Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Active Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Atherton advances active-transportation plan update amid neighborhood opposition to Selby Lane bike proposals
Summary
Consultants presented draft active-transportation recommendations and Phase 1 outreach results; residents concentrated opposition on Selby Lane bike proposals and raised concerns about parking, school drop-off congestion and process clarity.
Get email alerts on the Active Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants and town staff updated the Atherton Town Transportation Committee on progress toward an updated active transportation plan and outlined outreach and two draft alternatives for bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
The presentation, led by Mauricio Hernandez, senior planning associate for Alta Planning and Design, summarized Phase 1 outreach (April–June), existing conditions and draft recommendations that range from added sidewalks and shared-use paths to separated bikeways on El Camino Real and traffic-calming treatments in neighborhoods. "The recommended improvements here are just recommendations. Nothing's been set in stone," Hernandez said, emphasizing further neighborhood meetings and an upcoming townwide survey.
The update explained the project timeline: initial analysis completed in summer 2025, additional outreach this fall, a draft plan in winter/early spring and a final plan for consideration by summer 2026. Consultants cited an analysis of collisions from 2018–2024 that identified El Camino Real, Middlefield Road, Valparaiso and Ringwood as high-injury corridors for people walking and biking. They also summarized counting and mapping efforts that showed concentrations of walking and bicycling near Menlo-Atherton High School, Sacred Heart and Menlo School.
Why it matters: the plan would guide capital and policy priorities for pedestrian and bicycle facilities in Atherton and flag corridors requiring coordination with Caltrans and neighboring jurisdictions. Consultants said the plan will pair infrastructure recommendations with non-infrastructure actions such as programs and policy guidance to support implementation.
Public comment focused heavily on Selby Lane, where one design alternative had previously included on-street bike lanes that would remove on-street parking in some segments. Multiple residents who live on or near Selby Lane told the committee they oppose losing parking or changing the street character because the road currently accommodates heavy school drop-off activity. Connie Lurie, who said she lives across from the school, told the committee, "We would like just to be left alone," and noted the school draws drivers from outside Atherton because it is in the Redwood City school district. Kevin Brown, who said he lives across from Selby Lane School, said neighborhood meetings and prior input had been strongly opposed to the lane changes.
Committee members and staff acknowledged the resistance and described planned next steps: targeted neighborhood meetings, a townwide pop-up event (proposed for the town Halloween event), mailers and school outreach through Safe Routes coordinators and PTAs. Staff said some alternatives for Selby do not require roadway widening and instead would emphasize enhancements such as bicycle boulevard treatments and traffic calming rather than removing parking.
Details and outreach results: consultants reported 34 participants at an Earth Day pop-up (with 37 comment cards), 608 map comments on the online interactive tool and that 79% of survey respondents identified as Atherton residents (presentation stated this equated to 339 respondents). Common Phase 1 themes were concerns about pedestrian and bicyclist safety, interest in safer walking routes to schools, gaps in sidewalks and bike facilities, and strong local interest in preserving Atherton's rural character.
Next steps: staff and Alta said they will increase outreach reach in Phase 2 with neighborhood-focused meetings, a townwide survey showing both alternatives, and direct emails to neighborhood distribution lists. Final recommendations will be refined after additional engagement and returned to the committee for review.
Ending: Committee members asked staff to clarify outreach plans and how trade-offs (for example, loss of parking) would be presented to residents. No formal action on the plan was taken at the meeting; the committee treated the presentation as an informational update and directed staff to expand the Phase 2 engagement.

