM-20 overlay, vertical sidewalls and columns built at the setback line shall not exceed twenty-eight (28) feet. See figure 17.36.070-2A (RM-20 Sidewall Height).
b. Within the RM-40 overlay, vertical sidewalls and columns built at the setback line shall not exceed thirty-four (34) feet. See figure 17.36.070-2B (RM-40 Sidewall Height).
c. Vertical sidewalls and columns built at the setback line shall not exceed twenty-one (21) feet when facing an adjacent R-1 parcel. See figure 17.36.070- 2C (R-1 Adjacent Sidewall Height).
d. Sidewall and column height can exceed these limits with an additional setback that is increased by a ratio of one (1) foot for each one (1) foot increase in height. See figures 17.36.070-2A (RM-20 Sidewall Height), 17.36.070-2B (RM-40 Sidewall Height), 17.36.070-2C (RM-20 R-1 Adjacent Sidewall Height), and

17.36.070-2D (RM-40 R-1 Adjacent Sidewall Height).

2. Height measurement: see chapter 17.42.030.

3. Dormers can exceed the vertical sidewall height and shall be in compliance with development standards in chapter 17.32.040.(4).

Figure 17.36.070-2A: RM-20 Sidewall Height
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Figure 17.36.070-2B: RM-40 Sidewall Height
Figure 17.36.070-2C: RM-20 R-1 Adjacent Sidewall Height ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Figure 17.36.070-2D: RM-40 R-1 Adjacent Sidewall Height B. Setbacks
A setback shall be required from all property lines.

Minimum setback requirements are:

1. The minimum spacing between any main buildings shall be twenty (20) feet.

2. General Setbacks:
a. The minimum setback from the property line is forty (40) feet. See figure 17.36.070-3A (RM-20 Setbacks) and 17.36.070-3B (RM-40 Setbacks).
b. Within the RM-20 overlay, where the height of a main building placed at the setback is between twenty-eight (28) and thirty-four (34) feet, the setback shall be increased by a ratio of one (1) foot for each one (1) foot increase in height. See figure 17.36.070-3A (RM-20 Setbacks). c. Within the RM-40 overlay, where the height of a main building placed at the setback is between thirty-four (34) and forty-eight (48) feet, the setback shall be increased by a ratio of one (1) foot for each one (1) foot increase in height. See figure 17.36.070-3B (RM-40 Setbacks).

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Figure 17.36.070-3A: RM-20 Setbacks
Figure 17.36.070-3B: RM-40 Setbacks

3. R-1 Adjacent Setbacks:
a. The minimum setback from any property line that is adjacent to a parcel with an R-1 zoning designation shall be fifty (50) feet. See figure

17.36.070-3C (R-1 Adjacent Setbacks).
b. Where the height of a main building placed at an R-1 adjacent setback is between twenty-one (21) and forty-eight (48) feet, the setback shall be increased by a ratio of one (1) foot for each one (1) foot increase in height. See figure 17.36.070-3C (R-1 Adjacent Setbacks).

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Figure 17.36.070-3C: R-1 Adjacent Setbacks
C. Lot Coverage
The maximum lot coverage for buildings, including accessory buildings, shall be forty (40) percent of the lot size. The maximum coverage for all impervious surfaces, not including buildings, shall be twenty (20) percent. The maximum total coverage of all buildings and impervious surfaces shall be fifty (50) percent.

All parts of the lot not covered by buildings or impervious surfaces shall be covered by landscape area. All landscape areas shall be maintained reasonably free of weeds, litter, and debris. All planting shall be maintained in a healthy growing condition and, whenever necessary, replaced with plant materials approved by the town arborist to provide continued conformance with approved plans. All new screening plantings shall be provided with a water-efficient automatic irrigation system to be installed at the time of planting. Landscape areas shall not interfere with heritage tree protection.

On properties with an underlying PFS zoning designation the lot coverage requirement shall apply to any area of the site that facilitates the development of multifamily housing, including ancillary buildings and structures.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Table 17.36.070.C-1
Lot Coverage
Building Impervious Surface Lot
40% 20% 50%
D. Site Design
Requirements for design of the site are:

1. Vehicle Access.
a. Direct ingress/egress to below grade parking or an accessory parking structure shall not be allowed on any street that is designated as a highway or a minor arterial in the Atherton General Plan. In lieu of this requirement, then the applicant may provide a traffic study that provides an alternative recommendation which the project implements.
b. Surface parking introduced as part of a new multifamily development shall not be allowed within any setback.
c. Driveway access shall only be provided from a local street, as designated in the Atherton General Plan, or from internal site circulation.
d. The maximum driveway width shall be twenty-six (26) feet. e. Driveways shall conform to the requirements of the Fire Marshal. f. Driveway visibility. All driveways that intersect with a public right-of-way shall maintain a vision triangle delineated by sides of 10 feet along the right-of-way and 10 feet perpendicular to the right-of-way measured from the edges of the driveway. Within this vision triangle, structures, landscaping, and other obstructions shall have a maximum height of 3 feet. Trees are permitted within the vision triangle provided their canopy maintains a clearance of 6 feet above ground level.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

2. Pedestrian Access.
a. All building entries shall be connected with resident parking areas by a pedestrian pathway that is at least five (5) feet in width. b. Pedestrian pathways are prohibited within ten (10) feet of a property line adjacent to a parcel with an R-1 zoning designation. c. Pedestrian pathways shall be demarcated with decorative paving materials that include brick, patterned or colored concrete, stone blocks, and pavers.

3. Streetscape Design.
a. A public pathway shall be provided for the full length of the site frontage with a street.
b. The pathway shall be a minimum width of five (5) feet. c. The pathway shall meet ADA requirements and be free from obstruction.
d. The pathway shall be designed in compliance with design guidelines provided in section 3.2 of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. e. All trees removed to accommodate a pathway shall be replaced. Tree removal shall adhere to heritage tree protections provided in chapter

8.10. E. Landscape Screening
All property lines adjacent to new structures shall be screened according to the standards in chapter 17.50 and the standards in this section. Where standards conflict, the most restrictive standard shall apply.

1. Prior to the final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy (unless delay is authorized by the building official) all required landscape screening shall be installed in conformance with the approved plans. In the case of phased building construction, the town building official may permit phased installation of landscape screening. No other exception to this installation requirement shall be allowed, including any in lieu fee or deposit.

2. Plantings shall reach a minimum height of twelve (12) feet within three (3) years of planting.

3. All trees and shrubs shall be evergreen.

4. If the property line is screened with existing landscaping that is at least twelve (12) feet tall and opaque, no new landscaping is required.

F. Building Massing
Minimum Building Massing requirements are:

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

1. The maximum aggregate façade length: The aggregate length of all façade segments facing in a common direction shall not exceed one-hundred forty (140) feet per building, as measured wall-to wall. See figure 17.36.070-4A (Maximum Aggregate Façade Length).

Figure 17.36.070-4A: Maximum Aggregate Façade Length

2. For any building façade located at the required setback or within ten (10) feet of a required setback, the maximum aggregate façade length shall be sixtyfive (65) feet. Any portion of the façade that causes the aggregate length to exceed sixty-five (65) feet shall be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet from the front setback line. See figure 17.36.070-4B (Maximum Aggregate Façade on Setback).

Figure 17.36.070-4B: Maximum Aggregate Façade on Setback G. Façade Design
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Minimum Façade Design requirements are:

1. Primary entries: A primary entry provides access to one or more units from the exterior of a main building and shall conform to the following standards:
a. A main building shall be limited to a maximum of four (4) primary entries. b. No primary entry shall face a highway as designated in the Atherton General Plan.
c. On building sides facing a local street, as designated by the Atherton General Plan, a maximum of three (3) primary entries shall be allowed.

In addition to the standards in G.1, a primary entry shall include one or more of the three frontage typologies listed in standards G.2 through G.4, below:

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

2. Common Entry: A common entry is a large opening that leads directly into a lobby or common space on the ground floor. A common entry shall comply with the following standards. See figure 17.36.070-5 (Common Entry).

Table 17.36.070.G.2-1. Common Entry Requirements
Common Entry
Minimum Maximum
Depth 2 feet 6 feet
Width 8 feet 16 feet
Height (Clear) 8 feet 14 feet
Weather protection shall be provided with a projection or recession with a minimum depth of four (4) feet.

A common entry shall provide access to all units within a main building.

Figure 17.36.070-5: Common Entry
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

3. Stoop: A stoop is a small, raised entry that shall conform with the following standards.

See figure 17.36.070-6 (Stoop).

Table 17.36.070.G.3-1. Stoop Requirements
Stoop
Minimum Maximum
Depth (Landing) 3 feet 8 feet
Width (Landing) 5 feet 8 feet
Width (Stairs) 4 feet 8 feet
Height (Landing) 1 foot 4 feet
Weather protection shall be provided with a projection or recession for a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches.

A stoop shall provide direct access to no more than two (2) units.

Figure 17.36.070-6: Stoop
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

4. Frontage Court: A frontage court is an open-air space on the building frontage with primary entries oriented to the courtyard interior. A forecourt shall conform with the following standards. See figure 17.36.070-7 (Frontage Court).

Table 17.36.070.G.4-1 Frontage Court Requirements
Frontage Court
Minimum Maximum
Depth 15 feet 30 feet
Width 25 feet 50 feet
Height (above grade) No Minimum 1 foot
A frontage court shall provide direct access to no more than four (4) units.

The height of sidewalls facing the courtyard shall not exceed a 2:1 ratio to its depth or width.

Figure 17.36.070-7: Frontage Court
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

5. Terrace: A terrace is an elevated area for pedestrian circulation along a building frontage that provides access to one or more primary entries. See figure 17.36.070-8 (Terrace).

Table 17.36.070.G.5-1 Terrace Requirements
Terrace
Minimum Maximum
Depth 10 feet 24 feet
Height (above grade) 1 foot 3 feet
Height (wall or railing) 30 inches 42 inches
Terrace stairs shall be spaced no more than twenty-five (25) feet apart.

A terrace shall provide direct access to no more than four (4) units.

Figure 17.36.070-8: Terrace
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

6. Balconies or decks shall not be allowed on walls that face an adjacent R-1 parcel, or on portions of any perimeter wall within twenty-five (25) feet of the setback from the R-1 parcel. Roof decks shall not be permitted. See figure 17.36.070-9 (Balcony Placement).

Figure 17.36.070-9: Balcony Placement

7. Minimum Window Detail requirements are:
a. Windows shall be recessed at least two (2) inches from the exterior wall plane to the window glass. See figure 17.36.070-10 (Window Detail Requirements). b. Windowsills shall project a minimum of two (2) inches from the surrounding exterior wall plane. See figure 17.36.070-10 (Window Detail Requirements).

Figure 17.36.070-10: Window Detail Requirements
ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

c. All windowsills for non-sleeping rooms facing an R-1 district, located on the second floor or higher, shall be elevated a minimum of fifty-four (54) inches above the floor plate. See figure 17.36.070-11 (Sill Height).

Figure 17.36.070-11: Sill Height
d. Any window facing an R-1 district, located on the second floor or higher, shall be translucent but not transparent for any part of the window glass less than fifty-four (54) inches above the finish floor.
e. Windows shall be vertically oriented and taller than they are wide. f. All privacy windows shall be translucent but not transparent, reflective glass is prohibited.

