Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-01-29 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: January 29, 2025 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 6:00 PM 7 Chair Chang called to order the regular meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission 8 for January 29, 2025. 9 Administrative Associate Veronica Dao conducted the roll call. Chair Chang, Vice-Chair Akin, 10 Commissioner Hechtman, Commissioner Summa, and Commissioner Templeton (arrived at 6:05 11 PM) were present. 12 Oral Communications 13 1. James Girand lived at 590 East Crescent Drive. A temporary berm has been in front of 14 his house for nearly four years. The Transportation Department’s plan for the berm at 15 East Crescent and Southwood was the subject of discussion at the PTC meeting on June 16 14, 2023. The Commission directed the Transportation Department to redesign the 17 berm; however, the berm and California’s new daylight law has limited his handicap 18 accessibility. The berm was extended to where his caregivers had been parking, which 19 has blocked James Girand’s ability to get out of the car. James Girand asked the 20 Commission to direct the Transportation Department to take down the temporary berm 21 and redesign the berm to address his disability access and aesthetics. 22 2. Lisa Lawson highlighted some points from her letter to the Commission. James Girand is 23 her 87-year-old father. Lisa Lawson showed a photo of the walkway her dad used. With 24 AB 413, the daylighting law implemented in January 2025, parking within 15 feet of the 25 beginning or end of a berm was not allowed. Disability access for her father was 26 eliminated. Lisa Lawson asked the Commission to have the temporary berm dismantled 27 and to direct the Planning Department to consider the ramifications of AB 413 when 28 redesigning the berm. 29 Chair Chang reminded members of the public that the Commission cannot discuss items that 30 were not on the agenda nor make decisions on them. 31 3. John Hanna sent an email letter to the PTC about the temporary berm and he wondered 32 if the Commission read it. Chair Chang confirmed the Commission received his letter but 33 she could not speak on behalf of each commissioner if they had read it. John Hanna 34 would appreciate it if the Commission took into consideration the comments of James 35 Girand and Lisa Lawson. Other neighbors were not happy with the size of the berm. 36 John Hanna was not sure if the berm created a hazard because the berm jutted out into 37 the street and narrowed the distance between two passing cars at the intersection of 1 East Crescent and Southwood. 2 Chair Chang stated that the Commission was not allowed to discuss the topic raised by the 3 public commenters but the Commission could ask staff for more information, such as 4 confirming the timeline, what had been done by Transportation, and what the process is before 5 it is finalized. Chair Chang asked Jennifer Armer to follow up with the Commission. 6 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 7 None 8 City Official Reports 9 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 10 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer presented the Director’s Report. 11 A Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow car-free streets on portions of Ramona Street and 12 California Avenue, parking programs, and procedural rules for the amount of time for public 13 comment were on the PTC’s agenda for February 12, 2025. Planned Home Zone (PHZ) for 70 14 Encina and an update on the Bike and Pedestrian Plan were scheduled for the PTC meeting on 15 February 26, 2025. 16 The Housing Element implementation PAMC Ordinance was recommended for approval by the 17 PTC on November 13, 2024. At the City Council Meeting held on January 21, 2025, the Council 18 approved zoning ordinance updates in relation to the Housing Element. The second reading of 19 the ordinance will be on February 10, 2025. 20 On February 6, 2025, a community meeting on the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance 21 update will be held at 6 PM at City Hall. After obtaining the public’s input, this topic will be 22 brought back to the PTC for consideration and recommendation. 23 On January 15, 2025, the PTC recommended approval of a zoning change for the project at 24 3265 El Camino Real, and it is scheduled for City Council’s consideration on February 10, 2025. 25 Chair Chang asked if there was an update from the Office of Transportation. Transportation 26 Planning Manager Sylvia Star-Lack introduced Lily Lim-Tsao, who will be the Interim Chief 27 Transportation Official (CTO) until the City finds a permanent CTO. Lily Lim-Tsao was most 28 recently the City of San Jose’s Assistant Director of the Transportation Department. 29 Special Presentations 30 2. VTA Speed & Reliability Program Presentation 31 VTA Senior Transportation Planner Tamiko Percell leads VTA’s Speed & Reliability Program. VTA 32 was working toward their Visionary Network, which included the following: Buses and trains 33 arriving every 10 minutes on Frequent Network routes, expanded hours of operation, a 24-hour 34 service network, more frequency and longer hours on Saturdays and Sundays, a larger service 1 area, and expanded routes for better regional connections. 2 VTA wanted to improve speed and reliability, meaning how quickly a bus travels over the 3 course of its route and how consistently a bus moves with predictable travel times. Faster 4 transit was much more cost effective. The Rapid 522 and Route 22 were the two Frequent 5 Network routes servicing Palo Alto. 6 In Phase 1 from September 2024 to February 2025, the Transit Reliability Improvement and 7 Performance System (TRIPS) project was developing a countywide Transit Signal Priority (TSP) 8 system. In Phase 2 from February 2025 to November 2025, the Clipper Retail Network and 9 Cashless Fare Payment Barrier Study (FBS) will help people transition from paying cash to using 10 a Clipper card, credit card, or app. 11 TSP improved transit flow by adjusting traffic signals so buses get extended green lights or 12 shortened red lights. TSP benefits included reduced bus travel time, improved schedule 13 reliability, enhanced rider experience by minimizing delays and bus bunching, as well as more 14 efficient transit operations and corridor performance. The challenges of TSP were balancing 15 transit priority with overall traffic flow and side street access to an intersection, prioritization of 16 multiple routes in a corridor, and its effectiveness was dependent on City policy. 