AGENDA PACKET
Town of Atherton
City Council
DECEMBER 03, 2025
SPECIAL MEETING – STUDY SESSION
4:00 PM
Council Chambers
80 Fair Oaks Lane
Atherton, CA 94027
Join Zoom Meeting:
One tap mobile: 16699006833,,97102770195#
US (San Jose)
Dial by your location: 1 669 900 6833 US (San
Jose)
Meeting ID: 971 0277 0195
Weblink: https://ciathertonca.zoom.us/j/97102770195
Remote Public Comments:
Meeting participants are encouraged to submit
public comments in writing in advance of the
meeting. The following email will be monitored
during the meeting and documented for the record.
Email: [email protected]
This Agenda may not reflect the actual order of items. The order of items is subject to change based on Council action.
SPECIAL MEETING STUDY SESSION
ROLL CALL – Lane, DeGolia, Widmer, Vice Mayor Holland, Mayor Lewis PUBLIC COMMENT – Public Comments can be emailed directly to [email protected]
As a Special Meeting, this portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter on the Agenda. Speakers’ time is limited to three minutes. Speakers may also speak when the item appears on the Agenda during the meeting. State law prohibits the Council from acting on items not listed on the Agenda except by special action of the City Council under specified circumstances. The Mayor may, at the Mayor’s discretion, restrict or grant additional speaker time based on such considerations as agenda length, number of speakers, complexity of the item, or looming threat of loss of quorum. Please refer to the footnote at the end of the posted agenda for additional notice regarding public comments.
ACTION ITEMS
1. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Report: ANTHONY SUBER, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ CITY CLERK
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council review and consider appointing one applicant for a vacancy on the Planning Commission to a term expiring on June 30, 2026.
Description: This will be a discussion for Council to review and consider appointments to the Planning Commission.
STUDY SESSION
2. SENATE BILL 79 SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
Report:BRITTANYBENDIXTOWNPLANNER
Meeting Agenda Packet – December 03, 2025
agenda for additional notice regarding public comments.
ACTION ITEMS
1. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Report: ANTHONY SUBER, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ CITY CLERK
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council review and consider appointing one applicant for a vacancy on the Planning Commission to a term expiring on June 30, 2026.
Description: This will be a discussion for Council to review and consider appointments to the Planning Commission.
STUDY SESSION
2. SENATE BILL 79 SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
Report: BRITTANY BENDIX, TOWN PLANNER
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the presentation on Senate Bill 79 and provide staff with direction.
Description: This item concerns discussion by Council of a new Senate Bill related to zoning and new development around transit zones and direction to staff about how Atherton should proceed with responding to this new law.
3. SPEED HUMP SURVEY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATION
Report: GABRIELA RUIZ, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council provide feedback and direction for speed humps located throughout the Town.
Description: This item concerns discussion and direction by Council about how staff should proceed with the results of the speed hump survey conducted in Atherton.
COUNCIL REPORTS/COMMENTS
ADJOURN
PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
If you challenge a Town zoning, planning, or any other decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Judicial review of any Town administrative decision may be had only if a petition is filed with the court not later than the 90th day following the date upon which the decision becomes final. Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a shorter time period.
Copies of all staff reports and documents subject to disclosure that relate to each item of business referred to on the agenda are available for public inspection by 5:00 p.m. the Friday before each regularly scheduled City Council meeting.
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 7520500. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (29 CRF 35.104 ADA Title II)
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
The Town of Atherton Council and Committee or Commission meetings are a limited public forum, and all public comment must relate to something that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council or Committees. If comments do not relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council or Committee, we will stop the comment and a warning may be provided. If the comment continues to beoutsideofthesubjectmatterjurisdictionthespeakerwillbestoppedandwewillmoveontothe Meeting Agenda Packet – December 03, 2025
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 7520500. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (29 CRF 35.104 ADA Title II)
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
The Town of Atherton Council and Committee or Commission meetings are a limited public forum, and all public comment must relate to something that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council or Committees. If comments do not relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council or Committee, we will stop the comment and a warning may be provided. If the comment continues to be outside of the subject matter jurisdiction the speaker will be stopped, and we will move on to the next speaker. Speakers found in violation of this rule of procedure may be removed from the meeting.
RULES OF DECORUM:
No person participating in a public meeting shall engage in disorderly or boisterous conduct — including but not limited to applause, whistling, feet stamping, booing or making any loud, threatening, profane, abusive, personal, impertinent or slanderous uttering or comments. No person is allowed to disturb, disrupt, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of the meeting. If any person continues to breach the Rules of Decorum in a manner that disturbs, disrupts or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting following an order from the Mayor, or Presiding Officer, to cease the offending conduct, the Mayor, or Presiding Officer, may order that person to leave the meeting.
Meeting Agenda Packet – December 03, 2025
Item No. 1
Town of Atherton
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT – REGULAR AGENDA
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ANTHONY SUBER, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ CITY CLERK
DATE: DECEMBER 3, 2025
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council review and consider appointing one applicant for a vacancy on the Planning Commission to a term expiring on June 30, 2026.
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission (1)
Eric Lane was appointed to the City Council at the October 1, 2025, Council Study Session, vacating his seat on the Planning Commission. Staff conducted a recruitment to fill the vacant seat with a term expiring on June 30, 2026. Council discussed appointments at the November 19, 2025 meeting and opted to postpone an appointment to the December 3, 2025 meeting, with an expectation to have an exchange with both candidates.
There are two (2) applicants for consideration to fill a term expiring on June 30, 2026. • Steve Seabolt
• Peter Carson
Appointment Process
There are two (2) applicants for one vacant seat on the Planning Commission. The City Council should make a motion to appoint a chosen candidate, if the candidate receives a majority vote the seat will be filled. If the candidate does not receive a majority vote the Council can direct staff to continue recruitment for the vacant seat. The City Clerk can assist with voting sheets if desired.
EPC and PC Appointment
NOVEMBER 19, 2025
1 2
3 6
FISCAL IMPACT
None
GOAL ALIGNMENT
This Report and its contents are in alignment with the following Council Policy Goals:
• Goal D - Be Forward Thinking
• Goal F - Build Community & Promote Civic Engagement
POLICY FOCUS
The Council is not obligated to appoint any of the candidates to any of the positions and may choose to extend the candidate recruitment process as it deems necessary. The Council reserves complete discretion in appointments.
Town Commissions and Committees represent a key component of civic engagement within the community. The participation of the members is a vital part of the Town’s public engagement and review process. These groups can gather public input on issues and provide feedback and recommendations to the City Council for consideration.
When evaluating applicants for Commissions and Committees, the City Council should consider the role of each committee, the amount of oversight needed, cost-effectiveness, efficiency in decision-making, and the desire of the City Council for direct policy involvement on particular issues.
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. Committee Application
2. Committee and Commission Roster
1 Anthony Suber
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 11:21 AM
To: Anthony Suber; Michael Gallagher
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Application for Town Committee/Commission [The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Application for Town Committee/Commission
Name peter carson
Address
Phone Number
Email Address @gmail.com
Commission/Committee
of Interest
Planning
Education
BE 69-Vanderbilt, MBA 73 Harvard
List your civic affiliations
and community
activities, including
service on other
commissions and
committees?
Harvard Business School Community PartnersAdvisory
Council, Sand Hill Angels
Describe your
understanding of the
responsibilities of the
commission or
committee that you are
applying for and how
your personal,
community or
professional experience
relate to these
responsibilities?
Believe it bshould be implementing the will of the community in planning the future of Atherton.. Am a Realtor now with Compass for 10+ yrs and have intimate knowledge of the town an d lived in Atherton. since 1982 on Rittenhouse for 10 yrs and now on Bergesen Ct
2 Describe why you want
to serve on this
commission and what
you hope to accomplish
as a member?
Implement the will
Of the community.
Additional Information
you would like to add?
40+ yr resident, Semiretired and have time to give back.The major portion of my career has cuased me to to excel in llistening and develop outcomes for succes.