H. Façade Material Requirements
The following materials shall be prohibited on any main building façade:

1. An exterior insulation finishing system (EIFS).

2. Aluminum lap siding

3. T1-11 siding

4. Vinyl siding
I. Roof and Eave Details
Minimum Roof and Eave Detail requirements are:

1. Roof eaves may encroach into any yard not to exceed a maximum of four (4) feet on the main building.

2. Roof parapets, when included, shall be a minimum of three (3) feet tall and may not exceed the maximum building height. Roof parapets shall be consistent in material and color with the main building.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

3. Any equipment placed on the rooftop of a building shall be screened entirely.

J. Site Lighting
Minimum Site Lighting requirements are:

1. No exterior lighting element shall be placed above the height of eight (8) feet above the ground plane unless required by the California Building Code. All exterior lighting shall be directed downward and fully shielded to restrain light to a minimum thirty (30) degrees below the horizontal plane of the light source. Lighting shall be arranged so that the light will not shine directly onto any adjacent lot.

2. Up-lighting of trees and permanent lighting within trees is prohibited.

3. Interior lighting of all common areas shall be controlled by motion detecting controls programed to turn off no more than five (5) minutes after movement is no longer detected by the controlling device. Interior “common areas” are spaces used by multiple units generally for circulation purposes having exterior-facing windows.

K. Accessory Buildings and Structures
Where standards in this section conflict with chapter 17.40, the most restrictive standard shall apply.

1. Accessory buildings
a. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in a setback that faces a public right-of-way. Accessory buildings shall be set back from the property line for a minimum of five (5) feet, or a minimum of fifteen (15) feet on a property line that is adjacent to an R-1 parcel.

2. Trash and Recycling Enclosures
a. Trash disposal and recycling areas shall be within an enclosure and shown on the site plan.
b. Each enclosure shall screen trash and recycling receptacles from public view.
c. Trash and recycling enclosures shall be a minimum of six (6) feet and a maximum of eight (8) feet in height. The enclosure shall be constructed of solid wood or masonry painted the same color as the main building(s).
d. Trash and recycling enclosures shall have a gate and a roof. e. Trash and recycling enclosures are not permitted within any setback.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

3. Mailboxes
a. Projects with six (6) or more dwelling units shall cluster mailboxes in a common centralized location that is part of or within twenty-five feet of a residential building.
b. Mailboxes shall be located outside of the public right-of-way.

L. Parking
Minimum Parking requirements are:

1. Vehicle Parking
a. There is no minimum resident or guest parking requirement for housing located within the PFS zone.
b. Total resident and guest parking shall not exceed one-and-a-quarter (1.25) spaces per unit.
c. Total resident and guest parking can be increased to a maximum of two (2) spaces per unit if all the resident and guest parking spaces are provided in a below-grade parking garage.

2. Parking Garage Design
a. No more than twenty-five (25) percent of any ground floor façade shall be dedicated to garage openings.
b. Garaged parking that is above grade shall be screened from a public right-of-way with livable space that has a minimum depth of twenty (20) feet. Livable space shall include any multifamily housing use that does not include vehicle parking.
c. Partially sub-grade parking shall not have an exposed façade that exceeds five (5) feet above grade and shall provide landscape screening with a minimum depth of ten (10) feet along the entire façade length.

3. Bicycle Parking
Short-term bicycle parking (Class II bicycle parking facility) consists of racks that support the bicycle frame at two points and allow for the bicycle frame and one wheel to be locked to the rack with a U-lock.

Minimum bicycle parking requirements are:
a. Resident bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum rate of one (1) bicycle parking space per dwelling unit.
b. Bicycle parking facilities shall be located on the ground floor and shall not be located between the building and the street.
c. Bicycle parking that is placed below grade shall not be counted as floor area.

3. Vehicle Miles Travelled Analysis.

ATTACHMENT 2

Atherton Municipal Code – Proposed Amendments – September 2024

Development proposals located in a high-VMT area shall include a VMT analysis that identifies travel demand management (TDM) measures and/or physical measures to reduce VMT impacts to less than significant. The VMT analysis should use the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) VMT Estimation Tool.

ATTACHMENT 2

Item No. 8
Town of Atherton
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT – REGULAR AGENDA
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ROBERT OVADIA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2024
SUBJECT: PICKLEBALL PROGRAM AT HOLBROOK-PALMER PARK

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council approve an ongoing pickleball program at Holbrook-Palmer Park.

BACKGROUND
The pickleball trial at Holbrook-Palmer was initiated at the end of January. The City Council received an update regarding the on-going pickleball trial at Holbrook-Palmer Park at the July 17, 2024, meeting, including usage data and interim results of the assessment survey. The assessment survey was closed at the end of July, with results provided to the Pickleball Subcommittee of the Park and Recreation Committee for review and recommendation to the full Park and Recreation Committee.

ANALYSIS
As noted above, the Pickleball Subcommittee reviewed the overall assessment survey results as well as breakdowns based on residency and park/court users, as well as reservation information pulled from the court reservation system. The Pickleball Subcommittee then presented its findings and recommendations to the full Park and Recreation Committee at its September 4, 2024, meeting.

The Subcommittee reported that over the last four months (May – August) there were approximately 47 different players that reserved a pickleball court, totaling 405 hours, with approximately 117 hours reserved in August. Several people remarked they would play if more times opened up or “drop-in” play were allowed. There were 154 respondents to the survey, with 77 respondents indicating that they played pickleball (50 Atherton residents), and 56 played tennis (32 Atherton residents). The Subcommittee also reviewed the potential detrimental effects of pickleball including noise and impacts to tennis. It was also noted that overall key sales were up,

Pickleball at Holbrook-Palmer Park
OCTOBER 16, 2024

152 keys sold to date vs. 99 keys last year.

The subcommittee concluded that there was sufficient interest in maintaining pickleball at Holbrook-Palmer Park; that though noise could be an issue, it has been mitigated by the installation of the sound baffling materials, and there have not been any complaints from park neighbors; that pickleball use has not shown a meaningful loss in tennis opportunities; and that there was interest in expanding hours and providing “drop-in” play opportunities.

Overall, the Subcommittee recommended the continuation of the pickleball program at HolbrookPalmer Park, with expanded hours to include all-day Sunday, with “drop-in” play available on one court in the afternoon. They recommended monitoring of that noise levels related to increased use. They further suggested that long-term, permanent court(s) at a separate location could be funded by donors.

After review and deliberation, the Park and Recreation Committee recommended continuation of a pickleball program as follows:

Continued shared use of Court 1 with the following hours:
• Mornings (until noon) – daily
• Evenings (after 4pm) – Tuesdays and Thursdays
• All day – Sunday, with one court reserved and one court available for “drop-in” play The Committee also recommended a sign in sheet be provided to track “drop-in” play usage/interest, and that the program be continued through the end of the tennis year. There was also some discussion of a potential demonstration event to introduce new players to the sport. It was also noted that, similar to all courts, key holders may play on open/unreserved courts on a first come-first served basis. It was also suggested that should Player Capital Tennis provide pickleball instruction, it should be outside of the regular pickleball hours, such that they do not impact the limited availability of the courts.

Though tracking of “drop-in” play may be useful, it would be difficult to manage and track a paper sign-in sheet. If desired, an on-line form or survey can be hosted, but there will be no monitoring of players requiring sign-ins.

FISCAL IMPACT
Limited, associated with new signage and paddle holders, if desired.

GOAL ALIGNMENT
This Report and its contents are in alignment with the following Council Policy Goals:
• Goal Area B – Preserve Small Town Character and Quality of Life • Goal Area E – Strengthen Community Engagement and Transparency • Goal Area F – Be Forward-Thinking, Well-Managed, and Well-Planned

Pickleball at Holbrook-Palmer Park
OCTOBER 16, 2024

POLICY FOCUS
The policy focus for this item is regarding Council direction regarding the continuation of pickleball at Holbrook-Palmer Park.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with this agenda item being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in print and electronically. Information about the project is also disseminated via the Town’s electronic News Flash and Atherton Online. There are approximately 1,200 subscribers to the Town’s electronic News Flash publications. Subscribers include residents as well as stakeholders –to include, but be not limited to, media outlets, school districts, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, service provides (water, power, and sewer), and regional elected officials.

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE FEEDBACK/REFERRAL
Park and Recreation Committee (meets each month)

ATTACHMENTS

1. Pickleball Trail Assessment Survey Results

2. September 4, 2024, Pickleball Subcommittee Presentation

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
1 / 35

63.64% 98

25.97% 40

2.60% 4

7.79% 12
Q1 City of Residence
Answered: 154 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 154
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Palo Alto 7/27/2024 6:41 PM
2 Palo Alto 7/19/2024 4:36 PM
3 Atherton 7/17/2024 8:22 AM
4 Atherton 7/11/2024 4:55 PM
5 Palo Alto 7/9/2024 4:56 PM
6 Palo Alto 7/9/2024 3:56 PM
7 Woodside 7/9/2024 1:02 PM
8 Palo Alto 7/9/2024 12:50 PM
9 Hillsborough 7/9/2024 12:39 PM
10 Palo Alto 6/23/2024 3:51 PM
11 Portola Valley 6/22/2024 4:14 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Atherton
Menlo Park
Redwood City
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Atherton
Menlo Park
Redwood City
Other (please specify)

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
2 / 35
12 North Fair Oaks 6/21/2024 5:29 PM

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
3 / 35

91.50% 140

8.50% 13
Q2 Are you aware that the Town initiated a pickleball trial at HolbrookPalmer Park? Answered: 153 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 153
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
4 / 35

36.36% 56

37.66% 58

12.34% 19

10.39% 16

3.25% 5
Q3 Do you use the courts at Holbrook-Palmer Park
Answered: 154 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 154
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
For tennis
For pickleball
For both
tennis and
pickleball
I am a park
visitor
I am a park
neighbor

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
For tennis
For pickleball
For both tennis and pickleball
I am a park visitor
I am a park neighbor

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
5 / 35

55.84% 86

44.16% 68
Q4 Are you a current court key holder?
Answered: 154 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 154
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
6 / 35

25.83% 39

74.17% 112
Q5 Did you purchase a key to participate in the pickleball trial? Answered: 151 Skipped: 3
TOTAL 151
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Planning to get a key, but pickleball court time is somewhat limited 7/31/2024 3:32 PM 2 I am an instructor 7/19/2024 4:36 PM
3 I had an injury which prevented me from getting this earlier this year, but I plan to purchase a key to try out pickleball soon!
7/17/2024 5:14 PM
4 I purchased the key for both 7/9/2024 1:01 PM
5 Working under Player Capital only to play tennis. 7/9/2024 12:48 PM 6 Not an Atherton resident, but I would be happy to. 6/30/2024 1:37 PM 7 Atherton friend has key 6/30/2024 11:55 AM
8 Am intersted in learning about Pickleball 6/24/2024 7:37 PM 9 My wife and I like to support the park in any way we can. We have purchased a court key the past c few years to support the park and in anticipation of playing pickleball 6/24/2024 7:08 AM
10 Went with a friend who did. 6/23/2024 6:53 PM
11 Nope. A fellow pickleballer did. 6/23/2024 5:42 PM
12 I would buy a key if pickleball is permanently available 6/23/2024 2:46 PM 13 But am interested! 6/21/2024 6:26 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
7 / 35

60.83% 73

26.67% 32

12.50% 15
Q6 Do you find it easy or difficult to make a reservation for court use? Answered: 120 Skipped: 34
TOTAL 120
# WHY? DATE
1 Too many courts for training 7/18/2024 11:24 AM
2 reserved courts often do not show up to use them 7/18/2024 11:20 AM 3 you log in, you pick your day/time, if it's open you book...easy! 7/17/2024 8:22 AM 4 The online system is easy to use. However, pickleball makes it a little more challenging due to availability
7/15/2024 1:03 PM
5 courts are often full 7/11/2024 4:55 PM
6 limited court space 7/9/2024 7:27 PM
7 It is generally great but you don’t abide by the one week in advance rule. Often, when I login at precisely one week, most of the slots are already taken. 7/9/2024 4:04 PM
8 Many late afternoons and evenings are all reserved for either Player Capital or Pickleball - leaving only one court left for resident key holders.
7/9/2024 3:52 PM
9 Fewer tennis courts 7/9/2024 2:37 PM
10 hardly any hard courts are available in mornings for tennis 7/9/2024 1:58 PM 11 NA 7/9/2024 1:35 PM
12 Lately there are few to no options to choose from in the morning due to pickleball and tennis camps
7/9/2024 1:16 PM
13 Because of the pickleball trial 7/9/2024 1:04 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Easy
Somewhat
difficult
Difficult