17 Frank Ponciano from Winter Consulting was the lead outreach consultant on this project. In 18 Santa Clara County over the last two months, feedback was received at 29 standalone events, 19 over 1000 unique interactions with community members, 10 focus groups, 13 community event 20 pop-up booths, and 6 community meeting presentations. Besides today’s PTC meeting, one 21 outreach event was held in Palo Alto. 22 Insights and learnings from Phase 1 outreach included the following: Palo Alto Transit Center 23 was a key interagency transfer point for people coming from or going to San Mateo. Riders 24 expressed frustration about unsynchronized agency schedules and congestion along El Camino 25 Real. Riders were pleased with Route 522’s faster service but were frustrated with Route 22’s 26 slow speeds at times along El Camino Real. The community input will be used to identify 27 priority locations for implementing TSP improvements. The community input will be combined 28 with data to set priorities as well as guide future grant applications and policy coordination with 29 local cities. 30 On average, it takes 12 seconds for a rider to complete fare payment with cash, which 31 significantly impacted bus speed and reliability. Using noncash methods for fare payment 32 reduced the time by over 90 percent. Seniors, immigrant communities, the unhoused, and 33 others might face barriers in securing noncash means for fare payment, such as not having 34 access to devices that enable contactless payment, may not have access to locations where 35 they can purchase a Clipper Card, or may not have information on how to access these 36 payment options. The main goal for Phase 2 outreach for the Clipper Retail Network and 37 Cashless Fare Payment Barrier Study (FBS) was to test equitable ways to promote non-cash fare 38 payment. In Santa Clara County in March and April, there will be 10 focus groups, 8 community 39 presentations, and up to 16 community event pop-up booths. Using the learnings from that 1 outreach, VTA will plan and run a pilot program this summer to test approaches that lowered 2 the amount of time to pay the fare while addressing concerns of accessibility and equity. 3 Frank Ponciano asked the Commission which Palo Alto organizations or community leaders 4 should be included in a focus group or community meeting presentation and if there were any 5 events in March and April in Palo Alto that the VTA Speed & Reliability outreach team should 6 attend with pop-up booths or presentations. 7 Chair Chang invited public comments as well as questions and comments from commissioners. 8 There were no public comments. 9 Commissioner Templeton noted a slide in the presentation stated that VTA needed the City’s 10 cooperation for light timing; however, Routes 22 and 522 were on State-owned El Camino Real 11 and light timing was negotiated with the State. Tamiko Percell replied that decisions were 12 almost always made with VTA, Caltrans, and City staff, even though Caltrans controlled the 13 signal. VTA was looking for City staff’s support to prioritize transit at the intersection. 14 Commissioner Templeton asked staff if they needed anything from the Commission in order to 15 support VTA’s request. Sylvia Star-Lack did not think staff needed anything from the PTC. 16 Commissioner Templeton suggested VTA reach out to PAUSD and the PTAs. Students were 17 encouraged to find alternative ways to get to school; therefore, many of them bike or ride the 18 bus and could benefit from understanding and using an improved VTA service in Palo Alto. 19 In response to Chair Chang asking if the new national administration had an effect on this 20 project, Tamiko Percell answered no. Because their agreement was executed, the grantor at the 21 Federal Government said it should be fine for VTA to keep moving forward. Chair Chang 22 thought the VTA might find it helpful to reach out to the City-School Subcommittee of the City 23 Council, the Safe Routes to School partnership between PAUSD and the City, the Pedestrian and 24 Bicycle Advisory Committee, senior nonprofit Avenidas, and the Veterans Association. Gunn 25 High School would have a lot of feedback because students have continually struggled with VTA 26 bus routes. Chair Chang’s neighbor needed a ride to school because the bus stop down the 27 street was eliminated. 28 Commissioner Summa hoped an additional bus route could serve the new transitional housing, 29 so she suggested VTA reach out to the gentleman who runs the Opportunity Center. 30 Commissioner Summa suggested VTA also contact Alta Housing because they operated most of 31 Palo Alto’s below-market-rate programs. Commissioner Templeton wondered if Middle College 32 needed to be contacted, the new high school located on the Foothill campus. Chair Chang 33 agreed that community colleges were a good group to reach out to since they all had 34 partnerships with the high schools. 35 3. Via Palo Alto Link Update 36 Nate Baird, Palo Alto Link Programs Manager in the Office of Transportation, mentioned that 37 two representatives from Via were present to talk about Palo Alto Link. The Palo Alto Link 38 program began as an 18-month pilot and now had funding through a little over two years. The 1 Palo Alto Link program had been making adjustments to its operating model and funding 2 arrangements. 3 Krista Glotzbach explained that Via was a global company with about 700 transit agency and 4 City partners. Link was an app-based microtransit delivering shared rides. Link had grown 5 almost 30 percent year over year. The fare increase did not negatively impact ridership. Palo 6 Alto had a very strong utilization rate of 3.6, which was higher than Cupertino, Morgan Hill, 7 Milpitas, and the California DRT average; 75 percent of trips in Palo Alto were shared between 8 multiple riders. Based on surveys in the Palo Alto Link app, 60 percent of riders identified as 9 minorities, 57 percent of riders earn less than $100,000/year, and 23 percent of riders had a 10 long-term disability. In-app surveys will continue. Link reduced congestion and greenhouse 11 emissions. It was estimated that over 19,000 single-occupancy trips and 27 tons of CO2 12 emissions were avoided in 2024 from Palo Alto Link’s use of electric vehicles and shared rides. 13 Link enabled access to downtown within 30 minutes for a population of 104,704. Link enabled 14 13 times more people to reach the VA Hospital within 45 minutes. 