From: Peter Carson
To: Anthony Suber
Subject: Peter Carson
Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 5:29:46 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
I am interested and applying to serve on yhe Planning Commission.
Resident since 1982.
-1982-1992
4 Ct-1992-present
Thx
Peter Carson
From: [email protected]
To: Anthony Suber; (Disabled) Francesca Reyes
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Application for Town Committee/Commission Date: Friday, March 21, 2025 4:11:11 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Application for Town Committee/Commission
Name Steve Seabolt
Address
Phone Number
Email Address @gmail.com
Commission/Committee
of Interest
Planning - or - Finance
Education Bachelors Business Administration - majors: Economics + Marketing
MBA
List your civic
affiliations and
community activities,
including service on
other commissions and
committees?
Board of Directors - Menlo Circus Club - 6 yrs. Current member and former chair of Finance Committee.
Describe your
understanding of the
responsibilities of the
commission or
committee that you are
applying for and how
your personal,
community or
professional experience
relate to these
responsibilities?
Finance - assure accuracy, accountability, budget management of Town resources. Planning - work to understand the evolving needs of the Town and its citizens - protect the Town's character Describe why you want
to serve on this
commission and what
you hope to accomplish
as a member?
The desire to serve is a way to give back to the Town I and my family have enjoyed living in for 29 years. I would assume the first year on any committee is about learning (open ears)...to lay the foundation for contribution in subsequent years.
Additional Information
you would like to add?
My various roles in business have had 'problem-solving' - thinking through issues to come to an optimal result as a common characteristic. Most particularly at Sunset Publishing.
NAME # OF FULL TERMS 1st APPOINTMENT CURRENT APPOINTMENT TERM EXPIRATION Samantha Michel Serving Mid-Term Appointment
6/18/2025
(Mid-Term Appointment) 6/18/2025 6/30/2027
Jerome Leugers Serving 2nd Full Term 6/19/2019
(Staggered 4-Year Term) 6/21/2023 6/30/2027
David Jones Serving 2nd Full Term 6/17/2020 6/19/2024 6/30/2028 Steve Seabolt Serving 1st Full Term 6/18/2025 6/18/2025 6/30/2029 Tom Owen Serving 2nd Full Term 6/17/2020 6/19/2024 6/30/2028 NAME # OF FULL TERMS 1st APPOINTMENT CURRENT APPOINTMENT TERM EXPIRATION Sriram Iyer Serving 1st Full Term 10/15/2025
(Mid-Term Appointment 6/30/2027 6/30/2027
Alyson Blume Serving 1st Full Term 11/19/2025
(Mid-Term Appointment) 11/19/2025 6/30/2029
Gregory Loew Serving 1st Full Term
6/16/2021
(Mid-Term Appointment) 6/21/2023 6/30/2027
Sophia Tang Serving Mid-Term Appointment
7/16/2025
(Mid-Term Appointment) 7/16/2025 6/30/2028
Kenneth Frederick Serving 1st Full Term 6/15/2022 6/15/2022 6/30/2026 NAME # OF FULL TERMS 1st APPOINTMENT CURRENT APPOINTMENT TERM EXPIRATION Don Keller Serving Mid-Term Appointment 9/17/2025
(Mid-Term Appointment) 9/17/2025 6/30/2026
Alex Keh Serving 2nd Full Term
6/19/20219
(Staggered 4-Year Term) 6/21/2023 6/30/2027
Julianna Robertson Serving 2nd Full Term 6/19/2019
(Staggered 4-Year Term) 6/21/2023 6/30/2027
Dorothy Hunter Serving 1st Full Term 6/19/2024 6/19/2024 6/30/2028 Robert Roeser Serving Mid-Term Appointment
10/19/2022
(Mid-Term Appointment)
(Reappointment After Hiatus - Initial
Appointment 2012)
10/19/2022 6/30/2026
Frank Merrill Serving 3rd Full 2-Year Term 6/20/2018 6/19/2024 6/30/2026 Walter Robinson Serving 3rd Full 2-Year Term 6/16/2021 6/18/2025 6/30/2027 NAME # OF FULL TERMS 1st APPOINTMENT CURRENT APPOINTMENT TERM EXPIRATION Jerome Leugers Serving Mid-Term Appointment
2/19/2025
(Mid-Term Appointment) 2/19/2025 6/30/2027
Sandy Levison Serving Mid-Term Appointment
8/20/2024
(Mid-Term Appointment) 8/20/2024 6/30/2028
Paul Tonelli Serving 1st Full Term
6/21/2023
(Reappointment After Hiatus - Initial
Appointment in 2014)
6/21/2023 6/30/2027
Bob Polito Serving 1st Full Term
3/15/2023
(Mid-Term Appointment) 6/18/2025 6/30/2029
VACANT
6/30/2026
Planning Commission
HPP Foundation Appointment
Transportation, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Committee Environmental Programs Committee
Park and Recreation Committee
4897-9957-1579.1 014537.003
Item No. 2
Town of Atherton
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: BRITTANY BENDIX, TOWN PLANNER
MONA EBRAHIMI, CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: DECEMBER 3, 2025
SUBJECT: SENATE BILL 79 SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the presentation on Senate Bill 79 and provide staff with direction.
BACKGROUND
Senate Bill ("SB") 79 is a new housing law that focuses on residential developments near transit stops.
The bill requires that a housing development project, within a certain distance of a transit-oriented development stop, be a permitted use on any site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development, if the development complies with requirements from SB 79. SB 79 does not require ministerial approval of the development for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Legislature found the issues addressed by SB 79 to be a matter of statewide concern, thereby making the bill applicable to all cities, including charter cities. The majority of the bill is effective July 1, 2026. Starting January 1, 2027, if a proposed project in a "high-resource area" meets the requirements of SB 79 and the Town denies it, the Town would be in violation of the Housing Accountability Act and immediately be liable for penalties. The Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") oversee compliance with SB 79, and the bill requires HCD to develop standards on how to comply with SB 79.
ANALYSIS
Development Requirements for a Project (Gov't. Code Section 65912.157):
November 25, 2025
4897-9957-1579.1 014537.003
A housing development project shall be an allowed use as a transit-oriented housing development if it meets the following criteria:
Generally Applicable Standards
• A transit-oriented housing development project under SB 79 shall include at least five dwelling units and meet the greater of the following: (1) A minimum density of at least 30 dwelling units per acre; or (2) the minimum density required under local zoning, if applicable.
• The average total area of floor space for the proposed units in the transit-oriented housing development project shall not exceed 1,750 net habitable square feet.
Tier-Specific Standards
SB 79 creates two "tiers" of transit stops, which depend on the frequency/intensity of transit. Then, within each tier, different standards of development apply based on how far away the development will occur from the transit stop. Measuring distance from a transit stop is directly addressed in SB 79: "the distance of a transit-oriented housing development project from a transit-oriented development stop shall be measured in a straight line from the nearest edge of the parcel containing the proposed project to a pedestrian access point for the transit-oriented development stop." The table below lays out the tiers and applicable standards.
TOD Stop Type Dist. From Stop (TOD Zone) Standards for Project Tier 1:
Major transit stop, heavy rail
transit, or very high frequency
commuter rail
¼ mile from stop Height: Town cannot impose a
height limit of less than 75
feet. If project is adjacent1 to
transit stop, eligible for
additional 20 feet.
Density: Town cannot impose
a maximum density of less
than 120 du/a. If project is
adjacent to transit stop, eligible
for additional 40 du/a.
Floor Area Ratio: 3.5. If
project is adjacent to transit
stop, additional 1, so 4.5 total.
Additional Concessions2
1 "Adjacent" means within 200 feet of any pedestrian access point to a transit-oriented development stop. (Cal. Gov't.
Code § 65912.156(a)).
2 Generally, additional concessions include density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of Page 13 of 71 November 25, 2025
4897-9957-1579.1 014537.003
¼ - ½ mile from stop in a city
with population of at least
35,000 (this would not apply
to Atherton)
Height: Town cannot impose a
height limit of less than 65
feet. If project is adjacent to
transit stop, eligible for
additional 20 feet.