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Easy
Somewhat difficult
Difficult

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
8 / 35
14 I can log in and see the openings easily. 7/9/2024 1:01 PM 15 Software is easy but PB trial hurts our court usage. 7/9/2024 1:01 PM 16 Player Capital admin helps with court reservation 7/9/2024 12:48 PM 17 Player capital has taken over all the courts at the popular times. Is this really a court for Atherton residents or for them to make money?
7/9/2024 12:45 PM
18 One less court for tennis players to use! 7/9/2024 12:45 PM 19 N/A 7/9/2024 12:44 PM
20 name and password changes each year 7/9/2024 12:44 PM 21 less courts at certain times 7/9/2024 12:39 PM
22 Would love more slots 7/8/2024 8:04 PM
23 Limited times and dates for pickleball play. Even when other courts are not in use. 6/30/2024 1:37 PM 24 Easy, BUT then one needs to organize a group to play with as opposed to an easy drop-in system.
6/29/2024 2:46 PM
25 we have still not received our email code, despite emailing and calling to get it 6/25/2024 7:41 AM 26 NA 6/24/2024 7:37 PM
27 N/A 6/24/2024 1:02 PM
28 NA 6/23/2024 6:53 PM
29 Can’t comment. Key holder makes the reservations. 6/23/2024 5:42 PM 30 Not applicable 6/23/2024 3:51 PM
31 Limited hours of court availability 6/23/2024 2:46 PM 32 Difficult to connect to sign up. It would be nice if we could just show up and enjoy a Pickleball game with whoever wants to play.
6/22/2024 9:37 PM
33 My good friend has a key and makes the reservations 6/22/2024 4:14 PM 34 So many lessons and usta matches 6/22/2024 9:01 AM
35 Not enough availability in early afternoons 6/22/2024 7:25 AM 36 no key no reservation 6/22/2024 7:18 AM
37 Very few times available 6/21/2024 11:25 PM
38 I would love to have more Monday and Friday availability as those are work from home days for most companies in the area.
6/21/2024 6:44 PM
39 Limited times and availability 6/21/2024 6:02 PM
40 N/a. I don’t have a key 6/21/2024 5:29 PM
41 Very restrictive due to hours 6/21/2024 5:24 PM
42 I don’t reserve because I don’t have a key. 6/21/2024 8:58 AM

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
9 / 35

44.90% 66

15.65% 23

16.33% 24

12.24% 18

6.80% 10

4.08% 6
Q7 On average, how many hours do you play tennis at Holbrook-Palmer Park?
Answered: 147 Skipped: 7
TOTAL 147
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 There everyday to play and coach tennis. 7/9/2024 12:48 PM 2 Would like to play more but currently only get courts 2-3 hours/month. 7/9/2024 12:45 PM 3 NA 6/24/2024 7:37 PM
4 I use the tennis courts intermittently 6/21/2024 6:04 PM 5 I use the courts for pickleball 6/21/2024 6:02 PM
6 On occasion by invitation. 6/21/2024 5:29 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I don't use
the courts for
tennis
1 - 2 hours
per month
1 - 2 hours
per week
2 - 5 hours
per week
greater than 5
hours per week
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I don't use the courts for tennis
1 - 2 hours per month
1 - 2 hours per week
2 - 5 hours per week
greater than 5 hours per week
Other (please specify)

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
10 / 35

42.67% 64

10.67% 16

14.67% 22

17.33% 26

6.67% 10

8.00% 12
Q8 On average, how many hours do you play pickleball at HolbrookPalmer Park? Answered: 150 Skipped: 4
TOTAL 150
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Planing for 2-3hours per week 7/31/2024 3:32 PM
2 None yet, but I plan to soon 7/17/2024 5:14 PM
3 I just got the key, but this is the plan. 7/9/2024 1:04 PM 4 I end up playing else due to limited availability. 6/30/2024 1:37 PM 5 I have tried to book three times and still can't get email access 6/25/2024 7:41 AM 6 I broke my foot doing something else, but did go once and planned to get a key. 6/23/2024 6:53 PM 7 Twice as guest. I have access to courts at several other locales. 6/22/2024 11:33 AM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I don't use
the courts for
pickleball
1 - 2 hours
per month
1 - 2 hours
per week
2 - 5 hours
per week
greater than 5
hours per week
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I don't use the courts for pickleball
1 - 2 hours per month
1 - 2 hours per week
2 - 5 hours per week
greater than 5 hours per week
Other (please specify)

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
11 / 35
8 I would love to, but I am a single player. I was hoping for drop in pickleball 6/22/2024 9:01 AM 9 Only used it twice 6/21/2024 8:55 PM
10 I have a shoulder injury so I have not been able to use the PB courts much the past few months.
6/21/2024 4:55 PM
11 varies, but I try to use the courts at least 5 hours/week 6/21/2024 4:46 PM 12 The limited availability impacts my ability to play here often. 6/20/2024 9:39 PM

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
12 / 35
Q9 When do you play (or prefer to play) pickleball
Answered: 98 Skipped: 56

68.04%
66 31.96%
31 49.48%
48 97

81.18%
69 38.82%
33 34.12%
29 85
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Mornings Afternoons Evenings
Weekday
Weekend

MORNINGS AFTERNOONS EVENINGS TOTAL RESPONDENTS
Weekday
Weekend

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
13 / 35

69.18% 101

30.82% 45
Q10 Please describe your opinion of the temporary pickleball courts (layout, striping, nets, noise)
Answered: 146 Skipped: 8
TOTAL 146
# PLEASE ELABORATE. DATE
1 FUN 7/18/2024 7:15 AM
2 Disturbs neighbors with noise 7/17/2024 5:24 PM
3 I don't feel it's too noisy bc plenty of tennis going on and v-ball 7/17/2024 8:22 AM 4 takes up space needed for tennis 7/11/2024 4:55 PM
5 Very noisy. 7/10/2024 8:32 PM
6 It's very loud: both the players noise and the pickleball sound 7/9/2024 9:19 PM 7 I found some pickleball player come without reseving court. I have reserved for court 1 and I ended up moving to the other court.
7/9/2024 5:29 PM
8 I don’t love them but fine to keep to a single court for a morning 7/9/2024 5:13 PM 9 I think the noise reduction panels have helped a lot 7/9/2024 4:56 PM 10 I like the acoutic fence on two sides. It does a good job of funneling noise. 7/9/2024 4:04 PM 11 It doesn't interfere with the tennis lessons at all. The sound dampening seems to work well too. 7/9/2024 3:56 PM 12 Takes up too much reserved courts 7/9/2024 3:52 PM
13 Noise is annoying. 7/9/2024 2:37 PM
14 would prefer permanent courts 7/9/2024 1:44 PM
15 Pickleball players are loud and crass, including using expletives around small children. Have never seen that behavior in a decade of using tennis courts. 7/9/2024 1:35 PM
16 noise 7/9/2024 1:20 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
generally
positive
generally
negative

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
generally positive
generally negative

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
14 / 35
17 Not used very much and reduces the options for tennis. Could pickleball be moved to the practice courts next to the train tracks? They don’t need much space or a proper tennis court. 7/9/2024 1:16 PM
18 Excellent 7/9/2024 1:15 PM
19 Tennis courts should remain 7/9/2024 1:12 PM
20 It's too loud and makes reservations even more difficult 7/9/2024 1:03 PM 21 pickleball is very noisy 7/9/2024 1:02 PM
22 they take up space that would otherwise be available for tennis players 7/9/2024 1:01 PM 23 Loud. 7/9/2024 1:01 PM
24 It is loud and pickleball is a social sport so when you have that many people on the court talking and you are actually trying to play tennis it is super distracting . The noise from the ball and the people talking the whole time has taken a lot of enjoyment away from my tennis experience. I strongly feel the court should be turned back to the tennis players.. 7/9/2024 12:52 PM
25 I just prefer tennis over pickleball 7/9/2024 12:48 PM 26 Loud. Disruptive to tennis players and the neighborhood and park. 7/9/2024 12:44 PM 27 noise is an issue and also the sound barrier installed will not help courts to dry during the winter - it should be at least 1 foot above the surface to let air flow 7/9/2024 12:39 PM
28 It’d be great to have a permanent net and lines installed. We could also consider removing tennis net and have 3 pickleball courts next to each other horizontaly. 7/8/2024 8:04 PM
29 Rude pickleball players in this area 7/8/2024 4:47 PM 30 Too noisy. All the competing lines are distracting. PB courts should be isolated from the tennis courts. Tennis is a game of quiet concentration. Pickleball is noisy and socially raucous. PB courts should not be near tennis
7/7/2024 12:40 PM
31 Pickleball has made booking tennis courts harder 7/6/2024 7:57 PM 32 Noise abatement is excellent. Nets and lining is very good. 7/3/2024 9:09 AM 33 However- the HPP tennis court perimeter is 2' wider than Nealon Park's...therefore there is plenty of room to stripe 4 pickleball courts on the one tennis court like Nealon. 6/29/2024 2:46 PM
34 Nice to have them, but need better lineage 6/29/2024 12:47 PM 35 Blue pickleball kitchen line blends in with tennis court. 6/26/2024 5:02 PM 36 Why absorb existing courts; just add 1 02 two Pickleball Courts away from the tennis courts 6/24/2024 7:37 PM 37 Very loud. 6/24/2024 1:02 PM
38 People love the Pickleball! Please keep these courts open - they bring such joy! 6/24/2024 9:34 AM 39 I know it's a delicate balance accommodating pickleball while trying to not disrupt tennis. For the trial, I think the courts are appropriate
6/24/2024 7:08 AM
40 We need more pickleball courts please! 6/23/2024 8:41 PM 41 We need four on the court. 6/23/2024 6:53 PM
42 need more hours of play 6/23/2024 6:38 PM
43 Courts are roomy. Court lines are Legible. 6/23/2024 5:42 PM 44 Well done! Night safety have four permanent courts there. 6/23/2024 5:16 PM 45 Need better striping and higher quality nets 6/23/2024 2:46 PM 46 Noise, Pickleball should not be played on tennis courts. Should have separate courts, 6/23/2024 7:52 AM 47 Nice to have court reservations; beautiful park. Lines could be more differentiated. Nets are good but permanent would be much better.
6/22/2024 4:14 PM
48 Striping is a bit confusing Page 396 of 433 6/22/2024 8:23 AM Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
15 / 35
49 Excellent! 6/22/2024 7:25 AM
50 Too noisy 6/21/2024 8:55 PM
51 This is a noisy game, period -- not much to be done about that, and it's annoying. 6/21/2024 8:52 PM 52 So great to have this sport available in our park! 6/21/2024 6:44 PM 53 N/A 6/21/2024 6:26 PM
54 Fun and appropriate addition to the park for residents 6/21/2024 5:38 PM 55 Lines could be painted a better color that is easier to distinguish 6/21/2024 5:29 PM 56 We would play MORE and in AFTERNOONS if court times not blocked off. Please open more court times!
6/21/2024 5:07 PM
57 I see quite a few people using the pickleball courts - more than use the tennis courts! I am delighted to see people using the Park.
6/21/2024 4:51 PM
58 Love the courts 6/21/2024 8:58 AM
59 The implementation of this trial is appreciated. I hope that play hours can be revisited and pickle ball players can have more play opportunities.
6/20/2024 9:39 PM

