Agenda packet — Palo Alto City Council, June 2, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Monday, June 02, 2025
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Amended Agenda
Amended agenda items appear below in RED (Time Estimates Updated) Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference or in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org.

VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238) Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833

PUBLIC COMMENTS
General Public Comment for items not on the agenda will be accepted in person for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. General public comment will be heard for 30 minutes. Additional public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda.

Public comments for agendized items will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. Requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation or as determined by the Chair. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to [email protected] and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line.

PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to [email protected] at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted.

Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.

TIME ESTIMATES
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. 1 June 02, 2025
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.

CALL TO ORDER
BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS (5:30 - 5:45 PM)

1. Appointment of Candidates to the Vacancies on the Architectural Review Board; CEQA Status - Not a Project
CLOSED SESSION (5:45 - 7:15 PM)

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION
Subject: Downtown Vibrancy v. City of Palo Alto, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 25CV464012
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
AA1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 2575 East Bayshore Road; Assessor’s Parcel Number 008-03-015 Negotiating Parties: C H LLC. City Negotiators: Ed Shikada, Kiely Nose, Alan Kurotori, Sunny Tong
Subject of Negotiations: Purchase and/or Lease Price and Terms of Payment New Item Added

AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
PUBLIC COMMENT (7:15 - 7:45 PM)
Members of the public may speak in-person ONLY to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. Public Comment is limited to 30 minutes. Additional public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda.

COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS (7:45 - 7:55 PM) Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).

STUDY SESSION (7:55 - 9:25 PM)

3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Draft Project Prioritization Framework and Prioritized Project Lists
2 June 02, 2025
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.

CONSENT CALENDAR (9:25 - 9:30 PM)
Items will be voted in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.

4. Approval of Minutes from May 19, 2025 Meeting

5. Approval of and Authorization of City Manager or their Designee to Execute an Exchange Agreement with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for Replacement of Overhead Utility Facilities with Underground Facilities and Exchange and Transfer Real Property Interests within Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 351-25-014, 351-06-025, 351-09-002, and 351-12-069; CEQA Status – Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15302

6. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan as Recommended by the Policy & Services Committee

7. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 4 to Contract Number C16166822 with ARC Document Solutions in the Amount of $1,020,000, Bringing the New Total Not To Exceed to $3,855,340, for Copiers/Printers to increase; CEQA Status - Not a Project

8. Approval of Contract Amendment No. 2 to Contract Number C21179340 with Baker Tilly US, LLP in the Amount of $2,126,250 and to Extend Term to June 30, 2026, with Option to Extend for Two Years, for Internal Auditing Services; Revised Total Not to Exceed is $5,552,500, CEQA Status – Not a Project. At-Places Supplemental Report

9. Approval of Construction Contract Number C25194073 with G. Bortolotto & Company Inc. in the Amount of $3,817,942 for the Fiscal Year 2025 Asphalt Paving Project; Capital Improvement Program Projects PE-86070, PE-09003, PL-12000, and PG-06001; and Authorization for the City Manager or Their Designee to Negotiate and Execute Change Orders up to a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $376,926; CEQA Status – Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c)

10. Approval of Construction Contract No. C25193583 with Stronger Building Services in the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $440,250 for the Lucie Stern Community Center Theater Roof Underlayment Replacement Project as part of the Roofing Replacement Program, Capital Improvement Program PF-00006 and Authorization for the City Manager or Their Designee to Negotiate and Execute Change Orders for Related Additional but Unforeseen Work that May Develop During the Project Up to a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $44,025; CEQA status - Exempt under CEQA Guideline Sections 15301 and 15302

11. Adoption of a Resolution for Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act, for Fiscal Year 2026, Providing the Project List for the Street Maintenance Project, Capital 3 June 02, 2025
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.

Improvement Program Project (PE-86070); CEQA Status – Not a Project CITY MANAGER COMMENTS (9:30 - 9:45 PM)
BREAK (15 MINUTES)
ACTION ITEMS (10:00 - 11:00 PM)
Include: Report of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Report of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters.

12. LEGISLATIVE. Adoption of a Temporary, Emergency Ordinance Amending Title 18 and Title 21 to Reflect Changes in State Law in Accordance with Senate Bill 1123 and Related Direction to Staff Regarding Updates to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41.

ADJOURNMENT

OTHER INFORMATION
Standing Committee Meetings this week
Finance Committee June 3, 2025
Policy & Services Committee June 4, 2025
City Schools Liaison Committee June 3, 2025 CANCELED
Public Comment Letters
Schedule of Meetings

SUPPLEMENTAL / AMENDED AGENDA ITEMS
AA1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 2575 East Bayshore Road; Assessor’s Parcel Number 008-03-015 Negotiating Parties: C H LLC. City Negotiators: Ed Shikada, Kiely Nose, Alan Kurotori, Sunny Tong
Subject of Negotiations: Purchase and/or Lease Price and Terms of Payment New Item Added

8. Approval of Contract Amendment No. 2 to Contract Number C21179340 with Baker Tilly US, LLP 4 June 02, 2025
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.
in the Amount of $2,126,250 and to Extend Term to June 30, 2026, with Option to Extend for Two Years, for Internal Auditing Services; Revised Total Not to Exceed is $5,552,500, CEQA Status – Not a Project. At-Places Supplemental Report

PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone.

1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to [email protected].

2. For in person public comments please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item.

3. Spoken public comments for agendized items using a computer or smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. ◦ You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. Or download the Zoom application onto your smart phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter in the Meeting ID below.
◦ You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak.
◦ When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.
◦ When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.

4. Spoken public comments for agendized items using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 362-027-238 Phone: 1-669-900-6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing [email protected]. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.
5 June 02, 2025
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.

California Government Code §84308, commonly referred to as the "Levine Act," prohibits an elected official of a local government agency from participating in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use if the official received a campaign contribution exceeding $500 from a party or participant, including their agents, to the proceeding within the last 12 months. A “license, permit, or other entitlement for use” includes most land use and planning approvals and the approval of contracts that are not subject to lowest responsible bid procedures and have a value over $50,000. A “party” is a person who files an application for, or is the subject of, a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use. A “participant” is a person who actively supports or opposes a particular decision in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use, and has a financial interest in the decision. The Levine Act incorporates the definition of “financial interest” in the Political Reform Act, which encompasses interests in business entities, real property, sources of income, sources of gifts, and personal finances that may be affected by the Council’s actions. If you qualify as a “party” or “participant” to a proceeding, and you have made a campaign contribution to a Council Member exceeding $500 made within the last 12 months, you must disclose the campaign contribution before making your comments.
6 June 02, 2025
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.

City Council
Staff Report
Report Type: BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: June 2, 2025
Report #:2505-4704
TITLE
Appointment of Candidates to the Vacancies on the Architectural Review Board; CEQA Status - Not a Project

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Council vote to appoint three (3) candidates to the Architectural Review Board for a full-term expiring March 31, 2028.
*A majority vote (4 yes’s) is required to appoint a candidate.

BACKGROUND
On March 24, 2025, City Council conducted interviews for the three (3) candidates that submitted applications in the initial recruitment. The extended recruitment period of March 27, 2025, to April 30, 2025 resulted in nine (9) new applicants. At the May 5, 2025 City Council meeting, the City Council selected eight (8) candidates to interview.

Candidates are scheduled to be interviewed at the City Council Special Meeting on May 27, 2025.

Membership Requirements
At least three members shall be architects, landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals (PAMC 2.21.0102). This requirement is currently satisfied by Commissioners Mousam Adcock, Kendra Rosenberg, David Hirsch and Yingxi Chen.

Commissioners Hirsch and Chen, whose terms have expired, have applied for reappointment.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council action on this item is not a project as defined by CEQA because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5).

Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 7 of 363

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Architectural Review Board Initial and Extended Applications - Redacted APPROVED BY:

Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 8 of 363
Architectural Review Board Application
Submitted on 14 April 2025, 3:40pm
Receipt number 82
Related form version 15
Name Ashutosh Gupta
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? No
Address
City FREMONT
Postal Code 94536
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?
Yes
Fair Political Practices No
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board?
Email from the City
Personal Information
1 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 9 of 363
Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website.

Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website Occupation Director of Design at OR Homes
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional registration.

If describing work experience, please include
company/employer name and occupation.
.I hold a Bachelor's in Architecture, NCARB certification, and am a licensed architect. I'm also a LEED AP and have an MBA from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. I founded and run a residential architecture firm focused on single-family homes, with extensive experience in Palo Alto and neighboring Bay Area cities—having designed hundreds of homes. In addition to my design practice, I bring a strong technology background, having led engineering teams as Director of Engineering in both Y Combinator-backed startups and large firms like Nielsen, NetApp, and Informatica. This unique blend of architecture and tech leadership aligns well with the innovation-driven culture of the Bay Area.

Please describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.
.I have volunteered with Habitat for Humanity and Friends of the Library, contributing time toward housing and literacy efforts. I'm also active in local animal rescue—fostering dogs and helping them find permanent homes. As an architect, I’ve worked closely with hundreds of homeowners, gaining insight into evolving community needs and values around housing, sustainability, and quality of life. My professional and volunteer work reflects a deep commitment to supporting and improving the communities I live and work in.

Please select all that apply to you. Architect, landscape architect, building designer, other design professional
Personal and Job Experience

1. Why are you interested in serving on the Architectural Review Board and what experience would you bring to the position?
I bring a unique perspective through my background in architecture, technology, and business, as well as my LEED accreditation and entrepreneurial experience. Having grown up in India—a country with a rich architectural heritage—I value cultural diversity in design. I’m passionate about sustainable, people-centered spaces and believe Palo Alto can further embrace outdoor environments for casual gatherings, recreation, and community connection. With my cross-disciplinary background and deep understanding of both local housing needs and broader design trends, I hope to contribute to a vibrant, thoughtful built environment.

2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it.

While I appreciate the Board’s work on a range of design and planning issues, I’m particularly interested in how we shape spaces—both indoor and outdoor—to foster human connection. In today’s screen-driven world, it’s more important than ever to create environments that encourage real, in-person interaction, especially for children and families.

I’m passionate about designs that build community, support well-being, and activate public and semi-public spaces as places for gathering, play, and casual engagement.

3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and how would I would like the Architectural Review Board to place greater emphasis on the thoughtful use of open spaces to strengthen community connection Application Questions
2 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 10 of 363
you help in the process? and well-being. This includes supporting the integration of parks, informal gathering spaces, and areas for recreation and sports into new developments. I would contribute by advocating for designs that balance aesthetics with functionality and promote healthier, more engaged communities through well-planned outdoor environments.

4. Please identify a project (or projects) that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may include samples, identify project addresses, or provide links.

Some exemplary projects of good architecture include:

Sangath (Ahmedabad, Gujarat)
Jawahar Kala Kendra (Jaipur, Rajasthan)
Tongva Park (Santa Monica, California)
Menil Drawing Institute (Houston, Texas)
In ancient cultures, architecture was a direct response to the environment and the needs of its inhabitants. When I moved to the U.S. 20 years ago, I noticed that homes, whether in Chicago, Texas, Florida, or California, were often quite similar despite vastly different climates.

This lack of response to local environment and context stood in contrast to the thoughtful design seen in more traditional cultures, where buildings were shaped by their surroundings and purpose.

5. Architectural Review Board Members work with the
documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection, but will help you better understand the work of the board.

I have experience working with zoning codes while designing homes in Palo Alto, ensuring compliance with local regulations and design standards. I am also familiar with CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and its implications in the planning and design process If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.

Please confirm that you have read the Boards and
Commissions Handbook.

Yes
Signature Name of signatory: Ashutosh Gupta
Date Completed 04/14/2025
3 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 11 of 363
Architectural Review Board Application
Submitted on 18 April 2025, 6:00pm
Receipt number 85
Related form version 15
Name Bei Xu
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? No
Address
City Hayward
Postal Code 94544
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?
Yes
Fair Political Practices No
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board?
Email from the City
Personal Information
1 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 12 of 363
Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website.

Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website Occupation Senior Architect
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional registration.

If describing work experience, please include
company/employer name and occupation.

I hold a BA in Architecture and minor in Urban Planning from UC Berkeley and an MArch from Cornell University. I am a licensed architect in California, with LEED AP BD+C and WELL AP certifications. I currently work as a Senior Architect at Tesla Design + Planning. Prior to joining Tesla, I was a Lead Project Designer at DES Architects + Engineers and an Associate at Studios Architecture.

Please describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.

I was a summer intern at the Planning Department at City of Albany in 2008, then I continue my role as a volunteer through summer of 2009.

Please select all that apply to you. Architect, landscape architect, building designer, other design professional
Personal and Job Experience

1. Why are you interested in serving on the Architectural Review Board and what experience would you bring to the position?
I am interested in serving on the Board because I believe in the power of thoughtful, well-designed architecture and planning, I want to take part in shaping a vibrant, sustainable, and inclusive community. With over 8 years of professional experience, I bring a strong understanding of design excellence, environmental stewardship, and community-focused development.

My academic background laid a strong foundation in design theory and critical thinking. Professionally, I have designed and led a diverse range of projects, from proviate residentials to large-scale commercial developments. My LEED and WELL AP certifications reflect my commitment to sustainbility and wellness design.

Having worked in both side of the induestry, I bring a balanced perspective that values innovation while respecting contextual and regulatory considerations. I’m passionate about contributing to a review process that upholds design integrity while encouraging creativity and dialogue among stakeholders.

2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it.

I am interested in the California Avenue Signage Program and Outdoor Activation Zone topic. I think it's a great way to engage commercial activities with community space, promoting more walkable and car-free urban blocks. Visual signage is also a powerful tool to define the character and function of the street. That said, I think there are many challenges that come with outdoor programs like this. It’s critical to learn from past projects and other cities, and to gather feedback from the businesses that will be operating in the space.

3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and how would you help in the process?
If appointed to the Palo Alto ARB, my goals would be to promote design innovation, sustainability, and greater transparency in the review process. With experience on both the architectural and ownership sides of development, I recognize the importance of balancing the architect's design intent with the financial realities faced by the owners. As a Application Questions
2 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 13 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 14 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 15 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 16 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 17 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 18 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 19 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 20 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 21 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 22 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 23 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 24 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 25 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 26 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 27 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 28 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 29 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 30 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 31 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 32 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 33 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 34 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 35 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 36 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 37 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 38 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 39 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 40 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 41 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 42 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 37 Packet Pg. 43 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 38 Packet Pg. 44 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 39 Packet Pg. 45 of 363
Architectural Review Board Application
Submitted on 22 April 2025, 2:49pm
Receipt number 88
Related form version 15
Name Daniel Phillip Benas
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? Yes
Address
City Palo Alto
Postal Code 94306
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?
Yes
Fair Political Practices No
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board?
Email from the City
Personal Information
1 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 40 Packet Pg. 46 of 363
Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website.

Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website Occupation Finance Professional
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional registration.

If describing work experience, please include
company/employer name and occupation.

BS Business--UC Berkeley; MBA-UCLA. Active CPA licenses in California and Texas. Employer name is Business Wire-a Berkshire Hathaway Company. Head of Finance.

Please describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.

I have volunteered in the past through my religious affiliation and am also a docent for California St. Parks
Please select all that apply to you. None
Personal and Job Experience

1. Why are you interested in serving on the Architectural Review Board and what experience would you bring to the position?
My experience relating to this area is financial and project related. As a finance professional, I have been involved in manufacturing and facilities build-outs, including wafer fabs. My value add would be mostly on the practical versus esthetic side where I have true deep experience versus opinions.

2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it.

The issue of second story overlay in the Eichler communities where I live.

3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and how would you help in the process?
The dual goals of developing business in the community while retaining the current Palo Alto esthetic

4. Please identify a project (or projects) that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may include samples, identify project addresses, or provide links.

There have been numerous upgrades and rebuilds on my street. There were two across the street from me. One family took the care to build a two-story house while retaining the Eichler esthetic. Very thoughtfully done. The other house next door was just a McMansion that while nice, doesn't particularly fit within the neighborhood. People have the right to do what they want within the law, but I thought the prior example was more tasteful.

I do not have working experience with these documents but reading legal and technical documents have been a part of my job for 45 years.

Application Questions
2 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 41 Packet Pg. 47 of 363
If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.

Daniel Benas Resume.2.19.24.doc
Please confirm that you have read the Boards and
Commissions Handbook.

Yes
Signature Name of signatory: Daniel P Benas
Date Completed 04/22/2025
3 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 42 Packet Pg. 48 of 363
DANIEL BENAS, CPA (active)
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Highly accomplished & results-driven, 30+ years of experience in scaling, ramping and monetizing companies, developing motivated finance teams, spearheading finance-related practices along with verifiable success in streamlining operations. Organizational scope includes Fortune 500, Controllership of three public companies and successful pre-IPO companies.

Core Competencies include: Technical Accounting (US GAAP, SEC Reporting & Revenue recognition); ASC 606 Implementation; IPO Experience; Collaborative Leadership; Effective Recruiter, Talent Development and Mentoring, Building organizational capability; Financial Planning and Analysis; Scaling and Ramping Operations; M&A Diligence & Integration; Sarbanes-Oxley/ Processes and Procedures; ERP Implementation; Treasury & Bank Relationships; Successful leadership through public company restatements and SOX remediation; Legal Relationships; Multi-Disciplined Manager of: Human Resources, IT, Facilities and Production Control Depts.

EXPERIENCE
BUSINESS WIRE-A BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY COMPANY- Vice President-Finance 2020-Present • Finance Head reporting to CEO. Leading Finance portion of operational turn-around of media-tech company acquired by BRK • Reduced close by one week; numbers to management Day 3. Streamlined accounting processes; rebuilt accounting team • OTC process reengineering and automation. Implemented Esker OTC system and customer portal. DSO improved by 35 days • Facilitated 22% YoY revenue growth. Increased dividend cash flow to BRK by over 30%. Manage team of 35 PULMONX CORPORATION (LUNG), Redwood City, CA-Vice President-Controller 2019-2020 • Hired by late-stage pulmonary device manufacturer to lead company through S-1 process & to be public company Controller • Hired and built public company accounting team; took close from annual hindsight to 7 day monthly close in 6 months • First S-1 filing done within 5 months of hire and 2019 FY filing done in 54 days with public flip on February 28, 2020 • Minimal SOX deficiencies (non-reportable); IPO placed on hold due to COVID-19 • Developed full absorption cost accounting system for company’s Redwood City manufacturing plant SILEGO TECHNOLOGY (SLGO), Santa Clara, CA Vice President – Corporate Controller 2014- 2019 • Led late-stage semiconductor company through restatement process to complete confidential S-1 filing • Cured 18 MW over 18 months allowing Silego to file with zero MW’s • Led effort to early adapt Topic 606, Revenue Recognition within S-1 filing process; prepared road-show and IB packages • Drove implementation of Microsoft Dynamics AX ERP system • Built multinational finance team of 12 in the US, Taiwan, Ukraine and PRC; set up offshore tax structure (ETR 5%) • Developed audit worthy cost accounting reporting process, timely close and budgeting processes • Sale to Dialog Semi. (DLG.DE) for $300M; retained for integration as Top 25 performer. Achieved 99% of deal potential • Retained by Dialog to lead Finance for their World-Wide Operations Group (Manufacturing, IT, Quality, Procurement.) SOAProjects, Mountain View, CA; Technical Accounting Consultant (before/after Callidus) 2011- 2014 Positions included: 1) supporting a Singapore IPO IFRS filing for a US based Medical Device Firm; 2) supporting acquisition of two public company REIT’s with $18B market cap; 3) Interim Controller position supporting a QAD ERP installation and UK product launch for a pre-IPO medical device co; 4) Interim Controller for a public military contractor; 5) SEC filings for a semiconductor firm CALLIDUS CLOUD (CALD), Pleasanton, CA; Vice President – Corporate Controller 2011 – 2013 • Managed finance staff of 20 for an $100M+ public SaaS company directing all areas of accounting including revenue recognition
• Performed financial due diligence and led integration for eight international acquisitions (combined purchase price of $40M+) in Serbia, India, New Zealand, and the UK; set up 200 person “in-sourced” entity in India saving company $5M in OPEX • Implemented financial segment of NetSuite ERP system
CORSAIR COMPONENTS (formerly CORSAIR MEMORY), Fremont, CA 2009-2010 Vice President – Corporate Controller
Recruited to restructure the worldwide financial organization of a $400M late-stage electronics company with sales in Europe, U.S., Russia, and Latin America and manufacturing in Taiwan and China. • Reduced audit costs by $1.1M (65%); Remediated four MW’s enabling Company to become IPO-ready • Shortened close from sixteen to four days resulting in a streamlined process for reporting • Rebuilt the financial staff through the recruitment of six key hires and termination of non-performers; managed a staff of eighteen in four worldwide locations
• Coordinated the set up of the offshore trading company in Hong Kong and logistics center in South China • Signed off as principal accounting officer on Company’s S-1 filings which were completed on schedule • Revamped revenue process resulting in removal MW and an overall reduction in delinquent chargebacks of $2M Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 43 Packet Pg. 49 of 363
DANIEL BENAS Page Two
MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS (MPWR), San Jose, CA; Vice President – Corporate Controller 2006 – 2009 Recruited to turn around the financial organization of a $180M publicly traded firm facing numerous legal challenges and delistment from NASDAQ. • Directed the successful 3-year restatement within two months of hire which enabled the company to avoid being de-listed • Successfully took company through Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) remediation curing five material weaknesses and established normal financial operations with timely closes
• Rebuilt the financial staff with the recruitment of 8 key hires and termination of non-performers; managed WW staff of 20 • Set up operations and hired financial staff for new manufacturing facility in Chengdu INFINERA CORPORATION (INFN), Sunnyvale, CA; Vice President – Finance/Corporate Controller 2001 – 2006 Employee number 37 in a telecom networking manufacturer utilizing proprietary semiconductor technology. Company created the first digital optical network reducing product size by 2/3 and cost by 50% • Secured a $30M debt package with Silicon Valley Bank. Package also contained working capital financing • Created two asset-backed loan packages totaling $10M which reduced operating burn by 10% • Raised $167M in Series B-E financing from venture, corporate, and international government investors • Coordinated auction procurement tasks enabling Indium Phosphide Fab to be built for $15M • Established an Indian subsidiary to perform software development saving $8M annually utilizing a government-sponsored tax holiday program; led site selection in Bangalore
• Drove turnkey outsource-manufacturing process saving $10M+/yr. • Involved in setting up initial $140M revenue transaction with Level 3 which led to IPO • Led team that implemented Microsoft-Great Plains ERP system in preparation for IPO • Managed Human Resources, IT and Facilities departments in 2003-2004 CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR (CY), San Jose, CA 1989 – 2001
Vice President – Corporate Finance (1999 – 2001)
Led a 42-person team in a $1.3B corporation. Managed Internal, External and SEC Reporting, Consolidations, Financial and Strategic Planning, Shared Services and Financial IT Systems. Coordinated the annual audit as well as interfaced with audit committee. Oversaw preparation for Board of Director’s meetings and analyst conferences. • Led overhaul of capital acquisition & planning processes resulting in the successful completion of over $1B in capital projects • Negotiated and integrated ten successful acquisitions (totaling $300M annual revenue) • Implemented new versions of Oracle and Ariba Travel and Expense system • Drove process improvements in finance transactional functions that enabled successful transfer to Cypress Philippines Director – Worldwide Sales and Marketing Finance (1998 – 1999) • Directed all financial planning and accounting activities in support of Sales & Marketing worldwide including revenue and distributor accounting, commissions, and A/R
• Led multiple cross-functional process re-engineering teams including automating and streamlining the consignment process which led to channel growth of $60M in one year
• Simplified and automated the Distributor Accounting system saving the Company $3M per year in false debits Finance Director – Worldwide Manufacturing (1996 – 1998) • Directed financial planning and accounting for all manufacturing entities- $16M improvement in profitability during tenure • Set up Finance department for the first 100% Cypress-owned Asian plant in the Philippines; part of site development team • Transferred most manufacturing, cost accounting, and transactional activities to the Philippines saving $400K/year Controller, Production Control Manager and Business Unit Manager-Datacom Division (1989-1995) • Member of management team that grew division from $6M to $250M becoming the most profitable in CY • On team that did initial offshoring at CY moving to assembly and test facilities in Thailand dropping product costs over 50% • Led production control team meeting or exceeding forecasts for eight consecutive quarters • Ran EOL business unit, profitably harvesting end of life products XEROX CORPORATION (XRX), Fremont and Santa Clara, CA 1982 – 1989 Senior Auditor /Manufacturing Financial Planning Manager/Memorywriter Controller OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM (OXY), Houston, TX – Treasury 1981 – 1982 LAVENTHOL AND HORWATH CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS (Size-#10 worldwide) 1980 – 1981

EDUCATION / ACCREDITATIONS
UCLA – ANDERSON SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, Los Angeles, CA, MBA – Finance UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (HAAS), Berkeley, CA, B.S., Business Administration – Honors CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT – California (active) and Texas (active) PLATINA NETWORKS- Finance Technical Advisor- Santa Clara, CA-Series A networking company 2015-Present ATLAS MAGNETICS- Finance Advising CFO—Reno NV, L’viv-Ukraine—Series A semiconductor company 2021-Present Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 44 Packet Pg. 50 of 363
Architectural Review Board Application
Submitted on 8 April 2025, 12:49am
Receipt number 81
Related form version 15
Name Danny Cao
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? No
Address
City San Leandro
Postal Code 94579
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?
Yes
Fair Political Practices No
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board?
Email from the City
Personal Information
1 of 4
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 45 Packet Pg. 51 of 363
Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website.

Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website Occupation Architectural Designer
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional registration.

If describing work experience, please include
company/employer name and occupation.

As an architectural designer with 15 years of experience, I bring a wealth of expertise in designing and constructing diverse projects, from aviation and tall towers to commercial, multi-family, and single-family custom residential developments. My educational background is rooted in the esteemed California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo.

Throughout my career, I have had the opportunity to collaborate with renowned firms such as PGAL, AGPS, BDE, and Woods Bagot.

