Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-12 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: November 12, 2025 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 p.m. 4 5 6 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 7 8 Chair Akin called the meeting to order. 9 10 Administrative Associate Samuel Tavera called roll and declared there was a quorum. 11 12 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 13 14 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer announced there were no agenda changes. 15 16 PUBLIC COMMENT 17 18 None. 19 20 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 21 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 22 23 Jennifer Armer noted the PTC meeting before Thanksgiving was canceled. Two items were 24 scheduled to be addressed at the December 10 meeting: a housing development project at 25 2100 Geng Road and a reconsideration of the bird-friendly design ordinance. A tentative special 26 meeting had been scheduled for December 17 due to limited regular meetings in November 27 and December; however, no critical items were currently anticipated for that agenda. The 28 special meeting will be canceled unless additional business arises at the December 10 meeting. 29 It was confirmed that the December 31 meeting was canceled in observance of the holiday. 30 Jennifer Armer provided updates on City Council actions related to PTC–reviewed items. On 31 November 10, City Council approved the project at 660 University with modifications, accepting 32 the Commission’s recommendations with the exception of reverting the approval to a 70-unit 33 project with balconies while retaining the remaining recommended elements. It was noted that 34 the Rental Registry Year One Report was anticipated to be presented to City Council as an 35 informational item in December. The project at 4075 El Camino Way was expected to be 36 considered by Council in December, likely at the 2nd or 3rd meeting of the month. The El Camino 37 Real Retail Node Map was also expected to advance, with initial review by the Retail Committee 38 in December, followed by Council consideration on consent in January. 39 40 Office of Transportation Senior Planner Ozzy Arce reminded the Commission that the public 1 comment period for the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan closes at the end of 2 the day on November 14, 2025. Commissioners were encouraged to review the draft plan and 3 near-term projects and provide feedback prior to the close of the comment period. It was 4 reiterated that the BPTP update serves as the City’s roadmap for future investment in bicycle 5 and pedestrian infrastructure. Ozzy Arce commended Office of Transportation staff for 6 conducting a successful community meeting in late October regarding the Alma/Charleston 7 road safety improvements, which are separate from the grade separation project. Staff was 8 reviewing the 35 percent design plans, and the next draft was anticipated to be released for 9 public review in the winter and spring of 2026. Ozzy Arce reported that Addison Avenue, 10 between Bryant Street and Middlefield Road, was recently repaved in the fall of 2025 to 11 enhance safety for all roadway users, particularly bicycle riders, and to address a gap in the 12 bicycle network. Improvements included full-time bicycle lanes, a protected bicycle lane with 13 delineator posts, and shared lane markings. This portion of Addison Avenue’s bicycle lane was 14 converted from restricted-hour use to a 24-hour bicycle lane. 15 16 Ozzy Arce reported on recent improvements to the University Avenue/El Camino Real 17 overcrossing. Caltrans was leading the project in coordination with the City, and current work 18 included replacement of bridge railings, upgrades to vehicle and pedestrian railings, curb 19 ramps, sidewalk signals, and lighting. The bridge railing replacement was scheduled for 20 completion next year. Also as part of this project scope, Caltrans was planning to close select 21 underutilized, non–ADA-compliant pedestrian tunnels along El Camino Real. Ozzy Arce provided 22 an update on the South Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Project, which would 23 identify locations and design concepts for 2 new grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian 24 crossings over the Caltrain corridor. It was noted that the Commission had previously reviewed 25 the project. Eight crossing alternatives were currently being shared with the community and 26 would be presented to the Rail Committee on November 18 and to City Council on December 1. 27 City Council was expected to select up to 2 concept designs in early 2026. The project webpage 28 provided additional information. Ozzy Arce provided an update on the grade separation 29 project. The City hosted 2 community meetings at Mitchell Park earlier this fall. The Rail 30 Committee was scheduled to review the 15 percent design at its November 18 meeting. 31 Following that review, City Council would consider the project and provide formal direction. 32 Two City Council meetings related to the grade separation project were scheduled for 33 December 10 and December 15. 34 35 Jennifer Armer provided an additional scheduling update, noting that a special City Council 36 meeting was scheduled for December 10, which coincided with the PTC’s regular meeting. 37 Therefore, the PTC meeting was scheduled to be held in the community room off the front 38 lobby. The meeting location would be identified on the agenda. 39 40 Chair Akin commented positively on the recent improvements along Addison Avenue, observed 41 that it will be interesting to see how users adapt to the change in bicycle lane hours, and noted 42 that local children have responded favorably to the improvements. 43 44 Commissioner Ji asked which non-ADA-compliant pedestrian tunnels along El Camino Real 1 would be closed. Ozzy Arce stated that the specific locations of those tunnels were not 2 immediately available and that staff would follow up with the Commission to provide additional 3 details. 4 5 ACTION ITEMS 6 2. Review Draft 2025 Comprehensive Plan Implementation Annual Progress Report and 7 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Annual Progress Report and Recommend City 8 Council Authorize Transmittal of the Reports to the Governor’s Office of Land Use 9 and Climate Innovation and Department of Housing and Community Development, 10 by April 1, 2026. CEQA Status: Not a Project. 