Density: Town cannot impose
a maximum density of less
than 100 du/a. If project is
adjacent to transit stop, eligible
for additional 40 du/a.
Floor Area Ratio: 3. If
project is adjacent to transit
stop, additional 1, so 4 total.
Additional Concessions5
Tier 2:
Not Tier 1 major transit stops
served by light rail transit,
high-frequency commuter rail,
or bus rapid transit
¼ mile from stop Height: Town cannot impose a
height limit of less than 65
feet. If project is adjacent to
transit stop, eligible for
additional 20 feet.
Density: Town cannot impose
a maximum density of less
than 100 du/a. If project is
adjacent to transit stop, eligible
for additional 40 du/a.
Floor Area Ratio: 3. If
project is adjacent to transit
stop, additional 1, so 4 total.
Additional Concessions6
7 5
Generally, additional concessions include density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios. Additionally, for each type of development based on their tier and distance from a transit stop, a minimum density threshold exists which entitles the project to additional concessions. (Cal. Gov't.
Code § 65912.157(a)(4)(D) and (d)).
6 Generally, additional concessions include density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios. Additionally, for each type of development based on their tier and distance from a transit stop, a minimum density threshold exists which entitles the project to additional concessions. (Cal. Gov't.
Code § 65912.157(a)(5)(D) and (d)).
development standards, and parking ratios. Additionally, for each type of development based on their tier and distance from a transit stop, a minimum density threshold exists which entitles the project to additional concessions. (Cal. Gov't.
Code § 65912.157(a)(3)(D) and (d)). Page 14 of 71
November 25, 2025
4897-9957-1579.1 014537.003
¼ to ½ mile from stop in a city
with a population of at least
35,000 (this would not apply
to Atherton)
Height: Town cannot impose a
height limit of less than 55
feet. If project is adjacent to
transit stop, eligible for
additional 20 feet.
Density: Town cannot impose
a maximum density of less
than 80 du/a. If project is
adjacent to transit stop, eligible
for additional 40 du/a.
Floor Area Ratio: 2.5. If
project is adjacent to transit
stop, additional 1, so 3.5 total.
Additional Concessions10
The Town can still enact and enforce standards, including an inclusionary zoning requirement, but the local standards cannot, alone or in concert, prevent achieving the applicable development standards laid out above. The Town cannot adopt any requirement, including, but not limited to, increased fees or inclusionary zoning requirements, that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is seeking approval as a transit-oriented housing development, except as necessary for the requirements of SB 79.
Restrictions on Development, Affordability Requirements For sites that would require the demolition two existing units that are subject to any form of rent or price control that has been occupied by tenants within the last 7 years, or a site that formerly contained two units of housing demolished within seven years that was subject to rent or price control, development under SB 79 is prohibited.
SB 79 imposes affordability requirements. These affordability requirements do not apply to development of 10 units or less. If the local inclusionary housing requirement mandates a higher percentage of affordable units, then the local requirement shall trump the SB 79 requirements.
Development under SB 79 must meet one of the following:
• At least 7 percent of the total units are dedicated to extremely low income households.
10 Generally, additional concessions include density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios. Additionally, for each type of development based on their tier and distance from a transit stop, a minimum density threshold exists which entitles the project to additional concessions. (Cal. Gov't.
Code § 65912.157(a)(6)(D) and (d)). Page 15 of 71
November 25, 2025
4897-9957-1579.1 014537.003
• At least 10 percent of the total units are dedicated to very low income households. • At least 13 percent of the total units are dedicated to lower income households.
Additional Requirements
If development under SB 79 is over 85 feet, it must meet SB35/SB 423 standards, which are prevailing wage standards with an additional skilled and trained workforce requirement.
Transit-Oriented Development Alternative Plan (Gov't. Code Section 65912.161) A Transit-Oriented Development Alternative Plan ("Alternate TOD Plan") is a plan adopted by the Town12 that brings the Town into compliance with SB 79. In short, the Alternate TOD Plan cannot reduce the amount of density or floor area available across all SB 79 areas in the Town, but it can move density around, so long as each SB 79 area has at least 50% of what SB 79 would allow and no single SB 79 area has more than 200% of what the underlying SB 79 rules would allow. An Alternate TOD Plan must be approved by HCD. If the Town adopts an Alternate TOD Plan, and it has been approved by HCD, the Section 65912.157 (Development Requirements/Standards) detailed above shall not apply. HCD's approval is valid through the jurisdiction’s next amendment to the housing element of its general plan. The Alternate TOD Plan must incorporate all of the following:
• The Alternate TOD Plan must maintain at least the same total net zoned capacity, in terms of both total units and residential floor area, as provided in SB 79 across all transit-oriented development zones within the Town;
• The Alternate TOD Plan shall not reduce the maximum allowed density for any individual site on which the plan allows residential use by more than 50 percent below that permitted under this chapter, except in limited circumstances;13
• The plan shall not reduce the capacity in any transit-oriented development zone in total units or residential floor area by more than 50 percent.
• A site’s maximum capacity counted toward the Alternate TOD Plan shall not exceed 200 percent of the maximum density established under this chapter. Any site excluded from the minimum density requirements pursuant to Section 65912.161(a)(2)(A) to (C) shall not be counted toward the Alternate TOD Plan's capacity. For purposes of this section, calculations 12 An Alternate TOD Plan can be adopted via the adoption of the housing element, a program to implement the housing element, the adoption of a specific plan, a zoning overlay, or enactment of an ordinance. (Cal. Gov't. Code § 65912.161(a)).
13 If the site is within a very high fire hazard severity zone; if the site is vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise; sites with a historic resource designated on a local register, so long as sites excluded from the density requirements of this paragraph on that basis do not cumulatively exceed 10 percent of the eligible area of any transit-oriented development zone; and sites within one-half mile of a Tier 2 transit-oriented development stop shall not have a density below 30 units per acre with a residential floor area ratio of 1.0, except for sites specified in subparagraphs (A) to (C), and should be considered for attached entry level owner occupied housing development opportunities. (Cal. Gov't. Code § 65912.161(a)(2)(A-D)). Page 16 of 71
November 25, 2025
4897-9957-1579.1 014537.003
regarding capacity, density, and floor area shall include capacity, density, or floor area available under voluntary local housing incentive programs. • An Alternate TOD Plan may consist of an existing local transit-oriented zoning ordinance, overlay zone, specific plan, or zoning incentive ordinance, provided that it meets the requirements of SB 79.
Prior to one year following the seventh revision of the housing element, Section 65912.157 (Development Requirements/Standards) shall not apply to certain sites if the Town has adopted an ordinance pursuant to Section 65912.160 (detailed below) indicating the site's exclusion. If the Town enacts an ordinance exempting these sites, the Town shall indicate on its public zoning map which sites or transit-oriented development zones are and are not covered by Section 65912.157.
Starting with the seventh revision of the housing element, the Town may include an Alternate TOD Plan in either its housing element or a plan that has been deemed compliant by HCD. If the Alternate TOD Plan is included in the housing element, the Alternate TOD Plan must include an analysis of how it maintains "at least an equal feasible developable housing capacity as the baseline" established by SB 79.
Requirements of a Local Ordinance; HCD Has Strong Oversight (Gov't. Code Section 65912.160)
SB 79 gives HCD a lot of control and oversight over local government. SB 79 requires HCD to develop standards no later than July 1, 2026. The Town can enact an ordinance to make its code consistent with SB 79, and if the Town does so, the ordinance is subject to review by HCD. The ordinance may include objective development standards, conditions, and policies, applying to transitoriented housing developments, that are demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence to not physically preclude, alone or in concert, the applicable housing development standards of Section 65912.157. This ordinance is exempt from CEQA.