Currently, I am part of the talented team at Collaborative Design Studio in Dublin, where I continue to push the boundaries of innovative design and construction. My extensive experience has equipped me with a unique understanding of the complexities and nuances of various project scales, allowing me to deliver well-rounded and effective solutions that meet the needs of clients and stakeholders alike.

Please describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.

Through volunteering, I've had the privilege of designing and developing construction documents for various places of worship, including churches and Buddhist temples, both locally in the Bay Area and internationally. This experience has not only broadened my understanding of diverse faith communities but also allowed me to apply my skills in a meaningful way, contributing to the creation of sacred spaces that serve as hubs for spiritual growth and connection. By working on these projects, I've gained insight into the unique needs and requirements of each community, honing my ability to craft thoughtful and functional designs that cater to their specific needs.

Please select all that apply to you. Architect, landscape architect, building designer, other design professional
Personal and Job Experience

1. Why are you interested in serving on the Architectural Review Board and what experience would you bring to the position?
I'm excited about the opportunity to serve on the Architectural Review Board because I'm passionate about preserving and enhancing the aesthetic and cultural character of our community. As an architectural designer with 15 years of experience, I bring a deep understanding of design principles, land use regulations, and community engagement.

Throughout my career, I've worked on various projects, from commercial developments to custom residences, and I've developed a keen eye for balancing growth with preservation. My experience volunteering has also given me insight into the importance of respecting diverse architectural styles and community needs.

2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it.

One issue that recently caught my attention was a proposal for a new mixed-use development in a historically significant neighborhood, which aimed to balance preservation and innovation.

I'm drawn to this issue because it highlights the complexities of navigating competing interests in urban development. On one hand, preserving the neighborhood's historic character is crucial for maintaining its unique identity. On the other hand, incorporating modern amenities Application Questions
2 of 4
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 46 Packet Pg. 52 of 363
and sustainable design elements can enhance the area's livability and appeal.

What resonates with me is the opportunity to find creative solutions that honor the past while embracing the future. As an architectural designer, I've worked on projects that blend old and new, and I believe that thoughtful design can reconcile seemingly conflicting goals. I'm interested in exploring how the Board can facilitate a discussion that considers multiple perspectives, ultimately yielding a solution that benefits the community as a whole.

3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and how would you help in the process?
If appointed to the Architectural Review Board, I would like to see the Board enhance community character by ensuring new developments and renovations respect and enhance the unique character of our neighborhoods, while also promoting innovative and sustainable design solutions. I'd also like to see a balance between preserving historic buildings and allowing for thoughtful growth and development that meets the needs of our community.

To achieve these goals, I would work closely with community members, developers, architects, and city staff to ensure diverse perspectives are considered and decisions reflect the community's values and needs. I would provide thoughtful and constructive feedback on design proposals, drawing on my experience as an architectural designer and understanding of design principles and land use regulations. I would also help develop clear guidelines and standards that are easy to understand, providing a framework for consistent and fair decision-making.

4. Please identify a project (or projects) that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may include samples, identify project addresses, or provide links.

One project that I find to be an example of good architecture is the de Young Museum in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. Designed by architects Herzog & de Meuron, the building's design seamlessly integrates with its surroundings while also showcasing innovative and striking features.

The deYoung Museum's copper-clad exterior is a nod to the park's natural surroundings. The building's undulating copper walls and textured surfaces create a sense of movement and visual interest, and help blending the structure into the park's landscape.

What I find particularly compelling about the deYoung Museum is its ability to balance modernity with context. The building's bold design and innovative materials are thoughtfully integrated with the surrounding park, creating a harmonious relationship between architecture and nature. Overall, the deYoung Museum is a testament to the power of architecture to inspire, educate, and connect people with their environment.

Although I haven't had the opportunity to contribute to these projects, I'm eager to explore them further in my own time.
3 of 4
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 47 Packet Pg. 53 of 363
If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.

Please confirm that you have read the Boards and
Commissions Handbook.

Yes
Signature Name of signatory: Danny Cao
Date Completed 04/08/2025
4 of 4
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 48 Packet Pg. 54 of 363
Architectural Review Board Application
Submitted on 21 April 2025, 2:27pm
Receipt number 77
Related form version 15
Name David Hirsch
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? Yes
Address
City Palo Alto
Postal Code 94301
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?
Yes
Fair Political Practices No
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board?
Community Group
Email from the City
Personal Information
1 of 4
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 49 Packet Pg. 55 of 363
Palo Alto Weekly
City Website
Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk.

Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website Occupation Retired Architect
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional registration.

If describing work experience, please include
company/employer name and occupation.

Harvard College BA Philosophy, The Cooper Union - non degree, Harvard Grad. School of Design - M Arch Registered Architect; New York State and Connecticut; Senior Urban Designer; Mayors Office of Development (MOD); Partner in several NYC Architectural Firms and founding partner of Urban Architectural Initiatives (UAI) from 1917-2026 responsible for many varied residential projects, educational facilities, community facilities and commercial street improvements.

Please describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.

Pre-Palo Alto: Renovated brownstone in Park Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn, Y.Y.; Active in block association, then Park Slope Civic Council for various neighborhood improvements; Board member Prospect Park Environmental Center including overseeing renovation of Historic Tennis House; participated in application to NYC Landmarks Commission to qualify Park Slope as first first designated historic neighborhood; Palo Alto Assistant t consultants for consultants first study of Cubberley to create a coordinated new community facility and future school ; ARB member for two terms.

Please select all that apply to you. Architect, landscape architect, building designer, other design professional
Personal and Job Experience

1. Why are you interested in serving on the Architectural Review Board and what experience would you bring to the position?
I request the opportunity to serve a final term on the ARB. I believe my experience as the founder of an architectural firm in NY and previous experiences, especially my affprdab;e housing projects, civic buildings, educational facilities, historic structures, small commercial buildings and commercial street improvements has provided me with a deep understanding of the design and construction process. The two terms on the ARB has broadened this experience with the addition of the group consensus peocess.

One special additional professional experience in NYC was as a senior urban designer for the Mayor's Office of Development, which effectively created opportunities for the
restoration of failing commercial areas of the city. Fellow ARB member Peter Baltay and I agree that a development Office would significantly benefit to Palo Alto, especially as the city ought to be more pro-actively encouraging housing opportunities and neighborhood improvements in response to the Housing Element.

2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it.

A ten unit townhome development is proposed for a small section of the parking lot adjacent to Town and Country on Encina Avenue. Separately owned parcels surrounding this small development is a large parking lot Application Questions
2 of 4
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 50 Packet Pg. 56 of 363
for T & C customers, There are presently no plans for the development of the immediately adjacent parking lots, In my opinion this project should be paused until a coordinated area plan is developed for the entire lot. The T & C principal spoke to this need and noted their interest in coordinating with the townhome developer, and yet my fellow Board members still voted to pass on this limited project. I did not. My opinion is that we must be responsible to the larger responsibility of the Housing Element as well as to recognize the limited and inappropriate location of the original townhome submission located in the midst of a parking lot, with inadequate open space and disruptive to the important community values of this historic quality of this excellent retail neighbor.

3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and how would you help in the process?
Our responsibility is often fairly simple, since many qualified architects are willing to cope with the complexity of the approval process and standard regulations for individual buildings to build here But the signifiant increase in housing requirements in response to the Housing Element requirements will likely cause larger, more complex multibuilding developments. RHNA unit requirements relative to their likely impact throughout Palo Alto (25 buildings at 250 units each = 6,250 total units and at an average of 2.3 people per apartment, about a 22% increase in our total population) which means consideration of extensive additional physical services and possibly other community facilities.) Site and building planning in such potentially non-conforming overlay developments, based on the PTOD Review Process 18.34.060 (d) suggests pre-zoning ARB review at the preliminary design phase, prior to Planning Commission review per the Zoning Code. I believe this is a critical requirement.

4. Please identify a project (or projects) that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may include samples, identify project addresses, or provide links.

St. Giorgio Margeroni on Venice's Grand Canal Arch. Palladio. The height of the Renaissance by the master of the Classical style.A hierarchy of scale to humble man in his quest for immorality. The chapel at Ronchamp France. Arch. Le Corbusier. The master of early 20th Century modernism -a painter, sculptor, architect created his boldest expression, a church roofed with a giant uplifted boat-like hull supported on battered walls with irregularly placed penetrations for beams of daylight to criss-cross the spare interior. The Capital of Bangladesh.

Arch. Louis Kahn. A layering of fortress-like forms with huge geometric cut-outs, symbolic statement for this formation of a new country. A Dutch school and residence. Arch. Aldo van Eyck. A repetitive hierarchy of roof forms and courts, a system of clustered educational and residential areas for group living with the purpose of creating individual and social awareness.for children with limiting social issues.
.
.

The Comp. Plan and the Zoning Code are an integral part of our analysis based on the Planning Department's inclusion in our bi-monthly packet.

The relevant zoning per project is also required on the submitted applicants drawings. The Comp Plan is especially important to understand the preferred nature of the entire Palo Alto community. The El Camino planning is in flux based on recent re-zoning, and this applies to major areas of San Antonio Road as well. CEQA issues are normally addressed by Planning. Density bonus's has become critical to advance the Housing Element. I have personally been made aware of the Secy. of the Interior's Historic Building requirements on several significant Historic Restoration projects for our NYC office. As the ARB representative, I worked with the consultants on the Objective Design Standards and our board was consulted on the SB9 Standards as well. I note the Downtown Guidelines and California Street Improvement Guidelines are presently being revised.
3 of 4
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 51 Packet Pg. 57 of 363
If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.
5F96A2EB-20B6-4D08-8F6C-44E2DBA667E2_1_105_c.jpeg
08D62009-989F-47CD-B0A4-2156B6B5EC49_1_105_c.jpeg
80C86B60-F90F-4173-A81E-3908C966139A_1_105_c.jpeg
889C19AA-F484-4DDC-8035-16F1D8842B69_1_105_c.jpeg
Please confirm that you have read the Boards and
Commissions Handbook.

Yes
Signature
Date Completed 04/21/2025
4 of 4
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 52 Packet Pg. 58 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 53 Packet Pg. 59 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 54 Packet Pg. 60 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 55 Packet Pg. 61 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A - Architectural Review
Board Initial and Extended
Applications - Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 56 Packet Pg. 62 of 363
Architectural Review Board Application
Submitted on 30 April 2025, 5:18pm
Receipt number 93
Related form version 15
Name Grace Lee
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? Yes
Address
City Palo Alto
Postal Code CA
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?
Yes
Fair Political Practices No
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
Yes
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board?
Email from the City
City Website
Personal Information
1 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 57 Packet Pg. 63 of 363
Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website.

Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website Occupation Designer, Mentor, Volunteer
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional registration.

If describing work experience, please include
company/employer name and occupation.

Master of Architecture
Master of City Planning
University of California, Berkeley

LEED AP
Former Vice President
Carrasco & Associates Architects
Former Lecturer in Architecture
Stanford University
University of San Francisco
University of California, Berkeley
Please describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.

Mentor/college track coach of architectureundergraduate major Cal Poly San Luis Obispo/Peninsula Bridge
Former Palo Alto Architectural Review Board member
Former Pre- Major Advisor, Stanford University
Please select all that apply to you. Architect, landscape architect, building designer, other design professional
Personal and Job Experience

1. Why are you interested in serving on the Architectural Review Board and what experience would you bring to the position?
I first moved to Palo Alto in the late 80s. My husband and I raised our now young adult daughters here. We are thankful for the neighborhoods, commercial districts, parks and libraries.

I wish to contribute to the City’s efforts to plan for a sustainable future, while preserving the history and promoting a healthy environment.

2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it.

I find myself interested in practically all of the ARB agenda items, minor and major. l am curious to learn about and support the history, design and evolution of a space.

I was drawn to recent discussions of a proposed fire station, as well as housing; both institutional and multifamily land uses shape the structure of a neighborhood.

3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and how would you help in the process?
I can recall my experience serving on the board in the past. I have participated in past ARB retreats and design awards.

I hope that the ARB participates in an effective onboarding process, carefully review submittals, listen attentively to community comments, Application Questions
2 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 58 Packet Pg. 64 of 363
and be prepared to communicate effectively in collaboration with fellow board members.

4. Please identify a project (or projects) that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may include samples, identify project addresses, or provide links.

Palo Alto Children’s Library
Lucie Stern Community Center
Oak Court Apartments
Hana Haus, former Varsity Theater

As both a design professional and former ARB member, I have reviewed these documents.

If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.

Please confirm that you have read the Boards and
Commissions Handbook.

Yes
Signature Name of signatory: Grace Lee
Date Completed 04/30/2025
3 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 59 Packet Pg. 65 of 363
Architectural Review Board Application
Submitted on 1 April 2025, 12:56pm
Receipt number 78
Related form version 15
Name Khelan Bhatt
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? Yes
Address
City Palo Alto
Postal Code 94301-1055
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?
Yes
Fair Political Practices No
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board?
Community Group
Personal Information
1 of 4
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 60 Packet Pg. 66 of 363
Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website.

Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website Occupation Technology Entrepreneur / Founder
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional registration.

If describing work experience, please include
company/employer name and occupation.

I hold a Bachelors degree in Computer Science with honors from Northeastern Illinois University. I also obtained my Masters degree in Computer Science with a Machine Learning concentration from the Illinois Institute of Technology, as well as my M.B.A. from the University of Chicago. I have been focused on the intersection of technology, design and business for over 20 years, with an emphasis on applied high technology, especially Artificial Intelligence and Cybersecurity. I was formerly a Chief Information Security Officer for Plume Design, Inc. in Palo Alto, and have worked at Cisco, IBM, Gap, Inc., Anheuser-Busch InBev and with hyper-growth startups. I currently am founder of a startup that uses AI agents to fight fraud in B2B commerce. I am also an experienced real estate investor since 2005, having redeveloped, owned and operated multi-family properties and single family homes in my native Chicago as well as across the San Francisco Bay area.

Please describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.

I am a Cub Scout den leader (2024-2025 Palo Alto Pack 57), a youth volunteer at Addison Elementary school YMCA/Project Cornerstone (2020-2025), and have previously mentored/volunteered for the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula (2018-2019). I am proud of the city I live and work in, Palo Alto, and desire to contribute to the long-term development, stability and desirability of our community.

Please select all that apply to you. None
Personal and Job Experience

1. Why are you interested in serving on the Architectural Review Board and what experience would you bring to the position?
Since 2005, I have been a real estate re-developer, investor and owner, both in my native Chicago, as well as in California and internationally.

While it has been a passive investment for me alongside my career in high technology, I stay abreast of trends in housing, development, sustainability and other factors. Because housing and real estate are such fundamental aspects of society, and because I have a unique perspective spanning real estate and technology, I am seeking this position on the ARB as a way to give back to my community, learn from my fellow stakeholders, and hopefully apply technology to enhance and improve the experience and outcome for all stakeholders.

2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it.
70 Encina Avenue, near Town & Country Village, interested me, as it illustrated the various, often competing, interests of stakeholders and the importance of having a well-defined process as well as sufficient time and communications for multiple voices to not only be heard, but have an opportunity to think and collaborate on a mutually favorable outcome.

That the developer heeded concerns about density and traffic, while ensuring the project was economically viable, is a positive outcome.

3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and how would you help in the process?
If appointed, I would like to see the ARB continue to meet its primary responsibilities of reviewing the design of new construction and changes to existing commercial, industrial and multi-family properties while Application Questions
2 of 4
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 61 Packet Pg. 67 of 363
balancing obligations of harmonious development, desirable use of land and an emphasis on aesthetics. My contribution would be to provide my unique voice as a multi-family developer, real estate investor, technology entrepreneur and current property owner and resident of Palo Alto. I feel there are many opportunities to apply advanced technology, especially artificial intelligence, to the ARB and help us meet our goals in an efficient, transparent and balanced manner. Palo Alto has an opportunity to continue to lead across our region and even the world by adapting and applying certain cutting edge advanced technologies, and with my unique background, I am confident I can make a meaningful contribution to the team.

4. Please identify a project (or projects) that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may include samples, identify project addresses, or provide links.

Growing up in the City of Chicago, I was spoiled for choice when it comes to fantastic architecture. I lived in the literal shadows of giants Frank Lloyd Wright, Louis Sullivan, Helmut Jahn and Rem Koolhaas and contemporaries like Jeanne Gang. I studied on the campus of Koolhaasdesigned Illinois Tech. I was a former condo owner at 600 N. Fairbanks Ct. in Chicago, which was designed by Jahn. I almost bought a 55th floor unit of Gang's famous Aqua Tower. My parents took me to Oak Park to see Frank Lloyd Wright's famous designs. Closer to home in California, I am impressed by Joseph Eichler's mid-century modern homes for the masses. Many of my friends and neighbors live in Palo Alto's famed Eichlers, and I have tried several times (unsuccessfully!) to buy an Eichler over the years. Walking distance from my current home on High Street is the Joseph Bellomo designed 102 University Ave. I have never been inside, but I admire the rooftop gardens and the undulating facade.

I am familiar with the zoning code, comprehensive plan and permit streamlining act. I have applied for and obtained city of Palo Alto permits (none subject to ARB, however) at my former home at 526 Seneca Street and current home at 233 High Street.

If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.

Please confirm that you have read the Boards and
Commissions Handbook.

Yes
Signature Name of signatory: Khelan Bhatt
Date Completed 04/01/2025
3 of 4
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 62 Packet Pg. 68 of 363
4 of 4
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 63 Packet Pg. 69 of 363
Architectural Review Board Application
Submitted on 30 April 2025, 6:36pm
Receipt number 79
Related form version 15
Name Marton Jojarth
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? No
Address
City Mountain View
Postal Code 94040
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? Yes Fair Political Practices No
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board? Email from the City Personal Information
Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk.

Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website Personal and Job Experience
1 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 64 Packet Pg. 70 of 363
Occupation Building designer
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional registration. If describing work experience, please include company/employer name and occupation.

I am the President of Mindframe Inc (www.mindframe.live), a design-build firm operating primarily in Palo Alto. I have been designing and constructing single family homes in Palo Alto since 2016 and have completed many new construction and remodel projects, including Individual Reviews. Prior to launching my firm, I was an executive at Equinix Inc. and Google Inc. I hold a General Contractor license in California, as well as an MBA degree from Harvard Business School, a Master of Science in Industrial Relations from Oxford University (UK) and PhD in Economics from the University of St Gallen (Switzerland).

Please describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.

I am member of The Nova Vista Symphony Orchestra in Sunnyvale.

Please select all that apply to you. Architect, landscape architect, building designer, other design professional

1. Why are you interested in serving on the Architectural Review Board and what experience would you bring to the position?
I lived in Palo Alto between 2008 and 2022 and I continue to work in Palo Alto on a daily basis. I am excited to help shape Palo Alto in a way that preserves its heritage, celebrates its beauty and sets it up for future success.

I am a designer and builder of single family homes, and most of my projects are in Palo Alto. I am well versed in Palo Alto’s approach to planning, zoning and building code. I am familiar with Palo Alto’s Planning & Development Services and interact with Planning and Building staff regularly. Prior to becoming a designer, I was working as an executive in various tech companies, most recently at Google Inc.

Thanks to this experience, I can help contribute a business perspective to the ARB.

I would like to use this diverse background to act as a helpful bridge between the architecture profession, developers, and City staff.

2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it.

The ARB played a key role in the development of the Objective Design Standards for SB9 projects. The implications of SB9 have been a matter of keen interest of most of my clients ever since 2021. Almost every family who is considering constructing a new home in Palo Alto wants to know about SB9. Initially, it was not easy to work with these questions as the rules were new and difficult to apply to most situations. The 2023 permanent ordinance made things much clearer and more flexible. With the 2024 Objective Design Guidelines, the conversations about SB9 have become straightforward. I was not personally involved in the study sessions or the focus group, but I was aware of them and it is clear that the ARB has taken its role seriously to collect feedback from key stakeholders. It was very successful in helping the City adjust its rules and help to balance the need for housing development while maintaining neighborhood character.

3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and how would you help in the process?
As a member of the ARB, I would like to advocate for developments that are architecturally innovative and artistically creative, rather than just satisfy the objective design guidelines. I would like innovation and art to still respect the architectural heritage of the city, which includes the enhanced utilization of local materials, native plants, and environmental sustainability, including aspects such as bird safety and night lighting.

I am interested in helping the ARB to continue to provide more proactive guidance to developers on what is expected and desired from new projects. More publicity around the Design Awards program could be helpful, or publications showcasing examples of excellent design in Palo Alto.

I would like to support the Coordinated Area Plans and collaborate with other city departments and other boards and commissions to expanding Palo Alto’s resident housing and businesses in a way that is architecturally attractive and enhances the appeal of Palo Alto.

4. Please identify a project (or projects) that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may include samples, identify project addresses, or provide links.

The development at 2500 El Camino Real offers many examples for what good architecture in Palo Alto looks like. My explanation for this choice is summarized and illustrated with pictures in the following document:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nRijdbcnDaZgEIzn0_mastba7FtR4CNLYcA0vBFC usp=sharing

5. Architectural Review Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please As part of my work as a building designer, I work regularly with the Zoning Code, The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, various neighborhood design guidelines Application Questions
2 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 65 Packet Pg. 71 of 363
describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection, but will help you better understand the work of the board.
(Eichler, Professorville), the Single-Family Zoning Technical Manual, Individual Review Guidelines, Fence Code and the Historic Review Guide. I am very familiar with these documents.

If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.

Please confirm that you have read the Boards and Commissions Handbook.

Yes
Signature Name of signatory: Marton Jojarth
Date Completed 04/07/2025
3 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 66 Packet Pg. 72 of 363
Architectural Review Board Application
Submitted on 29 April 2025, 9:56pm
Receipt number 92
Related form version 15
Name Matthew Kelly
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? No
Address
City Menlo Park
Postal Code 94025
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?
Yes
Fair Political Practices Yes
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board?
Email from the City
Personal Information
1 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 67 Packet Pg. 73 of 363
Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website.

Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website Occupation Architect
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional registration.

If describing work experience, please include
company/employer name and occupation.
- Education: Bachelor of Arts (major- Architecture, Lehigh '05); Master of Architecture (Penn, '08);
- Licensed architect in CA since 2026; LEED AP BD+C
- Principal/partner at Huang Iboshi Architecture (since 2010) Please describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.

Volunteer coach in Alpine Little League since 2023; volunteer at local church
Please select all that apply to you. Architect, landscape architect, building designer, other design professional
Personal and Job Experience

1. Why are you interested in serving on the Architectural Review Board and what experience would you bring to the position?
I am interested in using my experience as an architect to help improve my community beyond individual private, residential clients. I have worked on projects across several municipalities in the Bay Area (including Palo Alto) over the past 15 years. I would bring my professional insights as an architect and my personal experience as a father of two school-age children. I want to do my part to ensure the best possible future for my children and families within the community.

2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it.

One issue I'm interested in is the implementation and adoption of the Housing Element. There is clearly an urgent need for more housing and I would be eager to be part of the process. I'm also interested in bringing more life to downtown areas (e.g., University Avenue, California Avenue), specifically foot traffic. I have lived in cities of all sizes and I love seeing downtown spaces fully activated.

3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and how would you help in the process?
I would like to see more multi-family housing projects that the City can be proud of, and the design of which would be models for other municipalities. There is so much design talent in the Bay Area, yet I see so many projects built in which good design seems to be an afterthought.

4. Please identify a project (or projects) that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may include samples, identify project addresses, or provide links.

I am very impressed with Springline (https://springline.com/) in Menlo Park. I like that there is a generous sidewalk on El Camino and that there are multiple access points to the site. The scale feels very comfortable, though I would have liked to see an extra story or two to provide more housing units. More public gathering space is always welcome and there is a great deal here. While the Mission Style has been overused on all kinds of project types over the years, it is applied tastefully here and is appropriate for Menlo Park. This project is not trying too hard to be something it's not, and I think it's very successful as a result.

Application Questions
2 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 68 Packet Pg. 74 of 363
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 69 Packet Pg. 75 of 363
Architectural Review Board Application
Submitted on 21 April 2025, 5:13pm
Receipt number 84
Related form version 15
Name Naveen
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? No
Address
City Fremont
Postal Code 94539
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?
Yes
Fair Political Practices No
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board?
City Website
Personal Information
1 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 70 Packet Pg. 76 of 363
Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk.

Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website Occupation Architect/Urban Planner
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional registration.

If describing work experience, please include
company/employer name and occupation.

Masters in Urban Planning, Texas A&M, College Station
Bachelors of Architecture, RVCE, Bangalore, India
LEED Accredited Professional (LEED AP)
Currently serving as a Senior Project Manager for the City of Mountain View, California, I specialize in public infrastructure and civic facility projects. My professional background spans both public agencies and private firms, with prior leadership roles at several well-regarded multidisciplinary architecture and engineering firms.

Please describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.

Historical Architectural Review Board Member, City of FremontCity of Fremont, Sep 2024 - Present · 8 mos
Please select all that apply to you. Architect, landscape architect, building designer, other design professional
Personal and Job Experience

1. Why are you interested in serving on the Architectural Review Board and what experience would you bring to the position?
I’m interested in serving on the Architectural Review Board because I’m committed to supporting and enhancing the design excellence that characterizes Palo Alto. With over 20 years of experience in the architecture industry—spanning both public agencies and private firms— I bring a depth of design and construction experience. Combined with my graduate degree in Urban Planning, I offer a well-rounded perspective that considers both design excellence and urban context.

2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it.

The public hearing for the 70 Encina Avenue Housing Project (24PLN00095) on February 6, 2025, was particularly engaging. The topic of rezoning for housing has become increasingly prominent across California in response to the ongoing housing shortage and the recent adoption of updated Housing Elements. I found the board’s discussion and recommendation both thoughtful and encouraging.

3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and how would you help in the process?
If appointed, I would aim to help the Architectural Review Board achieve several key goals: promote thoughtful and sustainable growth, facilitate meaningful public engagement, and support applicants in meeting Palo Alto’s high standards for design excellence.

4. Please identify a project (or projects) that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may include samples, identify project addresses, or provide links.