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
16 / 35

56.83% 79

14.39% 20

28.78% 40
Q11 Has the sound baffling material installed between courts been effective in reducing noise related to pickleball use?
Answered: 139 Skipped: 15
TOTAL 139
# COMMENTS DATE
1 I'm not sure but maybe that's why I don't think p-ball too loud there 7/17/2024 8:22 AM 2 I can hear pickleball players shouting from another court farther away 7/9/2024 9:19 PM 3 I’m surprised this works but it actually does dampen the noise 7/9/2024 5:13 PM 4 Laughable to think it would 7/9/2024 1:35 PM
5 Excellent 7/9/2024 1:15 PM
6 I can't tell, I've never played right next to them and the train is so loud anyway. 7/9/2024 1:01 PM 7 It has but I wonder because a few years ago someone had a heart attack on that court and unfortunately he passed away but one of the coaches who worked there saw the man fall and tried to help. With the new tarps put up for noise cancellation, we can’t see anything or hear anything. So yes, I can’t see or hear the pickle players but I also won’t be able to see or hear if anyone will need help on court 1.
7/9/2024 12:58 PM
8 You can hear the ball and all the people constantly talking. 7/9/2024 12:52 PM 9 Don't ever see people playing pickle ball. 7/9/2024 12:48 PM 10 but playing in the court with the sound barrier is very loud 7/9/2024 12:39 PM 11 Don't know. 6/24/2024 7:40 PM
12 NA 6/24/2024 7:37 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Can't tell a
difference

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Can't tell a difference

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
17 / 35
13 Makes the courts really hot! 6/24/2024 9:34 AM
14 I do think it helps a bit....sound is a huge issue so it should be an ongoing effort to find different, effective, reasonable ways to mitigate the sound 6/24/2024 7:08 AM
15 Live in Lindenwood 6/23/2024 6:53 PM
16 Works well 6/23/2024 5:16 PM
17 Depends what court you play tennis 6/23/2024 7:52 AM 18 I never pay attention to Reduction of noise 6/22/2024 9:37 PM 19 I don't play tennis nor a resident of Felton Gables, which are the sides that face the baffling.

It's hard for me to tell any difference from the park side. 6/22/2024 8:20 AM
20 IT makes the courts very hot. I wish you would remove it 6/22/2024 7:18 AM 21 N/A 6/21/2024 6:26 PM
22 No noise concerns. 6/21/2024 5:07 PM
23 I’ve never been bothered by court noise - either pickleball or tennis. 6/21/2024 4:51 PM 24 I can't hear the tennis players so assume it's equally effective to block pickleball noise on the tennis courts.
6/21/2024 4:46 PM

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
18 / 35

41.96% 60

34.27% 49

13.29% 19

10.49% 15
Q12 Should reservations be required for pickleball use? Answered: 143 Skipped: 11
TOTAL 143
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes, always
Mostly
reservation,
with limited...

Mostly
drop-in, with
limited...

No, never
(drop-in only)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes, always
Mostly reservation, with limited drop-in play
Mostly drop-in, with limited reservation
No, never (drop-in only)

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
19 / 35
Q13 If drop-in hours were available, when should they be provided? Answered: 101 Skipped: 53

60.42%
58 48.96%
47 55.21%
53 96

62.07%
54 55.17%
48 59.77%
52 87
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Mornings Afternoons Evenings
Weekdays
Weekend

MORNINGS AFTERNOONS EVENINGS TOTAL RESPONDENTS
Weekdays
Weekend

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
20 / 35

73.83% 110

21.48% 32

4.70% 7
Q14 Should the Town consider installation of permanent pickleball facilities at Holbrook-Palmer Park?
Answered: 149 Skipped: 5
TOTAL 149
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
No opinion

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
No opinion

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
21 / 35

15.94% 22

42.75% 59

41.30% 57
Q15 If permanent courts were provided, where should they be located? Answered: 138 Skipped: 16
TOTAL 138
# WHERE? DATE
1 Conversion of more than one tennis court to full time pickleball 7/17/2024 5:14 PM 2 in the tennis court area 7/17/2024 8:22 AM
3 In between tennis courts and parking lot 7/10/2024 8:09 AM 4 along railroad tracks next to baseball field 7/9/2024 7:27 PM 5 perhaps away from the houses and courts, on the other side of the park 7/9/2024 4:56 PM 6 Between tennis courts and parking lot. 7/9/2024 4:04 PM 7 2 courts next to the sandbag fill station. 7/9/2024 2:37 PM 8 where the current unused tennis wall is 7/9/2024 1:58 PM 9 Ideally not anywhere in the park 7/9/2024 1:35 PM
10 Parking lot near the playground 7/9/2024 1:04 PM
11 The handball court 7/9/2024 1:03 PM
12 By the park exit gate / parking lot 7/9/2024 1:01 PM 13 Maybe where the tennis wall is. 7/9/2024 12:58 PM
14 Wherever there is an empty place for separate court from tennis. The tennis courts should only be used for tennis.
7/9/2024 12:48 PM
15 Elsewhere in the park 7/9/2024 12:45 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Continued
joint use of an
existing ten...

Conversion of
an existing
tennis court...

Separate court
or courts
located...

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Continued joint use of an existing tennis court
Conversion of an existing tennis court to full-time pickleball court(s) Separate court or courts located elsewhere in the park

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
22 / 35
16 There is more than enough space to build separate pickle ball courts on the other side of the park.
7/9/2024 12:44 PM
17 it does not matter plenty of space but behind the tennis courts by the train tracks makes sense
7/9/2024 12:39 PM
18 Other field 7/8/2024 4:47 PM
19 Away from the tennis courts 7/7/2024 12:40 PM
20 No preference, Somewhere away from tennis courts to avoid the sounds 7/6/2024 7:57 PM 21 Minimal cost. 7/3/2024 9:09 AM
22 Anywhere! 6/30/2024 11:55 AM
23 Confusing question as I take "permanent " to mean it's not joint use... if there are "permanent " pickle nets, how could one possibly play tennis on it? In any case- the one tennis court should be striped for 4 pickleball courts like at Nealon- plus HPP is bigger so there's plenty of room... more courts encourages more players and less waiting to play during drop-in days. Court 1 works.
6/29/2024 2:46 PM
24 You could also arrange pickle courts on an existing court such that you fit 3-4 on one court. (See Nealon Park). This would accommodate more players. 6/26/2024 5:02 PM
25 Back wall behind court 4-5 6/25/2024 9:23 PM
26 in left fiels foul area of baseball field 6/24/2024 7:37 PM 27 Strongly prefer to build pickle ball courts elsewhere in park. This is an amazing tennis facility.

Used by the best jr players in the country. Incredible resource. 6/24/2024 1:02 PM
28 Courts should absolutely NOT be located elsewhere in the park. I think the conversion of ONE court is appropriate, with the option of "portable" conversions of other courts as needed to accommodate peak times.
6/24/2024 7:08 AM
29 Anywhere as long as there are plenty of them. 6/23/2024 8:41 PM 30 The current temp court would be great for a permanent spot 6/23/2024 5:16 PM 31 any of the above 6/23/2024 4:53 PM
32 Yes 6/22/2024 9:37 PM
33 In back next to carriage house maybe? 6/22/2024 9:01 AM 34 More availability with minimal cost 6/22/2024 7:25 AM 35 Suggest converting the rarely used clay court; adjacent to current courts and/or where the rebound wall is located
6/21/2024 8:12 PM
36 Use current trial court 6/21/2024 6:48 PM
37 Maybe somewhere near the tennis courts 6/21/2024 6:26 PM 38 Or could put in additioal pickleball courts in another part of the park. 6/21/2024 6:13 PM 39 Use existing trial court. 6/21/2024 6:01 PM
40 There is such a growing popularity for PB that permanent courts are needed. It matters less where they are but that they should be permanent. Option B is cost effective and would increase availability of PB courts (a win-win!)
6/21/2024 5:07 PM
41 Near the railroad tracks so near by neighbors wouldn't hear the noise much. 6/21/2024 4:55 PM 42 It would be nice to have permanent courts. Location not so important to me. 6/21/2024 8:58 AM 43 closer to the main road 6/21/2024 8:33 AM

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
23 / 35
Q16 Please provide any additional feedback regarding the pickleball trial at Holbrook-Palmer Park.

Answered: 77 Skipped: 77
# RESPONSES DATE
1 More hours for playing are needed 7/27/2024 6:41 PM
2 It was good to get input 7/18/2024 11:24 AM
3 I don't see much use of the tennis courts so let's open them up 7/18/2024 7:15 AM 4 Who pays for the erection if courts, I am Atherton resident and feel who ever uses the courts should pay and not overall residents
7/17/2024 5:24 PM
5 I think that conversion to more than one court could be nice, and the ability to reserve at any time. There is often at least one free tennis court, so limiting the ability to reserve for pickleball in favor of tennis only which may not actually be used doesn't quite make sense. It's been nice seeing folks playing in the park.
7/17/2024 5:14 PM
6 Please please keep the pickleball courts at the park. It's so much fun! I'm 63 and appreciate the opportunity to get out there with friends, move my body outside and appreciate the beauty of H-P park. There is a growing group of pickleball people in Atherton and it's nice to finally get a court at our town park. I don't feel that the courts are too loud and there's plenty of activity already going on in the park (Little League baseball, evening volleyball, walkers, bike riders, kids at the playground). Pickleball provides exercise and socialization for all age groups...kids to seniors can play this game. Please keep the courts. Thank you. 7/17/2024 8:22 AM
7 I like pickleball being an option, but my preference would be for it to be separate so it does not limit the number of tennis courts.
7/15/2024 1:03 PM
8 We need to covert two tennis courts to pickle ball 7/14/2024 1:13 PM 9 I would strongly recommend not using tennis courts for pickleball 7/11/2024 4:55 PM 10 Very loud. It’s a real issue. 7/10/2024 8:32 PM
11 Consider pickle ball needs 4 players normally, but one key holder can book 1 hour per day only, that's not enough. That's why most time we will choose somewhere else to play. 7/9/2024 9:54 PM
12 Please check on how often the court is being used for pickleball. There are many other parks nearby offering pickleball courts, so if HPP courts are very rarely used for pickleball, I would suggest removing it.
7/9/2024 9:19 PM
13 Taking away a court really makes it difficult to get a reservation at the time I can play 7/9/2024 7:27 PM 14 I think the reservation system and access to courts should be the same as for the tennis courts.
7/9/2024 4:56 PM
15 It's great having people get into racket sports. It hasn't been a nuisance to the tennis courts at all, although the courts do tend to get pretty busy w/ lessons, so it'd be nice to have separate courts.
7/9/2024 3:56 PM
16 I’m disappointed that the pickle ball has impacted the playing time for tennis players so negatively- since it is already hard to get courts because of Player Capital using the majority of court times. I am unable to use the courts much at this point. More courts need to be available for residents to use.
7/9/2024 3:52 PM
17 Please enable 2 hour reservations 7/9/2024 2:53 PM
18 Pickleball is frankly more popular. Like to see more availability 7/9/2024 1:44 PM 19 The pickleball courts have been disruptive 7/9/2024 1:35 PM 20 It can be noisy to park goers. The sound baffling is pretty ugly and takes away from the open Page 405 of 433 7/9/2024 1:16 PM Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
24 / 35
feel of the courts. Not used very much and takes away options for tennis players. 21 Keep tennis courts, tennis 7/9/2024 1:12 PM
22 1. The clay court that is seldomly used should be converted back to the hard court, which will decrease the time conflict between pickleball and tennis users 7/9/2024 1:04 PM
23 It's great being able to play both pickleball and tennis! 7/9/2024 1:01 PM 24 Separate the two. One sport makes too much noise the other doesn’t. Plenty of space at park to build new PB.
7/9/2024 1:01 PM
25 I was very disappointed to see them even have this trail and feel if they want another place to play then build something away from the tennis courts as when you are trying to take a lesson or play a match the ball noise and all their talking interferes with my tennis experience. You need to understand it is a social sport so the amount of talking while playing is excessive and the ball noise is also to loud. I strongly recommend this trail to be shut down and if they want a pickle ball court they place it in another location. Taking that court away for a couple of hours has now made it harder for me to get a court reservation and when taking a lesson or trying to play a match it is super distracting. Thank you for sending a survey I hope people take the time to express their opinion.
7/9/2024 12:52 PM
26 Not a fan of pickleball and would not play it. 7/9/2024 12:48 PM 27 The tennis facility is an incredible asset to the community. The #1 16 yo girl in the country and top Stanford recruit grew up on those courts and uses them daily. The #1, 12U boy in Nor Cal and several other top level juniors use them; may are on their way to ivy leagues. Player capital is an incredible gem and asset to the community and outstanding steward of the courts; they maintain them in impeccable shape and adhere to the highest standards and at the highest levels of tennis, while maintaining a positive atmosphere and promoting the sport among youths and adults. It would be an absolute travesty to take this asset away from the community of Atherton and Menlo Park because of pickle ball - an easy solution is to build additional courts elsewhere.
7/9/2024 12:44 PM
28 We should build or adjust the hitting wall behind the tennis courts for pickleball. There is a very successful tennis program at the park now and we should not diminish it by taking couts away 7/9/2024 12:39 PM
29 Thankful for the pickleball trial! Hopefully we can find a way to keep it. 7/8/2024 8:04 PM 30 Need separate from tennis courts in another space as balls fly between both irregularly 7/8/2024 4:47 PM 31 The sooner the court #1 can be restored just for tennis the better 7/6/2024 7:57 PM 32 More availability please. 7/3/2024 9:09 AM
33 Convert clay court to pball, remove practice wall behind courts for additional pball courts. 7/1/2024 10:39 PM 34 Love it, so fun!!! 6/30/2024 11:55 AM
35 There should be alternate reservation days and drop-in days. (If the only way to get this past the City Council is to continue key sales then require drop-ins to be key holders or guests of key holders.) Try M/W/F/Sun for rez and Tue/Thur/Sat drop-in. However- Atherton is THE only town in the area without free Pickleball... so for the past 4 or 5 years, all us Athertonians have been using free courts in neighboring MP, RWC, & PA. We need to be more neighborly! 6/29/2024 2:46 PM
36 Loooooove pickleball!! Looking forward to many more years of enjoyment at Holbrook Palmer pickle courts PLEASE :)
6/27/2024 8:35 AM
37 Shared courts are fine as long as there enough hours for pickleball. Court 1 (the shared court) should be the last one available for tennis. Key holders should have some drop in options. I am a park neighbor as well. Loved meeting new community members through this trial. 6/26/2024 5:11 PM
38 afternoon sign ups are only available T/Th. Often no tennis players are playing then. It would be nice to allow either tennis or pickle in afternoons. It only takes one minute to move nets.