15 Stanford Research Park has been a partner with Palo Alto Link. One-third of the funding was 16 allocated by the City of Palo Alto, one-third was contributed by Stanford Research Park, and 17 one-third was from grants. The Measure B grant application is due February 24 and awards will 18 be announced at the end of May. Via continued to pursue additional funds and has identified 19 seven community groups to contact to see if there was interest in contributing toward one-20 third of the funds. 21 Via visited senior centers to teach people how to use the app to order a ride. Via used data-22 driven, ongoing service redesign to improve service. 23 Chair Chang invited public comments as well as comments and questions from commissioners. 24 There were no public comments. 25 Commissioner Templeton asked what the drop-off and pick-up procedure was for people with 26 infirmities who may have difficulty entering and exiting a vehicle, for example 590 East Crescent 27 Drive mentioned during Public Comment. Krista Glotzbach replied that drivers were trained to 28 work with people who have disabilities. There were wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Riders can 29 put a note in the app to specify if they need a vehicle to provide door-to-door service. If the 30 vehicle cannot get access to the specific address, the driver will get as close as they could and 31 text the passenger or have dispatch call the passenger to tell them where the vehicle is. Lily 32 Lim-Tsao explained the daylighting law did not allow long-term parking. Generally, daylighted 33 areas remain open for pedestrian and bicycle visibility and were not intended as a pick-up and 34 drop-off loading zone. It was anticipated that Via’s driver would move as quickly as possible, so 35 Lily Lim-Tsao thought Via’s vehicle was allowed to get close to the property. Since there were 36 school zone exclusions, Chair Chang wondered if disabled students could use Link. Sylvia Star-37 Lack believed students could use Link if they indicated they were disabled in the app or they 38 could call Link. 39 Chair Chang inquired if Link was funded through the two-year anniversary in March. Nathan 1 Baird responded there was funding through June of 2025. A TFCA air quality grant helped 2 covert fully to EV and hybrid. Stanford Research Park, City Council funds, and the innovative 3 transit grant need to be reapplied for. The Council discussed a willingness to continue funding 4 at the same level. Link’s total cost was about $120,000 or $130,000 per month. 5 Understanding that students cannot use Link to get to and from school during regular school 6 hours, Commissioner Templeton asked how many students were using this service, how much 7 the City was funding for students to use this service, and what it would cost to fund a VTA pass 8 for students. Krista Glotzbach replied that there was not a special fare for students now, so they 9 did not know if a student was riding the service; however, they could ask the question in the 10 next survey. Commissioner Templeton thought that information might help in making an 11 informed decision on how and where to fund in the future. Sylvia Star-Lack pointed out that 12 Link gave access to almost all places in town whereas VTA provided limited routes. 13 Commissioner Templeton thought if every student had a bus pass, they would use the bus more 14 and there would be more routes as a result. 15 Chair Chang wondered if there was data on Link passengers with respect to equity, such as 16 students, seniors, and lower income. Krista Glotzbach responded that the City of Palo Alto had 17 access to data on where every vehicle came and went to as well as if a category such as youth, 18 senior, or wheelchair was selected. Chair Chang thought it might be useful information to the 19 granting agencies if Link was found to be a key transportation for lower-income people. Nathan 20 Baird mentioned that riders could select the low-income $2 fare discount within the app. 21 Public Comment 22 Penny Ellson thought Link undermined mode shift efforts and transit use. The Link program in 23 its current grant-dependent design was fiscally unsustainable. When the grant runs out, 24 taxpayers will pay much more to subsidize rides. Penny Ellson was disappointed that City staff 25 told the Finance Committee we cannot afford to restore a fire engine at Mitchell Park Fire 26 Station but funding for Link was approved. The City could create a program or subsidize local 27 car trips through GoGoGrandparent to provide an affordable on-call rideshare service for 28 people who can demonstrate the financial and physical need. As a taxpayer, Penny Ellson 29 objected to paying for subsidies for residents who can afford Uber and Lyft. Every car trip on 30 our streets contributed to increased auto congestion and safety risk. Making streets and 31 building cars created greenhouse gas emissions. 32 Study Session 33 4. Palo Alto Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan 34 Sylvia Star-Lack noted the following reasons for developing this draft safety action plan. Cities 35 with plans were eligible for state and federal safety implementation grants. With respect to the 36 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP), on-road transportation was the largest source of 37 greenhouse gas emissions in Palo Alto. Electric vehicles, active transportation, and transit were 38 part of the solution. Road safety was the main reason people do not walk or bike, so a road 39 safety plan was essential to growing active mode shares. The new Housing Element adds more 1 people to Palo Alto and these new residents will need access and mobility. Providing safe roads 2 for walking and biking as well as transit will help move more people on our limited roadway 3 space. Staff wanted feedback on the document, the target year date of 2035 or 2040, and the 4 resolution. 5 Consultant Ashlee Takushi from Fehr & Peers delivered a slide presentation. The Safety Action 6 Plan (SAP) and Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) update had the following 7 common data: Crash data from 2018 through 2022, input from various community engagement 8 events such as Bike Palo Alto in October 2023, an online survey and interactive web map, and 9 meetings with an internal stakeholder working group. Some key differences included the SAP’s 10 focus on safety for all modes of travel while the BPTP update focused on bicycle and pedestrian 11 collisions, the SAP reviewed proposed projects from existing plans with a safety lens while the 12 BPTP identified new bike and pedestrian projects, and the SAP mostly focused on setting up the 13 City to institute a new safety framework through policy and putting safety at the forefront of 14 tradeoff decisions while the BPTP update builds off the policy framework identified in the SAP 15 for project implementation. 