Palo Alto is home to several examples of strong architecture, but my top pick would be the recently completed Stanford Center for Academic Medicine by HOK. The building’s thoughtful massing, clean design elements, and carefully selected materials complement the surrounding campus architecture. Additionally, it offers a variety of outdoor spaces that take full advantage of the California climate, enhancing both Application Questions
2 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 71 Packet Pg. 77 of 363
functionality and user experience. Here is a link to project - https://www.hok.com/projects/view/stanford-university-school-ofmedicine%E2%80%AFcenter-for-academic-medicine/

I am currently working with a consultant to obtain CEQA approval for a new Public Safety Building for the City of Mountain View. In this role, I am assisting the City by reviewing and providing feedback on CEQA documents, supporting the public noticing process, and coordinating with the Planning Department to gather input and facilitate approval.

In my current role as a board member of the Fremont Architectural Review Board, I regularly reference the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards when reviewing projects with historical significance to ensure they meet established preservation guidelines and compliance requirements.

If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.

Please confirm that you have read the Boards and
Commissions Handbook.

Yes
Signature Name of signatory: naveen govind
Date Completed 04/21/2025
3 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 72 Packet Pg. 78 of 363
Architectural Review Board Application
Submitted on 25 January 2025, 9:44am
Receipt number 71
Related form version 15
Name Sema Yavuz
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? Yes
Address
City Palo Alto
Postal Code 94301
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?
Yes
Fair Political Practices No
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board?
Palo Alto Weekly
Personal Information
1 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 73 Packet Pg. 79 of 363
Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website.

Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website Occupation Architect and Urban designer
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional registration.

If describing work experience, please include
company/employer name and occupation.

USGBC LEED certified
CA architectural license
20 year experience as an architect and urban planner
Worked for Hillier, EYP up at East coast and had my own architectural firm in San Diego 2007-2013
Designed cities, office campuses, schools, homes, tenant improvement projects in US and internationally
I have been focusing on affordable housing investment, development and operations in Indiana since 2012 to present
I am mostly concerned and pationate about about affordability of housing to the young generation all in all through out the country Please describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.

New to the community. Moved from San Diego end of December 2024 lived in Palo Alto 2018 to 2021
Please select all that apply to you. Architect, landscape architect, building designer, other design professional
Personal and Job Experience

1. Why are you interested in serving on the Architectural Review Board and what experience would you bring to the position?
Advocating affordable home. Sustainable urban and building practices also working and enhancing the urban design guidelines for downtown

2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it.

Affordable housing homes for everyone, mitigation of wild fires

3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and how would you help in the process?
Affordable housing, enhancing urban design guidelines with business success and affordability to all in mind. Promote diversity

4. Please identify a project (or projects) that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may include samples, identify project addresses, or provide links.

Affordable housing using Modular’s and prefabricated components projects with mixed use component that promotes revitalization with sustainability in mind

5. Architectural Review Board Members work with the
documents listed below. If you have experience with any of I have experience developing/ designing Design guidelines , master planning
Application Questions
2 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 74 Packet Pg. 80 of 363
these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection, but will help you better understand the work of the board.

If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.

Please confirm that you have read the Boards and
Commissions Handbook.

Yes
Signature Name of signatory: Sema Yavuz
Date Completed 01/23/2025
3 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 75 Packet Pg. 81 of 363
Architectural Review Board Application
Submitted on 24 April 2025, 10:38am
Receipt number 90
Related form version 15
Name Yingxi Chen
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? Yes
Address
City Palo Alto
Postal Code 94303
Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?
Yes
Fair Political Practices No
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board?
Email from the City
Other: Current sitting Vice Chair - reapplying for position Personal Information
1 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 76 Packet Pg. 82 of 363
Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website.

If describing work experience, please include
company/employer name and occupation.

Licensed Architect in the State of California
LEED Accredited Professional
Work Experience:

Y. Chen Architect, Principal, 2017 - present
Williams + Paddon Architects + Planners, Job Captain, 2011- 2017 Collaborative Design Studio, Architectural Intern, 2008- 2011 CHORA Architecture and Urbanism, Researcher and Designer, 2007 Education:

Master of Architecture, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, 2008
Study Abroad Program - Henry Van de Velde Institute in Antwerp, Belgium, 2007
Bachelor of Architecture, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, China, 2006
Please describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.

Currently Vice Chair on the Palo Alto Architecture Review Board Committee member, AIA (American Institute of Architects) Silicon Valley 2018 Design Awards
Committee member, AIA Silicon Valley 2018 and 2019 Home Tour Please select all that apply to you. Architect, landscape architect, building designer, other design professional
Personal and Job Experience

1. Why are you interested in serving on the Architectural Review Board and what experience would you bring to the position?
To me, buildings represent a lasting commitment. As architects, we bear the responsibility of designing quality spaces where people live, work, and thrive. The role of the ARB is even more significant in this context, and I am eager to contribute to shaping a better community.

Before starting my own practice, I gained valuable experience working with two architectural firms, where I had the opportunity to participate in a diverse range of projects—from schools to hotel resorts, from ski lodges to car dealerships. With this experience, I hope to continue making a meaningful impact and help create environments that enrich our community.

2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it.

Given the housing crisis we are facing, I am especially interested in finding a balance between supporting a healthy, growing city and preserving its unique character. One of the key challenges is addressing onsite circulation issues while also alleviating the pressure on road traffic across the city.

3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and how would I would like to see the ARB take an active role in reviewing large-scale urban planning for specific areas. Providing coordinated plans and Application Questions
2 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 77 Packet Pg. 83 of 363
you help in the process? guidelines before the start of projects would be highly beneficial.

4. Please identify a project (or projects) that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may include samples, identify project addresses, or provide links.

Our city is home to many quality buildings, and one of my favorites is the Junior Museum and Zoo. It serves as a great example of an inspiring and interactive space for children. Architecturally, the gable roof and clean forms offer a contemporary interpretation of the surrounding neighborhood.

I have reviewed all of these documents during my time on ARB If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.

Please confirm that you have read the Boards and
Commissions Handbook.

Yes
Signature Name of signatory: Yingxi Chen
Date Completed 04/24/2025
3 of 3
Item 1
Attachment A -
Architectural Review
Board Initial and
Extended Applications -
Redacted
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 78 Packet Pg. 84 of 363
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: STUDY SESSION
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: June 2, 2025
Report #:2503-4341
TITLE
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Draft Project Prioritization Framework and Prioritized Project Lists

RECOMMENDATION
Receive report and provide feedback on the Draft Project Prioritization Framework (Attachment A), the use of the framework’s Initial Evaluation and Supplemental Evaluation to prioritize projects for the BPTP Update, and the Prioritized Project Lists (Attachment B and C).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Palo Alto is currently updating its 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP). The BPTP Update will introduce a revised citywide bicycle network, leverage existing planning foundations, address changes in context and needs since 2012, and integrate new ideas and innovations. A part of the development of the BPTP Update is to determine appropriate criteria and metrics to prioritize recommendations and network routes. This report presents the Prioritization Framework (Attachment A) that will be used to prioritize the 125 proposed projects for the BPTP Update, and presents two prioritized projects lists: the Initial Evaluation Project list (Attachment B) and the Initial and Supplemental Evaluation Project list (Attachment C). Attachment D is a ranked Initial and Supplemental Evaluation Project list.

Additionally, the report briefly describes the foundations for the development of the BPTP Update’s recommended bicycle network and bicycle facilities and provides an overview of the recommended Policies & Programs and Pedestrian District Guidelines. Staff is presenting this information to Council to confirm staff is moving in the right direction with the approach to prioritizing projects for the BPTP Update.

Staff recommends a framework to help the City set priorities, recognizing that resources are limited and the City needs a manageable set of projects to include in the BPTP Update. This framework is the result of City staff and project team work and was revised based on community, Committee, and Commission input received during this phase of engagement. The Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 85 of 363
recommended framework prioritizes projects in two steps: first, an Initial Evaluation, followed by a Supplemental Evaluation for only the top scoring projects; 42 out of 125. The Initial Evaluation includes two factors: Safety & Connectivity. The Safety factor criteria includes whether the project is on a High-Injury Corridor and if it is on the Safe Routes to School Program’s Suggested Walk & Roll maps. The Connectivity factor criteria includes Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress and whether a project provides access to transit. The Supplemental Evaluation includes three factors: 1) Project Cost & Funding; 2) Project Readiness; and, 3) Project Support.

Each are evaluated using a High, Medium, and Low scale for its performance.

Staff is asking the City Council to provide feedback on the criteria and confirm using the Initial and Supplemental Evaluations to prioritize projects for the BPTP Update. Additionally, staff is seeking feedback on whether any projects from the Initial Evaluation Prioritized Projects List (Attachment B) that did not score high should be reevaluated. Council feedback is also requested for projects to remove or add. Attachment C is the Prioritized Project List using both the Initial Prioritization and Supplemental Evaluation, and Attachment D is the same list, ranked. The projects from Attachment D are proposed to be incorporated into the BPTP Update’s near-term Action Plan for implementation, while the rest are proposed to be on a long-term projects list. However, while rankings are important, City staff will move forward on any project from the Supplemental Evaluation list as funding opportunities and resources become available once the Final Plan is adopted.

BACKGROUND
Project Kick-off, Existing Conditions Analysis, and Needs & Concerns The City’s existing 2012 BPTP is an important planning, policy, and implementation document that supports efforts to improve the safety and attractiveness of walking, biking, and rolling as a means of transportation and recreation. The intent of the BPTP Update is to gain robust community feedback; reevaluate implementation progress from previous plans to adjust recommendations for new policies, facilities, and programs; and to determine appropriate criteria and metrics to prioritize recommendations and network routes. The BPTP Update will introduce a revised bicycle network, leverage existing planning foundations, address changes in context and needs since 2012, and integrate new ideas and innovations. The BPTP Update Draft Plan is anticipated for fall 2025.

At the May 17, 2021 meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution supporting the City’s grant application for the State Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Funds for the BPTP Update project1, and on September 2021, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) approved of the allocation of Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA3)2 funds to the 1 Palo Alto City Council Meeting, May 17, 2021. Item 6, Action Minutes:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3426&compileOutputType=1 2 https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/regional-funding/tda-sta/bicycle-pedestrian-funds-tda-3 Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 86 of 363
City of Palo Alto in the amount of $334,852 for the purposes of updating the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.

On June 19, 2023, the City Council approved a professional services contract with Kittelson & Associates, Inc. with subconsultant Mobycon, to prepare this BPTP Update.3 On January 22, 2024, the City Council received an Informational Report introducing the project effort, schedule, objectives, and the baseline conditions.4 On April 29, 2024, the City Council reviewed and discussed the vision statement, objectives, and provided feedback on the existing conditions technical analysis.5 The existing conditions technical analysis included information on the local Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), safety and collisions, major barriers, e-bike and shared micromobility, and a bike parking inventory.6 Additionally, to understand community needs and concerns, the project team hosted a series of engagement activities in spring 2024, including a bicycle network development workshop, a community downtown walking tour, a community bike ride, pop-ups at neighborhood events, and a second series of committee and working group meetings. See the April 29, 2024 City Council Staff Report for details on the spring 2024 engagement activities.7 In early 2025, the project team launched phase 3, Project Recommendations, and initiated another series of public engagement activities to share the recommendations, including the proposed bicycle network and facilities, the Policy & Program recommendations, the Pedestrian District Guidelines, and the initial Prioritization Framework. This included meetings with the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), a community transportation workshop, an online interactive map, tabling and street-level engagement, and several focus group meetings.
3 Palo Alto City Council Meeting, June 19, 2023. Consent Calendar: Approval of Professional Services Contract with Kittelson & Associates for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $333,945 for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update. CEQA Status: Exempt under Public Resources Code Section 21080.20. https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=1172&compileOutputType=1 4 Palo Alto City Council Meeting, January 22, 2024. Informational Report: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: an active transportation plan--Introduction & Overview, Community Engagement, Context & Baseline Conditions, and Next Steps. https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=13335&compileOutputType=1 5 Palo Alto City Council Meeting, April 29, 2024. Study Session: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Review and discuss the vision statement, objectives, performance measures, and share and obtain feedback on the existing conditions technical analysis. https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=15058&compileOutputType=1 6 City of Palo Alto, BPTP Update Existing Conditions Technical Analysis: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Transportation/BicyclingWalking/bikepedplan/BPTP-Update-Existing-Conditions-Analysis 7 Palo Alto City Council Special Meeting April 29, 2024. Study Session: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Review and discuss the vision statement, objectives, performance measures, and share and obtain feedback on the existing conditions technical analysis. https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/api/compilemeetingattachmenthistory/historyattachment/?historyId=fcfab491-1dae-4afd-a309- be952790121e
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 87 of 363
Vision Statement & Objectives
The project team revised the project Vision and Objectives based on public, committee, working group, and City Council feedback, including a City Council meeting on April 29, 2024.

While there was positive sentiment around the content of the initial draft vision statement, many people expressed an interest in shortening the statement, incorporating an educational element, and reducing redundancy while emphasizing the intent of the plan to create an “all ages and abilities” network.

The updated vision statement reads: We envision a city where sustainable, safe, efficient, equitable, and enjoyable transportation thrives. Together, we will create a comfortable and connected street and trail network that supports walking, biking, and rolling for people of all ages and abilities. We continue to be a leader in Safe Routes to School and invest more in active transportation infrastructure, education, and encouragement programs.

The project Objectives outlined include:
• Safe and Inclusive: Prioritizing safety for all transportation network users regardless of age and ability and ensuring equitable access to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure across the community while reducing fatal and severe injury crashes. • Connected and Accessible: Featuring a convenient and interconnected network of sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails that provide efficient travel options and easy access to transit and important destinations, encouraging a shift away from driving and improving environmental health through lower vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.
• Community-Led and Cooperative: Fostering community engagement and participation in promoting active transportation, supported by education, programming, and infrastructure investments, in a way that cultivates learning for all network users of all ages.
• Comfortable and Enjoyable: Enhancing the comfort and enjoyment of walking and cycling through amenities such as shade, greenery, and well-designed streetscapes. • Integrated and Collaborative: Collaborating with neighboring cities to create a seamless, integrated, and efficient regional network of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 88 of 363
The following section presents a brief discussion on the bicycle network development approach and bicycle facility selection.

Bicycle Network Development & Recommended Network
The citywide Bicycle Network was revised using feedback from the community and working groups and by aligning with existing and planned facilities outlined in other plans. The Draft Network Corridor Criteria and Development Approach Memo8 details the foundations for the development of the updated bicycle network, including:
• 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
• 2024 Existing Bicycle Facilities Map
• Palo Alto Bicycle Map (2021)
• High Injury Network for Bicyclists
• Bicycle Boulevard Planning (2016)
• Bicycle Network Development Workshops (2024)
• MTC Regional Active Transportation Plan (2023)
• VTA Countywide Bicycle Plan (2018)
• VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan (2021)
• Safe Routes to School Plans
• Santa Clara County Active Transportation Plan (2025)
• Palo Alto Housing Element (2024)
The recommended changes to the network also considered the following inputs:
• Community and Agency Feedback
• 2024 BPTP Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
• 2024 BPTP Origins and Destinations Bicycle Activity Analysis • 2024 BPTP Major Barriers Analysis
• Dutch Network Planning Principles
• Bike/Ped Video Counts
To guide network development, the consultant team applied the following development approach and Network Corridor Criteria.

Primary Network Development Criteria
Network Development Criteria are primary inputs into the network development process. The network is built on the 2012 BPTP and refined with recent planning efforts conducted since then in Palo Alto and the region.
8 Draft Network Corridor Criteria and Development Approach Memo, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/6_draft-networkcorridor-criteria-dev-approach-memo.pdf Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 89 of 363
Table 1: Proposed Primary Network Development Criteria
Attribute Source Criteria Rationale
2012 Plan
Network
Palo Alto Bicycle +
Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
Map 6-1
Route included in the
2012 plan network
Foundation of the plan update
Existing Bicycle
Facility
2024 Existing
Bicycle Facilities
map
Route exists today as
a formal bicycle
facility
Existing routes have value by
virtue of their presence and
current use
Palo Alto Bicycle
Map
Palo Alto Bicycle
Network Routes
Map
Route included in the
City published user
map
User map published by the City
of Palo Alto, identifying bike
friendly routes today
High Injury
Network for
Bicyclists
2024 High Injury
Network for
Bicyclists
Route identified as a
high injury network
street in the 2024
BPTP Collision and
Safety Analysis
Route is a potential safety
hazard today, may be enhanced
to become an important or
improved network link
2016 Bike
Boulevard
Improvements
Project
City of Palo Alto
Bike Boulevards
Improvements
Project
Route included in
Bike Boulevard
Improvement Project
Detailed planning of future
bicycle boulevard
implementation offers a more
recent vetting of viable routes
Network
Development
Workshop
2024 Network
Development
Workshop
Outcomes
Route identified on
the 2024 Network
Development
Workshops
Network development
workshops identified key
destinations and potential direct
routes between them
Regional Active
Transportation
Plans
MTC Regional
Active
Transportation
Plan; VTA Bicycle
Superhighway
Implementation
Plan
Route identified as a
part of the regional
Active Transportation
network or Bicycle
Superhighway Plan
Regionally significant connection
between communities
Safe Routes to
School (SRTS)
SRTS system route
maps
Route identified on
the SRTS route
system
Important connection to schools
as a priority destination
This first round of network development identified: (1) a core network where these plans align and agree; and (2) street segments and routes with less planning consensus.

Secondary Criteria for Network Refinement
Where multiple routes options exist (less planning consensus), secondary criteria were used for route selection and refinement. The following advantages were used to make those selections:
• Direct routing to community destinations.
• Favorable existing conditions based on the traffic stress conditions identified in the 2024 LTS Analysis.

Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 90 of 363
• Direct alignment with routes in high demand with higher volumes of people moving. • Routes that overcome barriers identified in the 2024 BPTP Major Barriers Analysis.

The result is an updated Proposed Bicycle Network Update map9 that shows a low-stress vision for the Palo Alto network, inclusive of bikeways and bicycle-friendly zones to frame policy and influence trade-off decision-making.

Updated Bicycle Facilities
The BPTP Update proposes a simplified array of facility types designed to improve safety and embrace innovation. The facilities were selected to meet the goals and objectives of the BPTP Update. The proposed bicycle facilities fall into three categories: mixed traffic, visually separated, and physically separated. These three categories reflect the types of facilities and how they are designed.

Image 1: Bicycle facilities for the updated bikeway network The BPTP Update proposes six types of bicycle facilities:
• Class I—Shared Use Path
• Class IIa—Bike Lane
• Class IIb—Buffered Bike Lane
• Class IIIa—Advisory Bike Lane
• Class IIIb—Bicycle Boulevard
• Class IV—Protected Bike Lane
The Draft Bicycle Network and Facilities Memo10 provides a detailed overview of each facility type and the criteria for using it. The facility selection memo also details changes from the 2012 BPTP bicycle facilities—changes that are needed to reflect significant advancements in bicycle planning and design. These include the removal of and changes to bicycle facilities, including Class III Bike Routes, Sharrows, and Enhanced Bikeway option of floating bicycle lanes, also known as part-time bicycle lanes or restricted hours bicycle lanes designed to be a parking lane 9 Proposed Bicycle Network map, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/bnu-map_02- 2025.pdf
10 Draft Bicycle Network and Facilities Memo, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/7r_bic-facsele_f.pdf Visually Separated
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 91 of 363
for part of the day and a vehicle travel lane for part of the day. Additionally, the bicycle facility selection approach is a significant departure from 2012 because it embraces arterials with separated facilities to create connected and direct routes for people walking and biking and make these streets safer for all road users.

People should be able to get to every destination in the city on foot or by bike with minimal deviation from a direct path. Disconnections at intersections or barriers such as arterials, highways, rivers, or rail lines should not prevent people from reaching their destinations by bike or on foot. We know that people walking and biking have a lower tolerance for diversion than drivers, especially in uncomfortable weather, and when facilities are not provided, people will often continue to use the direct route, regardless of whether it is safe or comfortable. Creating a connected bike network involves designing and implementing bikeways on arterials that prioritize safety and connectivity for riders of all ages and abilities. This bicycle facility selection approach is intended to recommend facilities that increase comfort across the board, fill gaps, and complete missing network links in response to known or predicted demand for walking and biking. This approach aligns with Palo Alto’s Complete Streets and Safe Streets For All Action Plan policy framework and supports the City’s efforts to provide safe and sustainable transportation options. The Changes since 2012 Map11, shows the changes to the network lines from the 2012 BPTP.

Bicycle Facility Selection
A simplified approach to select the different types of bicycle facilities was chosen for the updated bikeway network. The approach is informed by the Dutch CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic,12 the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bikeway Selection Guide,13 and the NACTO All Ages & Abilities Bikeways guidance.14 The bicycle facility selection first looked at road classification (local, collector, and arterial). Then traffic volumes and posted speeds were examined. The consultant team had limited access to traffic data and therefore relied on network criteria that were used to create the bikeway network, community input, and on-theground knowledge from staff and the in-person working session in April 2024. This approach was applied to each segment of the bikeway network, and the facilities were selected based on the approach but also considered in the greater network and whether they met the BPTP Update goals and objectives. The detailed facility selection approach is presented in the Draft Bicycle Network and Facilities Memo.15
11 Bicycle Network Change Since 2012 Map; Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/ntwrk-chge-s2012-map_02-2025.pdf 12 CROW. Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic. CROW, 2023. https://www.crow.nl/publicaties/design-manual-for-bicycle-traffic. 13 Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System: FHWA-SA-18-077. U.S.

Department of Transportation, 2018. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf. 14 National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). "Choosing the Age and Ability of Bicycle Facility." NACTO, n.d., https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/designing-ages-abilities-new/choosing-ages-abilities-bicycle-facility/. 15 Draft Bicycle Network and Facilities Memo, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/7r_bic-facsele_f.pdf Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 92 of 363
Updated Bicycle Network with Facilities Identified
The Proposed Bicycle Facility Map16 is the map of the recommended bicycle facilities for the BPTP Update applied to the proposed bikeway network17, following the Bicycle Facility Selection process described above. The map displays existing facility types and proposes future facilities required to create more comfortable bicycling conditions. This map helps illustrate the level of change proposed in the plan.

Existing facilities are shown as solid lines, differentiated by facility type. Streets proposed for new, or upgrade facilities are displayed with dotted lines. Where these proposals upgrade existing facilities, the lines are overlapping.

Pedestrian District Guidelines
The Pedestrian District Guidelines18 provide a toolbox of treatments to enhance pedestrian safety and the overall walking experience in the city. These guidelines build on previous plans, incorporating new ideas and addressing changes since 2012. The toolbox includes infrastructure improvements like raised crossings and curb extensions, alongside aesthetic enhancements such as benches and street art, promoting safety, accessibility, and comfort. Priority pedestrian districts and neighborhood commercial centers were identified citywide as informed by the City’s 2023 Economic Development Strategic Plan, with area maps detailing the recommended application of these treatments to create inviting and enjoyable walking environments. These include University Avenue District, California Avenue District, Midtown District, and the Embarcadero and El Camino Real neighborhood commercial centers.

Programs, Policies, and Best Practices19
The programs and policies from the 2012 BPTP were revised to align with the updated Vision and Objectives. These updates also incorporate new programs and policies based on state-ofthe-art advancements from the Bicycle Friendly Communities benchmarking and research on best practices to complement the BPTP Update’s projects. Overall, 60 programs, polices, and best practices have been drafted, categorized by the BPTP Update’s five objectives. 16 Proposed Bicycle Facility Map; Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/bicycle-facilitymap_03-2025.pdf 17 Proposed Bicycle Network map, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/bnu-map_02- 2025.pdf
18 Pedestrian District Guidelines; Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-projectrecs/3r_20250205_pabptp_final-pdg.pdf 19 Program and Policy Recommendations, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/policy-andprograms_02-2025.pdf Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 93 of 363
Performance Measures20
Recommended performance measures were developed, shaped around the BPTP Update’s five Objectives and informed by a review of the 2012 BPTP and Bicycle Friendly Communities benchmarking. For each measure, guidance for tracking performance included a detailed description, reporting period, data needs and sources, methodology, and additional information to assist with applying the measure in the coming years. Eight performance measures were recommended by the project team, with another eight identified as potential performance measures pending City resources.

Non-Prioritized Bicycle Project List21
A comprehensive list and maps22 of the non-prioritized projects proposed for the BPTP Update were developed through input from the City, in-person working sessions held in April 2024, and meetings with the consultant team. The non-prioritized list includes 125 projects and includes details such as the project number, project name, location (including the extent start and end), project length, existing facilities, proposed bicycle facilities, bikeway class, and a short project description. The project description provides a brief overview of the project as well as indicates different elements that should be given attention, such as intersections or projects that should be implemented alongside. Some larger projects have been proposed as individual segments to give the City the ability to install projects in a phased approach. Finally, notes about implementation are also provided including parking reconfiguration, lane reconfiguration, traffic calming, traffic filtering, wayfinding, civil construction, and whether the project is a quick-build candidate. In addition to corridor projects, the project list includes key crossing projects, special projects, and proposals for future studies.

ANALYSIS
Project Prioritization
The final phase in structuring the network is a two-step process to convert the recommended bike network into scored, individual projects. The goal of this effort is to create a prioritized list of implementable projects for the BPTP Update document. The project team developed a prioritization framework that includes an initial prioritization process using quantitative criteria based on safety and connectivity, and a supplemental evaluation considering project readiness, cost and funding opportunities, and project support to further differentiate the top ranked projects and develop an actionable work plan for near-term implementation. 20 Recommended Performance Measures; Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/5_recommendedperformance-measures.pdf 21 Non-prioritized Project List; Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/draft-projectslists_02-2025.pdf 22 Projects by Facility Types maps; Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project webpage; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling-walking/bptp-update-2024/phase-3-project-recs/p-projects-by-factype-maps_02-2025.pdf Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 94 of 363
The initial prioritization utilizes quantitative methods to assess the level of project alignment with proposed factors and criteria intended to align with the BPTP Update objectives and informed by NCHRP Report 803: ActiveTrans Priority Tool23. Two factors (safety and connectivity) were identified for this initial project prioritization, each with evaluation criteria and weights to be used in the process. The safety factor is weighed 70% and its criteria consider collision history and school routes; the connectivity factor is weighed 30%, and its criteria consider the current level of stress for bicyclists.

