Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-14 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: May 14, 2025 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 6:01 PM 7 Chair Akin called to order the regular meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission 8 for May 14, 2025. 9 Administrative Associate Veronica Dao conducted the roll call. Chair Akin, Vice-Chair Chang, 10 Commissioner Hechtman, Commissioner James, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, and 11 Commissioner Templeton were present. 12 Oral Communications 13 Jim Robinson commented on the bulb-out on East Crescent/Southwood Drive near Center and 14 Edgewood. Jim Robinson thought it was a scary intersection without traffic controls. Jim 15 Robinson said it is now not possible to go past 20 mph around that turn and he felt very safe. 16 Jim Robinson wanted the Commission to consider either keeping or improving the level of 17 safety at that intersection. 18 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 19 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer stated there were no changes to the agenda, though there 20 were a few revisions sent to the Commission via email and provided in printed form. 21 City Official Reports 22 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 23 Jennifer Armer reviewed the meeting schedule. The Parking Program update and revised maps 24 for the El Camino Real retail nodes are on the PTC’s agenda for May 28, 2025. Not much was 25 scheduled for the PTC’s meetings in June. Jennifer Armer will have more information at the 26 May 28 meeting as to whether either or both of the June meetings will be canceled. 27 On May 5, 2025, the City Council took public comment and staff presentation for the project at 28 4075 El Camino Way but because of the late hour it was continued and will return to Council for 29 consideration on May 27. On May 12, 2025, the City Council approved the Accessory Dwelling 30 Unit Ordinance update. Potential Planned Community Zoning applications at 788 and 800 San 31 Antonio Road are coming in for pre-screening with Council on May 19, 2025, and would 32 eventually come to PTC for review if formal applications are submitted. On May 27, 2025, the 33 Council will discuss the El Camino Real Focus Area that was recommended by PTC on March 26, 34 2025. Jennifer Armer thought it would be helpful if the PTC Liaison, Commissioner Templeton, 1 could attend the Council meeting on May 27; if not, alternatives can be discussed. 2 Transportation Planning Manager Sylvia Star-Lack said the final draft of the Safe Streets for All 3 Safety Action Plan was reviewed by Policy & Services last night. The final draft is posted online 4 on the project website and is tentatively scheduled for Council adoption on June 2. The El 5 Camino Real bicycle lanes have been striped. Caltrans will hopefully finish the no-parking 6 signage installations for the bike lanes next week. 7 Action Items 8 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3150 El Camino Real [24PLN-00231]: 9 Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to 10 Merge Five Parcels Together to Create One 111,030-Square-Foot Parcel. The 11 Subdivision Map Would Facilitate Construction of 368 New Residential Units in One 12 Building (24PLN-00230). CEQA Status: The Project is Being Processed as a 13 Streamlined CEQA Review Under Section 15183. Zoning District: CS (Service 14 Commercial). 15 There were no commissioner disclosures on this project. 16 Principal Planner Garrett Sauls explained that a vesting tentative map is a subdivision 17 application that can merge, divide, or create condominium parcels on a property; and can vest 18 the development rights for a project once that project has been deemed complete. This project 19 is looking to merge 5 parcels together to create one 111,030 square-foot parcel to facilitate a 20 368-unit development on the property. 21 Staff’s analysis included a comparison of whether the proposed lot merger conforms to the 22 City’s Zoning Code. The Service Commercial (CS) District has no minimum or maximum lot size 23 or dimension requirements. No private streets are proposed. The proposed access to the 24 property will be southbound off El Camino Real. For staff to make a decision on a vesting 25 tentative map, findings need to be made in the negative to recommend approval. The findings 26 for the Record of Land Use Action for this project are attached to the staff report. 27 An issue was raised during the pre-meeting that 3 parcels were indicated on the parcel map but 28 5 parcels were proposed to be merged together, so notes need to be added on the parcel map 29 to call out the additional parcels that are to be merged together. Staff will work with the 30 applicant to make the correction before it goes to City Council as a consent item. 31 Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend approval of the 32 proposed tentative map to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of 33 approval attached in the draft Record of Land Use Action. 34 Vice-Chair Chang asked if the assessor’s parcel line (APN) on the map separating Parcels 35 142.20.54 and 142.20.55 will be removed. Garrett Sauls understood the APN would remain, 36 which does not have the same effect as a lot line. Jennifer Armer stated that usually it does not 37 need to be removed if it is described as an APN and is not recorded as a subdivision line. 1 Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang clarified that the assessor’s parcels are for tax assessment 2 purposes and do not have to line up with legal lots. After the lots are merged, most likely the 3 property owner will work with the Assessor’s Office to change the boundaries of the tax parcels 4 but it is not part of the subdivision process. Commissioner Hechtman shared that his experience 5 had been that about 6 months after the map is recorded, the Assessor’s Office will often send 6 the property owner a notice that the current APN was replaced with a new APN; however, 7 there can be dialogue if the property owner has tax reasons to keep multiple APNs. 8 Gary Johnson with Acclaim Companies stated their design team, Easton McAllister from Talus 9 Engineers and Chris Lee from Studio T Square were present to answer questions. 10 Public Comments 11 1. Terry Holzemer lives within a half-mile of the proposed project at 3150 El Camino Real. 12 Terry Holzemer opined the traffic study was deficient because it did not include the 13 significant amount of traffic coming from the University Avenue area, Stanford, and 14 Arastradero. Terry Holzemer thought this development lacked meaningful park and 15 outdoor living space. The nearest park spaces were across major roadways and 16 intersections that are dangerous for children to cross. Park space in Palo Alto does not 17 meet the National Recreation and Park Association standard of 4 acres per 1000 18 residents. Terry Holzemer believed the proposed garage was under-parked and was 19 concerned with the garage having only 1 entrance and exit. Terry Holzemer agreed it is a 20 good location for housing but encouraged the Commission to reject the proposal unless 21 major modifications were made. 22 2. Jaime Vasquez is a Representative for the Nor Cal Carpenters Union, Local 405. This 23 project has the potential to create a lot of work for local skilled carpenters, including 24 many union members. Jaime Vasquez stated a project of this size should partner with a 25 responsible contractor that hires locally and uses a state-certified apprenticeship 26 program that creates High Road careers with healthcare and family-supporting wages, 27 keeping tax dollars and economic benefits circulating in the community. Jaime Vasquez 28 urged the Commission to consider labor standards and local hire to be part of this 29 project’s framework. 