The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-07-14 Planning & transportation commission Summary MinutesPage 1 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Action Agenda: July 14, 2021 2 Virtual Meeting 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 Approximately 6:02 pm 7 Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III called the roll and announced that all Commissioners are 8 present. 9 Oral Communications 10 The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 11 Chair Hechtman asked Staff if there are any speakers for oral communications. 12 13 Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III, called on Ms. Fail. 14 15 Ms. Francine Fail disclosed that she lives on East Meadow Drive. She shared that she has lived 16 in Palo Alto all her life and East Meadow Drive is her main bicycle route. 17 18 Chair Hechtman requested that Ms. Fail provide her comments during the agenda item. He 19 asked if she has any comments regarding items, not on the agenda. 20 21 Ms. Fail answered no and that she will hold her comments till the agenda item. 22 23 Mr. Nguyen announced that there are no more speakers for oral communications. 24 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 25 The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 26 Chair Hechtman asked if there are any agenda changes, additions or deletions. Seeing none, he 27 moved to City official reports. 28 City Official Reports 29 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 30 Mr. Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official, shared that the City Council’s summer recess is 31 still in session and so there are no reports regarding Council business. He noted that Planning 32 and Transportation Commission (PTC) will be taking a summer break as well. The meetings on 33 July 28, 2021, and August 11, 2021, have been canceled. The next PTC meeting will be held on 34 August 25, 2021. In terms of the Development Center and the Office of Transportation, Mr. 35 Page 2 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Kamhi announced that those two offices will be opening for in-person services on August 2, 1 2021. In-person meetings will be offered by appointment only along and virtual appointments 2 will continue to be available as well. He noted that any unvaccinated Staff members and 3 customers must wear face coverings. 4 5 Ms. Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Manager, reported that 126 students are participating in 6 summer bike rodeos. All 2020 3rd graders have received online, virtually taught, bicycle safety 7 instruction and now, on-bike instruction has been provided through the bike rodeos. In June of 8 2021, Safety Routes to School Staff coordinated with Bay Area Outreach and Recreation 9 Program to provide an adaptive cycling event for 20 exceptional needs Palo Alto United School 10 District students. Staff hopes to provide more adaptive cycle programs in the future. 11 12 Commissioner Templeton asked what is the targeted age group for the bike rodeos. 13 14 Ms. Star-Lack confirmed the rodeos are for rising 4th graders. 15 16 Commissioner Templeton inquired if Staff has any programs planned for kids who will be 17 returning to in-person teachings and have not been biking for a year. 18 19 Ms. Star-Lack acknowledged that many parents are concerned, but Staff has no in-person 20 programs planned. She suggested parents access the Safe Routes to School webpage where 21 many safety videos and curricula are available. 22 23 Commissioner Chang pointed out that during the Objective Standards PTC meeting, Assistant 24 Director Tanner mentioned that she will be organizing a community webinar discussing the 25 height limit concerns. She asked if Staff knew when that webinar would be happening. 26 27 Mr. Kamhi indicated that he did not, but stated he would forward the question to Assistant 28 Director Tanner. 29 30 Seeing no more questions from Commissioners, Chair Hechtman moved to the action item. 31 Action Items 32 Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 33 All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 34 35 2. South Palo Alto Bikeways Phase 1 Community Feedback and Concept Plan 36 Alternatives 37 38 Vice-Chair Roohparvar disclosed that due to the proximity of the project to her house, she has 39 to recuse herself from the item. 40 41 Page 3 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Chang disclosed that she attended several of the community outreach meetings 1 the City conducted and had exchanged emails with City Staff regarding the project. 2 3 Mr. Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney, stated that it is important that Vice-Chair Roohparvar 4 recuse herself, but that there is no need to do traditional disclosures because the City is the 5 applicant. 6 7 Mr. Phillip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official, introduced Joanna Chan and Steve Davis who 8 presented the item to the Commission. 9 10 Ms. Joanna Chan, Senior Transportation Planner, stated that Staff is seeking feedback from the 11 PTC on whether Staff should proceed with the project as well as feedback and recommendation 12 on the preferred concept plan to Council. The project was awarded a grant from Santa Clara 13 Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the objectives of the grant are to improve bicycle 14 facilities on the Waverley Multi-Use Path, Fabian Way, and East Meadow Drive. One 15 requirement of the grant is to provide a protected bikeway along Fabian way or East Meadow 16 Drive and as close as possible a protected bikeway along the corridor. The grant does not allow 17 segments of the projects to be removed, otherwise, the funding will be removed. Another 18 requirement of the grant is that the project must receive all Caltrans approval to initiate the 19 construction phase by January 31, 2023. The three segments outline in the project serves as key 20 travel routes for students going to and from school as well as connections to various 21 community facilities. Data shows that biking to Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School (JLS) has 22 increased to 70 percent in 2019. Biking to Gunn High School has also increased from 33 percent 23 in 2009 to 50 percent in 2019. Based on a survey done in 2020 of Palo Alto Unified School 24 District (PAUSD) parents, the lack of a protected bikeway is the main reason cited by 25 elementary school parents who do not allow their children to bike to school. The existing 26 Waverley Path is bumpy with uneven surfaces, overgrown vegetation, and the path runs 27 parallel to a chain-link fence that can cause a bicyclist to be thrown from their bike if the 28 handlebars hit it. The existing conditions for Fabian Way included large crossing distances, an 29 increase in vehicular traffic and speed, no separation from vehicle traffic, and the shared bicycle 30 and parking lane exposes bicyclists to being hit by car doors. For East Meadow Drive, the 31 existing conditions included roll curbs, large parked vehicles, and a lack of space between the 32 bike lane and parking lane. 33 34 Mr. Steve Davis, Fehr& Peers, presented the potential improvements that can be made to all 35 three roads as well as the community feedback that was received. He shared different 36 examples of improvements that could be used in the project. Including a standard bike lane, a 37 buffered bike lane, different types of protected bike lanes, barriers, and several others. In terms 38 of community engagement, Staff used several methods to reach out to the community, 39 including a project webpage, email blast, social media posts, door hangers, and community 40 Page 4 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. events. The goal of phase one for community engagement was to assess support for protected 1 bicycle facilities. Some considerations may have impacted the assessment of community 2 support for the project including the constrained project timeline, limited resources, limited 3 school-based engagement, low webinar attendance, and several others. During the webinars, 4 Staff did receive key pieces of information from the community. For the Waverley Path, the 5 community indicated that a lower fence or rigid delineation is necessary for safety and that no 6 trees be removed. For Fabian Way and East Meadow Drive, the community was concerned 7 about parking reduction and visibility for cyclists if parking-protected bike lanes are 8 implemented. The community expressed that biking is difficult during school arrival and 9 dismissal times along East Meadow Drive. A total of 258 residents responded to the online 10 survey regarding the project. The conclusion showed that 94 percent of the survey participants 11 live in Palo Alto, 68 percent are households that have students who bike to school under the 12 age of 18, 81 percent bike for recreational activities, and over 50 percent of respondents bike 13 for utilitarian trips. Through the web map that was used in the survey, 17 comments were 14 received regarding the Waverley Path. The comments contained safety concerns regarding the 15 parking lot crossings near the bike racks, that the path should be widened, that there needs to 16 be a parking lane, to keep a barrier between the path and the parking lot, and concerns 17 regarding the access to Charleston Road. For Fabian Way, 11 comments were received with 18 more than half of the comments indicating that there needs to be a protected bikeway and no 19 comments were supporting existing conditions. For East Meadow Drive, 50 comments were 20 received, with 13 of the comments supporting a protected or buffered bikeway between Alma 21 Street and Middlefield Road, and 22 comments supported leaving East Meadow Drive as is. 22 Staff requested that survey respondents vote for preferred alternatives for each road. For the 23 Waverley Path, Option 1 included widening the path at key pinch points and Option 2 consisted 24 of widening the path at pinch points as well as near the school buildings. Approximately 2/3s of 25 the survey respondents supported Option 2 for the Waverley Path. For Fabian Way, Option 1 26 consisted of eliminating the existing on-street parking and add buffers for the existing bike 27 lanes. Option 2 consisted of maintaining on-street parking, adding a center turn lane, and 28 implementing protected bike lanes while removing one through travel lane in each direction. 29 Approximately 58 percent of the survey respondents preferred Option 2 while 26 percent 30 supported Option 1. For East Meadow Drive, both options included removing parking on one 31 side of the street. Option 1 consisted of buffered bike lanes on both sides of the street with 32 parking being retained between the bike lane and sidewalk on one side of the street. Option 2 33 consisted of protected bike lanes on both sides of the street with parking being between the 34 moving vehicles and the bikeways. Approximately 53 percent of the survey respondents 35 preferred Option 2 while 24 percent preferring Option 1. A total of 23 percent did not express a 36 preference or preferred a different option. Several respondents requested that Staff provide 37 additional information on how parking will be affected. Another question asked in the survey 38 was which section of East Meadow Drive and Fabian Way folks would prefer to see protected 39 bikeways. Support for protected bikeways was strongest on East Meadow Drive between Alma 40 Page 5 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Street and Middlefield Road as well as on Fabian Way. Respondents showed less preference for 1 protected bikeways on East Meadow Drive east of Middlefield Road. After all the data was 2 gathered from the community outreach, Staff drafted preferred concepts for each road. Staff 3 proposed Option 1 for the Waverley Path and for Fabian Way, Staff proposed Option 2. Per the 4 request of residents, Staff met with over 30 residents to discuss East Meadow Drive. At the 5 meeting, residents raised concerns regarding the outreach process, the project rationale, 6 parking supply and convince, Ramos Park access, and increased vehicle and bicycle interactions 7 if existing conditions are changed. The residents strongly requested that parking be retained on 8 the south side of Middlefield Road and that there be further community outreach. Based on the 9 feedback received, Staff broke East Meadow Drive into four different segments. Location one is 10 located between East Meadow Circle and Fabian Way. Staff proposed to retain parking in the 11 westbound direction and keep bike lanes on both sides of the street. Location two is located 12 between Alma Street and Waverley Street. Staff proposed protected bike lanes in both 13 directions due to the low number of driveways accessing the street. Location three is located 14 between Waverley Street and Middlefield Road. Staff proposed to install a buffered bike lane 15 on the residential side of the street in the westbound direction and widen the parking lane 16 between the bike lane and sidewalk. On the school side of the street, protected bikeways were 17 proposed. Location four is located between Middlefield Road and East Meadow Circle and both 18 sides of the street are fronted by residential properties. Staff proposed buffered bike lanes in 19 both directions and on-street parking would be maintained between the bike lane and sidewalk 20 in the westbound direction. 21 22 Ms. Chan shared that after the PTC makes its recommendations, Staff will be presenting the 23 project to Council on August 9th, 2021. If Council approves the project, the design phase will 24 begin in fall 2021 which will include more community engagement, parking studies, and 25 temporary treatments. 26 27 Chair Hechtman inquired if any of the Commissioners have questions of Staff. 28 29 Commissioner Lauing noted that the purpose of the meeting is for the PTC to determine if the 30 project should move forward or not. He asked if there is a reason why Staff is asking that when 31 so much of Staff time has already been invested and there are benefits to making the 32 improvements. 33 34 Mr. Kamhi explained that Staff brought the item to the PTC at a prior meeting and Staff had 35 anticipated doing community outreach to determine if the community supports the project. He 36 noted that VTA is providing the grant funding and VTA is expecting the City to develop what is 37 listed in the grant which is to provide bicycle paths on all of the roads that have been 38 mentioned. He shared that the project was originally identified as a potential corridor for these 39 types of treatments in the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The grant was 40 Page 6 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. applied for 4-years ago and Staff is now trying to fulfill the project on a tight timeline to receive 1 the funding. 2 3 Ms. Star-Lack acknowledged that Staff knows there is no room in the schedule to stop the 4 project and change things. If that happens, VTA will pull the funding for the project. 5 6 Commissioner Lauing understood that there was supposed to be some discussion with VTA 7 about the grant and its requirements. 8 9 Ms. Star-Lack confirmed that Staff did speak with VTA about the project scope. VTA is expecting 10 protected bikeways with a vertical element on East Meadow Drive and Fabian Way. VTA stated 11 that protected bikeways have to be provided as much as possible and if not, then there needs 12 to be a buffered bike lane or provide the space of a buffered bike lane. If any segments are left 13 in existing conditions, the City will lose the grant. 14 15 Mr. Kamhi stated that the crux of the discussion will be should parking be removed on East 16 Meadow Drive to accommodate a buffered or protected additional bikeway. 17 18 Commissioner Lauing asked if Staff has discussed reducing speed limits on the segments. 19 20 Mr. Kamhi confirmed that Staff is already in the process of reducing speeds around the school 21 zones. 22 23 Commissioner Chang restated that this is an all-or-nothing deal. The City cannot remove a 24 section of East Meadow Drive and receive the funding. 25 26 Mr. Kamhi said for the grant to be the funding source for the project, that is correct. 27 28 Commissioner Chang inquired if parents from Fair Meadow Elementary school have voiced that 29 due to safety concerns, they do not allow their children to bike to school? 30 31 Ms. Star-Lack noted that the survey done was school district-wide and the survey did not break 32 it down into school zones. 33 34 Chair Hechtman see no other Commissioner questions of Staff, he called for public comment. 35 36 Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III, announced that the first five speakers are Arthur Keller, 37 Kenneth, Sue F, Peggy, and then Alan. 38 39 Page 7 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Arthur Keller quoted the details regarding the scope of the project as written in the Staff 1 report. He explained that the plan can provide a protected bikeway along Fabian Way along 2 East Meadow Drive between Alma and Waverley and not change anything between Middlefield 3 and East Meadow Circle. He noted that the preference of the neighborhood is to have green 4 stripes painted with bike lane markers between Middlefield and East Meadow Circle. He asked 5 why is the City trying to fix something that is not broken? He pointed out that between East 6 Meadow Circle and Fabian Way, the parking should be on the south side of the street. That way 7 bicyclists have a direct route to the Highway 101 bike bridge. He concluded that the parking is 8 full at night near Ramos Park and that it should not be removed. 9 10 Mr. Kenneth Fehl, a resident of East Meadow Drive, emphasized that Staff’s survey data is 11 wrong and that many residents along segment four of East Meadow Drive support leaving 12 conditions as is. The main reason to keep the conditions as is was to retain all the parking 13 spaces. The residents supported having the bike lane painted green. By removing the parking, 14 employees and residents would be required to walk long distances. He said that it is a perceived 15 problem of having bicyclists interacting with car doors and there have never been incidents of 16 that nature that he’s seen. He said that the bike lanes can be improved while retaining the 17 parking and still receive the funding. 18 19 Ms. Sue F was bothered that decisions have to be made by August 9th and that PTC and City 20 Council are going on summer break. She shared that Staff has not expressed to residents that if 21 a segment of the project is left as is, the funding will be lost. She supported the previous 22 speakers’ comments that the survey data is wrong and the survey drove folks to provide 23 answered they didn’t necessarily want. She wanted to know who moved the plan forward, 24 knowing that it was an all-or-nothing plan, and did they think that residents would not speak 25 up. She emphasized that moving forward concepts, that the residents do not support, only to 26 receive the funding is not a best practice. 27 28 Ms. Peggy thanked Staff and the Commission for hearing public comments. She urged the 29 Commissioners to read the emails that were sent by residents that laid out clearly why the 30 residents do not support removing the parking on segment four of East Meadow Drive. She was 31 frustrated that the photos shown in Staff’s presentation were not an accurate depiction of how 32 wide the bike lane is. She asked why Staff did not use the absolute number of how many kids 33 bike to school instead of the percentage. She said that because the base number of students is 34 decreasing, the percentage would increase, and that does not show truly how many kids bike to 35 school. She reemphasized that there is no problem with segment four of East Meadow Drive. 36 37 Mr. Nguyen announced the next seven speakers as Alan, Amie, Patricia, Taly, Francine, Karen, 38 and Chuck. 39 40 Page 8 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Alan Wachtel announced that he has been a member of the City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle 1 Committee for over 40-years, but he is not speaking for that committee. He stated that the 2 project should not move forward because the project has not been designed to address the 3 need. He the need in segment four could be addressed by partial parking removal and lane 4 reconfiguration which would preserve parking than the current plan. He noted that the many 5 drawbacks to barrier-separated bikeways have not been presented to the Commission or the 6 public. He said that roads are not designed to pass right-turning traffic on the right and these 7 separated bikeways force bicyclists to do just that. He concluded that buffered bike lanes also 8 have problems, but he is willing to compromise, and barrier-separated bikeways should not be 9 used. 10 11 Ms. Amie Ashton affirmed that the public right of way is for everyone and is not a private 12 parking lot for select residents. She acknowledged that the plan is not perfect but it is a step in 13 the right direction to making kids feel safe. 14 15 Ms. Patricia Stayte proclaimed that the community outreach process failed because many of 16 the residents in segment four of East Meadow Drive were unaware of the project. She 17 acknowledged that many of the residents are cyclists and the neighborhood is not anti-bicycle 18 at all. She acknowledged that Staff has explained well the goal of the project, but the project is 19 flawed because it is tied to the grant that has specific requirements that residents do not want. 20 She shared that she does not allow her children to bike or walk to school and there are ways to 21 solve that problem but not by using the grant. She agreed with the previous speaker that the 22 data provided by the public outreach survey is skewed and using percentages is misleading. She 23 recommended the Commission deny the project. 24 25 Ms. Taly Katz agreed with the comments made by the previous speakers. She concurred that 26 the outreach to the neighbors was not sufficient and the fact that the proposal is an all or 27 nothing is very disturbing. She said the problematic stretch of East Meadow Drive contains 28 Ramos Park. The park is used for youth recreational activities and she predicted that there may 29 be a legal issue if the proposal is to remove parking next to the park. She confirmed that there 30 are no other alternative parking spaces to use for the park if the parking is eliminated. She 31 requested further data on accidents that have occurred along the East Meadow corridor. 32 33 Ms. Francine Fail stated that she has lived in the East Meadow neighborhood and has biked the 34 roads all her life. She said there has never been a problem, especially between Middlefield 35 Road and East Meadow Circle. She suggested that Staff hand out a flyer to students suggesting 36 they use Mayview Avenue and go through the park instead of using East Meadow Drive. She 37 added that the traffic circle has caused a lot of confusion between pedestrians, bicyclists, and 38 vehicles. She noted that the traffic circle has caused delays in response times for the fire 39 department as well. She encouraged the Commission to deny the project as presented. She 40 Page 9 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. supported the improvements to Fabian Way and painting the bike lanes green on East Meadow 1 Drive. 2 3 Mr. Nguyen called on Karen, but due to technical difficulties, he announced that he would call 4 again for Karen at the end of the public comment. He called for the next speaker. 5 6 Mr. Chuck Wilson shared that he has been a resident of East Meadow for 41-years and has 7 never witnessed problems between bicycles and vehicles. He confirmed that the bike lanes are 8 very wide and that Ramos Park is one of the biggest safety problems. He said most folks who 9 use the park are youth recreation groups and their families. Parents park on the south side so 10 that their young children do not have to cross the street to go to the park. He stated that due to 11 the City encouraging the development of ADUs, parking on the street has increased. He 12 encouraged the Commission to read the emails that the residents had sent in. 13 14 Mr. Robert Stayte agreed that the bike lanes need to be repainted, that the parking should be 15 maintained on both sides of the street, the bike lanes are already very wide, and that the 16 community outreach was a failure. He disclosed that a new problem will arise if the parking is 17 eliminated around Ramos Park, that the roundabout is a nightmare, and he has never 18 witnessed an accident. He indicated that there is a church on the corner of East Meadow and 19 Middlefield that has many events. The parking from those events overflows onto the 20 neighboring streets. He concluded that not only are the residents losing parking, the 21 community is losing the spaces as well. 22 23 Ms. Shelley echoed all the comments made by the previous speakers with regards to 24 community engagement and the lack of data. She agreed that folks will be incentivized to 25 jaywalk across the street if parking is removed. She suggested speed bumps be installed, that 26 something be done about the roundabout, and that the City should provide a mail-in survey. 27 She agreed that the bikes lanes along East Meadow Drive are wide and that the lane should be 28 painted. She concluded that she does support the improvements for Fabian Way. 29 30 Mr. Nguyen called again for Karen. 31 32 Mr. Rich Jew disclosed that he is speaking for Karen and himself. He expressed that he has 33 never seen an accident between a bicycle and a vehicle long East Meadow Drive. He requested 34 that the Commission decline the recommendation to move the project forward. He echoed 35 many of the comments made by the previous speakers regarding parking, jaywalking, that kids 36 should be encouraged to use Mayveiw instead of East Meadow and that the outreach was not 37 sufficient. 38 39 Mr. Nguyen stated that there are no more public speakers for the item. 40 Page 10 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Hechtman disclosed that he has read all the emails that were sent and acknowledged that 2 the other Commissioners have as well. He specified that there is a reference in the Staff report 3 that a protected bikeway can be on Fabian Way “or” East Meadow, but later in the Staff report, 4 the two roads are linked together. He requested that Staff clarify that. 5 6 Ms. Chan acknowledged that the grant was awarded 4-years ago and needs have changed since 7 then. When the project came before the PTC in January of 2021, Staff was already in 8 discussions with VTA letting them know the original grant may not be needed. VTA indicated 9 that they are willing to work with the City, but they want to be as close as possible with the 10 original grant which contains protected bikeways. 11 12 Ms. Star-Lack added that at no point did VTA say it would be ok to leave parts of East Meadow 13 Drive in existing conditions. 14 15 Mr. Kamhi noted that the project was initially conceived before the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian 16 Transportation Plan was drafted. 17 18 Chair Hechtman summarized that at least one of the roads has to be protected and the one that 19 is not protected, has to be buffered. Both of those options result in a loss of parking on 20 segment four for East Meadow Drive. The City does not have a choice, in the context of the 21 grant, to leave a segment in its existing condition. 22 23 Mr. Kamhi confirmed that is correct. 24 25 Chair Hechtman suggested the Commissioners provide general comments first and then discuss 26 the six segments individually. 27 28 Commissioner Templeton asked if Staff felt comfortable responding to any of the comments 29 and concerns raised by the public. 30 31 Mr. Kamhi restated that the purpose of the meeting is to decide whether the community wants 32 the project to move forward. He shared that the reason why school data is shared in 33 percentages is that the school population can change and Staff has the raw data if the 34 Commissioners and the public are interested in having it. He acknowledged that Staff provided 35 a lot of community outreach and distributed the information in many different ways. The 36 meeting that was held at Ramos Park, Staff was unprepared for the large gathering and did not 37 have a presentation to show folks. He appreciated all the public comments that have been 38 voiced and submitted in writing regarding the project. 39 40 Page 11 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Star-Lack added that as for the PAUSD high schools, over half of the students bike to school 1 which equated to 1,000 students at each high school. 2 3 Commissioner Templeton appreciated the different perspectives and points of view related to 4 the project. She shared there have been incidences where a car has struck a bicycle and that 5 her daughter was struck by a car on East Meadow Drive in front of Fair Meadow. She predicted 6 that if the biking facilities are protected, more kids will feel comfortable biking to school. She 7 concluded that it is exciting that there is an opportunity to use funds from an external source to 8 fund the project. 9 10 Commissioner Chang disclosed that initially, she was very excited about the project. After 11 hearing the public comments and participating in some of the community meetings. She 12 wanted to make sure that the City is not implementing a project that the community does not 13 support. She referenced the Ross Road project that was not supported by the community. She 14 acknowledged that community engagement was rushed because of the project timeline and 15 complicated because of the COVID-19 pandemic. She expressed concern that parents who have 16 kids attending JLS and Fair Meadow Elementary were not fully engaged in the community 17 outreach process due to the timing of the school year and when community engagement took 18 place. She observed that there is broad consensus on most of the recommendations Staff has 19 put forward, except segment four on East Meadow Drive. She wanted to see the project move 20 forward in the areas where there is consensus. She agreed with the concerns raised by the 21 public regarding Ramos Park and crossing the street if parking is removed. 22 23 Commissioner Lauing stated that the project is terrific in terms of connecting the school and the 24 public to new bikeways. He agreed with Commissioner Chang’s comment that there is broad 25 consensus for many of the proposed changes. He supported having the project move forward 26 to Council and preferred to have policy, not money, drive how the project is implemented. He 27 acknowledged that Staff does not know how much the total project will cost at this time. He 28 affirmed that he read all of the letters that the public sent in and that the public comments are 29 important for the Commission to hear. He asked Staff if they have any comments regarding Mr. 30 Wachtel’s letter that states that the proposed changes will make bicycling more dangerous. 31 32 Mr. Kamhi acknowledged that there are different types of users of bicycle facilities. One 33 treatment may appeal stronger to certain users and less appealing to others. He specified that 34 there is a lot of data that shows that a protected facility can be safer for younger bicyclists. 35 36 Commissioner Summa was excited about the project and thanked Staff for moving the project 37 forward. She supported the improvements proposed for Fabian Way and the Waverley Path. 38 She hoped that there is enough leeway in the VTA process to allow the City to develop a project 39 that the community will support. 40 Page 12 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Alcheck stated that every residential neighborhood should feel safe to bike 2 through and that is a goal that is stated throughout the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He believed 3 that protected bikeways are the superior alternative. He agreed that the proposed 4 recommendations for the Waverley Path and Fabian Way are the right recommendations. He 5 shared that there are alternatives for protected bike lanes throughout the City that may work 6 for the project. He suggested the treatment on California Avenue and Middlefield which has a 7 protected bike lane with both directions on one side of the road. That solution may provide a 8 protected bike lane while retaining parking. He strongly recommended that the Commission 9 review the project outside the constraints of the grant and suggested that the Commission 10 allow Council to decide how the project will be funded. In terms of the comments about the 11 loss of parking, he remarked that what may be best for the community may not be best for the 12 individual. He said the recommendation to remove parking to gain protected bike lanes is the 13 best concept for the City as a whole. He added that while that statement may be true, that may 14 not be the recommended choice that Council should make. He suggested that if there is 15 consensus, the Commission should tell Council that all of the improvements make sense, that 16 there are some recommendations for East Meadow that are better than others, and to remove 17 funding from any recommendations the Commission may have. He did not understand why VTA 18 was making a stand on how the City’s bikeways should be. He noted that there should be more 19 opportunities to negotiate with VTA, but that should come from Council’s direction. Also, that 20 Council should decide if the project is an “all or nothing” project. He concluded that the 21 Commission should decide if treatment improves or doesn’t improve bike safety and the 22 Commission should not be weighing the consequences of recommending half, all, or none of 23 the project. 