The initial prioritization was used to develop scores for each segment location in Palo Alto.

Projects were then assigned numerical scores based on their respective locations on the scored segments. Through this quantitative approach, the City can consistently compare the level to which different projects align with the BPTP Update goals and do so in a repeatable way.

However, these initial scores alone do not dictate the priority of a project.

After the initial prioritization, the project team further assessed projects scoring 70 or more points in the initial evaluation. The lower scoring projects continue to have merit but may not be candidates for near-term implementation. However, while rankings are important, City staff will move forward on any project from the Supplemental Evaluation list as funding opportunities and resources become available.

The supplemental evaluation is intended to further differentiate projects on factors of project cost and funding opportunities, project readiness, and project support. These qualitative methods provide a more nuanced and in-depth understanding of the project's context, challenges, and opportunities than quantitative methods used in the initial prioritization. By incorporating these qualitative insights, the team can make more informed decisions about the feasibility and funding strategies for each project. These assessments, which are focused on feasibility and implementation, will be used to create a tiered list of projects for the BPTP Update document for near-term and long-term implementation. The results of the initial prioritization and supplemental evaluation are presented as working lists in Attachments B and C. Attachment D is a ranked Initial and Supplemental Evaluation Project list. The working lists are subject to change based on City Council feedback. Table 2 below provides a summary of the proposed Prioritization Framework’s Initial and Supplemental evaluations. 23 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Along Existing Roads—ActiveTrans Priority Tool Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22163 .

Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 95 of 363
Table 2. Summary of Prioritization Framework
Prioritization Factor Criteria
Safety High-Injury Corridors
Safe Route to School
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Initial Evaluation
Connectivity
Access to Transit
Project Cost & Funding
Project Readiness
Supplemental Evaluation*
Project Support
High, Medium, Low
*Only the projects that scored 70-100 in the Initial Evaluation will advance to the Supplemental Evaluation Prioritized Project Lists
The initial prioritization and supplemental evaluation resulted in two priority project lists.

Attachment B is the list of 125 priority projects from the initial evaluation, and Attachment C is the list of 42 priority projects from the initial and supplemental evaluation. Attachment D is a ranked Initial and Supplemental Evaluation Project list. The projects from Attachment D are proposed to be incorporated into the BPTP Update’s near-term Action Plan that identifies the top priority projects for implementation, while the rest are proposed for a long-term projects list. However, while rankings are important, City staff will move forward on any project from the Supplemental Evaluation list as funding opportunities and resources become available once the Final Plan is adopted.

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The BPTP Update project cost is $333,945, including a 10% contingency. The City is eligible to cover project expenditures under MTC’s TDA Article 3 program and has requested and received $334,852 in funding for the study. City staff anticipates that all eligible costs incurred will be reimbursed through the TDA Article 3 payment reimbursement process and have been billing MTC and receiving reimbursements on a quarterly basis. This funding is budgeted in the FY 2025 Adopted Capital Budget in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation Project (PL-04010). Future year funding to implement projects in the updated BPTP will be subject to Council appropriation as part of the annual budget process.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Phase 3 Community Engagement Activities
Phase 3 (Present recommended Network, Facilities, Programs & Policies) engagement activities included a third series of committee and working group meetings, focus groups, online & street-level engagement, and a community workshop. Activities were promoted on the City’s website, social media channels, transportation mailing list, Uplift Local newsletter, tabling events, and at the Committee and Working Group meetings. Themes heard during these outreach efforts included the importance of speed and volume management on bicycle Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 96 of 363
boulevards, desire for improved wayfinding and more bike parking, interest in integrating green stormwater infrastructure and public art into transportation projects. There was excitement and skepticism about the potential of protected bike lanes to make “big streets” low stress connections for people walking and biking. Additional information about what we heard at the Community Workshop is summarized below. Attachment E provides a summary of the phase 3 engagement activities and feedback received.
• Project website and interactive map. The project website can be accessed at:
https://www.paloalto.gov/bikepedplan. The website will continue to be updated with relevant material and information. An interactive map was hosted on the website where the community provided over 400 comments on the proposed bicycle network and projects from February 3, 2025 through April 30, 2025.
• Online comment box. An online comment box was available for community members to provide comments on the recommendations through a general comment form. There were over 100 different submissions through the online form. • Committee and Working Group Meetings. The project team has engaged with the following committees and working groups during Phase 3:
o Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) (February 4, 2025) o Parks and Recreation Commission (March 25, 2025)
o Planning and Transportation Commission (February 26, 2025) o City/School TSRs focus group: February 2025
o PABAC focus groups: February 2025
o Internal Staff Working Group (March 2025)
o City Council (June 2, 2025)
• Community Workshop. The project team hosted a Transportation Workshop with the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity project on April 2, 2025. The workshop was held at Palo Alto’s Mitchell Park Community Center (El Palo Alto Room) from 6-7:30 p.m.

Nearly 50 community members were in attendance. Comments emphasized general support for the plan and interest in implementation of projects that would improve safety and connectivity for people walking and biking. Support was voiced for several specific projects, including protected bike lanes on Middlefield Road and Homer Avenue, shared use paths along Matadero Creek and Barron Creek, and upgrades to the shared use path on Embarcadero from El Camino Real to the Palo Alto High School midblock crossing. Other suggestions included signal timing enhancements for pedestrians, a general desire for additional traffic calming along bike boulevards and repaving streets on the bike network, and requests for more bike parking, bike corrals, street art, and murals.
• Street Level Engagement: The project team participated in street level engagement activities during Phase 3, including tabling at local Farmer’s Markets, Third Thursday Music Event on Cal Ave, and at the City’s Around the World and Earth Day community events.

Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 97 of 363
Next Steps
The project team will refine the Prioritization Framework and project recommendations, including the priority project lists, based on the City Council’s feedback and develop the Draft BPTP Update Plan. The Draft Plan is anticipated for public review in fall 2025 when it will be presented to PABAC and the City Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
California Senate Bill 922 (2022), codified as Public Resources Code section 21080.20, exempts active transportation plans, such as bicycle transportation plans like the BPTP Update, from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Memo (Draft) Attachment B: Prioritized Project List using Initial Evaluation only (Working List) Attachment C: Prioritized Project List using Initial and Supplemental Evaluation (Working List) Attachment D: Ranked Prioritized Project List using Initial and Supplemental Evaluation (Working List)
Attachment E: Summary of Phase 3 community engagement (Draft) APPROVED BY:

Ripon Bhatia, Interim Chief Transportation Official
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 98 of 363
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Technical Memorandum

REVISED DRAFT PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK
The City of Palo Alto (City) is updating the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP Update). This BPTP Update will serve as a comprehensive action plan for the City to provide improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities for its residents, employees, and visitors. This memorandum describes the prioritization framework proposed to be used as part of the BPTP Update. The prioritization criteria are intended to align with the BPTP Update objectives, which include the following:
◼ Safe and Inclusive: Prioritizing safety for all transportation network users regardless of age and ability, ensuring equitable access to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and reducing fatal and severe injury crashes.
◼ Connected and Accessible: Providing a convenient and interconnected network of sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails that offer efficient travel options and easy access to transit and important destinations; encouraging a shift away from driving that reduces air pollution.
◼ Comfortable and Enjoyable: Enhancing the comfort and enjoyment of walking and cycling through amenities such as shade, greenery, and well-designed streetscapes. ◼ Community-Led and Cooperative: Fostering community engagement and participation in promoting active transportation through education, programming, and infrastructure investments to cultivate learning for all network users of all ages. ◼ Integrated and Collaborative: Collaborating with neighboring cities to create a seamless, integrated, and efficient regional network of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
May 13, 2025 Project# 28476
To: Ozzy Arce, Senior Transportation Planner
City of Palo Alto, Office of Transportation
From: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

CC: Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Planning Manager
RE: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update
Item 3
Attachment A - Revised
Draft Prioritization
Framework Memo (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 99 of 363
May 13, 2025 Page 2
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

This memo includes the following topics:
◼ Initial Prioritization is the initial quantitative prioritization applied to assess the level of alignment with BPTP Update objectives of safety and connectivity. ◼ Supplemental Evaluations describes the additional qualitative assessments that will be applied to further differentiate projects that score high under the proposed prioritization methodology to develop an implementation order using the following three feasibility-oriented factors of project readiness, project cost and funding opportunities, and project support.
◼ Next Steps presents subsequent actions for the City and consultant team.

Table 1: Proposed Prioritization Factors and Evaluation Criteria Prioritization Factor Criteria
Initial Evaluation
Safety
High-Injury Corridors
Safe Route to School
Connectivity
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Access to Transit
Supplemental Evaluation*
Project Cost & Funding
Project Readiness High, Medium, Low
Project Support
*Only the projects that scored 70 or more points in the Initial Evaluation advance to the Supplemental Evaluation.

Initial Prioritization
Proposed Factors and Evaluation Criteria
The proposed evaluation process is informed by the framework from NCHRP Report 803:

ActiveTrans Priority Tool1(APT), the result of a national research effort. The APT methodology was based on an extensive review of existing prioritization processes being used by agencies across the country at the state, regional, and local level. It uses a standard set of terms and definitions to describe the different steps in the process. The following definitions apply within the APT:
1 Lagerwey, Peter A., et al. Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Along Existing Roads—ActiveTrans Priority Tool Guidebook. NCHRP Report 803. Project No. 07-17. 2015. Available online at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_803.pdf Item 3
Attachment A - Revised
Draft Prioritization
Framework Memo (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 100 of 363
May 13, 2025 Page 3
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Factors are the categories used to express community or agency values considered in the prioritization process and contain groups of variables with similar characteristics. The APT has selected nine primary factors commonly used by agencies across the country that are particularly suited for prioritization of active transportation needs. • Variables (or evaluation criteria) are characteristics of roadways, households, neighborhood areas, and other features that can be measured, organized under each factor. The terms variables and evaluation criteria may be used interchangeably. • Weights are the numbers used to indicate the relative importance of different factors based on community or agency values. In order to increase transparency and legibility in the weighting step, weights are applied to factors, not to variables (which are often much more technical in nature).

The proposed prioritization factors and criteria is informed by NCHRP Report 803 and by the BPTP Update’s goals as referenced above.

Table 2: Proposed Initial Prioritization Factors and Evaluation Criteria Factor Criteria Notes Ped Bicycle
Safety
High-Injury
Corridors
This criterion will prioritize locations based on
analysis and network screening of bicycle- and
pedestrian-related collisions. This criterion aligns
with the Safe and Inclusive, and Comfortable and
Enjoyable objectives.

X X
Safe Routes
to School
This criterion will prioritize projects on the Walk and Roll Suggested Route Maps available on the City of
Palo Alto Safe Routes to School website. This
criterion aligns with the Safe and Inclusive, and
Connected and Accessible objectives.

X X
Connectivity
Bicycle Level
of Traffic
Stress
This criterion will prioritize locations based on the
presence of high-stress bicycle facilities. The level of traffic stress for this criterion analysis was already
conducted for this project. This criterion aligns with
the Safe and Inclusive, and Comfortable and
Enjoyable objectives.

X
Access to
Transit
This criterion will prioritize locations near major
transit stops. This criterion aligns with the
Connected and Accessible, and Integrated and
Collaborative objectives.

X
Item 3
Attachment A - Revised
Draft Prioritization
Framework Memo (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 101 of 363
May 13, 2025 Page 4
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Framework for Applying the Criteria
For the application of the factors and criteria discussed above, Kittelson will use the process from NCHRP Report 803. This report is accompanied by a pre-programmed APT spreadsheet tool2that can be tailored to project, segment, or geographic area inputs. The spreadsheet tool may be used for the entire process, or it can be supplemented with calculations from GIS or performed manually. Given the spatial nature of pedestrian and bicycle planning, it is common to perform GIS calculations to create input variables—as is proposed for the factors identified in this section. The tool’s 10-step process is outlined and briefly annotated in italics below.

1. Define purpose. An agency first determines the purpose of the prioritization process. This prioritization process will prioritize locations at the segment level. The scored segments will then be linked to projects. This aligns with the scale at which data is available and allows for aggregation of segment-specific factors.

2. Select factors. An agency next selects the factors to be used in prioritization that align with their goals for the prioritization process. The proposed factors for the BPTP Update are identified in the preceding section.

3. Establish factor weights. Each factor is weighted on a scale of 1 to 10 to indicate its relative importance to other factors. The proposed weights are identified in the following section.

4. Select variables (criteria) for each factor. For each selected factor, agencies may select one or more variables to measure the factor. Kittelson has proposed two variables or indicators for each factor. See more details in the subsequent section.

5. Assess data availability. For all proposed factors and criteria, the project team has access to the necessary data.

6. Assess technical resources. Agencies assess their existing technical resources and capabilities to determine if existing resources are sufficient. The project team will use a combination of GIS software and the APT spreadsheet tool to perform calculations.

7. Set up prioritization tool. Having established the purpose, factors, variables, and required data, the next step is to set up a tool to implement the prioritization method. The project team will use the APT spreadsheet tool.

8. Input data.

9. Scale variables. Scaling involves selecting a common numeric scale and adjusting raw values to fit the common scale. Scaling should not be confused with weighting. Scaling is a more objective, technical function, while weighting is based on community/agency values. Scaling is necessary so that variables have a comparable impact on the prioritization score in the absence of weighting. Scaling methods should be chosen carefully depending on the distribution and range of the data points. For example, this would be applied when applying 2 Available at: https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/topics/tools_apt.cfm Item 3
Attachment A - Revised
Draft Prioritization
Framework Memo (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 102 of 363
May 13, 2025 Page 5
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
a low-medium-high scale to a numeric variable such as household income, in order to categorize census tracts in a city as having low, medium, or high household income. This step is not necessary for BPTP Update project prioritization as the variables are on a binary scale.

10. Calculate priority scores. Finally, agencies sum the weighted values for each factor to derive a total score for each location. The segments can then be ranked based on the prioritization score. In some cases, agencies may wish to revisit factors, variables, and/or weighting, and make adjustments to their prioritization based on additional input or evolving prioritization purposes. The spreadsheet used for this project allows for adjustment of factor weights and comparison of results.

Initial Prioritization Analysis Methodology
This section discusses the proposed methodology for each of the proposed initial prioritization criterion.

Table 3: Safety Criterion
High Injury Network
Description
This measure uses the results of the pedestrian and bicycle collision and high injury network screening analysis. The screening process used a severityweighted collision score on the roadway network to identify locations associated with risk for people walking or biking.

Data Needs The spatial files representing the high-injury network analysis.

Proposed
Methodology
The methodology will use the presence on the high injury network. Locations on the high injury network will be assigned a value of 1. Locations not on the high injury network will be assigned a value of 0.

Scoring
Recommended method: Scoring will be binary:
1 = On the Pedestrian or Bicycle High Injury Network
0 = Not on the Pedestrian or Bicycle High Injury Network Limitations
Pedestrian and bicycle collision data used for this analysis will only include collisions that were reported to the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System database. Collisions that do not result in injury, death, or over a sufficient amount of property or vehicle damage are not required to be reported in California and would not necessarily be recorded in the data. As a result, not all pedestrian and bicycle collisions are represented in this data and the quality of collision data is limited by the amount of detail provided by the person completing the collision report form.

Item 3
Attachment A - Revised
Draft Prioritization
Framework Memo (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 103 of 363
May 13, 2025 Page 6
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Pedestrian and bicycle count data are not consistently and completely available; therefore, pedestrian or bicycle exposure could not be accounted for in developing this criterion.

Finally, because numbers of pedestrian‐ and bicycle‐involved collisions are typically low relative to all collisions and may represent random and/or behavioral/human factor causes where the specific location is not inherently a factor in the collision, this criterion alone represents only a partial assessment of bicycle and pedestrian safety.

Safe Routes to School
Description This measure uses the Walk and Roll Suggested Route Maps.

Data Needs The spatial files representing the recommended walk and roll routes to school.

Proposed
Methodology
The methodology will use the presence on the network of Walk and Roll Suggested Route Maps. Locations on the suggested walk and roll routes to school will be assigned a value of 1. Locations not on the suggested walk and roll routes to school will be assigned a value of 0.

Scoring
Scoring will be binary:
1 = On the Suggested Walk and Roll Routes to School
0 = Not on the Suggested Walk and Roll Routes to School Limitations
The suggested walk and roll routes to school used for this analysis include streets identified and mapped over five years ago. As a result, this does not reflect changes that have occurred (e.g., streetscape modifications that have been implemented, development that has occurred) since the map was created.

Additionally, this map represents a subset of streets in the City and not all streets that students use to walk and roll to school on are represented.

Table 4: Connectivity Criterion
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Description
This measure incorporates the results of previously-conducted bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) analysis conducted for this project to assess low-stress bike network connectivity. Bicycle level of traffic stress was developed at the Mineta Transportation Institute in 2012 to estimate the level of stress a bicyclist may feel while riding along a particular roadway. In the method adopts a “worst case scenario” approach whereby the roadway characteristic with the highest stress level determines the score for the segment. Scores range from 1 (a comfortable facility for users of all ages and abilities) to 4 (a facility that only strong and fearless cyclists would feel comfortable using).

Item 3
Attachment A - Revised
Draft Prioritization
Framework Memo (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 104 of 363
May 13, 2025 Page 7
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Data Needs
The spatial files representing the output of the bicycle level of traffic stress analysis conducted for this project.

Proposed
Methodology
Kittelson will assign the computed LTS score to each roadway segment. If a prioritization segment is connected to multiple LTS analysis segments, it will be assigned the higher (i.e., more stressful) LTS score.

Scoring
Scoring will be binary:
1 = High-stress biking facilities (LTS score of 3 or 4) 0 = low-stress biking facilities (LTS score of 1 or 2)
Limitations
The LTS analysis was conducted using roadway data provided by the City and supplemented with Open Street Map (OSM) data. In general, OSM data varies in quality and completeness by area. This variation exists because the data are open source and supplied by volunteers. OSM data also typically lacks extensive metadata, making it challenging to assess when the data was last updated.

Access to Transit
Description
This measure prioritizes locations within walking distance (0.25-mile network distance, or 10-minute walk) of transit stops.

Data Needs The spatial location of transit stops.

Proposed
Methodology
The methodology will use the network distance (rather than straight-line distance) from the centroid of each roadway segment to the nearest among transit stops.

The road segments will be evaluated for whether they are within 0.25-mile or a ten-minute walking distance to the nearest stop.

Scoring
Scoring will be binary:
1 = Within a ten-minute walk (0.25-mile) of a transit stop 0 = Greater than a ten-minute walk (0.25-mile) of a transit stop Limitations
This methodology prioritizes proximity to transit stops within Palo Alto. It is possible that ridership demand for walking connections exist at other locations.

Weightings
This section revisits the framework with a few considered weightings, including the factor weighting ultimately selected by the City. The City has provided its feedback and chosen the weightings presented in the far-right column in
Item 3
Attachment A - Revised
Draft Prioritization
Framework Memo (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 105 of 363
May 13, 2025 Page 8
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 5.

Table 5: Possible Factor Weighting for Prioritization1
Factor Criteria
Equal
Weights
Method
Safety
Focus
Connectivi
ty Focus
Suggested
Weights
(Safety
Focus)
Final
Weights
Safety
High-Injury
Network
50% 66% 34% 70% 70%
Safe Routes
to School
Connectivity
Bicycle Level
of Traffic
Stress 50% 34% 66% 30% 30%
Access to
Transit
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1 The overall score is the sum of weighted scores, which range from 0 to 1 Supplemental Evaluation
The initial prioritization is used to develop scores for each segment location in Palo Alto.

Projects are then assigned numerical scores based on their respective locations on the scored segments. Through this quantitative approach, the City can consistently compare the level to which different projects align with the BPTP Update goals of Safety and Connectivity and do so in a repeatable way.

After the initial prioritization, the Project team will further assess the top ranked bikeways, crossings, intersections, studies, and special projects (those scoring higher than 70 points) through a supplemental evaluation that is more qualitative in nature and intended to further differentiate projects with similar scores to create an implementation order. Each of the higher scoring projects will be evaluated against the same subset of criteria and scored qualitatively Item 3
Attachment A - Revised
Draft Prioritization
Framework Memo (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 106 of 363
May 13, 2025 Page 9
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
using a scale of high, medium, and low, for its performance. This supplemental evaluation provides a more nuanced and in-depth understanding of the factors of Project Readiness, Project Cost and Funding Opportunities, and Project Support to allow for more informed decisions about implementation. The draft supplemental evaluation metrics and scoring rubric are outlined in Table 6.

Table 6: Draft Supplemental Evaluation Metrics and Scoring Rubric Factor Evaluation
Metrics
Scoring Scale
Low Medium High
Project
Readiness
What stage of
development is
the project in?
The project is not on
the 5-year repaving
plan, Green Storm
Infrastructure (GSI)
priority street, or
Capital
Improvement
Program (CIP) list.

The project requires
reconstruction or
right-of-way
acquisition.

The project may be
on the 5-year
repaving plan, GSI
priority street, or
the CIP list.

The project may
require
reconstruction or
lane reconfiguration
or right-of-way
acquisition.

The project is on the
5-year repaving
plan, GSI priority
street, or the CIP
list. Concept or
construction plans
have been
developed. The
project does not
require right-of-way
acquisition but may
require lane
reconfiguration or
reconstruction.

Project Cost
and Funding
Opportunities
What is the
likelihood of
receiving funds
for the
project?
The project is not on
the repaving plan or
the CIP list.

The project is far
from housing
opportunity sites.

The project may not
be competitive for
various funding
sources.

The project may be
the repaving plan or
the CIP list.

The project may be
close to housing
opportunity sites.

The project may be
competitive for
multiple funding
sources.

The project is on the
repaving plan or the
CIP list.

The project is close
to housing
opportunity sites.

The project is
expected to be
competitive for
multiple funding
sources.

Project
Support
What level of
support does
the project
have?
Support for the
project has not been
expressed.

Some support for
the project has been
expressed.

Strong support for
the project has been
expressed.

Next Steps
Kittelson will apply the initial prioritization methodology to develop a preliminary ranking of the project list. After the projects are ranked, Kittelson will collaborate with City staff to review the Item 3
Attachment A - Revised
Draft Prioritization
Framework Memo (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 107 of 363
May 13, 2025 Page 10
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
initial evaluation list and identify additional projects that may warrant further review as part of the supplemental evaluation. After the project list for supplemental evaluation has been finalized, Kittelson will conduct the supplemental evaluation and develop a near-term action plan that identifies the top priority projects for implementation.

