Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-10 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Regular Meeting 2 Draft Summary Minutes: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 3 Council Chambers and Hybrid 4 6:00 PM 5 6 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 7 8 Chair Akin called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll and declared there was a quorum. 9 10 PUBLIC COMMENT 11 12 None. 13 14 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 15 16 None. 17 18 19 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 20 1. Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 21 22 Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director, provided a slide presentation including upcoming 2025 PTC 23 meeting dates and Council dates targeted for PTC-reviewed items. 24 Ria Lo, Chief Transportation Official, provided updates on a community meeting held on 25 September 9 for the South Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Project, Crescent Park 26 Traffic Calming will come back to PTC on September 24, grade separation projects for Churchill, 27 Charleston, and Meadow will have community meetings on September 30, the Bicycle and 28 Pedestrian Transportation Plan update will come to PTC on November 12 and go to Council on 29 December 1, and an MOU with Stanford will go to Council on September 29 for Quarry Road 30 Extension. 31 32 ACTION ITEMS 33 34 2. Discussion of the Urban Land Institute Initiative with Palo Alto, Valley Transportation 35 Authority (VTA), and Stanford related to the Palo Alto Transit Center and Designation of 36 a Representative(s) to participate on behalf of the Commission in the Urban Land 1 Institute Initiative 2 3 Chantal Cotton-Gaines, Deputy City Manager City of Palo Alto, provided a background. There is 4 an ad hoc that meets about once a quarter. That group has decided to work with the Urban 5 Land Institute to think how to activate the space and what the space will look like long term. 6 The Urban Land Institute will be in Palo Alto October 19 for a week to take a tour and hold 7 stakeholder interviews. There will be representatives from other city boards and commissions, 8 members of City Council, some City staff, and Stanford advocates. A series of focus groups will 9 be held on October 21. More information will be provided as a representative is chosen. The 10 Urban Land Institute will work through information received through the interviews, briefing 11 book, and tour and return October 24 to make a presentation of findings and 12 recommendations. The Commission was asked to choose a representative or indicate how one 13 will be chosen. Questions to be posed to participants of the focus groups were provided in the 14 staff report. 15 Chair Akin inquired if the Commission preferred to vote or appoint the commissioners to 16 represent the Commission in the interviews. Commissioners Peterson and Ji volunteered to be 17 representatives. Vice Chair Chang thought Chair Akin and Commissioners Ji and Peterson would 18 make good representatives. Commissioner Templeton supported giving the newer 19 commissioners leadership opportunities. Chair Akin appointed Commissioners Peterson and Ji 20 as representatives for the ULI interviews. Both commissioners accepted the appointment. 21 Commissioner Ji inquired about the scope of areas. Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines replied 22 it is the Transit Center as an entryway to both Stanford and Downtown but not stretching to the 23 Downtown uses in terms of the different commercial and retail along University. The map being 24 shared with the panel is dealing more with the strip of the actual station and going toward the 25 bus transit area behind that along with a little bit of MacArthur Park. 26 Commissioner Peterson suggested changing the word "gateway" to "gates of the gateway" as 27 there are three train stations. Chief Transportation Official Lo stated this analysis is specifically 28 for the downtown mobility and transit hub but noted there are three gateways in terms of 29 Caltrain. Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines added part of it is because it is the second busiest 30 station in the Caltrain corridor. 31 Commissioner James asked if the discussion about Stanford building a mid-rise housing complex 32 was presumed to be dead or could figure into this. Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines 33 responded if the Commission wanted to share interest in seeing some sort of housing at this 34 site through this effort, it would be fine to offer as an additional piece of information. 35 Commissioner James queried if there was also consideration long-term for a study about raising 36 the tracks that would have an impact. Chief Transportation Official Lo said at this stage there is 37 no plan for raising the tracks at Palo Alto Avenue. Commissioner Templeton questioned if that 38 is because there are no plans or it has not been tackled yet. Chief Transportation Official Lo 39 replied it is not in the conceptual planning. 40 Vice Chair Chang commented the train station is laid out differently than Redwood City and 1 Mountain View which funnel people into Downtown in a different way. 2 Commissioner Peterson stated that guidance or a preliminary plan designating the amount of 3 width needed would be helpful. 