24 25 Chair Hechtman shared that he is an avid bicyclist, that he has lost two friends to bicycle 26 accidents, and that safety is very important for bicyclists of all ages. He restated that Staff has 27 explained that all six segments have to be at least buffered with additional space or protected 28 by a physical barrier. Staff’s proposed preferred alternatives accomplish those requirements. 29 He acknowledged that there is community support and Commission support for all the 30 proposed alternatives except the alternative for segment four; which is the segment on East 31 Meadow Drive between Middlefield to East Meadow Circle. For segment four, there are 32 concerns regarding parking and the consequences related to losing those parking spaces. He 33 stated that anything that improves bicycle safety is good and that residents will experience a 34 change from what they are accustomed to if the proposal is implemented. He saw that as a 35 tradeoff that residents have to make to receive the benefits of living in a city. However, he 36 acknowledged that there are circumstances where particular safety methods may not fit a 37 particular neighborhood, and segment four falls in that category. When the Commission 38 discusses segment four, he requested that Staff explain whether there are unique 39 circumstances for segment four that would make the loss of parking uniquely impactful to the 40 Page 13 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. neighborhood. He announced that he supports the proposed alternatives for the other five 1 segments and if the Commission cannot recommend a specific segment to Council. He advised 2 the Commission to recommend to Council not to continue to pursue the grant. If Council 3 chooses to not pursue the grant, the City can still implement the proposed alternatives on the 4 segments that the Commission has endorsed. 5 6 Mr. Kamhi found Chair Hechtman’s suggestion to recommend specific segments for approval to 7 Council a good approach. He restated that Staff has requested that VTA change the 8 requirements of the grant and they have firmly stated their opinion on that request. He noted 9 that the City will be updating the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan soon and these 10 projects can be incorporated into that plan if Council decides not to pursue the grant funding. 11 12 Commissioner Templeton inquired what level of design is the project at? She noted that in the 13 Staff report it is listed as a conceptual plan. 14 15 Ms. Chan concurred that it is a conceptual plan. 16 17 Commissioner Templeton restated what does conceptual mean. 18 19 Ms. Kamhi confirmed that the plans are high-level, conceptual ideas, to determine whether 20 there is a project or not. Once a ruling has been made to move to the next phase, that is when 21 Staff will begin drafting more detailed designs. 22 23 Commissioner Templeton asked if flaws are identified in the conceptual plan, can the plan be 24 adjusted and continued forward? 25 26 Mr. Kamhi answered yes. 27 28 Commissioner Templeton summarized that the Commission could recommend the project to 29 move forward with direction about incorporating the public’s feedback. She asked Staff to what 30 extent have they considered the parking demand at Ramos Park. 31 32 Ms. Star-Lack explained that because it is so early in the design phase, the City can decide to 33 move parking around. She restated that in order to install a buffered bike lane, space has to 34 come from the parking lane. 35 36 Commissioner Templeton wondered if the bike path could be routed through the park which 37 would allow the parking to remain as is. She noted that with further research, the City can 38 provide a solution that accommodates City priorities, bicycle safety, and retain parking. 39 40 Page 14 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Kamhi agreed that having the bike path through the park would solve some of the issues, 1 but the park does not cover the entire block. There would still need to be parking removed 2 within that segment. 3 4 Commissioner Templeton asked if the concerns could be resolved with additional design work. 5 6 Mr. Kamhi clarified that Staff does not have enough geometry to know if parking can be 7 retained or not. 8 9 Commissioner Templeton acknowledged that some parking may have to be removed. She 10 wanted to understand if additional design work can be done to address the loss of parking 11 concern. 12 13 Commissioner Lauing summarized that the public and the Commission have indicated to Staff 14 that there has to be some way to address parking and receive a buffered bike lane. He 15 suggested that after the break the Commission should start with segment four. 16 17 Chair Hechtman announced that the Commission will take a 10-minute break. 18 19 [The Commission took a short break] 20 21 Chair Hechtman explained that the other segments need separation motions so that the 22 Council knows that the Commission supports those recommendations. During the discussion 23 before the break, there was consensus among the Commission that the recommendations for 24 those segments should move forward. He asked what approach was the Commission 25 comfortable taking. 26 27 Commissioner Summa agreed that the recommendations for the Waverly Path and Fabian Way 28 can move forward. In terms of East Meadow Drive, she was not 100 percent convinced that 29 segment four could be isolated and treated separately from the rest of the street. 30 31 Chair Hechtman asked Commissioner Summa if she was comfortable with Staff’s 32 recommendations for segments one and two for East Meadow Drive. 33 34 Commissioner Summa confirmed that those recommendations seemed more obvious. 35 36 Commissioner Alcheck supported Chair Hechtman’s approach to the discussion. He confirmed 37 that these are conceptual designs and that the Staff report provides substantial evidence as to 38 why the recommendations are the right recommendations. 39 40 Page 15 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Templeton also supported the approach. Her concern was that by leaving 1 segment four for East Meadow Drive unresolved, Commissioners may feel held back on 2 supporting the other recommendations. If that is the case, Commissioners should voice those 3 concerns, and the motion can be modified. 4 5 MOTION #1 6 7 Commissioner Alcheck moved to recommend Staff’s preferred concepts for A, B, C, and D on 8 Packet Page 8. That included alternative two for the Waverly Path, protected bike lanes on both 9 sides for Fabian Way as well as East Meadows Drive segments one and two. 10 11 SECOND 12 13 Commissioner Chang seconded the motion. 14 15 Commissioner Alcheck looked forward to seeing the alternatives evolve and he hoped Council 16 pursues them regardless of the funding source. He emphasized that the improvements are very 17 worthy of City investment. 18 19 Commissioner Chang echoed Commissioner Alcheck’s comments. She disclosed she is 20 seconding the motion with the understanding that the alternatives are in the concept phase. 21 She wanted to see more community engagement be conducted to understand the granular 22 details on how things will be implemented. 23 24 Commissioner Templeton announced she will be supporting the motion. She found the 25 improvements to be very promising, but they need refinements. She was hopeful that the 26 benefits of the project will affect other routes throughout the City. 27 28 Chair Hechtman supported the motion as well and hoped that the Council will fund the project 29 if the grant is not obtained. 30 31 VOTE 32 33 Mr. Nguyen announced that the motion carries 6-0 with one Commissioner absent. 34 35 MOTION #1 PASSED 6(Alcheck, Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Summa, Templeton) -0 -36 1(Roohparvar recused) 37 38 Page 16 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Hechtman recommended that the Commission discuss segment four of East Meadow 1 Drive. By discussing segment four, the Commission can understand if any issues from segment 2 four would affect segment three. 3 4 Mr. Kamhi requested that Mr. Davis provide further explanation regarding the geometry of the 5 road in segment four. 6 7 Mr. Davis explained that the blacktop portion of the road from curb edge to curb edge is 44-8 feet wide. Then there is 1-foot down the concrete to the bottom of the valley gutter and then 1 9 ½-feet up the other side of the valley gutter to come to the sidewalk. The maximum total width 10 that is available for use of transportation is 46-feet between the bottoms of the gutters. If the 11 design used the absolute minimum standards for the bike lanes, the buffer, the travel lanes, 12 and the parking lane. It takes 42-feet to accomplish that. With that said, the standard minimum 13 for a parking lane is 8-feet and so the extra 4-feet is not enough to accommodate an additional 14 parking lane. Staff explored many different versions before coming to the preferred alternative 15 that was presented. 16 17 Commissioner Alcheck asked why a bi-directional, protected bike lane on one side cannot be 18 installed. He explained that there may be a way to reduce the bi-directional lane and install 19 additional parking. 20 21 Mr. Davis mentioned that there aren’t any driveways along California Avenue and so the bi-22 directional bike lanes work there because there are no crossing conflicts for cyclists. It is very 23 hazardous for drivers to be backing out of their driveway while watching for cyclists coming 24 from either direction. For these reasons, bi-directional bike lanes are not recommended in 25 residential settings. If the Commission decided to recommend a bi-directional bikeway 26 alternative, a substandard width would be required for the bike lane in order to accommodate 27 an additional parking lane. 28 29 Commissioner Alcheck acknowledged that explanation makes sense. He inquired if the parking 30 that is removed could be gained by using angled parking spaces on the other side. 31 32 Mr. Davis articulated that there may be some potential for that gain, but due to the driveways, 33 angled parking doesn’t often gain many spaces. 34 35 Commissioner Alcheck asked how many spaces are estimated to be lost in segment four and 36 how many spaces exist currently. 37 38 Ms. Chan answered that currently there are approximately 160 parking spaces and 80 parking 39 spaces are proposed to be removed with the proposal. 40 Page 17 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Mr. Kamhi clarified that there are approximately 80 spots per side. 2 3 Commissioner Alcheck indicated that no matter what side the parking is placed on, half of the 4 spots will be removed. 5 6 Commissioner Lauing asked how many feet are needed to accomplish two parking lanes, two 7 bike lanes, two buffers, and two vehicle travel lanes. 8 9 Mr. Davis answered 49-feet is needed to fit everything at the minimum standard size. 10 11 Commissioner Lauing noted that these exercises are what the Commission is requesting that 12 Staff do to see if any other alternatives can work. 13 14 Mr. Davis stated that Staff has done those exercises. 15 16 Commissioner Lauing specified that removing the spaces will not only impact the residents but 17 the community who use the area. He acknowledged that removing 80 parking spaces will have 18 a large impact. 19 20 Commissioner Chang observed that in the evenings the parking spaces were full of vehicles and 21 she suggested using a small portion of parkland to accommodate some of the parking spaces 22 that will potentially be lost. She reported that there are plans to install a bathroom at Ramos 23 Park. Parks without bathrooms are usually used by folks who live nearby, but parks that have 24 bathrooms draw folks from all over the City. She pointed out that the blocks are very large. If 25 parking is removed, that will force folks to walk to an intersection that is a ways away to cross 26 the street and/or will incentivize jaywalking. She asked Staff if they had any thoughts about 27 what problems may arise if parking is removed. 28 29 Mr. Kamhi disclosed that jaywalking currently happens and if the parking is removed, it will 30 cause spill over to other streets. If the concept to remove parkland to accommodate parking is 31 moved forward, that concept is outside the scope of the grant, and would require its own 32 community outreach process. He noted that it is an intriguing idea and could be explored in the 33 future if the segment is not included in the proposed project. 34 35 Commissioner Templeton did not support trading parkland for parking spaces. She predicted 36 that if bike infrastructure is improved and parking spaces are eliminated. That may incentivize 37 folks to bike more to Ramos Park and neighboring facilities. Using Google Maps measuring tool, 38 she shared that segment four is roughly .58 of a mile. She wanted to understand if the 39 maximum parking demand warrants having 80 spaces on each side. She indicated that a 40 Page 18 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. significant section of segment three does not have driveways and bi-directional bike lanes may 1 work in that area. She observed that there may be room for parking on the adjacent streets, 2 but that would involve more community outreach. She concluded that there is less traffic near 3 Lewis heading towards East Meadow Circle and protected bike lanes may not be needed along 4 that stretch. 5 6 Commissioner Chang echoed that the traffic patterns on the southside of Middlefield is 7 dramatically different from the traffic on East Meadow towards the end. She wondered if a 8 universal treatment for both sections is appropriate because of the very different traffic 9 patterns, driveway location, and parking facilities. Based on the survey data, there is less 10 support for a protected bikeway as the traffics declines. 11 12 Chair Hechtman observed that Staff is proposing for East Meadow segments one, two, and 13 three have parking on only one side of the street. 14 15 Mr. Kamhi confirmed that is correct. 16 17 Chair Hechtman inquired if currently there is parking on both sides of the street. 18 19 Ms. Chan answered yes. 20 21 Chair Hechtman asked how many parking spaces are estimated to be lost in total for segments 22 one, two, and three for East Meadow Drive if the plan is implemented. 23 24 Ms. Chan shared that for segment three, the section between Waverley Street and Middlefield 25 Road, 39 parking spaces will be removed on the south side. 26 27 Chair Hechtman predicted that 60 to 80 parking spaces may be removed from segments one, 28 two, and three combined on East Meadow Drive. He mentioned that there have been no 29 concerns about losing parking in those segments. He predicted that residents on segment four 30 of East Meadow Drive are voicing parking concerns because many of the homes face East 31 Meadow Drive versus segments one and two where the homes face the streets that enter East 32 Meadow Drive. He wanted to understand what makes segment four unique in that many 33 residents have voiced strong opposition to having the parking be removed. 34 35 Mr. Kamhi clarified that there will be no removal of parking in segment one. In terms of what is 36 the difference between segment four and the other three segments is that segment four has 37 the most housing along it. He acknowledged that the City is fully built out, many of the homes 38 in this area are older and folks nowadays like to use their garage for storage. This results in 39 Page 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. moving their cars to their driveways or potentially to the street. He added that the segment 1 along JLS and Mitchell Park also has no housing and Mitchell Park has its own parking lot. 2 3 Chair Hechtman inquired if there are houses across from Mitchell Park. 4 5 Mr. Kamhi answered yes. 6 7 Commissioner Chang inquired if Staff has talked with JLS and their drop-off location on East 8 Meadow Drive. 9 10 Ms. Star-Lack confirmed that the school district knows about the project. She reported that 11 PAUSD is working on a new school plan that changes where their office is and may change the 12 traffic circulation at JLS. Staff continues to work with the school district on decongesting JLS’s 13 frontage. The school district has requested that the City install a left turn lane into the Waverley 14 driveway and if the project moves forward, Staff will be exploring how to include that request 15 in the project. The proposal does not include protected bike lanes along the school frontage. 16 17 Commissioner Chang asked Staff to clarify why that section will not be protected. 18 19 Ms. Star-Lack explained that the proposal is to maintain the parking along the housing portion 20 of the street, but the bike lane will be a buffered bike lane. In summary, if facing Gunn High 21 School, there would be a buffered bike lane, a through lane, a left turn lane, and then the 22 opposite direction vehicle lane. This configuration cannot accommodate another parking lane 23 as well as a drop-off for the school. 24 25 Commissioner Chang shared that JLS plans to move their offices closer to East Meadow Drive 26 which will cause circulation problems for the school to figure out. She remarked that what is 27 also different about segment four is that the lot sizes are larger than a standard lot and those 28 lots can accommodate an ADU. 29 30 Mr. Kamhi added that because of the potential for those lots to hold ADUs, that is an example 31 of the changing usage and demand for change in parking in the area. 32 33 Commissioner Templeton noted that based on Google Maps, the lots appear to be large 34 enough to allow folks to house their cars on their lot. She indicated that what is also different 35 about segment four is this section of the neighborhood was impacted by the Ross Road 36 upgrades, which were not supported by the community, and there may be lingering feelings 37 about that. She agreed that the flow of everything in that neighborhood is affected by the 38 traffic circle that was installed and the residents do not want to be caught off guard again by 39 another transportation project. The unique nature of segment four is to come up with a project 40 Page 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. that improves bike safety but does not compromise the comfort of the neighborhood. She 1 concluded that as you move further away from the Ross Road/Meadow Drive intersection, the 2 more accepting folks are to transportation changes. 3 4 Mr. Kamhi emphasized that that is an important point. One of the main reasons why the project 5 is before PTC is to have a dialog with the community and not have another upsetting 6 transportation project be implemented. 7 8 Commissioner Summa acknowledged that maybe there are no problems along segment four 9 that need to be fixed and she agreed with Commissioner Templeton that the change to Ross 10 Road was very upsetting to many of the residents. She commented that with major 11 transportation changes, it takes a long time for drivers to become accustomed to the change. 12 She stated that there is just not enough available space in the roadway to keep the parking and 13 add protected or buffered bike lanes. She concluded that a solution cannot be found right now 14 because according to the residents, there is no problem on segment four. 15 16 Chair Hechtman predicted that the City can pitch to VTA to provide a buffered bikeway from 17 East Meadow Circle to Lewis and do only visual enhancements to the segment between Lewis 18 and Middlefield. However, he understands that VTA has made a strong stand on the requests 19 that Staff has already made. 20 21 Mr. Kamhi emphasized that if the project is modified any further than what is presented, then 22 the City will have to find another way to fund the project. 23 24 Chair Hechtman responded that whether it is grant-funded or not, it makes sense to implement 25 his recommendation to have visual enhancements between Lewis and Middlefield. 26 27 MOTION #2 28 29 Commissioner Lauing moved that PTC move the approval of Items E and F in the Staff report 30 and recommended revised solutions which omits or mitigates the proposed loss of 80 parking 31 spaces necessary for public parking, ADUs, and other residents. He added that the City should 32 continue negotiating with VTA to maintain the grant funding with the proposed changes to 33 segment four. He commented that his motion shows that PTC wants to move the project 34 forward, grant or not grant. 35 36 SECOND 37 38 Commissioner Templeton seconded the motion. 39 40 Page 21 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Kamhi requested that the number of parking spaces be removed from the motion because 1 80 is an approximate number. 2 3 Commissioner Templeton suggested the motion say “parking” instead of a specific number. 4 5 Mr. Kamhi answered yes. 6 7 Commissioner Templeton felt comfortable with that change. 8 9 Commissioner Lauing explained that 80 is a large number and if the number was less then there 10 would be no concerns. 11 12 Mr. Kamhi restated that 80 is an approximation and if the project moves forward, Staff will be 13 doing a parking study which will provide more definite numbers. 14 15 Commissioner Lauing suggested the language be changed to estimated. 16 17 Mr. Kamhi preferred the motion to say the location but was comfortable using the work 18 estimated. 19 20 Commissioner Templeton clarified that when a motion includes a specific data point, it can 21 cause problems for Staff. She suggested that the Staff provide the estimated number of parking 22 spaces in the notes when the item goes to Council. 23 24 Commissioner Lauing restated that it is the order of magnitude number that should be focused 25 on. 26 27 Commissioner Templeton commented that the City has a significant commitment to biking and 28 biking infrastructure goes with that. She acknowledged that when funding depletes, biking 29 infrastructures projects are placed on hold. 30 31 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 32 33 Chair Hechtman was concerned that Item E, segment three, is included in the motion. He 34 mentioned that Commissioner Summa earlier raised a concern that issues that relate to 35 segment four may bleed into segment three. Throughout the discussion, he noted he has not 36 heard that that is the case and that segment three is quite different than segment four. For 37 those reasons, he was not comfortable lumping together segments three and four. He 38 suggested that they have their own motions. 39 40 Page 22 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing agreed to separate segment three from his motion. 1 2 Commissioner Templeton agreed. 3 4 Commissioner Lauing clarified that his motion applies only to Item F in the Staff report. 5 6 Mr. Kamhi remarked that if the adoption is adopted, this provides leverage for Staff to use in 7 negotiations with VTA. 8 9 MOTION RESTATED 10 11 Commissioner Lauing moved that PTC move approval of Item F and recommends a revised 12 solution that omits or mitigates the proposed loss of estimated 80 parking spaces necessary for 13 public parking for parks, ADU, and other residents. Also, PTC recommends to continue to 14 negotiate with VTA to maintain the grant funding with these changes in the .58-mile segment of 15 East Meadow Drive. 16 17 VOTE 18 19 Mr. Nguyen announced that the motion carries 6-0 with one Commissioner absent. 20 21 MOTION PASS 6(Alcheck, Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Summa, Templeton) -0 -1(Roohparvar 22 recused) 23 24 Chair Hechtman asked if any Commissioner want to comment on segment three or make a 25 motion. 26 27 Commissioner Summa clarified that there is an approximate loss of 39 parking spaces for 28 segment three. 29 30 Chair Hechtman answered yes, that is what Staff said. 31 32 MOTION #3 33 34 Commissioner Chang moved that PTC recommends the Staff proposal for segment E to City 35 Council. 36 37 SECOND 38 39 Commissioner Lauing seconded. 40 Page 23 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Chang acknowledged that there will be a parking reduction in the segment, it is 2 understood that the segment is typically under parked and there is backup parking at Mitchell 3 Park. Also, traffic is very heavy on this segment and so a protected bike lane is critical. 4 5 Commissioner Lauing supported Commissioner Chang’s judgment. 6 VOTE 7 8 Mr. Nguyen announced that the motion carries 6-0 with one Commissioner absent. 9 10 MOTION #3 PASSED 6(Alcheck, Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Summa, Templeton) -0 -11 1(Roohparvar recused) 12 13 Commissioner Summa commented that there is a timing disconnect because Staff has noted 14 that these are conceptual plans and there are many unknowns. The City is constrained though 15 by the grant and that is a hazardous situation to be in. 16 17 Chair Hechtman asked if the Commissioners would like to discuss a potential retreat later in the 18 agenda. If so, then Vice-Chair Roohparvar can rejoin the meeting for that discussion. 19 20 Commissioner Alcheck stated now is the right time to have that conversation because the PTC 21 will be going on a break and then will be in the final stretch of the year. 22 23 Commission Action: Motion by Alcheck, seconded by Chang. Pass 6-0 (Roohparvar recused) 24 Commission Action: Motion by Lauing, seconded by Templeton. Pass 6-0 (Roohparvar recused) 25 Commission Action: Motion by Chang, seconded by Lauing. Pass 6-0 (Roohparvar recused) 26 Approval of Minutes 27 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 28 4. June 9, 2021 Draft PTC Meeting Minutes 29 MOTION 30 31 Commissioner Alcheck moved to approve the minutes as revised. 32 33 SECOND 34 35 Chair Hechtman announced that Commissioner Summa seconded the motion. 36 37 VOTE 38 39 Page 24 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Nguyen announced that the motion carries 6-0 with one Commissioner absent. 1 2 Chair Hechtman believed that Vice-Chair Roohparvar was absent for that meeting. 3 4 Vice-Chair Roohparvar concurred. 5 6 Commissioner Chang stated she was absent as well and would like to abstain from the vote. 7 8 Mr. Nguyen acknowledged that the motion carries 5-0 with Commissioner Chang and Vice-Chair 9 Roohparvar abstaining. 10 11 Commission Action: Motion by Alcheck, seconded by Summa. Pass 5-0 (Chang and Roohparvar 12 abstain) 13 Committee Items 14 Commissioner Lauing reported that the Housing Element working group has been meeting. He 15 will provide updates as the process moves along. 16 Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 17 Chair Hechtman restated that July 28, 2021, and August 11, 2021 meetings have been canceled. 18 He observed that out of the seven Commissioners, two have not participated in a retreat. He 19 wanted to understand from the other Commissioners if a retreat is worth having and what 20 might be accomplished at the retreat. 21 22 Commissioner Templeton voiced that the retreat she attended was in-person and allowed for 23 the Commissioner to get to know each other better. She said she is open to having a retreat, 24 but did not find the last retreat beneficial in terms of a working session. 25 26 Commissioner Lauing remarked that retreats can be helpful. He said the value of a retreat 27 depends on the content of the agenda and he found retreats to be beneficial when they are 28 held at the beginning of the year. He noted that the PTC Work Plan could be discussed at a 29 retreat, but it can also be agendized for a regular meeting. 30 31 Commissioner Alcheck disclosed that every retreat he has attended have been different. He 32 found the last retreat to be really enlightening and helped him understand his fellow 33 Commissioners better. He didn’t feel that a retreat should be at a specific time in the year and 34 that the work plan should not be part of a retreat. It should be agendized during a regular 35 meeting. He encouraged the Commission to use the retreat as a time to come together, to get 36 to know each other better, and spent time doing something other than sharing personal 37 opinions. He shared that a retreat does not have the same formalities as a meeting does, but it 38 Page 25 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. does have to be public. He suggested the retreat be a site visit of a project that the Commission 1 has discussed or a project that is similar to the items that the PTC discusses. He concluded that 2 he supported having a retreat. 3 4 Vice-Chair Roohparvar agreed that the last retreat was informal and was intended for team 5 building. She stated she could go either way on whether there should be a retreat or not. A lot 6 of it depended on what the agenda is for the retreat and whether fellow Commissioners find 7 value in it. She supported the idea of doing a site visit and she wanted to interact with the other 8 Commissioners in an informal setting. 9 10 Commissioner Summa believed that because the retreat is considered a City hearing, the 11 Commission could not do a site visit. She acknowledged that the Commissioners could do that 12 together outside of a retreat. If the Chair does a retreat, she expressed she will come, but felt 13 that a retreat should be held at the beginning of the year. 14 15 Chair Hechtman shared that he has missed in-person, informal, discussions with fellow 16 Commissioners. He indicated that it may be best to have a retreat at the beginning of the year 17 to allow for the Commission to get to know the new Commissioner coming in. He commented 18 that he doesn’t have any particular topics he wants to focus on for a retreat, but felt the 19 Commission together could come up with some. 20 21 Commissioner Chang agreed it would be great to have an informal discussion with the other 22 Commissioners. She suggested that a retreat agenda should allow for some work items but also 23 some team-building items. 24 25 Commissioner Templeton requested that the retreat be in-person and not virtual. 26 27 Commissioner Lauing agreed. 28 29 Mr. Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that Board and Commission retreats have 30 been noticed to the public because they have been about Commission business. If the retreat is 31 just a getting to know you session, that does not need to be a noticed public meeting. The 32 Commission could do a site visit as a retreat, but it has to be noticed to the public. 33 34 Chair Hechtman appreciated the input and declared the meeting adjourned. 35 Adjournment 36 10:15 pm 37 Page 1 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Action Agenda: July 14, 2021 2 Virtual Meeting 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 Approximately 6:02 pm 7 Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III: Chair Hechtman? 8 9 Chair Hechtman: Present. 10 11 Mr. Nguyen: Vice Chair Roohparvar? 12 13 Vice-Chair Roohparvar: Present. 14 15 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Alcheck? 16 17 Mr. Nguyen: Present. 18 19 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Chang? 20 21 Commissioner Chang: Present. 22 23 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 24 25 Commissioner Lauing: Present. 26 27 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Summa? 28 29 Commissioner Summa: Present. 30 31 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Templeton? 32 33 Commissioner Templeton: Here. 34 35 Mr. Nguyen: We have a quorum. Thank you. 36 37 Chair Hechtman: We are now moving on to oral communications. 38 Page 2 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Oral Communications 1 The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 2 Chair Hechtman: This section is for the public to speak on items not on the agenda. So, if you 3 want to talk about bicycles, that is on the agenda. If you want to talk about something else, 4 now is your time. Please raise your hand if you wish to speak. On the Zoom App, there is a raise 5 hand button on the bottom of your screen. If you are dialing in from a phone, please press *9. 6 Are there any public speakers for oral communications? 7 8 Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III: Chair Hechtman, we currently do not have any raised 9 hands. 10 11 Chair Hechtman: Very well. 12 13 Mr. Nguyen: I’m sorry, we just had one just raised it right now. Our first and only speaker is 14 Francine. 15 16 Ms. Francine Fail: Hi, my name is Francine Fail. I live on East Meadow Drive. I have lived here on 17 our [unintelligible] around the corner all my life. I have used the East Meadow way to get to 18 what was then Wilbur and Cubberley without bike lanes, never having a problem. My children 19 (interrupted) 20 21 Chair Hechtman: Francis [note – Francine]? 22 23 Ms. Fail: Same thing and my grand (interrupted) 24 25 Chair Hechtman: Francis? Francis? Francis [note – Francine] can I interrupt you for just a 26 second? You can stop her clock please, Mr. Nguyen. Francis [note – Francine], it sounds very 27 much to me like you are wanting to speak tonight on our Agenda Item Number Two which is 28 the Bikeways Project. And if I’m correct, then this would not be the right time to talk. When… 29 after the… after we get through oral communication, we have some Commission business and 30 then we call that Agenda Item, have a Staff report, and then we take public comment on that. 31 And at that point, if you raise your hand, you’ll get a full 3-minutes. So, am I misunderstanding 32 your comments, or if not, can I ask you to hold your comments until the Agenda Item? 33 34 Ms. Fail: So, I will wait until it’s time. You are correct. 35 36 Chair Hechtman: Thank you very much. I look forward to hearing those comments later tonight. 37 Mr. Nguyen, any other oral communications tonight? 38 39 Mr. Nguyen: Chair Hechtman, there are no other raised hands. 40 Page 3 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Hechtman: Alright, thank you. We will the move to agenda changes, additions and 2 deletions. 