If the Town does decide to enact an ordinance, the Town must submit the ordinance to HCD at least 14 days prior to adoption. If the Ordinance is adopted, the ordinance must be submitted to HCD within 60 days of enactment. HCD then has 90 days to review the ordinance and make findings if the ordinance is compliant with SB 79. If HCD finds the ordinance is not compliant with SB 79, HCD shall notify the Town of its findings, and the Town shall consider HCD's findings and either amend the ordinance or enact the ordinance without changes with a resolution explaining why the Town believes the ordinance complies, despite HCD's findings.
The ordinance may designate areas within one-half miles of a transit-oriented development stop as exempt if: (1) the Town makes findings supported by substantial evidence that there exists no walking path of less than one mile from that location to the transit-oriented development stop; or (2) A local government with at least 15 transit-oriented development stops designates the area as an industrial employment hub.16
16 Cal. Gov't. Code § 65912.160(e). An "industrial employment hub" is a contiguous area of at least 250 acres designated in the jurisdiction’s general plan on or before January 1, 2025, as an employment lands area; the parcels Page 17 of 71 November 25, 2025
4897-9957-1579.1 014537.003
10 New Authority for Transit Agencies to Develop Infill Sites (Gov't. Code Section 65912.158) SB 79 contains a section (Section 65912.158) for "agency transit-oriented development projects", which authorizes transit agencies to adopt standards for development on infill sites owned by the transit agency. This expands transit agency's authority and ability to develop infill residential projects. For Atherton's purposes, this section is largely inapplicable.
Optional Streamlined Ministerial Approval (Gov't. Code Section 65912.159) Though SB 79 does not require streamlined ministerial approval, a project shall be eligible for streamlined ministerial approval pursuant to Section 65913.4, in accordance with the following:
• The proposed project shall be exempt from Section 65913.4(a)(4)(A) and (5). • The proposed project shall comply with the affordability requirements Section 65913.4(a)(4)(B)(i)(I)-(III).
• The proposed project shall comply with all other requirements of Section 65913.4, including, but not limited to, the prohibition against a site that is within a very high fire hazard severity zone, pursuant to Section 65913.4(a)(6)(D).
If a project is not submitted for streamlined approval under Section 65913.4, it shall be reviewed according to the Town's developmental review process. However, local zoning standards that conflict with SB 79 shall not apply.
Can the Town Require that the TOD Project Implement a Contiguous Accessible Pedestrian Pathway to the Transit Stop They are Associated With?
There is nothing in SB 79's language that indicates this requirement would be prohibited, unless the requirement would reduce the density to below what is permitted under SB 79. However, Alternate TOD Plans are subject to approval by HCD. HCD is required to release standards for SB 79, so those standards may more directly address this question.
What Properties in Atherton Could Take Advantage of SB 79? Data provided by Brittany Bendix, Consulting Town Planner, indicates the following properties would be eligible for SB 79 by distance:
110 Glenwood, 120 Glenwood, 124 Glenwood, 135 Laurel, 147 Laurel, 151 Laurel, 99 Victoria [MAP ON NEXT PAGE]
within it shall be primarily dedicated to industrial use as defined in Section 65912.121(f)(3); and housing shall not be a permitted use on any of the sites so excluded. Page 18 of 71 November 25, 2025
4897-9957-1579.1 014537.003
4897-9957-1579.1 014537.003
4897-9957-1579.1 014537.003
4897-9957-1579.1 014537.003
POLICY FOCUS
Awareness and education of policy options related to SB 79 align with the Council’s priority focus on Land Use and Planning. By providing more information on this topic, the Council may give directions to staff on a preferred response to the land use changes enabled by the state legislature.
Direction could include updating or adopting new ordinances to address the potential development under SB 79, pursuing exploration of an alternative TOD plan, and/or changing the Town’s review processes to provide greater public awareness of projects.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts with consideration of this report.
GOAL ALIGNMENT
This Report and its contents are in alignment with the following Council Policy Goals:
• Preserve Small Town Character & Quality of Life
• Be Forward Thinking
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 1,600 subscribers to the Town’s electronic News Flash publications. Subscribers include residents as well as stakeholders – to include, but not limited to media outlets, school districts, Menlo Park Fire District, service providers (water, power, and sewer) and regional elected officials.
COMMISSION/COMMITTEE FEEDBACK/REFERRAL
This item ____ has or __ has not been before a Town Committee or Commission. ____ Audit/Finance Committee (meets every other month)
____ Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee (meets as needed)
____ Civic Center Advisory Committee (meets as needed)
____ Environmental Programs Committee (meets every other month) ____ Park and Recreation Committee (meets each month)
____ Planning Commission (meets each month)
____ Rail Committee (meets every other month)
____ Transportation Committee (meets every other month) ____ Tree Committee (meets each month)
ATTACHMENTS
November 25, 2025
4897-9957-1579.1 014537.003
Item No. 3
Town of Atherton
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT – STUDY SESSION
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: GABRIELA RUIZ, PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATE ENGINEER
VIA: ROBERT OVADIA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: DECEMBER 3, 2025
SUBJECT: SPEED HUMP SURVEY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council provide feedback and direction for speed humps located throughout the Town.
BACKGROUND
The Town has installed speed humps throughout the Town as part of its Neighborhood Traffic Management Action Plan (NTMAP) approved by the City Council, and in response to neighborhood requests. As a reminder, the NTMAP was developed following significant public outreach and included a variety of recommendations including but not limited to: installation of speed feedback signs, increasing the size of speed limit and stop signs, striping modifications, and installation of speed humps in various locations.
Following installation of the speed humps, a survey was conducted from May 6th, 2025, to August 27th, 2025, to obtain feedback from the public. Speed humps were installed on the following streets:
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Avenue (Middlefield Road – School Entry)
Encinal Avenue (School Entry – Felton Drive)
Barry Lane
Selby Lane (Austin Avenue – Serrano Avenue)
Selby Lane (Stockbridge Avenue – Almendral Avenue)
Selby Lane (Polhemus Avenue – Tuscaloosa Avenue)
Stockbridge Avenue (Austin Avenue – Serrano Avenue)
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Fairview Avenue
Linda Vista Avenue
Monte Vista Avenue
Watkins Avenue
Maple Avenue
The results and recommendation were presented to the Transportation, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Committee on November 18, 2025.
ANALYSIS
A total of 189 responses were collected, including responses from 153 residents. The survey questions included questions regarding proximity, frequency of travel, effectiveness in reducing speeding and/or deterring cut-through traffic, general satisfaction regarding the humps, their size, and visibility. The survey also asked if the humps should be retained as-is, made permanent, or removed. A summary of the survey responses is provided in Attachment 1. The following is a brief description of results per street location.
Glenwood Avenue
A total of 98 responded to this speed hump, with over 75 percent stating that the speed humps were effective or somewhat effective in reducing vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic. Responses regarding satisfaction were split between those who felt very satisfied and those who felt very dissatisfied. Additionally, responses regarding size were also split between those who felt it was adequate and those who found it too big. Over 50 percent indicated that signage visibility was appropriate and over 55 percent indicated that pavement markings were appropriate.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Among the nine residents who reported having a speed hump directly in front of their property or on their street, the majority suggested making the speed humps permanent, two suggested replacing with larger temporary humps and only one suggested removal.
In addition, there has been a request to add an additional set of speed humps to Glenwood Avenue and shifting the locations.
It has been noted that Glenwood Avenue is listed as a Menlo Fire Protection District (MFPD) Critical Response Route and MFPD requested coordination regarding speed humps along this route.
Recommendation: The Committee recommended the installation of an additional set of speed humps, and associated relocation of the existing humps, and that staff coordinate discussions with residents and the MFPD regarding the changes to the speed humps on Glenwood Avenue prior to affecting any changes on the street.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Encinal Avenue (Middlefield Road – School Entry)
A total of 100 responded to this speed hump, with over 75 percent stating that the speed humps were effective or somewhat effective in reducing vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic. Responses regarding satisfaction were split between those who felt very satisfied and those who felt very dissatisfied. Additionally, responses regarding size were also split between those who felt it was adequate and those who found it too big. Over 50 percent indicated that signage visibility and pavement markings were appropriate.
