Attachment E - Summary of Phase 3 community engagement (Draft)

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) 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 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.

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):

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.

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 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).

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 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.

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.

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.

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
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.

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 non- 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) __`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 RdFoothill 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 ALTOMENLO
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
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
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

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:

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

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:

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.

Palo Alto City CouncilJune 2, 2025

Palo Alto City Council
June 2, 2025