3 4 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 5 The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 6 Chair Hechtman: I have none. Commissioners, any of you have any? I’m seeing no hands, so we 7 will move next to City Official reports. 8 City Official Reports 9 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 10 Chair Hechtman: Mr. Kamhi. 11 12 Mr. Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official: Thank you very much. Just a brief update, the 13 Council’s summer recess continues and so there are no updates from the City Council for 14 tonight. The PTC will also take its own recess following this meeting in July and August with the 15 next two meetings being canceled and this follows a year-to-date in which none of the other 16 meetings have been canceled. Needless to say, PTC has been very busy and working hard and 17 next PTC meeting is scheduled for August 25th. 18 19 The Development Center, which is part of Planning and Development Services, and also the 20 Office of Transportation will both reactive for in-person services on Monday, August 2nd. And 21 we’ll be offering in-person services by appointment only and we’ll also continue to offer virtual 22 appointments and online services. Please note that any unvaccinated Staff or customers must 23 wear face coverings to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and we will look forward to seeing our 24 customers and co-workers again very soon. 25 26 And with that, I believe Sylvia Star-Lack has a few updates that she’d like to share. 27 28 Ms. Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Manager: Thanks, Phillip. I have two Safe Routes to School 29 updates. This week 126 students are participating in summer bike rodeos. Our Staff has 30 coordinated these for students who missed them this fall due to the COVID pandemic. While all 31 of last year’s 3rd graders did receive online or virtually taught bicycle safety instruction. Until 32 the rodeos this week, there had been no on-bike instruction and we are partnering with the 33 Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition to provide these rodeos for students this week. So, I just wanted 34 to let you know that that’s happening. 35 36 The second item is part of our equity efforts. In June, the Safe Routes to School Staff 37 coordinated an adaptive cycling event for 20 exceptional needs PAUSD students. Our partner, 38 Bay Area Outreach and Recreation Program, also known as BORP, brought special bicycles for 39 Page 4 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. students of all abilities and fitted them to the students. So, they could experience the joy of 1 bicycling on the school black top. It was a successful event and we hope to bring more adaptive 2 cycling to more Palo Alto students and families in the future. Thanks, Phillip. 3 4 Mr. Kamhi: Thank you and with that, that concludes the director’s comments, and happy to 5 take any questions. 6 7 Chair Hechtman: Commission questions of Staff? Commissioner Templeton. 8 9 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. Just a quick question, what is the targeted age group for 10 the bike rodeos? Is that the 3rd event or? 11 12 Ms. Star-Lack: Yeah, that was… thanks, Commissioner Templeton. That was for the last years 3rd 13 graders, so raising 4th graders, and they were… we were… yes, so they were asked to sign up 14 back in May for those. 15 16 Commissioner Templeton: That’s awesome. Do you have anything planned for kids who are 17 going to be going back to school and haven’t been biking for a year or plus? Or are you aware of 18 any events like that? 19 20 Ms. Star-Lack: No, we don’t have anything planned, but we know that this is a concern of many 21 parents. We do have on our Safe Routes to School webpage, many online safety videos, and 22 curriculum that you can look at and review with your children. 23 24 Commissioner Templeton: Awesome. Thank you so much for all you do. 25 26 Ms. Star-Lack: Thanks. 27 28 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang. 29 30 Commissioner Chang: Unmute, ok. This might be better directed towards Assistant Director 31 Tanner who isn’t here, but I did have a question regarding the Objective Standards meeting that 32 we had… that I was absent for. But I did watch the video of it and in it Assistant Director Tanner 33 had mentioned that she would try and organize a community information session or 34 community webinar or something like that in order to address the height limit concern. For... 35 and to explain to the community who’s interested more about what’s going on there and I 36 wanted to follow-up, especially because I wasn’t at that meeting to ask. Do you know when 37 that is scheduled for by any chance? 38 39 Page 5 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Kamhi: Unfortunately, I do not. I’m happy to forward that question to Assistant Director 1 Tanner though. 2 3 Chair Hechtman: Other Commission questions of Staff? Seeing none, we will move to our action 4 item tonight. 5 Action Items 6 Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 7 All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 8 9 2. South Palo Alto Bikeways Phase 1 Community Feedback and Concept Plan 10 Alternatives 11 Chair Hechtman: The sole action item on the agenda is Agenda Item Number Two, South Palo 12 Alto Bikeways Phase 1 community feedback and Concept Plan Alternatives. May we have a Staff 13 report, please? 14 15 Vice-Chair Roohparvar: Chair Hechtman? 16 17 Chair Hechtman: Actually, before we do that… yeah, before the Staff report, let me ask for 18 disclosures by any Commissioners? Contacts, things of that nature. Vice-Chair Roohparvar. 19 20 Vice-Chair Roohparvar: So, due to the proximity of my house to this project and after consulting 21 with counsel for the City. I am going to recuse myself from this action item and I will return 22 once it completes. 23 24 Chair Hechtman: Thank you Vice-Chair. Commissioner Chang. 25 26 Commissioner Chang: So, I’ve been… I just wanted to disclosed that I’ve been involved in some 27 of these meetings. I attended them, so I had attended a meeting in May asking for participation 28 from parents because I am a JLS parent as well as on the JLS PTA and so I attended one of 29 those. I also attended the engagement summary and I live close to the area but not directly 30 affected by it. So, I don’t feel the need to recuse myself but I did want… and then the final note 31 is that I had emailed Ms. Chan to ask some questions and she had given me a response. So, 32 that’s information that I don’t know if I should share now or when it’s more relevant in our 33 discussion? A question. 34 35 Chair Hechtman: Mr. Yang? 36 37 Commissioner Chang: Would it be Mr. Yang? 38 39 Mr. Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney: I guess just to be clear, there’s not necessarily a need 40 to do traditional disclosures for this item because the City is the applicant. But yeah so there’s 41 Page 6 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. no need to do it now. It was important for Vice-Chair Roohparvar to announced her conflict… 1 potential conflict at the outset but nothing more is necessary. Thank you. 2 3 Chair Hechtman: Thank you, Mr. Yang. Alright, seeing no further Commission hands, I will ask 4 for a Staff report. Ms. Chan, are you going to lead us? 5 6 Mr. Phillip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official: Well, thanks, I’ll just briefly introduce Joanna 7 Chan our Senior Planner. And I have to sadly note that this is going to be her last meeting 8 because she’s, unfortunately, leaving the City of Palo Alto. So, everybody is going to get to see 9 how fantastic she is and then we’ll have to bit her farewell, but this will be her final meeting 10 and her final week here with the City. But that said, Joanna Chan our Senior Planner, we also 11 have consultant here to assist with the presentation and also Sylvia Star-Lack. 12 13 Ms. Joanna Chan, Senior Transportation Planner: Steve, can you please pull up the 14 presentation, please? Thank you. So good evening Commissioners and members of the public. 15 So, it is my pleasure to be here this evening being my last week. So, I am Joanna, I’m the Senior 16 Transportation Planner with the City, and joining me tonight in this presentation is Steve Davis 17 from our consultant team from Fehr & Peers. Next, please. 18 19 So, this evening we will provide an overview of the project background, potential 20 improvements we shared with the community during the first phase of engagement as well as 21 feedback we have received through our online survey and previous events. We will also present 22 the Preferred Concept Plan that was developed from this phase of community feedback and 23 briefly outline the immediate next steps of the project at the end. 24 25 So tonight, we are looking for PTC’s direction on whether Staff should proceed with this project 26 as a whole and if PTC recommends to further pursue this project. Staff request PTC to 27 recommend the Preferred Concept Plan in its entirety to Council. Next, please. One more. 28 29 The project was awarded to improve bicycle facilities on three corridors. The Waverley Multi-30 Use Path, East Meadow Drive between Alma Street and Fabian Way, and Fabian Way between 31 East Meadow Drive and East Charleston Road. The City must deliver a protected bikeway along 32 Fabian Way or East Meadow Drive as close as possible to a protected bikeway along the 33 corridor without a continuous protected bikeway. Meaning that parts of the corridor could 34 potentially be a buffered bikeway without the vertical separation and the grant stipulations do 35 not allow the City to remove segments of these routes from the project without losing the 36 funding. The project must also receive all Caltrans approval to initiate the construction phase by 37 January 2023. 38 39 Page 7 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Here is a project map showing the project corridors in green. These corridors serve as key 1 routes for students traveling to multiple schools as well as connections to various community 2 facilities. Such as Mitchell Park Library and the Community Center, JCC, Robles Park and the 3 Highway 101 pedestrian bike bridge project, and Adobe Reach Trail that is currently under 4 construction which you can see in orange on the map. 5 6 Here are two charts displaying data on the students bicycling to school. And these were 7 collected by counting the number of parked bikes at a school and administered by 8 parent/teacher association volunteers. And relevant to the project, the graph on the left shows 9 in blue that JLS students biking increase from 48 percent in 2009 to 70 percent in 2019. The 10 graph on the right shows in the red that Gunn students biking increase from 33 percent in 2009 11 to 50 percent in 2019. For this coming school year, earlier start times for JLS and Gunn could 12 result in even higher rates of biking and walking as parent work schedules may not long align 13 with a morning school drop-off. And additionally, according to a fall 2020 survey of PAUSD 14 parents, the lack of protected bikeway is the main reason site by elementary school parents 15 who do not allow their children to bike to school. 16 17 Analysis from the City’s current Sustainability and Climate Action Plan effort shows that the 18 transportation sector in red is the largest source of greenhouse gas emission in the state at 65 19 percent. So, projects such as this one support mode shift from vehicle trips to active 20 transportation modes and it is a relatively low-cost and efficient strategy to help reduce 21 greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the barriers to bicycling identified by local parents. 22 23 With that in mind, let’s take a quick look at the three project corridors and what they look like 24 now. The existing Waverly Multi-Use Path is pretty bumpy with uneven surfaces in places in due 25 to cracking and tree root intrusion. There are also obstacles such as overgrown vegetation as 26 you can see in this photo. Additionally, the path is directly adjacent to a chain-link fence that 27 can interfere with bicycle handle bars. These issues combined with high demand during school 28 peak periods have leeds to falls and collisions for student cycling. And on Fabian Way, we have 29 heard parents indicate that the existing bicycle facility make it a difficult school commute. This 30 is likely due to the large crossing distance, traffic volumes and speed, and the lack of separation 31 from vehicle traffic. As you can see in the photo on the right, this is Fabian Way looking towards 32 West Bay Shore Road. The shared bicycle and parking lane leave little room for bicyclists and 33 presents dooring exposure. And on East Meadow Drive, which is a popular school commute 34 corridor, it currently has one vehicle travel lane, one bike lane, and one non-standard width 35 parking lane in each direction. The rolled curbs, large parked vehicles, and lack of space 36 between the bike lane and parking lane can result in challenges for bicyclists. Exposing them to 37 dooring risks by parked cars or causing them to use the sidewalk when bike lanes are obstruct. 38 39 Page 8 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Now I would like to turn the presentation over to Steve who will speak in more detail about 1 potential improvements and share a summary of feedback we have received so far. 2 3 Mr. Steve Davis: Thanks Joanna and thank you to the Commission for allowing me to join you 4 today. We’ll begin by flipping through some examples of different types of potential 5 improvements that we’ve shared with the community and that many of you are probably 6 familiar with. The first set of treatments that are the most common form of bike lane, which is 7 either the standard bike lanes you see on the left or the buffered bike lanes that you see on the 8 right. These are treatments that provide a clearly delineated space for one-way bike travel on a 9 roadway. Standard bike lanes like the ones on the left are the existing condition on East 10 Meadow and Fabian today. And buffered bike lanes like the ones on the right, are generally the 11 same, but provide additional striping to create that clear space that you’re seeing between 12 bicyclist and moving vehicles. This also creates additional space for bicyclists to move into in the 13 event that a car door is opened into the bike lane from a parked vehicle. Both of these 14 treatments, I think as you all know, are used in many locations throughout Palo Alto. 15 16 The next potential treatment is a protected bike lane, sometimes referred to as a cycle track. 17 This provides a space for bicycles that is separated from vehicle traffic by some kind of a 18 physical barrier such as bollards, concrete curbs, or other vertical elements. For example, 19 bollards are used in front of Green Middle School at Middle Field Road and North California 20 Avenue for that protected bikeway. This essentially creates a separate right of way for bicyclists 21 within the roadway to minimize interactions between the vehicles and bicycles and can be 22 implemented quickly using plastic bollards, delineators, other such materials; which is similar to 23 what’s on California Avenue and Middlefield Road there by green. Also, you see it on the left 24 here on Blossom Hill Road in Los Gatos. One specific version of protected bike lane is referred 25 to as a parking-protected bike lane and this utilizes parking… parked vehicles as part of that 26 physical protection between the bike lane and moving vehicle traffic. So, this also creates a 27 separate right of way for bicyclists in the roadway and it still allows parking to occur on the 28 roadway without having interactions between bicyclists and parked vehicles or vehicles creating 29 parking maneuvers. This allows a space to be put in between parked vehicles and the bicycle 30 way to avoid the vehicle doors from the passenger side of cars intruding onto bicyclist’s path. 31 And just like protected bikeways, this can also be implemented more quickly using plastic 32 bollards. And again, the same spot in Los Gatos, just another section of the road, you can see 33 how that’s s generally done. 34 35 For the Waverly Path, the barrier between the path and the school parking circulation could 36 potentially be modified to eliminate some of the constraints caused by the existing chain link 37 fence. A shorter barrier in particular would not catch the handle bars of bicyclists like the fence 38 can and would allow bicyclists to ride closer to that barrier and effectively make the path fee 39 wider even if it’s not actually wider. A wide variety of materials can serve this purpose, 40 Page 9 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. including bollards, delineators, curbs, or a variety of other separators. These types of devices 1 have been used throughout the Bay Area, including in Palo Alto, and adjacent communities 2 such as Menlo Park, Mountain View, and Redwood City. 3 4 Additionally, a variety of other decorative or artistic treatments could be considered to replace 5 or enhance the existing fence. These treatments could provide a more substantial separation 6 between the vehicle circulation route and the path, similar to the existing fence, but would 7 improve the aesthetics. Depending on the treatment selected, the overall height may still be 8 reduced to address interference with cyclist’s handle bars. Some treatments, such as the 9 decorative bollards and guard rails shown on the far right, can also be implemented and 10 adjusted more quickly. 11 12 So, with this background, let’s go ahead and jump into an overall summary of the engagement 13 activities and feedback that we received to date on the South Palo Alto Bikeways Project. As a 14 start, just walking through the methods that were used and the events that were held. This 15 shows the overall set of engagement methods for this project. Including the launching of the 16 project webpage, communication through the City’s social media channels, physical distribution 17 of materials, focused meetings, and other methods used to advertise the project engagement. 18 Additionally, this table shows the online survey and various events that were conducted. Along 19 with the level of participation that was observed for each of these event throughout the 20 process. 21 22 The goal of this first phase of engagement was to assess community support for protected 23 bicycle facilities. There were considerations that may have impacted the evaluation of the 24 project. For example, we had to rely on digital engagement tools which sometimes had low 25 participation and the engagement timeframe was limited or limited school-based opportunities 26 because it was at the end of the school year. Overall, given the constrained product timeline 27 and pandemic situation, there were limited resources and ability to pivot. 28 29 This identifies a few of the key pieces of feedback we received for each of the project corridors 30 during the webinars. For the Waverly Path, many attendees expressed a preference for keeping 31 ridge delineation between the path and adjacent vehicle circulation to encourage safer 32 behavior with a lower fence seen as a desirable option. Participants generally agreed with the 33 project’s goal to avoid tree removals along the path. Two key themes that developed were 34 concerns about parking reductions as well as concerns about visibility for cyclists if parking-35 protected bike lanes were implemented on East Meadow Drive or Fabian Way. Participants 36 sought more information pertaining to the makeup of people using the project corridors and 37 noted that biking is particularly difficult at school arrival and dismissal times along East Meadow 38 Drive. 39 40 Page 10 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. As you can see here, a total of 258 unique participants provided feedback via the projects 1 online survey. About 95 percent of those who participated live in Palo Alto and the responses 2 indicated that approximately 80 percent of those who completed the survey were familiar with 3 the corridors as a bicyclist and/or driver. Approximately 2/3s of the participants represented 4 households with a student under the age of 18 who bikes to and from school. 5 6 The next few slides will speak directly to the feedback provided for each of the project corridors 7 using the web map, which is assessable through the online survey. A total of 17 comments were 8 received on the Waverly Path via the project web map with 12 of those expressing a desire for 9 the path to be widened. Respondents expressed a desire to maintain some kind of continuous 10 physical barrier between the path and the adjacent vehicle circulation at the schools out of 11 concern for safe interactions between students biking and drivers. Several participants noted 12 that wayfinding and connectivity between the path and nearby facilities, such as Mitchell Park, 13 and existing bikeways on East Charleston Road could be improved. A total of 11 comments 14 were placed along Fabian Way using the web map, with more than half indicating that a 15 protected bikeways was needed. No respondents indicated that the existing bikeways were 16 adequate. Written comments indicated that biking is difficult and feels unsafe here. Especially 17 for children and expressed concern for movements at the Fabian and East Charleston signalized 18 intersection. Finally, a total of 50 comments were placed along East Meadow Drive using the 19 web map. 13 of those comments indicated a preference for protected or buffered bikeways, 20 and all of those were pins that were placed between Alma Street and Middlefield Road. 22 21 comments were placed indicating that the existing bikeways were adequate. Written 22 comments indicated that there were concerns about placements of bollards and in some cases 23 noting specific locations in the concepts where bollards wouldn’t be feasible for bikeway 24 protection. It was noted that biking is particularly difficult during school arrival and dismissal 25 times and that East Meadow Drive is used heavily as a biking routes by Gunn High School 26 students. 27 28 So, as part of the survey, participants were directly asked to vote for their preferred option on 29 each project corridor. Two options were provided for each location on the Waverly Path and 30 participants additionally could choose to express no preference. Or select other and enter 31 written explanation and that was for all of the corridors that this was done. 32 33 For the Waverly Multi-Use Path, the two options proposed different approaches to modifying 34 the path to provide an improved and more consistent user experience. Option One consisted of 35 widening the path toward the grassy strip away from the school buildings where feasible to 36 accommodate larger flows. At pinch points, like this fire hydrant that you see here on the left, 37 widening the path would allow more space for bicyclists. Option Two consisted of not only 38 widening the path toward the grassy strip, similar to Option One but additionally widen the 39 path towards the school buildings where feasible to allow additional space adjacent to trees 40 Page 11 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. and vegetation. Any modification of the path that would require coordination… would require 1 coordination with the fire department and school district. Both options were noted to 2 potentially include removal or modification to the existing chain link fence and replace it with a 3 different type of separation. As previously mentioned, a wide variety of materials could be used 4 to delineate separation between the multi-use path and the adjacent vehicle [unintelligible]. 5 Approximately 2/3s of the survey participants expressed support for Option Two, which 6 includes widening the path on either side where feasible. 7 8 For Fabian Way, Option One consisted of eliminating the existing on-street parking to allow 9 four vehicle travel lanes to be maintained while adding buffers for the existing bike lanes. 10 Option Two consisted of maintaining on-street parking, adding a center turn lane, and 11 implementing protected bike lanes while removing one threw travel lane in each direction. As 12 can be seen here, 58 percent of the survey participants indicated a preference for protected 13 bike lanes along Fabian Way while 26 percent preferred buffered bike lanes. A total of 16 14 percent either didn’t express a preference or indicated a preference for a different option, with 15 those preferred to maintain the existing condition on Fabian Way representing 3.5 percent of 16 the responses. 17 18 On East Meadow Drive, both options to improve the existing bikeway would require moving 19 parking on one side of the street. The parking retained could be on either side of the street and 20 could potentially be different in different segments. Option One generally consisted of 21 providing buffered bike lanes on both sides of the street to improve visibility and separation of 22 bicyclists. Parking would be retained between the bike lane and sidewalk on side of the street. 23 Option Two consisted of providing protected bike lanes on both sides of the street. In this 24 option, parking would be between the moving vehicles and bikeways to provide additional 25 physical separation. On East Meadow, 53 percent of the survey participants indicated a 26 preference for protected bike lanes while 24 percent preferred buffered bike lanes. A total of 27 23 percent either didn’t express a preference or indicated a preference for a different option; 28 with those who preferred to maintain the existing conditions representing 9 percent of the 29 responses. Consistent with the feedback received during the engagement events, several 30 responses reflected a desire to better understand how parking would be affected prior to 31 selecting an alternative. 32 33 As part of the survey, participants were directly asked to indicate on which sections of East 34 Meadow Drive and Fabian Way they would prefer to see protected bikeways. Participants were 35 allowed to select more than one segment, could select all segments if desired. As can be seen 36 here, support for protected bikeways was strongest on East Meadow Drive between Alma 37 Street and Middlefield Road as well as on Fabian Way. Respondents generally showed less 38 preference for protected bikeways on East Meadow Drive east of Middlefield Road. 39 40 Page 12 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Based on the feedback received through the events, survey, web map, and emails to the Office 1 of Transportation. We then went ahead with developing a preferred alternative for 2 consideration. 3 4 The preferred alternative for the Waverly Path was identified as widening to either side of the 5 path where feasible. This design has the potential to provide the greatest enhancement to the 6 users experience while minimizing the effect on trees. Based on the feedback, it is anticipated 7 that the continuous ridged barrier would be investigated to replace the existing chain link 8 fence. In order to best control interactions between students on the path and vehicles in the 9 adjacent circulation isles. As previously mentioned, any widening toward the school would 10 coordinated with the school district and the fire department. 11 12 Given the support for protected bikeways on Fabian Way, we plan to present to PTC and 13 Council Option Two. Which includes a reduction in travel lanes and maintains on-street parking 14 as part of the protected bikeway in the east bound direction toward US 101. East bound in this 15 aerial is off to your left towards 101. Improvements for this segment would be coordinated 16 with other improvement programs in the area as part of the Charleston/Arastradero Project. 17 Including lane configuration changes at the East Charleston Road intersection. 18 19 Before we share the preferred alternative for East Meadow Drive, we would like to note that 20 number of concerns related to improvements on East Meadow Drive were identified through 21 the engagement process. A number of concerns related to the survey not explicitly providing an 22 option to retain existing conditions, which supports an overall community preference to 23 preserve parking as much as possible on the residential side. With that in mind, surveyor 24 responses indicated general support for protected bikeways on East Meadow south or west of 25 Middlefield Road with the greatest desire to add protected facilities adjacent to the schools 26 between Waverly Street and Middlefield Road. Given that East Meadow Drive is not wide 27 enough to allow additions of buffers or protection for bike lanes while keeping parking on both 28 sides of the street. The preferred alternative reflects the solution with parking preserved on the 29 residential side. Additionally, last Friday, over 30 residents met with City Staff as Ramos Park. A 30 variety of concerns were raised about the project including concerns about the outreach 31 process, the project rationale, and the reduction in parking supply inconvenience. The results of 32 location-specific feedback about the change in parking availability along the Ramos Park 33 frontage. And the potential for increased vehicle and bicycle interaction during the tightly 34 clustered morning commute if the parking were retained on the north side of the street. As 35 reducing these interactions is a goal of the project, the next project phase will include 36 conducting outreach to consider retention of parking on the south of East Meadow Drive, east 37 of Middlefield Road. For the purpose of tonight’s action item, PTC could recommend a parking 38 lane removal and leave open the question of where parking should be retained or express a 39 preference for which side should retain parking. 40 Page 13 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Based upon the feedback, East Meadow Drive have been broken into four different segments 2 for the identification of the preferred alternative. Location Number One is between East 3 Meadow Circle and Fabian Way and would retain parking in the westbound direction traveling 4 away from Fabian Way while keeping bike lanes on both sides. 5 6 Location Number Two is at the other end of East Meadow Drive between Alma Street and 7 Waverly Street. Compared to the rest of the corridor, relatively few properties have driveways 8 directly accessing East Meadow as most properties in this segment front the cross streets. 9 Because of this, a preferred design of protected bike lines in both directions with parking 10 maintained on one side has been identified. Access to all driveways would be maintained. 11 12 Location Number Three is between Waverly Street and Middlefield Road. Including the frontage 13 of JLS and Fair Meadow Schools as well as Mitchell Park on the south side of the street. Along 14 this section, a majority of the north side of the street consists of residential frontage. Because 15 of the context, a preferred designed was identified as a hybrid of the original two options. On 16 the residential side of the street, a buffered bike lane would be introduced in the westbound 17 direction while the one street parking lane would be widened between the bike lane and 18 sidewalk. The buffer would increase bicyclist comfort and provide additional space to navigate 19 the door zone. Alternatives to provide a buffer between bicyclists and parked vehicles could 20 also be considered. On the school side of the street, a protected bikeway would be provided by 21 including physical separation in the proposed painted buffer. Access to all existing driveways 22 would be maintained. 23 24 One unique location in this segment is where angled parking is provided with direction access 25 from East Meadow Drive adjacent to the Fair Meadow Elementary School site. The same 26 general cross-section as described in the last slide would be maintained here but the bike lane 27 would be striped with dash marking to identify the mixing zone between bicycles and vehicles 28 completing parking maneuvers. This is similar to the existing treatment on Stanford Avenue at 29 the dish parking. 30 31 The final segment of East Meadow Drive is between Middlefield Road and East Meadow Circle 32 where both sides of the street are generally fronted by residential properties. Based upon 33 feedback received, the preferred design here consists of buffered bike lanes in both directions. 34 On-street parking would be maintained between the bike lane and sidewalk in one direction 35 which is currently proposed to be westbound. At locations where there are not driveways and 36 parking is not proposed such as adjacent to Ramos Park. Physical separators such as bollards 37 could be added to the buffered bike lane to enhance protection of bicyclists. 38 39 So, with that, I’m going to turn it back over to Joanna to explain the next steps for the project. 40 Page 14 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Ms. Chan: Thanks, so much Steve. So, after tonight’s meeting… oh, next slide, please? So, after 2 tonight’s meeting, we anticipate presenting the project along with PTC’s feedback and 3 recommendation to City Council on August the 9th. And if City Council directs the project to 4 move forward, the design phase will likely begin in the fall which will include more community 5 engagement, parking studies as well as temporary treatments. And with that, it concludes our 6 presentation tonight and we welcome any questions. 7 8 Chair Hechtman: Thank you, Staff. Questions of Staff Commissioners before we take public 9 comment? Alright, I’m seeing no hands so… oh, Commissioner Lauing. 10 11 Commissioner Lauing: Yes, thanks. These are just questions to Staff, correct? 