4 Chair Akin made comments on question number one including covered waiting areas, more 5 physical access points for the last mile transportation of various types, tying sports and 6 entertainment events at El Camino Park to the Transit Center, and coordinating events that 7 cover wider areas. The chair noted it will be important to avoid competing with the downtown 8 businesses. Regarding question number two, bike pedestrian access from Everett to Quarry 9 would generate access from Downtown north and Menlo Park on Middlefield or El 10 Camino/Alma and friction free access to the shopping center. No comments were offered on 11 question number three. On question number four, that immediate area has been regarded as a 12 target site for dense housing. The ownership of the land complicates jurisdictional matters 13 there but it should be brought up especially since Stanford is involved in this process. No 14 comments were made on question number five. 15 Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines opined this was good guidance for the representatives and 16 covers the full scope of work the Commission does. 17 18 19 3. San Antonio Road Area Plan: Provide Feedback on Existing Conditions Analysis and Land 20 Use and Mobility Priorities. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. 21 22 Mitali Ganguly, Senior Associate at Raimi + Associates, provided a slide presentation including 23 an agenda, overview of an Area Plan, the San Antonio Area Plan goals, project area, project 24 timeline, existing conditions analysis, location and context, built character and open space, 25 zoning and development activity, existing housing, existing jobs and businesses, future 26 potential, multimodal connectivity, identified safety issues that need to be addressed, potential 27 impacts from hazards and climate change, challenges and opportunities of the development 28 site, summary of identified opportunities and challenges, and summary of upcoming public 29 meetings. 30 Robert Cain, Senior Planner, spoke about presentation of the project to PABAC the night before 31 as a discussion item. There was no motion or consensus provided but there was feedback from 32 committee members including support for improving connections to Caltrain for cyclists and 33 pedestrians, support for improving the plan to explore different ways to improve cycling along 34 the length of San Antonio Road by either rebuilding the road with improved facilities and/or 35 creating a parallel route through the neighborhoods adjacent to San Antonio Road and 36 improving the crossings across San Antonio Road and Alma to reduce crossing times as well as 37 adding additional safer crossings at some of the smaller streets, support for creating local 38 serving retail that is in a short distance or within the plan area or a comfortable walk/roll, 1 support to cluster retail to avoid vacancy issues, and exploring ways to mitigate increased traffic 2 from the new development within the plan area as well as other nearby projects such as the 3 VTA project to upgrade the 101 interchanges. 4 Commissioner Peterson asked for elaboration on the sea level and climate change plan. Ms. 5 Ganguly answered there are regional efforts addressing sea level rise. Assistant Director Armer 6 added that would be part of the consideration in looking at the plan. There are no specific plans 7 but it is in discussion whether Palo Alto needs to proceed or it can be done in collaboration with 8 other agencies in the area. 9 Commissioner Templeton wanted to know to what extent adjacent cities were being reached 10 out to. Senior Planner Cain responded some parts of Mountain View have been included as well 11 as the county and Caltrain. 12 Vice Chair Chang queried if the community advisory group has seen the existing conditions 13 report and have feedback. Senior Planner Cain stated the community advisory group and 14 technical advisory group have been met with before the full document was finished. A similar 15 presentation was provided. There was discussion and feedback was received. Vice Chair Chang 16 assumed this document incorporates what the community advisory group said. Ms. Ganguly 17 said everything that came out of that feedback was captured in the opportunities and 18 challenges. There is a summary of the feedback on the project website. Assistant Director 19 Armer added an email outreach was sent to the CAG, TAG, and community with the new 20 information available and inviting comments. 21 Vice Chair Chang inquired how the two school districts being impacted were incorporated in the 22 process. Senior Planner Cain answered members from the school districts were not included in 23 the TAG or CAG. It was decided the best way was to do individual outreach to talk about school-24 specific issues. 25 Vice Chair Chang asked for proportionality information regarding the pipeline units and the 26 affordability as well as proportionality information with regard to local parks and the 27 population area. Assistant Director Armer had no details on the proportionality questions but 28 agreed it would be looked into. Ms. Ganguly stated awareness of the park deficiency and that 29 would be addressed when there was a closer sense of what the final population will be. 30 Calculations will need to be done regarding the pipeline units. The RHNA is more of a target. 