11 12 Senior Planner Kelly Cha reported that staff is required to submit an annual Comprehensive 13 Plan Implementation Progress Report to the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate 14 Innovation (LCI) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 15 by April of each year. Following this meeting, the PTC's recommendation would be taken to City 16 Council early in 2026 in order to meet the required reporting deadlines. Kelly Cha explained 17 that the Palo Alto Municipal Code requires the PTC to annually review the Comprehensive Plan 18 and recommend any changes or additions to City Council. The current agenda item was limited 19 to the annual progress report, and no changes to the Comprehensive Plan were being 20 considered at this meeting. It was further noted that any future modifications to the 21 Comprehensive Plan would require direction from City Council. The Comprehensive Plan was 22 adopted in 2017 and included 410 programs, each with defined implementation priorities and 23 levels of effort. A slide was presented showing overall progress toward program completion 24 and improvement since the prior year. Approximately 28 programs had been completed, with 25 the majority of programs categorized as ongoing. Partially completed programs had decreased 26 to 48, and approximately 10 percent of the total programs were currently pending. Another 27 slide was presented outlining program completion status organized by target completion date 28 and grouped into 4 categories: completion by 2022, completion between 2022 and 2027, 29 completion after 2027, and continuous programs. Data for progress by level of effort required 30 to complete was shown. The analysis reflected 382 total programs, excluding the 28 completed 31 programs. The majority of programs fell within the ongoing category, where continued progress 32 was being made on implementation. 33 34 Kelly Cha reported on progress related to the Housing Element Implementation Program, 35 noting significant advancement over the past year. The Housing Element included 110 36 programs and was adopted in 2024 as part of the 6th Housing Element cycle covering the years 37 2023 through 2031. This was the 3rd year of reporting on implementation progress, and 68 38 percent of programs had been completed or were ongoing, 9 programs were pending, and 26 39 programs were in progress. Kelly Cha presented a summary of progress concerning the Regional 40 Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), categorized by income level. Just under 10 percent of 41 housing permits had been issued as of October 2025, with the majority of units in the above-42 moderate income category. Approximately 20 percent of the total 592 permitted units were 43 affordable housing, reflecting notable progress. Additional projects currently in the pipeline 1 were anticipated to be reflected in next year’s progress report. Kelly Cha again noted that staff 2 will take the PTC's recommendation to City Council for review and authorization to submit the 3 Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element progress reports to the LCI and HCD no later than 4 April 1, 2026. 5 6 Vice Chair Chang thanked staff for the presentation and requested clarification on key housing 7 compliance milestones reviewed by HCD and the consequences of not meeting required 8 timelines. Jennifer Armer explained that a mid-cycle check-in is required to ensure that 9 projected housing production and remaining site capacity were sufficient to meet the City’s 10 RHNA allocation across all affordability categories. If total projected units and available 11 inventory fall short of the assigned allocation, the City would have 6 months to rezone 12 additional parcels to maintain adequate capacity. Sites not currently included in the housing 13 inventory may be counted toward this requirement. It was noted that several housing projects 14 currently in process, though not designated as Housing Element sites, are expected to help 15 meet the allocation. Jennifer Armer added that the reported data reflected only issued building 16 permits and did not include additional housing units currently in process, including projects that 17 have received entitlements and Planning approval. Those units would be captured in the City’s 18 final reporting. Staff was developing a housing dashboard to provide interim data on in-19 progress housing units. 20 21 Commissioner Templeton questioned how the calculation of 2.06 percent was determined for 22 RHNA permitted for the extremely low income category. Kelly Cha answered that this 23 calculation was obtained by dividing the 16 units permitted as of October 2025 by 778 units. 24 Jennifer Armer confirmed that this figure was correct. 25 26 Commissioner Peterson asked how many people, expressed in FTEs, were working on the 27 projects and about the distribution of staff resources across program areas. Jennifer Armer 28 explained that implementation of the Comprehensive Plan involves staff from multiple City 29 departments due to its citywide scope. It was noted that while there is some flexibility in how 30 information is presented, certain reporting elements were prescribed by the State. Staffing 31 levels were not quantified due to tracking challenges; however, the reporting identified the 32 departments involved in implementation. Jennifer Armer stated she could not estimate how 33 many staff members were involved. 34 35 PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 36 37 Commissioner Templeton felt that adding a column in future iterations to reflect progress 38 relative to target benchmarks would be helpful. It was observed that while the table includes 39 percent permitted, it does not indicate the expected target percent for each income category 40 to remain on track with the RHNA. Jennifer Armer responded that the comment was 41 understood and provided additional context, noting that the Housing Element was adopted last 42 year and that the 8-year cycle did not fully commence due to delays associated with the 43 adoption process. It was explained that housing policies intended to facilitate and encourage 44 development require time to take effect, that a substantial number of housing projects were in 1 process, and that housing development typically takes several years to advance through the 2 planning, permitting, and construction phases. Commissioner Templeton clarified that the 3 intent of the suggestion was to better reflect progress across housing categories by identifying 4 areas not advancing at the same pace as others. It was noted that while timing and process-5 related factors contribute to slower progress, highlighting these discrepancies would assist City 6 Council in evaluating underlying causes and considering potential actions. Jennifer Armer 7 agreed with the comment and cautioned against assuming uniform annual housing production 8 to meet RHNA targets. It was explained that housing production is not expected to occur evenly 9 over the reporting period and that production during the first 3 years has been lower than the 10 average that would be required if units were evenly distributed across the full cycle. 