Among the thirty-one residents who reported having a speed hump on their street and in their neighborhood and who frequent multiple times daily, daily and weekly, the majority suggested making the speed humps permanent. However, eleven felt the speed humps were too big or too tall.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Recommendation: The Committee recommended retaining the temporary speed hump location with additional middle section to extend the length of the speed hump to lessen the impact of the humps.
Encinal Avenue (School Entry – Felton Drive)
A total of 99 responded to this speed hump, with 80 percent stating that the speed humps were effective or somewhat effective in reducing vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic. Responses regarding satisfaction were split between those who felt very satisfied and those who felt very dissatisfied. Additionally, responses regarding size were also split between those who felt it was adequate and those who found it too big. Over 50 percent indicated that signage visibility and pavement markings were appropriate.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Among the twenty-four residents who reported having a speed hump on their street and in their neighborhood and who frequent multiple times daily, daily and weekly, the majority suggested making the speed humps permanent. However, eleven felt the speed humps were too big or too tall.
Recommendation: The Committee recommended retaining the temporary speed hump location with additional middle section to extend the length of the speed hump to lessen the impact of the humps.
Barry Lane
A total of 90 responded to this speed hump, with over 75 percent stating that the speed humps were effective or somewhat effective in reducing vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic. Responses regarding satisfaction were split between those who felt very satisfied, no opinion and very dissatisfied. Additionally, 55 percent felt the size was appropriate, over 55 percent felt the signage
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
visibility was adequate and 70 percent felt the pavement markings were adequate.
Among the sixteen residents who reported having a speed hump on their street and in their neighborhood and who frequent multiple times daily, daily and weekly, the majority suggested making the speed humps permanent.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Recommendation: The Committee recommended retaining the existing temporary humps on the street.
Selby Lane (Austin Avenue – Serrano Avenue)
A total of 94 residents responded to this speed hump, with 50 percent stating that the speed humps were not effective in reducing vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic. Over half of the respondents indicated they were not satisfied with the current speed humps, and 60 percent expressed a desire for their removal.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Among the eight residents who reported having a speed hump directly in front of their property or on their street, five were very dissatisfied and four supported removal.
Recommendation: The Committee recommended removing the existing speed humps along this segment of Selby Lane. In addition, the Committee considered adding two sets of temporary speed humps in front of Adelante-Selby Spanish Immersion School, similar to the Encinal Avenue configuration, and that staff coordinate discussions with residents, MFPD, and Adelante-Selby regarding the proposed speed humps in front of the school.
Selby Lane (Stockbridge Avenue – Almendral Avenue)
A total of 109 residents responded to this speed hump, with 60 percent stating that the speed humps were effective or somewhat effective in reducing vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic. Over half of the respondents indicated they were not satisfied with the current speed humps, and over 50 percent expressed a desire for their removal.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Among the seven residents who reported having a speed hump directly in front of their property or on their street, four were very dissatisfied and four supported removal.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Recommendation: The Committee recommended removal of the temporary speed humps along this segment of Selby Lane.
Selby Lane (Polhemus Avenue – Tuscaloosa Avenue)
A total of 106 responded to this speed hump, with 60 percent stating that the speed humps were effective or somewhat effective in reducing vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic. Over 45 percent of the respondents indicated they were not satisfied with the current speed humps, and over 45 percent expressed a desire for their removal.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Among the thirty-two residents who reported having a speed hump on their street and in their neighborhood, responses were split between making the speed humps permanent and the removal of temporary speed humps.
Recommendation: The Committee recommended removal of the temporary speed humps along this segment of Selby Lane.
Stockbridge Avenue (Austin Avenue – Serrano Avenue)
A total of 87 responded to this speed hump. Over half of the respondents indicated they were ‘very dissatisfied or ‘somewhat dissatisfied’ with the current speed humps, and 60 percent expressed a desire for their removal.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Among the eight residents who reported having a speed hump directly in front of their property or on their street, six were dissatisfied and five supported removal, with one suggesting the use of smaller speed humps instead. More than 50 percent of respondents also cited poor sign visibility as a concern.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Recommendation: The Committee recommended removal of the temporary speed humps on this segment of Stockbridge Avenue.
Fairview Avenue
A total of 71 responded to this speed hump, with 70 percent stating that the speed humps were effective or somewhat effective in reducing vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic. Over 70 percent also indicated that signage visibility was appropriate.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Among the five residents who reported having a speed hump directly in front of their property or on their street, opinions were split between making the speed humps permanent and keeping the temporary ones.
Recommendation: The Committee recommended retaining the existing temporary humps on the street.
Linda Vista Avenue
A total of 72 responded to this speed hump, with 41 percent stating that the speed humps were not effective in reducing vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic. Over 57 percent also indicated that signage visibility was appropriate.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Among the four residents who reported having a speed hump directly in front of their property or on their street, opinions were split between making the speed humps permanent and keeping the temporary ones.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Recommendation: The Committee recommended retaining the existing temporary humps on the street.
Monte Vista Avenue
A total of 73 responded to this speed hump. Of those, 46 percent of respondents indicated that they felt the speed humps were not effective in reducing speeding or cut-through traffic. While 47 percent of respondents felt the size of the speed humps was appropriate, over 55 percent reported that the signage was difficult to see, and 47 percent stated that pavement markings were hard to distinguish.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
All four respondents who indicated that the speed humps were located directly in front of their property or on their street stated that the humps were either too small or too short.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Recommendation: The Committee recommended retaining the existing temporary humps on the street and to add pavement markings to increase driver awareness.
Maple Avenue
A total of 71 responded to this speed hump. Over 68 percent indicated that the speed humps were effective or somewhat effective in reducing speeding and cut-through traffic. Additionally, 61 percent of respondents felt that signage visibility was appropriate.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Among the five respondents who stated the speed humps were located directly in front of their property or on their street, none requested removal. However, two suggested replacing the current humps with larger ones.
Recommendation: The Committee recommended retaining the existing temporary humps on the street.
Watkins Avenue
A total of 93 responded to this speed hump, with 70 percent of respondents indicated that the speed humps are effective or somewhat effective in reducing speeding and cut-through traffic. Responses regarding signage visibility were split between those who felt it was adequate and those who found it difficult to see. Opinions on permanence were also divided, with some supporting removal and others favoring making the humps permanent.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Among the four respondents who reported having a speed hump on their street, all agreed the humps were effective, and none requested their removal.
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Additional comments were received recommending the shifting of the current hump location and the addition of a new hump such that one is located between McCormick Lane and the entrance to Holbrook Palmer Park and the other to be located between Holbrook Palmer Park exit and Burns Avenue.
Recommendation: The Committee recommended shifting the current temporary speed hump to a location between McCormick Lane and the Holbrook Palmer Park entrance and adding an additional set of temporary speed humps between the Holbrook Palmer Park exit and Burns Avenue with additional middle sections to extend the length of the speed humps to lessen the impact of the humps. The Committee also recommended that staff coordinate discussions with residents and the MFPD regarding the changes to the speed humps on Watkins Avenue prior to affecting any changes on the street.
Menlo Park Fire District Feedback
Staff met with Menlo Park Fire Protection District on November 13, 2025, to discuss the recommendations and obtain feedback on emergency services related concerns. The concerns included significant delays in emergency response times, risk of damage to emergency vehicles and potential injury to personnel. The District’s preference is to have no traffic calming measures on streets chosen as critical response routes. However, having the cutouts on the speed humps allows emergency vehicles to go through without significantly reducing speed. As noted above, Glenwood Avenue is designated as a critical emergency response route. Staff recommends that MFPD be invited to participate in the recommended meetings with residents regarding additional speed hump locations and speed hump relocations.
Additional Recommendations from the Police Department
Speed Hump Survey and Recommendations
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Following the meeting, the Police Department suggested the consideration of two sets of speed humps on Edge Road, in the vicinity of Laurel Elementary School. Additionally, they suggested the installation of reflectors in the vicinity of speed humps to improve visibility at night.