16 The upcoming San Antonio Road Area Plan will prepare a more detailed land use, 17 transportation design, and implementation plan. 18 The Safe System approach uses the Safe System model to improve a transportation system. The 19 Safe System elements were safe road users, safe vehicles, safe speeds, safe roads, and post-20 crash care. The Safe System principles were death/serious injury was unacceptable, humans 21 make mistakes, humans were vulnerable, responsibility was shared, safety was proactive, and 22 redundancy was crucial. The fundamental objective of the Safe System approach was to 23 eliminate fatal and serious injuries for all road users by designing for human mistakes, reducing 24 system kinetic energy to keep impacts on the human body at tolerable levels, as well as 25 proactively identifying and addressing risks. 26 The Public Health Impact Pyramid from top to bottom listed awareness measures, active 27 measures, latent measures, built environment, and socioeconomic factors. An example of an 28 individual-level strategy was posting yard signs to slow down, which had some but not 29 widespread deep and lasting impacts. One population-level strategy was a road designed with 30 fully separated complete streets to physically separate people driving from people walking and 31 biking. Another population-level strategy was slowing speeds wherever possible with traffic-32 calming features on the road and lowering speed limits so if a crash occurs it is less severe. 33 Population-level strategies were considered an upstream focus in reaching zero deaths and had 34 far greater and more lasting safety impacts. Focusing on the base of the pyramid was centering 35 on equity for all ages, abilities, modes, backgrounds, and income levels. 36 This plan was funded through the Safe Streets and Roads for All grant. The proposed plan met 37 all nine of the following required elements to be compliant for future funding: Strategic 38 planning, partnerships, engagement, discussion of existing efforts, systematic and data-driven 39 analysis, strategies for evaluation and implementation, high-injury network identification, 40 project prioritization or location-specific engineering recommendations, as well as strategies for 1 engineering, education, and enforcement. 2 The purpose of a high-injury network (HIN) was to identify areas to focus on to reduce traffic-3 related injuries and deaths. A map was shown of Palo Alto’s HIN where a disproportionately 4 high number of traffic fatalities and serious injuries occurred. Based on SWITRS crash data from 5 2018 through 2022, 63 percent of collisions occurred on 4 percent of Palo Alto’s streets. 6 Community feedback was obtained through an online survey with an interactive web map, two 7 in-person events, virtual meetings with an internal stakeholder working group, as well as 8 various committee and Council meetings. The community feedback included enthusiasm for 9 bike lanes, concerns around speeding motorists, the need for enhanced intersection 10 treatments, more bike lanes needed along school routes, and additional connections to key 11 destinations. 12 The following seven safety focus areas were identified based on collision data from 2018 13 through 2022: Residential arterials (13 percent of KSIs), alcohol involved (15 percent of KSIs), 14 pedestrians on arterials at night (9 percent of KSIs), pedestrians on major downtown streets (6 15 percent of KSIs), 90-degree angle collisions with bicyclists of all ages (13 percent of KSIs), Walk 16 and Roll bike routes crossing higher-stress streets (4 percent of KSIs), and children riding 17 bicycles (6 percent of KSIs). 18 Many agencies use a federal or regional database focused on equity communities. The 19 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) measured equity using income, race, English 20 proficiency, age, disability, and car ownership to develop equity priority communities (EPCs) or 21 designated census tracts with a significant concentration of underserved populations. MTC did 22 not identify EPCs in Palo Alto. Between 10 to 20 percent of the population lived below the 23 poverty line in census blocks located near downtown, the Alma Street/East Meadow 24 Drive/Charleston Road area, near Stanford, and in the southeast corner of the city near Foothill 25 Expressway. This Plan considered the roadway connections to Palo Alto from EPC geographies 26 in Stanford and East Palo Alto, including the City-suggested Walk and Roll routes for students 27 who reside in East Palo Alto and commute to school in Palo Alto. A map was shown of the 28 major transit corridors in Palo Alto where bus stops as well as connections to and from key 29 destinations should be prioritized to address equity concerns for first-last mile connections. 30 Awareness measures were incorporated in the project list to remind the community to be 31 safety stewards. Along with infrastructure recommendations, the plan highlighted the 32 importance of looking at the HIN and housing plans together. For example, first-last mile access 33 to transit as well as safety along El Camino Real and San Antonio needed to be a focus in 34 tandem with the jobs-housing balance and improved transit. This was in alignment with the 35 City’s Safe Routes to School program and Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy to 36 improve accessibility by embracing walking and biking to, from, and within all the city’s 37 commercial districts as well as addressing parking policies and systems. By recognizing and 38 rectifying gaps in the roadway network, the City will create opportunities for residents to have 39 closer access to employment, education, and medical-related institutions. The City will 40 prioritize implementation of continuous and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle facilities in 1 areas where housing was planned, which may require the reallocation of space within the 2 existing roadway or the removal of parking. 3 The City’s Safe Routes to School program aligned with the various tiers of the Public Health 4 Impact Pyramid. The Safe Routes to School program provided children with the tools needed to 5 get to school by walking or biking, such as Walk and Roll Routes. In the past 30 years, the Safe 6 Routes to School program has about tripled the number of students who walk or bike to school. 