12 13 Chair Hechtman: Yes. 14 15 Commissioner Lauing: So, first of all, the original premise of this meeting is whether or not the 16 product should be continued and I’m just a little bit confused from the start on that. Can you 17 give that… some context? I mean are there pluses and minuses as to why it should move 18 forward or not or is this relative to the VTA Grant? Why are we being asked that question 19 because there’s so much invested in it and, you know, it’s got benefits? Why is it even a 20 question as to whether it should move forward with some recommendation? 21 22 Mr. Kamhi: I’ll start on that and then perhaps Sylvia or Joanna or Steve even might want to 23 jump in. But just to note that this was originally brought to PTC and Council a little while back 24 as… it’s a little bit complicated. But we laid out originally the outreach plan and this was 25 intended to be a check point on that outreach plan. That outreach plan was determined to… 26 was set to determine if we have a project. And what we mean by that is we’ve got a potential 27 grant funding source if we have a project. And that is because VTA in giving us this grant has 28 required us to do what we said we would do in the grant which is to provide bike paths in all 29 the segments that have been mentioned. So, that’s the premise for the grant so what we need 30 to decide at this point is if this is going to be a project that we are going to feel comfortable 31 moving forward with. Noting that the history of this project is that it was originally identified as 32 a potential corridor for this type of treatment in the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation 33 Plan. This grant was applied for approximately 4-years ago and now we’re trying to fulfill this 34 project on a very, very tight timeline in order to receive that grant funding if we are going to 35 move forward on the project. So, nothing that we’re already spending money on doing the 36 community outreach to determine whether we’ll be able to move forward with this project. So, 37 that’s where we’re at and I’m not sure if Sylvia or Joanna or Steve, do you want to provide any 38 more context on that? 39 40 Page 15 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Star-Lack: Sure, I’ll say a couple things. I think we realized that once we get going with this 1 project, once we decide to move forward and commit to it. That we won’t… there’s no wiggle 2 room in the schedule to stop and change things and pause it or we will lose the money. And so, 3 we wanted to make sure that the community understood what this project was. We wanted to 4 get a check-in to move forward so that’s the main thrust of that. 5 6 Commissioner Lauing: So, then it is specifically relative to if there is a project as funded by VTA? 7 I think that’s what I heard Phillip say. 8 9 Ms. Star-Lack: Yeah. 10 11 Commissioner Lauing: I mean that clarifies the question for me, but the next question is that I 12 understood that there was suppose to be some negotiations with VTA and could we get a 13 status on that? 14 15 Ms. Star-Lack: We did speak with VTA about the project scope. They’re… they were expecting 16 protected bikeways with a vertical element on all of the project segments. I mean not on the 17 Waverly Path but because that’s all obviously separated… going to be separated anyway but on 18 East Meadow and on Fabian. And they said well if you… they said you have to provide it as 19 much as possible, as much protection as possible, and if not. If you can’t get protection in, then 20 there needs to be some kind of separation. A buffered bike lane and so leaving any segments 21 out, where we leave things in existing conditions, would not be ok. We would lose the grant for 22 that and they note that other… we competed with other people for this money and other 23 communities might not take it kindly if we change the promised scope. So, they’re willing to 24 move a little bit and meet us in the middle to remove the protected bike lanes from both 25 streets, but we have to put in at least buffered bike lanes where we can. 26 27 Mr. Kamhi: I just wanted to note that this is really critical because the crux of the discussion 28 that I’m sure that we’re going to hear from public comments tonight and as well from PTC 29 Commissioners who might have the same question is really the question about removing 30 parking. So just to note that in order to gain the space necessary to do buffered or protected, 31 any type of additional bike lane in order to fulfill the need of this grant, we will have to remove 32 parking. So, I just want to note that in advance because that is the difficult discussion that will 33 be before you tonight. 34 35 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, we should have that on the table. So, your understanding of VTA, 36 the narrowest definition of… can’t remember that indirect phrase of almost where it was or 37 something like that, is that there has to be some kind of physical buffer? 38 39 Page 16 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Kamhi: It’s really the space more so than the physical. So, the allowance that VTA is giving 1 us is that we do not have to have the physical barrier as a protected bikeway would. But we do 2 need to have the space at a minimum of a buffered bike lane. If that makes sense to you on all 3 of the segments. So, we can’t say this really works great in segment one, three, and four but we 4 don’t want to do it in segment two. It just… VTA will say thank you, let’s move this money to 5 another agency. 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, well maybe you can go into more detail on that when we get to the 8 alternatives but that’s very good about answering the question. Really quick question was 9 there… is there any consideration a possibility of also reducing speed limits because taking the 10 speeds down 5 miles per hours reduced collisions by half. I know there’s a state law that 11 addresses that as well so is that also an enhancement in this project of dropping speeds? 12 13 Mr. Kamhi: I don’t have the exact boundaries immediately in front of me but we are already in 14 the process of reducing speeds around the school zones. So, the speeds are going to be… are… 15 this was approved back by Council in 2016. We’re currently in the process of installing new 16 speed zone signs. So, we are already reducing speeds in school areas. 17 18 Commissioner Lauing: Ok thanks, that’s all the question for now. 19 20 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang. 21 22 Chair Hechtman: Just to ask one more time, my understanding this is an all-or-nothing deal. We 23 cannot lop off a section of East Meadow and receive a proportionate amount of funding. Is that 24 correct? 25 26 Mr. Kamhi: Yes, in order to fulfill or to have the grant be our funding source for this project. 27 28 Commissioner Chang: Then a second question which is Ms. Chan I think cited some survey of 29 parents saying that the lack of protected bike lanes is the reason why many elementary school 30 children do not bike. And so, I was wondering if that was also the case for specifically Fair 31 Meadow Elementary School children since that is primarily the elementary school in question in 32 this area? And the reason I ask that question is because I want to make sure that we’re… this is 33 solving for an actual problem according to that neighborhood and people who use that area. 34 35 Ms. Star-Lack: I can speak to that and so that was a survey that was done that was school 36 district-wide. So, it was parents across the district who report… parents from across the district 37 who do not normally… who don’t let their kids walk or bike to school site that the lack of 38 protected bike lanes was the number one reason why or yeah. The number one reason why 39 they weren’t biking to school. 40 Page 17 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Chang: Ok, so we don’t have the cross tabs on that (interrupted) 2 3 Ms. Star-Lack: No. 4 5 Commissioner Chang: Knowing how many Fair Meadow parents said that? Ok. That’s it for me 6 for now. 7 8 Chair Hechtman: Alright, thank you. Any other Commission questions of Staff before we go to 9 public comment? Seeing no hands, we will now open the floor for public comment. Please raise 10 your hand if you wish to speak. On the Zoon App, there is a raise hand button on the bottom of 11 your screen. If you’re dialing in from a phone, please press *9 and I know we have speakers 12 tonight. Before we get to that, you’ll have 3-minutes as indicated on the clock and I do expect 13 that… in fact, I can see that we have seven hands up already, 25 attendees. I’m expecting more 14 of you to raise your hand. So, what I would encourage you to do is we’re looking forward to 15 hearing what you have to say. To the extent you’re going to say something that you heard 16 another speaker say, just if you can find a short way to tell us you agree with that earlier 17 speaker, you actually preserve more of your time to make original points. Which would… both 18 that would be helpful to hear the original points and to know you agree with a prior speaker. 19 So, with that, it looks like Mr. Nguyen, you want to start the public speakers for this item? 20 21 Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III: Yes, thank you. Let's wait a quick moment for the speaker 22 timer. Oh, there it is, sorry. Our first… so currently we have 10 speakers. Our first five speakers 23 will be Arthur Keller, followed by Kenneth, followed by Sue F, followed by Peggy, and then 24 followed by Alan. So, our first speaker is Arthur. 25 26 Mr. Arthur Keller: Good evening Commissioners and Staff. I quote from Staff report Page 2 with 27 an emphasis added. The original grant scope committed the City to delivery of protected 28 bikeways along Fabian Way and East Meadow Drive. After conversations with VTA, the City 29 must deliver at a minimum a protected bikeway along Fabian Drive… Fabian Way or East 30 Meadow Drive must deliver a scope as close as possible to protected bikeways along any 31 corridor without a continuous protected bike lane. 32 33 Now, the plan can provide a protected bikeway along Fabian Way, along East Meadow Drive 34 within Alma and Middlefield and Waverly, and not change anything between Middlefield and 35 East Meadow Circle, [unintelligible] four. The plan is the preference to the neighbor. It desired a 36 green stripe that is going to be painted with a bike lane marker between Middlefield and East 37 Meadow Circle along East Meadow Drive. Now, why spend money to fix something that is not 38 broken? 39 40 Page 18 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. I also point out that the along East Meadow Circle, that between East Meadow Circle and East… 1 and Fabian Way, that parking should be on the south side of the street. So, the… rather than 2 the north side because in that direction is where the bike bridge is going to be placed in the 3 interest of bikeway… the bike bridge. So, it would be a problem if there’s bike… where there’s 4 parking on that side of the street. And not only that but there also is parking all along there 5 because of… excessive parking because of this two housing complexes in the neighborhood and 6 those complexes cost considerable street parking that can be seen at night. So, I would just ask 7 you [unintelligible] people to look at night and then you’ll see all the parking on the street. I’m 8 done. 9 10 Mr. Nguyen: Thank you Arthur for your comments. Our next speaker is Kenneth. 11 12 Mr. Kenneth Fehl: Good evening, can you hear me? 13 14 Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we can hear you. There seems to be an echo. If you’re listening to the meeting 15 on a different device (interrupted) 16 17 Mr. Fehl: Ok can you hear… is the echo gone now? 18 19 Mr. Nguyen: Yes, perfect, thank you. 20 21 Mr. Fehl: Thank you. My name is Kenneth Fehl. I’ve lived here on East Meadow for over 40-22 years. And I want to address one comment that Mr. Davis made that only 9 percent of the 23 people wanted to retain the situation as is based upon the meeting that we had, the 24 impromptu meeting we had on Friday with over 35 attendees addressing segment four of East 25 Meadow by the way. The area east of Middlefield down to East Meadow Circle. It was not 9 26 percent that wanted to keep it, it was 100 percent of the residents here wanted to keep it as is 27 with respect to the issue of maintaining the parking on the streets. 28 29 We were all agreeable to having bike lane painted greed to emphasize it, but no one wants to 30 have a parking removed. It would be a tremendous inconvenience to everybody. I personally 31 have a business here. I’m a law practice. I have an assistant who’s handicapped who would be 32 forced to walk quite a bit of distance away from her office if she was not allowed to park here. I 33 have a number of clients who are elderly in their 80s and 90s. It would be a horrible 34 inconvenience for them as well. 35 36 And so, the proposal to remove the parking is overkill in that we have never… there’s no 37 empirical evidence that there is any kind of accident or a collision or any interference by cars 38 opening their doors with respect with interfering with the bike lane. It’s a perceived problem 39 Page 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. that does… is not an actual problem and yes, we can improve the biking but we do not have to 1 remove the parking. 2 3 And as far as the contention that it’s an all or nothing deal or you lose the money. That is 4 incorrect. You can still improve the parking… improve the bike lanes but you do not need to 5 remove the parking. That would be a major inconvenience and a major loss of a financial 6 interest as well. Thank you very much. 7 8 Mr. Nguyen: Thank you Kenneth for joining us tonight. Our next speaker is Sue. Sue 9 [unintelligible – audio disturbance] (interrupted) 10 11 Ms. Sue F: Hi, can you hear me? 12 13 Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we can. Thank you. 14 15 Ms. Sue F: So, I’m kind of bothered very much here by the timeline that decisions have to be 16 made by August 9th, and the Planning Commission and City Council are going on vacation. So, I 17 don’t see how anything’s going to get done between now and then very much without just 18 barreling through with the all-or-nothing idea. Like we got to get this money, let’s do it. 19 Damned with what everyone says which is a very, unfortunately, thing I think. 20 21 I think that the City… Joanna Chan mentioned that she said the City, according to the proposal, 22 is not allowed to remove segments of the plan. In the park on July 9th and I believe on a phone 23 call previously with Sylvia. I do not believe we were told that that was 100 percent definite. I 24 thought we could change segments of the plan. My understanding was we could so I thought 25 we’re trying to get all these comments from neighbors and residents to understand that better 26 and make our voice be heard. 27 28 I also go to what Arthur spoke of, of the 9… there was a notation of the survey results. 9 29 percent of East Meadow area residents said don’t change the portion of East Meadow. I think 30 that the results of the survey drove people to put answers that they didn’t necessarily want. I 31 know that I, on several questions, looked at it and I said I don’t want any of these, and I can’t 32 get a good answer for what I want in our neighborhood. So, I do believe that the survey, like 33 many surveys ever done in the world, are skewed to get the results that you want which is get 34 everybody to say ok and move ahead with the plan. Because like Arthur said, 100 percent of 35 approximately 35 people at the park on Friday, who are residents of the area and closely 36 affected by this, said we don’t want this. So, that information and the results of that survey are 37 not accurate at all. 38 39 Page 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. So, I also really wonder about who agreed to this plan of take this proposal and like Sylvia said. 1 Let’s take it away from other Cities who want the money because Palo Alto can use it, knowing 2 it was pretty much an all-or-nothing plan and did you really think Palo Alto people weren’t 3 going to speak up? And if you lived in this neighborhood or took the time to be down here. I 4 think that you would really not want this in your neighborhood. I mean I don’t mean to say 5 don’t put it in my backyard, but that’s exactly what’s happening and we have a ton of stuff on 6 this road. And we need to have cars and parking and we need to be listened to most of all. And I 7 don’t think that’s being done if you just want to ram down our throats to get the money which I 8 think is your goal and I’m sorry about that. 9 10 Mr. Nguyen: Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Peggy. 11 12 Ms. Peggy: Hi, can you hear me? 13 14 Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we can, thank you. 15 16 Ms. Peggy: Ok thank you. Thank you for having this meeting and listening to us and also thank 17 you, thanks Sylvia for meeting us at the park last Friday. After the meeting at the park, we… a 18 lot of residents sent emails to the Planning Commission and also the City Council. Please, please 19 read those emails. There are tons of reasons that why this plan is not a good plan. It’s actually… 20 I wouldn’t use the words in the email but please read them. 21 22 And when I look at the presentation today, I almost laughed loud because when I saw the 23 picture of East Meadow. It’s very, very, very deceptive. It’s a picture taken… I couldn’t even 24 believe that there’s an angle to take a picture of East Meadow showing that the bike lane is not 25 generous. But actually, I took a photo a few days ago and sent the photo with an email and I 26 just now sent another email to the Planning Commission. Please look at the email. Please look 27 at the photo that I take. The bike lane is very generous. It’s almost as wide as the car lane and 28 yeah, there’s… I don’t know why we still need to widen that already very generous bike lane. 29 And also, I’m very concerned about the deceptive photo in the presentation. 30 31 There’s another slide talking about the percentage of students going to school and the 32 percentage is rising every year. Why did they use percentage? Why do not… why don’t use just 33 the real number? The absolute number? There’s one reason using the percentage because 34 maybe the absolute number is decreasing but because of the base number of students is 35 decreasing then the percentage is increasing. Then they chose to show the percentage instead 36 of the absolute value. So, from these slides, I think we have a reason to question the data in the 37 presentation. Whether they are engineered so that it’s favored to a decision that they want to 38 push. 39 40 Page 21 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. As a summary, as many neighbors… fellow neighbors already stated in their emails. There is no 1 problem with this East Meadow stretch of the street and please do not create problems when 2 there is no problem. Thank you. 3 4 Mr. Nguyen: Thank you for your comments. Our next and last five speakers are Alan, followed 5 by Amie, followed by Patricia, followed by Taly, followed by Francine, followed by Karen, and 6 then followed by Chuck. Ok, our next speaker is Alan. Alan, if you’re there, can (interrupted) 7 8 Mr. Alan Wachtel: Yes, I’ve unmuted. Can you hear me? 9 10 Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we can, thank you. 11 12 Mr. Wachtel: Alright, I’ve been a member of the City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Committee for 13 over 40-years without… with one interruption but I’m not speaking for that Committee. Only 14 for myself. I believe this project should not move forward. There’s a need in this corridor but 15 the project has not been designed to address the need. You’ve heard very clearly that it was 16 designed to chase certain funding and to conform to the requirements of that funding. Not to 17 the need in the corridor. It would be possible for the City to spend half a million dollars of its 18 own funding and a million dollars of the grant while making things more dangerous for 19 bicyclists and pedestrians. The need in this corridor could be addressed first of all by some 20 combination of partial parking removal and lane re-configuration; which would preserve more 21 parking than the current plan which is clearly important to the neighborhood. 22 23 But what’s been presented to you here as a necessity is barriers separated bikeways which have 24 been described to you as protected. That’s also how they were described during outreach and 25 naturally when people were told that bikeways are protected. That’s what they want. It sounds 26 like there’s no interaction with cars, but that’s an illusion. It’s not the engineering term for 27 these facilities and the many drawbacks were not presented either to you or during public 28 outreach. 29 30 If you’re driving a car, you would not think of passing right-turning traffic on the right. Roads 31 wouldn’t even be designed that way, but these separated bikeways force bicyclists to pass 32 right-turning traffic at every driveway and minor intersection on the right, in the right rear blind 33 spot of the driver. While expecting to be protected while the driver is unable to merge toward 34 the curb as you would normally do because of the barrier. In addition, sight lines may be 35 obstructed by parked cars which has been mentioned. 36 37 There are additional drawbacks to be trapped in the separated bikeway but I don’t have time to 38 go into those. You might say, well you don’t have to use them if you don’t want to. But the 39 remaining traffic lane will be too narrow to share side by side and will also create hostility and 40 Page 22 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. antagonism between bicyclist who ought to use it and motorists who are delayed. Buffer bike 1 lanes also have problems but I could work with them if I had to. These barrier separated so-2 called protected bikeways, no you should not approve the project. 3 4 Mr. Nguyen: Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Amie. Ok, I’m sorry Amie, it 5 looks like you’re using an older version of Zoom. So, I actually can’t unmute you but I can 6 temporarily promote you to panelist so you can give us your comments. So, your Zoom app is 7 going to close and reopen shortly. Amie, you’re muted. 8 9 Ms. Amie Ashton: Good evening. Once again, hello. Ok, my names Amie Ashton and I am here 10 to speak for those who aren’t here with us tonight and those are the kids. Hundreds of which 11 who use and would this bike lane if they felt safe. 12 13 Public right of way is for all us. It’s not a private parking lot for use of those who are out there. 14 This is transportation space, it’s space that contributes to our sense of community and our 15 overall public health. I’m just kind of sad that potentially parking spaces might be the reason 16 this plan is being squashed and I admit no plan is perfect. This plan might not be perfect, but it’s 17 a step in the right direction towards making these kids feel safe. And I think that’s what our 18 community is about and what we need to value. So, thank you so much, and good luck with 19 this. 20 21 Mr. Nguyen: Thank you Amie for your comments. Our next speaker is Patricia. 22 23 Ms. Patricia Stayte: Hi, I would like to say that I think that there’s several problems with this 24 plan. I’m asking the Commissioners to… oh, can you hear me? 25 26 Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we can, thank you. 27 28 Ms. Stayte: Oh ok, can you restart me by any chance? I just didn’t know if you could hear me. 29 Hello? 30 31 Mr. Nguyen: Yeah, we can (interrupted) 32 33 Chair Hechtman: Go ahead and restart… Mr. Nguyen, go ahead and restart her. 34 35 Ms. Stayte: Thank you so much. Alright, so there’re a number of problems with this project and 36 specifically with community engagement and outreach which I think was quite failed. Because 37 as we discovered in the park last Friday or whenever that was, last Monday, that many of us 38 were completely unaware of this project. You should also know Commissioners that we are not 39 just motorists. We are cyclists and motorists, many of us, and so we are not anti-bicycle at all. 40 Page 23 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 This programs has created a real illusion, this project, and Commissioners I’d like you to pay 2 attention to like Alan was saying. The grant is really forcing the conditions and you’ve really put 3 the cart before the horse. It looks like you’ve done a great job of explaining what you’re doing 4 but the basic premise is flawed because you’re jamming the location into the grant and that 5 creates a lot of problems. 6 7 I’d like to say as a parent, I would not allow my child, K to four grade, to bike, walk or otherwise 8 go to school on their own. Regardless of whether you paved the roads with gold and put them 9 in some kind of protected bubble because they’re really too vulnerable and they lack maturity 10 because they’re little kids. And so, I think there’s lots of great things we can do to solve these 11 problems. They’re just not in that grant. 12 13 Next, the… your data is skewed like Peggy was saying. The cost of housing in Palo Alto coupled 14 with the declining birth rates will lead to less of a PAUSD population going forward. So, using 15 percentages is completely misleading and then saying that those are increasing. Maybe the 16 percentage has increased but not the gross number. Not the raw number. There are solutions, 17 just not with this grant. 18 19 Commissioners, please vote no, and please also, like Peggy was saying, take some time if you 20 can to read the emails that we’re sending. A lot of us are really, really upset about this because 21 we feel like we’ve been blindsided and if you vote no… if you vote yes on this. You will increase 22 danger to both cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians and there will be accidents. There are lots of 23 great things that could be done that probably would require less money and some imagination 24 but this is not the right way to do it. I thank you guys so much for your public service 25 Commissioners and everyone who’s come here tonight to give up their time to figure this 26 problem out. We all love the kids, we all love cycling, and we want to have a safe community 27 but this grant is not it. Thank you so much again for your time. 28 29 Mr. Nguyen: Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Taly. 30 31 Ms. Taly Katz: Hi. Hi, thank you. I’ve been living on Ortega Court for 35-years now and I thank 32 you guys all for being here and for taking the time with the grant. I agree with most of the 33 speakers so far that because this is an all-or-nothing kind of a deal which I didn’t understand 34 until just right now. With all your outreach and put all in quotations because the first time I 35 heard about this project was the meeting that was on Friday. Even know I’m on Facebook and 36 I’m on Next Door Neighbor, etc. So, the outreach was not sufficient to start with. 37 38 So, the fact that this is an all-or-nothing kind of a deal is very disturbing because the part of the 39 project that is problematic is, in my opinion, the stretch of East Meadow Drive from Middlefield 40 Page 24 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. to East Meadow Circle. And the problematic… the very problematic part of that is Ramos Park. 1 That park is accessed by people who come there for soccer and dog walking, etc. and I think 2 there might even be a legal problem to eliminate parking on that side of the street. You would 3 be eliminating the handicap parking and you would be forcing people to jay-walk, which is 4 illegal because they would have to go either all the way to Ross Road or to Lewis Road in order 5 to cross and that is not practical. So, I contend that there might even be a legal problem to 6 eliminate parking next to Ramos Park. It’s not like Mitchell Park where there’s other parking 7 there. There’s parking lots at Mitchell Park. There is no alternative parking there. 8 9 So, this is… I’d also like to hear some status about the accidents that have been along the 10 corridor. Mostly the East Meadow corridor because I think that’s the problematic part of this 11 proposal because again, it’s all or nothing. And I’m wondering if it’s really not a problem there 12 but it just was inserted into this whole plan and now we can’t eliminate it. So, that’s the part of 13 the plan that is not, in my opinion, this whole shouldn’t go through because of that part. Yeah, I 14 guess that’s it. Thank you. 15 16 Mr. Nguyen: Thank you for joining us. Our next speaker is Francine. 17 18 Ms. Francine Fail: Hi, you can hear me? 19 20 Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we can, thank you. 21 22 Ms. Fail: Great. So, as I was saying in the beginning, I have lived here all my life in this 23 neighborhood. I grew up here as a kid, I biked East Meadow, went to Wilbur, went to 24 Cubberley. My children did and my grandchild and there has never been a problem that I know 25 of. Especially, between Middlefield Road and was its East Meadow Circle? There’s never been 26 an issue with cars and bicycles. 27 28 I think that the… I agree with basically what everybody said. The only thing I want to add to this 29 are two things. One, there’s no reason… because I know that they did this for the other 30 elementary schools that you passed out saying… you passed out a flyer to all the parents saying 31 this is how the kids should ride and where. And I don’t understand why we can’t do that to say 32 go to Mayfield… Mayfield? 33 34 [note – unknown male speaker:] Mayview. 35 36 Ms. Fail: Mayview, go through the park because that’s where they’re bike places are that they 37 have to place their bikes to go to school and that’s a may much quieter street. They don’t have 38 any issues with that. 39 40 Page 25 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. I don’t get that and then not to add insult to injury but having that turnabout that you’d put in. 1 You got rid of the bike lanes and now you’re going to have children mixed in with this 2 roundabout where they had to put back two of the stop signs. And it’s going to be an issue for 3 pedestrians, I’ve already seen it for cars, and for bicyclists who all have to converge in this 4 roundabout. 5 6 [note – unknown male speaker:] Fire department. 7 8 Ms. Fail: Oh yeah and the fire department goes down East Meadow quite a bit and they literally 9 have to slow down, stop, go around the thing and who knows, somebody having a heart attack 10 how long… how much longer they have to wait because of that. 11 12 So, I really don’t think that this should continue. I think you need to end it. If you have to give 13 back the money because it’s all or nothing. Give back the money. I did see in Section Two where 14 it said Fabian Way or East Meadow you could do something and I do see on Fabian Way it 15 makes sense because it’s a much larger street. Wider street and most of the places are 16 businesses that already have parking lots for their employees. So, I could understand doing 17 something there for the bicycles and I can understand on East Meadow putting in the green 18 color things so that people can see the bike paths better. But the road is just not that wide as 19 Charleston and Arastradero and I really don’t think there’s been a problem here. I also have 20 asked to see where they’ve had an issue and nobody has shown that to me. Thank you. 21 22 Mr. Nguyen: Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Karen. Hi, Karen, if you’re 23 there, can you please unmute yourself? Last call for Karen. Ok, in the interest of time we’ll 24 come back to Karen at the end. Our next three speakers will be Chuck, followed by Robert, and 25 then Shelley. Chuck, if you’re there, you can speak now. 26 27 Mr. Chuck Wilson: My name is Chuck Wilson. I’m a resident of East Meadow for 41-years. In the 28 41-years I’ve been here, I’ve never seen a problem with biking safety. My three children all 29 biked to and from school. To Fair Meadow, JLS, and Gunn. The bike lanes are probably the 30 widest in the City. There are lines already between the bike lanes and the traffic and the bike 31 lanes and parking. 32 33 Another problem… one of the biggest safety problems is Ramos Park which has already been 34 gone over. But I want to point out that Ramos Park, first of all, does not have its own parking 35 unlike Mitchell Park what was pointed out, so most of the use is by young children. In the 36 evening there’s tee-ball, youth soccer. These parents park on the south side so their kids do not 37 have to run across the road. Forcing… removing the parking from the south side is going to 38 mean that every… all these kids that are going to Don Ramos Park every evening during school 39 or are going to be running across the road. Four lanes; two bike lanes, two traffic lanes, to and 40 Page 26 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. from and these are the young kids. These are not older teenagers. These are our youngest 1 children who are using Ramos Park and then the parents, the adults, would be carrying their 2 athletic equipment, picnic tables for picnics on weekends. 3 4 Another problem is that there isn’t enough space for the two… all the parking right now to go 5 to one side. The City’s has been encouraging the addition of the ADU units to provide low-cost 6 housing and this has increased the amount of parking on the street. You might go down the 7 middle of the day and it looks like there’s a lot of parking. But in the evening when everyone is 8 home, you find that right now where I live. The south side is the overflowed parking for the 9 north side because there just aren’t enough spaces. And the problem of leaving the parking on 10 the northside is that in the morning, that you’re doubling the number of cars on the northside. 