30 3. Rene Baez, Field Representative for the Carpenters Union, spoke as a concerned worker 31 to ask the Commission to ensure any development project, such as this one on El 32 Camino, include strong labor standards that reflect the community’s values. These 33 projects create good paying, safe, and dignified jobs for local workers. Fair wages 34 protections and the use of skilled local labor can make a lasting difference in the lives of 35 families while strengthening the local economy. Rene Baez attempted multiple times to 36 reach out to Gary Johnson with Acclaim Companies but had not received a response. 37 Commissioner Hechtman pointed out the Commission’s purview tonight is limited to the 38 vesting tentative map. The design of what will be built was a separate process handled by the 39 Planning Director. Commissioner Hechtman requested the applicant to speak to the 40 considerations that went into the decision to propose a density that was slightly below what 1 the Housing Opportunity Site Inventory anticipated. Gary Johnson replied that Acclaim 2 Companies puts a lot of thought and consideration into making sure the multifamily projects 3 they develop are properly parked and have the proper amenities for tenants, so that partly 4 informed their decision on the proposed number of units for the project. 5 Vice-Chair Chang was glad to see lot consolidation in order to make the most out of the 6 available land in Palo Alto. Commissioner Hechtman echoed Vice-Chair Chang’s comment. 7 Commissioner Peterson said the Carpenters Union was probably one of the major workforce 8 suppliers in Northern California, particularly in this region, and they have a training center in 9 Morgan Hill. Commissioner Peterson spoke of Silvery Towers where the workforce was locked 10 in a container at night, unpaid, not free to leave, and threatened with harm to their family if 11 they complained, so there is a heightened issue on large projects for the contractor to use High 12 Road practices. Commissioner Peterson asked the applicant if he had worked with the 13 Carpenters Union on other projects, and if he has had problems with general contractors in the 14 past. Gary Johnson mentioned he spoke to Jaime Vasquez and they will set up a time to 15 connect. The general contractor has not been selected for this project. Gary Johnson was happy 16 to speak to the Carpenters Union when it was appropriate. Gary Johnson and Mark Johnson, his 17 partner at Acclaim, grew up in the area, their office is off Willow Road and Middlefield in Menlo 18 Park, and they hold an active license as general contractors, so they plan on managing this 19 project and being boots on the ground every day. Commissioner Peterson inquired if the 20 applicant, as a general contractor, was signatory with the Carpenters or any other building 21 trades. Gary Johnson answered no; they are too small and do not exercise their contractor’s 22 license for projects of this size because it is beyond their scope, so they act more as a 23 developer. 24 Commissioner Templeton encouraged the applicant to think about providing safe bike paths 25 from this project’s development to connect to the adjacent network of bike paths off Hansen 26 Way and Hanover that connect to Barron Park’s bike path to Gunn High School. Gary Johnson 27 was willing to look at bike paths but felt they were constrained by being in between Hotel 28 Parmani and Palo Alto Square and they have made many accommodations with their civil 29 engineer when they were designing their project because of the El Camino Real bike corridor. 30 Commissioner Hechtman thought all the findings could be made for this lot merger and was 31 supportive of the staff recommendation. Commissioner Hechtman noted this project was over-32 parked per the standards. Referring to Packet Page 18, Commissioner Hechtman suggested 33 staff copy the first sentence of Finding 2 and paste it in Finding 1, “There is no adopted specific 34 plan for the project site.” On Packet Page 24, Section 7, second half of the paragraph, 35 Commissioner Hechtman thought the language could be clearer about requesting an extension 36 before the map expires. Regarding “Recommendation to the Planning Commission upon the 37 written application of the subdivider” at the end of the fourth line from the bottom, 38 Commissioner Hechtman suggested adding “submitted” after “subdivider” to clarify this 39 provision. 40 Commissioner Peterson noted the staff packet said there is a CEQA waiver on this project and 1 he saw less than a paragraph about review of environmental concerns. Commissioner Peterson 2 asked about the criteria for accelerated review, is this site near a creek, and was there any 3 preexisting contamination on the site such as from a gas station or prior agricultural use. 4 Garrett Sauls explained the project was reviewed in conjunction with the CEQA document that 5 was prepared for the ARB application. This is a streamlined review process. Staff determined if 6 the project complied with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan mitigation measures, and 7 established whether this project created new impacts or new mitigation measures beyond what 8 the City had adopted and can apply through standard language. Matadero Creek was further 9 south from this site. Jennifer Armer pointed out the PTC was looking at the vesting tentative 10 map, so the question was if the lot merger proposed by this vesting tentative map created any 11 environmental issues that would not have been reviewed and mitigated through the review for 12 the development project. Assistant City Attorney Yang clarified that the staff report contained a 13 summary paragraph explaining the environmental review but a link was provided to the full 14 environmental review document with an analysis of how this project qualified for the 15 exemption and why the Comprehensive Plan mitigation measures were adequate. The link can 16 be found on Packet Page 26, Attachment C to the staff report. 17 Vice-Chair Chang thanked Commissioner Templeton for her comments about a potential bike 18 path. Vice-Chair Chang was in support of this vesting tentative map but was very concerned 19 about the future bicyclists on El Camino. With this project likely having one of the most heavily 20 used driveways along the El Camino corridor during morning commute hours, Vice-Chair Chang 21 encouraged the Transportation Department to do whatever possible to ensure there are 22 mirrors and signage. 