Item 3
Attachment A - Revised
Draft Prioritization
Framework Memo (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 108 of 363

PALO ALTO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE - PROJECT LIST

INITIAL SCORE - WORKING DRAFT
Project Number Project Name Street From To
Initial Prioritization ScoreSupplemental Evaluation
BL_6 California Avenue Bike Lane California Avenue Caltrain Station El Camino Real 100 Y BBL_8 California Avenue Buffered Bike Lane California Avenue El Camino Real Hanover Street 100 Y BBL_9 Amaranta - Clemo Buffered Bike Lane Amaranta Avenue Los Robles Avenue Arastradero Road 100 Y PBL_9 Hamilton Avenue Protected Bike Lane: Middlefield Road to Bryant Street Hamilton Avenue Middlefield Road Bryant Street 100 Y PBL_18 East/West Meadow Drive Protected Bike Lane West Meadow Drive El Camino Way Alma Street 100 Y PBL_20 San Antonio Road Protected Bike Lane San Antonio Avenue Alma Street East Bayshore Road 100 Y PBL_22 West Charleston Road Protected Bike Lane Arastradero Road Alma Street El Camino Real 100 Y BLVD_CROSSING_03 Wilkie Way Crossing of West Charleston Road West Charleston Road 100 Y BLVD_CROSSING_04 Cowper Street Crossing of East Meadow Drive Wilkie Way & West Charleston Road 100 Y BLVD_CROSSING_05 Seale Avenue Bike Boulevard Crossing of Middlefield Road Cowper Street & E Meadow Drive 100 Y CROSSING_01 Seale Avenue Tunnel Seale Avenue & Middlefield Road 100 Y INTERSECTION_02 West Meadow Drive and El Camino Way Intersection Improvement West Meadow Drive & El Camino Real 100 Y INTERSECTION_05 California Avenue and El Camino Real Protected Intersection California Avenue & El Camino Real 100 Y INTERSECTION_12 San Antonio Road and Middlefield Road San Antonio Road & Middlefield Road 100 Y SpecProj_1 Hamilton Ave Pedestrian Signal Heads Hamilton Avenue 100 Y BLVD_2 Bryant Street Bike Boulevard Downtown Access Project Bryant Street Embarcadero Road University Avenue 70 Y BLVD_14 Seale Avenue Bike Boulevard Seale Avenue Embarcadero Road Alma Street 70 Y BLVD_24a Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard Park Boulevard Lambert Avenue W Charleston Road 70 Y BLVD_24b Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard Park Boulevard Churchill Street Matadero Avenue 70 Y Study_04 Bryant Blvd & E Meadow Crossing Feasibility Study Bryant Blvd & E Meadow 70 Y SpecProj_3 Ellen Fletcher Bike Blvd Project Bryant Street 70 Y Study_02 Embarcadero Road Corridor Study Embarcadero Road 70 Y Study_05 Cal Ave Caltrain Station Southern Bridge Access Project Bike/Ped Gap Closure: Cal Ave Caltrain Station Southern Bridge Access Project 70 Y SUP_3 Churchill Avenue Shared Use Path Churchill Avenue Castilleja Avenue El Camino Real 65 Y BL_1 North California Avenue Bike Lane North California Avenue Newell Road Greer Road 65 BL_2 Channing Avenue Bike Lane Channing Avenue Guinda Street Addison Avenue 65 BL_5 Stanford Avenue Bike Lane connection to Hanover Stanford Avenue Harvard Street Dartmouth Street 65 Y BL_8 Loma Verde Bike Lane Loma Verde Louis Road West Bayshore Road 65 BL_9 Colorado Ave Bike Lane Colorado Ave Middlefield Road Alma Street 65 BBL_1 Homer/Channing/Guinda Avenue Buffered Bike Lane Homer Avenue Bryant Street Guinda Street 65 BBL_2 Newell Road Buffered Bike Lane Newell Road Embarcadero Road Channing Avenue 65 BBL_3 Hanover Street to Porter Drive Buffered Bike Lane Hanover Street California Avenue Page Mill Road 65 BBL_4 El Camino Way Buffered Bike Lane El Camino Way Los Robles Avenue Maybell Avenue 65 Y BBL_6 Loma Verde Avenue Buffered Bike Lane: Alma Street to Middlefield Road Loma Verde Avenue Alma Street Middlefield Road 65 PBL_3 Quarry Road Protected Bike Lane Quarry Road El Camino Real Welch Road 65 PBL_11a Middlefield Road Protected Bike Lane Middlefield Road San Francisquito Creek Embarcadero Road 65 PBL_11b Middlefield Road Protected Bike Lane Middlefield Road Embarcadero Road Oregon Expressway 65 PBL_11c Middlefield Road Protected Bike Lane Middlefield Road Oregon Expressway Loma Verde Avenue 65 PBL_11d Middlefield Road Protected Bike Lane Middlefield Road Loma Verde Avenue San Antonio Road 65 PBL_12 Homer Avenue Protected Bike Lane Homer Avenue 65 Y PBL_13 Arastradero Road Protected Bike Lane Arastradero Road El Camino Real Foothill Expressway 65 PBL_14 Embarcadero Protected Bike Lane: Middlefield Road to Newell Road Embarcadero Road Middlefield Road Newell Road 65 PBL_21a East Charleston Road Protected Bike Lane: Industrial Avenue to Middlefield Road Charleston Road Industrial Avenue Middlefield Road 65 PBL_21b East Charleston Road Protected Bike Lane: Middlefield Road to Alma Street Charleston Road Middlefield Road Alma Street 65 BLVD_7 Chaucer - Hamilton - Hale - Boyce Bike Boulevard Hale Street San Francisquito Creek Guinda Street 65 BLVD_19 Laguna - Los Robles Avenues Bike Boulevard Laguna Avenue Matadero Avenue Los Robles Avenue 65 BLVD_25 Guinda Street Bike Boulevard Guinda St Everett Avenue Channing Avenue 65 BLVD_CROSSING_01 Chaucer Street crossing of University Avenue University Avenue & Chaucer Street 65 BLVD_CROSSING_02 Carlson Streer Crossing of E Charleston Rd E Charleston Rd & Carlson Street 65 BLVD_CROSSING_06 Faber Place Crossing at Embarcadero Road Embarcadero Road & Faber Place 65 BLVD_CROSSING_07 Greer Road Crossing of Embarcadero Road Embarcadero Road & Greer Road 65 BLVD_CROSSING_08 St Francis Drive crossing of Embarcadero Road Embarcadero Road & St Francis Drive 65 CROSSING_02 Everett Avenue Tunnel Everett Avenue 65
CROSSING_03 California Avenue Tunnel - Pedestrian/Bicycle Shared Use Enhancements California Avenue 65 Y CROSSING_04 New parallel tunnel for bicycles at California Avenue. Caltrain Station to Alma Street California Avenue 65 CROSSING_05 Palo Alto Transit Center/University Avenue Undercrossing Palo Alto Transit Center/University Ave 65 INTERSECTION_01 Page Mill Road and Hanover Street Intersection Improvement Page Mill Road & Hanover Street 65

Page 1 ends

Item 3
Attachment B - Prioritized Project
List using Initial Evaluation only
(Working List)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 109 of 363

PALO ALTO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE - PROJECT LIST

INITIAL SCORE - WORKING DRAFT
Project Number Project Name Street From To
Initial Prioritization ScoreSupplemental Evaluation
INTERSECTION_03 Quarry Road and El Camino Real Protected Intersection Quarry Road & El Camino Real 65 Y INTERSECTION_04 Greer Road and Oregon Expressway Intersection Oregon Expressway & Greer Road 65 INTERSECTION_07 E Charleston Road and San Antonio Road Intersection E Charleston Rd & San Antonio Road 65 INTERSECTION_08 E Charleston Road and Middlefield Road E Charleston Rd & Middlefield Road 65 Y INTERSECTION_09 Maybell Avenue and El Camino Real Maybell Ave & El Camino Real 65 Y INTERSECTION_10 Embarcadero Road and El Camino Real Protected Intersection Embarcadero Road & El Camino Real 65 INTERSECTION_11 Quarry Road and Arboretum Road Protected Intersection Quarry Road & Arboretum Road 65 Study_01 Southern Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Railroad Crossing Study and Implementation Project South Palo Alto 65 Study_03 Matadero Canal Shared Use Path Feasibility Study Matadero Canal 65 SpecProj_2 Downtown Green Wave Downtown 65
BLVD_3 Everett Avenue Bike Bike Boulevard Everett Avenue Alma Street Guinda Street 35 BLVD_5 Hamilton-Greer Avenue Bike Boulevard Hamilton Avenue Middlefield Road Embarcadero Road 35 BLVD_8 Greer Road Bike Boulevard Greer Road Embarcadero Road Louis Road 35 BLVD_9 La Donna - Barron - Josina - Bike Boulevard Barron Avenue 35 BLVD_11 Faber Place Bike Boulevard Faber Place Embarcadero Road Renzel Trail 35 BLVD_12 Amarillo Avenue Bike Boulevard Amarillo Avenue Louis Road West Bayshore Road 35 BLVD_13 Garland Drive Bike Boulevard Garland Drive Middlefield Road Louis Road 35 BLVD_15 Cowper Street Bike Boulevard Cowper Street Coleridge Avenue E Meadow Drive 35 BLVD_16 Colorado Avenue Bike Boulevard Colorado Avenue Bryant Street Middlefield Road 35 BLVD_17 Stanford Avenue Bike Boulevard Stanford Avenue Park Boulevard El Camino Real 35 BLVD_18 Bryant - Nelson - Carlson - Mackay Bike Boulevard Multiple 35 BLVD_20 Maybell - Donald - Georgia Bike Boulevard Donald Drive El Camino Road Arastradero Road 35 BLVD_21 Hanover Street Bike Boulevard Hanover Street Stanford Avenue California Avenue 35 BLVD_22 Maclane - Wilkie -Miller Bike Boulevard Maclane Park Boulevard Del Medio Avenue 35 BLVD_23 Margarita Avenue Bike Boulevard Margarita Avenue El Camino Real Park Boulevard 35 CROSSING_06 Sutter Avenue crossing of Middlefield Road Middlefield Road & Sutter Avenue 35 CROSSING_08 Hanover Street entrance to Bol Park Bike Path enhancement Bol Park Path & Hanover Street 35 SUP_12 Homer Tunnel to Caltrain Connection Alma Street Homer Tunnel Caltrain Parking Lot 30 Y PBL_4 El Camino Real Protected Bike Lane El Camino Real Quarry Road Encina Avenue 30 Y PBL_7 Lytton Avenue Protected Bike Lane: Alma Street to Guinda Street Lytton Avenue Alma Street Guinda Street 30 Y PBL_8 Foothill Expressway Protected Bike Lane Foothill Expressway Page Mill Road City Limit 30 Y PBL_10 University Avenue Protected Bike Lane University Avenue Middlefield Road San Francisquito Creek 30 Y PBL_23 Fabian Way Protected Bike Lane Fabian Way E Meadow Drive Charleston Road 30 Y SUP_14 Bol Park Path - Chimalus Spur Chimalus Drive 30 Y SpecProj_4 Cesano Court Cesano Ct. connection to MV 30 Y SUP_2 Embarcadero Town & Country Shared Use Path Embarcadero Road El Camino Real Palo Alto High School 30 SUP_4 Page Mill Road Shared Use Path Page Mill Road El Camino Real Arastradero Road 30 SUP_5 Oregon Expressway Shared Use Path Oregon Expressway El Camino Real Louis Road 30 SUP_13 Embarcadero Road Shared Use Path: Alma to Emerson Embarcadero Road Alma Street Emerson Street 30 Y BL_10 East Bayshore Road Bike Lane-from San Francisquito Creek to Embarcadero Road East Bayshore Road San Francisquito Creek Embarcadero Road 30 BL_11 West Bayshore Road Bike Lane West Bayshore Road Amarillo Street Lake Avenue 30 BBL_5 Embarcadero Road Buffered Bike Lane: East Bayshore to Baylands Embarcadero Road East Bayshore Road Baylands 30 PBL_1 Deer Creek Road Protected Bike Lane Deer Creek Road Page Mill Road Arastradero Road 30 PBL_2 Arboretum Road Protected Bike Lane Arboretum Road 30 PBL_5 Hillview Avenue Protected Bike Lane Hillview Avenue Porter Drive Arastradero Road 30 PBL_6 Alma Street Protected Bike Lane - North Alma Street Palo Alto Avenue University Avenue 30 PBL_15 Embarcadero Road Protected Bike Lane: Greer Road to E. Bayshore Road Embarcadero Road Greer Road East Bayshore Road 30 PBL_16 Embarcadero Road Protected Bike Lane: Full Corridor Embarcadero Road 30 PBL_17 East Bayshore Road Protected Bike Lane: Embarcadero Road to Renzel Trail East Bayshore Road Embarcadero Road Renzel Trail 30 PBL_19 Alma Street Protected Bike Lane - South Alma Street E Charleston Road San Antonio Road 30 BLVD_4 University Avenue Bike Boulevard University Avenue 30 BLVD_10 Saint Francis - Oregon Avenue Bike Boulevard Oregon Avenue Embarcadero Road Louis Road 30 CROSSING_07 Embarcadero Crossing to Renzel Trail over East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road 30 INTERSECTION_06 Park to Serra Protected Intersection Park Blvd-Serra St & El Camino Real 30 SUP_1 Quarry Road Extension Trail Quarry Road El Camino Real Mitchell Lane/Transit Center 0 Y SUP_6 Matadero Canal Shared Use Path Matadero Canal Middlefield Road Adobe Loop Trail 0 SUP_8 San Antonio Road Shared Use Path San Antonio Road E Bayshore Road Terminal Boulevard 0 Y

Page 2 ends

Item 3
Attachment B - Prioritized Project
List using Initial Evaluation only
(Working List)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 110 of 363

PALO ALTO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE - PROJECT LIST

INITIAL SCORE - WORKING DRAFT
Project Number Project Name Street From To
Initial Prioritization ScoreSupplemental Evaluation
SUP_7 Barron Creek Shared Use Path Barron Creek Barron Creek Canal US 101 Bike/Ped Bridge at Adobe Creek 0 SUP_9 Cubberley Community Center Shared Use Path Cubberly Community Center Montrose Avenue Nelson Drive 0 SUP_10 Palo Alto Avenue Shared Use Path Palo Alto Avenue Alma Street El Camino Real 0 SUP_11 Hansen Way Shared Use Path Hansen Way Hansen Way Bol Park Bike Path 0 BL_3 Addison Avenue Bike Lane Addison Avenue Bryant Street Waverley Street 0 BL_4 Portage Avenue Bike Lane Portage Avenue El Camino Real Park Avenue 0 BL_7 Page Mill Road Bike Lane Page Mill Road Oregon Expressway Park Boulevard 0 ABL_1 Embarcadero Road Advisory Bike Lane at Harriet Mundy Marsh Embarcadero Road Palo Alto Boat Launch San Francisquito Creek Trail 0 ABL_2 Geng Road Advisory Bike Lane Geng Road 0
BLVD_1 Clark Way Bike Boulevard Clark Way SHR/Vinyard Lane San Mateo Bridge Drive/Trail Entrance 0 BLVD_6 Kingsley Avenue Bike Boulevard Kingsley Avenue Emerson Street Middlefield Road 0 Notes:

BLVD_24b is a new project, added May 2025 per staff comments; extends Park Blvd bike boulevard north to upgrade existing facilities.

BLVD_22 description has been expanded to specify that it includes SpecProj_5 Cesano Court to Mountain View Connection SUP_14 Bol Park Path - Chimalus Dr Spur has been added May 2025 per staff comments.

Study_03 limits extended from Middlefield Road to Alma Street, added per staff comments in May 2025, prior to June city council meeting.

Study_05 is a new project, added per staff comments in May 2025.

SpecProj_4 Cesano Ct has been added as a standalone project given specific interests and potential to implement on different timeline from BLVD_22. Could also be implemented as part of BLVD_22.

Page 3 ends

Item 3
Attachment B - Prioritized Project
List using Initial Evaluation only
(Working List)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 111 of 363

PALO ALTO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE - PRIORITY PROJECT LIST - WORKING DRAFT

SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION - WORKING DRAFT
Project Number Project Name Street From To
Initial Prioritization ScoreCarry Forward to Supplemental EvaluationDRAFT RankingProject ReadinessProject Cost and FundabilityProject Support BL_6 California Avenue Bike Lane California Avenue Caltrain Station El Camino Real 100 Y 10 High Medium High BBL_8 California Avenue Buffered Bike Lane California Avenue El Camino Real Hanover Street 100 Y 24 Medium Medium Medium BBL_9 Amaranta - Clemo Buffered Bike Lane Amaranta Avenue Los Robles Avenue Arastradero Road 100 Y 25 Medium Medium Medium PBL_9 Hamilton Avenue Protected Bike Lane: Middlefield Road to Bryant Street Hamilton Avenue Middlefield Road Bryant Street 100 Y 35 Low Medium Medium PBL_18 East/West Meadow Drive Protected Bike Lane West Meadow Drive El Camino Way Alma Street 100 Y 36 Low Medium Medium PBL_20 San Antonio Road Protected Bike Lane San Antonio Avenue Alma Street East Bayshore Road 100 Y 11 Medium High High PBL_22 West Charleston Road Protected Bike Lane Arastradero Road Alma Street El Camino Real 100 Y 40 Low Low Low BLVD_CROSSING_03 Wilkie Way Crossing of West Charleston Road West Charleston Road 100 Y 42 Low Low Low BLVD_CROSSING_04 Cowper Street Crossing of East Meadow Drive Wilkie Way & West Charleston Road 100 Y 26 Medium Medium Medium BLVD_CROSSING_05 Seale Avenue Bike Boulevard Crossing of Middlefield Road Cowper Street & E Meadow Drive 100 Y 27 Medium Medium Medium CROSSING_01 Seale Avenue Tunnel Seale Avenue & Middlefield Road 100 Y 15 Medium Medium High INTERSECTION_02 West Meadow Drive and El Camino Way Intersection Improvement West Meadow Drive & El Camino Real 100 Y 28 Medium Medium Medium INTERSECTION_05 California Avenue and El Camino Real Protected Intersection California Avenue & El Camino Real 100 Y 29 Medium Medium Medium INTERSECTION_12 San Antonio Road and Middlefield Road San Antonio Road & Middlefield Road 100 Y 1 High High High SpecProj_1 Hamilton Ave Pedestrian Signal Heads Hamilton Avenue 100 Y 12 Medium High High BLVD_2 Bryant Street Bike Boulevard Downtown Access Project Bryant Street Embarcadero Road University Avenue 70 Y 3 High High High BLVD_14 Seale Avenue Bike Boulevard Seale Avenue Embarcadero Road Alma Street 70 Y 23 Medium Medium Medium BLVD_24a Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard Park Boulevard Lambert Avenue W Charleston Road 70 Y 5 High High High BLVD_24b Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard Park Boulevard Churchill Street Matadero Avenue 70 Y 4 High High High Study_04 Bryant Blvd & E Meadow Crossing Feasibility Study Bryant Blvd & E Meadow 70 Y 16 High Medium Medium SpecProj_3 Ellen Fletcher Bike Blvd Project Bryant Street 70 Y 17 Medium Medium High Study_02 Embarcadero Road Corridor Study Embarcadero Road 70 Y 7 High High High Study_05 Cal Ave Caltrain Station Southern Bridge Access Project Bike/Ped Gap Closure: Cal Ave Caltrain Station Southern Bridge Access Project 70 Y 6 High High High SUP_3 Churchill Avenue Shared Use Path Churchill Avenue Castilleja Avenue El Camino Real 65 Y 2 High High High BL_5 Stanford Avenue Bike Lane connection to Hanover Stanford Avenue Harvard Street Dartmouth Street 65 Y 18 Medium Medium High BBL_4 El Camino Way Buffered Bike Lane El Camino Way Los Robles Avenue Maybell Avenue 65 Y 30 Medium Medium Medium PBL_12 Homer Avenue Protected Bike Lane Homer Avenue 65 Y 32 Low Medium High

Page 1 ends

Item 3
Attachment C - Prioritized Project
List using Initial and Supplemental
Evaluation (Working List)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 112 of 363

PALO ALTO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE - PRIORITY PROJECT LIST - WORKING DRAFT

SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION - WORKING DRAFT
Project Number Project Name Street From To
Initial Prioritization ScoreCarry Forward to Supplemental EvaluationDRAFT RankingProject ReadinessProject Cost and FundabilityProject Support CROSSING_03 California Avenue Tunnel - Pedestrian/Bicycle Shared Use Enhancements California Avenue 65 Y 19 Medium Medium High INTERSECTION_03 Quarry Road and El Camino Real Protected Intersection Quarry Road & El Camino Real 65 Y 20 Medium Medium High INTERSECTION_08 E Charleston Road and Middlefield Road E Charleston Rd & Middlefield Road 65 Y 21 Medium Medium High INTERSECTION_09 Maybell Avenue and El Camino Real Maybell Ave & El Camino Real 65 Y 22 Medium Medium High SUP_12 Homer Tunnel to Caltrain Connection Alma Street Homer Tunnel Caltrain Parking Lot 30 Y 33 Low Medium High PBL_4 El Camino Real Protected Bike Lane El Camino Real Quarry Road Encina Avenue 30 Y 38 Low Medium Low PBL_7 Lytton Avenue Protected Bike Lane: Alma Street to Guinda Street Lytton Avenue Alma Street Guinda Street 30 Y 34 Low Medium High PBL_8 Foothill Expressway Protected Bike Lane Foothill Expressway Page Mill Road City Limit 30 Y 13 Low High High PBL_10 University Avenue Protected Bike Lane University Avenue Middlefield Road San Francisquito Creek 30 Y 14 Low High Medium PBL_23 Fabian Way Protected Bike Lane Fabian Way E Meadow Drive Charleston Road 30 Y 8 High High High SUP_14 Bol Park Path - Chimalus Spur Chimalus Drive 30 Y 40 Low Low Medium SpecProj_4 Cesano Court Cesano Ct. connection to MV 30 Y 37 Medium Low Medium SUP_13 Embarcadero Road Shared Use Path: Alma to Emerson Embarcadero Road Alma Street Emerson Street 30 Y 39 Low Low Medium SUP_1 Quarry Road Extension Trail Quarry Road El Camino Real Mitchell Lane/Transit Center 0 Y 9 High High High SUP_8 San Antonio Road Shared Use Path San Antonio Road E Bayshore Road Terminal Boulevard 0 Y 31 Medium Medium Medium Notes:

BLVD_24b is a new project, added May 2025 per staff comments; extends Park Blvd bike boulevard north to upgrade existing facilities.

Study_03 limits extended from Middlefield Road to Alma Street, added per staff comments in May 2025, prior to June city council meeting.

Study_05 is a new project, added per staff comments in May 2025.

SpecProj_4 Cesano Ct has been added as a standalone project given specific interests and potential to implement on different timeline from BLVD_22. Could also be implemented as part of BLVD_22.

Page 2 ends

Item 3
Attachment C - Prioritized Project
List using Initial and Supplemental
Evaluation (Working List)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 113 of 363

PALO ALTO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE - RANKED PRIORITY PROJECT LIST - WORKING DRAFT

SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION - WORKING DRAFT
Project Number Project Name Street From To
Initial Prioritization ScoreCarry Forward to Supplemental EvaluationDRAFT RankingProject ReadinessProject Cost and FundabilityProject Support INTERSECTION_12 San Antonio Road and Middlefield Road San Antonio Road & Middlefield Road 100 Y 1 High High High SUP_3 Churchill Avenue Shared Use Path Churchill Avenue Castilleja Avenue El Camino Real 65 Y 2 High High High BLVD_2 Bryant Street Bike Boulevard Downtown Access Project Bryant Street Embarcadero Road University Avenue 70 Y 3 High High High BLVD_24b Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard Park Boulevard Churchill Street Matadero Avenue 70 Y 4 High High High BLVD_24a Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard Park Boulevard Lambert Avenue W Charleston Road 70 Y 5 High High High Study_05 Cal Ave Caltrain Station Southern Bridge Access Project Bike/Ped Gap Closure: Cal Ave Caltrain Station Southern Bridge Access Project 70 Y 6 High High High Study_02 Embarcadero Road Corridor Study Embarcadero Road 70 Y 7 High High High PBL_23 Fabian Way Protected Bike Lane Fabian Way E Meadow Drive Charleston Road 30 Y 8 High High High SUP_1 Quarry Road Extension Trail Quarry Road El Camino Real Mitchell Lane/Transit Center 0 Y 9 High High High BL_6 California Avenue Bike Lane California Avenue Caltrain Station El Camino Real 100 Y 10 High Medium High PBL_20 San Antonio Road Protected Bike Lane San Antonio Avenue Alma Street East Bayshore Road 100 Y 11 Medium High High SpecProj_1 Hamilton Ave Pedestrian Signal Heads Hamilton Avenue 100 Y 12 Medium High High PBL_8 Foothill Expressway Protected Bike Lane Foothill Expressway Page Mill Road City Limit 30 Y 13 Low High High PBL_10 University Avenue Protected Bike Lane University Avenue Middlefield Road San Francisquito Creek 30 Y 14 Low High Medium CROSSING_01 Seale Avenue Tunnel Seale Avenue & Middlefield Road 100 Y 15 Medium Medium High Study_04 Bryant Blvd & E Meadow Crossing Feasibility Study Bryant Blvd & E Meadow 70 Y 16 High Medium Medium SpecProj_3 Ellen Fletcher Bike Blvd Project Bryant Street 70 Y 17 Medium Medium High BL_5 Stanford Avenue Bike Lane connection to Hanover Stanford Avenue Harvard Street Dartmouth Street 65 Y 18 Medium Medium High CROSSING_03 California Avenue Tunnel - Pedestrian/Bicycle Shared Use Enhancements California Avenue 65 Y 19 Medium Medium High INTERSECTION_03 Quarry Road and El Camino Real Protected Intersection Quarry Road & El Camino Real 65 Y 20 Medium Medium High INTERSECTION_08 E Charleston Road and Middlefield Road E Charleston Rd & Middlefield Road 65 Y 21 Medium Medium High INTERSECTION_09 Maybell Avenue and El Camino Real Maybell Ave & El Camino Real 65 Y 22 Medium Medium High BLVD_14 Seale Avenue Bike Boulevard Seale Avenue Embarcadero Road Alma Street 70 Y 23 Medium Medium Medium BBL_8 California Avenue Buffered Bike Lane California Avenue El Camino Real Hanover Street 100 Y 24 Medium Medium Medium BBL_9 Amaranta - Clemo Buffered Bike Lane Amaranta Avenue Los Robles Avenue Arastradero Road 100 Y 25 Medium Medium Medium BLVD_CROSSING_04 Cowper Street Crossing of East Meadow Drive Wilkie Way & West Charleston Road 100 Y 26 Medium Medium Medium

Page 1 ends

Item 3
Attachment D - Ranked Prioritized
Project List using Initial and
Supplemental Evaluation (Working
List)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 114 of 363

PALO ALTO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE - RANKED PRIORITY PROJECT LIST - WORKING DRAFT

SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION - WORKING DRAFT
Project Number Project Name Street From To
Initial Prioritization ScoreCarry Forward to Supplemental EvaluationDRAFT RankingProject ReadinessProject Cost and FundabilityProject Support BLVD_CROSSING_05 Seale Avenue Bike Boulevard Crossing of Middlefield Road Cowper Street & E Meadow Drive 100 Y 27 Medium Medium Medium INTERSECTION_02 West Meadow Drive and El Camino Way Intersection Improvement West Meadow Drive & El Camino Real 100 Y 28 Medium Medium Medium INTERSECTION_05 California Avenue and El Camino Real Protected Intersection California Avenue & El Camino Real 100 Y 29 Medium Medium Medium BBL_4 El Camino Way Buffered Bike Lane El Camino Way Los Robles Avenue Maybell Avenue 65 Y 30 Medium Medium Medium SUP_8 San Antonio Road Shared Use Path San Antonio Road E Bayshore Road Terminal Boulevard 0 Y 31 Medium Medium Medium PBL_12 Homer Avenue Protected Bike Lane Homer Avenue 65 Y 32 Low Medium High SUP_12 Homer Tunnel to Caltrain Connection Alma Street Homer Tunnel Caltrain Parking Lot 30 Y 33 Low Medium High PBL_7 Lytton Avenue Protected Bike Lane: Alma Street to Guinda Street Lytton Avenue Alma Street Guinda Street 30 Y 34 Low Medium High PBL_9 Hamilton Avenue Protected Bike Lane: Middlefield Road to Bryant Street Hamilton Avenue Middlefield Road Bryant Street 100 Y 35 Low Medium Medium PBL_18 East/West Meadow Drive Protected Bike Lane West Meadow Drive El Camino Way Alma Street 100 Y 36 Low Medium Medium SpecProj_4 Cesano Court Cesano Ct. connection to MV 30 Y 37 Medium Low Medium PBL_4 El Camino Real Protected Bike Lane El Camino Real Quarry Road Encina Avenue 30 Y 38 Low Medium Low SUP_13 Embarcadero Road Shared Use Path: Alma to Emerson Embarcadero Road Alma Street Emerson Street 30 Y 39 Low Low Medium SUP_14 Bol Park Path - Chimalus Spur Chimalus Drive 30 Y 40 Low Low Medium PBL_22 West Charleston Road Protected Bike Lane Arastradero Road Alma Street El Camino Real 100 Y 41 Low Low Low BLVD_CROSSING_03 Wilkie Way Crossing of West Charleston Road West Charleston Road 100 Y 42 Low Low Low Notes:

BLVD_24b is a new project, added May 2025 per staff comments; extends Park Blvd bike boulevard north to upgrade existing facilities.