11 12 Commissioner Templeton stated that underperformance in certain categories has been a 13 recurring issue across RHNA cycles. The importance of transparency rather than justification 14 was emphasized, noting that clearly identifying areas where progress is lagging could support 15 accountability and improvement over time. Commissioner Templeton suggested that providing 16 comparative progress could help highlight persistent deficiencies and increase the likelihood of 17 corrective action during the RHNA cycle. Jennifer Armer acknowledged the point raised and 18 stated that the suggested approach, including use of percentage-based indicators, will be taken 19 under consideration for future reporting. 20 21 Commissioner Hechtman commended staff for their efforts in tracking and advancing 22 Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element programs and expressed appreciation for the annual 23 progress reports as a tool for assessing implementation and identifying areas needing 24 additional focus, including very low-income housing. Commissioner Hechtman asked staff to 25 address the status of Comprehensive Plan programs with a target completion date of 2022, 26 noting that several remain partially complete or pending as of 2025. Commissioner Hechtman 27 inquired whether staff has concerns regarding these items and whether staff is comfortable 28 with their current status despite the original target date having passed. Kelly Cha responded 29 that staff is not currently concerned about the 7 pending and 13 partially completed 30 Comprehensive Plan programs with a 2022 target date. It was explained that priorities and 31 available resources have evolved since the targets were established in 2017 and that target 32 dates may shift accordingly. It was emphasized that progress continues and that staff is 33 prioritizing programs that remain pending or partially complete. 34 35 Commissioner Hechtman asked staff to address the status of Comprehensive Plan programs 36 categorized under substantial level of effort, noting that several remain partially complete or 37 pending, and whether staff had concerns about completing these items given their significant 38 resource requirements, including expense. Kelly Cha acknowledged that resource constraints 39 were a consideration for programs requiring a substantial level of effort. It was noted that 40 these programs were identified at the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption in 2017 and that 41 staff continues to pursue additional resources, including budget allocations and grant 42 opportunities. Staffing progress across departments was ongoing and would be reflected in 43 future updates. Jennifer Armer added that the Comprehensive Plan is an aspirational document 44 and that it is common for the total number of implementation programs to exceed what can be 1 completed within a given timeframe. It was reminded that changes driven by state law and 2 other factors affect implementation timing and that staff does not have general concerns 3 regarding the reported program status. 4 5 Commissioner Hechtman noted that figures presented in the slide differed slightly from those 6 in the staff report, with modest increases in above-moderate income units and overall totals. 7 Commissioner Hechtman observed that approximately 9.5 percent of the City’s RHNA has been 8 achieved roughly 3/8 of the way through the cycle, indicating the City is behind a proportional 9 pace, while acknowledging that housing production rarely occurs evenly over time. 10 Commissioner Hechtman stated that progress across all income categories is encouraging and 11 expressed support for including pending housing applications in future reports to provide 12 additional context. Commissioner Hechtman provided feedback on the Comprehensive Plan 13 Program Implementation Status, 2025 table, noting continued improvements in how updates 14 are presented year over year. Commissioner Hechtman stated that the newly added "Changes 15 from 2024” column is helpful but could be clearer in identifying what specifically changed from 16 the prior year. It was suggested that future reports consider a redline-style format to show 17 additions and deletions more clearly, similar to ordinance amendments, for the Commission. 18 Commissioner Hechtman also offered feedback on future Housing Element reporting, proposing 19 that subsequent annual updates focus on identifying changes from the prior year. 20 Commissioner Hechtman recommended providing a redline comparison to clearly highlight 21 revisions across programs and thanked staff for their work on the report. 22 23 Chair Akin supported the request for redline comparisons in future reports, if feasible. 24 25 Commissioner Peterson expressed support for the request to include redline comparisons in 26 future reports and asked whether the programs presented are ranked by priority. Jennifer 27 Armer stated that the numbering shown does not represent priority and explained that the 28 estimated year of completion can provide some general context for how implementation timing 29 was viewed when the plan was prepared. Commissioner Peterson asked whether City Council 30 has a priority list for implementation programs. Jennifer Armer responded that City Council 31 establishes annual priorities identifying key initiatives for staff in addition to their regular work 32 activities. These priorities are referenced in staff reports when an item has been identified as a 33 Council priority. Commissioner Peterson noted that identifying priorities would require 34 comparing 2 different lists. Jennifer Armer explained that when City Council considers annual 35 priorities, Comprehensive Plan implementation programs may be reviewed as potential areas 36 for adding new priority efforts if capacity allows. 