31 Commissioner Ji wanted clarification of what the outcomes look like at the end of phase one 32 and how the Commission can participate. Ms. Ganguly explained phase one included having 33 already developed an engagement strategy, discussed it with the City, and are in the existing 34 conditions analysis. Phase two will be looking at land use and mobility, design alternatives, and 35 plan alternatives. The hope was to understand the various project ideas, alternatives, concerns, 36 and issues that must be considered in the land use phase and if there are issues and 37 opportunities that were not included in the materials. Chris Sensenig, Senior Associate at Raimi 38 + Associates, added the feedback being sought was if there are certain things the Commission is 1 looking for the plan to have that need to be explored. 2 Commissioner Peterson spoke about climate and sea level issues, raising Highway 101, and the 3 wildland urban interface. 4 Commissioner Templeton discussed safety issues for bikes and pedestrians and wanted safety, 5 transportation, biking, and pedestrians to be included. 6 Vice Chair Chang indicated a need to think about the intersection outside of the area plan. 7 Safety, traffic, RVs, schools and mobility through the area, and the affordability issues need to 8 be examined. 9 Commissioner Ji asked about the use of special setbacks. Mr. Sensenig said there is a 24-foot 10 setback along San Antonio Road from the Toyota Dealership north. It was noted that just 11 because there is a 24-foot setback, it does not mean it is really usable. Analysis will be done 12 about that. There are modest setbacks of 15 feet on Fabian, commercial, and industrial. There 13 is a 10-foot setback along East Charleston. Commissioner Ji commented if the PTC want to use 14 the special setbacks as part of the transportation and safety initiatives, it is important to ensure 15 there are no pinch points. The safety aspect in regards to transportation should be emphasized. 16 Comments were made about bumper to bumper traffic, residential overflow, and in and out 17 traffic with regard to the pedestrian and bike infrastructure on San Antonio with large projects. 18 Commissioner Ji wanted to know the implications of the water table. Mr. Sensenig stated the 19 water table implications were a matter of cost. Some developers are willing to go below grade 20 and some developers are going to stay above grade for parking. Commissioner Ji worried about 21 under parking for lots in these areas, discussed infrequent public transit, and urged managing 22 the fire safety risk appropriately. 23 Commissioner James made observations about displacing some moderate income jobs to 24 create moderate priced housing, de-restricted units, and the mechanisms of green spaces as 25 well as range of options. Mr. Sensenig explained different ways to get open space. 26 Chair Akin resisted larger office allowances, wondered if estimates for how much of each type 27 of retail should be planned for, wanted to know where in the plan area it makes the most sense 28 to go beyond the development standards, and requested a map showing how much space there 29 is from the curb to a building, driveway, or a setback line. Chair Akin expressed concern about 30 business gentrification and wanted to know how the potential for sea level rise affects the 31 different construction types. 32 Commissioner Peterson spoke about agreements relating to environmental impacts and 33 community mitigations that tie into climate change and economics of the buildings. The 34 commissioner wanted to look at this as two zones. Mr. Sensenig replied a 50-foot height limit 35 would not be enough for the sea level rise. There is interest to develop around the South Bay 36 areas and there will be a larger aggregation of land to make it feasible and make a more 37 cohesive place because of the sea level rise. There are ways to have retail and have it work. 1 Fixing 101 will presumably fix the area. 2 Vice Chair Chang asked for context setting in terms of traffic volumes for San Antonio relative 3 to the other east-west arterials and which freeway entrances and exits are the most heavily 4 used that feed Palo Alto. Chief Transportation Official Lo did not have recent counts for each of 5 the corridors in the City. There would be some recent counts for the interchanges because of 6 the VTA project and they would be requested from VTA. Counts could be conducted along the 7 different corridors. Vice Chair Chang thought some context setting is important to ensure that 8 the right attention and resources get put on this given that it is an area targeted to have like 25 9 percent of RHNA. 10 Chair Akin talked about origin destination studies, the ratio of floor area housing to office to be 11 balanced, and gathering information for things like spaces where lot consolidation might be 12 attractive. 13 Commissioner Ji echoed comments about origin destination counts and RVs. Commissioner Ji 14 asked what kind of project the gateway project is mentioned on the oblique map on the 15 Mountain View side. Mr. Sensenig responded it is called a gateway project because it is going 16 through the gatekeeper process in Mountain View which involves change of zoning and other 17 aspects. There is a considerable amount of commercial use. It will be a mix of office and retail. 18 It will have a large impact on this project. Senior Planner Cain added it was approved by 19 Mountain View to go through their gatekeeper process. It is still in the conceptual stage but 20 they shared what was hoped to be developed on that site. It was noted that the map on packet 21 page 68 was small. It is important to think about the businesses that sit on HIP sites. The traffic 22 impacts were re-emphasized and thoughts of adding bike lanes. On San Antonio, between 23 Middlefield and Charleston, is interesting for retail. It would be interesting to collect more 24 qualitative data or possibly quantitative data about the direct impacts of having more people 25 on the local retail. The commissioner was reserved about changing office space allowances and 26 wanted to see more of the current situation of the housing density and height comparison to 27 make a judgment call whether it is necessary to increase and about the current state of special 28 setbacks. Retail could be in conjunction with outdoor spaces. Commissioner Peterson's 29 comment about the water table were echoed. 