Study_03 limits extended from Middlefield Road to Alma Street, added per staff comments in May 2025, prior to June city council meeting.

Study_05 is a new project, added per staff comments in May 2025.

SpecProj_4 Cesano Ct has been added as a standalone project given specific interests and potential to implement on different timeline from BLVD_22. Could also be implemented as part of BLVD_22.

Page 2 ends

Item 3
Attachment D - Ranked Prioritized
Project List using Initial and
Supplemental Evaluation (Working
List)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 115 of 363
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Technical Memorandum
PHASE 3 – RECOMMENDED PROJECT AND PROGRAMS
The City of Palo Alto (City) is updating the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. This Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) update will serve as a comprehensive action plan for the City to provide improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities for its residents, employees, and visitors. As part of the BPTP update, the project team is undertaking an extensive community engagement initiative, divided into four phases: 1) Visioning; 2) Needs & Concerns; 3) Recommended Projects and Programs; and 4) Plan Adoption. The community engagement effort includes a combination of digital outreach and in-person events.

Engagement activities associated with Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs occurred between February and April 2025 and included focus group meetings, committee meetings, commission meetings, a public workshop, tabling and public events, online interactive map feedback and electronic feedback submissions. Activities were promoted on the City’s website, social media channels, transportation mailing list, tabling and community events, Uplift Local newsletter, and at the Committee and Working Group meetings. Themes heard during these outreach efforts included discussion about plan implementation strategy, interest in strict guidelines for bicycle boulevard streets, and questions about the effectiveness of protected bike lanes. This memorandum provides a summary of the key insights gathered from these Phase 3 engagement activities.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
May 20, 2025 Project# 28476
To: Ozzy Arce, Senior Transportation Planner
City of Palo Alto, Office of Transportation
From: Mobycon & Kittelson
CC: Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Planning Manager,
Amanda Leahy, Associate Planner, Kittelson
RE: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs (Draft Final) Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 116 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 2
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

PALO ALTO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY

COMMITTEE
On Tuesday, February 4th 2025, the project team presented in person to the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. This was the first public display of the plans, Recommended Projects and Programs, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update was given significant time for presentation, question and discussion.

Agenda
The presentation covered the following topics:
• Project Overview
• The Plan Vision
• Bicycle Network Recommendations
o Network Development Approach
o Facility Selection Approach
o Project Lists
o Prioritization Approach
• Pedestrian Districts and Toolbox
• Program and Policy Recommendations
• Engagement Activities
Discussion Notes Summary
The discussion was broad, touching on all aspects of the plan recommendations. Notable themes emerged with multiple committee members reiterating or affirming certain topics for further consideration:
• Concerns about embracing the big streets: Questions about the cost, return on investment and risk of upsetting the status quo.
• "Big Streets" provide direct routes to key destinations: Comments also noted that since these Big Streets directly connect people to where they need to go, it's essential they are equipped with adequate facilities, even if alternative routes are also considered.
• Overall mixed reaction about Bikeways on "Big Streets"/Arterials: Several members expressed concern about placing bikeways on busy or "big streets" like Embarcadero Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 117 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 3
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Focus Group Meetings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Road, citing potential controversy, safety issues, and geometric concerns with protected bikeways. However, other members also highlighted the need to provide access for residents living on these streets, framing it as an equity issue. • Prioritization framework: Concerns that the proposed framework was too simple and a desire for finer grained measures. Members pointed out the long project list and the need for a clearer prioritization framework that includes constraints. Other members appreciated initial prioritization ideas.
• Pedestrian Planning: Desire to see more pedestrian-oriented recommendations. Desire to see the San Antonio corridor included for pedestrian-specific recommendations given it’s potential for future growth.
• Bicycle boulevard implementation: Some member questioned what constitutes a Bike Boulevard, others expressed a desire to see stricter thresholds for bicycle boulevard implementation.
• Micromobility: Want to see how micromobility can be supported through clearer regulations and rules.
• Prioritization: Would like to see schools elevated in the prioritization framework. • Network: Consider how to include recreational routes, such as to Foothill Expressway, more in the network. Other members emphasized the priority of connectivity and getting across barriers.
• Quick-Build: desire for projects to be implemented as Quick-Build projects first for the City to learn from the initial implementation and for the community to see it. • Wayfinding: Would like to see a wayfinding system as a future project or program. • California Ave: If this is going car-free, consider Cambridge Ave as an alternative. • Safety and Enforcement: Members highlighted the importance of lighting and law enforcement.
• Expanding SRTS: A member questioned the possibility of expanding the SRTS program to private schools, though other members noted potential difficulties.

FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS
Overview
On February 24-26th, 2025, project staff met with stakeholder focus groups to have more detailed specific conversations about plan recommendations and provide an opportunity for stakeholders to engage with the project team and materials on a closer level.

Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 118 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 4
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Focus Group Meetings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Discussion Notes Summary
The following is the summary of comments and feedback from all the groups. • Bike Friendly Zone Considerations: Interest in expanding bike friendly zones to include Middlefield business district, Mitchell Park areas.
• Bike Lane Enforcement: Concerns about existing bike lanes being encroached by garbage cans and parked cars
• Shared use Path Conflicts: concerns about bicycle and pedestrian conflicts on shared use paths.
• Programs: Desire for a better pathway for making small traffic change requests in communities
• Strategy: How to implement the network in way that builds support and reduces controversy.
• Bike Boulevard Support: Support for bike boulevards, with Bryant St elevated as a good example of a bike boulevard due to natural and added modal filters. • Ross Rd: This segment is shown as “Existing” but even with enhancements doesn’t limit volumes enough for a low stress condition.

School Traffic Safety Representative (TSR) Subgroup
Project team members hosted a focus group for school TSRs, to provide some school and parent specific feedback on network plan, facilities and policies.

Workshop Agenda
The subgroup agenda was brief, emphasizing subgroup discussion:
• Bikeway Network and Facility Recommendations
• Subgroup Discussion
• Engagement Next Steps
Discussion Notes Summary
This report outlines comments and suggestions gathered from the TSR focus group regarding bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Feedback on Bicycle Facility Types (Existing and Proposed):

Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 119 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 5
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Focus Group Meetings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Bicycle Boulevards: Participants expressed a desire for more effective ways to limit motor vehicle traffic on these routes.
• Standard Bike Lanes: Concerns were raised about their effectiveness due to encroachment by parked cars and garbage cans.
• Protected Bike Lanes: The group questioned how to best implement these in areas with frequent driveways, which would require interruptions in the protective barrier. • Shared Use Paths: Potential conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians on these paths were noted as a concern.

Discussion on Implementation Strategy:
• Public Support: The group discussed the importance of building and maintaining public support, both initially and throughout the project development process. • Project Prioritization: There was interest in establishing a process for implementing small, quick fixes to address gaps in existing routes, in addition to planning larger, network-wide projects.

Emphasis on Serving Destinations and User Needs:
• New Developments: Participants recognized the importance of planning for bicycle facilities in areas with new housing developments to serve future residents. • Bicycle Friendly Zones: There was support for clarifying the concept of Bicycle Friendly Zones and interest in potentially establishing such a zone in South Palo Alto. • Cyclist Classifications: Some group members expressed concern that classifying cyclists (e.g., "Interested but Concerned," "Confident and Fearless") could be divisive. They noted that an individual's comfort level and cycling behavior can change based on the specific street conditions and their familiarity with the route.

System for Resident-Initiated Improvements:
• Need for a Dedicated Process: Participants showed strong interest in developing a system or process that allows residents to directly recommend specific, localized improvements to the City (e.g., requesting a new crosswalk or speed table). • Current System Limitations: The group acknowledged that the existing 311 system and the Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update process are not well-suited for handling these types of very specific, spot improvement requests.

Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 120 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 6
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Focus Group Meetings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

PABAC Subgroup Series
Project team members hosted a series of PABAC subgroups to provide a more flexible platform for deeper discussion and exploration of the plan recommendations Workshop Agenda
The subgroup agenda was brief, emphasizing subgroup discussion:
• Materials Overview
• Subgroup Discussion
• Engagement Next Steps
Discussion Notes Summary
A sample of key themes emerging from this discussion includes:
• Bike Street: Mixed opinions on how to best embrace big streets. There was overall support for expanded use of protected bike lanes, but reservations about their cost, overall safety and risk of community opposition.
• Defining Bike Boulevards: Interest in more clarity about bike boulevard design thresholds, criteria and overall quality. Also an interest in further defining what constitutes a bike boulevard. Key characteristics mentioned include:
o “Turning” the stop signs to prioritize bicycle traffic flow o Low car traffic.
o Traffic calming measures (e.g., speed humps, 20 MPH speed limits). o Potential for filtering out cars while allowing bike through-traffic. o Connecting roads to improve bike flow.
• Bike Parking: Questions around if the plan update can support more bike parking at private sites.
• Oregon Avenue: Support for including more of Oregon Avenue in the network, as a viable alternative to Oregon Expressway. Enhancements at intersections would be necessary.

Middlefield Road: Some support for Middlefield Road Protected Bike Lanes proposal, but concerns about frequent driveways.
• Embarcadero Road: Concerns about constraints west of Middlefield and at the underpass.
• Advisory Bike Lane Pilots: Questions about whether Geng Rd is a good pilot location Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 37 Packet Pg. 121 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 7
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Focus Group Meetings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Performance Measures: Interest in more detailed performance measures around collision reduction, mode share.
• Implementation Strategy: Concerns about the high cost of projects, and risk of controversial politics around implementation.
• Outreach: Interest in thinking differently about outreach in order to build consensus rather than polarity.
• Quick-Build Trials: The idea of using quick-build projects as trials to demonstrate planned infrastructure and gather feedback was discussed. This could help build political will for permanent installations.
• Big Streets vs. Alternatives:
o Preference for using alternative, smaller streets (e.g., frontage roads) over main arterials when possible (e.g., San Antonio Ave, Oregon Expressway). o Concerns raised about safety (sight lines), air quality (particulates), and traffic signals on big streets.
o Discussion about the impact of removing travel lanes on big streets and where that traffic would go.
• Prioritization: Interest in how the plan would prioritize projects, and noting that a prioritization framework should consider: Cost and funding; and Feasibility. • Draft Plan Considerations: The Draft Plan should include:
o Timelines for construction.
o Cost estimates (high-level).
o Strategies for limiting bike speeds on shared-use paths. o Considering the San Antonio Corridor area as a Bicycle Friendly District (potentially including the JCC).
o Exploring a Bicycle Friendly District in the south part of the City. • Policy & Programs:
o Comment to avoid breaking out the price of bicycle infrastructure in a way that could be misconstrued.
o Support for reviewing and addressing Comprehensive Plan Policies to ensure they are bike-friendly.
o Consider merging Bicycle Friendly Zones with Pedestrian Districts into "Active Transportation Friendly Commercial Zones."
• Other Points:
o Discussion on the sequencing of the BPTP Update and the Connectivity project. o Need a map showing existing bike networks to neighboring jurisdictions. o Consideration for grid effectiveness and issues where the grid disappears (south of Meadow).

Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 38 Packet Pg. 122 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 8
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Focus Group Meetings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
o Potential bike/ped facility between San Antonio Caltrain and E. Meadow (extending beyond Charleston).
o Controlled intersection at Bryant and E. Meadow.
o Bike box at Nelson Drive.
o Question about what's happening on University Ave; and concerns the street will never be suitable as a bicycle boulevard.

Internal Staff Working Group
In early March 2025, Project team members presented to an internal staff working group made up of City of Palo Alto staff from a variety of work groups, teams, and specializations to gain a city-wide perspective on the plan.

Workshop Agenda
The presentation covered the following topics:
• Project Overview
• The Plan Vision
• Bicycle Network Recommendations
• Pedestrian Districts and Toolbox
• Program and Policy Recommendations
• Engagement Activities
Discussion Notes Summary
The following themes and topics emerged in the discussion following the presentation • Maintenance: Desire for clear maintenance involvement with implementation of separated facilities. Consideration needed, but challenges exist regarding street cleaning and the requirement for special equipment. Funding implications for additional equipment and Public Services staff need to be addressed. • Green Infrastructure: Interest in more integration of green infrastructure into the plan, particularly Protected Bike Lanes. Also noting the importance of protecting waterways and managing debris during construction.
• Public Art: Interest in integration of public art into the plan, in particular, the pedestrian district toolbox. For example, opportunities for public art in crosswalks and traffic calming programs should be explored.E-Bike enforcement Strategy: Desire for more Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 39 Packet Pg. 123 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 9
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs City Commissions Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
clarity on the E-Bike enforcement policy included in the recommendations. A suggestion to focus on speed, similar to vehicles, rather than the type of bicycle, and to prioritize encouragement and education over enforcement.
• Consistency Across Plans: a suggestion to cross-reference the adopted Safe Systems Action Plan with the BPTP Update project recommendations for Vision Zero consistency.

CITY COMMISSIONS
The project staff presented to Palo Alto’s Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) and Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC) on February 26, 2025 and March 25, 2025, respectively.

These bodies advise City Council and have been involved in the plan update throughout the process.

Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC)
Project team presented to the Planning & Transportation Commission on February 26th, 2025.

Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 40 Packet Pg. 124 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 10
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs City Commissions Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Key themes from discussion included:
• Overall Themes:
o Strong support for improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. o Emphasis on a network approach rather than isolated projects. o Concerns about safety, particularly regarding speeding e-bikes and vehicle enforcement.
o Interest in exploring innovative solutions like modal filtering and Safe Systems principles.
o Need for clear definitions and visual aids (maps) to understand the proposed plans.
• Emphasis on network-level analysis: When projects are developed, assess traffic impacts on the broader area, not just the immediate corridor. • Consider developing entire corridors together instead of piecemeal projects to ensure better connectivity and potentially more efficient implementation. • Support for the Pedestrian Toolbox.
• Wayfinding signage: Needs improvement, especially on Bryant Boulevard. • Definition of a bike boulevard: Needs clarity on the specific criteria and features that define a bike boulevard.
• Preference for neighborhood streets: Concerned about focusing on big streets like a future ECR, suggesting locals prefer Park Blvd.
• Concerns about RV parking on bike routes: Creates hazards and debris, as street cleaning is difficult.
• Supports a "Bike Toolbox" similar to the Pedestrian Toolbox, specifically for bike boulevards.
• Impact of navigation apps (Waze): Directing traffic onto neighborhood streets. • Modal filtering: Commissioners inquired about the possibility of implementing additional modal filtering measures.
• Neighborhood-specific discussions: Suggests dedicated discussions for specific neighborhoods during the project-level phase.
• Increase in speeding micromobility: Concerns about speeding e-bikes and e-scooters. • Lack of south city crossing: Points out the absence of a dedicated bike/pedestrian crossing in the southern part of the city.

Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 41 Packet Pg. 125 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 11
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs City Commissions Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC)
Project team presented to the Planning & Transportation Commission on February 26th, 2025.

Workshop Agenda
The presentation covered the following topics:
• Project Overview
• The Plan Vision
• Bicycle Network Recommendations
• Program and Policy Recommendations
• Engagement Activities
Discussion Notes Summary
The PRC appreciated the comprehensive presentation and noted significant effort involved in such a comprehensive planning process. The commissioners generally expressed positive feedback on the work being done and were receptive to the presented recommendations.

Key themes from discussion included:
• Focus on Bicycling: A significant portion of the discussion centered on improving bicycle infrastructure, safety, and accessibility.
• Accessibility: Commissioners raised concerns about ensuring infrastructure and policies work for a diverse range of users, including those with mobility challenges (ADA), families with cargo bikes, and different types of cyclists. • Clarity and Measurement: There was a clear call for well-defined plans with measurable outcomes and easily understandable information (maps, Performance Measures, and objectives).
• Integration with Existing Infrastructure: The discussion touched on how new projects should connect with new or existing elements like green infrastructure, public transportation, and even closed streets.
• Policy Considerations: Commissioners highlighted the need for policies addressing newer forms of transportation like e-bikes and specific traffic laws like the Idaho Stop. • Green Infrastructure: Advocated for the inclusion of more trees and green infrastructure.

Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 42 Packet Pg. 126 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 12
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Joint Workshop Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Performance Measures (PM): Questioned what performance measures other cities are using and how those compare to the city's proposed PMs. • Clarity: Emphasized the importance of clear maps, clear performance measures, and clear objectives in the plan.
• Bike Lane Access: Strongly emphasized the need for protected and improved bike lane access, particularly on major streets.
• Idaho Stop: Raised the question of how the "Idaho stop" (allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs when safe) is being considered. • E-bike Policy: Suggested developing a policy for e-bikes with a non-pedal mode, especially in open spaces.
• Safe Routes: Appreciated the focus on Safe Routes to Parks and suggested also considering Safe Routes to Libraries.
• Bike Lane Width: Urged consideration of bike lane width to ensure three-wheeled or cargo bikes can fit comfortably.

JOINT WORKSHOP
Overview
On April 2nd, 2025, the City of Palo Alto’s
Office of Transportation hosted a Joint
Workshop at Mitchell Park Community Center
for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Plan Update and South Palo Alto Crossings
(See Figure 1).

Workshop Agenda
The workshop opened with a brief
presentation for each project and invited
participants to spend the rest of the time visiting organized project stations, designed to collect feedback on important parts of each project. There were a total of six stations — three for each project. Figure 2 shows some photos taken at the BPTP Update stations.

Figure 1: Attendees to the joint workshop
hearing opening presentation
Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 43 Packet Pg. 127 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 13
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Joint Workshop Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 2: Project Stations
Station 1: Attendees Discussing Recommended Bicycle and Crossing Projects Station 2: Attendees Discussing
Recommended Bicycle Facilities
Station 3: Attendees Providing Feedback on
Pedestrian Toolbox
Discussion Notes Summary
The following key themes emerged related to the pedestrian districts and toolbox:
• Recommendations for new tools to add to the toolbox: Rapid Flashing Beacons; Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons; Pedestrian only zones; Street parking removal; • Support for toolbox tools: Raised crossings; Wider sidewalks; Bike Parking; Permanent pedestrian wayfinding;
• Pedestrian district specific recommendations.

Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 44 Packet Pg. 128 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 14
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Online Feedback Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

The following types of comments were offered on the bikeway network and facilities:
• Facility type comments: Mixture of concerns and support for protected bike lanes; Desire for better bike boulevard design with signs and pavement quality. • Comments on proposed projects both in opposition and support: Such as support and concern about Midtown protected bike lanes, with some specific suggestions for extents. Support for Matadero Canal pathway.
• Some suggestions for new projects: Such as bike pull outs on Arasrtadero. Stand alone PBL project from Greene to Midtown Shopping Center,

ONLINE FEEDBACK
Overview
In addition to in-person activities, workshops and meetings, the public was invited to submit comments, thoughts and feedback online through the project website.

Interactive Online Map
Between February and May 2025, a total of 403 public comments were received through an interactive map tool which could be accessed from the project webpage. The map allowed participants to specify locations on a citywide map showing the recommended bicycle facility types and crossing improvements. Other participants could view these comments, provide a response to the comment, and express support by liking them. Participants had the option to specify the comment by infrastructure type, with “crossings” indicated most frequently, appearing in 76 comments—twice as often as the next most common category, protected bike lanes, which appeared in 38 comments. Other categories included advisory bike lanes, standard bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, shared use paths, and bike boulevards. Over 100 participants did not specify the infrastructure type.

Many commenters voiced support for recommended improvements (40%) specifically on Homer Way, Channing Avenue, Quarry Road, and most parts of Charleston Road and Oregon Expressway.

Some residents raised concerns over the type of proposed improvements (13%) while a few comments opposed (24%) the proposal of adding improvements altogether as it might adversely affect vehicle traffic, for instance on San Antonio Road, Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road. Some participants suggested utilizing existing creeks to support the nonItem 3 Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 45 Packet Pg. 129 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 15
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Online Feedback Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
motorized transportation. While most comments were on the type of projects a few residents raised concerns about dangerous or unsafe conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, particularly at key crossings and intersections. Others highlighted barriers to connectivity, noting gaps in the bike network and the need for better integration with neighboring cities. A few participants noted that the proposed recommendations are redundant as existing bike facilities are available on the parallel road, for instance Louis Road (existing bike lane) and Greer Road (proposed bike boulevard).

The proposed Class IV Protected Bike Lane on Middlefield Road drew the most attention, with 33 comments. Of those, approximately 73% expressed opposition to adding a protected bike lane on Middlefield Road, citing concerns about increased traffic, reduced access for vehicles, and particularly the loss of on-street parking. A comment that received one of the highest number of likes (29 likes) encapsulated a common sentiment among opponents of protected bike lanes: “Protected bike lanes make it even tougher for residents to enter and exit their driveways… We have enough obstacles already. Just say no.” Concerns over the loss of street parking and impacts to driveway access were echoed in other comments, reflecting ongoing tension between a strong overarching desire to expand or improve existing bike infrastructure and preserve convenience for car-dependent residents. On the other hand, some residents welcomed the idea of protected bike lanes on Middlefield Road by highlighting its importance as regional connector: “Middlefield has bike lanes in Atherton, Menlo Park, and Redwood City.

Making a connected network of bike lanes is important for increasing modeshare…”Other major roadways, which received opposition on the proposed recommendations include Embarcadero Road, San Antonio Road, Alma Street, and Meadow Drive.

Recommendations that were widely supported include Class IV on Charleston Road, Bike Boulevard on Park Boulevard and Downtown Connections. Additionally, there are 41 comments (10%) suggesting new projects and sharing further considerations.

Figure 3 shows the location of map comments on the recommended bicycle facility type map classified as support (40%), oppose (24%), neutral (26%) and other (10%) comments suggesting new projects and further considerations. The major projects highlighted in other comments include:
• Connections to nearby jurisdictions – East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Mountain View • Bike routes through Old Page Mill and the I-280 interchange to Arastradero Preserve. • Using lightly used fire roads in Arastradero Preserve for recreational/off-road biking. • Improving wayfinding and signage
• Adding/fixing bike signal activation sensors (multiple locations) Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 46 Packet Pg. 130 of 363
_`101
¦§¨280
∙þ82
Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Bryant St
Hamilton Ave
University Ave
Lytton Ave
Addison Ave
Newell Rd
Channing Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Cowper St
Embarcadero Rd
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
California Ave
California Ave
Page Mill Rd
Colorado Ave
Loma Verde Ave
Meadow Dr
Melville Ave
Seale Ave
El Dorado Ave
Charleston Rd
Fabian Wy
San Antonio Rd
Bayshore Rd
Greer Rd
El Camino Real
Los Robles Ave
Wilkie Wy
Arastradero Rd
Foothill Expy
Hanover St
Hillview Ave
Junipero Serra Blvd
Stanford Ave
Ross Rd
Matadero Ave
Maybell Ave
Homer Ave
Colorado Ave
El Camino Real
Miller Ave
EAST

PALO ALTO MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

LOS ALTOS
HILLS
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Matadero Creek
Barron Creek
Adobe Creek
_`101
¦§¨280
∙þ82
EAST

PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK

STANFORD

UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW

PALO ALTO

PORTOLA
VALLEY
F
New Project
Support
Neutral
Oppose
Proposed Existing
Class I - Shared Use Path; Trail
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIa - Bike Route
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Separated Bikeway
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC
0 1 2
Miles
Interactive Map Comments
05/13/2025
Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 47 Packet Pg. 131 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 17
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Online Feedback Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 4 illustrates the key themes used to classify the community comments. Since some comments addressed multiple themes, the total number exceeds 403. The most common themes were suggestions for improvements, safety concerns, and support for proposed facilities.

Figure 4: Number of Comments by Key Themes
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2025
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Maintenance concern
Identification of network gap
Politics/economics concern
General opposition to bike/ped improvements
Traffic concern
Parking concern
Comment on bike network
Need for wayfinding and signage
General support for bike/ped improvements
Safety concern
Suggested improvement
Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 48 Packet Pg. 132 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 18
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Online Feedback Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Online Comment Box
The project website included an online
comment box during this phase to allow for
easy communication to the City about this
project. The project team received over 100
individual comments.

Feedback Received
In summary, the comments express strong
support for a more bike- and pedestrian-friendly Palo Alto but highlighted significant concerns about the safety and practicality of certain proposed measures, particularly those involving busy arterial roads and parking removal. There's a clear call for prioritizing separated infrastructure, addressing dangerous intersections, improving traffic enforcement, and ensuring a comprehensive, well-funded, and community-driven approach to planning and implementation. While comments express general support for protected bike lanes in various locations across the city (like East Meadow and for accessing businesses), the overwhelming sentiment regarding Middlefield Road is one of strong opposition rooted in concern for the loss of parking, resident impact and suitability of Middlefield Road as a bike route. The following key themes emerged from the comments received through the online comment form:
• 1. Negative Impacts on Parking and Accessibility:
o Loss of Parking: Residents emphasize the necessity of on-street parking for homeowners (especially those with multiple vehicles and small driveways), renters, ADU residents, and visitors. They highlight that removing parking will severely inconvenience their daily lives and social interactions. o Overflow into Neighborhoods: Commenters predict that the elimination of parking on Middlefield will displace vehicles to adjacent residential streets, leading to increased congestion, parking issues, and decreased quality of life in those areas.
o Reduced Accessibility and Equity: Concerns raised about the impact on individuals with mobility challenges, families with young children, and those with time constraints who rely on convenient parking near their homes, schools, and community centers.

