Public and Email Comments
• Received between October 30 and November 30, 2025
• 25 comments received
• Top themes:
• Opposition to bike lanes on Selby Lane
• Requests for sidewalks or walkways
• Desire for speed humps on some streets, concerns about chicanes • Perception of low bicycle ridership in Atherton
• Concerns about poor drainage along streets
• Request for safety improvements near schools
Draft Recommendations
•Walkways
oImproving facilities along main roadways and in proximity to schools oImproving facilities in high-injury network locations
oFacilities needed to support Multi-Family Zoning
•Intersection Improvements
oGroup A – Crossing and Accessibility Improvements
oGroup B – Roadway Improvements
oGroup C – Traffic Control Improvements
Pedestrian Facilities
FOCUS
Development of Recommendations
Pedestrian Facilities
Facility Existing (Mi.) Proposed (Mi.)
Shared Use Paths 0.1
Existing 0.1 0.36
Sidewalks / Walkways 3.6
On one side 1.5 8.44
On both sides 2.1 1.67**
Total 3.7 10.47
Sidewalk/Walkways
(1 side)
* Colors refer to facilities included in maps **Dependent upon the results of the El Camino Real Study Sidewalks/Walkways
(2 sides)
Shared-Use Path
(Class I)
Filling in:
• Missing facilities along
main roadways and in
proximity to school
(ex. Atherton Avenue,
Middlefield Road)
• Missing facilities along
high-injury corridors
(ex. Valparaiso Avenue,
Middlefield Road)
Pedestrian Facilities
(Linear)
Pedestrian Facilities
(West)
Linear
Walkway on 1-side:
• Alameda de las Pulgas
• Selby Lane
• Atherton Avenue
• Valparaiso Avenue
• Alejandra Avenue
• Park Lane
• Emilie Avenue
• Elena Avenue
Sidewalk on 1-side (RM-10/SB79 ):
• Valparaiso Avenue
Sidewalk on 2-sides:
• El Camino Real * – based on ECR Plan
* To be coordinated with Caltrans Page 125 of 145
Pedestrian Facilities
(East)
Linear
Walkway on 1-side:
• Fair Oaks Lane
• Watkins Avenue
• Dinkelspiel Station Lane
• Encinal Avenue
• Middlefield Road
Shared Use Pathway (Class I):
• Marsh Road
Sidewalk on 1-side (RM-10/SB79 ):
• Laurel Street
• Glenwood Avenue
• Ravenswood Avenue
• Ringwood Avenue *
• Bay Road *
Sidewalk on 2-sides:
• El Camino Real **
* To be coordinated with Caltrans
** To be coordinated with Menlo Park
Pedestrian Facilities
Development of Recommendations
Intersection Recommendations Toolbox
Advanced Yield
Markings
Pedestrian Refuge Island Accessible Ramps
Group A – Crossing and Accessibility Group B – Roadway Improvements High-Visibility Crosswalk
* Colors refer to facilities included in maps
Pedestrian Facilities
Development of Recommendations
Intersection Recommendations Toolbox
New Signal Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon
Group C – Traffic Control Improvements
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon Roundabout
* Colors refer to facilities included in maps
Increased accessibility
Pedestrian
Recommendations
(Intersections) • Increased accessibility
(ex. Alameda de las
Pulgas at Atherton
Avenue)
• Improved safety at highinjury locations (ex. El
Camino Real at Selby
Lane., El Camino Real at
Valparaiso Avenue)
Approved Projects: • Alameda de las Pulgas (1-3)
Approved Studies/Design: • Watkins Avenue/Station Lane (13) • El Camino Real/Selby Lane * (21) • El Camino Real * • Middlefield Road (22-28) Other Proposed: • Atherton Avenue/Selby Lane (4) • Park Lane/Elena Avenue (5) • Middlefield Road/Ravenswood Avenue** (25)
• Valparaiso Avenue ** (6-9)
* To be coordinated with Caltrans
** To be coordinated with Menlo Park Page 129 of 145
Bike Facility Classification Existing Facilities
(Mi.)
Proposed Facilities
(Mi.)