23 In response to Chair Akin asking if staff was comfortable with Commissioner Hechtman’s 24 suggested modifications, Jennifer Armer answered yes. 25 Motion 26 Vice-Chair Chang moved that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend 27 approval of the proposed tentative map to the City Council based on findings and subject to 28 conditions of approval attached in the draft Record of Land Use Action with the following edits 29 to the Record of Land Use Action: 30 1. Add to Finding 1, “There is no adopted specific plan for the project site.” 31 2. In Section 7, “Recommendation to the Planning Commission upon the written 32 application of the subdivider” at the end of the fourth line from the bottom, add 33 “submitted” after “subdivider.” 34 Commissioner Ji seconded the motion. 35 The motion passed 7-0 by roll call vote with Chair Akin, Vice-Chair Chang, Commissioner 36 Hechtman, Commissioner James, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, and Commissioner 37 Templeton voting yes. 38 3. Review and Recommendation to Finance Committee and the City Council on 1 Proposed 2026-2030 Capital Improvement Plan and Comprehensive Plan 2 Compliance. 3 Julia Knight, Senior Program Manager in the Planning and Development Services Department, 4 delivered a slide presentation. There were 201 active CIPs, 21 of which were new this year. The 5 180 CIPs carried over from previous years were previously reviewed for their consistency with 6 the Comprehensive Plan and do not require additional review. The 21 new CIPs for FY 2026 7 included 10 placeholder projects that serve administrative purposes only and the 8 Administrative Services Department advised those do not need to be individually reviewed but, 9 as a whole, Julia Knight found them to be consistent with the goals and polices in the 10 Community Services section of the Comprehensive Plan. Of the 11 CIPs requiring review by the 11 Commission for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, 5 align most closely with the 12 Comprehensive Plan element for Natural Environment, 4 for Community Services and Facilities, 13 1 for Transportation, and 1 for Land Use and Community Design. 14 Public Comment: None. 15 Commissioner Hechtman noted VR-30000 was for scheduled vehicle and equipment 16 replacement for Fiscal Year 2030 and wondered why funding for the City’s vehicle fleet was a 17 new program rather than a continuing program when the vehicle fleet had to be funded every 18 year. Paul Harper with the Office of Management and Budget explained that a new project for 19 fleet replacement was added to the CIP every year because it was not part of last year’s capital 20 budget for the vehicle fund. 21 Motion 22 Vice-Chair Chang moved that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to the 23 Finance Committee and City Council that the proposed 2026-2030 Capital Improvement 24 Projects listed in Attachment A are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s policies, goals, 25 and programs. 26 Commissioner Ji seconded the motion. 27 The motion passed 7-0 by roll call vote with Chair Akin, Vice-Chair Chang, Commissioner 28 Hechtman, Commissioner James, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, and Commissioner 29 Templeton voting yes. 30 The PTC took a break at 6:50 PM and resumed at 6:56 PM with all members present. 31 Study Session 32 4. South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity: Provide Feedback on Initial Crossing 33 Opportunity Locations and Draft Design Priorities and Evaluation Criteria. 34 Charlie Coles, Senior Transportation Planner with the Office of Transportation, stated the staff 1 report provided an overview of the project and work completed. Staff recommended that the 2 PTC review the Existing Conditions Report and Draft Goals and Design Priorities Memorandum. 3 The purpose of this project was to improve bicycle and pedestrian accessibility across the rail 4 corridor in the southern portion of Palo Alto, which was in support of the City’s mobility and 5 sustainability goals as identified in multiple prior plans and studies. To accomplish this, the goal 6 of this project was to identify 2 locally preferred locations and design concepts for new grade-7 separated bicycle and pedestrian crossings in south Palo Alto, complete conceptual planning 8 and develop 15 percent designs, develop an implementation plan and funding strategy, and 9 apply for and secure grant funding. A map was shown of the project study area, including 10 crossing locations and suggested walking/cycling routes. 11 This project is in Phase 1, which was community engagement to establish the design priorities 12 for crossing alternatives. A slide was shown of the various community engagement 13 opportunities. In Phase 2, the project team will develop crossing alternatives and share those 14 with the community for feedback. In Phase 3, the alternatives will be refined and a public draft 15 report will be published and released for review and comment. The goal for Phase 4 is to obtain 16 Council adoption of the final report. 17 The Existing Conditions Report used a variety of data sources to capture a representation of the 18 existing conditions. The data in the Existing Conditions Report will be combined with the data 19 received through Phase 1’s community engagement, including feedback from Committees and 20 online survey results. The key findings from the Existing Conditions Report can be found in the 21 staff report. The Existing Conditions Report provided a list of potential crossing opportunities 22 based on the existing conditions data, previous plans and studies, right-of-way constraints, field 23 visit and on-site assessment. 24 On Packet Page 109, the Bike/Ped Accessibility Analysis used GIS (Geographic Information 25 System) to estimate travel times from existing rail crossings at California Avenue, Meadow, 26 Charleston, and the San Antonio Caltrain Station bike/pedestrian underpass. The calculations 27 used a walking speed of 3 miles per hour (the lower speed used for calculating walk times at 28 signalized intersections), a biking speed of 10 miles per hour (a lower speed to account for 29 stopping at intersections), and assumed bicyclists will not travel along high-stress streets or 30 cross any high-stress intersections based on the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis on Packet 31 Pages 91 and 92. 32 Starting on Packet Page 112 was an analysis of travel patterns including trip origins and 33 destinations. Replica (a big data provider) used a blend of GPS location, land use, census, 34 economic activity, and other data sources to calculate travel patterns. The data was from spring 35 of 2024 and represented average weekday and weekend conditions for all trip purposes. The 36 analysis presented the results in terms of person trips, meaning 2 people in a vehicle taking a 37 trip was considered 2 person trips. The only trips that were included were those less than 5 38 miles in length and crossed the railroad at Cal Ave, Oregon, Page Mill, Meadow, Charleston, and 39 the San Antonio Road bike/pedestrian underpass. 40 The draft design priorities were to improve mobility, enhance the user experience, maximize 1 ease of construction, enhance visual appeal, and minimize community impacts. 2 Commissioner James inquired if overpasses were being considered, and if the datasets and 3 assumptions took into account the 6000 additional housing units by 2031. Charlie Coles replied 4 all options will be explored in more detail as they move into Phase 2 but overpasses were 5 required to go above the electrical wires for Caltrain. The staff report and Existing Conditions 6 Report contained information about where future growth will occur in the city. The design 7 evaluation framework and what had been proposed took into consideration the future 8 population and anticipated demand for crossings. 