11 All the kids are biking to school on the northside and they’re in a rush to go to school. It’s 12 different from in the afternoon when they’re coming… leisurely going and the after-school 13 actives are spaced out. But in the morning, you’ve got the rush of traffic and they’re all rushing, 14 and then at the same time you have twice as many car doors opening, people backing out, 15 driving over the bike lane. So, for that reason, it’s a bad idea. 16 17 Let’s see, I’m [unintelligible] aren’t going to have enough time to speak everything. Just be… 18 read our emails. I think in our emails we did a good job. The circle right now if you look at the 19 picture I sent in the email. You’ll see how the lines of bike path direct the bikers right into the 20 traffic before they go around the circle. That’s just an accident waiting to happen. Thank you. 21 22 Mr. Nguyen: Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Robert. 23 24 Mr. Robert Stayte: Can you hear me now? 25 26 Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we can. 27 28 Mr. Stayte: Great. First, I’ll follow your format and I’ll [unintelligible] one all the people I agree 29 with. So [unintelligible] and at least who I remember. Painting the lanes and stenciling is 30 something that we need. I live… also first I live between Meadow and between [unintelligible] 31 roundabout. So, that’s where I live one Meadow, have for 16-years, family of five, all bicyclists 32 for commuting, work, everything. So, a lot of bicycles going on in my house. So, I agree with 33 painting the lanes and stenciling. I agree with maintaining all the parking on both sides of the 34 street for some of the reasons that have been given. The generous… the bike lanes are very 35 generous as are… as they are presently. There was quite a bit of lacking of the community 36 engagement and outreach because everyone at the meeting last Friday did not receive a door 37 hanger or any kind of communication about this. So, there’s no problem, don’t create one. 38 39 Page 27 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ramos Park, eliminate the parking down would be a nightmare. The roundabout is a nightmare 1 and reducing that or reducing the bike lanes around it presently. I walk my dogs through there 2 every day. Trying to walk the dogs around, if there’s bicyclists around and cars around. It’s 3 everybody kind of pauses and doesn’t really know what to do and the kids in the morning time 4 have the same issue. So, that needs to be rethought. No accidents that I’ve seen living in where 5 I live in my street anywhere coming and going at all times of day. 6 7 I do have an ADU. I built an ADU and losing parking… we were encouraged by the City and given 8 money by the City to build an ADU. We built an ADU to provide more housing for the 9 community and now we’re saying ok, now we want to take away the parking that’s on your 10 street for another reason. But you know thanks for that, so that’s not very good. 11 12 So, I want to add a few things, new ones. There’s a church on the corner of Middlefield and East 13 meadow that has a lot of services going on. They require parking that always overflows on our 14 street. For Ramos Park has lot of things going on. There’s the baseball, there’s the church at the 15 corner, there’s the community center, there’s the chili cook-off. Any time there’s events, our 16 street is always used for overflow parking. So, this is not parking just that being a resident on 17 the street that I’m losing. It’s also the community parking is they’re losing the space as well 18 because when the parking’s full. They go everywhere around the neighborhood and try to find. 19 So, the farther they have to walk, the farther the strollers have to go, the farther everyone has 20 to make the event that’s in the park. So, they use this street for events and I think everything’s 21 ok with that because it doesn’t happen every single day, all the time. 22 23 And lastly, I just want to thank you for your time and also, we have two bus stops on this street 24 on this side too as well. So, a lot of coming and going with adding in things for that. So, thanks 25 for your time, appreciate it. 26 27 Mr. Nguyen: Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Shelley. 28 29 Ms. Shelley: Hi, thank you so much for the time that you guys have dedicated to this. I want to 30 say that I completely agree with Francine and Ken. With everything that Peggy and Patricia and 31 Taly have said with regards to the amount of community engagement on this and the… just the 32 amount of information and the data that has gone out or the lack of data. 33 34 I agree with if people have to park across the street and then walk across the street. They’re 35 going to go jay-walk which is going to make things very dangerous. Some alternatives that I 36 would like to suggest would be speed bumps because we have big trucks going up and down 37 that corridor. We have lots of cars going up and down and it would be great just to kind of force 38 people to slow down. 39 40 Page 28 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. The next item is that roundabout. I completely agree, it is so dangerous. Some people stop, 1 some people don’t stop, some people go super-fast, and I have seen so many people almost get 2 into accidents or almost run into people because there’s the assumption that it’s a roundabout. 3 It’s just… if it’s not going to be used as a roundabout, it should be removed, and there should 4 just be a four-stop sign sort of thing there to make sure that everybody stops, everybody is 5 aware of what the rules are. But the way it is right now with half of the street being just driving 6 and then half the people stopping and then people are confused. It’s really dangerous. 7 8 I would like to see more data again from everybody who lives around there. Maybe some sort 9 of mail-in survey. I feel like having this on Zoom makes it so that only people who have access 10 to electronic devices are on this or who are computer savvy or getting on to this or people who 11 have email addresses. So, maybe some sort of mail-in survey would be great and to top it off. I 12 bike with my kids to school. I’ve never had an issue but my kids are smaller. I have a 13 kindergartener and I have a second grader and I would never let them bike by themselves. 14 Although my son has… he does tend to think he’s a teenager and bike far ahead of me and I’m 15 like ah you know but he’s learning and they’re doing bike safety at school. He’s… it’s definitely 16 something that they’re getting more comfortable with. And I have not felt like East Meadow is 17 dangerous because it is pretty wide and there is a huge bike lane right there and painting it 18 green would be great. It’s a visual reminder but I feel like getting rid of the parking or forcing 19 people to part across the street. You’re just creating more problems. 20 21 I would like to see more things like speed bumps or something. So, and also lastly, I agree with 22 Fabian Way. It is so dangerous. I use to live over there. All the kids would drive up and then go 23 down East Meadow. That’s how they felt. Thank you. 24 25 Mr. Nguyen: Thank you for your comments. We will not go back to Karen. Karen, if you’re there, 26 can you please unmute yourself? 27 28 Mr. Rich Jew: Good evening. This is actually Rick and Karen [unintelligible]. I’ll be speaking for 29 both of us. We are also longtime residents of East Meadow. Like Ken, I have a presence on this 30 street since I have since the early 80s and I usually… I actually can see East Meadow from my 31 window and my door is barely open. [unintelligible] remember an event where a car and a bike 32 had a problem. I also was born and raised in Palo Alto. I’ve lived here virtually all my life. I went 33 to Wilbur, Ross Road, De Anza, [unintelligible], and Cubberley riding my bike or walking. I didn’t 34 see any people [unintelligible] going to school or any [unintelligible] with cars of any kind. 35 36 So, I want to actually quickly ask the Commission… the Planning Commission to decline the 37 positive recommendations for this project and just to reemphasize some of the things people 38 said. Arthur says it's not an all or nothing, it’s an either-or between East Meadow and Fabian 39 Way. For Kenneth pointing out that we elderly people that move around the street. I’ve 40 Page 29 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. included my practice my clients are in their 80s and 90s and so having them to come across 1 my… across East Meadow would be a real problem. With Peggy, I would say absolutely, 2 [unintelligible] with statistics. When I was young and using my bike to go to school. There were 3 way more children going to school, nobody died, and to Sue and Alan. Thank you for what you 4 said and to Amie who was the one dissenting voicing. There are alternatives that are free or 5 have a very low cost which would be going and using Mayview as opposed to East Meadow. It is 6 the stress-free bike path for you are all looking for and [unintelligible] thank you for your 7 comments. I believe with Taly, there was not sufficient outreach. I’m here 24/7. I don’t 8 remember the outreach and to Francine and Chuck and to Robert and Shelley. 9 10 I think in conclusion the neighborhood doesn’t want this. We’ve all written emails regarding 11 and expressing our ideas as to why this is a bad. This should be integrated into the statistic 12 [unintelligible] tonight is not ignored. So, again, I want to thank the Commission for hearing us. I 13 hope that you turn down and do not recommend this to the City Council. Thank you. 14 15 Mr. Nguyen: Thank you for your comments. Can you please restate your name for the record? 16 17 Mr. Jew: Rich and Carri Jew. We’re [unintelligible] residents of East Meadow. 18 19 Mr. Nguyen: Thank you. Chair Hechtman, that concludes public comments for this item. 20 21 Chair Hechtman: Alright, I want to thank the many members of the public who spoke tonight 22 and also thank members of the public who submitted written comments which I have read all 23 of. I suspect my fellow Commissioners have. I was at 5:45 tonight I was reading the batch that 24 came in this afternoon and so those are important for us too. And we appreciate the time you 25 took to share your thoughts and concerns with us. 26 27 I’m going to bring it back to the Commission for our deliberation now, but I’d like to actually 28 start with a question of Staff. In the Staff… because I heard in the… from at least three our 29 commenters. In the Staff report, fairly early in the report, there’s a reference to Fabian Way or 30 East Meadow. Later on, in the Staff report, it's conjunctive, Fabian Way and East Meadow, and 31 clearly, at least three of our speakers are under the impression from that first reference that we 32 have some choices that we can make here. Although, that’s not my impression from the overall 33 Staff report. So, I’d like a member of Staff to clarify that reference and really what the deal is 34 with this VTA grant. 35 36 Ms. Chan: I mean I can start answering that and if Sylvia and Phil, if you guys would like to add 37 feel free. So, first of all, I also want to thank you. All of the members of the public and 38 Commissioners setting aside this time to discuss the project with us tonight. 39 40 Page 30 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. So, I guess just a little background, so this grant was envisioned and awarded 4-years ago. So, I 1 mean the strategies and perspectives have definitely changed since. So, it has… I guess this 2 project has been dormant for some years so when we reengaged Council as well as PTC earlier 3 this year in January 2021. We’re also in conversations with VTA already letting them know that 4 this original grant which is to deliver protected bike lanes with the vertical separations on both 5 corridors. We let them know that this may not be something that could happen in the City. So, 6 we started that discussion early on and we let them know and they were like well this is still 7 what the grant requires. We will continue working with the City and we did also let them know 8 that we’re going for the first of community engagement. So, pretty much we left it opened 9 ended. We would say we’ll continue discussing and come back to us when we have more data 10 from community. So, as we were having our community conservations. We continuously went 11 back to VTA and what they said. Ok, it seems like we could have the protected bikeway on 12 Fabian. So, it sort of becomes like ok, we could deliver the protected bikeway on Fabian but the 13 other one. We will continue discussing but they still wanted to be as close as possible to the 14 original grant which is the protect bicycle facility. So, that’s why it sounds like the original grant 15 is to deliver protected bikeways but after discussion, they’re willing to work with us. And that’s 16 already after some community engagement and them knowing support that we have protected 17 or we have support from the community that it could happen on Fabian Way. I don’t know if 18 Sylvia or Philip, you guys have any other notes to add? 19 20 Ms. Star-Lack: I just want to add that at no point did VTA say it would be ok to leave parts of 21 East Meadow as they are in existing conditions. 22 23 Mr. Kamhi: Thanks, and I also want to just note that although the grant was 4-years ago. This 24 project was I guess initially conceived back prior to 2012 when the 2012 Bike and Pedestrian… 25 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan was originally drafted. 26 27 Chair Hechtman: Alright, that’s helpful, so I’m understanding now that or and actually when 28 you read it in the context of the sentence, it’s basically saying one of these roads… at least one 29 of these roads has to be protected and the one that’s not protected, which means the physical 30 barrier, has to be buffered which is widened. Or have the wider path and both of those on 31 segment four and East Meadow would result in a loss of parking. So, we don’t really have a 32 choice within the context of the grant (interrupted) 33 34 Mr. Kamhi: Yes. 35 36 Chair Hechtman: To say we’ll do protected or buffered here but neither protected or buffered 37 there. Is that right? 38 39 Mr. Kamhi: Yeah, that’s correct in the terms of the grant. 40 Page 31 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Hechtman: Yeah, ok, alright, thank you for that clarification and I hope that helped some 2 of our members of the public understand that language from the Staff report. So, I’d like to… 3 my thought regarding the Commission discussion here was that we would start with a round of 4 general comments by the Commissioners up to 5-minutes. Sort of an overview of thoughts that 5 any of the Commissioners may have and then we can dive into each of what I’m counting as six 6 segments. If you look at the East Meadow as four discrete segments which one of the Staff 7 maps shows us. So, if that sounds right with the Commission, I would invite Commissioner 8 hands and I’m seeing Commissioner Templeton’s hand. 9 10 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you, Chair. I was wondering if before we get started we 11 wanted to… if Staff wanted to respond to anything from the public comments. There was 12 definitely a lot of concerns and allegations that were included in that commentary. 13 14 Mr. Kamhi: Yeah, thank you. Yes, very much would like to address some of those things. I just 15 want to note again, really the purpose of this meeting and the reason this item is before you is 16 because we want to decide whether this is a project that members of the community want to 17 see move forward. And so, I just want to first say thank you to everyone that’s shown up here. 18 You know to provide their thoughts and noting that Staff developed this process in particular 19 because we don’t want to force anything down. So, we didn’t just say, we’ve got this project 20 we’re moving forward. This entire part of this process has really been determined whether we 21 have people’s desires and interests in this project. So, I just want to note that. 22 23 I also want to note that I… apologizes, my dog just scared herself with a cardboard box. Startled 24 me a little bit, but I want to note that we have all of the raw data for all of our Safe Routes to 25 School. And the reason why typically when you share school data you share percentages is 26 because the school population can change over time. And actually, in our case, the school 27 population has actually increased I believe over time since when that slide started. So, we’d be 28 happy to share the raw data for that which actually shows that we have a lot more people 29 bicycling now. Students bicycling now than we did in the past. We have slides with that data on 30 it. 31 32 Also want to note that this project was on a really tight timeline for a lot of community 33 outreach and a lot of community outreach happened. You know, noting that we had door 34 hangers, mailings to residents within 500-feet of the project, social media, we had flyers posted 35 at the grocery stores, we had multiple webinars, we have a website, we sent emails to 36 individuals and local neighborhood associations and the school communities. So, I want to note 37 that the meeting that occurred last Friday was, at least as far as our Staff knew, just a meeting 38 with a few concerned residents that wanted to discuss the project. And ended up being quite a 39 large meeting that our Staff was not really prepared to handle or didn’t have a presentation or 40 Page 32 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. anything that with I believe I around 37 residents. But so, noting that their comments and 1 concerns didn’t really make our report or presentation which has printed earlier. But you heard 2 many of their comments and concerns tonight and I’ll say better late than never. So, very glad 3 to have their input on this project. 4 5 With that, did I miss anything Sylvia, Joanna, that we wanted to talk about beforehand? No. Oh, 6 Sylvia has one. 7 8 Chair Hechtman: You’re muted, Sylvia. 9 10 Mr. Kamhi: Still muted. 11 12 Ms. Star-Lack: Sorry, sorry, it’s a slippery mute button. I just wanted to mention that at our high 13 schools now over half of the student's bike to school. So, that’s approximately 1,000 students at 14 each high school are arriving by bike in a non-pandemic year. So, just want to give you the 15 context around that. Thank you. 16 17 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you all. Chair, may I do my comments now? 18 19 Chair Hechtman: Please. 20 21 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. First, I just wanted to say thank you so much for the 22 presentation. I also watched the webinar video and felt very excited about this project. It’s 23 definitely interesting hear the different perspectives and that there are definitely different 24 angles and points of view that we need to consider. 25 26 I will share some of you on the Commission already know but maybe for our public. I was biking 27 on Meadow in front of Fair Meadow when my daughter was struck by a car that was pulling out 28 of the parking lane. She was fine. You know no lasting injuries but just to say that does happen 29 and I’ve seen it happen and I’ve also been a participant in that kind of collision. And we don’t 30 want to have that, especially with very young children. I would also say that now that my 31 children are going to a school along the Arastradero corridor rather than requiring the use of 32 Meadow. They’re biking more. So, I… these are anecdotes but just to let you know that I feel 33 that we do have some expectation that more children will be able to bike independently when 34 the biking facilities are more protected and safer. 35 36 So, I think it’s really exciting that we have this opportunity to use funds from an external source 37 to improve our City streets for bikers. I’m going to leave it there for my initial comments but 38 just to say thank you for presenting this opportunity and allow us to discuss it. 39 40 Page 33 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Hechtman: Thank you, Commissioner Templeton. Other Commissioners? Commissioner 1 Chang. 2 3 Commissioner Chang: Sure, so I was initially really, really excited about this project also because 4 I live in the area. My kids bike to JLS and to Hoover. They… we’re big users of the Waverly Bike 5 Path and again, I should say that I can attest to the dangers of the Waverly Bike Path because 6 my own child went over his handle bars and we had to stop at JLS to [unintelligible]. 7 8 All that said, I am… and I want to thank Staff for their really hard work and to also thank 9 everybody who gave up part of their precious evening to give public comment or write emails. 10 I’m… it’s wonderful to hear all of those perspectives which I also share and understand. 11 Because I also bike down East Meadow and I see the difference in the traffic pattern on the 12 Alma side of Middlefield versus the 101 side of Middlefield along East Meadow. 13 14 And so, what I really want to make sure we do here, you know as I was going through this and 15 participating in the community meetings with the Staff team, is to avoid another Ross Road 16 process. Where… because I think it just unminds the confidence of our citizenry in our process 17 and I know that the community engagement was rushed. And hard… rushed because of the 18 project timeline so you guys did admirable job given what time you had. But nevertheless, 19 rushed and also immeasurably complicated because of the pandemic. So, the timing was really 20 less than ideal because most of the outreach started in May and anybody with a school-aged 21 child can’t read anything. Has no bandwidth for anything in May and as a member of the PTA 22 and working with our principal on communication plans. I actually really tried to push that 23 survey but it’s very, very hard and our PTA and principle teams were very careful about 24 metering out communications. Knowing the chances are parents aren’t going to get the 25 message for things that are immediately related to school, much less something that’s a larger 26 community. And so, it’s just real challenge and so I do have concerns about the community 27 engagement since kids who are going to JLS and Fair Meadow generally live near JLS and Fair 28 Meadow and would be impacted heavily by this. 29 30 I actually… I really think that most of the… there’s seems to be pretty broad consensus on most 31 of the recommendations with the acceptation of one… of that section from Middlefield to East 32 Meadow Circle. And so, it’s a real shame that it is an all-or-nothing decision based on the grant. 33 What I would like to do and that’s not… where I’m leaning on this is I’d really like to see a lot of 34 these changes implemented. I think there seems to be tremendous consensus on the Waverly 35 Path as well as on Fabian and actually a good portion of East Meadow. And yet, I see that the 36 concerns that are raised are really valid ones. 37 38 I’m very concerned about crossing… the need… you know with parking for Ramos Park being a 39 really big concern because our public areas, as one speaker who was in favor of the path said, 40 Page 34 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. are for everybody. But we have a park there and we need to make sure that that park is useable 1 and safe also. So, I’ll leave it at that for now. 2 3 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing followed by Commissioner Summa. 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: Just briefly to start off to answer the initial two questions in the Staff 6 report. I really that this project is terrific in terms of the connection of making this all happen 7 for the schools, for the public, for the great new bridge above Bart’s [note -Chair Hechtman] 8 head there. You know all of this is phenomenal and I actually agreed with substantially with 9 what a lot of Commissioner Chang said. That we haven’t talked about it yet tonight but I’m 10 betting that there’s probably a lot of consensus that this is mostly good with this one draw back 11 at least in this one section. 12 13 I also think that this should definitely go to Council and I understand the difference between 14 how transportation department is positioned the project meaning the project with the grant. I 15 think of it a little bit more broadly as the project that can go forward and I really would prefer 16 that we have policy, not money, drive how we get that project done. $919,000 is not zero, it's 17 also not $9 million and we don’t even know what the total project costs are. So, we don’t really 18 know as a percentage of the total what that’s about. 19 20 So, I want to hear what folks have to say about each of the pieces but as a general overview, 21 that’s what I’d like to say. I also would like to tag on with Commissioner Templeton and just ask 22 one question of Staff. Particularly, with respect to on Mr. Wachtel’s letter which was… all of the 23 public comment, I read every one of the letters that you sent twice, at least, and your 24 comments tonight at just so important for our deliberations and for us to hear. So, thank you 25 for that. I would expect that the Staff would have… would probably say that they don’t agree 26 with Mr. Wachtel but with his experience for example, for 30-years on the City’s Pedestrian and 27 bicycle Advisory Commission. He’s not making this stuff up. So, when he says things like this is 28 going to be more dangerous, not less. That’s striking to me and you know should be considered. 29 So, I don’t know if you have anything specific, you don’t have to, but you’d like to comment on 30 any of these things in the letter. You can do that but then I’ll stop there. 31 32 Mr. Kamhi: Well, I don’t know that we want to necessary air an argument about what type of 33 bicycle facility is the best. I think there are different types of users of bicycle facilities so I think 34 that’s really important to note. Some bicyclists might feel comfortable acting as vehicles so 35 typically call those type of cyclists’ vehicular cyclists. So, vehicular cyclists feel more 36 comfortable taking the lane and using the lane. Often children, especially student-age bicyclists, 37 feel more comfortable in protected facilities but that’s not always the case. Sometimes there 38 might be an experience cyclist who prefers to ride in protected facilities or vice versa. There 39 might be a student that feels comfortable taking the lane. So, I think that’s something that you 40 Page 35 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. could argue. I do think that there is data… quite a lot of data that does show that a protected 1 facility where there’s not an existing facility can be safer for younger cyclists. 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, thank you. 4 5 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Summa. 6 7 Commissioner Summa: Thank you, Chair. I think this is an exciting project and I want to thank 8 Staff given the tight timeline for moving it forward and I guess I would associate myself with a 9 lot of the concerns that were brought up. It sounds like there’s some leeway in… by the 10 members of the public and I want to thank them for all their emails. They really got on board 11 and were very informative and speaking tonight. 12 13 I do think that others have mentioned this, Fabian Way being seriously scary street for people 14 to bike down. And the improvements to the Waverly Bike Path are definitely no brainers and 15 really, really needed. And then there’s just this question about are we… is overkill that’s going 16 to do more harm than good on East Meadow. Particularly, the portion of it that people have 17 identified. So, I guess that’s we’re going to get down to and I hope there’s enough leeway in the 18 VTA process… sorry, there’s a little bug… that we can really craft something that’s really good 19 for the community. Specifically, for this community and for everyone in the City that uses those 20 streets and those parks. Thank you. 21 22 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Alcheck. 23 24 Commissioner Alcheck: Thank you to the Staff and to the public who commented. I will start by 25 saying that I think every residential neighborhood should feel safe to bike through. That’s I 26 think a goal that is well articulated in a number of different statements in our Comp Plan. The 27 notion that this Safe Routes to School, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly throughways, and I 28 would suggest that a protected bike path is superior bike lane. 29 30 And I think that improvements like this will have costs and I think that I’m approaching this 31 from sort of two perspectives. The first is that… well, if I’m looking at the six items. The Waverly 32 expansion seems like a no-brainer. I think we could spend less than 15-minutes probably talking 33 about that. What I mean by that is I think that the recommendation that Staff is making for 34 improving the Waverly Pathway is the right way. You’ve done the work, you’ve done the 35 research, you’ve proposed a good solution, funds should be invested in that. I feel the same 36 way about Fabian Way. It’s necessarily wide. The three-lane model with a turn lane makes 37 sense. 38 39 Page 36 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. I would suggest to you that there are alternatives to protected bike lanes in our City that came 1 to mind while I was reviewing this project. Including the one-off California Avenue and 2 Middlefield which is a protected bike lane with both directions on one side of the road. If our 3 Staff members are familiar with that, they could just like nod. That seems like a solution that 4 would give you some feet back on the road and could potentially provide you with protected 5 bikeway options and potentially not eliminating parking on both sides of any given roadway. 6 For example, on Fabian and I mention this because it’s 6- to 8-feet maybe? The one that’s next 7 to Cal Ave and Middlefield Road that goes around that school that goes in both directions the 8 bike traffic. It’s short but I just think that if you’re getting into the weeds with the VTA and City 9 Council. It could be slightly different. There could be variations that preserve parking. 10 11 I don’t know but I’ll go one step further which is to say take the funding out of this. Everything 12 you presented tonight makes sense. If Council doesn’t want to eliminate some parking in East 13 Meadow because there’s too much political will against it. Then let me pay for the change on 14 Fabian and Waverly and I don’t think we should even really get involved in that. I think we have 15 to… first of all, I don’t… I imagine that there isn’t very many residents in any community 16 anywhere in the world who would be thrilled about losing parking on their street. 17 18 And so, I have to… there’s some skepticism I have to approach the comments about the loss of 19 parking with because I have to appreciate that what may be best for the community may not be 20 best for the individual. And I think I could still stand behind a recommendation that eliminating 21 parking on side of East Meadow and providing protected park… protected bicycle ways is 22 superior for Palo Alto as a whole than maintaining parking on one side of Meadow. And so, 23 what I would suggest to you is that while that statement could be true, it doesn’t necessarily 24 mean that that’s the choice City Council should make. 25 26 And I think we have to step away from this idea that’s its all or nothing or whatnot and say to 27 City Council. Here are improvements to transportation that were presented to us and all of 28 them make sense. All of them improve transportation if that’s how we feel and we could even 29 say look, the East Meadow ones there are four segment right? There are some that are better 30 than the others and we think funds should be invested. Whether those funds are going to be 31 given to you by another entity or whether you’re going to come up with them yourself or really 32 your burden to berry. And if, at the end of the day, VTA and the City Council who ultimately 33 have to decide how to negotiate this compact. If they… if the VTA’s like you know what, we said 34 we were going to give you this but only if you did this and I’m not even… I can’t make sense 35 why the VTA is so invested in whether or not something looks like way or that way. So, like I 36 said, I think those are conversations that have to happen between the VTA and City Council or 37 maybe Staff and I really hope we can stay away from those. I think it would be a success tonight 38 if we could just basically communicate whether we felt that a protected bikeway on East 39 Meadow was an improvement. And if it is… and not just an improvement, if a protected bike… 40 Page 37 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. because the other ones, I’m just saying are feel like givens. So, a protected bikeway on the four 1 segments that appear to be controversial based on the feedback we got tonight. If those 2 remain improvements and drastically reduce concerns we have about safety and access to the 3 schools for children which aren’t the only members of our community that use the space. Then 4 I say we give that feedback and say we think this should take place and maybe you have to 5 combine the protected bikeways in both directions on one side of the road. And maybe that 6 gives you 4 ½-feet more and you do the parking perpendicular to the road as opposed to 7 parallel to the road or at some 45-degree angle to the road. 8 9 I know this sounds like a ridiculous, off-the-cuff creative thinking here, but my… the point here 10 is that it doesn’t matter in my opinion where the funding comes from. And there should be 11 more opportunities to negotiate with the VTA if that’s something that has to happen but that 12 should come from the Council’s direction. I think it's kind of a mistake for us to weigh these 13 options from the perspective of take it or leave it. That’s a decision the Council has to make, 14 take it or leave it. We should be able to tell them improve, doesn’t improve and we recommend 15 improve. I don’t think we should be weighing the consequences of only recommending half or 16 recommend all or recommending none. I think we should avoid that and let that conversation 17 happen at Council. 