37 38 Commissioner Peterson asked whether staff could provide information on unfilled staff 39 positions, noting that while staffing effort for these programs is difficult to quantify, 40 understanding the number of open positions could help illustrate capacity to advance 41 implementation work. Jennifer Armer stated that she did not have information on the total 42 number of vacant positions citywide. It was noted that within the Planning Department, there 43 were a few positions currently open and under recruitment, which may be allocated across 44 multiple responsibilities, including Comprehensive Plan implementation and current planning 1 projects. Staffing capacity is not analyzed or tracked at that level of detail. Jennifer Armer 2 cautioned against characterizing the specific staffing deficit, noting that implementation efforts 3 span multiple departments and that her direct knowledge is limited to Planning, where staff 4 may or may not work on these programs. 5 6 Commissioner Templeton asked whether the table was created in Word or Excel. Kelly Cha 7 responded that the table is maintained in Excel for cross-departmental updates and then 8 formatted in Word for readability. Jennifer Armer added that the table was reformatted to 9 improve legibility and accessibility, noting that some text was being cut off in Excel and 10 adjustments were made to ensure the content could be clearly read. Commissioner Templeton 11 noted that redlining is more straightforward in Word than in Excel. Commissioner Templeton 12 stated that spreadsheet comparison tools exist that can identify differences between versions 13 and that such tools could make the requested comparison feasible. Jennifer Armer was thankful 14 for the suggestion and stated that staff would explore options for comparing document 15 versions. 16 17 Vice Chair Chang questioned the consistency of program status coding across departments and 18 noted that some items labeled as ongoing appear to be categorized as pending, potentially 19 understating progress. It was suggested reviewing status classifications for consistency and 20 accuracy. Jennifer Armer acknowledged the comment and stated that staff had identified 21 consistency in status coding as an item to review for the next reporting cycle. It was pointed out 22 that ongoing and completed items both reflect active work and that efforts would be made to 23 present statuses more consistently. Vice Chair Chang identified the pending category as the 24 greatest concern and noted that the current presentation may give the impression that limited 25 progress is being made, despite staff actively working on many of the items. Vice Chair Chang 26 asked how program prioritization is determined and who establishes priorities. Jennifer Armer 27 explained that prioritization is guided by City Council, particularly when resources are limited. 28 New work efforts generally require direction from City Council or, in some cases, the City 29 Manager. 30 31 Vice Chair Chang asked whether the list of pending programs is formally used as input when 32 City Council establishes its annual priorities. Jennifer Armer responded that she was unsure 33 whether the pending list has been used in recent years as input for Council prioritization. 34 Comprehensive Plan implementation programs may be considered when identifying potential 35 additional tasks, but recent Housing Element requirements and state laws have limited 36 opportunities to advance such items. Vice Chair Chang cited a pending Comprehensive Plan 37 program related to facilitating corporate support as an example of an item that could benefit 38 from advancement and suggested that the pending list could serve as a useful input to City 39 Council’s priority-setting process to assist with prior planning objectives. 40 41 Chair Akin indicated that he had received feedback from a City Councilmember suggesting that 42 the Commission take a more active role in initiating Comprehensive Plan updates and asked 43 staff to clarify the process for the Commission to propose modifications. Jennifer Armer 44 explained that the Commission may identify potential updates during the annual review for 1 staff to include when forwarding the report to City Council. Such items may also be raised 2 during City Council’s annual priority-setting process, which is open to Planning Commissioners. 3 Current capacity is largely focused on the Housing Element and state law implementation, 4 limiting opportunities to add new tasks at this time. Chair Akin stated that while the annual 5 review is an appropriate forum for identifying potential Comprehensive Plan updates, limited 6 lead time makes it difficult to do so concurrently with the report. Chair Akin summarized that 7 the best process involves the Commission providing suggestions to staff, particularly the liaison, 8 outside the annual review cycle for consideration and potential advancement. Chair Akin 9 commended staff for the quality of the work presented and noted that the discussion 10 generated several constructive suggestions for improvement. 11 12 MOTION: Chair Akin moved the staff recommendation with a note that the staff report has a 13 date that needs to be corrected, seconded by Vice Chair Chang. 14 VOTE: Passed 7-0. 15 16 3. Palo Alto Link Program & Transit Futures Review 17 Transportation Planning Manager Nathan Baird provided background on the Palo Alto Link 18 (PAL) Program, noting that the City’s 2017 Palo Alto Transit Vision initiated discussion of transit 19 options with a focus on shuttle services and potential expansions. City Council later directed 20 consideration of flexible transit models. Following the cancellation of the City’s shuttle program 21 in 2020, staff pursued and secured VTA funding for an innovative transit service focused on 22 microtransit. The PAL service launched on March 7, 2023, operated by Via (also known as 23 Nomad Transit), and has since undergone refinements in response to Council and public 24 feedback. City Council discussed service continuation in June amid uncertainty regarding 25 expiring grant funding. Nathan Baird stated that on June 16, 2025, City Council directed staff to 26 wind down the PAL service due to exhaustion of VTA funding and uncertainty regarding other 27 grant sources. The following day on June 17, 2025, the City extended the contract with Nomad 28 Transit to allow time to assess grant status and to engage the public, the PTC, and City Council 29 on next steps for the pilot program. The PAL service runs from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and covers most 30 of the City, excluding the Baylands and the Hills. The service is on-demand with point-to-point 31 trips typically to the nearest intersection, with curb-to-curb service provided for seniors and 32 persons with disabilities. A map was presented highlighting popular destinations, including 33 Caltrain stations, Downtown, medical centers, and shopping areas. Current usage by vulnerable 34 populations consisted of seniors at 30 percent, low income at 15 percent, youth at 15 percent, 35 persons with disabilities at 5 percent, and a significant number of veterans. 