7 The posted speed limit in school zones city was 20 mph. The BPTP update will have an updated 8 project list to implement more bike and pedestrian-related projects throughout Palo Alto. The 9 City regularly reviewed their signal equipment to upgrade the timings to accommodate bikes 10 and pedestrians, including having all-pedestrian phases and leading pedestrian intervals. The 11 City hosted annual bike rodeos, distributed bike helmets, and had an extensive list of core 12 education programs on the City’s Safe Routes to School website. Signage such as “drive like 13 your kids live here” and child safety alert figurines were examples of awareness measures that 14 people have in their yards to remind people to slow down. 15 To reach zero deaths and serious injuries by 2035 or 2040, within five years the City will 16 institute safety citywide through updates of existing policies, programs, and projects. Within 17 the next five years the following will occur: Creation and implementation of a citywide speed 18 management plan consistent with the Safe System Approach. Review the City TIF and County 19 TIA guidelines for Safe System/VMT alignment. Collaborate with neighboring cities, the County, 20 VTA, other transit providers, and Caltrans to improve first-last mile connections to key routes 21 and improve transit infrastructure along major transit routes. Update the Public Works 22 Standard Drawings and Specifications to align with Safe System principles and consistent with 23 NCHRP 1036 and Caltrans DIB-94. Collaborate with Santa Clara County Public Health 24 Department and the City of San Jose for trauma center data sharing. Develop user safety 25 guidance for e-bikes and e-scooters traveling in the city. Build a culture of safety with decision 26 makers and City staff by having standing committee meetings to discuss the progress on policy, 27 programs, and infrastructure implementation. 28 Chair Chang invited public comments as well as commissioner comments and questions. 29 Vice-Chair Akin wanted to know if the definition of serious injury included concussions. Ashlee 30 Takushi responded they used the SWITRS handbook definition for severe injury collision. A 31 concussion was not a KSI if the victim was able to walk away on their own. Chair Chang read in 32 the draft plan that a KSI could include a broken bone, so she asked if a broken bone was 33 automatically considered a KSI. Ashlee Takushi replied it was dependent on how the police 34 officer reported the collision. If the victim needed to go to the hospital for a broken bone or 35 laceration, it was typically noted as a severe injury. Chair Chang inquired if the victim could go 36 to an urgent care instead of the hospital emergency room to be counted as a KSI. Ashlee 37 Takushi was not sure but she would get back to Chair Chang with the specific definition. Lily 38 Lim-Tsao did not believe there was a distinction as to whether it was an emergency room or an 39 urgent care because the report said to medical services. 40 The number of accidents along Alma was comparable to Middlefield, so Vice-Chair Akin 1 wondered why most of Alma was not included in the HIN. Ashlee Takushi agreed there was a 2 high concentration of injury collisions along Alma but there were a few more KSI collisions on 3 Middlefield, so Middlefield had a higher weight than Alma. Portions of Alma in the downtown 4 area were included in the HIN. 5 Vice-Chair Akin noted the report referred to VMT reduction as a safety strategy but he did not 6 know if it meant VMT measured exclusively within the city limits versus distant places. Ashlee 7 Takushi replied that local and regional VMT reductions should be looked at, including people 8 who commute into Palo Alto from further distances. The City’s Housing Element, more housing 9 on the San Antonio corridor, and having more pedestrian and bike-friendly facilities will reduce 10 VMT. Vice-Chair Akin found it useful to treat local and regional VMT reductions separately. 11 Public Comments 12 1. Art Lieberman is a PABAC member but he was speaking as an individual. Art Lieberman 13 thought eliminating KSIs on roadways was too ambitious for one City department. To 14 eliminate KSIs, it must be a joint plan of multiple departments representing the City of 15 Palo Alto’s policy, with each department committing to its goals through their programs, 16 manpower, and budgets. These departments should include the Office of 17 Transportation, Public Works, Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD), Planning, and 18 Community Development. Public Works was responsible for road design, road changes, 19 and road signage. Public Works should build safe roads and learn how to effectively 20 reduce vehicle speed on roadways. The PAPD should enforce speed laws and other 21 motor vehicle laws. Planning and Community Development should be part of this 22 proposal because Land Use decisions affect traffic and parking. An updated list of 23 projects and policies was important, especially ones relaxing the prohibition on street 24 closures. Art Lieberman hoped the timeframe and priority were added for each project 25 listed in Appendix H on Page 59. For example, rail crossings were very long-term 26 projects. Art Lieberman suggested delaying this proposal until after the BPTP update 27 becomes public. An important aspect of this proposal was to communicate the rationale 28 and polices to the public; however, the proposal text included too many FHWA Safe 29 System buzzwords and too little about specific proposed changes to roadways, so Art 30 Lieberman feared it will not attract the attention of most members of the public. 31 2. Penny Ellson’s key concern about the Safe System Action Plan was the low priority it 32 appeared to place on education and encouragement, which she believed were essential 33 parts of a redundant traffic safety system. It was critically important for kids to be 34 taught what a signal means, to be on the correct side of the road, and to look left, right, 35 and left again. Penny Ellson informed staff she was bothered by the pyramid graphic. 