9 Commissioner Ji referred to Slide 10 (Packet Page 109) and questioned why the study area did 10 not extend further beyond El Camino because he expected the area to extend an equal distance 11 on both sides of the rail crossing. Charlie Coles explained it was a staff-level decision to focus on 12 the rail corridor. Staff believed that extending the study area to El Camino, Middlefield, and 13 south of Oregon Expressway would provide plenty of space to connect the proposed crossings 14 to the main bike and pedestrian network, recognizing that the Bicycle and Pedestrian 15 Transportation Plan update will take a citywide approach. Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation 16 Planning Manager, said it made sense for this analysis to extend to the next major parallel 17 street east and west. El Camino on the west and Middlefield on the east are major arterials. 18 On Packet Page 108, Kittelson pages 49 through 51, Commissioner Ji asked why 7 AM to 6 PM 19 was selected. Charlie Coles replied that the data used for the majority if not all of this section 20 were traffic counts collected in May of 2024 as part of the BPTP update, which he assumed the 21 reason was to look at the full daytime when you see most biking and pedestrian activity. 22 Commissioner Ji referred to Slide 10, the diagram on the right, Kittelson Page 55, and wondered 23 why the area at the corner between Los Robles and El Camino Way was included in the 15-24 minute walk but not in the biking areas. Charlie Coles explained the walking and biking accesses 25 were done separately because the biking access assumed cyclists will not travel along a 26 network or cross through an intersection that was characterized as LTS 4 or a high-stress 27 network. Commissioner Ji was confused why the BPTP update considered that intersection a 28 Safe Route to School if it is LTS 4. Sylvia Star-Lack said there is a crossing guard there, 29 recognizing it is a difficult location for students. Commissioner Templeton pointed out that a 30 crossing guard is provided for half of that street and she saw a collision between a high schooler 31 bicyclist and a car at that intersection this week. Commissioner Templeton believed all the way 32 down Los Robles toward Gunn needed to be studied and taken more seriously. 33 Referring to Slide 11, Kittelson Page 61, Commissioner Ji asked if it was the sum of the trips or 34 another calculation. Charlie Coles replied pointed out the legend in the lower left-hand corner 35 said trips per square mile, so it was a ratio rather than an exact number of trips. Amanda Leahy 36 from Kittelson & Associates clarified it was the number of trip starts or ends per 10,000 over a 37 one-day period (average weekday or weekend), not a ratio. The shading refers to the number 38 of trip starts or ends per square mile, the lightest shading is fewer than 10,000 and the darkest 39 shading is over 40,000 trip starts or ends. 40 Commissioner Hechtman asked staff to elaborate on the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road 1 transportation projects mentioned at the bottom of Packet Page 42. Charlie Coles noted Slide 2 12 identified Meadow and Charleston with small gray dots. Crossing Location D is located in 3 between those dots. This South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project is in addition to the rail 4 grade separation projects at Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston. 5 Commissioner Hechtman referred to Kittelson Page 21. Commissioner Hechtman assumed the 6 orange area including the words “Louis Road” up along Bayshore Road meant population 7 growth of more than 2500 people anticipated by 2031, with the large area with lighter shading 8 to the south representing population growth of 751-2500. Commissioner Hechtman knew a 9 portion of the orange area against Bayshore and wrapping San Antonio were Housing 10 Opportunity sites but the orange area was larger than that. The area at Loma Verde and Louis 11 has single-family neighborhoods that Commissioner Hechtman did not think were Housing 12 Opportunity sites. Commissioner Hechtman advised staff to look at the assumptions used to 13 generate the shaded map because he thought the areas of population growth were too large. 14 Vice-Chair Chang questioned if the 2 crossings were budgeted, and whether staff knew if a 15 design exceeded a certain number that it would become infeasible, to avoid a repeat of the 16 2013 plan that disappeared. Vice-Chair Chang asked staff to provide the background on what 17 the will is for Council to move forward with this project and what was the anticipated timing. 18 Charlie Coles said that as they start to have design concepts and are getting close to requesting 19 Council approval for the 2 designs to move forward, staff will apply for multiple grants to fund 20 the next steps, including the development of 35 percent designs, final designs, environmental 21 review, and construction. To address construction impacts from the rail grade separation 22 project, Sylvia Star-Lack thought it was the City’s intention to maintain bicycle and pedestrian 23 access across the rail during construction but if it was not feasible, the Council directed staff to 24 hire somebody (Charlie Coles) to lead a project to identify crossing locations. Charlie Coles said 25 the question on timing was difficult to answer. Staff hoped to complete this project in summer 26 of 2026, with the end goal being 15 percent design. On Packet Page 46, Report Page 7, Vice-27 Chair Chang noted that selection of final evaluation criteria was in Next Steps and wondered if 28 that meant the final selection of criteria will happen after alternatives are chosen. Charlie Coles 29 said the outcome of Phase 1 is to establish the design criteria for how alternatives are 30 evaluated in Phase 2. 31 On Packet Pages 118 and 119, origin/destination maps, Kittelson Pages 60 and 61, Vice-Chair 32 Chang wondered if data was driving the strangely shaped shaded areas or how those areas 33 were chosen. Charlie Coles answered that the areas were the same as the Transportation 34 Analysis Zones (TAZs) from the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) model to enable big data 35 analysis comparison. Vice-Chair Chang understood the comment made earlier about the 36 population growth occurring in a narrower area than was depicted in the population growth 37 map was due to those areas matching VTA data. 38 Commissioner Peterson referred to Slide 10 and asked if the City could place art and point it 39 toward the station since Caltrain does not put any money into the budget for art at the station. 