36 Nathan Baird reviewed the funding outlook for Palo Alto Link, noting that VTA Innovative 37 Transit funds and the initial Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) grant were fully expended 38 by the end of the prior fiscal year. Stanford Research Park (SRP) provides a monthly subsidy 39 based on service utilization, currently up to $45,000 per month, and covers full fares for trips to 40 and from SRP. The City secured a 2nd TFCA grant, which was expected to be fully utilized this 1 fiscal year, and anticipates up to $600,000 in additional SRP funding. It was explained that fare 2 revenue represents a small portion of total costs and that $250,000 in the General Fund 3 remains available, which staff plans to minimize through reduced monthly expenditures. Future 4 PAL funding beyond the current period was uncertain. Nathan Baird summarized transit service 5 options, noting comparisons between microtransit, fixed-route shuttles, and subsidized 6 transportation network company (TNC) trips. Staff stated that each option involves trade-offs in 7 cost and service benefits and requested Commission input on preferences for the City’s future 8 transit vision. Nathan Baird explained that this discussion is occurring due to limited City 9 Council support for continuing General Fund subsidies beyond the current fiscal year. Key 10 questions were outlined regarding the appropriate level of subsidy, if any, and the preferred 11 form of Palo Alto–based transit. City Council had concerns about broad trip subsidies. In 12 conversations with Via, focusing service solely on vulnerable users could reduce ridership and 13 efficiency, potentially increasing the cost per trip. 14 15 Commissioner Peterson expressed support for the program’s value for residents with limited 16 transportation options and asked whether staff could provide utilization metrics, including 17 overall usage levels and driver idle time. Nathan Baird stated that service efficiency metrics 18 were provided by Via, which noted that PAL performs well compared to similar services. 19 Approximately 3.1 to 3.2 rides per service hour and seat occupancy above 50 percent had been 20 reported, indicating strong utilization. While prior shuttle services had higher daily ridership, 21 they also had greater unused seat capacity. Commissioner Peterson stated that the service was 22 clearly being used and would be missed if discontinued, noting that it serves a specific 23 community need. Commissioner Peterson suggested that the program could be particularly 24 beneficial for certain workers, such as community health nurses, to support access to in-home 25 care services. 26 27 Vice Chair Chang asked whether the TFCA grants are limited to microtransit or shuttle services, 28 or whether they could also be used to subsidize TNC trips such as Uber and Lyft. Nathan Baird 29 responded that the TFCA program is flexible and can support rideshare and bicycle/pedestrian 30 programs, with the primary objective of reducing vehicle miles traveled. Vice Chair Chang asked 31 whether Santa Clara County’s paratransit service overlaps with the Palo Alto's service for riders 32 with disabilities. Nathan Baird responded that while the populations served are similar, the 33 services differ. County paratransit is typically scheduled in advance and often used for medical 34 trips with door-to-door assistance, whereas PAL offers broader, on-demand trips for activities 35 such as social visits and errands and does not provide door-to-door service. Vice Chair Chang 36 inquired whether eligibility for paratransit services is more limited and whether all wheelchair 37 users would qualify for paratransit. Nathan Baird clarified that eligible riders may not use 38 paratransit regularly due to advance booking requirements. County paratransit services may 39 also be used for trips such as to the grocery store. 40 41 Commissioner James stated concern regarding the cost efficiency of the service compared to 42 private ride-hailing options like Uber, Lyft, and Waymo. Commissioner James asked staff to 43 identify drawbacks of shifting funding from the current service to private ride-hailing subsidies, 44 questioning whether lower-cost trips combined with VTA paratransit for wheelchair access 1 would adequately address service gaps. Nathan Baird outlined key considerations distinguishing 2 the PAL service from private ride-hailing, noting greater City control over fares, driver vetting, 3 branding, and stop locations. User trust and safety benefits were emphasized, particularly for 4 youth. The importance of the funding partnership with SRP was highlighted, which subsidizes 5 approximately 35 to 40 percent of monthly costs and improves overall efficiency while reducing 6 reliance on City funds. Nathan Baird also noted that most of the service fleet consists of electric 7 vehicles, with 7 EVs and 2 hybrid wheelchair-accessible vehicles, and stated that the City does 8 not have comparable control over vehicle emissions when using private TNC services. 9 10 Commissioner Ji asked for clarification regarding the diagram on Packet Page 131 and whether 11 it reflects trip origins and destinations or general service usage. Nathan Baird explained that the 12 map illustrates the distribution of trip origins across the service area, with darker shading 13 indicating higher trip activity. The map demonstrates the coverage-based nature of 14 microtransit, with activity patterns varying over time. Reduced VTA bus service to the City since 15 2020 reflects lower ridership at the edge of the county. Commissioner Ji asked whether staff 16 has data on frequent origin-and-destination pairs, noting that such information could inform 17 potential shuttle-routing decisions. Nathan Baird responded that while origin-and-destination 18 data is available, trip patterns are highly dispersed across the City, making fixed-route shuttle 19 design challenging. Via has provided analytical support and offered a number of services to 20 assist. 