Also if other tennis courts are open tennis folks should sign up for those before taking court 1. 6/26/2024 5:02 PM
39 sound fencing has helped. Build separate pickle ball facilities 6/25/2024 12:17 PM 40 I have played at lots of different Pickleball courts in many towns. The way to go is to put in permanent pickle ball courts like the Ritz Carlton and Half Moon Bay has done. They are a great example.
6/25/2024 4:39 AM

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
25 / 35
41 Allow Pickleball in existing courts ASAP & build a new court elsewhere I enough "keys" are purchased
6/24/2024 7:37 PM
42 I can’t even tell you how much excitement, joy and community building these pickleball courts are bringing to my friends!!
6/24/2024 9:34 AM
43 I am in favor of pickleball in the park. However, I do think the sound of play is a true issue.

Continued efforts to limit sound disruption is paramount. Concerns and comments from our neighbors at Felton Gables should be listened to and given attentive consideration. A park should be about recreation, and part of that recreation could be accommodating pickleball players. The town, and the players enjoying the park need to be cognizant of the different opinions about the game, and the concerns of non-players. Active compromise by both should be an on-going effort to provide the activity while mitigating the sound. I am a resident of Atherton in nearby Lloyden Park (the "Poverty Pocket" as the great Jim Massey used to refer to it)
6/24/2024 7:08 AM
44 Please allow the pickleball courts to be drop in and please build more. 6/23/2024 8:41 PM 45 Pickleball has been the fastest growing sport over the past three years. Be progressive and hop on the pickleball bandwagon. Make HPP an inviting pickleball destination for all levels of play.
6/23/2024 5:42 PM
46 Very pleased to see my hometown embracing pickleball. Thank you 6/23/2024 5:24 PM 47 Love having courts in our community since all other cities around us have pickleball too. It’s growing massively in popularity and HPP would be a great place to let locals play close to home.
6/23/2024 5:16 PM
48 it should not be a competition between tennis and pb 6/23/2024 4:53 PM 49 It’s been great using these pickleball courts, please keep them and expand 6/23/2024 3:51 PM 50 This is a great idea and a chance for people to play more pickleball. I'll definitely purchase a key if the program extends.
6/23/2024 2:48 PM
51 Love having the ability to play pickleball in HPP. Making the courts permanent would add a lot to the community. For permanent courts, you can get 3 or 4 pickleball courts on a single tennis court which means that 16 people could play simultaneously (like at Nealon Park in Menlo Park)
6/23/2024 2:46 PM
52 Drop in/open play should be encouraged! Social events surrounding PB should be initiated 6/23/2024 10:37 AM 53 Trial does not have enough people playing pickleball 6/23/2024 7:52 AM 54 I think that pickle ball is much more popular now than tennis. When I cannot play pickle ball at Holbrook Palmer Park I go to the Red Morton community center 6/22/2024 9:37 PM
55 Overall fantastic unique experience. Ideal would be move to permanent courts and maintain reservations to key holders only; there is enough drop in between Palo Alto and Menlo Park. I would be happy to require all users to buy a key.
6/22/2024 4:14 PM
56 I was looking forward to playing, but without drop-in hours, a single player is shut out. Would also love some drop tennis hours with courts separated by level. Also, think about being able to reserve 1 hour singles and 1.5 hours doubles for tennis 6/22/2024 9:01 AM
57 If there are separate courts that can be converted that would work as well. Any thing that will allow for permanent pickleball courts.
6/22/2024 8:23 AM
58 If there is some demand for pickleball, I would support continued joint use of an existing court between tennis and pickleball. If there is high demand for pickleball, especially if there are donations (a good demand indicator), an existing tennis court could be converted or new courts could be constructed. If the clay court is deemed not suitable for tennis anymore, it could be converted back to a hard court, whether that be tennis or pickleball play. That would keep the number of usable courts for tennis about equal as now. Alternatively, new pickleball courts could be constructed where the tennis hitting wall is currently located. There may be room for two or three courts there.
6/22/2024 8:20 AM
59 Please make pickleball a permanent option. Thank you! 6/22/2024 7:25 AM 60 Love playing at HPP!!! Please continue to let PB players have a court. Page 407 of 433 6/22/2024 7:18 AM Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
26 / 35
61 Pickleball is inclusive for old and young also pickle courts get used more. Build a full time court.
6/21/2024 11:25 PM
62 Don't do anything permanent until this fad wanes. It's a noisy game, and neighbors already have park noise. The entire town is so noisy with out of control construction, we need some respite. Spend the money on other much needed resources. Staffed offices, employees that answer the phone, planning department that is open longer hours, etc. 6/21/2024 8:55 PM
63 This is a very noisy sport, between the sound of the paddles/balls and the increasing number of players per square area of court. Unless there's a whole new place to put it that doesn't disturb neighbors, park visitors, or others, it just cannot be accommodated. Atherton budget would be much better spent cleaning streets, fixing gutters and drains, and other infrastucture. 6/21/2024 8:52 PM
64 Thank you for conducting the trial and continuing pickle ball fun for Atherton residents at Holbrook Palmer Park.
6/21/2024 8:12 PM
65 I love pickleball and it is a lovely way to meet fellow community members. I will continue to purchase a key if pickleball is perminent.
6/21/2024 6:13 PM
66 I'm supportive of having pickleball at the Hollbrook Palmer courts. Makes sense, since pickleball is so popular, and it's a service/function that our City ought to make available to its residents.
6/21/2024 6:04 PM
67 The town needs to realize that pickleball is yet another way for our more senior community to gather and enjoy each other.
6/21/2024 6:02 PM
68 Fun times! Great way to meet other residents from the community! 6/21/2024 6:00 PM 69 It would be great to have at least one permanent court and one dual purpose court as the tennis courts are not always used
6/21/2024 5:24 PM
70 Geez guys! Atherton is way behind the times of getting on board with the pickleball craze. It is the fastest growing sport in America, maybe the world. Two courts is not enough and stop with all the questions and get up to speed (no pun intended). 6/21/2024 5:10 PM
71 Not enough folks know about pickleball being available but the ones who do are frequent players. We just started playing PB brand new 2 months ago DUE to the pilot! Now we are avid players 3x per week and have shared PB with 8 friends so far who have begun playing.

PLEASE make some PB courts permanent and INCREASE availability (we often can't play now due to full reservations). Consider option for 90 min reservations if possible. 6/21/2024 5:07 PM
72 If it's not financially feasible to build new pickleball courts than it would be nice to have dedicated courts so converting an existing tennis court would be the next preferable option.

Also, would like Atherton residents to be the only players able to reserve the courts to ensure that the courts are not taken over by other players who do not live in the Town. 6/21/2024 4:55 PM
73 HPP is a jewel of Atherton! It is for all residents - not just dog walkers, not just soccer players, not just tennis players. I love that pickleball has brought in a whole new group of park users 6/21/2024 4:51 PM
74 The pickleball trial has shown how the community can benefit from permanent pickleball courts at HPP. As the trial continues, please consider extending the hours for pickleball use. 6/21/2024 4:46 PM
75 Love playing close to home. Courts are in great shape. Please keep pickleball alive at the park.
6/21/2024 8:58 AM
76 The community is enjoying the pickle trial. Please consider increasing our equity. 6/20/2024 9:39 PM 77 I think the trial is has been terrific, and I very much hope it becomes permanent. I use the courts frequently, I've met new friends here, including nearby neighbors who have been enthusiastic about the pickleball courts.
6/20/2024 3:10 PM

Atherton Pickleball Trial - Assessment Survey
27 / 35

98.21% 55

0.00% 0

85.71% 48

1.79% 1

89.29% 50

85.71% 48

85.71% 48

0.00% 0

91.07% 51

0.00% 0
Q17 Contact Information (OPTIONAL)
Answered: 56 Skipped: 98
# NAME DATE

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Name
Company
Address
Address 2
City/Town
State/Province
ZIP/Postal Code
Country
Email Address
Phone Number

Pickleball
Subcommittee
Report on the PB Trial
Park and Recreation Committee
September 4, 2024

Analysis of Trial Success
Whether there is sufficient interest to warrant continued PB at the Park: reviewing reservations through August; both PB surveys; and comments from PB players.

Any detrimental effects to preclude PB, such as noise or elimination of tennis if PB is played on a present tennis court.