18 19 Chair Hechtman: Thank you, Commissioner Alcheck. So, I think it’s pretty well known that I ride 20 my bike almost every day. I love bicycling. It’s not as commonly known that I’ve lost two 21 friends, different times, to biking accidents. Both on the side of the road, not riding in the road, 22 on the side where they were supposed to be. So, I’m keenly aware of the importance of safety 23 for bicyclists of all ages. 24 25 The issue tonight I think is pretty straightforward. Our… will this Commission recommend a 26 series of changes to get a grant or not? As Staff has explained, all six segments have to be at 27 least buffered with additional space but mostly protected with some kind of physical barrier 28 and the preferred plan presented by Staff would accomplish that. It appears to me from a 29 review of the Staff report and the resident letters and their comments tonight that there 30 appears to be citizen support and from what I’m hearing from the Commission, Commission 31 support for each of the six segments except East Meadow segment number four which is the 32 segment from Middlefield… and most… actually most of the comments talk about Middlefield 33 to Lewis. But actually, segment four goes a little bit farther to I think it’s called the East 34 Meadow Circle. In that… for that segment, there seems to be a common issue with the loss of 35 parking and the consequences of losing that parking. 36 37 Generally, I think that anything that improves bike safety is good and that adjacent residents 38 may experience some change from what they’re accustommed to. But that’s a tradeoff that 39 residents have to make for all the benefits you get from living in a City. From having that park, 40 Page 38 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. from being close to the grade school, from having a road that is not full of pot holes. However, I 1 acknowledge that there can be circumstances where particular safety methods may not fit a 2 particular area. And from the letters we’ve received and these public comments tonight, I’m 3 concerned that segment four may be such case and so when we get to our discussion of 4 segment four, I really want to understand from Staff whether there are unique circumstances 5 between Middlefield and Lewis or Middlefield and East Meadow Circle on East Meadow that 6 would make the loss of parking here uniquely impactful to that neighborhood. Because that’s 7 certainly the impression I get from the public comments. 8 9 I’m supportive of the other five segments. If the Commission cannot recommend segment four, 10 or another individual segment, then our overall recommendation to the City Council is that we 11 should not continue to pursue the grant. But as many of my fellow Commissioners have said 12 tonight, that doesn’t mean that we cannot improve bike safety in this corridor. It just means 13 that we won’t have VTA funds to do it. But over time the Council could budget the 14 improvements contemplated in the concept plan for the other five segments and look to what 15 improvements could be made in segment four. So, I’m looking forward to that discussion 16 particularly on segment four. 17 18 Mr. Kamhi: Thank you and I think that’d be really helpful way to approach this if ultimately if I 19 just want to note that this grant… we’ve already tried to get VTA to make changes what the 20 grant was initially applied for. And we do not feel that we’re going to be able to do so in a 21 meaningful enough way that we could break out a certain segment and not do something in a 22 certain segment. So, just noting that it would be really helpful if we decide that we’re not going 23 to move forward with this grant funding. If other segments or any other particular 24 improvements in the area are found to be desirable. Those are things that we could potentially 25 slate for future funding, future projects, and noting that we’re going to be doing our Bicycle and 26 Pedestrian Transportation Plan update in this coming year. And those could be things that are 27 looked at in more depth. 28 29 Chair Hechtman: Thank you. So, eventually, we’ll get to discussions of individual segments but 30 for now, we can continue the more general discussion if that’s the Commissions’ will. I see 31 Commissioner Templeton and Commissioner Lauing’s hands. Commissioner Templeton. 32 33 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. I just had a couple more questions that I wanted to ask of 34 Staff. Having worked with you guys on a few projects before, I thought it might be helpful to 35 clarify what level of “design” we’re at, at this point? I see in the Staff report it says conceptual 36 plan and I also heard from members of the public that there was a perception that perhaps this 37 was a design. Can you clarify exactly where we are on that and then I have another question 38 after that? 39 40 Page 39 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Chan: We are currently on concept plans. It’s just conceptual. 1 2 Commissioner Templeton: Yes, I get that, but I was hoping you could clarify for the public what 3 does that mean and how fully designed are they? For example, what you have here is an idea or 4 is what they’re going to construct for example? Somewhere on that grading, can you explain 5 what that means to the public? 6 7 Ms. Kamhi: So, I’ll take that. Yeah, these are really high-level conceptual ideas intended for this 8 phase of the project which is determining whether we have a project. So, we’re still at the very 9 early phase and this entire process right now is to determine whether we move forward with 10 the project. That’s when we start going to design. So, you could maybe say this is like a 15 to 20 11 percent design or something like that. But this is really early conceptual design where we’re 12 trying to figure out… we don’t even necessarily have all… you know we don’t have geometry or 13 any of those things completely worked out. This is a very high-level design at this point. 14 15 Commissioner Templeton: And so just following up on that, if members of the public identify a 16 flaw in the conceptual plan. Will we then have opportunity to adjust and continue forward? 17 18 Mr. Kamhi: Yeah and noting that even if PTC and Council ultimately were to recommend this 19 project to move forward. There’s still additional outreach and work that needs to be done. You 20 know coordinating and potentially could find that maybe the bike lane needs to move to one 21 side of the street in a certain area as opposed to another side of the street or any other number 22 of changes that might occur. Including other additional or improvements or other changes that 23 could happen. This is a very, very early in the process and this is really just determining whether 24 we have a project that we want to use the grant funding for. 25 26 Commissioner Templeton: That is super helpful and just to close this loop on this conversation. 27 So, that means that we could then recommend to go forward as a Commission with some 28 direction about incorporating some of the feedback that we’ve heard. So, you can do both 29 right? 30 31 Mr. Kamhi: Yes, that’s correct. 32 33 Commissioner Templeton: Alright, thank you for clarifying that, and then my other question is 34 because I do think it’s going to dominate the rest of the conversation. Have you considered… to 35 what extent have you considered the parking in Ramos Park as part of this proposal? 36 37 Ms. Star-Lack: To what extent we considered the parking, do you mean the parking demand at 38 Ramos Park? 39 40 Page 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Templeton: Right, so we’ve heard some comments that as a public park we 1 expect there to be some parking facility there. If we eliminate it along Meadow there’s no 2 other. Just help us in a where ever we are in the conceptual phase, kind of understand what 3 you had in mind. Was it completely eliminating it or doing something else? I know I’m… I know 4 it’s a bit repetitive but I want to just really nail this so we’re all clear and on the same page. 5 Thank you. 6 7 Ms. Star-Lack: Right so as was stated by Steve in the presentation, we are at the stage of 8 conceptual… of this conceptual plan where we can decide to switch the parking. So, if for 9 example, the community wants the parking to remain east of Middlefield on the south side so 10 that there is parking available for Ramos Park. And so that in the west direction in the morning 11 that the bike lane is potentially not experiencing interactions from people getting in and out of 12 the parked cars on the north side. We can switch the parking to the southside. I mean these are 13 just drawings right now. The main thing here though to understand is that in order to put in a 14 buffered bike lane, we have to take the space from something and that something is a parking 15 lane. 16 17 Commissioner Templeton: Is it possible to do something… I’m going to go like this is a wild and 18 crazy out-on-the-limb situation, but is it possible to then curve the bike path through the park 19 and leave the parking where it is? Does it have to be on the road because that would count as 20 protection? 21 22 Ms. Star-Lack: I’m just thinking about how that (interrupted) 23 24 Commissioner Templeton: I’m not going to even… don’t even worry about answering it. What 25 I’m getting at is that is public land and if we need to figure out a way to prioritize. That’s an area 26 we can flex and we don’t have to commit to anything and I don’t want to put you on the spot. 27 But just to say I don’t think the situation is dire or insoluble. I think this is something we can 28 work out based on City prioritizes and figuring out how to get people safely up and down 29 Meadow on bikes. Thank you. 30 31 Mr. Kamhi: If I can just quickly respond to the comment about the park. I think that would help 32 to put the path through the park. Just noting that it would only help… apologize for my dog is 33 just having a field day tonight. But noting that doesn’t even… you know the park doesn’t even 34 cover the whole block. So, it would still… there would still need to be parking removal in that 35 very block. So, it would not… you know even if we did flex the path into the edge of that park 36 and just noting that I’m not really familiar with what’s right there in the park. But if that was a 37 possibility, that would not completely solve all the issues that you’re hearing tonight. 38 39 Page 41 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Templeton: Do you think that it’s something that we can solve with additional 1 design work? 2 3 Mr. Kamhi: So, if the question that you’re asking is can we solve the elimination of any parking 4 in that block with additional design? I would say the answer is no. We don’t have enough 5 geometry to do so. It’s not my opinion that we have enough additional geometry to not have 6 parking elimination. You might be able to not eliminate in a small area which looks like it’s 7 about four to five house lengths in that small area if we were able to gain park land. Now, 8 noting that that might be another challenge but that is a possibility. So, I’m just… I just want to 9 note that that’s not a huge… that’s not necessarily a huge change in that area where the 10 parking is really along the street. And noting that the other sides where there’s… where we 11 wouldn’t have the park land there’re houses. 12 13 Commissioner Templeton: Right so well maybe we can come back to this when we get to that 14 segment but the question is, is this a plan we can work with, with additional design or not? And 15 I understand that you know some parking may have to go but the question is can we still have 16 some parking? So, we… in other words, we need to understand is the concern that we’ve heard 17 from the public something that we address with further design work or not? So, and you can 18 hold that thought until we get to that segment. Thank you. 19 20 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing, I see your hand up. Would it be acceptable to you for us 21 to take a 10-minute break and come back? Or are you wanting to follow something that you’ve 22 just heard and now it would be better for you to chime in before the break? Your choice. 23 24 Commissioner Lauing: Thank you. This will only take 30-seconds. I think what folks are hearing 25 from Commissioners and from the public is that we must be able to do something in that spot. 26 And my… the thing I wrote down as a lead into that how many inches do you really need there 27 and are rolling curbs or whatever they’re called is really so bad? I mean in other words, we’re 28 saying can we get creative around those? So, I think we’re all on the same track there that we 29 think we maybe can get close as Commissioner Templeton and Commissioner Alcheck said. 30 31 I was going to suggest procedurally though that when we come back from the break. We might 32 want to start with number four or if it’s number four? With this particular issue which is the 33 more difficult one. If we can get that solved, maybe we can get through the rest of them pretty 34 quickly. Thank you. 35 36 Chair Hechtman: Alright thank you, Commissioner. We will take a 10-minute break. I have 8:17 37 so we’ll come back at 8:27. 38 39 [The Commission took a short break] 40 Page 42 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Hechtman: Alright Commissioner Lauing and Alcheck, when you can turn on your cameras 2 and I know you are present we will resume. All the Commissioners are back and so we will 3 continue our discussion of Agenda Item Number Two. Commissioner Lauing, just before the 4 break you had made a recommendation to tackle segment four first. I actually had the opposite 5 idea and let me just explain that briefly. Whatever we do on segment four we’re going to have 6 to deal with the other five segments because even if we were to say no to segment four which 7 means our recommendation is no to the grant, Council might not agree with that and so they’re 8 going to need our recommendation on the other five items. In the first round of Commission 9 discussion, I actually didn’t hear any concerns from any Commissioners about any of the other 10 five segments. Now, it was general conversation and maybe there are some concerns. But if 11 there are not, then I’m wondering if the most efficient path would be a motion to recommend 12 those five segments. Get that under our belt and then we know really what’s at stake with 13 segment four because we will at that point know that the… that we’re… there’s at least a 14 majority of the Commission supportive of the other five segments. And then I agree with 15 Commissioner Templeton and I think Commissioner Lauing that we’re going to spend a lot of 16 time talking about segment four perhaps. 17 18 So, let me just ask the Commission what you… we got two different approaches. We can start 19 with segment four, we can start with the other five possibly taken as one motion. Any 20 Commissioners have any thoughts on that? Commissioner Summa. 21 22 Commissioner Summa: Thank you. I would think that we could get the other two… the 23 Waverly… the bike route and Fabian Way out of the way and then I’m not sure if we won’t find 24 in our discussion of East Meadow Drive. That it’s just segment four because I’m not sure three 25 and four can be treated differently. We may find that there’s some sort of correlations between 26 the segments even though we’re more sure about the two outlining segments. So, I’m fine with 27 doing it in either direction. But I just wanted to say that I’m not 100 percent convinced we can 28 just isolate segment four and treat it differently than the rest of the street. 29 30 Chair Hechtman: What about segments one and two Commissioner Summa? Those are the two 31 end pieces. Are you comfortable with those? 32 33 Commissioner Summa: Those seem more obvious to me. Especially given that the… especially 34 up near Alma it’s the sides of lots. It’s not driveways and people are parking on their side 35 streets. 36 37 Chair Hechtman: Other Commissioner thoughts? I’m not seeing any. Well, then… Commissioner 38 Alcheck. 39 40 Page 43 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Alcheck: I think that’s a great suggestion. I think we should… I mean look, we’ve 1 already heard that this is preliminary. This is the beginning of the formulation stage of including 2 feedback and extrapolating into a more specific designs. These are at the very initial stages and 3 I think the report does a really good job of identifying why the recommendations are the right 4 recommendations. So, unless we have some sort of tension for spending lots of time on things 5 we agree on or I should be even more specific, things the majority of us agree on. I think it 6 would make a lot of sense to push all of the ideas that are non-controversial to the side. 7 8 I would then suggest to you that I hope we focus not on the controversial-ness of the item’s… 9 my hope is that we then focus on the actual questions on the other items. You know the safety 10 and improvements and trade-offs I guess as opposed to… I don’t even like… what my point was 11 I don’t even like calling them controversial. It’s not that… it’s just that we didn’t get negative 12 feedback about them and so for that reason alone. I feel very comfortable recommending them 13 but anyways, so I would treat… I would love to put that motion forward or second that motion. 14 And move that path… move that way and the com back to items I guess its three and four and 15 then understand what Commissioners are specifically concerned about there. And then maybe 16 we’ll be able to patch a motion there together that will make sense. 17 18 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton. 19 20 Commissioner Templeton: I also like Commissioner Summa’s approach. My concern with, and I 21 think this… I assume that Commissioner Lauing also had this concern, is we wouldn’t want 22 number four being unresolved to hold anyone back on other items and that’s why he was 23 thinking about putting it first. So, if Commissioner Summa does make that motion I’d be happy 24 to support it. And what I would suggest is if any Commissioners are being held back by concerns 25 about four and that’s holding them back on other segments of the path. Just say so, maybe we 26 can modify the motion and understand what are the areas of concern. So, anyway, we slice it, I 27 think we’ll get through the stuff where we agree. But I do want to make sure that people feel 28 comfortable to say if they find it’s tied to something that we don’t deprive folks of the 29 opportunity to discuss it. Thanks. 30 31 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Summa, are you interested in making a motion regarding 32 Fabian, Waverly and East Meadow segments one and two? 33 34 Commissioner Summa: I had… I wasn’t indicating that earlier but so anybody can make a 35 motion. I haven’t written one down so maybe if someone has one prepared. 36 37 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Alcheck, I’m not sure if your hand is up a new or (interrupted) 38 39 MOTION #1 40 Page 44 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Alcheck: I can… I move that we recommend Staff’s preferred concepts for A, B, 2 C, and D on Page… Packet Page 8. That’s the Waverly Multi-Use Alternative Two widening 3 towards either side and Fabian Way, protected bicycle lanes on both sides, and then East 4 Meadows Drive segment one and two and that’s my motion. 5 6 Chair Hechtman: Alright, thank you Commissioner Alcheck. We have a motion, do we have a 7 second for A, B, C, and D which are Waverly, Fabian, East Meadow segment one, and segment 8 two. 9 10 SECOND 11 12 Commissioner Chang: I second. 13 14 Chair Hechtman: I’m sorry, I didn’t… where did that come from? 15 16 Commissioner Chang: I (interrupted) 17 18 Chair Hechtman: Oh, Commissioner Chang, thank you. I didn’t see your mouth move. Second by 19 Commissioner Chang. Commissioner Alcheck, any comments on your motion? 20 21 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, no, I’ll just say that I look forward to seeing how these ideas 22 evolve. I hope that City Council pursues them regardless of the funding source. And I would 23 actually lymphatically suggest that they are very worthy of City investment in both the time 24 Staff has taken so far and that the time that Staff will ultimately need to invest in it 25 [unintelligible] of the funds. And I hope that it won’t be tremendously long regardless of 26 funding between now and the time when these improvements could be implemented. 27 28 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang, any comments on your second? 29 30 Commissioner Chang: So, everything that Commissioner Alcheck just said, but I’d like to add 31 that I’m seconding this with the understanding that this is in concept phase. Because I know 32 that I feel strongly that a lot more community engagement has to be done to understand the 33 nitty-gritty of exactly how things are implemented. For example, I said this before and will say it 34 again, that the Waverly Bike Path I personally believe needs to be a solid barrier not easily 35 crossed by children but I think that that will come out through… I have faith in the process. 36 37 Chair Hechtman: Other Commission discussion on the motion? Commissioner Templeton. 38 39 Page 45 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Templeton: Yes, I’m going to support this motion. I think I for many years 1 commuted when the underpass was open down this path to work and think it could be… the 2 safety could be improved there. I also biked to school with my kids when I stopped working. So, 3 I have some substantial experience here and I feel like this… these improvements are very 4 promising. And like Commissioner Chang mentioned, I do think that it’s important to keep in 5 mind that we need to iterate on this. This is a great concept but it needs refinement, it’s needs 6 refinement that involves getting the feedback and addressing the concerns of folks like those 7 who wrote and spoke about this topic. 8 9 So, regarding the other comment, you know it's off-topic for this evening but I do hope that we 10 will see the benefits of this project affect other routes within the City. So, I think this is a great 11 next step towards implementing our bike and pedestrian vision. Thank you. 12 13 Chair Hechtman: Other Commission comments on the motion? I’ll be supporting the motion. I 14 think these are four great and worthwhile improvements. I’m hoping that they’ll be partially 15 funded by VTA but even if they’re not, I’m hoping that the Council will find budget in the 16 relatively near term to accomplish them anyway. I’m not seeing any further Commission hands 17 so Mr. Nguyen, will you conduct a roll call vote? 18 19 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Alcheck? 20 21 Commissioner Alcheck: Aye. 22 23 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Chang? 24 25 Commissioner Chang: Yes. 26 27 Mr. Nguyen: Chair Hechtman? Chair Hechtman? 28 29 Chair Hechtman: Yes. 30 31 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 32 33 Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 34 35 Mr. Nguyen: Vice-Chair Roohparvar is absent. Commissioner Summa? 36 37 Commissioner Summa: Yes. 38 39 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Templeton? 40 Page 46 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 2 3 Mr. Nguyen: The motion carries 6-0 with one Commissioner absent. 4 5 MOTION #1 PASSED 6(Alcheck, Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Summa, Templeton) -0 -6 1(Roohparvar recused) 7 8 Chair Hechtman: Excellent, thank you. So, I’m going to suggest that now we tackle segment four 9 because I think through the fullness of that discussion, we may get an understanding of 10 whether some of those issues bleed over into segment three which is the concern that 11 Commissioner Summa had expressed. 12 13 So, for this segment, I think it might be helpful for us to put up on the screen the area of 14 segment four and help us understand… help us see graphically where the residences are, the 15 park in the vicinity. We’ve heard that there are churches, how far away are the schools? We’ve 16 heard about overflow parking. Maybe we could start by an understanding… a better 17 understanding of the geography. 18 19 Mr. Kamhi: Thank you and while we’re pulling that up I wanted to provide a chance for our 20 consultant Steve Davis to provide a little bit of context about the width of the… the geometry 21 that we’re working within. I think it would be helpful for everyone to hear a bit about that. 22 23 Mr. Davis: Yeah, thanks Philip and hopefully my audio will hold out ok. So, just for way of 24 background, you know we’ve been out there obviously physically in the street taking 25 measurements and everything. And in most portions of segments three and four, in particular, 26 the physical black top pavement, the part that is colored black from curb to curb edge, is 44-27 feet wide in total. And then there’s usually a little over a foot down the concert to the bottom 28 of that valley gutter and then you’ll get a foot half or so back up the other side of the valley 29 gutter till you get to the sidewalk. So, in general, the maximum total width we would say is 30 available for use for transportation would be down to the bottom of the valley gutter on each 31 side. So, that’s 46-feet total between the bottoms of the gutters on either side of the street. 32 33 So, for reference, if we were to take everything that we want to serve and using what is in the 34 preferred alternative. If you were to say we did everything to absolute minimums, made the 35 bike lanes the narrowest that would meet standards which is actually narrower than it is today. 36 Made the buffer the narrowest that it would meet standards, made the travel lanes the 37 narrowest that would meet standards, and made the parking lane… the one parking lane the 38 narrowest that would meet standards. That takes 42-total feet of width, so if you assume that 39 Page 47 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. we have 46-feet total. Then we only have 4-extra feet which leaves us generally speaking about 1 4-feet shy of having enough space for an additional parking lane. 2 3 So, that’s essentially… we looked at a lot of different configurations for this before we landed 4 on the versions that were shared and then ultimately the preferred alternative. But the reason 5 the conclusion has been reached to say that there isn’t physical space in the existing street as it 6 is currently out there today. To include parking in both directions while providing all those 7 other facilities is that it… there’s just not the extra on top of that then 46-feet width. And part 8 of the reason it actually seems wider than it is today is because the parking lanes that are out 9 there are quite narrow. So, most places the edge of the stripe on the road to where the 10 concrete starts. The actual black top part of the parking lane is about 5-feet and then you would 11 have about a foot down the valley gutter to where you would normally consider it ok to have 12 cars. So, that’s 6-feet and the typical standard minimum for a parking lane is 8-feet to provide 13 enough space for people to be able to get in there and leave their cars. So, it feels like there’s a 14 little bit more space to us, you know when I’m out there in the middle of the road because 15 we’re also considerably squeeze again from a transportation perspective to the space that’s on 16 the parking area on the sides. So, I just wanted to provide that background. 17 18 Commissioner Templeton: Excuse me, Chair? 19 20 Chair Hechtman: Yeah? 21 22 Commissioner Templeton: Could we ask Mr. Davis to put up the slide that shows all those 23 numbers? It might be hard for the Commissioners to place all that… to follow that description 24 without the illustration. I think it’s on the slide deck, number 45 perhaps? 25 26 Mr. Davis: One moment, finding it. So, this is the slide in question and what I was suggesting is 27 that you could actually make this a little bit narrower if you were take space away from the bike 28 lane and make it narrower than it is today. 29 30 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Alcheck, I see your hand. 31 32 Commissioner Alcheck: So, can you explain to me why we couldn’t institute a bi-directional 33 protected bike path on one side of the road like on Cal Avenue near Middlefield? North Cal 34 Avenue and so that would eliminate presumably one section of protection which appears on 35 this image as 3-feet wide. And then… I mean I’m assuming that protected bike lane that I’m 36 referring to is not 10-feet wide. So that implies also that maybe the bi-directional bike lane 37 doesn’t necessarily have to be 12-feet in total. It could be 9-feet in total which is another 3-feet. 38 And so… ok, let me clear because I’m seeing some crossed eyes here. Imagine for a minute that 39 you move the bike lane on the left side of this image to the right side. Then that 3-foot 40 Page 48 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. protection zone on the left side between the orange car and the parking wouldn’t need to be 1 there. We don’t need a protection area between cars and cars. So, you’ve now come back with 2 3-feet and then imagine for a minute that the combined bike lanes, which represents 12-feet in 3 this image, were not 12-feet wide. That’s an obscene amount of bike space compared to what 4 he have on Cal Avenue which is next to a school and is designed for students to use. I’m just 5 curious, do people… are people familiar with that bi-directional bike lane next to Cal Ave… on 6 Cal Avenue next to Middlefield? Ok, so then you know what I’m talking about. That’s not a 10-7 foot wide combined bike lane. 8 9 And I don’t know, maybe that standard was too narrow. Maybe they want… I think that 10 probably is somewhere between 6- and 8-feet. Maybe that’s too narrow and so it needs to be a 11 little bigger. But if it was 10-feet as opposed to 12, then you’ve just bought yourself another 12 few feet and for sure that bike lane’s protection zone… well, it’s not clear. But I don’t think that 13 bike lane’s protection zone is 3-feet wide either. So, the question is, could you, for example, 14 find parking on both sides of the street if you combined the bike paths on one side. Made them 15 slightly narrower and eliminated the need for protection zone on both sides which would be 16 redundant? 17 18 Mr. Davis: I can take the first answer at that. So, first I do want to specify that the existing path 19 that’s on Middlefield next to Green. The pathway is 10-feet wide and the buffer is 3-feet wide. 20 So, that is the same dimensions that you’re talking about there. So, if we were to do 21 (interrupted) 22 23 Commissioner Alcheck: That’s not 12-feet wide? That’s not 12-feet wide? 24 25 Mr. Davis: Correct, so if we were to go with that exact same dimension we would gain 5-fete 26 back. So, that leaves us still short of enough width for parking in general. The other piece is that 27 the design, and I wasn’t involved in the design, but as a general… just as a practitioner. The 28 reason that I would have chosen the design the way it is for the location along Cal Ave and 29 Middlefield Road is that there aren’t any driveways there. So, there’s no crossing conflicts at all 30 for the bicyclists. 31 32 In general, at intersection crossings and at driveways, it is considered to be quite a bit more of a 33 hazard for drivers to be backing out to need to look for people coming from both directions in 34 the space immediately closest to their driveway on one side of the street. It’s also considerably 35 more difficult to handle intersections with both directions of bicyclists on one side because 36 people turning right, for example, would need to look for both someone coming behind them 37 to the right and oncoming to the right. In addition to then pedestrians beside that. So, in 38 settings with a lot of driveways and residential settings like this. We typically would not 39 recommend that kind of treatment, but I would say that in general if were to do that. We still… 40 Page 49 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. we would have to go to a significantly substandard width. I shouldn’t use significantly in 1 California. A definitely substandard width bikeway to be able to buy enough additional space to 2 fit additional parking on the other side of the street. 3 4 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, thank you for that illuminating answer. That makes perfect sense to 5 my other meager transportation knowledge. But let me just ask one other question which is I 6 think you said that there are 4-feet to play somewhere in this design. Is there a scenario where 7 the parking on one side of the street could be angled and allow for a greater density of cars 8 parked as opposed to be parallel? That would… my theory is that when you’re doing this, 9 eventually you will say this is how many spaces we’re going to lose. And my question is, is there 10 a scenario where the design could evolve and the spots are lost on one side but spots are 11 gained on the other? 