36 Penny Ellson felt there was almost hostile language toward education in some parts of 37 the plan, which she hoped would not be reflected in the final draft. Penny Ellson wanted 38 staff to confirm that findings from the San Antonio Area Plan will be integrated into this 39 action plan so those projects can qualify. Penny Ellson wanted the San Antonio Road 40 improvements to be integrated citywide into the BPTP. Penny Ellson asked if PTC 1 members received the full set of comments she sent to staff. Chair Chang confirmed the 2 PTC received them. 3 3. David Coale, team member of Bike Palo Alto, encouraged the PTC to accept the earliest 4 date possible to implement these safety measures because there was no reason to 5 delay on having safe streets for all. 6 In reply to Commissioner Hechtman asking if there was a risk of losing grant funding or another 7 penalty for not meeting the 2035 or 2040 deadline, Sylvia Star-Lack answered no. 8 Commissioner Hechtman’s natural inclination was sooner is better but he realized that staff 9 would not have presented the PTC with a choice if it were that simple. Commissioner Hechtman 10 asked what the Commission should be thinking about to set a realistic goal. Sylvia Star-Lack 11 replied the Commission should consider resource availability, staffing availability, and the PTC’s 12 recommendation conveyed a sense of urgency to the Council. Caltrans set 2050 as their date 13 for zero. Commissioner Hechtman was inclined to set 2040 as a realistically achievable target 14 because of the time it will take to create and implement a plan to achieve zero KSI, including 15 changes to roadways. 16 As this was a comprehensive nationwide program, Commissioner Hechtman expected over 17 time that a uniform definition of significant injury needed to be implemented to have a uniform 18 metric of success throughout the U.S. 19 Commissioner Hechtman asked if the monthly police collision reports could add a column to 20 designate whether it was a fatality or a significant injury because a metric was needed in a 21 reasonable time. On Page 31 of the draft plan, the 2022 data was preliminary. Commissioner 22 Hechtman was concerned with having data that was over two years behind. If he died tonight 23 or was significantly injured in a traffic accident, it would be in a police report soon afterward. 24 Ashlee Takushi explained that injury collisions from the SWITRS database were put in UC 25 Berkeley’s SafeTREC GIS database to see the exact locations of those collsions. We were looking 26 at data that was a couple of years old because SafeTREC had a certain number of staff and 27 budget to input the collisions they get from the whole state. This safety plan should be updated 28 regularly, whether it is every three or five years is for the City to decide. The collision history is a 29 snapshot in time. Past data was used to proactively look at collision risk factors such as the 30 roadway context or near a certain land use, and then make recommendations to make the 31 roadways safer to avoid KSIs. Sylvia Star-Lack pointed out that the draft plan stated a rapid 32 response team would deploy soon after a collision to evaluate what could be done at that 33 location and other locations citywide to avoid collisions. 34 From Lily Lim-Tsao’s experience working with San Jose’s large police department, fatalities and 35 severe injury data was available the next day and could be tracked internally. Less severe 36 injuries relied on somebody to report the data clearly and consistently to enter in the statewide 37 or countywide system. Since staff knows when serious injuries occur, Chair Chang wondered if 38 it was possible for the PTC to receive monthly information on the number of KSIs in conjunction 39 with the PABAC incident reports. Sylvia Star-Lack thought that needed to be discussed with 40 PAPD because staff might know something but not be able to say because PAPD had not 1 finished their investigation or someone might be in a hospital. Chair Chang pointed out that 2 even if staff was not allowed to say anything, it was public information in the newspaper. The 3 PTC did not need specifics on the injury or where it happened if there was a privacy concern but 4 knowing what happened was valuable. Sylvia Star-Lack mentioned that PAPD puts out press 5 releases when there were fatalities they can report. Commissioner Hechtman stated the PTC 6 was interested in this, given the limitations on data release, so the draft plan should set 7 expectations for reporting out. 8 Commissioner Hechtman noted Penny Ellson’s letter was distributed to the commissioners at 9 12:30 today. Commissioner Hechtman appreciated PABAC’s work on the long and very detailed 10 letter but he did not have time to thoroughly review it. The letter came in at 9 AM today, so he 11 expected staff did not have time to review it either. Commissioner Hechtman preferred 2040 12 and was otherwise supportive of the resolution on Page 3 of the draft report. 13 Commissioner Templeton asked how the choice between a 2035 versus 2040 target impacted 14 the Transportation team. Lily Lim-Tsao thought the biggest change was resources. In Lily Lim-15 Tsao’s four weeks on the job, she has noted a lot of our work was reactive, so having this plan 16 committed them to a direction and the budget and staffing resources to get there. Sylvia Star-17 Lack stated that the City had conflicting policies and policies against adding delay to our roads. 18 If a safety project added delay to our roads, this plan provided a policy framework for the 19 Council to make decisions on tradeoffs. In reply to Commissioner Templeton asking if the 20 tradeoffs were lives, Lily Lim-Tsao answered potentially. Commissioner Templeton thought the 21 PTC needed to understand if five more years of deaths was what was in front of them before 22 they voted. Lily Lim-Tsao explained there was also the reality of how much could be done in a 23 certain timeframe, including policy changes, commitment, resources, and culture change across 24 the organization, education awareness in the community, and enforcement of policies. 25 Commissioner Templeton wanted the Transportation Department to engage more frequently 26 with the PTC to publicly have conversations on transportation and safety. Sylvia Star-Lack 27 pointed out that this plan stated the PTC was part of the enforcement and monitoring of this 28 document. Chair Chang would love to see the Transportation Department regularly attend PTC 29 meetings when the new director is hired, and the PTC would appreciate it if Acting Director Lily 30 Lim-Tsao was available at the beginning during the staff reports. 31 In 2019, the Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey set a 2030 goal because of one pedestrian 32 vehicular fatality. Commissioner Summa had a strong preference for setting a 2035 target. A 33 decade was a realistic goal for Palo Alto if Hoboken could do it. Hoboken has not had a traffic 34 pedestrian or bike fatality in seven years. Commissioner Summa thanked the members of the 35 public who spoke, especially Penny Ellson. Commissioner Summa found it troubling there were 36 not more public speakers on this topic. 