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impact is limited to the costs associated with the removal of speed humps, purchasing of additional speed hump materials (such as middle sections) and reflectors, installation costs and staff time to coordinate meetings. Funds area vailable in the approved FY 2025-26 budget.
GOAL ALIGNMENT
This Report and its contents are in alignment with the following Council Policy Goals:
• Goal A - Preserve Small Town Character & Quality of Life • Goal E - Maintain and Improve Public Infrastructure
POLICY FOCUS
The Council’s focus should be limited to the discussion of the speed hump survey and associated recommendations.
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
Transportation Committee (meets every other month)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Speed Hump Survey Summary
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
1 / 29
94.71% 179
0.00% 0
100.00% 189
100.00% 189
100.00% 189
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
100.00% 189
0.00% 0
Q1 Tell us about yourself
Answered: 189 Skipped: 0
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Name
Company
Street Number
Street Name
City/Town
State/Province
ZIP/Postal Code
Country
Email Address
Phone Number
Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey Summary
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
2 / 29
Q2 Opinion of speed humps
Answered: 183 Skipped: 6
Location
36%
26%
27%
44%
34%
23%
37%
55%
54%
53%
17%
23%
26%
28%
24%
31%
30%
23%
38%
39%
39%
29%
24%
43%
45%
28%
14%
10%
11%
14%
7%
9%
8%
2%
6%
5%
4%
7%
6%
4%
4%
6%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Avenue
(Middlefield
Rd. - School...
Encinal Avenue
(School Entry -
Felton Dr.)
Barry Lane
Selby Lane
(Austin Ave. -
Serrano Ave.)
Selby Lane
(Stockbridge
Ave. -...
Selby Lane
(Polhemus Ave.
- Tuscaloosa...
Stockbridge
Avenue (Austin
Ave. - Serra...
Fairview Avenue
Linda Vista
Avenue
Monte Vista
Avenue
Maple Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
3 / 29
56%
25%
23%
46%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
In front of … On my street On my route In my neigh…
Not near me
Watkins Avenue
Frequency of Travel
7%
6%
7%
21%
11%
8%
11%
24%
24%
12%
12%
27%
31%
33%
26%
26%
26%
18%
22%
25%
20%
24%
11%
16%
13%
18%
24%
36%
31%
17%
8%
18%
28%
29%
27%
23%
16%
12%
18%
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Avenue
(Middlefield
Rd. - School...
Encinal Avenue
(School Entry -
Felton Dr.)
Barry Lane
Selby Lane
(Austin Ave. -
Serrano Ave.)
Selby Lane
(Stockbridge
Ave. -...
Selby Lane
(Polhemus Ave.
- Tuscaloosa...
Stockbridge
Avenue (Austin
Ave. - Serra...
Fairview Avenue
Linda Vista
Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
4 / 29
26%
25%
6%
45%
21%
20%
14%
32%
10%
10%
14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Multiple ti… Daily Weekly Infrequent
Never
Monte Vista
Avenue
Maple Avenue
Watkins Avenue
Like/Dislike
28%
28%
26%
28%
49%
45%
45%
53%
27%
8%
3%
5%
6%
6%
11%
2%
17%
18%
18%
26%
13%
10%
22%
32%
11%
9%
8%
3%
7%
36%
38%
36%
29%
23%
26%
28%
19%
34%
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Avenue
(Middlefield
Rd. - School...
Encinal Avenue
(School Entry -
Felton Dr.)
Barry Lane
Selby Lane
(Austin Ave. -
Serrano Ave.)
Selby Lane
(Stockbridge
Ave. -...
Selby Lane
(Polhemus Ave.
- Tuscaloosa...
Stockbridge
Avenue (Austin
Ave. - Serra...
Fairview Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
5 / 29
27%
27%
28%
20%
35%
7%
5%
10%
32%
28%
39%
13%
5%
5%
10%
29%
35%
22%
31%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Like Somewhat l… No opinion Somewhat …
Dislike
Linda Vista
Avenue
Monte Vista
Avenue
Maple Avenue
Watkins Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
6 / 29
Effectiveness in reducing speeding and/or deterring cut-through traffic 24%
22%
19%
21%
51%
40%
39%
49%
30%
41%
47%
35%
40%
33%
43%
28%
27%
25%
31%
27%
32%
45%
43%
36%
21%
33%
36%
27%
44%
31%
38%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Verry effect… Somewhat … Not effective
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Avenue
(Middlefield...
Encinal Avenue
(School Entr...
Barry Lane
Selby Lane
(Austin Ave....
Selby Lane
(Stockbridge...
Selby Lane
(Polhemus Av...
Stockbridge
Avenue (Aust...
Fairview Avenue
Linda Vista
Avenue
Monte Vista
Avenue
Maple Avenue
Watkins Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
7 / 29
Location
2%
2 7%
7 38%
37 17%
17 36%
35 98
0%
0 9%
9 39%
39 26%
26 26%
26 100
0%
0 8%
8 39%
39 25%
25 27%
27 99
1%
1 2%
2 29%
26 23%
21 44%
40 90
2%
2 6%
6 24%
23 33%
31 34%
32 94
2%
2 5%
5 43%
47 26%
28 25%
27 109
0%
0 4%
4 45%
48 28%
30 23%
24 106
2%
2 7%
6 28%
24 26%
23 37%
32 87
1%
1 6%
4 14%
10 24%
17 55%
39 71
1%
1 4%
3 10%
7 31%
22 54%
39 72
1%
1 4%
3 11%
8 30%
22 53%
39 73
1%
1 6%
4 14%
10 23%
16 56%
40 71
0%
0 4%
4 46%
43 25%
23 25%
23 93
IN FRONT OF MY
HOUSE (1)
ON MY
STREET (2)
ON MY
ROUTE (3)
IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD
(4)
NOT NEAR
ME (5)
TOTAL
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Avenue (Middlefield Rd.
- School Entry)
Encinal Avenue (School Entry -
Felton Dr.)
Barry Lane
Selby Lane (Austin Ave. -
Serrano Ave.)
Selby Lane (Stockbridge Ave. -
Almendral Ave.)
Selby Lane (Polhemus Ave. -
Tuscaloosa Ave.)
Stockbridge Avenue (Austin
Ave. - Serrano Ave.)
Fairview Avenue
Linda Vista Avenue
Monte Vista Avenue
Maple Avenue
Watkins Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
9 / 29
Frequency of Travel
18%
15 11%
9 33%
28 31%
26 7%
6 84
28%
24 16%
14 26%
23 24%
21 6%
5 87
29%
25 13%
11 26%
22 25%
21 7%
6 85
15%
11 18%
13 26%
19 21%
15 21%
15 73
20%
15 24%
18 22%
17 24%
18 11%
8 76
27%
24 36%
32 18%
16 12%
11 8%
7 90
27%
23 31%
27 22%
19 12%
10 8%
7 86
23%
15 17%
11 25%
16 23%
15 11%
7 64
16%
8 12%
6 20%
10 27%
13 24%
12 49
12%
6 8%
4 24%
12 31%
15 24%
12 49
18%
9 10%
5 20%
10 26%
13 26%
13 50
10%
5 6%
3 14%
7 45%
23 25%
13 51
14%
11 27%
21 32%
25 21%
16 6%
5 78
MULTIPLE TIMES
DAILY (1)
DAILY
(2)
WEEKLY
(3)
INFREQUENT
(4)
NEVER
(5)
TOTAL
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Avenue (Middlefield Rd. - School
Entry)
Encinal Avenue (School Entry - Felton
Dr.)
Barry Lane
Selby Lane (Austin Ave. - Serrano Ave.)
Selby Lane (Stockbridge Ave. -
Almendral Ave.)
Selby Lane (Polhemus Ave. -
Tuscaloosa Ave.)
Stockbridge Avenue (Austin Ave. -
Serrano Ave.)