30 Commissioner Templeton asked the CAG and TAG about a list of the people that have been 31 consulted and working on the project. Assistant Director Armer stated that information is 32 available online. Commissioner Templeton wanted to know if Staff is working with Google Real 33 Estate and Workplace Services. Senior Planner Cain indicated no application was received from 34 Google Real Estate before the CAG so they were identified as a partner to reach out directly to 35 and have conversations with. 36 Commissioner Templeton wanted to know the City's official position on the balance of office 37 space and housing. Assistant Director Armer did not have an answer stating that posing the 38 question would make the consultants aware that they should be questioning those numbers 39 and providing a recommendation. 40 1 STUDY SESSION 2 3 4. South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity: Provide Feedback on Conceptual Design 4 Alternatives 5 6 Charlie Coles, Senior Transportation Planner, provided a slide presentation including an 7 overview, agenda, project objectives, project study area, project background, project timeline 8 and when to share input, Phase 1 community engagement (spring 2025), design priorities and 9 evaluation criteria, complexity of transportation projects, preliminary conceptual design 10 alternatives, initial assessment of conceptual alternatives, next steps for South Palo Alto 11 bike/ped connectivity, next steps after completion of conceptual design, and questions for PTC 12 consideration. 13 Commissioner Templeton queried of only one could be chosen. Senior Transportation Planner 14 Coles answered it is up to Council to decide. There is a need for at least one. Flexibility is 15 provided in the scope coming forward with eight. The goal is to narrow it down to two and 16 advance those further. It is possible to have two depending on the combination. 17 Vice Chair Chang requested clarification of Option H. Senior Transportation Planner Coles 18 explained this is one of the two designs that would require additional coordination with 19 Mountain View. The yellow line represents the two-way separated cycle track going from Nita 20 Avenue in Palo Alto to California Street in Mountain View along the existing bridge the same 21 elevation as vehicles currently travel. It would be for cyclists only. Pedestrians are 22 accommodated by enhancing the connectivity to the existing bike/ped tunnel at the Caltrain 23 station in Mountain View by utilizing the existing San Antonio Avenue and the sidewalks there 24 with the crosswalk at the intersection of Alma and San Antonio Avenue and then connecting 25 along the pathway that connects San Antonio Avenue to the Caltrain station. Vice Chair Chang 26 asked why not enhance connections to the existing tunnel at the Caltrain station. Senior 27 Transportation Planner Coles replied that would be part of the design. The existing pedestrian 28 route could be used for bikes. 29 Commissioner Peterson asked why Option H does not show greater access to San Antonio road 30 if there is biking over San Antonio Bridge. Senior Transportation Planner Coles stated this is part 31 of the accessibility analysis which is part of the existing analysis and serves as the baseline 32 analysis. Assuming a new crossing, this would be the change in accessibility. Alternative H on 33 packet page 172 shows how walking accessibility would change. Since a new pedestrian 34 pathway is not being added, there would be no change in travel times. Commissioner Peterson 35 pointed out at the top of the map, a bridge enhancement would give greater access to the San 36 Antonio Corridor. 37 Vice Chair Chang noticed all the bridge options were eliminated and wanted to know if the 38 construction of a bridge would be a more expensive option. Chief Transportation Official Lo 39 explained the difference between a bridge and undercrossing is that for an undercrossing, a 1 clearance of 8 to 10 feet is needed. Using a bridge require getting up to the overhead catenary 2 wires and have a 10-foot clearance from that. That can be technically infeasible. 3 Commissioner Peterson thought there was a missing connection of crossing to get to South Palo 4 Alto on the map on packet page 172. Senior Transportation Planner Coles agreed to look into 5 that. 6 Commissioner Templeton had questions about the different shades of gray on parcel impacts 7 and the graph on page 77. Senior Transportation Planner Coles explained the analysis talks 8 about how alternatives D, E, and F are all within the proposed construction area for the 9 Meadow Charleston hybrid alternative. If the hybrid alternative were to be selected, the 10 crossings at D, E, and F would need to be delayed until the construction for the rail grade 11 separation would begin. The two projects need to be coordinated. The challenge is recognizing 12 the overlap adding some complexity. Commissioner Templeton commented if parts of the train 13 were to change elevation would create every one of those crossings. Regarding the parcel 14 impacts, Senior Transportation Planner Coles stated table 18 on packet page 161 showed how 15 the parcel impact criteria was scored. It is a range from no parcel impact to full impact of two or 16 more parcels. They are high level conceptual designs but generally drawn to scale. 