In addition, consideration of possible changes as to when, how and where PB is played should it continue at the Park.
2

PB Interest
• Last 4 months usage by reservations
• Approximately 47 different players reserved a court
• 405 hours, approximately 44% of availability (9 AM -12 PM every day, 4-7 PM Tu/Thu) • For August, 117 hours by 27 players (57% by 6 players and 79% by 11 players) • There can be 2 – 4 people on a court, totaling 230 – 460 PB hours a month • Survey Results
• 77 respondents said they played PB at the Park (50 Atherton residents) • 246 residents in the 1st survey before the trial reported playing PB • Several people remarked they would play if more times opened up or “drop-in” play were allowed
• Conclusion
• Sufficient interest to continue PB at the Park
3

Detrimental Effects of PB: Noise Issue
• No complaints received by Town staff from neighbors, etc. • Baffling has helped
• Survey responses
• 18 noise complaints (10 Atherton) in response to Q10 about opinion on stripping, layout, noise • 8 noise complaints in response to Q16 requesting “additional feedback” • No response by neighbors
• Town ordinance of 60 dBa not exceeded, but designed for continuous noise, not PB sporadic sounds • Measurement devices installed for the trial measure sound peaks at intervals but do not measure PB sporadic sounds
• Noise nationwide has been a PB problem
• Noise is not linear and each 3 dBa increase is double the sound energy and each 10 dba doubles the effect • Cycles/sec or pitch is much higher for PB than tennis • Circus Club had to move courts and mandate soft paddles after complaints even with no dBa violation and court baffling
• Noise issue should be monitored as it may increase with increased play and “drop-in” with players waiting and making noise along with players
4

Effect on Tennis
• Courts 1 and 6 are used by tennis keyholders, with Player Capital using 3 or 4 courts, including a clay court of limited use • Survey: 56 played tennis not PB (32 Atherton residents) • 75% “generally negative” about the shared court
• 96% resisted conversion of a court to PB
• 10% could allow continued joint use
• 86% wanted a permanent PB court built elsewhere
• Very few complaints that PB precluded tennis, probably given the limited PB hours and other tennis court availability
• Conclusions
• Trial does not show a meaningful loss of tennis opportunities • A separate PB court would eliminate any conflict
5

Possible Alterations in PB Availability
• Same shared Court 1 with 8 AM-12 PM daily and 4-7 PM Tu/Thu • Only about 12 days when no AM times available over 7 months • No unavailability during the 4-7 PM Tu/Thu time
• Some PB players have requested more availability and “drop in” • Might extend PB to all day Sunday and/or Saturday 4-7 PM • Drop-in: 26% of PB players want only reservations and 49% want mostly reservations; 74% want some drop-in
• Trial of drop-in on Sunday afternoon on one PB court? • Could allow PB/Tennis on Court 1 any time not reserved at certain times • Monitor drop-ins with keys: sign-in sheet, guests and sign as to hours • Monitor noise given survey complaints about “yelling and banter,” ball noise and talking from PB generally; may require soft paddles 6

Separate PB Court or Permanent
Conversion of a Tennis Court
• 74 % survey respondents favored a permanent PB Court
• 42% favored elsewhere in the Park (tennis players preference) • 42% converting a tennis court (PB players preference) • 16 % continue joint use
• Average PB use of 2 hours a day per PB court does not mandate either type of permanent court
• PB might fund a new court, like tennis players did
• Some have suggested fewer courts for PC
• The PC usage and the original contract based on 4 playable courts during the week and 3 on weekend (one or both days)
• Clay court of limited use and could be converted to a hard court • Any change might affect lessons and children’s summer camps 7

Summary and Recommendations
• Sufficient interest to continue PB
• Not sufficient evidence of detriments to preclude PB, with appropriate limitations and integration with tennis usage • Best solution
• Short-term: Continue shared use, with increased PB hours • Sunday all day, with afternoon drop-in on one PB court • Monitor noise levels from increased use
• Any keyholder can drop in along with up to 3 companions • Review after 1-year trial
• Long term: Entertain separate PB court
• Could be funded by donors if Council approves and a suitable location can be identified, such as the practice wall located by the RR tracks; consider reconstructing the clay court 8

Item No. 9
Town of Atherton
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT – REGULAR AGENDA
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ROBERT OVADIA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2024
SUBJECT: APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND
ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS

TRAFFIC AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT TO

INCLUDE A ROUNDABOUT AT THE ALAMEDA DE LAS

PULGAS / ATHERTON AVENUE INTERSECTION AND TO

PROVIDE ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council approve an amendment to the professional services agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Alameda del las Pulgas Traffic and Safety Improvements project in the amount of $212,993.60 for the incorporation of the proposed roundabout at the Alameda de las Pulgas / Atherton Avenue intersection as well as related project environmental support.

BACKGROUND
The City Council approved a professional services agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (K-H) for design services related to the Alameda de las Pulgas Traffic and Safety Improvements project at their February 21, 2024, meeting. The major project scope components included: removal of the mid-block traffic signal on Alameda de las Pulgas (ADLP) located between Mills Avenue and Camino al Lago, installation of a new traffic signal at the Camino al Lago intersection to consolidate pedestrian access to Las Lomitas Elementary School, reconfiguration and signalization of the Atherton Avenue intersection to improve traffic safety, mobility and reduce traffic delays. Reconfiguration of the Atherton Avenue intersection would include accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian needs at the intersection as well as required green infrastructure improvements.

Following approval of the agreement, the City Council approved a study to analyze the feasibility of constructing a roundabout at the ADLP/Atherton Avenue intersection in lieu of the proposed

ADPL Traffic and Safety Improvements
K-H Services Agreement
October 16, 2024

traffic signal. The results of the feasibility study were presented to the City Council at their September 4, 2024, Study Session. Following review and discussion, the City Council directed staff to seek an amendment to the project to include a roundabout at the ADPL/Atherton Avenue intersection.

ANALYSIS
Following the study session, staff reached out to K-H to discuss the incorporation of a roundabout at the ADLP/Atherton Avenue intersection. Following review and discussion, K-H submitted a proposal in the amount of $331, 395.33 for preliminary and final design of the roundabout, additional required survey work, and environmental support services required by Caltrans related to Cultural Resources and Air Quality. They also provided a credit for some cost savings in the current services agreement in the amount of $67,992.17, for a total amendment of $263,403.16.

Following review by the project management team and further discussion with Kimley-Horn, KH submitted a revised proposal in the total amount of $212,985.78 broken out as follows:

Roundabout Preliminary and Final Design $195,501.96
Topographical and Boundary Survey (subconsultant) $31,945.14 Cultural Resources and Air Quality $43,538.67
Additional Environmental Support (optional) $10,000.00
Credit against current agreement (67,992.17)
Total Amendment $212,933.60
It is noted that the additional environmental support services related to cultural resources and air quality are required to support the overall project, regardless of inclusion of the roundabout.

Following Council direction, staff also reached out to Caltrans and Congresswoman Eshoo’s Office for feedback regarding the proposed scope adjustment. Staff from Congresswoman Eshoo’s office was supportive of the Town’s proposed change. Caltrans advised that formal documentation would be required to revise the project scope and that a second review by their environmental group would be required to assess any additional studies/documentation needed to complete the environmental review beyond those previously outlined for the project. Caltrans also advised that the grant funding timeline could not be adjusted. The grant fund obligation deadline remains at September 30, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT
Sufficient funds are available in the Capital Improvement Program budget for the Alameda de las Pulgas Traffic and Safety Improvements project to fund the proposed amendment in the amount of $212,993.60.

GOAL ALIGNMENT

ADPL Traffic and Safety Improvements
K-H Services Agreement
October 16, 2024

This Report and its contents are in alignment with the following Council Policy Goals:
• Goal Area A – Maintain Fiscal Responsibility
• Goal Area B – Preserve Small Town Character and Quality of Life • Goal Area D – Manage Circulation and Improve Safety
• Goal Area F – Be Forward-Thinking, Well-Managed, and Well-Planned

POLICY FOCUS
The Council policy focus should be on the desire to improve public, pedestrian, and bicycle safety, and traffic flow along the Alameda de las Pulgas corridor, and intent to incorporate a roundabout at the ADLP/Atherton Avenue intersection. In addition, the Council will need to consider impacts on grant funding, locally required funding, and project timing.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with this agenda item being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in print and electronically. Information about the project is also disseminated via the Town’s electronic News Flash and Atherton Online. There are approximately 1,200 subscribers to the Town’s electronic News Flash publications. Subscribers include residents as well as stakeholders –to include, but be not limited to, media outlets, school districts, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, service provides (water, power, and sewer), and regional elected officials.

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE FEEDBACK/REFERRAL
This item has not been before a Town Committee or Commission

ATTACHMENTS

1. K-H Amendment Proposal for ADLP Roundabout

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 Date: October 1, 2024
To: Robert Ovadia, P.E.

Director of Public Works
Town of Atherton
From: John Pulliam, P.E. and Akash Patel, P.E.

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Subject: Alameda de las Pulgas Safety and Traffic Improvement Project - Amendment #1

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The Town of Atherton has contracted with Kimley-Horn to provide professional engineering services for the design of the Alameda de las Pulgas Safety and Improvement Project. Alameda de las Pulgas corridor is a high-volume corridor that serves as a North-South alternative to El Camino Real. The purpose of this project is to provide corridor-wide safety improvements to provide multimodal access and connectivity, provide enhanced safety measures for bicyclists and pedestrians, and reduce cutthrough traffic congestion. As currently scoped, the project includes • Removal of the existing pedestrian activated signal along Alameda de las Pulgas, between Mills Avenue and Camino al Lago.
• Signalization of Alameda de las Pulgas and Camino al Lago intersection • Signalization and removal of free-right/channelizing island at Alameda de las Pulgas and Atherton Avenue intersection
• ADA Improvements (sidewalk and curb ramp improvement as deemed necessary) along Alameda de las Pulgas at Stockbridge Avenue, Atherton Avenue, Camino al Lago, and Mills Avenue intersections
• Green infrastructure and stormwater treatment improvements at Alameda de las Pulgas and Camino al Lago intersection, and Alameda de las Pulgas and Atherton Avenue intersection • Micro-sealing Alameda de las Pulgas from Stockbridge Avenue to Mills Avenue • Use of Federal funds, and consequently working through the Caltrans Local Assistance process to receive construction E-76
As part of this design phase, the Town contracted with a separate consulting firm to conduct a feasibility study to assess the feasibility of installing a roundabout at the intersection of Alameda de las Pulgas and Atherton Avenue, in lieu of a traffic signal. Upon completion of that study, public outreach, and a council study session, the Town determined that a roundabout is feasible and is the preferred alternative, in lieu of a traffic signal.

This proposal reflects the additional scope and fee necessary for Kimley-Horn to provide professional engineering services to design a roundabout at the intersection of Alameda de las Pulgas and Atherton Avenue, provide additional environmental support services as it pertains to Cultural

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 Resources and Air Quality requirements set forth by Caltrans Local Assistance for project approval, and amending of the original scope of services per the contract agreement dated February 23rd, 2024 that are no longer pertinent to the revised project scope of improvements.

REVISIONS TO ORIGINAL SCOPE OF SERVICES
The following notes amendments to the original scope of services in the contract agreement dated February 23rd, 2024 between Kimley-Horn and the Town. Scope of work noted below in this section titled “Revisions to Original Scope of Services” is removed/amended and no longer considered as part of this project contract. Should any of these scope items be required at a later date, additional fee will be requested
• Task 3.3 - Phase I ISA: As part of the signed PES Document from Caltrans, a Phase I ISA was not requested and no longer deemed as a required report for project approval. As such, all scope of work associated with the Phase I ISA under Task 3.3 is removed • Task 3.5 - Potholing: The number of total potholes assumed to be needed for this project has been reduced from 16 potholes to 14 potholes. Coordination effort for pothole locations will still be required, and as such only budget associated with subconsultant work to perform the potholing services has been revised.
• Task 4 - Environmental Documents: All scope of work associated with Air Quality Assessment and Green House gas Emissions memorandum, Noise memorandum, and PES documentation under Task 4 is removed
• Task 5.1A - Prepare Final Concept (10% Design): All scope of work associated with Prepare Final Concept under Task 5.1A is removed
• Task 5.2 – 5.4 – 65% PS&E, 95% PS&E, and 100% (Final) PS&E: All scope of work associated with landscaping, signal design & lighting analysis, and detailed plan production of the improvements at the intersection of Atherton Avenue and Alameda de las Pulgas is removed

ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF SERVICES
Kimley-Horn will perform the following scope of services:

Task 8: Roundabout Preliminary and Final Design
Task 8.1: Roundabout Operations
Roundabout traffic operations at the study intersection (Intersection of Alameda de las Pulgas & Atherton Avenue) will be evaluated based on the design year traffic scenarios provided by the Town.