Fairview Avenue
Linda Vista Avenue
Monte Vista Avenue
Maple Avenue
Watkins Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
11 / 29
Like/Dislike
36%
28 12%
9 17%
13 8%
6 28%
22 78
38%
30 15%
12 18%
14 3%
2 28%
22 80
36%
28 14%
11 18%
14 5%
4 26%
20 77
29%
19 11%
7 26%
17 6%
4 28%
18 65
23%
16 9%
6 13%
9 6%
4 49%
34 69
26%
22 8%
7 10%
8 11%
9 45%
38 84
28%
22 9%
7 10%
8 9%
7 45%
36 80
19%
11 3%
2 22%
13 2%
1 53%
31 58
34%
14 7%
3 32%
13 0%
0 27%
11 41
29%
12 5%
2 32%
13 7%
3 27%
11 41
35%
14 5%
2 28%
11 5%
2 28%
11 40
22%
9 10%
4 39%
16 10%
4 20%
8 41
31%
22 11%
8 13%
9 10%
7 35%
25 71
LIKE
(1)
SOMEWHAT
LIKE (2)
NO OPINION
(3)
SOMEWHAT
DISLIKE (4)
DISLIKE
(5)
TOTAL
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Avenue (Middlefield Rd. -
School Entry)
Encinal Avenue (School Entry - Felton
Dr.)
Barry Lane
Selby Lane (Austin Ave. - Serrano
Ave.)
Selby Lane (Stockbridge Ave. -
Almendral Ave.)
Selby Lane (Polhemus Ave. -
Tuscaloosa Ave.)
Stockbridge Avenue (Austin Ave. -
Serrano Ave.)
Fairview Avenue
Linda Vista Avenue
Monte Vista Avenue
Maple Avenue
Watkins Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
13 / 29
Effectiveness in reducing speeding and/or deterring cut-through traffic 37%
23 40%
25 24%
15 63
45%
30 33%
22 22%
15 67
43%
27 38%
24 19%
12 63
36%
17 43%
20 21%
10 47
21%
11 28%
15 51%
27 53
33%
22 27%
18 40%
27 67
36%
23 25%
16 39%
25 64
27%
11 24%
10 49%
20 41
44%
12 26%
7 30%
8 27
28%
8 31%
9 41%
12 29
27%
8 27%
8 47%
14 30
31%
8 35%
9 35%
9 26
38%
23 32%
19 30%
18 60
VERRY EFFECTIVE
(1)
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE
(2)
NOT EFFECTIVE
(3)
TOTAL
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Avenue (Middlefield Rd. - School
Entry)
Encinal Avenue (School Entry - Felton Dr.)
Barry Lane
Selby Lane (Austin Ave. - Serrano Ave.)
Selby Lane (Stockbridge Ave. - Almendral
Ave.)
Selby Lane (Polhemus Ave. - Tuscaloosa
Ave.)
Stockbridge Avenue (Austin Ave. - Serrano
Ave.)
Fairview Avenue
Linda Vista Avenue
Monte Vista Avenue
Maple Avenue
Watkins Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
15 / 29
Q3 Opinion of speed humps (Cont.)
Answered: 169 Skipped: 20
General satisfaction with speed bump
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Avenue
(Middlefield
Rd. - School...
Encinal Avenue
(School Entry -
Felton Dr.)
Barry Lane
Selby Lane
(Austin Ave. -
Serrano Ave.)
Selby Lane
(Stockbridge
Ave. -...
Selby Lane
(Polhemus Ave.
- Tuscaloosa...
Stockbridge
Avenue (Austin
Ave. - Serra...
Fairview Avenue
Linda Vista
Avenue
Monte Vista
Avenue
Maple Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
16 / 29
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Verry satis… Somewhat … No opinion Somewhat …
Very dissati…
Watkins Avenue
Size
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Avenue
(Middlefield
Rd. - School...
Encinal Avenue
(School Entry -
Felton Dr.)
Barry Lane
Selby Lane
(Austin Ave. -
Serrano Ave.)
Selby Lane
(Stockbridge
Ave. -...
Selby Lane
(Polhemus Ave.
- Tuscaloosa...
Stockbridge
Avenue (Austin
Ave. - Serra...
Fairview Avenue
Linda Vista
Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
17 / 29
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Too big Too small Too Short Too tall
Just right
Monte Vista
Avenue
Maple Avenue
Watkins Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
18 / 29
Visibility/Signage
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Just right Hard to see… Too many s…
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Avenue
(Middlefield...
Encinal Avenue
(School Entr...
Barry Lane
Selby Lane
(Austin Ave....
Selby Lane
(Stockbridge...
Selby Lane
(Polhemus Av...
Stockbridge
Avenue (Aust...
Fairview Avenue
Linda Vista
Avenue
Monte Vista
Avenue
Maple Avenue
Watkins Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
19 / 29
Visibility/Pavement Markings
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Visible - no … Hard to see… Hard to see…
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Avenue
(Middlefield...
Encinal Avenue
(School Entr...
Barry Lane
Selby Lane
(Austin Ave....
Selby Lane
(Stockbridge...
Selby Lane
(Polhemus Av...
Stockbridge
Avenue (Aust...
Fairview Avenue
Linda Vista
Avenue
Monte Vista
Avenue
Maple Avenue
Watkins Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
20 / 29
General satisfaction with speed bump
27.03%
20 17.57%
13 16.22%
12 12.16%
9 27.03%
20 74
32.00%
24 16.00%
12 17.33%
13 5.33%
4 29.33%
22 75
29.73%
22 18.92%
14 17.57%
13 5.41%
4 28.38%
21 74
25.86%
15 15.52%
9 22.41%
13 3.45%
2 32.76%
19 58
16.67%
10 15.00%
9 16.67%
10 6.67%
4 45.00%
27 60
24.68%
19 14.29%
11 9.09%
7 7.79%
6 44.16%
34 77
21.92%
16 15.07%
11 9.59%
7 8.22%
6 45.21%
33 73
15.52%
9 8.62%
5 20.69%
12 12.07%
7 43.10%
25 58
27.27%
12 6.82%
3 43.18%
19 4.55%
2 18.18%
8 44
18.60%
8 6.98%
3 46.51%
20 6.98%
3 20.93%
9 43
22.22%
10 8.89%
4 44.44%
20 4.44%
2 20.00%
9 45
15.91%
7 6.82%
3 52.27%
23 9.09%
4 15.91%
7 44
26.87%
18 14.93%
10 16.42%
11 10.45%
7 31.34%
21 67
VERRY
SATISFIED
SOMEWHAT
SATISFIED
NO
OPINION
SOMEWHAT
DISSATISFIED
VERY
DISSATISFIED
TOTAL
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Avenue (Middlefield Rd.
- School Entry)
Encinal Avenue (School Entry -
Felton Dr.)
Barry Lane
Selby Lane (Austin Ave. -
Serrano Ave.)
Selby Lane (Stockbridge Ave. -
Almendral Ave.)
Selby Lane (Polhemus Ave. -
Tuscaloosa Ave.)
Stockbridge Avenue (Austin
Ave. - Serrano Ave.)
Fairview Avenue
Linda Vista Avenue
Monte Vista Avenue
Maple Avenue
Watkins Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
21 / 29
Size
32.65%
16 8.16%
4 6.12%
3 20.41%
10 32.65%
16 49
34.09%
15 9.09%
4 6.82%
3 20.45%
9 29.55%
13 44
34.88%
15 6.98%
3 9.30%
4 20.93%
9 27.91%
12 43
27.59%
8 3.45%
1 10.34%
3 3.45%
1 55.17%
16 29
42.86%
12 3.57%
1 0.00%
0 21.43%
6 32.14%
9 28
42.22%
19 2.22%
1 2.22%
1 22.22%
10 31.11%
14 45
46.51%
20 2.33%
1 2.33%
1 20.93%
9 27.91%
12 43
48.15%
13 0.00%
0 3.70%
1 22.22%
6 25.93%
7 27
21.43%
3 7.14%
1 21.43%
3 0.00%
0 50.00%
7 14
14.29%
2 7.14%
1 0.00%
0 7.14%
1 71.43%
10 14
10.53%
2 15.79%
3 21.05%
4 5.26%
1 47.37%
9 19
41.67%
5 16.67%
2 16.67%
2 0.00%
0 25.00%
3 12
36.84%
14 5.26%
2 7.89%
3 18.42%
7 31.58%
12 38
TOO
BIG
TOO
SMALL
TOO
SHORT
TOO
TALL
JUST RIGHT TOTAL
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Avenue (Middlefield Rd. - School Entry)
Encinal Avenue (School Entry - Felton Dr.)