37 Commissioner Summa opined the report had too much jargon. The projects were listed at the 38 end in Appendices G and H. To make a report that will be embraced by the community, those 39 projects need to be put at the front and eliminate the jargon. Many parts of the report were 40 not informative. Commissioner Summa agreed with the concern about not prioritizing 1 education. Commissioner Summa thought the report relied on basic traffic engineering and 2 safety principles but it was not personalized to Palo Alto. Palo Alto had a history of getting 3 people out of cars and encouraging bicycles and pedestrians but Commissioner Summa felt that 4 was missing from the report. 5 Commissioner Summa said the resolution on Page 3 of the report was fine. Commissioner 6 Summa thought people will have different responses to tradeoffs for safety, some tradeoffs will 7 be acceptable but others not. Commissioner Summa hardly ever saw police waiting to ticket 8 people. Commissioner Summa wanted to get police on the streets right away, which she 9 thought Council would need to have a conversation about it with the City Manager. 10 Commissioner Summa uses the El Camino, Cambridge, and California Avenue intersection every 11 day and sees cars running the red light. Commissioner Summa wanted to have the cameras 12 used in San Francisco but did not know what was recently made legal for certain cities. San 13 Francisco has had a great success in using cameras to identify people who run red lights and it 14 was a revenue producer. Commissioner Summa chose to live in her neighborhood so she could 15 walk to Cal Ave downtown but she was now afraid to walk across El Camino because of cars 16 frequently running the red light. Safety standards were based on the posted speed on El 17 Camino but the actual speed needed to be taken into consideration. People were using the 18 breaks along El Camino as a right-turn lane but they were meant for the bus. Right-hook 19 accidents were the worst for bikes and pedestrians. Commissioner Summa wanted to make 20 sure the tradeoffs actually worked and were worth it instead of just looking good on paper as 21 she had seen happen with some projects. 22 Vice-Chair Akin emphasized this was an ongoing process, so setting a target date did not mean 23 a conclusion date. To impose urgency on Council and particularly with respect to the budget, 24 Vice-Chair Akin preferred the earlier target. Speed management was an issue but pursuing it 25 leads to consequences. For example, lowering the speeds on residential arterials to 25 mph, 26 created a huge incentive for traffic to move onto the collectors in the local streets that are also 27 25 mph and have less impairment to travel. We do not want to wait for KSIs to start showing up 28 on other streets before taking action because we want to be proactive. The comp plan asks us 29 to proactively monitor vehicle, bike, and pedestrian traffic across much wider areas than the 30 high-injury network. Vice-Chair Akin suggested making it explicitly clear to Council, perhaps in 31 Recital 8 of the Resolution, that this is an ongoing effort requiring ongoing budget for 32 monitoring and eventually expanding the focus areas for mitigation. 33 Vice-Chair Akin agreed that some of the commentary in the report might lead you to believe 34 that other goals had fallen by the wayside, as was Peggy Ellson’s concern. Vice-Chair Akin 35 suggested reassuring people and improving public acceptance by expressing that those other 36 goals were not lost. Vice-Chair Akin noticed on Page 159 there was language used to discuss the 37 impact review updates that he thought was the right language to use as a model. 38 Chair Chang echoed Commissioner Summa and Vice-Chair Akins. Chair Chang thought 2035 was 39 a good target. Chair Chang thought the definition of serious injury needed to be clear when 40 communicating to the public. Chair Chang searched online how other cities defined serious 1 injury and noted Seattle’s definition was anything not described as cuts and bruises. Chair 2 Chang agreed that the most important action-oriented parts of the plan were at the end. Key 3 policy and program changes were on Page 9 but a lot of them were about making more plans. 4 The key policies listed on Pages 58 and 59 should be moved up into the executive summary. 5 Chair Chang asked if this plan was circulated within the different City departments, including 6 PAPD. Sylvia Star-Lack replied that the internal stakeholder working group met a few times and 7 was composed of staff. Chair Chang wondered if each working group member reported out to 8 their department. Chair Chang believed the tone of the plan was not action-oriented enough 9 and was not specific to Palo Alto. The pyramid in the slide presentation talked about 10 engineering roads properly; however, Palo Alto is a built environment with roads engineered 11 many years ago and it is difficult and expensive to implement the things at the bottom of the 12 pyramid. The report was missing the tradeoffs. Projects presented to the PTC often have a 13 near-term or long-term classification as well as a dollar sign classification or ease of 14 implementation. Chair Chang thought the report should have a prioritization list. 15 Chair Chang skimmed through Peggy Ellson’s comments and agreed with many of them. We are 16 supposed to be proactive and if the high-injury network will be used for prioritization purposes, 17 San Antonio should be included. The PTC talked recently about special setbacks and making 18 retail nodes on El Camino. Individual planners have not signed off onto this plan. Chair Chang 19 recalled Director Lait said there was no bike path planned for Middlefield, so they did not need 20 to worry about the special setback, which Chair Chang disagreed. We need to think about Safe 21 Streets for All, whether it is a wider sidewalk, a separated bike lane, or a wider pedestrian 22 island. This plan needed guidelines for other City departments so they know what to do if a 23 developer wanted to go into the special setback or how this plan affected their operations. 24 Chair Chang loved the idea for a rapid response team because it can be done in a built 25 environment and it showed action. If it is critical to our success, it needed to be put front and 26 center so the City Council can provide funding. 