21 22 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Alex V., a Palo Alto resident, expressed strong support for Palo Alto Link, 23 citing its affordability, reliability, and accessibility for people with disabilities. The commenter 24 stated that PAL offers substantially better service and value than ride-hailing and county 25 paratransit options based on personal experience with his disabled child. The commenter 26 requested that coaches or caregivers accompanying persons with disabilities be allowed to ride 27 at the disabled fare. 28 29 Commissioner Templeton acknowledged the public comment and asked how many rides were 30 provided for the $4.7M expenditure. Nathan Baird reported approximately 3,000 to 6,000 rides 31 per month and about 137,000 total rides since the service launched. Commissioner Templeton 32 confirmed that the $4.7M represents an annual operating cost and commented that 33 comparable funding could purchase approximately 14,000 VTA senior annual passes, 34 questioning whether existing transit options such as VTA or the Stanford Marguerite could 35 meet the City’s transit goals if Palo Alto Link were discontinued. Commissioner Templeton 36 wondered whether the City could leverage funding to influence service frequency or quality for 37 seniors, students, and people with disabilities. Nathan Baird responded that Palo Alto Link has 38 limited overlap with the Stanford Marguerite and noted uncertainty regarding whether 39 Stanford would reinstate shuttle service if Palo Alto Link were discontinued. Staff also stated 40 that student school trips have been actively discouraged pursuant to City Council direction, in 41 an effort to encourage walking, biking, and riding school buses. Commissioner Templeton 42 opined that private ride-hailing services would not be a viable alternative due to cost. 43 44 Commissioner Peterson stated that PAL serves a critical function that is not fully addressed by 1 existing bus or rail service, noting that ridership patterns indicate it fills gaps in the transit 2 network. Commissioner Peterson emphasized the program’s community and environmental 3 benefits, including use of electric vehicles, and expressed opposition to discontinuing the 4 service. It was suggested to explore more contributions from Stanford given its current 5 participation. Commissioner Peterson proposed exploring whether businesses could provide 6 PAL vouchers as part of TDM programs, potentially in exchange for reduced parking 7 requirements, and noted this approach may be particularly applicable to medical centers. 8 Transportation Planning Manager Sylvia Star-Lack stated that because PAL is a pilot and subject 9 to potential wind-down, staff has been hesitant to incorporate it into TDM programs and is not 10 relying on it for new or ongoing TDM commitments at this time. Commissioner Peterson stated 11 that the key issue is identifying a funding bridge, noting that if the program proves viable, 12 additional funding sources, including Stanford contributions and TDM funding, could potentially 13 be leveraged. 14 15 Vice Chair Chang wanted to discuss the program costs and asked for clarification on the net cost 16 to the City after accounting for grant funding and Stanford contributions. Nathan Baird stated 17 that initial annual operating costs for the PAL service were approximately $1.8M and that the 18 City’s net contribution has been less than 10 percent over the 2.5 years of the pilot program. 19 Nathan Baird reiterated that the program has up to $250,000 in the general fund, which is the 20 cost to the City for this year, and added that City expenditures this year are expected to be 21 minimal. Over the full 2.5-year pilot period through June 2026, the City’s total cost was 22 anticipated to be 5 percent or less. Vice Chair Chang asked how much General Fund support 23 would be required if the program were continued into the next year. Nathan Baird reported 24 that current monthly expenditures range from approximately $85,000 to $95,000, reflecting 25 efforts to reduce costs in response to grant expiration and City Council direction. Annual 26 operating costs decreased from approximately $1.5M in the first full fiscal year to about $1.2M 27 in the following year and remain at a similar level currently. Vice Chair Chang asked for 28 clarification on the level of City funding that City Council is unwilling to commit to continuing 29 the program. Chief Transportation Official Ria Hutabarat Lo responded that during City Council 30 deliberations, the extent of Stanford’s subsidy was unclear and that City Council was not willing 31 to commit approximately $1.1M in City funding. 32 33 Vice Chair Chang admitted she had initially misunderstood the City’s actual cost exposure, 34 noting that the full program cost does not reflect the net City contribution. Vice Chair Chang 35 questioned the cost of serving only vulnerable populations and whether subsidizing private 36 ride-hailing for those users would be more cost effective. Vice Chair Chang clarified that 37 Stanford’s contribution cannot be redirected to other transit subsidies, such as VTA passes, and 38 stated that this distinction helped resolve her earlier confusion. Vice Chair Chang expressed 39 concerns about the long-term viability of the service as a public transportation mode, citing 40 reliability limitations, intentional exclusion of student trips, and high per-trip costs. Vice Chair 41 Chang questioned whether the level of subsidy is justified given the limited scale of ridership 42 and uncertain benefits in reducing vehicles on the streets, while acknowledging the value of 43 conducting the pilot. Vice Chair Chang explained that her earlier consideration of alternative 44 approaches, such as paratransit combined with subsidized ride-hailing for vulnerable 1 populations, was based on an incomplete understanding of the City’s net cost. Vice Chair Chang 2 acknowledged that the program is currently heavily subsidized by external funding and stated 3 concern that the service may not fully meet its stated goals, emphasizing the need to identify 4 more effective ways to serve vulnerable populations. 