Roundabout operations will be evaluated using peak hour movements to determine the appropriate number of approach, circulatory, and departure lanes through the design life of the roundabout. The roundabout capacity and operations analysis will be conducted using Sidra Intersection 9 software using the HCM 6 capacity model.

The following items are included in this task:

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 • Perform peak hour intersection Level of Service (LOS) and queuing analysis for roundabout control during existing and future peak hour design year scenarios. Report the peak hour average control delay, LOS, volume to capacity ratio (v/c), and 95th percentile queue length for each approach by movement. Queue estimates will be examined relative to available storage lengths to nearby driveways and adjacent intersections.

Deliverables:
• Roundabout Operations Memorandum (PDF)
Task 8.2: Concept Refinement
The primary purpose of this task is to verify the design year footprint of the study intersection. The conceptual design phase provides a cost-effective framework to evaluate approach and departure alignment alternatives, including the channelization of approach, circulatory, and departure lanes, with respect to known project constraints, design vehicles, right of way, local access, and utilities.

Roundabout design will be in conformance with principles described in NCHRP Report 1043.

The roundabout conceptual layouts will be prepared using project CADD files. Colored, 2D concept renderings will depict critical roundabout features and geometric design elements based on the initial roundabout operations prepared under Task 8.1. The layouts will include color coded areas identifying landscape opportunities and potential sight line constraints based on estimated sight lines.

Project constraints and right of way will be identified and considered in the placement of the roundabout.

Kimley-Horn will incorporate planned storm water strategies, for target stormwater run-off and treatment areas within the roundabout project improvement area and improvements to the existing drainage infrastructure.

Key features evaluated during this phase include:
• Size and location of roundabout relative to right-of-way and geometric constraints • Number of approach, departure, and circulatory lanes
• Channelization and striping strategies for circulating lanes and design vehicle accommodation
• Approach and departure alignment
• Design speed, design vehicle, and sight line considerations (Preliminary calculations will be conducted at this phase of concept refinement. Final design check calculations will be completed during Task 8.3)
• Local access impacts and circulation
• Travel paths for bicyclists and pedestrians
• Continuity for pedestrian travel and access to transit facilities • Estimated functional area of intersection based on roundabout geometric features and roundabout design influence areas

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 OneUp to two concepts will be considered at the intersection. As part of this task, Kimley-Horn will review the conceptual layout provided in the RAB feasibility study and provide a concept that refines the initial concept layout This may include alternative means to achieve target safety performance measures, pedestrian & vehicle site circulation, right-of-way impacts, utility avoidance, storm water treatment, environmental avoidance/mitigation areas, etc. In some cases, and at the discretion of the engineer, there could be a hybrid of various features that help explore the range of options and tradeoffs for each concept. Options and trade-offs typically include variations on the roundabout inscribed circle diameter and central island, location of the roundabout, and variations in the approach and departure geometry.

It is assumed that constraints at the project location will be identified and provided prior to development of the refined project concepts. This scope assumes development of onetwo draft concept layouts for review by the client. After review by the client, one round of adjustments to the layout is included.

The preferred revised concept layout will serve as the basis for optimization of the roundabout and geometric approval as described under Task 8.3.

Deliverables:
• Up to two (2One Draft) Concepts (PDF)
• Preferred Revised Concept Layout (PDF)

8.3: Roundabout Geometric Approval Drawing (GAD)
Kimley-Horn will prepare preliminary engineering drawings and design check calculations to obtain geometric approval of the preferred concept. Preliminary engineering plans are assumed to extend to the point where the improvements conform with existing street infrastructure or proposed street typical section, whichever is less.

Preliminary engineering drawings will be prepared to identify the horizontal design limits of critical geometric elements such as curb geometry, lane widths, channelization, lane transitions, pavement markings, sightlines, and conform conditions to either the existing street infrastructure or proposed typical street section. The functional area of the intersection will be defined, typical sections of each leg, the roundabout circulatory roadway and central island will be prepared.

Preliminary centerline and curb profiles will be generated to a level sufficient to identify estimated grading of the roadway finished surface and to identify drainage patterns. A preliminary contour plan of the finished surface will be prepared as a design check for drainage, right-of-way, sight line, and driver comfort.

We assume that all constraints, storm water treatment areas, and other above and below ground considerations will be finalized prior to the start of this task.

Design checks specific to vehicles navigating roundabout intersections will be calculated and documented in a technical memorandum. Roundabout curb geometry and lane markings will be

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 adjusted to achieve target design values for estimated speeds, design vehicles, and sight lines. If site conditions or other constraints require a deviation from guidance described in NCHRP Report 672, the deviation will be identified in the technical memorandum along with a description why the deviation is being requested. The following design checks will be evaluated for vehicles:
• Fastest path estimation for R1 through R5
• Swept path and tire tracking for design vehicles (Assume up to two design vehicles) • Intersection angle of visibility
• Intersection Sight Distance
• Stopping Sight Distance
• Path overlap estimation for multi-lane entries and departures This task is established to achieve geometric approval of the roundabout through the Town. The format of the GAD deliverable will be a single-sheet roll plot of the project area. This roll plot will include curb geometry, as well as signing and striping, with general informational callouts of the improvements, hatches to denote areas of improvements, contour grading plan, linework for the existing utilities and preliminary underground drainage improvements, and typical sections.

We assume after one round of revisions, consultation, and response to consolidated comments, the roundabout will be considered geometrically approved. After approval, any requests or directions to change the horizontal curb geometry within the functional area of the roundabout will be considered out of scope work.

Deliverables:
• Roundabout Geometric Approval Roll Plot
• Design Check Technical Memorandum
Task 8.4: 95% PS&E
This task includes the preparation of construction documents needed for project approval and bid for construction. Construction documents developed as part of this task will be folded into the overall corridor wide 95% PS&E package and be submitted as one combined package.

Based on the Roundabout Geometric Approval (GAD), the Kimley-Horn team will create 95% final plans and engineer’s opinion of probable cost for the roundabout and associated improvements at the Alameda de las Pulgas and Atherton Avenue intersection. We anticipate developing the following plan sheet types as part of this scope
• Typical Sections
• Demolition Plans
• Layout Plans
• Construction Details
• Contour Grading Plans
• Drainage and Utility Plans
• Signing and Striping Plans

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 • Landscaping and Irrigation Plans
• Street Lighting Plans
It is assumed that staged construction, traffic control, and detour plans will be the contractor’s responsibility and are therefore not included in this Scope of Services. The project specifications that will include contractor requirements to prepare and submit staged construction plans for Town review and approval.

Landscape and Irrigation Design is assumed to include the following:
• Cover Sheet and General Notes depicting information schedules and general notes. • Landscape Plan and Details illustrating areas of planting, limits of planting, plant types, quantities, size, details and notes. All proposed plantings will comply with the State’s Water Efficiency Ordinance.
• Irrigation Plan and Details portraying irrigation connection, backflow, controller, mainlines, sleeves, lateral lines and emitters for 100% coverage. The plans will consist of irrigation details, notes, calculations, and water use summary tables per plant type and emitter. The irrigation design will meet the specifications set forth in the State’s Water Efficiency Ordinance.

Street Lighting Plans Design is assumed to include the following:
• Lighting design showing proposed luminaire pole placements, wattages, conduit, pull boxes, and connection to service point
• Lighting analysis in AGI 32 at the intersection of Atherton Avenue and Alameda de las Pulgas
• Lighting analysis done per RP-8-21, unless otherwise specified from the Town • .ies files and preferred lighting brand from the Town, if there is no preference or available .ies files, Kimley-Horn will select .ies files for the analysis • Lighting analysis will be presented on an exhibit. Up to two rounds of analysis and two exhibit submittals are included
• Coordination with PG&E on service point for the luminaires. We assume one (1) field meeting with PG&E
Deliverables:
• 95% PS&E in PDF format and up to three (3) 11'x17' hard copies • Draft Lighting Analysis and Exhibit
Task 8.5 100% (Final) PS&E
Based on one set of non-conflicting comments from the Town on the 95% PS&E, Kimley-Horn will prepare the 100% (Final) PS&E. Kimley-Horn will prepare a Comment-Response matrix which will be completed and submitted with the next deliverable, detailing a response on how each comment was addressed.

Deliverables:
• 100% plans in PDF format and up to three (3) 11'x17' hard copies

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 • 100% Plans printed on full-size (24”x36”) and wet signed (one (1) copy) • 100% Specification sheet stamped by responsible engineer(s) • 95% (PS&E) Comment-Response Matrix
• Final Lighting Analysis and Exhibit
Task 8 Assumptions
In addition to work not explicitly stated in the above scope of services, the following are assumed to be excluded as part of this scope of work
• Geotechnical Investigation/Report
• Undergrounding of overhead utility and relocation of utility poles • Right of Way Acquisition
• Utility relocation design
Task 9: Cultural Resources & Air Quality
Task 9.1: Cultural Resources Reports (ASR, XPIP, XPIR, HPSR) Archaeological Survey Report (ASR). Kimley-Horn will prepare an Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) for the proposed undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The reports will be completed pursuant to Caltrans guidelines and formats. All efforts will be completed by, or under the supervision of, a cultural resource professional that meets the United States Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology and Architectural History. Tasks will include:

Coordination: Kimley-Horn cultural resources management staff will coordinate with Caltrans during development of the ASR. Kimley-Horn staff will develop an Area of Potential Effect (APE) Map in coordination with Caltrans. This scope includes up to two updates to the APE Map based upon Caltrans comments. For the purposes of this scope, the APE is generally defined as a 1-mile stretch of Alameda de las Pulgas between Mills Ave and Stockbridge Ave.

Research: KHA cultural resources management staff will conduct a cultural resources records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) to determine if any previously recorded cultural resources are located within the APE or ½ mile buffer. Staff will research geomorphology and land use history through applicable databases, historic aerials, and topographic maps. Staff will also review applicable literature, repositories and databases for additional research of the cultural sensitivity of the APE.

Outreach: Staff will request a tribal consultation list and records search of Sacred Lands Files (SLF) through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the APE. Staff will contact the Native American Tribes listed on the NAHC’s consultation list to request any information about cultural resources or sacred sites in or near the APE. Outreach will include

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 one initial correspondence and up to one additional follow-up correspondence to the Tribes on the contact list. Staff will also contact up to two historical organizations or societies as part the outreach effort for the ASR. Any additional outreach effort required by Caltrans will require an adjusted scope and fee.

Field Survey: Staff will conduct a pedestrian survey of the entirety of the APE. Survey methods will be non-collective and all identified cultural resources will be recorded utilizing CA DPR 523 series forms. This scope also accounts for the evaluation of recorded resources for eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Report: Upon conclusion of coordination, research, outreach, and field survey efforts, an ASR will be produced that will follow Caltrans formats and guidelines. The ASR will include a summary of the records search results, Native American consultations, brief historic and ethnographic background sections, description of field methodology, results of the survey, and necessary maps. This scope includes up to two updates to the ASR based upon Caltrans comments.