27 Commissioner Templeton had to leave early. Commissioner Templeton’s preference was to 28 have this as soon as possible, so she chose 2035. Commissioner Templeton left at 8:30 PM. 29 Commissioner Hechtman liked 2040 but was not averse to 2035. Commissioner Hechtman liked 30 Vice-Chair Akin’s comment about the goal being tomorrow. Commissioner Hechtman wanted to 31 be realistic, recognizing the easier part of the plan was to rewrite the policies and programs but 32 the difficult and more time-consuming part was to make physical changes to our network of 33 roadways running throughout Palo Alto, starting with the high-injury network. Commissioner 34 Hechtman lives close to Embarcadero and he thought part of the reason Embarcadero was in 35 the high-injury network was because of high speeds combined with many unsignalized 36 intersections. Oregon Expressway had higher speeds but fewer intersections. We may close off 37 some of those roads where they meet Embarcadero, causing people to go out to Channing or 38 California and loop around, so you shift traffic as Vice-Chair Akin mentioned. Then, you have 39 new high-injury roadways that need to be addressed with physical improvements to get to zero 40 KSIs, so it was a very iterative, time-consuming, slow process, which was why Commissioner 41 Hechtman thought 2040 was more realistic but everyone in the City wanted fewer injuries 1 sooner. Commissioner Hechtman recommended that the language of the resolution make it 2 clear that everybody wanted KSIs to end tomorrow but state when it can realistically happen. 3 Commissioner Hechtman said education was one of the old ways to make our streets safe, 4 teaching people to not speed and look both ways. We have learned that even though we have 5 taught them, people still speed. Even though everybody knows to look both ways, sometimes 6 people forget and make mistakes. This plan assumes people make mistakes and tries to protect 7 them through methods such as traffic calming and slowing speeds. Maybe staff could look at 8 the draft plan to see if it needed to be made clearer that robust education was a critical 9 component of this plan even though it was not one of the five arrows. 10 Sylvia Star-Lack stated that educating children was not going to stop. In the slides presented 11 tonight, the pyramid had Awareness Measures at the top, meaning awareness campaigns. 12 Sylvia Star-Lack and Ashlee Takushi have talked about this to leaders nationally in the field and 13 they agreed that Awareness Measures was wrong, so staff will fix it in the document. 14 Vice-Chair Akin liked the references to proactive data collection and analysis. Upgrading the 15 traffic-calming program as part of this effort was a big plus. It was the first time Vice-Chair Akin 16 had seen bicycle traffic calming mentioned. Vice-Chair Akin did not like the Safe System 17 pyramid. Graphically, the pyramid shape clashed with the arrows. It was difficult to tell which 18 direction of the arrows was important and which layers of the pyramid were important or if 19 they were equally important. The pyramid did not succeed as a tool for communicating. A 20 simple unordered list could express the key concepts more simply and less ambiguously. Chair 21 Chang initially thought the down arrow next to the pyramid meant decreasing impact but it 22 appeared that the impact increased as the arrow goes down. 23 Commissioner Summa asked several people with PhDs to explain the funding visual on Page 63 24 to her and they could not. Some of the graphics in the report were pretty and overly clever but 25 difficult to understand. Peggy Ellson seemed to have a keen understanding and a lot of 26 experience in Palo Alto with these issues, so Commissioner Summa felt bad that she did not 27 have time before the end of this meeting to go through all the details in Peggy Ellson’s letter. 28 Commissioner Summa chose the 2035 target. Commissioner Summa agreed with making this 29 report more action oriented, clearer, and simplified, which would also make it easier for the 30 public to read. Commissioner Summa liked what was mentioned before about giving the 31 resolution more urgency. The paragraphs in the report on kinetics and why it was bad to be hit 32 by a car if you are on a bike or a pedestrian were unnecessary. 33 Chair Chang noted the first bullet on Page 10 was to create a citywide speed management plan 34 but she thought the first bullet should be to address the high-injury network since we know 35 that is where the problems are, which is what she meant by action oriented. A citywide speed 36 management plan addresses the HIN. This plan talked a lot about losing parking spaces and 37 slowing things down, so if we say we are addressing the high-injury network it is a good 38 tradeoff. It may be helpful in explaining the tradeoffs to have a few boxes in the executive 39 summary section that talks about some of the successes of implementing a Safe Systems 40 Approach. Charleston-Arastradero had a lower LOS but throughput was increased and accidents 1 decreased. Decreasing traffic speeds to zero would make things safe but not fulfill our 2 transportation goals, so the plan needed to make it clear for people what you are talking about. 3 Approval of Minutes 4 5. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary and Verbatim 5 Minutes of December 11, 2024 6 Motion 7 Chair Summa moved the Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary and Verbatim 8 Minutes of December 11, 2024, with any needed corrections. 9 Commissioner Hechtman seconded the motion. 10 There was no discussion. 11 The motion passed 4-0-0-1 with Chair Chang, Vice-Chair Akin, Commissioner Hechtman, and 12 Commissioner Summa voting yes by voice vote. Commissioner Templeton was absent. 13 Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and 14 Agendas 15 Commissioner Hechtman recommended seeing the new Mercedes dealership building at the 16 corner of Bayshore and Embarcadero at the former Ming’s site. It is almost done. It is a great 17 time to see the beautiful, freshly planted, green wall on the Bayshore side that wraps around 18 the corner of the building. Commissioner Hechtman encouraged riding your bike to see it 19 because you will experience the new 10-foot-wide bike lane that wraps that corner. From that 20 corner, keep pedaling to the Renzel ponds where earlier this week a great job was done to trim 21 back the vegetation around both ponds. Previously, it was overgrown and you almost could not 22 see the pond even though you were next to it because the vegetation was so lush and it was 23 closing in on the trail, which made it feel unsafe but now it is wide open. 24 Adjournment 25 8:48 PM 26