Figure: Online Comment Box
Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 49 Packet Pg. 133 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 19
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs Online Feedback Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
o Impact on Services and Deliveries: Residents worry about how service providers (repair workers, gardeners, delivery trucks), elderly visitors, and ride-sharing services will access their homes without available street parking. • 2. Safety Concerns Regarding Bike Lanes on Middlefield Road:
o Increased Danger for Cyclists: Many argue that Middlefield Road, as a busy and fast-moving arterial road, is inherently unsafe for bike lanes, regardless of protection, citing the speed of traffic, driveway conflicts, and narrow lanes as significant hazards.
o Misleading Safety for Children: Some believe that adding bike lanes on Middlefield Road will create a false sense of security for children biking to school, potentially putting them in more dangerous situations. o Preference for Alternative Bike Routes: Commenters repeatedly suggest that less-trafficked, parallel streets (like Bryant St. and Park Blvd.) are more suitable and safer alternatives for bike routes.
o Preference for Alternative Solutions: Several residents suggest alternative solutions, such as enforcing existing speed limits, reducing speed limits, installing speed cameras, improving existing bike boulevards, and exploring bike/pedestrian pathways through areas like Cubberley Community Center. • 3. Negative Impacts on Emergency Access and Civic Engagement:
o Hindered Emergency Vehicle Access: Concerns are raised that removing parking could impede access for emergency vehicles, especially during peak school hours or events.
o Discouraged Civic Participation: Residents worry that making parking more difficult will deter participation in school and community events held at locations like Greene Middle School and the Community Center.
• 4. The Planning Process:
o Lack of Community Consideration: Some feel that the planning process has not adequately considered the needs and concerns of residents living along Middlefield Road.
o Call for Impact Assessments: Residents urge the city to conduct thorough parking assessments and impact reports to understand the full consequences of removing parking.
o Ignoring Past Opposition: Some commenters point out that similar proposals have been rejected in the past due to resident opposition and that conditions have worsened since then.
• 5. Other Concerns:

Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 50 Packet Pg. 134 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 20
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs In Person Outreach Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
o Negative Aesthetic Impacts and Property Values: Residents express concern that protected bike lanes and associated infrastructure will be visually unappealing and could negatively affect property values. o Traffic Congestion: Some believe that lane reductions for bike lanes will exacerbate existing traffic bottlenecks on Middlefield Road, especially since many residents note Middlefield Road serves as a cut-thru when Highway 101 is exceptionally congested.

IN PERSON OUTREACH
Overview
The project team sought to meet community members where they were at with attendance at existing community events.

Tabling at Community Events
Between February and April 2025, Project team members tabled several local community events including at the California Avenue Sunday farmer’s market, Third Thursday Music Event on Cal Ave., the City’s Around the World Event at Lucie Stern Community Center, and the City’s Earth Day Event at Rinconada Library.

Figure 5: Photos from the Tabling at Community Events
California Avenue Farmers Market
– March 02, 2025
Third Thursday – February 20, 2025 California Avenue Farmers Market – February 23, 2025
Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 51 Packet Pg. 135 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 21
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs In Person Outreach Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Materials
Staff displayed maps and informative boards about the project, sharing the recommended bike facility network and welcoming comments from people who stopped by to chat.

Discussion Notes Summary
The following key themes emerged
• Traffic Danger: People talked about feeling unsafe sharing the road with cars, especially with speeding or distracted drivers. They mentioned close calls or specific dangerous intersections.
• Lack of Protected Infrastructure: Residents often lament the absence of dedicated bike lanes, protected bike lanes and intersections, and wide sidewalks. • Pedestrian Safety: Concerns about crosswalk visibility, signal timing that doesn't allow enough time to cross, and drivers not yielding to pedestrians were common. • Nighttime Safety: Comments about pedestrians and cyclists often feeling vulnerable at night due to poor lighting on sidewalks and bike paths, and the difficulty drivers have seeing them were common.
• Theft and Vandalism: Bike theft is a significant deterrent for many. People worry about leaving their bikes locked up, especially in high-traffic areas or overnight. • Infrastructure and Maintenance Issues:
o Conditions: Debris-filled bike lanes make walking and biking uncomfortable and even dangerous.
o Lack of Connectivity: Residents pointed out gaps in the sidewalk or bike network that make it difficult to reach destinations safely and conveniently. People from out of town expressed frustration by a lack of clear wayfinding for people biking around and through the city.
o Insufficient Bike Parking: A lack of secure and convenient bike parking at key destinations (shops, parks, transit hubs) discourages cycling. o Accessibility Concerns: People with mobility challenges raised concerns about the usability of shared-use paths.
• Convenience and Practicality:
o Distance and Time: Some residents feel that destinations are simply too far to comfortably walk or bike, especially for errands or commuting. o Carrying Goods: People wondered how they would transport groceries, children, or other items without a car.
• Education and Awareness:

Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 52 Packet Pg. 136 of 363
May 20, 2025 Page 22
BPTP Update – Community Engagement Summary – Phase 3 Recommended Projects and Programs In Person Outreach Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
o Pedestrian and Cyclist Behavior: Some residents expressed frustration with cyclists not following traffic laws, particularly along shared used paths and the Cal Ave. Bike/ped tunnel.
o Need for Education and Encouragement Programs: People suggested the need for more public education campaigns to promote safe walking and biking habits for all road users.

Item 3
Attachment E - Summary
of Phase 3 community
engagement (Draft)
Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 53 Packet Pg. 137 of 363
City Council
Staff Report
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: June 2, 2025
Report #:2505-4711
TITLE
Approval of Minutes from May 19, 2025 Meeting

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review and approve the minutes.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: May 19, 2025 Draft Action Minutes
APPROVED BY:

Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 138 of 363

CITY COUNCIL

DRAFT ACTION MINUTES

Page 1 of 5 ends

Special Meeting
May 19, 2025
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 4:30 P.M.

Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone Present Remotely: Veenker

Absent:

Special Orders of the Day

1. Proclamation Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Palo Alto Fire Department Paramedic Program and EMS Week May 18-24

NO ACTION

2. Proclamation Recognizing May 2025 as Foster Care & Resource Parent Awareness Month

NO ACTION
Study Session

3. 788-796 San Antonio Road [25PLN-00062]. Request for Council Prescreening to Rezone the Subject Property from Commercial Services to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning and to Allow Construction of 168 Rental Units in an Eight-Story Structure on a 43,414-Square-Foot (One-Acre) Site. CEQA Status: Not a Project.

NO ACTION

4. 800/808-814 San Antonio Road [25PLN‐00066]: Request for Council Prescreening to Amend an Existing Planned Community Ordinance (Ordinance 5622) to Allow the Construction of 120 Residential Units and 1,078 Square Feet Commercial Space in a FiveStory Structure on a 38,194-Square-Foot (0.87-Acre) Site. CEQA Status: Not a Project.

NO ACTION
Item 4
Attachment A - May 19,
2025 Draft Action
Minutes
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 139 of 363

DRAFT ACTION MINUTES

Page 2 of 5 ends

Sp. City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 05/19/2025
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Public Comment
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Closed Session

5. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his Designees Pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (Ed Shikada, Kiely Nose, Sandra Blanch, Nick Raisch, Tori Post, Molly Stump, Lauren Lai, Paul Harper, and Jennifer Fine) Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union, (SEIU) Local 521 Hourly Unit, Utilities Management and Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA), Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association (PAPOA), Palo Alto Police Management Association (PMA), International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) local 1319, Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA); Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6 (a)
AA1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—POTENTIAL LITIGATION (two cases) Subject: Initiation of litigation in two cases, American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump, US District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 25-CV-03698 and City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, US District Court for the Northern District of California,
Case No. 25-CV-01350 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) MOTION: Councilmember Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu to go into Closed Session.

MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Council went into Closed Session at 7:01 P.M.

Council returned from Closed Session at 9:25 P.M.

Mayor Lauing announced no reportable action.

Item 4
Attachment A - May 19,
2025 Draft Action
Minutes
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 140 of 363

DRAFT ACTION MINUTES

Page 3 of 5 ends

Sp. City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 05/19/2025
Consent Calendar
MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to approve Agenda Item Numbers 6, 8-10, AA2.

MOTION PASSED: 7-0

6. Approval of Minutes from May 5, 2025 Meeting

7. Climate Action and Sustainability Committee Recommendation to Council to Direct Staff to Develop an Affordable Multi-Family Housing Electrification Grant Program and to Approve a Budget Amendment in the Gas Utility Funds; CEQA Status: Under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, projects consistent with an existing general or comprehensive plan do not require additional CEQA review Item Removed Off Agenda

8. Approval of Blanket Purchase Order with Olin Finance Company LLC for the Purchase of Bulk Sodium Hypochlorite for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant for a Two-Year Term with an annual amount of $400,000, for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $800,000; CEQA Status – Not a Project

9. Approval of a Lease Agreement with Embarcadero Way Property Owner, LP, c/o BioScience Properties, Inc. for Laboratory and Office Space at 2470 Embarcadero Way for a Period of 20 Years, at an Initial Annual Lease Amount of $1.11 Million Per Year plus Common Area Expenses, and $4.5 million in Tenant Improvements; CEQA Status – Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301
AA2. Approval of the Appointment of Alan Kurotori as Utilities Director

10. Approval of Construction Contract No. C25193197 with Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. in the Amount Not-to Exceed $47,282,100 for the Local Advanced Water Purification System project (WQ-19003); Authorization of Contract Contingency in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $4,728,210; and Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the First Amended and Restated Contract No. C059999 Between the City of Palo Alto and the City of Mountain View; CEQA Status - Addendum to the 2015 Environmental Impact Report for the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project (SCH 2011062037) Item Reordered to be Heard Under Consent Calendar, Supplemental Report added
City Manager Comments
Ed Shikada, City Manager
Item 4
Attachment A - May 19,
2025 Draft Action
Minutes
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 141 of 363

DRAFT ACTION MINUTES

Page 4 of 5 ends

Sp. City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 05/19/2025
Action Items

11. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communications Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning) to Modify the Permit Process and Required Findings for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Wireless Communications Facilities to Require Architectural Review Board review and Repealing the Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights of Way.

MOTION: Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Stone to adopt a Temporary Ordinance amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communications Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning) with the following adjustments:

1. Direct Architectural Review Board (ARB) to:
a. Promptly review the standards for approval of cell tower applications, amend them as needed, and return them to council for approval. b. Define a process of how and when ARB should review submitted applications.

2. During the effective period of this temporary ordinance, the ARB shall have the opportunity to review all applications after an initial decision by the Planning Director who will submit such applications with his decision on the ARB Consent Calendar. a. The ARB can vote to pull items from the Consent Calendar for discussion and possible action. Those applications not pulled for debate shall be deemed complete. Those pulled and then approved by ARB will also be deemed complete. Those pulled from Consent which result in a recommendation that differs from the Planning Director’s initial decision will be forwarded for final action to City Council with a report of what is recommended for compliance/approval.

3. Refer ARB recommendations to Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) in whole or in part as, and if, needed.

4. Direct staff to engage a qualified outside consultant to investigate the technical feasibility of tower setbacks of one hundred (100) feet from any structure approved for residential use and 1500 feet from daycares and schools. In those cases that are not technically infeasible at one hundred (100) feet or more, the consultant should provide the maximum distances from a residential structure that would still provide adequate coverage.

AMENDMENTS MADE TO THE FINAL MOTION BY THE MAKER AND THE SECONDER FINAL MOTION: Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Stone to adopt a Temporary Ordinance amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communications Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning) with the following adjustments:

1. Direct Architectural Review Board (ARB) to:

Item 4
Attachment A - May 19,
2025 Draft Action
Minutes
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 142 of 363

DRAFT ACTION MINUTES

Page 5 of 5 ends

Sp. City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 05/19/2025
a. Promptly review the standards for approval of cell tower applications, amend them as needed, and return them to Council for approval. b. Define a process of how and when ARB should review submitted applications.

2. Refer ARB recommendations to Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) in whole or in part as, and if, needed.

3. Direct staff to engage a qualified outside consultant to investigate the technical feasibility of tower setbacks of one hundred (100) feet from any structure approved for residential use and 1500 feet from daycares and schools. In those cases that are not technically infeasible at one hundred (100) feet or more, the consultant should provide the maximum distances from a residential structure that would still provide adequate coverage to the extent permissible by law.

MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 P.M.

ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________ ____________________
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Action minutes are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)

2.04.160(a) and (b). Summary minutes (sense) are prepared in accordance with PAMC Section

2.04.160(c). Beginning in January 2018, in accordance with Ordinance No. 5423, the City Council found action minutes and the video/audio recordings of Council proceedings to be the official records of both Council and committee proceedings. These recordings are available on the City’s website.

Item 4
Attachment A - May 19,
2025 Draft Action
Minutes
Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 143 of 363
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Meeting Date: June 2, 2025
Report #:2503-4438
TITLE
Approval of and Authorization of City Manager or their Designee to Execute an Exchange Agreement with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for Replacement of Overhead Utility Facilities with Underground Facilities and Exchange and Transfer Real Property Interests within Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 351-25-014, 351-06-025, 351-09-002, and 351-12-069; CEQA Status – Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15302

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:

1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute the Exchange Agreement and License Agreement;

2. Approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute the Underground Utility Easement and Quitclaim Deed following the completion of the undergrounding project; and

3. Authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute necessary amendments, notices, approvals, or documents relating to the above agreements.

BACKGROUND
Devastating California wildfires have prompted electric utilities throughout the state to identify areas within their jurisdiction that are susceptible to power-line ignited wildfires and to take steps to prevent their occurrence. Utilities Department Project # EL-210011 proposes to rebuild the approximately 11 miles of overhead line to mitigate the possibility of a wildfire due to overhead electric lines. This includes converting the overhead lines to underground along Montebello Road within property owned by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 1 City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2026 Proposed Capital Budget, Pages 424 – 426, https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/administrative-services/city-budgets/fy-2026-citybudget/proposed/fy-2026-proposed-capital-budget-book.pdf Item 5
Item 5 Staff Report
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 144 of 363
Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (Attachment A – Exhibit A).

ANALYSIS
The City holds right-of-way and utility easements for electric distribution lines across Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (Attachment A – Exhibit B). To permit undergrounding of the utilities, the City and District desire to enter into an Exchange Agreement (Attachment A) to exchange and transfer interest in the existing utility easements to a new Underground Utility Easement. The included license agreement (Attachment A – Exhibit F) will allow the city to continue undergrounding powerlines for the Foothills Fire Mitigation project in accordance with the City Alignment Plans (Attachment A – Exhibit C). The term of the license is up to December 31, 2025, but can be extended if the project is not yet complete. Following the District’s acceptance of the completed undergrounding project, the parties will execute an underground utility easement granted from the District to the City (Attachment A – Exhibit D) and the City will quitclaim its interest in the existing overhead utility easements (Attachment A – Exhibit E).

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no fiscal/resource impact to enter into these agreements. The City will pay the cost of preparing the legal description and plat map for the agreement from the current year Electric Fund. The wildfire mitigation project is funded under both the existing FY2025 CIP budget as well as proposed CIP funding for FY2026. The combined project budget, spanning FY2024 through FY2026 is expected to reach $15.1 million.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
This item has been coordinated internally with the Utilities Department, City Attorney’s Office, and Administrative Services Department, and externally with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District staff. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors unanimously approved of these agreements on May 14, 2025.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A CEQA Notice of Exemption was filed with the Santa Clara County Recorder on November 26, 2024 (Attachment B – CEQA Notice). Council action on this item is not a project as defined by CEQA because the undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines is a replacement of an existing structure located on the same site with the same purpose. CEQA Guidelines section 15302.

Item 5
Item 5 Staff Report
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 145 of 363

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Exchange Agreement Between City of Palo Alto and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Attachment B: CEQA Notice
APPROVED BY:

Lauren Lai, Administrative Services Director
Item 5
Item 5 Staff Report
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 146 of 363

EXCHANGE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE

DISTRICT
This exchange agreement (hereinafter, "Agreement") is made as of (“Effective Date”) by and between the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a California special district (hereinafter "District"), and City of Palo Alto, a California chartered municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”), each of whom may be referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the District is the owner of certain real property situated in the unincorporated County of Santa Clara, State of California, within Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 351-25-014, 351-06-025, 351-09- 002 and 351-12-069, as depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “District Property”); and
WHEREAS, the City holds right-of-way and utility easements for electric distribution lines across the District Property, as assigned by Pacific Gas and Electric Company from Louis Oneal, Inc. (“Easement 1”), Bertha Hayes (“Easement 2”), and George Morell (“Easement 3”), which are attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference (collectively, the “Existing Utility Easements”); and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that its utility service territory west of Interstate 280, including the District Property, has an elevated risk of wildfire and therefore seeks to perform a project to convert its overhead utility facilities to underground utility facilities along Montebello Road within the District Property (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a plan depicting: (1) the new underground electric distribution and fiber optic communications lines, fixtures and other appurtenances under, across and along Montebello Road as it crosses District Property, and (2) the existing overhead electric utility facilities, lines, poles, fixtures and other appurtenances on the District Property, which plan is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference (“Alignment Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the District and City desire to exchange and transfer certain real property interests as set forth in this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, District has determined that said exchange of interests in real property is of equal or greater value to the public and, said exchange has been determined to be in accordance with the District’s enabling legislation set out at Section 5540.5 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties mutually agree as follows:

1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS.

Page 1 of 7 ends

Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange
Agreement Between City
of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 147 of 363
The above Recitals and the exhibits attached to this Agreement are hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof.

2. EXCHANGE AGREEMENT.

The District and City agree to the following exchange of real property interests, to be effective as of the Closing (defined below):
a. Grant of Underground Utility Easements from District to City: District hereby agrees to grant an easement and right of way for the City to construct, maintain, repair, replace and upgrade underground utility facilities and appurtenances thereto under, across and along Montebello Road as it crosses the District Property, in the form of easement agreement set forth in Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“Underground Utility Easement”).
b. Abandonment of Existing Utility Easements: City hereby agrees to quitclaim to District all right, title and interest in the Existing Utility Easements and any other rights to overhead utility facilities on District Property, including any rights of way in connection therewith, in the form of quitclaim deed set forth in Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“Quitclaim Deed”).

3. 4.

LICENSE AGREEMENT.

To allow the City to commence its undergrounding project prior to Closing, the District and City shall execute a license agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit F and incorporated herein by reference (“License Agreement”). The District’s acceptance of the Project in accordance with the License Agreement is a condition precedent to Closing.

TERM and CLOSING.

This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall terminate on the date of the Closing. The closing date (“Closing”) shall be the recordation date of the Underground Utility Easement and Quitclaim Deed in Santa Clara County. Following City’s preparation of a legal description and plat map of the Underground Utility Easement by a licensed surveyor, City shall promptly deliver executed copies of the Underground Utility Easement and Quitclaim Deed to District for recording. Within ten (10) business days of the Effective Date, City shall deliver an executed copy of the License Agreement to District. Closing shall occur after the satisfaction of all the following conditions:
a. City shall have completed the installation and commissioning of the underground utility facilities;
b. City shall have decommissioned, removed and disposed of existing overhead utility facilities, lines, poles and related fixtures on the District Property as specified in the License Agreement;
c. City shall have repaired and restored any portion of the District Property damaged or disturbed in carrying out the Project as specified in the License Agreement;

Page 2 of 7 ends

Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange
Agreement Between City
of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 148 of 363
d. District shall have provided written acceptance of the Project, which shall not be unreasonably withheld; and
e. Following District’s acceptance of the Project, City shall have prepared a legal description and plat map of the Underground Utility Easement by a licensed surveyor and provided it to the District for its approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Following District’s approval of the legal description and plat map, City shall deliver the plat map and legal description to District to include as part of the recorded Underground Utility Easement.

Within ten (10) business days following completion of the Project and the Parties’ mutual agreement that the above conditions to Closing have been satisfied, the District shall execute and concurrently record the Underground Utility Easement and Quitclaim Deed in Santa Clara County.

5. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES.

For the purpose of consummating this exchange of interests in real property contemplated herein, each party represents and warrants to the other party, each of which is material, are being relied upon by the Parties, and shall survive the recording of the property rights being exchanged and conveyed herein.
a. Authority. The Parties have the full right, power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform the transactions contemplated hereunder. b. Valid and Binding Agreements. This Agreement and all other documents delivered by the Parties have been or will be duly authorized and executed and delivered by the Parties as legal, valid and binding obligations of the Parties to complete this exchange and conveyance of real property.

6. PAYMENT OF COSTS AND FEES. District shall pay any required recording costs and fees for the Underground Utility Easement and Quitclaim Deed. City shall pay the costs of preparing the legal description and plat map. Each Party shall be responsible for any other costs it incurs in performing this Agreement, unless specified herein to the contrary or otherwise agreed by the Parties in writing.

7. 8.
"AS-IS” CONVEYANCE. All Parties are acquiring the respective real property interests on an “As-Is” basis, without warranties, express or implied, regarding the physical condition of the properties to be exchanged. All Parties shall rely on their own inspections of the respective property interests.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
a. Choice of Law. The laws of the State of California, regardless of any choice of law principles, shall govern the validity of this Agreement, the construction of its terms and the interpretation of the rights and duties of the Parties.

Page 3 of 7 ends

Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange
Agreement Between City
of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 149 of 363
b. Amendment. The Parties hereto may by mutual written agreement amend this Agreement in any respect.
c. Rights Cumulative. Each and all of the various rights, powers and remedies of the Parties shall be considered to be cumulative with and in addition to any other rights, powers and remedies which the Parties may have at law or in equity in the event of the breach of any of the terms of this Agreement. The exercise or partial exercise of any right, power or remedy shall neither constitute the exclusive election thereof nor the waiver of any other right, power or remedy available to such Party. d. Notice. Whenever any Party hereto desires or is required to give any notice, demand, or request with respect to this Agreement, each such communication shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been validly served, given or delivered at the time stated below if deposited in the United States mail, registered or certified and return receipt requested, with proper postage prepaid, or if delivered by Federal Express or other private messenger, courier or other delivery service and addressed as indicated as follows:

City: City of Palo Alto
Attn: Utilities Department, Electric Engineering
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
TEL: (650) 329-2161
With a copy to:

City of Palo Alto
Attn: Real Property Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
District: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Attn: Real Property Manager
5050 El Camino Real
Los Altos, CA 94022-1404
TEL: (650) 691-1200
Service of any such communication made only by mail shall be deemed complete on the date of actual delivery as indicated by the addressee’s registry or certification receipt or at the expiration of the third (3rd) business day after the date of mailing, whichever is earlier in time. Either Party hereto may from time to time, by notice in writing served upon the other as aforesaid, designate a different mailing address or a different person to whom such notices or demands are thereafter to be addressed or delivered. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall excuse either Party from giving oral notice to the other when prompt notification is appropriate, but any oral notice given shall not satisfy the requirements provided in this Section.

Page 4 of 7 ends

Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange
Agreement Between City
of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 150 of 363
e. Severability. If any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be void or unenforceable by or as a result of a determination of any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of which is binding upon the parties, the Parties agree that such determination shall not result in the nullity or unenforceability of the remaining portions of this Agreement. The Parties further agree to replace such void or unenforceable provisions, which will achieve, to the extent possible, the economic, business, and other purposes of the void or unenforceable provisions. f. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in separate counterparts, each of which shall be deemed as an original, and when executed, separately or together, shall constitute a single original instrument, effective in the same manner as if the parties had executed one and the same instrument. In the event of any disparity between the counterparts produced, the recorded counterpart shall be controlling. g. Waiver. No waiver of any term, provision or condition of this Agreement, whether by conduct or otherwise, in any one or more instances, shall be deemed to be, or be construed as, a further or continuing waiver of any such term, provision or condition or as a waiver of any other term, provision or condition of this Agreement. h. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including its recitals and exhibits, is intended by the Parties to be the final expression of their agreement; it embodies the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties hereto; it constitutes a complete and exclusive statement of the terms and conditions thereof, and it supersedes any and all prior correspondence, conversations, negotiations, agreements or understandings relating to the same subject matter.
i. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of each provision of this Agreement in which time is an element.
j. Survival. All covenants of District or City which are expressly intended hereunder to be performed in whole or in part after the Closing, and all representations and warranties by either Party to the other, shall survive the Closing and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective Parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and permitted assigns.
k. Terms Run with the Land. The terms, covenants and conditions set out in this Agreement shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the Parties hereto pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1468.
l. Assignment. Except as expressly permitted herein, neither Party to this Agreement shall assign its rights or obligations under this Agreement to any third party without the prior written approval of the other Party.
m. Further Documents and Acts. Each of the Parties hereto agrees to execute and deliver such further documents and perform such other acts as may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to consummate and carry into effect the transactions described and contemplated under this Agreement.

Page 5 of 7 ends

Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange
Agreement Between City
of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 151 of 363
n. Captions. Captions are provided herein for convenience only and they form no part of this Agreement and are not to serve as a basis for interpretation or construction of this Agreement, nor as evidence of the intention of the Parties hereto. o. Pronouns and Gender. In this Agreement, if it be appropriate, the use of the singular shall include the plural, and the plural shall include the singular, and the use of any gender shall include all other genders as appropriate.

Space intentionally left blank

Page 6 of 7 ends

Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange
Agreement Between City
of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 152 of 363
Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange
Agreement Between City
of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 153 of 363
TH !
H
O
O
RN
D
E WO
!
OD 280 ÄÆ !
WI N D Y H I LL ! Lo!s Al tos
LA N A

C R E E K

F OOTH I L
R
L
A
S
N C H O SA!N
ÄÆ
!

C OAL C R E E K

H I D D E N VI L L A
84 AN TON I O
Easement 1

L OS TRAN C OS
MON TE

R U S S I AN R I D GE
Area
B E
o
LL
f
O
detai l

L ON G R I D GE
351 2501 4 ! SARATOG A
GAP
ÄÆ9 ÄÆ
35 Easement 2

R A N C H O S A N

A N T O N I O O P E N

S P A C E P R E S E R V E
351 06025
351 09002

M O N T E B E L L O

O P E N S P A C E

P R E S E R V E
B l ack
Mountain
2 , 8 1 2 '
!
#
NOTE : Th e ea
l
sements shown are graphical
visual i zati ons onl y; i t is not an assessed interest. 351 1 2069 For surveyed ocati on of easements, reference Easement 3
Cross Lan ds Surveyin g Inc. Proj ect NO. 22- 1 46
dated 3/1 5/2024.

Exhibit A - Project Area Map Mi d p eninsul a R eg i on a l Prop osed un d erg roun d uti l i ty ea sem ent
( MROSD to g ra nt to Op en Sp a ce Di strict
u
Ci ty of P a l o
e
Al to)
Mi d p en p reser ves Tra i l
(Midpen)
E xi stin g overh ea d ti l i ty ea sem nt Oth er p rotected l a n d s U n p a ved a l l -sea son r o
oa
d
d I 4/3 /2 02 5
( Ci
i
ty of P a l o Al to to
e
va ca te)
Pri va te p rop erty U
P
n
a
p
v
a ved sea son a l r a
E x stin g overh ea d l ectrica l l in e Mi l es
County p a rcel ed roa d 0 0. 1 25 0. 25
Whi l e th e Di strict stri ves to use th e b est a va i l a b l e d i g i ta l d a ta , th ese d a ta do n ot rep resent a l eg a l sur vey a n d a re m erel y a g ra p hic i l lustra ti on of g eog ra p hic fea tures.

Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange Agreement
Between City of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 154 of 363
Exhibit B - Existing Utility Easements
Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange
Agreement Between City
of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 155 of 363
Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange
Agreement Between City
of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 156 of 363
Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange
Agreement Between City
of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 157 of 363
Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange
Agreement Between City
of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 158 of 363
Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange
Agreement Between City
of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 159 of 363
Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange
Agreement Between City
of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 160 of 363
Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange
Agreement Between City
of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 161 of 363
Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange
Agreement Between City
of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 162 of 363
DocuSign Envelope ID: 822AE64D-A845- 49B3-A4F1-2BB7D6CEC90C Exhibit C - City Alignment Plans LOCATION 17 - LB30070 CPAU CONDUIT

INSTA INSTALLATION
1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 PRIMARY VAULT UNDER 4' LL
BETWEEN LOCATION 16 & 17 X 6' LOAD BREAK PAD 30070 ~550' - 2-3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW PB 40416 TO NEW LB 30070
~550' - 1- 3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW

FIBER BOX TO NEW FIBER BOX
1 - 4' X 6' LOAD BREAK PAD 30070
1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR SIMILAR INNER SIZE

FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP
16 LOCATION 18 - PB40406

INSTALL
1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 PRIMARY VAULT #40406

WITH FULL TRAFFIC COVER
1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR SIMILAR INNER SIZE

FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP
BETWEEN LOCATION 17 & 18
~275' - 1-3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW
~275' - 1- 3.63" FIBER LB30070 TO NEW PB 40406

CONDUIT FROM NEW

FIBER BOX TO NEW FIBER BOX
Publ icUtility Easem ent 20' Wide
BETWEEN LOCATION 18 & 19
~10' - 1-3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW
PB 40406 TO NEW XFMR PAD
LOCATION 19 - XFMR PAD
1 - 54" X 60" INSTALL XFMR PAD BETWEEN LOCATION 19 & 19A ~60' - 1-3.63" SECONDARY CONDUIT FROM

NEW XFMR PAD TO EXISTING JUNCTION
BOX
LOCATION 20 - PB40409

INSTALL
1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 PRIMARY VAULT #40409

WITH FULL TRAFFIC COVER
1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR SIMILAR INNER SIZE

FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP
BETWEEN LOCATION 17 & 20
~700' - 2-3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW
~700' - 1- 3.63" FIBER LB 30070 TO NEW PB 40409

CONDUIT FROM NEW

FIBER BOX TO NEW FIBER BOX
17 18 20
19 NO WORK TO BE DONE PAST LOCATION 19 UNTIL

APPROVAL FROM CPAU ENGINEERING FOR
EASEMENT RELOCATION. DRAWINGS INCLUDED

FOR REFERENCE ONLY

LEGE ND-RED- NEW, INSTALL ELECTRICAL

DAT EAPPR
.

DESCRIPT FOOTHILL FIRE
ION

MITIGATION PROJECT
PHASE 4
-MAGENTA- NEW, INSTALL FIBER
-GREEN - REMOVE
APPROV
ED P.VALA

TH MP NEXTLEVEL SUBSTRUCTURE
SR. ENGINEER /
-BLACK- MANAGER EXISTING
ENGR. BPr.aVnAdoLnATGHrosman
City of Palo Alto
M-A-P--# CKT # SCALE W.O.# / DRAWING #
4002759
8 OF 10
HV- 20
DRWN BV r. aR nI dO oS n GrosmanCHKD. P.VALATH
Califo
rnia

NTS SHEE
T UTILITIES, ELECTRIC 5

ENGINEERING
Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange Agreement
Between City of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 163 of 363
DocuSign Envelope ID: 822AE64D-A845- 49B3-A4F1-2BB7D6CEC90C LOCATION 20 - PB40409 CPAU CONDUIT
INSTA INSTALLATION LL 20 1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 PRIMARY VAULT #40409 BETWEEN WITH FULL TRAFFIC COVER LOCATION 20 & 21 1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR SIMILAR INNER SIZE

FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP
~600' - 1-3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW
PB 40409 TO NEW PB 40405
~600' - 1- 3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW

FIBER BOX TO NEW FIBER BOX
LOCATION 21 - PB40405

INSTALL

BETWEEN
1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 LOCATION 21 & 22
PRIMARY VAULT #40405

WITH FULL TRAFFIC COVER
~600' - 1-3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW
1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR PB 40405 TO NEW PB 40404

SIMILAR INNER SIZE

FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP
~600' - 1- 3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW
FIBER BOX TO NEW FIBER BOX LOCATION 22 - PB40404

INSTALL
1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 PRIMARY VAULT #40404

WITH FULL TRAFFIC COVER
1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR SIMILAR INNER SIZE

FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP
BETWEEN LOCATION 22 & 23
~600' - 1-3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW
PB 40404 TO NEW PB 40403
~600' - 1- 3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW

FIBER BOX TO NEW FIBER BOX
21 LOCATION 23 - PB40403

INSTALL
1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 PRIMARY VAULT #40403

WITH FULL TRAFFIC COVER
1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR SIMILAR INNER SIZE

FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP
22 NO WORK TO BE DONE PAST LOCATION 19 UNTIL

APPROVAL FROM CPAU ENGINEERING FOR
EASEMENT RELOCATION. DRAWINGS INCLUDED

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
23 LEGE ND-RED- NEW, INSTALL ELECTRICAL

DAT EAPPR
.

DESCRIPT FOOTHILL FIRE
ION

MITIGATION PROJECT
PHASE 4
-MAGENTA- NEW, INSTALL FIBER
-GREEN - REMOVE
APPROV
ED P.VALA

TH MP NEXTLEVEL SUBSTRUCTURE
SR. ENGINEER /
-BLACK- MANAGER EXISTING ENGR. P.VALATH Brandon
Grossman City of Palo Alto
M-A-P--# CKT # SCALE W.O.# / DRAWING #
4002759
8 OF 10
HV- DRWN V.RIOS 20 Brandon
Grossman Califo
rnia
NTS
CHKD. P.VALATH
SHEE

T UTILITIES, ELECTRIC ENGINEERING
6 Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange Agreement
Between City of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 164 of 363
DocuSign Envelope ID: 822AE64D-A845- 49B3-A4F1-2BB7D6CEC90C LOCATION 24 - PB40402 CPAU CONDUIT

INSTA INSTALLATION
1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 LL
PRIMARY VAULT #40402 BETWEEN
WITH FULL TRAFFIC COVER LOCATION 24 & 25
1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR SIMILAR INNER SIZE

FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP
~600' - 1-3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW
PB 40402 TO NEW PB 40401
~600' - 1-3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW

FIBER BOX TO NEW FIBER BOX
LOCATION 25 - PB40401

INSTALL
1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 PRIMARY VAULT #40401

WITH FULL TRAFFIC COVER
BETWEEN LOCATION 25 & 26
~600' - 1-3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW
~600' - 1-3.63" FIBER PB 40401 TO NEW PB 40400

CONDUIT FROM NEW

FIBER BOX TO NEW FIBER BOX
1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR SIMILAR INNER SIZE
FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP BETWEEN LOCATION 26 & 27 ~600' - 1-3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW
PB 40400 TO NEW PB 40399
~600' - 1-3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW

FIBER BOX TO NEW FIBER BOX
LOCATION 26 - PB40400

INSTALL
1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 PRIMARY VAULT #40400

WITH FULL TRAFFIC COVER
1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR SIMILAR INNER SIZE

FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP
23 24
25 NO WORK TO BE DONE PAST LOCATION 19 UNTIL

APPROVAL FROM CPAU ENGINEERING FOR
EASEMENT RELOCATION. DRAWINGS INCLUDED

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
26 27

LEGE ND-RED- NEW, INSTALL ELECTRICAL
-MAGENTA- NEW, INSTALL FIBER
-GREEN - REMOVE

DAT EAPPR
.

DESCRIPT FOOTHILL FIRE
ION

MITIGATION PROJECT
PHASE 4
APPROV
ED P.VALA

T UTILITIES, ELECTRIC ENGINEERING
7 Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange Agreement
Between City of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 165 of 363
DocuSign Envelope ID: 822AE64D-A845- 49B3-A4F1-2BB7D6CEC90C LOCATION 27 - PB40399 CPAU CONDUIT

INSTA INSTALLATION
1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 LL
PRIMARY VAULT #40399 BETWEEN
WITH FULL TRAFFIC COVER LOCATION 26 & 27
1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR SIMILAR INNER SIZE

FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP
~600' - 1 -3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM
NEW PB 40400 TO NEW PB 40399
~600' - 1-3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW

FIBER BOX TO NEW FIBER BOX
P
33 NO WORK TO BE DONE PAST LOCATION 19 UNTIL

APPROVAL FROM CPAU ENGINEERING FOR
EASEMENT RELOCATION. DRAWINGS INCLUDED

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
LOCATION 28 - LB30060

INSTALL
1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 PRIMARY VAULT UNDER 3'
X 5' LOAD BREAK PAD 30060
1 - 3' X 5' LOAD BREAK PAD 30060
BETWEEN LOCATION 27 & 28
~600' - 1 -3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM
NEW PB 40399 TO NEW LB 30060
32 FIBER BOX
30"X48"
BETWEEN LOCATION 28 & 29
~25' - 1 -3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW
LB 30060 TO NEW XFMR PAD
LOCATION 29 - XFMR PAD
1 - 54" X 60" INSTALL XFMR PAD BETWEEN LOCATION 29 & 30 ~10' - 4-3.63" SECONDARY CONDUIT FROM NEW 54" X 60" XFMR PAD TO NEW 24" X 36"

JUNCTION BOX
LOCATIO N 30
1 - 24" X 36" INSTALL JUNCTION BOX BETWEEN LOCATION 30 & 30A ~95' - 1-3.63" SECONDARY CONDUIT FROM
NEW 24" X 36" JUNCTION BOX TO EXISTING

JUNCTION BOX
LOCATION 30B - PB40397

INSTALL
1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 PRIMARY VAULT #40397

WITH FULL TRAFFIC COVER
BETWEEN LOCATION 30 & 30B
~585' - 1-3.63" SECONDARY CONDUIT FROM
NEW 24" X 36" JUNCTION BOX TO NEW PB
40397
LOCATION 31

INSTALL
1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR SIMILAR INNER SIZE

FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP
BETWEEN LOCATION 30B & 30C
~6' - 1 - 3.63" SECONDARY CONDUIT FROM
PB 40397 TO NEW 3" RISER
FIBER BOX LOCATION 32 - 30"X48"
PB40396

INSTALL
31 1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 PRIMARY VAULT #40396

WITH FULL TRAFFIC COVER
1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR SIMILAR INNER SIZE

FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP
BETWEEN LOCATION 30 & 32 ~400'- 1-3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW LB 30060 TO NEW PB 40396
28 2 - 3.63" 30 BETWEEN LOCATION 27 & 31 30A
~600' - 1-3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW

FIBER BOX TO NEW FIBER BOX
29 BETWEEN LOCATION 31 & 32
~400' - 1-3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW
FIBER BOX TO NEW FIBER BOX BETWEEN LOCATION 32 & 33 27 ~600' - 1-3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW PB 40396 TO NEW PB 40395
~600' - 1-3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW

FIBER BOX TO NEW FIBER BOX
P
****NOT E****

THE SCOPE OF WORK BETWEEN LOCATION
30, 30B, & 30C MAY BE REMOVED AS OPEN

SPACE MAY NOT NEED CPAU ELECTRIC

SERVICE
30B
30C

LEGE ND DAT E
APPR
.

DESCRIPT

ION -RED- NEW, INSTALL ELECTRICAL
-MAGENTA- NEW, INSTALL FIBER
-GREEN - REMOVE

FOOTHILL FIRE MITIGATION PROJECT
PHASE 4
APPROV
ED P.VALA

TH MP NEXTLEVEL SUBSTRUCTURE
SR. ENGINEER /
-BLACK- MANAGER
EXISTING ENGR.

BPr.aVnAdoLnATGHrossman City of Palo Alto
M-A-P--# CKT # SCALE W.O.# / DRAWING #
4002759
8 OF 10
HV- DRWN V.RIOS 20 Brandon
Grossman Califo
rnia
NTS
CHKD. P.VALATH
SHEE

T UTILITIES, ELECTRIC ENGINEERING
8 Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange Agreement
Between City of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 166 of 363
DocuSign Envelope ID: 822AE64D-A845- 49B3-A4F1-2BB7D6CEC90C LOCATION 33 - PB40395 CPAU CONDUIT

INSTA INSTALLATION
1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 LL
PRIMARY VAULT #40395 BETWEEN
WITH FULL TRAFFIC COVER LOCATION 33 & 34
1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR SIMILAR INNER SIZE

FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP
~600' - 1-3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW
PB 40395 TO NEW PB 40394
~600' - 1-3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW

FIBER BOX TO NEW FIBER BOX
LOCATION 34 - PB40394

INSTALL
1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 PRIMARY VAULT #40394

WITH FULL TRAFFIC COVER
1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR SIMILAR INNER SIZE

FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP
NO WORK TO BE DONE PAST LOCATION 19 UNTIL

APPROVAL FROM CPAU ENGINEERING FOR
EASEMENT RELOCATION. DRAWINGS INCLUDED

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
BETWEEN LOCATION 34 & 35
~600' - 1-3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW
PB 40394 TO NEW LB 30059 ~600' - 1-3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW FIBER BOX TO NEW FIBER BOX BETWEEN LOCATION 35 & 36
~5' - 1-3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW
LB 30059 TO NEW XFMR PAD
LOCATION 35 - LB30059

INSTALL
1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 PRIMARY VAULT UNDER 4'
X 6' LOAD BREAK PAD 30059
1 - 4' X 6' LOAD BREAK PAD 30059
1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR SIMILAR INNER SIZE

FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP
BETWEEN LOCATION 36 & 37 ~125' - 1-3.63" SECONDARY CONDUIT FROM NEW XFMR PAD TO NEW 24X36 SECONDARY
BOX ~125' - 1-3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW
FIBER BOX TO NEW 24X36 SECONDARY BOX
LOCATION 36 - XFMR PAD
1 - 54" X 60" INSTALL XFMR PAD BETWEEN LOCATION 37 & 37A 33 ~5' - 1-3.63" SECONDARY CONDUIT FROM NEW 24X36 SECONDARY BOX TO POLE 6799
LOCATIO N 37
1 - 24" X 36" INSTALL JUNCTION BOX BETWEEN LOCATION 37 & 37B ~125' - 1-3.63" SECONDARY CONDUIT FROM NEW 24X36 SECONDARY BOX TO NEW 24X36

SECONDARY BOX
LOCATIO N 37A
1 - 3" INSTALL RISER ~125' - 1-3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW 24X36 SECONDARY BOX TO NEW 24X36

SECONDARY BOX
LOCATIO N 37B
1 - 24" X 36" INSTALL JUNCTION BOX
BETWEEN LOCATION 37B & 37C
~5' - 1-3.63" SECONDARY CONDUIT FROM
NEW 24X36 SECONDARY BOX TO POLE 6800
34 LOCATIO N 37C
1 - 3" INSTALL RISER
773 F6AELF
37 5'
37A
PB10
61N48
5'
36 35

LEGE ND DAT E
APPR
.

DESCRIPT
-RED- NEW, INSTALL ION ELECTRICAL
-MAGENTA- NEW, INSTALL FIBER
-GREEN - REMOVE

FOOTHILL FIRE MITIGATION PROJECT
PHASE 4
APPROV
ED P.VALA

TH MP NEXTLEVEL SUBSTRUCTURE
SR. ENGINEER / MANAGER -BLACK- EXISTING
ENGR. P.VALATH
Brandon
Grossman City of Palo Alto
M-A-P--# CKT # SCALE W.O.# / DRAWING #
4002759
8 OF 10
HV- DRWN BVra. RndI 20 OonS Grossman Califo
rnia
NTS
CHKD. P.VALATH
SHEE

T UTILITIES, ELECTRIC ENGINEERING
9 Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange Agreement
Between City of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 167 of 363
DocuSign Envelope ID: 822AE64D-A845- 49B3-A4F1-2BB7D6CEC90C LOCATION 36 - TX PAD

INSTALL

CPAU CONDUIT INSTALLATION
1 - 54" X 60" XFMR PAD BETWEEN LOCATION 35 & 36 ~5' - 1-3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW LB 30059 TO NEW TX PAD
LOCATION 37

INSTALL
1 - 24" X 36" JUNCTION BOX
NO WORK TO BE DONE PAST LOCATION 19 UNTIL

APPROVAL FROM CPAU ENGINEERING FOR
EASEMENT RELOCATION. DRAWINGS INCLUDED

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
15'
BETWEEN LOCATION 36 & 37
42A
~125' - 1-3.63" SECONDARY CONDUIT FROM
NEW TX PAD TO NEW 24X36 SECONDARY
BOX
~125' - 1-3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW
FIBER BOX TO NEW 24X36 SECONDARY BOX
7' 42 LOCATIO N 37A

INSTALL
1 - 3" RISER
42B
40 LOCATION 37B

INSTALL
1 - 24" X 36" JUNCTION BOX
BETWEEN LOCATION 37 & 37A
~5' - 1-3.63" SECONDARY CONDUIT FROM
NEW 24X36 SECONDARY BOX TO POLE 6799
15'
41 41B LOCATIO N 37C

INSTALL
1 - 3" RISER
BETWEEN 41A
LOCATION 37 & 37B
5'
~125' - 1-3.63" SECONDARY CONDUIT FROM
NEW 24X36 SECONDARY BOX TO NEW 24X36
SECONDARY BOX LOCATION 38 - PB40408

INSTALL
1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 PRIMARY VAULT #40408
~125' - 1-3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW
24X36 SECONDARY BOX TO NEW 24X36

SECONDARY BOX WITH FULL
1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR TRAFFIC COVER

SIMILAR INNER SIZE

FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP
BETWEEN LOCATION 37B & 37C ~5' - 1-3.63" SECONDARY CONDUIT FROM NEW 24X36 SECONDARY BOX TO POLE 6800 LOCATION 39 - PB40392

INSTALL
BETWEEN 39
1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 LOCATION 35 & 38
PRIMARY VAULT #40392

WITH FULL TRAFFIC COVER
~270' - 1-3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW
1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR LB30059 TO NEW PB 40408

SIMILAR INNER SIZE

FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP
~270' - 1-3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW
FIBER BOX TO NEW FIBER BOX LOCATION 40 - PB40391

INSTALL
1 - 3' X 5' CPA3546 PRIMARY VAULT #40391

WITH FULL TRAFFIC COVER
1 - 30" X 48" PG3048 OR SIMILAR INNER SIZE

FIBER BOX WITH FULL TRAFFIC TOP

BETWEEN
~600' - 1 -3.63" PRIMARY LOCATION 38 & 39

CONDUIT FROM
NEW PB 40408 TO NEW PB 40392
~600' - 1-3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW

FIBER BOX TO NEW FIBER BOX
BETWEEN LOCATION 39 & 40 ~600' - 1 -3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW PB 40392 TO NEW PB 40391
~600' - 1-3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW

FIBER BOX TO NEW FIBER BOX
LOCATION 41 - XFMR PAD

INSTALL
1 - 54" X 60" XFMR PAD LOCATION 41A

INSTALL
1 - 24" X 36" JUNCTION BOX
37C BETWEEN LOCATION 40 & 41
~15' - 1 -3.63" PRIMARY CONDUIT FROM NEW
PB 40391 TO NEW XFMR PAD
5'
37B LOCATION 41B - POLE 6805

INSTALL
1 - 3" RISER
BETWEEN LOCATION 41 & 41A
~25' - 1 - 3.63" SECONDARY CONDUIT FROM
NEW XFMR PAD TO NEW 24X36 JUNCTION
BOX
37 LOCATIO N 42

INSTALL
38 BETWEEN LOCATION 41A & 41B 1 - 24" X 36" JUNCTION BOX ~5' - 1 - 3.63" SECONDARY CONDUIT FROM NEW JUNCTION BOX TO NEW 3" RISER LOCATION 42A - EXISTING

JUNCTION BOX

BETWEEN
~105' - 1 -3.63" PRIMARY LOCATION 41 & 42

CONDUIT FROM
NEW XFMR PAD TO NEW 24X36 JUNCTION
BOX
~105' - 1-3.63" FIBER CONDUIT FROM NEW
FIBER BOX TO NEW 24X36 JUNCTION BOX
LOCATION 42B - POLE 6806

INSTALL
1 - 3" RISER BETWEEN LOCATION 42 & 42A
~15' - 1 - 3.63" SECONDARY CONDUIT FROM
NEW 24X36 JUNCTION BOX TO EXISTING
JUNCTION BOX BETWEEN LOCATION 42A & 42A
~5' - 1 - 3" RISER FROM NEW 24X36

JUNCTION BOX TO EXISTING POLE

LEGE ND

DAT EAPPR
.

DESCRIPT FOOTHILL FIRE
ION

MITIGATION PROJECT
PHASE 4
-RED- NEW, INSTALL ELECTRICAL
APPROV
ED
-MAGENTA- NEW, INSTALL FIBER
-GREEN - REMOVE
P.VALA

TH MP NEXT LEVEL SUBSTRUCTURE
SR. ENGINEER / MANAGER
ENGR. P.VALATH
Brandon
Grossman City of Palo Alto
M-A-P--# CKT # SCALE W.O.# / DRAWING #
4002759
8 OF 10
-BLACK- EXISTING HV- DRWN V.RIOS 20 Brandon
Grossman Califo
rnia
NTS
CHKD. P.VALATH
SHEE

T UTILITIES, ELECTRIC ENGINEERING
10 Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange Agreement
Between City of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 168 of 363
Exhibit D - Form of
RECORDING REQUESTED Underground Utility Easement
BY

AND WHEN RECORDED
RETURNED TO: City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton
Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Attn: Real Estate Division Space above this line for
NO TRANSFER recorder’s use only

TAX DUE

DULY RECORDED WITHOUT FEE
Pursuant to Government Code
Sections 6103,
27383 & 27388

PUBLIC AGENCY

ACQUIRING TITLE,

CALIFORNIA REVENUE

AND TAXATION
CODE SECTION 11922.

Underground Utility Easement
This Underground Utility Easement (“Agreement”), dated
,
(“Effective Date”), is made and entered into, by, and 2025 between CITY OF PALO ALTO, a
California chartered municipal corporation (“City”), and MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, a Public District formed pursuant to Article 3 of Chapter 3 of Division 5 of the California Public Resources Code (“District”). City and District are sometimes referred to in this Agreement singularly as a “Party” and together as “Parties.”

RECIT ALS
WHEREAS, the District is the owner of the real property situated in unincorporated Santa Clara County known as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 351-25-014, 351-06-025, 351-09-002 and 351-12-069 ("District Property"), as part of District’s Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, copies of which Deeds are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City holds three right-of-way and utility easements for overhead electric transmission lines across District Property, as assigned by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“Existing Utility Easements”), copies of which Deeds are attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City has been directed by the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) to identify areas within their jurisdiction that are susceptible to power-line ignited wildfires; and WHEREAS, the City determined that their service territory west of Interstate 280, including the District Property, has an elevated risk of wildfire due to being in the Palo Alto foothills and wind, and therefore seeks to convert their overhead electric lines to underground lines along Montebello Road within District Property; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to convert its existing overhead utility lines and facilities to underground electric and communications lines and facilities along Montebello Road within District Property via three existing easements (Santa Clara County Document Number 228900, Item 5
Attachment A - Exchange
Agreement Between City
of Palo Alto and
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 169 of 363
Volume 1053, Page 538; Document Number 227988, Volume 1048, Page 567; and Document Number 227989, Volume 1048, Page 562); and
WHEREAS, the District, in exchange for City quitclaiming all rights to maintain overhead utility facilities on District Property, is willing to grant City this Underground Utility Easement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the City and District hereto agree as follows: 1. Grant of Underground Utility Easement. (a) Easement Scope and Description. District
non-exclusive utility easement for the installation, operation, hereby grants to City a perpetual, repair, replacement, upgrading, and
maintenance of a subsurface conduit system for electric lines and communications transmission lines and associated subsurface and above ground cables, conduits, ducts, manholes, equipment and appurtenances used for transmitting and distributing electric energy and information (collectively, “Underground Utility System”) under, across and along Montebello Road as it crosses District Property (the “Underground Utility Easement”). A legal description and plat map of the Underground Utility Easement is included in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. The Underground Utility Easement shall include the right of ingress and egress over Montebello Road and Black Mountain Trail on the District Property for purposes related to the City’s use of the Underground Utility Easement. The Underground Utility Easement is intended solely to serve District Property, and therefore, is not offered for, and shall not be dedicated to, public use.
(b) Term. The term of the Underground Utility
the Effective Date and Easement shall commence on
shall be perpetual. (c) Use Restrictions. Use of the Underground be limited to construction, reconstruction, installation, Utility Easement by City shall operation, repair, replacement, upgrading,
and maintenance of the Underground Utility System. The City shall use the Underground Utility Easement in accordance with the following: (i) No at-grade or above-grade structures the Underground Utility Easement except for poles, pads, shall be installed pursuant to equipment cabinets, vaults and bollards
that are appurtenant to the Underground Utility System. (ii) All subsurface utilities shall be enclosed shall be installed with a minimum cover of twenty-four (24) in a conduit system, which inches below grade at all locations on
the District Property, regardless of mechanical protection. Exceptions to the minimum cover requirement are allowed only where cables and conductors rise for terminations or splices or where access is otherwise required by applicable law.
(iii) No other utilities shall be co-located in
Easement and City shall not have the right to apportion the Underground Utility rights under the Underground Utility
Easement to any other utility or service provider.

Page 2 ends

Palo Alto City CouncilJune 2, 2025

Palo Alto City Council
June 2, 2025