12 13 Mr. Davis: From a design standpoint, there may be some potential for that but in a residential 14 setting because of the closely spaced driveways. That often doesn’t gain very much just 15 because you’re not… if you think… if you’re looking at about a 4-foot extra play room and again, 16 that’s with everyone… every other space really shrunk down to the bare minimum. So, lower 17 dimensions than what you’re seeing here on the drawing. The angle that you’re getting is going 18 to be less than 30 degrees usually. So, you’re not getting… unless you’re getting more than 30 19 degrees, you’re not normally gaining enough angle to actually really increase your parking 20 density a lot over small spaces. And so, if you picture that you have in some cases driveways 21 that are two car lengths apart. Some of those you might be able to get three cars into instead of 22 two but in many cases, you’re probably talking very small amounts. But there… I mean that’s 23 something that potentially could be looked at in the future if there was the opportunity to do 24 so. 25 26 Commissioner Alcheck: Is… and so last question, is there any… do you have any… I know it’s 27 really initial so well maybe you do. Do you have any sense where how many spaces are lost on 28 this segment four? And you know that it would also help to appreciate how many spaces total. 29 So, do we have an idea of that? And it seems absurd to be talking about this as such an early of 30 the design but maybe that’s something you’ve looked into. 31 32 Ms. Chan: So, we do have an approximate number, this is Joanna, for location for between East 33 Meadow and east… sorry, Middlefield and East Meadow Circle will be approximately 80 spots 34 on both sides. I mean yeah, 80 spots on both sides. 35 36 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m sorry, on… 80 spots… 37 38 Ms. Chan: Each side so each. 39 40 Page 50 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Alcheck: How many spots are there right now and how many would be lost? 1 2 Ms. Chan: If we’re doing a complete removal of one side, it will be 80 spots. 3 4 Commissioner Alcheck: 80 spots (interrupted) 5 6 Ms. Chan: Approximately 80 spots. 7 8 Mr. Kamhi: Just to clarify, it’s approximately 80 spots per side approximately space. So, 160 9 spaces, 80 of those would be potentially lost. 10 11 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so it’s very, very roughly half. I wasn’t sure if maybe there were 12 more spots because of the number of cut-away. Or less spots because of the number of… I 13 wondered for example if choosing sides would have impacted the numbers of spots lost based 14 off the number of double-wide driveways or not or whatnot. 15 16 Chair Hechtman: Alcheck, can we… ok, great. Commissioner Lauing followed by Commissioner 17 Chang. 18 19 Commissioner Lauing: Yes, I mean I just want to follow up on what our consultant said because 20 I didn’t take notes fast enough on the math. I know you show a 46-foot there and Mr. Alcheck 21 said we could take out three and we’re at 43. What number are we actually trying to solve for 22 to squeeze it in because you said we are 4-feet short? 23 24 Mr. Davis: So, we have 46 in general. Usually, we would need four more than that. We would 25 need 50-feet is what we would need to fit everything at the minimum. So, in theory, you would 26 be if you could remove 3-feet here and 5-feet, or I’m sorry. 27 28 Commissioner Lauing: 1-foot. 29 30 Mr. Davis: Now, I’m confusing myself. 31 32 Commissioner Lauing: 1-foot. 33 34 Mr. Davis: One moment. 35 36 Commissioner Lauing: If I was following that, if you take Mr. Alcheck’s 3-feet, I think you only 37 need 1-foot but that’s what I’m trying to clarify. 38 39 Page 51 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Davis: That, let’s see here, so if you were to take out and made this cross-section of 8-feet 1 parking with a 3-foot buffer… well, two, 10-foot travel lanes and then a 10-foot path that has a 2 3-foot buffer. The total width of that is 41-feet and so we would need 49-feet. We need 8-more 3 feet in order to get a parking lane in addition to that and we would only have five more. So, we 4 come up 4-feet short. 5 6 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, yeah, I mean this is the kind of exercise I think we’re asking Staff to 7 do. To see what the other alternatives are as opposed to saying this is it, these are the 8 numbers. That’s why we’re kind of working with you on this but I know that we’re not going to 9 solve this tonight. 10 11 Mr. Davis: Understood and to be fair, I mean that is the exercise we have done as well 12 (interrupted) 13 14 Commissioner Lauing: Sure. 15 16 Mr. Davis: Which is a variety of what we did but obviously understand from a transparency 17 standpoint. 18 19 Commissioner Lauing: Right, right and to be more radical. I mean I know this isn’t possible but 20 could you… so [unintelligible] something that isn’t going to work. Take 4-feet of the park a way. 21 I mean, we can’t do that but you know some of these things need to be looked at in real detail 22 to see what we could squeak out here. And again, I just want to underscore, the reason this is a 23 concern is that this is really public parking spacings. This is not just residents. I mean there’s 24 obviously resident parking and as some person said. You know you’re backing your… you have a 25 single car garage and driveway you’re backing out and you’re during a lot of traffic there. But 26 you’ve got, as has been pointed out, a lot of parked traffic that we have to address. It’s a public 27 facility and they need parking. We have supported and do serious support ADUs and there’s not 28 parking there. So, that has to spill on the street. So, wiping out 80 units [note – parking spaces] 29 there is a big deal in terms of overall public benefit. It’s not just a benefit for residents so that’s 30 kind of the emphasis. Thank you. 31 32 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang. 33 34 Commissioner Chang: So, along the brainstorming front because we’re talking about removing 35 50 percent of the parking there and to… I do drive down there or bike down there all the time. 36 In fact, was there every night this week, and when I took a quick look at about 6:00 pm, 6:30 37 pm. Ramos Park was filled with people. There was sort of game there or something and the 38 other side… and so I kind of did a quick eyeball and I’m thinking these cars can’t all fit here. I 39 don’t know where they’re going to go. If I took both sides of the road and tried to smash them 40 Page 52 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. into one, it wouldn’t work, and I know that that’s a study for phase 2 if we were to advance. But 1 brainstorming, I was noodling on this with someone else and they said. Well, can we do a little 2 bit more parking in front of Ramos Park the way Fair Meadow has? So, eat up a little bit of the 3 park. I know that Commissioner Templeton had talked about routing the bike path through the 4 park but another idea would be what if we had 90-degree parking in along Ramos Park. That at 5 least helps alleviate some the situation caused by removed 80 parking spaces. I don’t think we 6 could get 80 parking spaces in there but it might help. The other thought… the other question… 7 so that’s just an idea and I know nobody here can answer it. 8 9 The other concern I had as I was talking to folks about this is and I had confirmed with Ms. Chan 10 is that Ramos Park is going to be putting in a bathroom next year. So, usually, parks without 11 bathrooms are kind of considered neighborhood parks. Just drawing from the houses that are 12 there but once they put in a bathroom. It really starts drawing from a larger area and I do know 13 that many of the soccer games that happen at Ramos Park are club teams that come from 14 outside that area again. And so regardless of which side we put parking on, these are large 15 blocks. If you look at the map and compare, they’re kind of two deep… two… they’re the length 16 of two normal blocks. So, if you compare down by the circles versus in the sections that we’re 17 talking about. These are large blocks and so it’s hard for people to walk to an intersection and I 18 foresee jay walking regardless of which side we put parking on. And so, I wanted to ask Staff if 19 you have thought about how that might be addressed? Because that seems to me… you know 20 we might be trading one problem for a more dangerous problem because right now it’s maybe 21 commute hours that we see the most danger for bikes. But the parking issue, that’s going to 22 be… jay walking, that’s all day. So, I wanted to hear your thoughts on that because that must 23 have been something that you thought about? Staff? 24 25 Mr. Kamhi: Well, I would just say yeah, it’s… so jay walking occurs now. Just noting that it's 26 really just people crossing the street and there are other examples as much as there are 27 examples of parks with parking right in front of there or parks with parking at it. There are 28 examples of parks that don’t really have parking right at them that really does cause a little bit 29 more spill over and that’s frankly what would happen. If we remove the parking either across 30 the street or at the park. Probably when there’s sporting events, the parking spills across the 31 street currently I would guess, and so what would happen is that distance would be spread out 32 further. So, walking distances would become greater for people going to the park. I currently… 33 you know I coached a little league team that my son’s on and there’s not parking at the park 34 where we go to. And certainly, not nearly enough parking to support all the teams that happen 35 to be there on a Saturday morning. So, when I go there, we walk a few blocks. I’m not saying it’s 36 perfect or ideal situation but just noting that’s the reality. 37 38 Also, I want to point out that, and I think you probably knew this as you were saying it, but the 39 concept of taking some of the park and turning it into a parking lot. Well, not necessarily a bad 40 Page 53 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. idea is well without… outside the grant scope for this project and would actually take a 1 significant… its own significant outreach process but it is a really intriguing idea as well. Perhaps 2 if this segment is not moved forward in this project, that could be something that’s considered 3 in the future. 4 5 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton. 6 7 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. Yes, I just want to clarify, I don’t think that’s what we 8 should do. It was just an example of trying to get creative and how far one might be willing to 9 go. 10 11 Personally, I don’t think that we should trade park land for parking spaces, but I do think that if 12 we had less parking spaces… fewer parking spaces. That we would… and better bike 13 infrastructure, we might see an increase in people going to that park on their bikes. So, that’s 14 something to think about. It’s not exactly necessarily a one for one with that parking situation. 15 We may be encouraging people to use their bike more if they’re locals. 16 17 The other thing is I measured with the Google Maps measuring tool, I measured the length of 18 segment four. It looks like it’s about 3,048-feet which is approximately .58 of a mile. So, just to 19 give it context. It’s not a huge length of stretch of road. With that said, 80 parking spaces is 20 considerable so we do need to think about that. And I’m curious, I don’t think I’ve ever seen it 21 full up but I understand Commissioner Chang did to see if all those 80 spaces are ever in use. In 22 other words, what our maximum demand may not be 80, even though our maximum spaces 23 might be. 24 25 Also, just throw back to another project that Mr. Kamhi and I worked on. As part of that project 26 we discovered that a very significant amount of section three is not… doesn’t have driveways 27 on the side of the road that Mitchell Park and the schools are on. So, if we did to the bi-28 directional bike lanes. Somehow miraculously we worked out the math for that. You might 29 consider that for segment three as well because that goes with the least disruption for those 30 sides of the road with the driveways. So, that’s just something… and easier… just like with 31 Green. It would be easier for the students to get in and out of those bikes lanes without having 32 to cross Meadow. So, just something to think about that just this discussion around segment 33 three may also be something to consider for the whole stretch up to Alma and then other 34 thoughts about the parking. 35 36 I do think that there’s significant room for parking in adjacent streets where you could fill in 37 here and there those parking. But I don’t know that the… that’s a bigger question we want to 38 involve more people. 39 40 Page 54 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. And then finally, this stretch here, at least part of it, as you get down towards Lewis and headed 1 towards East Meadow Circle. It’s less and less traffic-iky and I think that’s part of what the point 2 some of the callers were making is do we need protected bike lanes in this specific area as the 3 traffic from Middlefield starts to taper off. So, I don’t know what options we have with the 4 grant constraints and I’m not going to even think about that but if we had to move forward 5 with these improvements without those constraints. You know we might want to… we might 6 have more options in this area because it’s just not as traffic-iky or especially past Lewis. So, 7 something to think about, thank you. 8 9 Chair Hechtman: Sorry, muted. Commissioner Chang. 10 11 Commissioner Chang: So, yeah, I actually had forgot to mention that last point that 12 Commissioner Templeton mentioned about the traffic patterns. And so, if you look at Packet 13 Page 40 and I know that these are pandemic counts, but I can imagine that they might increase 14 proportionately. So, if you look at Packet Page 40, the traffic on the east or south side of 15 Middlefield is dramatically different than from the traffic on East Meadow as you get towards 16 the end. And it’s dramatically different and I think that’s why… and also my personal experience 17 biking there it’s the same thing. I get to the other side of Middlefield and I’m wow, there’s no 18 cars and it’s so wide and this is the safest I’ve ever felt. I mean really, it really feels safer than 19 even bike boulevard just because there’s really very few cars there relative to the other side 20 and the bike… it feels roomy. So, I do wondering about whether the same treatment is 21 appropriate given the very different characteristics and traffic patter, as well as where 22 driveways are, as well as where driveways are, as well as where the parking is for the public 23 facilities for the parks. Because Mitchell Park again has a bunch of parking and the schools have 24 parking to meeting their needs. So, I do really question whether a universal solution is the most 25 appropriate. Particularly given that a lot of the speakers who also avid bicyclists. 26 27 And then relatedly, if you look at Package Page 27 and sort of what people were saying. People 28 who know the area were saying, Packet Page 27 has a series of green bars that kind of shows 29 decreasing support for various areas and again, it’s just communicating the same thing. That 30 the data with the vehicle volume shows which is that there’s less of a perceived need for 31 protected bikeway as the traffic declines. So, that’s just my observation in the Packet data as 32 well as matches with my observation in real life. 33 34 Chair Hechtman: Thank you. I have a few questions for Staff on this segment four. So, when I 35 look at Packet Page 19 which shows the preferred concept plan for the lane layout for segments 36 one, two, and three, it looks like for all three of those segments, what is proposed would be to 37 have parking on only one side of the street. Am I seeing that correctly? So, I see (interrupted) 38 39 Mr. Kamhi: Yes. 40 Page 55 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Hechtman: Ok and today on all three of those segments is there parking on both sides of 2 the street? Yes, ok. So, segments one, two, and three together look like they’re about the same 3 or yeah, about the same length as segment four. Maybe slightly longer. Do we know how many 4 parking spaces we’d be losing on segments one, two, and three if we implement the plan for 5 those segments? 6 7 Ms. Chan: Sorry, I do not have a rough number for segments one and two. I do have some 8 rough numbers for segment three, which is Waverly to Middlefield. Sorry, excuse me, so if we 9 decide to remove parking on the school side which is the south side. It’s approximately 39 10 parking spaces. 11 12 Chair Hechtman: Alright and then we don’t have information for one and two but there’s no 13 reason to believe that we’re not losing some number of parking spaces. And those two 14 segments are roughly the size of segment three. So, it’s conceivable that with one, two, and 15 three we could be losing 60 to 80 spaces. So, one of the things I’m finding interesting is that I 16 haven’t heard any neighborhood comments about losing those parking spaces, however many 17 there are, on one, two, and three. And so, it brings me back to this question I raised earlier 18 trying to understand what’s unique about section four, the segment four, where the neighbors 19 are feeling there will be a significant impact. And perhaps part of that we’ve talked about is I 20 think along segment four the houses frequently are facing East Meadow. They have an East 21 Meadow address where I think at least for segment two maybe they’re mostly facing the side… 22 the streets that enter East Meadow. So, you’re really getting the side yard where there’s not 23 much parking. I don’t know if that’s true in segment three, but again I’m interested in knowing 24 why this seems to be… this seems, at least based on the residents’ response, that the impact 25 seems to be unique to them. The lost parking… the concern about loss of parking and I’m 26 wondering if Staff can help me understand why that might be. 27 28 Mr. Kamhi: I just want to clarify really quickly that segment one does not have a lose in parking. 29 Just wanted to note that. Coming back to the larger question which is what is different? The 30 primarily thing that’s different is segment four has the most housing and that’s really why we’re 31 hearing from the residents that are… would be feeling the loss. The residents and park users at 32 etc. that would feeling the loss of that parking. Noting that one thing I always want to say is the 33 City is fully built out right? So, we don’t have enough room to… we haven’t… we’re not building 34 a new road here through corn field. We’ve got these houses that were built in the 50s and 60s. 35 That were built with driveways and garages and typically when the houses were built. People 36 parked their car in the garage but now a lot of people like to use their garage for storage and 37 cars are bigger now and you don’t necessarily want to park two cars side by side in your 38 driveway. You might not have room for that and so it ends up being a tandem situation if 39 you’re… you can’t park on the street. So, just noting some of the changes have or some of the 40 Page 56 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. changes that have occurred over time when probably initially these streets were designed. 1 There weren’t a lot of cars that actually parked on the streets. 2 3 The segment along Mitchell Park and JLS has no housing. Just want to note that. Mitchell Park 4 has its own parking lot as well. 5 6 Chair Hechtman: Across from Mitchell Park, there are some houses, right? 7 8 Mr. Kamhi: Yeah, no… yes. No, at Mitchell Park so the portion along the park. 9 10 Chair Hechtman: The frontage of the schools and the park, right? That dominates (interrupted) 11 12 Mr. Kamhi: That’s right. 13 14 Chair Hechtman: That side, the southeastern side of the segment three. 15 16 Mr. Kamhi: Yep. 17 18 Chair Hechtman: Ok. Alright, thank you. Commissioner Chang followed by Commissioner 19 Templeton. 20 21 Commissioner Chang: I had a question of Staff. Have you heard anything from JLS about the 22 elimination of parking in front of or what… actually, it’s not so much the parking I’m necessarily 23 concerned about there. It’s the drop-off. I think currently, parents are dropping off on East 24 Meadow in front of JLS and I know that for Meadow. That parking and that area is going to be 25 preserved so it’s probably a little less of a concern to them. But I’m wondering what PAUSD has 26 said about all this? 27 28 Ms. Star-Lack: So, I don’t know Joanna want to add anything about this. We have been talking… 29 JLS and PAUSD know about this project because the Waverly Path is actually their land. And so, 30 we have been coordinating with them on this. They are working on a new school plan that will 31 change where their office is and may have changes to their drive… not the driveway. But just 32 kind of that circulation that is there and they have… so they’re working on that. I have not 33 spoken to them about this, what would happen on East Meadow about drop off, but as you 34 know, there are 600, 700 kids who bike to this school and we… and it keeps growing. We are 35 working with them to help decongest that school frontage. One of the requests that they’ve 36 had is for us to work on seeing when we can put in a left turn lane into the Waverley driveway 37 there because what is happening now is that cars are using the bike lane which is not protected 38 there. Nor are we proposing that it be protected but that cars are using it to get around folks 39 who are waiting in line to turn into the school. So, if… so we are trying to figure out if we are 40 Page 57 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. able to move this project, how we can also add that bike lane… I’m sorry that left turn lane in 1 there. So, that at least… so that it’s safer for students who are biking let's say towards Gunn to 2 get through there because it’s a little bit fraught. 3 4 Commissioner Chang: I’m sorry, can I just as a clarifying question. You were saying that you’re 5 not proposing that it be protected there. 6 7 Ms. Star-Lack: Not on… so the proposal right now is to maintain the parking along the housing. 8 9 Commissioner Chang: Yeah, ok. Well, but wasn’t it… maybe I’m confusing sections now. I 10 thought that it was potentially a parking-protected bike lane there. Segment three. On no, it’s 11 not. Ok (interrupted) 12 13 Ms. Star-Lack: No, it’s not. 14 15 Commissioner Chang: But it would be buffered, it would be buffered. 16 17 Ms. Star-Lack: It would be buffered. It would be buffered (interrupted) 18 19 Commissioner Chang: Which would help. 20 21 Ms. Star-Lack: Yes. 22 23 Commissioner Chang: Ok. 24 25 Ms. Star-Lack: Right and so if we… so if you think about what that cross-section would be at 26 that intersection. Then you would have a buffered bike lane if you’re facing Gunn let’s say. You 27 would have a buffered bike lane, a through lane, a left turn lane, and then the opposite 28 direction lane there would not be space for then parking and drop off. There’s just not enough. 29 30 Commissioner Chang: Right. Ok, I am concerned because I’ve also seen the JLS, and they're 31 moving the office closer to East Meadow which means they have their own circulation 32 problems that are pretty complex actually. 33 34 So, then my follow-on comment is that this is kind of in response to one of the public 35 comments about again parking removal in section four and also in response to Commissioner 36 Hechtman’s [note – Chair Hechtman] question about what’s different. What’s different is that 37 there’s also large lots in that area if I understand correctly because of the size of… some of the 38 largest lots with ADU potential I think are in that area as you get down towards East Meadow 39 Page 58 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Circle. And I’d have to look at a parcel map to really understand it but that is… there’s like flag 1 lots there because of the depth of the block. There’s flag lots and some large lots back there. 2 3 Mr. Kamhi: That ADU situation is exactly one of the examples that I would give for the changing 4 usage in parking and all of that or demand for change in parking in that area. 5 6 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. Even… just to Commissioner Chang’s point, even without 9 a parcel map you can still the outlines of the structures and the lot lines on Google Maps if you 10 zoom in. Some of them are angled unusually but there does appear to be potential for lots of 11 parking on people’s property in those types of situations. 12 13 That aside, I wanted to address the Chair’s question about what’s different down here? I think 14 this is… it’s super awkward to bring up but one of the major differences is this neighborhood 15 was very recently affect by a major transportation project. And they… there’s probably some 16 lingering emotional feelings about that and a commitment perhaps among the neighbors to 17 make sure that they’re never caught by surprise again. So, think this might be some proactive 18 outreach in making sure that this neighbor’s voices are heard as early as possible and as 19 strongly as possible. And that’s absolutely appropriate way to channel that energy, but the flow 20 of everything in that particular neighborhood is very affected by the traffic circle that was 21 implemented. And you know, if you’ve driven through there or biked through there it’s 22 perplexing. And I think there’s a sense of nostalgia for the peaceful predictability of how things 23 were before. That’s not to say that these improvements, I’m sure they brought additional 24 safety, or else they wouldn’t have been implemented. But you know it’s still a real concern is 25 are we going to make this even more complex. We just went through this. It’s been a challenge 26 and so it’s really important to engage and to get creative. So that we can have the bike safety 27 and this be a really pleasant bike thorough fair while also still being a pleasant place to live. So, I 28 think that’s the unique nature. The further you get away from the Ross Meadow intersection, 29 the calmer people are about this particular issue. So, just throwing that out there and 30 acknowledging our neighbors who are speaking up. 31 32 Mr. Kamhi: I think that’s a really important point. Oh, that’s not my dog this time but I think 33 that’s a really important point. Because I just want to note that that’s really the reason why 34 we’re before you tonight asking whether we want to even consider moving forward is in 35 reflection. And this community outreach process where we are going through this process of 36 determining whether we want to move forward with the project really in reflection of the 37 project that occurred on Ross Road. In the area that does definitely affect people in this area. I 38 think we even heard comments tonight that referenced the Ross Road traffic circle. 39 40 Page 59 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Summa. Sorry for the dog. 1 2 Commissioner Summa: Thank you. Yeah so in listening to everybody, I think what we’re looking 3 at here is trying to find a way. Segment four maybe doesn’t problems that need to be fixed like 4 the other segments and so maybe it gets left. And I think Commissioner Templeton is right, 5 people… the Ross Road was not a resounding happy situation and I live right on at at-6 intersection. One of the first traffic circles in our College Terrace traffic calming and I would tell 7 you, it takes drivers like anecdotally a decade to get use to a new thing like that in the street. 8 There were so many accidents on mine, it was kind of crazy. People just don’t see new things if 9 they’ve lived a long place somewhere. It’s really true. I mean it was kind of like the wild west 10 out there, but I think over time that will go away to a certain extent. And you know I back 11 basically out of my driveway into it so it was kind of not maybe good for me but it was definitely 12 what was considered to be good for the neighborhood. 13 14 So, but I just think maybe if we can move forward and I know that the VTA doesn’t want to hear 15 this but I’m not finding a way… we just can’t find more feet in the roadway. You can’t make 16 them. The only way you could find it was take… get rid of the sidewalks and that’s crazy. So, I’m 17 just feeling like we can’t find a solution to a problem on segment four. That according to the 18 people that live and use this street a lot, which is not me, doesn’t exist right now. So, that’s kind 19 of where I am on segment four. 20 21 Chair Hechtman: Thank you. I think where I am looking is big picture on segment four and 22 again, trying to be mindful of the public comments and what I read and where they were 23 talking about the impacts. I think that the primary objections don’t seem to be from East 24 Meadow Circle to Lewis but rather from Lewis over to Middlefield. And so, I’m… you know VTA 25 has given us a kind of taken it or leave it and I’m kind of wondering about a take it or leave it 26 approach back where maybe we can provide buffered from East Meadow Circle to Lewis, and 27 then just whatever we can do with the existing traffic bicycle lane. For example, I don’t 28 remember that it’s been painted. I can’t remember the look of it but maybe there are some 29 visual enhancements that we could make to that segment from Lewis to Middlefield that would 30 not meet this VTA criteria but maybe we can… maybe they’ll get even softer. I don’t… I mean 31 Staff has made clear and I think they’ve done a great job of softening them already and I have 32 no reason to believe that they’ll further soften. 33 34 Mr. Kamhi: I just want to say that I think typically when you write a grant application. There’s 35 not a lot of leeway. They expect that you deliver the project that you said you were going to 36 deliver. And there might be something where you say hey this is infeasible in this area because 37 we ran into a utility conflict or something like that. I just think at this point, if we’re going to try 38 and modify the project any further. I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere in the discussion 39 because we’ve been having this discussion with them for quite a while now. And we let them 40 Page 60 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. know… we anticipated that this was going to be a concern frankly, this parking issue, and that’s 1 why we brought up this conversation. So, I just… I don’t want to give anybody any false hope to 2 think that we’re going to get them any further because quite frankly we’re not. They’re going to 3 take this money and give it to another community that wants to do something similar to this 4 and has potentially the support to do so. So, I appreciate your comments. I do wish that we 5 could actually make this into a project where we can get grant funding for it but I think without 6 being able to provide the buffered and protected bike path throughout. I don’t think we’re 7 going to have a project. Grant-funded project I should say. 8 9 Chair Hechtman: Understood, understood, but whether or not it’s grant-funded, from 10 everything I’ve heard, to me that makes the… well, if it’s not going to be grant-funded, it still 11 makes the most sense to me to provide that buffer and lose a few parking spaces where we’re 12 really… we’re not hearing as much about… from the neighborhood. Because we’re going to 13 buffer protect segment one and then if we can get the first part of four and then just visually 14 enhance something with the rest of four. Again, if these are just Council City projects, not VTA 15 projects, I would still like the Council to know I’d like those enhancements on that segment 16 four. And if… and Mr. Kamhi, I take you at your word that you have already done extraordinary 17 lifting to get VTA where you got them too. And if we can’t meet their demands, so be it. Alright, 18 I see Commissioner Lauing followed by Commissioner Summa. 19 20 MOTION #2 21 22 Commissioner Lauing: Yes, I think we’ve had a very good discussion on this and all of us are 23 coming back to the point that we think that substantially we want to do this project in all 24 segments and we’ve got a problem with the grant. So, I would like to make a specific motion 25 that would address this in the context of ultimately City Council has to make a decision if 26 they’re willing to risk this without a grant and as I said before, we don’t know what the total 27 cost are. 28 29 So, the motion that I would make is that the PTC moves the approval of Items E and F in the 30 Staff report and recommends revise solution which omits or mitigates the proposed loss of 80 31 parking spaces necessary for public parking for parks, ADU, and other residents. Secondly, 32 continue to negotiate with VTA to maintain the grant funding with these changes in this what 33 Commissioner Templeton calculated as I think a .58-mile segment. 34 35 So, that’s the motion and I can speak to it if I get a second. The point being that we think we 36 want to go through with this whole project. As you just said, Chair Hechtman, if it can’t be done 37 with a grant, we still want to get it done. And so, we want to get completely behind this bike 38 safety and transport. So, that does it and points out that we understand that there’s at risk here 39 a grant and Council needs to address that in the context of this potential loss in these sections. 