40 Sylvia Star-Lack replied those stations are operated by Caltrain. There is a fountain at Cal Ave 1 and a mural in the Cal Ave underpass. Commissioner Peterson pointed out a walking path 2 across an old bridge at the back of the Caltrain Station parking lot as a shortcut to get to 3 Ventura but it was not recognized on the walking map on Slide 10. Sylvia Star-Lack emphasized 4 it was a vehicle bridge with no formal sidewalk and she believed this analysis only included 5 places where there were sidewalks. Commissioner Peterson suggested the bridge could be 6 turned into a one-way bridge or a pedestrian-only bridge. Commissioner Peterson thought the 7 walking path from Peers Park down across Cal Ave through the Caltrain Station parking lot and 8 on through Ventura was unsafe but with some attention it could be made safe. 9 Based on Commissioner Templeton’s experience living in this part of Palo Alto, she opined the 10 area on Slide 10 needed to sufficiently cover Barron Park. With a high school, middle school, 11 and 2 elementary schools in the Barron Park neighborhood, Commissioner Templeton thought 12 the foot and bike traffic was equivalent to or in excess of other parts of the city and should not 13 be considered low-risk intersections. Commissioner Templeton encouraged staff to determine 14 the root cause of why the Barron Park area was not being studied or included and to address it 15 before the next phase of the project. Commissioner Templeton asked if the dark shades in the 16 bottom right on Slide 11 represented Target and Walmart, and she wanted to know where 17 Gunn was on the map. Charlie Coles answered the data does not provide granularity to specify 18 the stores. A light yellow shaded area represented the Gunn High School property. 19 Commissioner Templeton suggested an improvement to the map to reflect the traffic situation 20 on Arastradero caused by Gunn High School twice a day. Commissioner Templeton wondered if 21 we were designing for the average or maximum use, and what was most useful to show to the 22 Council when they are making decisions. 23 Commissioner Templeton asked if the priorities on Page 167 included connecting 24 neighborhoods or personal relationships to address people connecting with their friends who 25 live across the train tracks, and whether personal security included safety such as preventing 26 sexual assaults at underpasses and not providing opportunities for suicides on train tracks. 27 Charlie Coles explained that prevention through environmental design was a standard of 28 practice where you design a facility to discourage unwanted behavior by having ample lighting 29 and making sure there are direct lines of paths so more people can see into the area. 30 Commissioner Templeton was on X/CAP and recalled the major feedback was that an 31 underpass was wanted for Loma Verde because it was a long stretch to bike. 32 Chair Akin was surprised to see in the staff report the order in which staff was seeking 33 feedback, first to prioritize crossing locations and second to provide feedback on the evaluation 34 framework, and he wanted to know if there was a reason. One criterion Chair Akin would use to 35 prioritize locations was not in the existing evaluation framework, so his inclination was to have 36 feedback on the evaluation framework and then locations. Charlie Coles clarified that staff was 37 not looking for a final decision on the locations of future crossings. Staff was seeking input for 38 the project team to have information about where the community thinks that staff should 39 prioritize their efforts. 40 Commissioner James queried why Locations A through F aligned with creeks. Charlie Coles 1 explained that many of the locations presented in the staff report and Existing Conditions 2 Report were previously identified locations and included locations that professionals have 3 identified through their review of the Existing Conditions data and field visits. Charlie Coles 4 stated his understanding of why the creek crossings have been brought up in multiple previous 5 studies was because they were potentially areas with available right-of-way space to work with 6 on either side of the Caltrain corridor. For example, the Midtown Connector Feasibility Study 7 was a document mentioned in the Existing Conditions Report that looked at alignments through 8 Midtown along Matadero Creek. 9 Public Comment: None. 10 The PTC took a break at 8:04 PM and resumed at 8:10 PM with all members present. 11 Study Area was mentioned 153 times in the Existing Conditions Report, so Commissioner Ji 12 believed it was important to consider how the study area is defined. Commissioner Ji was 13 disappointed with the size of the study area on Slide 10 and thought it should extend 14 significantly further to the bottom left into the Barron Park neighborhood. In the Existing 15 Conditions Report there was a lot of discussion of major destinations. Gunn High School and 16 other nearby schools are major destinations in the Barron Park area, so Commissioner Ji opined 17 it was misleading to not include a significant portion of Arastradero Road when defining the 18 study area. Commissioner Ji noted the busy times can extend past 7 PM, so he recommended 19 extending the 7 AM to 7 PM time period. The graph in the Existing Conditions Report goes to 6 20 PM, so Commissioner Ji saw it as an opportunity to collect more data. Commissioner Ji 21 reiterated his concern about LTS 4 and recommended including the intersection at Los Robles 22 and El Camino on the diagram to better inform the decision-making process. On Slide 11, 23 Commissioner Ji felt it was useful to have data on routes, such as a diagram showing the heavy 24 routes where people are going instead of stacking to and from on top of each other. At the 25 bottom of Packet Page 141, Figure 3, Palo Alto 2012 BPTP Bike Boulevard Network, 26 Commissioner Ji noted neither the digital nor paper versions of the diagram were readable. 27 Vice-Chair Chang thought it would be helpful to have a map showing the big destinations or 28 hotspots. For example, Gunn was a hotspot that was less than 1 square mile but it spanned 2 29 polygon areas. In the staff report on Page 5 and in the appendices, Vice-Chair Chang asked what 30 was meant by the term “vulnerable population” mentioned in the priority “Enhance User 31 Experience.” Charlie Coles typically thought of vulnerable populations as people who have 32 difficulty moving, such as the handicapped and those who have visual impairments. In response 33 to Vice-Chair Chang asking if socioeconomic challenges were included in the vulnerable 34 populations, Charlie Coles said that was great feedback. Vice-Chair Chang clarified she did not 35 have a perspective on it; she wanted to understand the definition. 36 Commissioner Peterson heard staff say El Camino can be a barrier to crossing, so he asked staff 37 to elaborate on their opinion if one side of El Camino was better for affordable housing than 38 the other side because of access to the Caltrain station. Charlie Coles did not want to opine on 39 something that was not directly related to the feedback that staff was seeking today. The Bike 40 and Ped Accessibility Analysis recognized that a future bicycle/pedestrian tunnel or overpass 1 had the potential to affect citywide travel, with South Palo Alto being the most likely to benefit 2 from a future crossing. 3 Commissioner Templeton opined housing on both sides of El Camino deserved bike and 4 pedestrian access and services. Commissioner Templeton said vulnerable populations should 5 include those with mental illness. Commissioner Templeton wondered if staff could identify 6 high-traffic destinations by their likelihood to be adopted by more bike and pedestrian users. 