Barry Lane
Selby Lane (Austin Ave. - Serrano Ave.)
Selby Lane (Stockbridge Ave. - Almendral Ave.)
Selby Lane (Polhemus Ave. - Tuscaloosa Ave.)
Stockbridge Avenue (Austin Ave. - Serrano
Ave.)
Fairview Avenue
Linda Vista Avenue
Monte Vista Avenue
Maple Avenue
Watkins Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
22 / 29
Visibility/Signage
55.10%
27 34.69%
17 10.20%
5 49
53.85%
21 38.46%
15 7.69%
3 39
50.00%
20 45.00%
18 5.00%
2 40
59.26%
16 33.33%
9 7.41%
2 27
41.38%
12 51.72%
15 6.90%
2 29
50.00%
21 45.24%
19 4.76%
2 42
35.00%
14 62.50%
25 2.50%
1 40
38.46%
10 57.69%
15 3.85%
1 26
73.33%
11 20.00%
3 6.67%
1 15
57.14%
8 35.71%
5 7.14%
1 14
38.89%
7 55.56%
10 5.56%
1 18
61.54%
8 23.08%
3 15.38%
2 13
47.22%
17 44.44%
16 8.33%
3 36
JUST
RIGHT
HARD TO SEE - ADD MORE
SIGNAGE
TOO MANY
SIGNS
TOTAL
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Avenue (Middlefield Rd. - School
Entry)
Encinal Avenue (School Entry - Felton Dr.)
Barry Lane
Selby Lane (Austin Ave. - Serrano Ave.)
Selby Lane (Stockbridge Ave. - Almendral
Ave.)
Selby Lane (Polhemus Ave. - Tuscaloosa
Ave.)
Stockbridge Avenue (Austin Ave. - Serrano
Ave.)
Fairview Avenue
Linda Vista Avenue
Monte Vista Avenue
Maple Avenue
Watkins Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
23 / 29
Visibility/Pavement Markings
59.52%
25 30.95%
13 9.52%
4 42
59.46%
22 32.43%
12 8.11%
3 37
52.63%
20 36.84%
14 10.53%
4 38
70.83%
17 20.83%
5 8.33%
2 24
56.52%
13 39.13%
9 4.35%
1 23
55.56%
20 36.11%
13 8.33%
3 36
47.06%
16 50.00%
17 2.94%
1 34
57.14%
12 38.10%
8 4.76%
1 21
57.14%
8 35.71%
5 7.14%
1 14
61.54%
8 23.08%
3 15.38%
2 13
41.18%
7 47.06%
8 11.76%
2 17
72.73%
8 18.18%
2 9.09%
1 11
57.58%
19 33.33%
11 9.09%
3 33
VISIBLE - NO
CHANGE
HARD TO SEE - ADD
PAVEMENT MARKINGS
HARD TO SEE - REFRESH
ARROWS
TOTAL
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Avenue (Middlefield Rd. -
School Entry)
Encinal Avenue (School Entry -
Felton Dr.)
Barry Lane
Selby Lane (Austin Ave. - Serrano
Ave.)
Selby Lane (Stockbridge Ave. -
Almendral Ave.)
Selby Lane (Polhemus Ave. -
Tuscaloosa Ave.)
Stockbridge Avenue (Austin Ave. -
Serrano Ave.)
Fairview Avenue
Linda Vista Avenue
Monte Vista Avenue
Maple Avenue
Watkins Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
24 / 29
Q4 Permanence
Answered: 170 Skipped: 19
Permanence
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Make perm… Keep curre… Replace wit… Replace wit…
Remove
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Aven...
Encinal Aven...
Barry Lane
Selby Lane...
Selby Lane...
Selby Lane...
Stockbridge...
Fairview Avenue
Linda Vista...
Monte Vista...
Maple Avenue
Watkins Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
25 / 29
Permanence
36.76%
25 4.41%
3 20.59%
14 5.88%
4 32.35%
22 68
45.07%
32 8.45%
6 14.08%
10 2.82%
2 29.58%
21 71
46.38%
32 5.80%
4 15.94%
11 4.35%
3 27.54%
19 69
38.00%
19 8.00%
4 4.00%
2 8.00%
4 42.00%
21 50
30.77%
16 3.85%
2 5.77%
3 0.00%
0 59.62%
31 52
32.43%
24 5.41%
4 10.81%
8 0.00%
0 51.35%
38 74
32.05%
25 3.85%
3 15.38%
12 1.28%
1 47.44%
37 78
32.69%
17 1.92%
1 5.77%
3 0.00%
0 59.62%
31 52
42.42%
14 6.06%
2 3.03%
1 15.15%
5 33.33%
11 33
37.14%
13 11.43%
4 2.86%
1 8.57%
3 40.00%
14 35
34.21%
13 7.89%
3 2.63%
1 18.42%
7 36.84%
14 38
30.30%
10 9.09%
3 12.12%
4 12.12%
4 36.36%
12 33
38.10%
24 4.76%
3 14.29%
9 4.76%
3 38.10%
24 63
MAKE
PERMANENT IN
CURRENT
LOCATION
KEEP
CURRENT
TEMPORARY
HUMPS
REPLACE WITH
SMALLER
TEMPORARY
HUMPS
REPLACE WITH
LARGER
TEMPORARY
HUMPS
REMOVE TOTAL
Glenwood Avenue
Encinal Avenue
(Middlefield Rd. -
School Entry)
Encinal Avenue
(School Entry -
Felton Dr.)
Barry Lane
Selby Lane (Austin
Ave. - Serrano
Ave.)
Selby Lane
(Stockbridge Ave. -
Almendral Ave.)
Selby Lane
(Polhemus Ave. -
Tuscaloosa Ave.)
Stockbridge
Avenue (Austin
Ave. - Serrano
Ave.)
Fairview Avenue
Linda Vista Avenue
Monte Vista
Avenue
Maple Avenue
Watkins Avenue
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
26 / 29
16.39% 30
19.13% 35
19.13% 35
18.03% 33
27.32% 50
Q5 In general, how would you rate your opinion of effectiveness in reducing speeds and cut-through traffic.
Answered: 183 Skipped: 6
TOTAL 183
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
27 / 29
Q6 Is there any additional feedback you would like to provide regarding speed humps.
Answered: 98 Skipped: 91
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
28 / 29
92.49% 160
5.20% 9
5.20% 9
0.58% 1
5.20% 9
3.47% 6
Q7 What is the best way to contact you regadring this issue and others? Answered: 173 Skipped: 16
Total Respondents: 173
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Email
Postcard/Mail
Town Newsflash
Town Social
Media
(Nextdoor,...
Athertonian
Other (please
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Email
Postcard/Mail
Town Newsflash
Town Social Media (Nextdoor, Facebook, Instagram, X)
Athertonian
Other (please specify)
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Town of Atherton Speed Hump Survey</strong></span>
29 / 29
56.35% 102
13.26% 24
7.73% 14
0.55% 1
3.31% 6
12.71% 23
13.26% 24
Q8 How did you hear about this survey?
Answered: 181 Skipped: 8
Total Respondents: 181
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Email
Postcard/Mail
Town Newsflash
Town Social
Media
(Nextdoor,...
Athertonian
Friend/Neighbor
Other (please
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Email
Postcard/Mail
Town Newsflash
Town Social Media (Nextdoor, Facebook, Instagram, X)
Athertonian
Friend/Neighbor
Other (please specify)