40 Page 61 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Hechtman: Alright, we have a motion. Commissioner Summa, your hand was actually up 2 before the motion was made. After the motion was made, I saw Commissioner Templeton’s 3 hand going up. So, I’m interested in first getting a second and ultimately hearing from both of 4 you. So, Commissioner Summa, let me ask you since your hand was already up. Are you… your 5 hand is down, ok. So, let me call on Commissioner Templeton and I can come back to you 6 Commissioner Summa if you want. 7 8 SECOND 9 10 Commissioner Templeton: I second Commissioner Lauing’s motion. 11 12 Mr. Kamhi: Before we go too far, if I may? Can we omit the specific parking spaces from the 13 motion? The specific number of parking motion… parking numbers… parking spaces from the 14 motion if possible? 15 16 Commissioner Templeton: Just say parking instead of a number of parking? 17 18 Mr. Kamhi: Yeah in the area. 19 20 Commissioner Templeton: I feel more comfortable with that as well. Let’s see what 21 Commissioner Lauing saying. 22 23 Mr. Kamhi: Yeah, just noting that all of our parking spaces are approximated and could be 24 (interrupted) 25 26 Commissioner Lauing: I just… the reason I thought it was… you know I read it in the Packet 27 originally and it’s a material number. So, that’s why I wanted to mention it. If it was five, we 28 wouldn’t be having all these discussions. 29 30 Mr. Kamhi: Yeah but I’m just noting that these are preliminary (interrupted) 31 32 Commissioner Lauing: [unintelligible] 33 34 Mr. Kamhi: These are preliminary numbers and we would do a parking study in the next phase 35 of the project if this project moves forward which would give us more definite numbers. 36 37 Commissioner Lauing: Would you be comfortable in the middle calling estimated. 38 39 Mr. Kamhi: Yeah, that would be better. I mean (interrupted) 40 Page 62 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Lauing: Ok. 2 3 Mr. Kamhi: I suppose and my preference would be if you just say the location. So, spaces 4 between Middlefield and Lewis be retained or whatever. 5 6 Commissioner Lauing: Since it’s… I mean Philip since it’s just an order of magnitude number and 7 you’ve already fairly that it’s concept. I’m just trying to point out is it 200, is it 80, or is 5 and 8 that’s all I’m trying to get in there. You can say 80 plus or minus, something like that. 9 10 Mr. Kamhi: I’m going to look at Staff and see if they feel ok saying approximate or estimated. If 11 they shake their head yes or no. Yes? 12 13 Commissioner Lauing: Commissioner Lauing, I think that the reason is that sometimes these 14 numbers trip up how they execute and we can just ask Staff to make sure to upfront those 15 numbers or their estimate when they send it to Council. Would you feel comfortable with that? 16 17 Commissioner Lauing: I didn’t understand the first part of what you said there. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton: That when we’re specific in motions in this way it sometimes trips up 20 Staff because if it’s incorrect it causes problems downstream. So, if we just say parking and 21 ask… include in our motion to make sure Staff up front puts the number… estimated number of 22 spaces in front of Council in the notes with this motion. I think that would still accomplish your 23 goal potentially. 24 25 Commissioner Lauing: But he’s already said that it’s an estimate and it’s conceptual. It’s this 26 order of magnitude number that I want some focus on. Is that we’re not just giving up a few 27 spaces. If we’re going to not approve the entire thing, I think we should tell Council why. 28 29 Mr. Kamhi: Yeah, I think estimated would… if you put word estimated or approximate that 30 would be appropriate I believe. 31 32 Commissioner Lauing: Alright, thanks. 33 34 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing, did you speak to your motion? 35 36 Commissioner Lauing: In advance so I could explain it, but I think that we’re saying is that we 37 substantially agree with the Staff proposal. We understand that from their perspective and 38 probably from all our perspectives it’s grant dependent at this point. But there’s some 39 substantial issues with this one particular segment or actually two subsegments that would 40 Page 63 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. have to be addressed to really make this thing kind of stand hold… stand whole. And if Council 1 chooses not to do that, that’s ok, and they can take the grant. If they decide to make a change 2 and we don’t win the negotiations. Then we have to find that, plus the rest of the construction. 3 4 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton, any comments on your second? 5 6 Commissioner Templeton: Yes, I think that our City has a significant commitment to biking, and 7 biking infrastructure goes with that. And we have often found that when funding dries up, that 8 our biking infrastructure has been put on hold, and I think the idea of being able to take 9 advantage of a unique opportunity that comes before us with prioritizing biking infrastructure is 10 really important to work with. So, I would like to recommend this to Council for that reason. 11 Thank you. 12 13 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 14 15 Chair Hechtman: Not seeing any hands so let me just register concern about the inclusion of 16 item E, segment three in your motion. I know early in our discussion Commissioner Summa 17 expressed some wonder if whether the parking issues that we heard from the neighborhood, 18 that seemed pretty… I thought were focused from Middlefield over to segment four, might 19 bleed over into segment three. And I haven’t heard anything in the discussion since that 20 indicates that they do bleed over and in fact, what I understand now is segment three is 21 actually quite different. You’ve got essentially public facilities on one side of the street for all of 22 segment three. It’s very different and so the reason I’m bring that up is it concerns me about 23 lumping segment three or E in with F, segment four. I would be more comfortable breaking that 24 out and just have a motion to recommend E. The 80 parking… the estimated 80 parking spaces 25 or however many are lost, those are all in section… segment four. 26 27 So, I think that’s cleaner and that will… if it happened that way and should the Commission go 28 that way, then the Council gets a pretty clear message from us, very clear, that on five of these 29 segments we are all in. 30 31 Commissioner Lauing: I’m perfectly happy with that because I don’t think the outcome is any 32 different. If that helps with clarity, I’m all in. So (interrupted) 33 34 Commissioner Templeton: That’s fine with me as well. 35 36 Commissioner Lauing: So, my motion then would just apply at this point to item F. 37 38 Page 64 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Kamhi: And if I can add and maybe this is some optimism but if this is actually the motion 1 that is adopted. This potentially gives us ammunition to talk with VTA in the interim with fingers 2 crossed. 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, yeah. So, I’m readjusting my motion and I can send the new text to 5 the Chair and we have a second. So, we’re ready to go and then we can come back to E, Chair 6 Hechtman. 7 8 Chair Hechtman: Alright, so let me first ask the Commissioners if there’s any further discussion 9 on the motion? Commissioner Summa. 10 11 Commissioner Summa: Could I just ask for the motion to be restated? Thanks. 12 13 MOTION RESTATED 14 15 Commissioner Lauing: PTC moves approval of Item F and recommends a revised solution which 16 omits or mitigates the proposed loss of estimated 80 parking spaces necessary for public 17 parking for parks, ADU, and other residents. Also, recommends to continue to negotiate with 18 VTA to maintain the grant funding with these changes in the .58-mile segment if that’s what 19 Commissioner Templeton calculated. 20 21 Commissioner Summa: So, your motion does anticipate an outcome where F is included as 22 described in the preferred alternative? 23 24 Commissioner Lauing: Right. 25 26 Commissioner Summa: So, you’re just saying there has be another solution but you 27 (interrupted) 28 29 Commissioner Lauing: That’s right. 30 31 Commissioner Templeton: We’re saying to work on that segment and further iterate because 32 the current proposal, high level though it is, has some glaring flaws. 33 34 Commissioner Lauing: Right. 35 36 Commissioner Summa: Ok. 37 38 Chair Hechtman: Alright, any more questions or comments on the motion? I’m not seeing any 39 hands. Mr. Nguyen, will conduct a roll call vote? 40 Page 65 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Mr. Nguyen: Yes. Commissioner Alcheck? 2 3 Commissioner Alcheck: Aye. 4 5 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Chang? 6 7 Commissioner Chang: Yes. 8 9 Mr. Nguyen: Chair Hechtman? 10 11 Chair Hechtman: Yes. 12 13 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 14 15 Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 16 17 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Summa? 18 19 Commissioner Summa: Yes. 20 21 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Templeton? 22 23 Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 24 25 Mr. Nguyen: Ok the motion carries 6-0 with one Commissioner absent. 26 27 MOTION PASS 6(Alcheck, Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Summa, Templeton) -0 -1(Roohparvar 28 recused) 29 30 Chair Hechtman: That leaves only segment three, which is Item Two E, undecided. Any 31 Commissioners want to comment on that or make a motion? 32 33 Commissioner Summa: I do have a question on that. I think Chair Hechtman, you were asking 34 some questions and clarified it’s an expected loss of approximately 39 spaces in segment three 35 or E? 36 37 Chair Hechtman: That was the Staff information, right. Well, what’s the pleasure of the 38 Commission on segment three? Commissioner Chang. 39 40 Page 66 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. MOTION #3 1 2 Commissioner Chang: I can make a motion and see if it works. So, I move that PTC recommends 3 the Staff proposal for segment E to City Council. 4 5 SECOND 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: Second. 8 9 Chair Hechtman: Second by Commissioner Lauing. Commissioner Chang, any elaboration on 10 your motion? 11 12 Commissioner Chang: Sure. While there is some parking reduction in this section, my 13 understanding is that it’s… and I mean a parking study will tell us when we get to detailed 14 design. But my understanding is that this section is typically under parked most of the week and 15 there’s also backup parking in Mitchell Park. Furthermore, the traffic in this section is pretty 16 intense as demonstrated by the traffic study and so I really think that this is… this is kind of like 17 where the funnel funnels everybody. Cars and students and so this section is really critical 18 because it’s the most congested section for our students and so I feel very strongly that we 19 protect… do our best to protect bicyclists through this section. 20 21 Chair Hechtman: Thank you and Commissioner Lauing, comments on your second? 22 23 Commissioner Lauing: Yes, Commissioner Chang is very familiar with that neighborhood at a 24 very helpful level of detail. Has been very attentive in prior meetings to the issue, so I 25 completely support her judgment on this. 26 27 Chair Hechtman: Other Commission comments on the motion regarding Item Two E which is 28 East Meadow Drive segment three? Seeing none, Mr. Nguyen, please conduct a roll call vote. 29 30 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Alcheck? 31 32 Commissioner Alcheck: Aye. 33 34 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Chang? 35 36 Commissioner Chang: Yes. 37 38 Mr. Nguyen: Chair Hechtman? 39 40 Page 67 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Hechtman: Yes. 1 2 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 5 6 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Summa? 7 8 Commissioner Summa: Yes. 9 10 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Templeton? 11 12 Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 13 14 Mr. Nguyen: The motion carries 6-0 with one Commissioner absent. 15 16 MOTION #3 PASSED 6(Alcheck, Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Summa, Templeton) -0 -17 1(Roohparvar recused) 18 19 Chair Hechtman: Excellent. That concludes Action Item Two. Oh, yes, Commissioner Summa, I 20 see your hand? 21 22 Commissioner Summa: Thank you. I just… earlier I was going to make a comment that I didn’t 23 get a chance to make because we got caught up in our motion making. And that was there’s 24 sort of a timing disconnect here because Staff tells us we’re very early on in the design process. 25 So, there’s still a lot of unknowns but we get kind of locked in even before we’ve contemplated 26 really what we want to do by the folks giving the grant. And I think that’s sort of dangerous and 27 so I hope for the best outcome but that is kind of a funny process if you ask me. So, I just 28 wanted to mention that. 29 30 Chair Hechtman: Alright, thank you. So, I want to thank the members of the public who 31 participated either orally or in writing. Many of whom I see are still with us. I also want to thank 32 our Staff and Mr. Davis. Thank you for attending. Ms. Chan, thank you for the presentation and 33 good luck on your future position, and Mr. Kamhi, thank you for that. 34 35 We will move now to… actually before we move to the approval of minutes. It’s 10 till 10:00. 36 We have the approval of minutes and then we have the potential to discuss the retreat. And 37 the reason I’m bringing it up now before we approve the minutes is if we’re going to do that. I’d 38 like to let the Vice-Chair know that she can rejoin the meeting. But if we don’t have an appetite 39 for that tonight, then I don’t want to bother her to rejoin just to approve minutes. So, 40 Page 68 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioners, if there an appetite to discuss the possibility of retreat tonight, or are we ready 1 to call it an evening at the rare early hour of 10:00? 2 3 Commissioner Alcheck: Considering that we’re not going to see each other for a month and 4 then you’re entering the final stretch of the year. Maybe it would be a good time just have that 5 conversation so we understand what’s expected or what is intended. 6 7 Chair Hechtman: Anyone else have an objection to having a fairly limited, I’m not anticipating 8 this is going to go on and on. I just never had a chance to take the temperature of the 9 Commission on this issue. It’s always too late. Anybody have any issues talking about it? Ok, 10 then I will see if we can get our seventh back and let's move to approval of minutes. 11 12 Commission Action: Motion by Alcheck, seconded by Chang. Pass 6-0 (Roohparvar recused) 13 Commission Action: Motion by Lauing, seconded by Templeton. Pass 6-0 (Roohparvar recused) 14 Commission Action: Motion by Chang, seconded by Lauing. Pass 6-0 (Roohparvar recused) 15 Approval of Minutes 16 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 17 4. June 9, 2021 Draft PTC Meeting Minutes 18 Chair Hechtman: So, we have some (interrupted) 19 20 MOTION 21 22 Commissioner Alcheck: So, moved. 23 24 Chair Hechtman: Thank you. As revised? 25 26 Commissioner Alcheck: Yes. 27 28 Chair Hechtman: Thank you. Do we have… that’s… Commissioner Alcheck motion, a second, 29 please? 30 31 SECOND 32 33 Chair Hechtman: Second by Commissioner Summa. May we have a roll call vote, please? 34 35 Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III: Commissioner Alcheck? 36 37 Commissioner Alcheck: Aye. 38 39 Page 69 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Chang? 1 2 Commissioner Chang: Sorry, can you restate the motion because I was listening to something 3 else in the background. 4 5 Chair Hechtman: The motion is to approve the June 9th, 2021 minutes as revised. 6 7 Commissioner Chang: Yes. 8 9 Mr. Nguyen: Chair Hechtman? 10 11 Chair Hechtman: Yes. 12 13 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 14 15 Commissioner Lauing: Yes, I was just checking to see who was not here but yes, I approve. 16 17 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Summa? 18 19 Commissioner Summa: Yes. 20 21 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Templeton? 22 23 Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 24 25 Mr. Nguyen: The motion carries 6-0 with one Commissioner absent. 26 27 Chair Hechtman: I believe Commissioner Lauing that Vice-Chair Roohparvar was absent for that 28 meeting. 29 30 Vice-Chair Roohparvar: That’s right. 31 32 Chair Hechtman: Oh, was it Commissioner Chang? 33 34 Commissioner Chang: I was absent. 35 36 Vice-Chair Roohparvar: No, no, it was me. Vice-Chair Roohparvar. 37 38 Commissioner Chang: I was absent as well so I should actually abstain from that I just realized. 39 40 Page 70 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Vice-Chair Roohparvar: Oh. 1 2 Chair Hechtman: Do you have that Mr. Nguyen? Vice Chang… Commissioner Chang’s 3 abstention? 4 5 Mr. Nguyen: Yes, thank you. 6 7 Chair Hechtman: Alright and welcome back Vice-Chair. We will move now to committee items. 8 Commission Action: Motion by Alcheck, seconded by Summa. Pass 5-0 (Chang and Roohparvar 9 abstain) 10 Committee Items 11 Chair Hechtman: Are there any committee items that any of the Commissioners would like to 12 [unintelligible] with the Commission? Commissioner Lauing. 13 14 Commissioner Lauing: Yes, I’d just like to state briefly that the Housing Element working group 15 is working and the Co-Chairs are working beyond that to try to make this thing work smoothly. 16 Still extraordinarily early and I just… the group members are amazingly enthusiastic and 17 interested and participatory. And they come as you know, by intent from various walks of life so 18 to speak and various levels of understanding about the City process and that’s all good because 19 that’s exactly what you want is all those perspectives. Nothing sort of concrete yet to really 20 report out but it’s basically getting teed up to bring here to PTC. So, I’ll keep you updated every 21 so often. 22 23 Chair Hechtman: Thank you. Any other Committee items, Commissioners? Seeing none we will 24 move to Commissioner questions, comments, announcements or future agenda items. 25 Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 26 Chair Hechtman: We’ll have our retreat discussion in this item but before we get to that, any 27 other Commissioners have other items or Staff that they want to introduce here? I will 28 mention, as I think it’s been mentioned a couple of times, we don’t have future agenda items 29 for July 28th or August 11th. We decided to cancel those meetings so we will reconvene on 30 August 25th and I think it remains to be seen whether that will be in person or a hybrid. We’ll 31 learn as we get closer to that date. 32 33 Alright, let's have a discussion about the possibility of a PTC retreat, and let me start by pointing 34 out that there are seven Commissioners and I think two of us, myself and Commissioner Chang, 35 have not participated in a PTC retreat. I think the other five of you have participated in at least 36 one but I’m not sure. And so, I’d like to… I’m interested in the impressions of the five of you 37 that have as to whether they’re worthwhile, what we might accomplish, whether you think it’s 38 Page 71 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. a good idea, or whether it’s something that maybe we don’t need to do for and we can talk 1 about it in another year? Commissioner Templeton. 2 3 Commissioner Templeton: It’s hard to say. When we were meeting in person the last time we 4 had a retreat it was a nice way to open up the flow of dialog and get to know each other better. 5 But I’m not sure it had particularly beneficial outcome that I could point to. I’m open to the idea 6 but I don’t know even in scope what we’re talking about. Are we talking a half-day? A whole 7 day? A couple hours? Something like that but as and when we start meeting in person again. I 8 could see that it would be a nice way to kind of break the ice and establish that repour. 9 10 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing. 11 12 Commissioner Lauing: I think it can be very helpful. That comment is based on PTC retreats and 13 also Parks [note – Parks and Recreation Commission] retreats. Things are potentially going to be 14 different now with this work plan idea in terms of getting our work plan ready. I think that the 15 value depends on the content of the agenda and in the context of working the agenda. You do 16 pick up the team building, the communication, and things like that. I think we’re sort of 17 compromised right now because we only have about six meetings left in the year. And I also felt 18 it was great to have this, a retreat, as soon as possible in the new year. In our case, after 19 Council comes out with their objectives and then generally there’s also at least a new 20 Commissioner that can be integrated, oriented, get to know folks as Commissioner Templeton 21 said. So, I think they’re of value I think in the first month of the year as opposed to the eighth 22 month of the year. And the only footnote I’d put on that is that if we have to address the… an 23 actual PTC work plan in any more detail than we have. That might be a reason to try to squeeze 24 something in but that could potentially also an agenda item for one of our meetings so. 25 26 Chair Hechtman Thank you. Commissioner Alcheck. 27 28 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m just going touch on diverse points here. I’ve been to a few, none 29 have been the same, they’ve been a lot of unique approaches to the retreat. I… Commissioner 30 Templeton knows the high esteem I hold her but I disagree on her view that the last retreat was 31 not particularly effective. Because at the time we had an interesting makeup on the 32 Commission, a lot of diverse opinions, and the goal of that retreat… that retreat kicked off with 33 a management specialist who was brought in to do team-building exercises from a business 34 school up in San Francisco. It was really interesting and I didn’t only take away a lot of insight 35 in… I’ll give you an example. We did an exercise where we worked on how do you get the best 36 from me and what can you do… and how to do I get the best from you? Very interesting 37 insights into the personality approach of the Commissioners. I honestly took that… I took notes 38 on that meeting and brought it back to so many different things that I’m involved in but the 39 Page 72 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. extent to which I think I understood my fellow Commissioners better was vastly improved 1 because of that exercise. 2 3 I would also suggest that I don’t think timing is a big deal. We shouldn’t… I mean listen, I’m at 4 the conclusion of my length involvement on the Planning Commission. But I would encourage 5 you all to consider your retreats not as the… this work… first of all, I’ve said this already. The 6 work plan thing is like I’m not particularly impressed with that concept. I don’t think it’s going 7 to be a particularly useful… that’s not what I would devote a retreat to. Devote a meeting early 8 on in the year to talk about your work plan. Add it to the agenda of your regular meeting. It 9 should not be a part of your retreat, it’s just a waste. Particularly, because it’s unclear yet the 10 value of that tool but aside from that. 11 12 I would encourage the Commissioners to not consider the retreat as some uniquely, Chair-led 13 envisions opportunity. I would encourage you to consider it as an opportunity to come together 14 and to get to know each other better and to spend time doing something other than sharing 15 your opinions. And I’ll give you a few examples of things that I think could be really valuable. 16 Imagine a retreat that involved a site visit to a low-income housing project. I mean you have a 17 lot of flexibility here on how you organize the retreat. It has to be public, but it doesn’t have 18 sort of the same formalities, and imagine if you explored a topic to the work we do together on-19 site, in a more casual setting. Maybe it involved a hosted coffee and muffins or something 20 afterward. It gave you a chance to connect with your fellow Commissioners and understand 21 them better. Get to hear about their families, get to hear about some of their interests in a 22 more informal setting after you’ve maybe walked a site together and hear from a professional 23 in the industry talk about their work on a project that hey, we talk about all the time. 24 25 I just think that the tool should be used regularly because there isn’t… there is transition but 26 there’s not that much transition and you guys maybe together for 4-years and coming together 27 in person formally is very different than coming together in person informally and learning 28 together. 29 30 My biggest takeaway was out of all the retreats, the last one I learned something alongside my 31 fellow Commissioners. There was another professional in the room that had something to offer 32 and maybe it wasn’t a topic that impressed every single Commissioner. But at least I got to 33 learn alongside and I thought that was very illuminating and I think there’s some value to that. 34 35 And so, I’d love to have a retreat and not to… I don’t want to be the person that papood a… and 36 if the idea was we would get together in some park and talk about priorities. I would be… I’d be 37 excited to do that too, but I think that there’s a lot of flexibility and room here and maybe you 38 could really think outside the box. And it takes planning but hey, it could be exciting and I think I 39 would… I sometimes think that the Chair sort of a lot of leeway there to decide how to invest 40 Page 73 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. the time and I don’t I’ll ever forget the Billy Riggs, the retreat. I thought… he leveraged his 1 network, his professional network, to bring a very interesting person in and I will be grateful of 2 him for that. 3 4 Chair Hechtman Thank you. Vice-Chair Roohparvar. 5 6 Vice-Chair Roohparvar: So, I guess retreat that I’ve participated in was the Billy Riggs retreat 7 and it was informal and intend for team building. I could go either way on whether or not we 8 have a retreat. I think a lot of it depends on what our agenda is for the retreat and whether 9 fellow Commissioners find value in it. I do personally like the idea of doing a site visit or being 10 able to see… I mean we spend a lot of time deciding on projects but going out maybe together 11 and seeing the results of something we’ve decided on. Or a topic that we’re interested in could 12 be really cool and a way to bring people closer together. Because I personally would love to 13 interact with my fellow Commissioners in a more informal setting and really get to know them 14 as a person beyond just the work. I think it brings people closer together and leads to greater 15 consensus. Thank you. 16 17 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Summa, you don’t have to say anything but if you want to you 18 could. Yeah, if you want to… you don’t have to chime in. 19 20 Commissioner Summa: I think… I don’t think we can do a site visit because it’s actually a City 21 hearing and it has to be open to the public and stuff. So, but you know, we can do that kind of 22 thing with each other if want to anyway but I don’t think the retreat can be that. I think it has to 23 be accessible to the public, it’s a hearing. But I mean to me I sort of… if the Chair and Vice-Chair 24 really want to have a retreat, of course, I will come, but I can’t say that it’s terribly important to 25 me. And I think that’s because I sort of agree with Commissioner Lauing that it's kind of thing 26 you do at the beginning of your year, not at the end. That being said, everything was a bit 27 wacky this year so I would just… if you give a retreat, I will come. 28 29 Chair Hechtman: Well, let me share a couple of my thoughts. So, I joined the Commission in 30 December of 2019 and we had a number of canceled meetings. We didn’t have business to do 31 and I think I either had two or three meetings before the lockdown and we went virtual. And 32 one of the things that I’ve really missed since we went virtual and that Commissioner Chang has 33 never even experienced yet is that in the minutes before our meetings when we were live, we 34 actually got to chat and find out about Billy Rigg’s diet and find out that somebody had children 35 or how old they were and you had a few minutes to talk about that. And I mean I love the work 36 part of this but I was also really enjoying getting to know my fellow workers and so I miss that. 37 You know, I’m looking forward to getting back to that later this year but you know, we should 38 hear from a number of you Commissioners that have experienced it. That was one of the 39 benefits is just that informality of the setting, where ever it needs to occur so that it’s public. 40 Page 74 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. So, that we can get to know each other as people a little bit and because Commissioner Alcheck 1 is going to be terming out at the end of this year, we know we’re going to have a new 2 Commissioner at the beginning of next year and so I’m sort of interested in the idea of pursuing 3 something that could happen in the early part of next year. It seems like that would requiring 4 some planning this year which I’d be happy to be a part of. We’ll have a new Chair next year 5 and so that would be… they would run that retreat which is fine but I’m open to it as well. I 6 don’t have any particular topics right now that I want to focus on but I think those kinds of 7 things we could dialog and come up with together, rather than having the Chair impose 8 something or if that was the dialog is Chair impose something, I’m sure I could figure something 9 out. So, those are my thought. I’m open to it and would relish the opportunity to spend a little 10 more relaxed time with my Commissioners which I think that would offer. Commissioner Chang, 11 do you have any thoughts? 12 13 Commissioner Chang: Not much other than it would be lovely to get to know you all. I do think 14 that it can probably be a little bit of the best of both worlds in terms of content like 15 Commissioner Lauing was talking about as well as kind of on a more personal, getting to know 16 each other. Because I do think that the discussion of content is fairly limited when we are… at 17 least thus far. It’s fairly regimented I should say when we’re in this formal and so if it really 18 could be a little bit more relaxed even though public. So, maybe we don’t have some of those 19 same formality constraints. It could be a little bit more fluid and I could see that being useful. 20 Particularly, with something that it’s a little bit more long rant or strategic like the work plan. 21 22 Chair Hechtman: Thank you. Commissioner Templeton. 23 24 Commissioner Templeton: I just wanted to clarify, because there was remarks about. I didn’t 25 have a problem with the last retreat. I just didn’t tie it back to anything other than getting to 26 know how work with each other. You know, specific on the Commission work. That said, there 27 is value in getting to know each other. I just pray that it’s not going to be another Zoom 28 meeting. Like it, if we do it, it needs to be in person. I just can’t add more Zoom meetings to my 29 life right now. 30 31 Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing. 32 33 Commissioner Lauing: Perfect segue to exactly what I was going to say which is that we’re 34 almost done with Zoom meetings. So, every 2-weeks we’re going to get to see each other and 35 you left out the free dinners too, Chair Hechtman. So, that’s another give, so you know, getting 36 their 20-minutes before and staying 20-minutes after. I think we’re going to feel better about 37 that in terms of the not just to getting to know you but enjoying each other with or without a 38 retreat. I’m not arguing for one or the other. I’m just saying I think there’s hope at the end of 39 the tunnel in that regard. 40 Page 75 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Hechtman: Alright, well this has been helpful to me and gives me some things to think 2 about, and I will cogitate on it a little bit. I don’t think that… unless any of you have more to 3 add, I think we’ve sufficiently talked about it and I appreciate the context. Mr. Yang, I can see 4 you. 5 6 Mr. Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney: I just have a couple quick thoughts if you don’t mind. It 7 is… PTC, Board, and Commission retreats have typically been noticed public meetings because 8 they have been about Commission business. So, agenda, work plan sort of setting things, but if 9 it’s truly just a getting to know you sort of session. That doesn’t need to be a noticed public 10 meeting. 11 12 Something like a site visit would have to be noticed because that concerns the Commission’s 13 work. You could do that. I think the HRB does that quite often. They’ll go and visit a historic site 14 as a Board and their agenda will just say if you want to attend this part of the meeting. Come 15 meet us at the site and you can walk around it with us. But yeah, so if you were going to do a 16 site visit, that would be… we’d have a formal meeting for that but if it were just everyone 17 getting together for coffee. Then that type of thing doesn’t need to be noticed or open to the 18 public. 19 20 Chair Hechtman: Alright, thank you. 21 22 Commissioner Templeton: Excellent point. 23 24 Chair Hechtman: Alright, well appreciate all of the input and so I’m… think we can move on and 25 I will declare this meeting adjourned. Thank you all. 26 Adjournment 27 10:15 pm 28