7 For example, we want to encourage bike and pedestrian users in the California Avenue area 8 and Gunn High School. Commissioner Templeton needs a car to shop at Target but the shading 9 on the map appeared to give an outsized priority to servicing the Target area because it did not 10 take into account the times of day when a smaller area has more traffic. 11 Commissioner Hechtman liked Alternative E because it will best serve the new development 12 near 101 and San Antonio that was outside the study area but addressed in multiple diagrams 13 in the Existing Conditions Report. 14 Charlie Coles wanted to know the Commission’s perspectives on Locations A through F, not 15 expecting a decision, but invited comments on what staff should consider about the identified 16 locations and if there were other locations that should be looked at. 17 Commissioner Hechtman inquired if there be modeling of where people will bike and walk once 18 the crossing locations have been identified. Charlie Coles answered yes. The second item in the 19 draft evaluation criteria is demand, which was defined as the projected number of users who 20 would use the future crossing during the weekday peak hour. 21 Commissioner Ji asked for clarification on the purpose of the study area, and inquired if the 22 boundaries were chosen arbitrarily. Commissioner Ji felt there were important areas outside 23 the study area and he wanted to understand what criteria were pertinent only to the study 24 area. Commissioner Ji wondered if the study area was drawn in a different way, for example 25 Bryant instead of Middlefield, what impact it would have on decision making. Charlie Coles 26 stated the definition of the study area was to focus on collecting data that was relevant for the 27 project in its immediate vicinity. Charlie Coles expressed his understanding was that drawing 28 the study area in a different way would not impact the decision making. The granularity needed 29 to be closest to the rail corridor in order to determine the design concepts, necessary 30 intersection modifications, and the bike/walk treatments needed to connect to and from future 31 rail crossings. 32 Amanda Leahy explained how they arrived at the boundaries for the study area. The project 33 was described as the Caltrain corridor between Oregon Expressway and San Antonio. Kittelson 34 & Associates chose to define the study area as the major parallel corridors that carried vehicle 35 traffic. Data was gathered outside the study area. For example, the provided maps showed 36 Transportation Analysis Zones outside the study area. Kittelson & Associates is still analyzing 37 and summarizing data beyond the study area. Amanda Leahy agreed the cutoff was somewhat 38 moderately arbitrary. Kittelson & Associates will be looking at the on-street connections within 1 the study area between Middlefield, El Camino Real, Oregon Expressway, and San Antonio. 2 Commissioner Templeton recommended that staff seek input on the study area at the next 3 public community meeting. Commissioner Templeton hoped the study area would have 4 addressed her concerns on the hazards in her neighborhood to cross the rail and El Camino. 5 Commissioner Ji echoed Commissioner Templeton’s comments and shared his childhood 6 experience with crossing this intersection to go to school. Commissioner Ji was personally 7 invested in the safety vulnerable populations as a result of the selection of these choices 8 because his grandmother bikes across this intersection to visit him. 9 Referring to Slide 12 depicting the proposed crossings, Commissioner Peterson asked how you 10 cross Alma. Charlie Coles said this project will be looking at the Caltrain corridor and Alma. 11 Commissioner Peterson commented that an unhoused person on California Avenue told him he 12 could not get his cart under California Avenue because of the gates. Commissioner Peterson 13 asked staff to keep in mind when considering designs if a cart can be push through the 14 underpass and up the other side. 15 Chair Akin’s main concern with the Existing Conditions analysis was it not having much 16 information about connectivity, so he thought it was important for staff to think about that in 17 the next steps. On Packet Page 107, Kittelson Page 51, Chair Akin noticed the weekday chart of 18 vehicle crossings for Meadow and Charleston had a lot more cars going westbound than 19 eastbound, which suggested that people were not making roundtrips on the same route; 20 instead, people are making loops and crossing the tracks at least twice at different points. 21 Therefore, an analysis that assumed each crossing was independent of the others would not 22 capture the actual behavior of the crossings being serially dependent. Chair Akin urged staff to 23 keep in mind that this was an issue with the analysis in the Existing Conditions Report and it 24 affected the evaluation criteria because you cannot project demand if you do not take into 25 account the dependencies between the demand at one place affecting the demand at another 26 place. Chair Akin thought that separating the origin and destination counts could estimate 27 some paths without having to gather more data. 28 Commissioner Templeton noted the maintenance item in the evaluation criteria did not 29 explicitly mention the risk of flooding. In XCAP discussions about underpasses, some options 30 were excluded because of the concern about flooding and needing pumps. Commissioner 31 Templeton recalled when she first moved to Palo Alto, the bike underpass was closed under 32 101 half the year because of flooding. Commissioner Templeton wanted flooding risk called out 33 explicitly in terms of feasibility, environmental impact, and recommended treatment of 34 underpasses. In regard to personal security, Commissioner Templeton said that crime on bike 35 paths along the railroad is the number one feedback she gets from her teenage daughter when 36 she and her friends bike from Barron Park to Town & Country, so the danger of underpasses 37 needed to be kept in mind. Commissioner Templeton urged staff to explicitly add the reduction 38 of self-harm to the list of evaluation criteria and design priorities or at least include it in the 39 description. Commissioner Templeton wanted to add as a priority to make it easier for people 40 to connect with other people across neighborhoods, to their school, shopping area, place of 1 work, and Caltrain. 2 Vice-Chair Chang thought the obvious priority of this project was to connect. Vice-Chair Chang 3 agreed with Commissioner Templeton and was interested in making sure we felt like one 4 community, one city, because Palo Alto is always talked about as being divided by the tracks 5 and Alma. Vice-Chair Chang believed we should be explicit about the need to address a 6 significantly growing population from the expected increase in housing, so she suggested 7 changing the wording of the design priority to increase mobility: To keep our city moving in the 8 face of a growing population. Having 6000 more units is an increase of 20 percent or more than 9 the existing units in our city but roads are not being widened to accommodate the population 10 growth. Regarding evaluation criteria, Vice-Chair Chang felt that crime and traffic safety were 11 priorities and everyone had to cross the divided city. Although traffic safety was one of the 12 reasons for doing this project, it was not explicitly mentioned. 