Shared Use Path Class I 0.1 0.4
Bike Lane Class II 5.6 2.2
Buffered Bike Lane Class IIB 1.2 0.9
Bike Route Class III 9.8 5.8
Bicycle Boulevard Class IIIB 0.0 0.0
Separated Bike Lane Class IV 0.0 2.1
Total 16.7 11.4
Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Bike Route
* Colors refer to facilities included in maps
Shared-Use Path
Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle Facilities
Development of Recommendations
Bicycle Recommendations Toolbox
Shared-use Paths Separated Bikeways Buffered Bike Lanes * Colors refer to facilities included in maps
Bicycle Facilities
FOCUSING ON
Development of Recommendations
•Improving user safety
•Closing gaps in existing network
•Proximity to schools
•Complementing higher-traffic roadways
•Enhancing/improving user comfort
•Providing access to key destinations
•Cross-town connections & regional connectivity
•Separating users
Bicycle Recommendations
(West)
Approved Projects:
• Alameda de las Pulgas –Class IIB (Buffered)
Approved Studies/Design:
• El Camino Real *
Other Proposed:
• Stockbridge Avenue – Class III (Shared)
• Almendral Avenue – Class III (Shared)
• Atherton Avenue – Bike Lanes
* To be coordinated with Caltrans
Bicycle Recommendations
(East)
Proposed Projects:
Shared Use:
• Marsh Road – Class I (Multi-Use Trail)
• Glenwood Avenue – Class II (Bike lanes)
• Middlefield Road – Class IV (Separated)
• James Avenue – Class III (Shared Use)
• Greenoaks Avenue – Class III (Shared Use)
• Oak Grove Avenue – Class III (Shared Use)
• Frederick Avenue – Class III (Shared Use)
East-West Connectivity
Both bicycle lanes and walkways are recommended on Atherton Avenue •This may have impacts on frontages
•Seeking Council and Committee feedback on preferred approach:
•Both bicycle lanes and a pedestrian walkway?
•Bicycle lanes on Atherton Ave. and walkway on an alternate street? •Walkway along Atherton Ave & maintaining/enhancing Class III bike route? •Hybrid approach (walkway & Class III on one side, bike lane on other) •Other preferred alternative
Committee recommended a walkway on one side with Class III bike route
Programs and
Policies
Recommended Programs
New Recommended Programs:
• Mini Main Street and other Education Events (SRTS)
• New Infrastructure Education Campaign
• City-Level SRTS Programs & Coordination
• Annual Bicycle & Pedestrian Collision Reports
• Bike Lane & Parking Enforcement
• End of Year Workplan Reporting
Recommended Policies
New Recommended Policies:
• Frontage Improvement Requirements
• Daylighting
• Update Street Design Standards and Details
• Pervious Walkways
• Sidewalks and Driveways (Single-Family and MultiFamily Frontages) • Intersection and Driveway Clearance Zones
• Curbside Bio-Retention Basins
Updated Frontage Standards
Seeking Committee feedback on potential changes to Right-of-Way landscaping Standards for Work (AMC Section 12.06.100):
• Requiring a clear zone between improved roadway and any landscaping? • Current guidelines allow for landscaping up to the edge of the improved roadway
• Providing a clear zone for mailbox access by postal service? • Mailboxes, Parcel Boxes, call boxes and other obstructions are to be located 6-feet from edge of roadway. Postal service requires drive-up access • Landscape height restrictions in the right-of-way?
• First 3-feet = 5-inches high
• 3 – 6 feet = 36-inces high
• > 6-feet =Trees and higher shrubs at full maturity Page 139 of 145 Updated Frontage Standards
• Clear zone between improved
roadway and any landscaping?
• Clear zone at corners
• Clear zone at driveways
• Placement of parcel/mailboxes
• Placement of call boxes
Next Steps
Next Steps
Input received today will be incorporated into:
• Developing cost estimates
• Prioritizing projects
• Creating Concept Sheets for select projects
Draft Plan (Fall 2026)
Q&A and Discussion
Discussion Topics
• Network Recommendations
• East/West Connectivity
• Atherton Avenue: Bicycle & Pedestrian Pathways
• Preferred Concept Locations
• Frontage Requirements
• Policy and Program Review
• Other Input
Thank you!