5 6 Vice Chair Chang asked how the service currently identifies whether a rider is a senior, person 7 with a disability, or member of a vulnerable population, and whether rider eligibility is verified 8 or based on an honor system. Nathan Baird explained that riders self-identify eligibility through 9 the app or booking agent by selecting discounted fares, and that eligibility is not verified. 10 Required means testing has been discussed with Via but would add cost and could create 11 barriers to access. Vice Chair Chang stated that the explanation was helpful and noted that 12 reliance on self-identification avoids administrative burden that would arise if the City were to 13 verify eligibility for subsidized service. 14 15 Commissioner Hechtman stated that while Palo Alto Link is a worthwhile concept, the 16 expiration of pilot funding raises questions about long-term financial feasibility and City 17 Council's willingness to provide ongoing General Fund support. Commissioner Hechtman 18 emphasized that public transit is inherently subsidized and noted concerns about limited 19 prospects for continued grant funding. Commissioner Hechtman recommended narrowing the 20 program’s focus to the most vulnerable populations, particularly low-income riders and certain 21 individuals with disabilities, and expressed that higher-income users should be excluded. 22 Commissioner Hechtman suggested evaluating the most cost-efficient ways moving forward 23 with and without Stanford's participation. 24 25 Commissioner Ji shared a personal perspective, noting long-standing use of multiple transit 26 options in Palo Alto, including shuttles, buses, biking, and other services, and emphasized that a 27 range of existing transit services has historically supported mobility throughout the City. 28 Commissioner Ji noted that existing VTA routes serve areas somewhat similar to those 29 previously covered by the Crosstown shuttle. Commissioner Ji observed that some users, 30 including students, may have alternative transportation options and may not be significantly 31 impacted if the service were discontinued. It was noted that a portion of current riders could 32 likely shift to walking or biking, while emphasizing that considerations for vulnerable 33 populations should be evaluated separately. 34 35 Commissioner Ji asked for clarification on the scope of the TFCA grant, including what types of 36 programs it can fund and examples of how other cities have used the grant. Nathan Baird 37 responded that the TFCA supports a broad range of projects, from capital improvements to 38 programs, and directed the Commission to the TFCA's website for examples from other 39 jurisdictions. Ria Hutabarat Lo added that TFCA grants have supported projects such as bicycle 40 facilities, bike racks, and signal modifications in other cities, noting that eligible uses include 41 initiatives that reduce emissions. Commissioner Ji wanted to know whether TFCA grants could 42 be used to subsidize TNC trips. Nathan Baird responded that it could be possible. Ria Hutabarat 43 Lo stated that eligibility would likely depend on demonstrating emissions reduction benefits 44 and may require limiting subsidies to pooled TNC trips rather than single-occupancy rides. 1 Commissioner Ji pointed out that the TFCA grant amount discussed is approximately $450,000 2 and suggested that subsidizing pooled TNC trips for vulnerable populations could potentially be 3 fully funded through TFCA, resulting in no direct City cost and may not require Stanford's 4 participation. 5 6 Commissioner Templeton questioned whether using TFCA funds for this program would limit 7 the City’s ability to use those funds for other eligible projects, such as bicycle or signal 8 improvements. Ria Hutabarat Lo explained that TFCA funding is awarded through a competitive 9 grant process and that the City may apply for multiple projects. The current TFCA funding is 10 dedicated to the PAL program, and applications for other projects could be pursued in future 11 cycles. Commissioner Templeton agreed with Commissioner Ji's comments regarding user 12 adaptability and encouraged staff to pursue TFCA funding for other City transportation projects 13 if the program is discontinued. Commissioner Templeton emphasized the importance of 14 exposing residents, particularly younger people, to a range of public transit options and 15 encouraged the City to advocate for expanded and more user-friendly VTA service. 16 Commissioner Templeton noted that while the PAL program has been well received, its cost 17 necessitates evaluating other viable transit solutions. Commissioner Templeton acknowledged 18 that the underlying transportation needs will persist regardless of the program’s outcome, 19 expressed appreciation for staff’s leadership in addressing these challenges, and emphasized 20 that evaluating alternatives should not be interpreted as a lack of recognition for the work done 21 on Palo Alto Link. 22 23 Commissioner Peterson expressed optimism about the program’s future and suggested that 24 subsidized rideshare may represent a long-term transit solution. Commissioner Peterson asked 25 whether ridership has increased year over year and whether usage has grown significantly since 26 the program’s launch. Nathan Baird stated that although he did not have exact numbers, 27 ridership has experienced steady growth throughout the duration of the program. Via 28 Transportation Vice President of Partnerships Tom Shukareff stated that ridership 29 approximately doubled between years 1 and 2 and noted that continued growth was limited by 30 funding constraints. Commissioner Peterson felt that the reported doubling of ridership 31 indicates strong growth and potential long-term viability and asked about initial startup costs, 32 specifically whether the leased electric vehicle fleet required significant upfront capital and 33 whether it reduces ongoing maintenance costs. Nathan Baird confirmed the vehicles were 34 obtained with upfront capital and are lower cost to maintain. Commissioner Peterson stated 35 that startup costs have already been incurred and that current data reflects initial 36 implementation rather than long-term operating costs, noting that the program is now entering 37 a growth phase with different cost dynamics. 38 39 Commissioner Templeton asked staff to clarify whether reported costs in the staff report 40 reflected only startup expenses or ongoing operations. Nathan Baird clarified that 41 approximately $91,000 in startup costs were incurred and that vehicle leases and maintenance 42 are included in ongoing monthly operating costs. Commissioner Templeton confirmed that no 43 prepaid costs remain and that all expenses are reflected in current projections. 