17 Commissioner Templeton asked for improvements of the chart for community consumption by 18 using actual numbers in that row. 19 Commissioner Ji noted it would be helpful to clarify that some of the options that say tunnel 20 also still have the signal. Commissioner Ji explained reasons for being against having a signal on 21 Alma. It is helpful to have a discussion about how many more trips are going to be created and 22 using the distances as part of the calculation. Having Options B and C considered the same is 23 misleading and it is important to be aware they are different from a day-to-day lifestyle change. 24 The commissioner was not supportive of building a tunnel in places with very low demand. 25 Adding a tunnel between Charleston and Meadow is excessive. The diagrams are helpful calling 26 out where there is additional connectivity. Commissioner Peterson's comment about having a 27 baseline was echoed. 28 Vice Chair Chang agreed with Commissioner Ji's comments and talked about why Option B is 29 preferable with H being a far second and D through G were not preferable. 30 Commissioner Peterson used the map to demonstrate suggested revisions to the model on 31 Option G. 32 Commissioner Templeton agreed with commentary about not adding lights to Alma. D, E, or F 33 were preferable but preferences depend on the areas of town one frequents. Senior 34 Transportation Planner Coles stated it is important to recognize the goal is to get down to two 35 designs. Chief Transportation Official Lo explained Staff was looking for feedback in order to get 36 down to two options in the next several months. Some feedback heard was not adding 37 additional signals to Alma. Commissioner Templeton heard from the community some do not 38 want their neighbors houses torn down, do not want to deal with new signals, and do not want 39 to deal with 10 years of construction. There is a sentiment measure that needs to be 1 incorporated when appealing to the community so they know the trade-offs. The charts are not 2 doing a good job of reflecting the way people are experiencing concerns. 3 Chair Akin observed the analysis is deep and thorough. The methodology discussion managed 4 to answer most questions. The chair's thinking assumed there would be the grade separation at 5 Meadow and Charleston with bike and ped capacity. Timing is an issue. Given that assumption, 6 the crossings near Meadow and Charleston have too little value to pursue. The chair expressed 7 interest in Option H. The pedestrian option there is workable but needs to be described more 8 clearly in the documents that go to the public. The chair could not support Option B and had a 9 hard time rating A and C because they have different strengths. The chair leaned toward H and 10 A or C. A few lights might not be a bad idea on Alma. It was pointed out that the packet 11 mentions there are many signaling options for the crossings and some may be more viable than 12 others. 13 Commissioner Ji wanted to explore utilizing the underground tunnel at Caltrain a little more. 14 There are a lot of creative options to formalize the path Commissioner Peterson has talked 15 about. In relation to the last agenda item with the San Antonio road area plan, there was talk 16 about turning San Antonio Avenue potentially into a biking path of some kind. That in 17 conjunction with formalizing the Caltrain tunnel could be a very beautiful synergy. Option B was 18 the most preferable option. The simplicity for pedestrians and bikes to have a smooth way to 19 get between the two places without having to worry about a signal is important. The 20 commissioner was not confident about the different signal options. There was suggestion to 21 look into the alternatives previously mentioned about H as a way to resolve the location. He as 22 supportive of B on the north. 23 Commissioner Templeton commented looking at D or F, there is significant time and space 24 being dedicated to making sure that bike and pedestrian access is included in those crossings. 25 Some of those are controversial and having another way for bikes and peds to cross that do not 26 have to be tied in with the grade separation project might make those things easier. 27 Commissioner James opined there were a lot of benefits to Loma Verde and it looked like the 28 best choice. 29 Commissioner Ji queried if it was decided not to go with Options D through F, could the Rail 30 Committee be asked to look into that as an alternative option. Chief Transportation Official Lo 31 stated the grade separation has been through a very extensive process. Those alternatives will 32 not be changed. There is one alternative under Churchill where there is a separate pedestrian 33 bicycle undercrossing as part of the Churchill grade separation project. Council has already 34 weighed in and selected their top two for Charleston and Meadow and then the top one for 35 Churchill with a backup. Commissioner Templeton added this project was spun out of the grade 36 separation project. 37 Commissioner Ji added there are interesting mitigation measures for Option B on packet page 38 105. 39 1 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE 2 MEETINGS AND AGENDAS 3 None. 4 ADJOURNMENT 5