13 Vice-Chair Chang thought hotspots should be encapsulated in the evaluation criteria. The 14 mobility design priority was missing the evaluation of hotspots across either side of the tracks, 15 and the locations to site the crossings should connect as many hotspots as possible in a direct 16 line. Vice-Chair Chang noted the origin/destination map was not granular enough to give us a 17 sense of where the hotspots were located. Referring to Report Page 3, Packet Page 42, Vice-18 Chair Chang suggested making a map of local destinations, including the El Camino Real retail 19 area highlighted in the Bike/Ped Plan, the Midtown shopping area, and Gunn High School. Vice-20 Chair Chang noted it was difficult to frequent some of the local businesses on the other side of 21 El Camino especially during rush hour. For example, it was easier for her to get to Mountain 22 View and shop at Trader Joes and San Antonio than it was to go to Happy Donuts. Showing that 23 on a map to address the priority of connecting the community and making us one city might 24 help the retail vibrancy on El Camino. 25 Commissioner Ji agreed with Vice-Chair Chang’s comments about connectivity. Because we 26 have the start and end destination points, Commissioner Ji wondered if the replica dataset 27 could be used to calculate a metric to show if a connection was added at Location B, for 28 example, it would reduce the amount of distance that people are traveling by X percent. 29 Another way to look at it is how close we can get to “as the crow flies” for these points. 30 Commissioner Ji echoed Chair Akin’s comments about how adding 1 crossing will change the 31 model for the second crossing. When looking at the criteria, Commissioner Ji suggested having 32 the modeling apply for a connected series of sites. For example, the criteria might say Locations 33 A and B are the best 2 crossings but it probably does not make sense to put crossings 2 or 3 34 blocks away from each other. 35 In regard to the Demand row in the Improving Mobility column, Commissioner Ji noted the 36 description was the projected number of users during weekday peak hour but he wondered if it 37 was necessary to specify weekday instead of peak congestion in general. Commissioner Ji 38 heavily emphasized Vice-Chair Chang’s comments about future population. In previous heat 39 maps, Commissioner Ji has seen significant population growth is anticipated in some areas in 40 the top right quadrant of the maps and it was important to think about the schooling impacts. 1 The area in the top right would probably go to Gunn, so potentially 2000 more people will go 2 through the currently very congested biking corridor in the morning. Commissioner Ji asked if 3 the design priorities will be weighted. Charlie Coles replied that staff was currently not 4 considering any weighting of the evaluation criteria. The results of the evaluation will be 5 presented as information, not with a specific number result. 6 Commissioner Hechtman suggested the list of 14 draft evaluation criteria on Packet Page 167 7 be broken into 2 categories; 11 of the criteria were specific to the immediate area of the 8 crossing, 3 criteria (accessibility, demand, and pedestrian and bicycle comfort) look outward 9 from the crossing location. Besides the ability to navigate the crossing with a wheelchair and 10 shopping cart, Commissioner Hechtman observed most of the conversation tonight fell into the 11 category of the 3 criteria outside the area of the crossing. 12 Commissioner Hechtman liked that accessibility was written as citywide and not limited to the 13 study area, for example 15 minutes gets you outside the study area in both the El Camino and 14 Middlefield directions. Commissioner Hechtman noted a lot of biking and walking outside 15 vehicle peak hours, so he suggested that staff think about whether demand should be looked at 16 more broadly. For example, schools let out between 2:30 and 3 PM, which is earlier than peak 17 traffic hours. Commissioner Hechtman pointed out the criterion for pedestrian and bicyclist 18 comfort was written as “extent to which existing network would provide low-stress access.” 19 Commissioner Hechtman liked Location B because it was the midpoint between the existing 20 California and the coming Meadow. If you keep “existing” in the draft evaluation criteria, it will 21 skew the results. Therefore, Commissioner Hechtman suggested that staff consider rewording it 22 as “extent to which existing or modified bike and pedestrian network would provide low-stress 23 access.” When identifying a new crossing location, you can radiate out and design the 24 connectivity to the existing network. 25 Chair Akin suggested adding a qualitative criterion under Improved Mobility for the potential to 26 encourage mode shift. As trips in this area are expected to increase from the population 27 growth, it might be a useful criterion to select locations that will encourage more to move to 28 active transportation modes. Under Enhance User Experience, Chair Akin suggested having the 29 number of turns as a quantitative evaluation criterion. Some crossing designs have ramps that 30 run parallel to the tracks and then make a sharp turn to implement the crossing, which might 31 be a safety issue for shared-use paths because a pedestrian coming out of the tunnel and a 32 cyclist coming fast down a ramp are unable to see each other until close to the turn. It is a 33 personal security issue because an assailant waiting in the end of the tunnel will be invisible to 34 somebody coming down the ramp. Under Minimize Community Impacts, Chair Akin suggested 35 adding traffic congestion impacts but he deferred to whatever quantifiable wording that staff 36 preferred to use. For example, if an approach crosses Alma or Park at grade, then one way or 37 another needed to be signalized. 38 For accessibility, Commissioner Templeton said the underpasses should be able to 39 accommodate wheelchairs, shopping carts, strollers, wagons, bike trailers, and tandem bikes. 40 Commissioner Peterson asked if there was a rail trench in the future, will the City have to dig 1 out the underpass and remove it or will the rail trench not reach this location. Sylvia Star-Lack 2 thought the intention was to find out where the train will be and then design the crossings. 3 Commissioner Hechtman thought Location B was geographically logical because it was roughly 4 halfway between Cal Ave and the future crossing at Meadow Drive. Commissioner Hechtman 5 was looking to serve the most southerly part of the city and liked Location E more than Location 6 F because both sides of E were in Palo Alto. Location F if you are coming from the east you are 7 in Palo Alto but once you cross the tracks you are in Los Altos, and Commissioner Hechtman did 8 not know if Los Altos was willing to share the cost. Commissioner Hechtman assumed there will 9 be a number of high schoolers going to Gunn from the San Antonio/101 dense development 10 and, to avoid riding down San Antonio, would be riding from the development to Charleston to 11 Montrose, through Cubberley, through possibly the Green Meadow neighborhood, coming out 12 of Location E but the challenge is that route does not exist. If the connection can be made, 13 Location E seemed safer to Commissioner Hechtman because it takes kids in a direction that is 14 closer to Gunn rather than traveling more southerly down San Antonio. 