Extended Phase I Effort. Utilizing information from the ASR and guidance from Caltrans in preparation of the ASR, an Extended Phase I Plan (XPIP) will be prepared to conduct shovel testing within the APE in areas identified as archaeologically sensitive. Due to the built environment of the APE and limited areas that can be tested, this scope assumes up to four (4) shovel test pits (STPs) will be conducted within the APE. Specifically, Kimley-Horn assumes that all STPs will occur in unpaved areas via hand excavation methods. Any additional testing or other methods will require a fee adjustment. This task includes up to two updates to the XPIP based upon Caltrans comments.

Upon approval of the XPIP by Caltrans, the required actions set forth within the Plan will be implemented and an Extended Phase I Report will be drafted outlining the results of testing. This task includes up to two updates to the XPIR based upon Caltrans comments. Both the XPIP and XPIR will be produced following Caltrans formats and guidelines.

Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR). Upon completion of the ASR and XPIR, a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) will be prepared following Caltrans formats and guidelines. The report will include the final draft of the APE map and outlines the research, survey, etc. and findings made for and within the ASR, XPIP, and XPIR. The document also provides evidence of coordination with Native American groups, local government, and other interested persons and organizations. The final draft of the ASR, XPIP, and XPIR will be attached as an appendix.

Deliverables
• Area of Potential Effect Map
• Archaeological Survey Report
• Extended Phase I Testing Plan
• Extended Phase I Testing Report
• Historic Property Survey Report

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 Task 9.2: Air Quality Assessment
Fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions from construction activities will be quantitatively evaluated using the latest version of the Roadway Construction Emissions Model (RCEM).

Construction air quality and greenhouse gas emissions would be evaluated with Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) CEQA thresholds. As the project will not include land development or operational emissions sources, the analysis will briefly describe that the proposed project would improve safety and circulation and not negatively impact air quality and would not generate operational emissions. The analysis of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions will be conducted in accordance with the BAAQMD’s recommended methodologies and thresholds of significance. Additionally, the analysis will be prepared to support the NEPA documentation for the project. This task includes up to one (1) meeting with the Town to review previously prepared work products associated with air quality and MTC task board approval. This task includes up to one (1) meeting with MTC Task Force for air quality approval.

Deliverables:
• Air quality assessment and Greenhouse Gas Emissions memorandum • Up to one (1) Town Review Meeting
• Up to one (1) MTC Task Force Meeting
Task 9.3 Additional Environmental Support (Optional)Assumptions Should Caltrans require additional environmental documentation not specifically stated in the scope of services above, Kimley-Horn will perform the additional scope of work for an amount not to exceed the fee amount listed in Task 9.3 of the attached Exhibit A. Should additional scope of services beyond this fee amount be required, additional fee will be requested. This task is to only be utilized upon written authorization from Town staff.

Task 9 Assumptions
• This scope does not include any effort related to the preparation of a Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER)
• This scope does not include any effort related to consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
• This scope does not include any effort related to formal consultation with Native American Tribes. All outreach to Tribes outlined in the scope is for the purposes of gathering information for the report and does not constitute consultation required under AB52 (CEQA, as amended) or Section 106 of the NHPA
• This scope assumes scope of work based upon the requirements set forth by Caltrans Local Assistance in the fully executed and signed PES dated April 26th, 2024 Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Not Bold

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 Other Direct Costs
Unico (Topographic Survey and Boundary Survey)
UNICO will perform additional topographic surveys and mapping along the proposed roundabout at Alameda de las Pulgas and Atherton Avenue as delineated by the design team. The limits and details have been provided by the Kimley Horn team to accommodate roundabout alternatives. By means of conventional survey methods, UNICO will perform design level (non-aerial) topographic surveying and mapping along the project limits. Dense 10’x10’ spot elevations will be located along the roadway pavement for conforms. The width of survey will cover the full right of way and approximately 15 feet beyond where accessible. Items to locate will include curbs, gutters, sidewalks, pathways, pavement, striping, shoulders, ditches, fences, walls, trees, driveways, signs, poles, signals, valves, vaults, meters, hydrants, inlets, manholes and all visible utilities and features, including any USA markings (to be coordinated by design or Geotech team). UNICO will locate curb ramp details such as sidewalk, ramps, landings, expansion joints, curbs, gutters, lip of gutter, pavement cross slopes for conform, signals, boxes, poles, and other visible features. UNICO will perform measure downs to inlets and manholes that are in the project footprint for pipe depth, flow direction and pipe size.

UNICO will map all topographic features in AutoCAD format to include full mapping, 1’ contours and 3D surface.

Deliverables:
▪ AutoCAD Base File
▪ Point Files
Additional Boundary and Right of Way Mapping - UNICO will research record of surveys, parcel maps, subdivision maps, roadway maps, corner record cards, deeds and other recorded information to map the existing right of way along the project corridor. UNICO field crews will search and tie existing property monuments such as monument wells, iron pipes, spikes, pins and other record boundary markers. UNICO will resolve right of way from record information and field surveys and provide an AutoCAD based right of way base drawing. UNICO will utilize title reports that were purchased as part of earlier surveys at the intersection. Additional title reports may be required along the extended project limits. As such, UNICO will purchase an additional 4 title reports as needed to fully discern the right of way. All found monuments will be mapped into the right of way base drawing as a means for monument preservation activities during the construction phase.

Deliverables:
▪ AutoCAD Right of Way Base File
▪ Maps and Right of Way Documents
▪ Title Reports
Plats and Legal Descriptions - UNICO will prepare plats and legal descriptions for the project as needed. For budgetary purposes, it is assumed acquisition may be required for 3 properties. For this proposal, UNICO will prepare a total 6 plats and legal descriptions for both fee acquisition and

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 Temporary Construction Easements (TCE) for the 3 properties. UNICO will prepare preliminary plats and legal descriptions for review. Upon approval, UNICO will prepare final signed and stamped plats and legal descriptions.

Deliverables:
▪ Plats and Legal Descriptions (6 Total)

SCHEDULE
We recognize that you are eager to have our services begin and assist you with determining the next steps. As a result, Kimley-Horn is prepared to begin work immediately upon receipt of a signed Agreement and we will endeavor to meet your scheduling needs and the noted federal earmark construction E-76 deadline of September 30th, 2025.

FEE AND EXPENSES
Kimley-Horn proposes to provide professional services outlined in this scope of services, per the terms of the original contract dated February 23rd, 2024 for an additional fee not to exceed $21263,993403.6016, and a revised total contract amount not to exceed $669720,977387.6925.

Further detailing of the fee and expenses are provided in the attached Exhibit A.

CLOSURE
If you concur in all the foregoing and wish to direct us to proceed with the services, please have authorized persons execute both copies of this Agreement in the spaces provided below, retain one copy, and return the other to us. We will commence services only after we have received a fullyexecuted agreement. Fees and times stated in this Agreement are valid for sixty (60) days after the date of this letter.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services to you. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
John Pulliam, P.E.

Formatted: Normal, Space After: 0 pt, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" + Tab after: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.5"

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 Robert Ovadia, P.E.
, Public Works Director
_____________________________________
(Date)
(Print or Type Name)
(Email Address)
Attest:
, Secretary/Assistant Secretary
(Print or Type Name)

, Witness
(Print or Type Name)

Total Cost Total Credit
Task 1 $ 38,650.89 -

1.1 $ 11,949.25 -

1.2 $ 10,702.18 -

1.3 $ 7,355.12 -

1.4 $ 8,644.33 -
Task 2 $ 33,033.87 -

2.1 $ 11,910.44 -

2.2 $ 3,870.89 -

2.3 $ 5,918.96 -

2.4 Concept Development / Prepare Final Concept $ 11,333.58 - Task 3 $ 21,736.17 -

3.1 $ 7,182.27 -

3.2 $ 1,545.68 -

3.3 $ 2,186.15 $ (2,186.15)

3.4 $ 9,072.55 -

3.5 $ 1,749.52 -
Task 4 $ 11,498.80 -

4.1 $ 7,885.35 $ (3,357.10)

4.2 $ 3,613.44 $ (1,485.35)
Task 5 $ 199,332.68 -

5.1 $ 13,312.17 -

5.1A Prepare Final Concept (10% Design) $ 6,510.37 $ (6,510.37)

5.2 $ 81,827.22 $ (12,219.94)

5.3 $ 37,527.68 $ (6,247.57)

5.4 $ 20,282.65 $ (4,337.59)

5.5 $ 5,188.67 -

5.6 $ 13,767.58 -

5.7 $ 20,916.33 -
$ 304,252.39 -
$ 105,982.81 -
$ 10,648.83 -
$ 300.00 -
$ 500.00 -
$ 46,248.00 $ (5,781.00)
$ 13,466.51 $ (13,466.51)
$ 34,819.47 $ (12,400.59)
$ 410,235.21 -
Task 6 $ 36,277.54 -

6.1 $ 6,365.50 -

6.2 $ 29,912.04 -
Task 7 $ 10,471.34 -

7.1 $ 1,026.28 -

7.2 $ 8,215.66 -

7.3 $ 1,229.40 -
$ 46,748.88 -
$ 456,984.09 -
$ (67,992.17)
Total Cost Total Credit
Task 8 $ 195,501.96 -

8.1 $ 7,081.69 -

8.2 $ 18,242.94 -

8.3 $ 44,568.02 -

8.4 $ 79,934.07 -

8.5 $ 45,675.24 -
Task 9 $ 43,538.67 -

9.1 $ 36,882.32 -

9.2 $ 6,656.35 -
$ 31,945.14 -
$ 31,945.14 -
Optional Tasks $ 10,000.00 -

9.3 (O) $ 10,000.00 -
$ 280,985.78 -
$ 212,993.60
$ 669,977.69
Construction Support - DSDC
Bid-Support
Parikh Consultants (see attached breakdown)
Unico (See attached Breakdown)
TOTAL COST (Tasks 1-5)

EXHIBIT A
Alameda de las Pulgas Corridor Traffic and Safety Improvement Project Project Management
Project Coordination (Internal & External)
Community and Stakeholder Meetings
95% PS&E
100% (Final) PS&E
Outreach Materials Development
Environmental Documents
Preliminary Environmental Documents
Final Environmental Documents
Drainage Report
Preliminary Engineering and Final Design
Preliminary Engineering
65% Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E)
Meetings with Town
QA/QC
Public Outreach & Stakeholder Engagement
Potholing
Data Collection
Gather Existing Information and Site Visit
Topographic Mapping and Base Map Creation
Phase I ISA
Utility Evaluation & Coordination
Subtotal Labor:

Other Direct Costs
Escalation
Bess Testlabs (potholing, 16 total)
Travel/Mileage
Fed Ex/Courier Services
Resident Engineer File
Construction Support - Transition to Construction
Transition Memorandum
Caltrans RFA Package
Construction Support
TOTAL COST (Tasks 6 and 7)
TOTAL COST (Tasks 1 - 7)
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT 1 TOTAL COST
Other Direct Costs
Unico (Topographic Survey and Boundary Survey)
TOTAL COST (Tasks 8 - 9, Direct Costs, & Optional)
REVISED TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT (Tasks 1-9)
Additional Environmental Support
Current Contract Fee Schedule
Amendment 1 New Tasks
Cultural Resources Reports (ASR, XPIP, XPIR, HPSR)
Air Quality Assessment
Roundabout Preliminary and Final Design
Roundabout Operations
Concept Refinement
Roundabout Geometric Approval Drawing (GAD)
95% PS&E
100% (Final) PS&E
TOTAL CREDIT (Tasks 1-7)
Cultural Resources & Air Quality
Town Council Meetings
Transportation Management Plan
Stormwater Quality Report
Project Administration
Rate Schedule Used