15 Commissioner Templeton believed Locations A and F seemed impractical. There were 16 longstanding plans to provide crossings adjacent to Location D, so Commissioner Templeton 17 asked what was the intention of proposing Location D. Sylvia Star-Lack thought Location D was 18 proposed because if the 2 adjacent locations were shut down at the same time, D could serve 19 both of them well. Commissioner Templeton stated it was important for the Department of 20 Transportation’s grade separation person to include the precaution not to shut down both of 21 those major corridors for the south at the same time because kids need to be able to get to 22 school. Commissioner Templeton felt that Location D would be a waste to make permanent 23 infrastructure improvement to have 3 undercrossings within a little area in that part of town 24 while leaving the rest of it unserved. Commissioner Templeton highly encouraged prioritizing 25 Location B where there was a strong need for a crossing in the Loma Verde area with the caveat 26 that the crossings on Meadow and Charleston would exist. If the planned railroad crossing 27 grade separation is near Locations D and E, there was no need for Location C. Commissioner 28 Templeton would like a second project closer to Churchill, which is a planned grade separation 29 but people have not seen the design yet. Commissioner Templeton suspected there was 30 interest in having another way of crossing Alma and the railroad tracks. 31 Commissioner James liked Location B. According to the BPTP Map Network, Figure 2 on Page 32 141, it looked like it envisioned a bicycle boulevard across from where Loma Verde meets Alma 33 at what Commissioner James thought was Matadero and another envisioned bike boulevard at 34 Park Boulevard that would intersect with that crossing and go to Gunn, which appeared to 35 provide a needed alternative to Meadow and Charleston. Commissioner James thought it 36 crossed into the Cornelis Bol Bike Path. Commissioner James walked the route and concluded it 37 was the best option, and Loma Verde could serve the projected future population. 38 Commissioner Ji preferred Location B. Regarding Commissioner Templeton’s comment about 39 Churchill, Commissioner Ji believed there was a planned crossing at Seale. Commissioner Ji 40 endorsed Location E, which provided opportunities to connect new developments and future 1 access to connect the Green Meadow neighborhood via this road to Wilkie, which was the 2 Peninsula Bike Path. Commissioner Ji prioritized Location B before E but felt it was important to 3 have 2 crossings in the south side. Given the amount of development on the San Antonio side, 4 Location E could potentially relieve congestion. 5 Commissioner Hechtman noted Meadow and Charleston were busier streets, which were 6 where the Caltrans projects were coming. Commissioner Hechtman liked Location E because it 7 invited kids to ride on smaller neighborhood-type streets instead of putting them on the streets 8 carrying the most cars. 9 Commissioner Peterson liked Location E after hearing commissioners’ comments. 10 Chair Akin made the following observations from the field study notes and short trip counts. 11 Oregon dominated the crossings for the total short trips but San Antonio was a close second. 12 San Antonio dominated all trips in the range of 1 to 4 miles. Therefore, Chair Akin believed the 13 Oregon and San Antonio directions should have a lot of weight. Of the potential crossings close 14 enough to capture a lot of the traffic on Oregon, it seemed to Chair Akin that El Dorado was the 15 easiest to implement and had a reasonable connection in midtown. For Location B, El Dorado 16 was the most appealing to Chair Akin. Loma Verde was a good location but the implementation 17 looked challenging. El Verano did not have much of a payoff because it was close to Meadow. 18 Lindero and Ely looked difficult and did not add enough value over Meadow and Charleston 19 once the grade separations were done. Chair Akin liked Location F for the San Antonio crossing, 20 it is an area of a lot of future growth, and there is bike infrastructure in Mountain View on San 21 Antonio. Chair Akin reiterated his 2 preferences for crossings were around El Dorado and a San 22 Antonio overpass. 23 Commissioner Templeton thought Location F had potential and was superior to Locations C, D, 24 and E. Commissioner Templeton did not want Palo Alto to exclusively fund Location F but rather 25 in cooperation with other jurisdictions and perhaps with state or federal funding. 26 Commissioner Hechtman noted Location F was somewhat proximate to the existing San 27 Antonio Caltrain’s pedestrian/bike undercrossing at Mayfield Avenue in Mountain View. 28 Commissioner Hechtman asked staff to elaborate on what attracted them to Location F. Charlie 29 Coles stated that San Antonio Avenue ran parallel to San Antonio Road and connected to Alma 30 in Palo Alto. The reason for including Location F was in recognition of the potential to do 31 something at the interchange or at San Antonio Avenue to provide connection into Mountain 32 View along San Antonio Road given that there are existing bicycle facilities on the Mountain 33 View section and on San Antonio Road. In addition, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation 34 Plan draft proposed bike facilities along San Antonio Road in Palo Alto and a connection along 35 Alma from San Antonio Avenue to Charleston. 36 Commissioner Ji felt it was important to prioritize streets with low car traffic, which was why he 37 preferred Locations E and B. Location F would encourage a lot of people to use San Antonio 38 Road, and Commissioner Ji was generally opposed to encouraging a lot of bikes on major roads. 39 Given that there were 2 crossings at San Antonio, Commissioner Ji wondered what additional 1 work should be done. 2 Commissioner Templeton suggested that staff consider rethinking Locations E and F and 3 perhaps come back for a future discussion. Commissioner Ji agreed there may be a compromise 4 between Locations E and F. 5 Commissioner Peterson asked for the San Antonio Caltrain Station street view from Google 6 Maps to be displayed on the screen to see the existing pedestrian/bike path. 7 No action was taken by the Commission. 8 Approval of Minutes 9 3. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 10 Minutes of April 9, 2025 11 Motion 12 Commissioner Hechtman moved approval as revised of the verbatim and summary minutes of 13 April 9, 2025. 14 Chair Akin seconded the motion. 15 The motion passed 7-0 by voice vote with Chair Akin, Vice-Chair Chang, Commissioner 16 Hechtman, Commissioner James, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, and Commissioner 17 Templeton voting yes. 18 Commissioner Comments 19 Commissioner Hechtman acknowledged the Chair’s efforts in keeping to the scheduled time on 20 the agenda. 21 Commissioner Templeton may miss the June 11 meeting. Vice-Chair Chang and Commissioner 22 Hechtman will be out on June 11. Jennifer Armer noted the Commission did not have any 23 urgent items scheduled for June 11, so she will list the meeting as cancelled. 24 Adjournment 25 9:49 PM 26