44 1 Chair Akin asked whether staff had information on funding models for comparable services in 2 nearby cities. Nathan Baird responded that similar programs rely on a mix of City contributions 3 and partnership funding. Those programs also face viability challenges. Nathan Baird noted that 4 while Palo Alto Link has a lower cost per trip, it does so with trade-offs such as higher wait 5 times and occasional seat unavailability. Chair Akin observed that partner agencies appear to 6 show limited support for fixed-route systems and asked whether staff is aware of the reasons 7 those agencies moved away from prior fixed-route systems. 8 9 Nathan Baird stated that in 2017 through 2019 fixed route ridership had been falling. Transit 10 was currently at a fiscal cliff across the Bay area. There were fewer subsidies. Palo Alto had 11 discontinued shuttles at the same time Stanford had. 12 13 Chair Akin was trying to carve the problems down into smaller problems. The geometry of 14 demand suggested that the fixed-route system was no longer viable. The high density areas 15 were not necessarily good nodes on a route. A point-to-point system needed to be part of the 16 adopted solutions. Whether it would be TNC-based depended on a lot of the issues already 17 discussed. The service area limitations could be eliminated. If service area limitations were 18 preventing Link from acquiring more ridership, it would not be a problem faced by TNCs. 19 Subsidizing TNCs might be a more effective solution. Chair Akin was not necessarily advocating 20 for dynamic pricing but asked if it had been considered. Future driver vetting might not be a 21 concern if driverless services like Waymo succeeded but there should be other solutions for the 22 special needs community. 23 24 Nathan Baird had not considered dynamic pricing. 25 26 Vice Chair Chang explained there was a need for route-based public transportation but it 27 depended on the City’s goals and the willingness to pay. Vice Chair Chang discussed start-up 28 cost and capacity and did not find it to be a viable system. 29 30 Commissioner Templeton found routes to be viable. Commissioner Templeton addressed the 31 image on Packet Page 131 and pointed out desirable destinations for a bus route. The question 32 was whether the route could be served frequently enough. It should be determined how often 33 shuttles should run as it would help in looking at alternatives if the program should be 34 discontinued. 35 36 Commissioner Peterson did not think there would be an intersection between ridership and 37 cost as the cost reduced over time, although it would be close. Commissioner Peterson 38 considered it to be a good business model as capacity was increasing and start-up costs had 39 already been incurred. 40 41 Commissioner Ji voiced that paratransit for North County should be investigated as they should 42 be better served. 43 44 Commissioner Hechtman asked if a motion was needed to give staff direction. 1 2 Nathan Baird replied that 6 months remained for the pilot program. There could be an attempt 3 to provide service to vulnerable users. Nathan Baird requested feedback on the 6-month 4 timeline and the $456K being spread over 6 to 18 months. Staff had heard that general usage 5 was not very important but partnership money was important. There had been conversations 6 with potential partners who were receiving the subsidy and the conversation could be more 7 pointed now. Nathan Baird would incorporate the feedback as it related to options and provide 8 it to Council. 9 10 Chair Akin noted that it would be difficult to form a consensus motion given the options and the 11 tradeoffs. 12 13 Ria Hutabarat Lo would be comfortable presenting just the comments to Council if a motion 14 was difficult. 15 16 Commissioner Templeton commented that the pilot had provided the needs data, which could 17 be analyzed and used for many things. The timeline should take into account the time needed 18 to continue to gather needed data. Commissioner Templeton wanted Council to direct staff to 19 gather additional information that would be useful to the program. Commissioner Templeton 20 was sympathetic to the needed funding but long-term programs would drive funding for future 21 programs. 22 23 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer declared that a motion was not required. 24 25 [The Commission took a 15-minute break] 26 27 4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Provide Feedback and 28 Recommend the Draft Plan to the City Council for Adoption. CEQA Status: Exempt 29 Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.20. 30 31 Senior Planner Ozzy Arce was seeking a formal recommendation from the PTC that Council 32 adopt the 2026 BPTP Update. An overview of the project was provided. An update was needed 33 to address new community needs, new technologies and sustainability and safety goals. The 34 update established a 10-year strategy for investments, policies and programs specifically for 35 biking and pedestrian facilities in Palo Alto. Staff was in Phase 4 – public review of the draft 36 plan. It was anticipated that staff would go to Council in December and in early 2026 to receive 37 plan adoption. Ozzy Arce spoke of the feedback received and safety was the top priority and 38 there was a desire for a seamless, connected network. In Phase 2, the community asked that 39 critical gaps be addressed and key corridors be prioritized. There was mixed feedback in Phase 40 3. The community questioned the cost and return on investment for big streets projects and 41 expressed a strong desire for pedestrian-focused recommendations and a clear prioritization 42 framework. In June, a 2-step prioritization framework was developed and to address feedback 43 to further refine the framework, staff had created a supplemental evaluation. Staff balanced 1 the aspirational goals based on the projects fundability, readiness and support. 2 3 Ozzy Arce stated the draft BPTP update was released to the public on October 3. The 4 comprehensive document included many chapters but the core chapter was the 5 recommendations chapter, which detailed the proposed bike network for 2026 and the 6 pedestrian districts moving forward and it highlighted the near near-term projects that would 7 guide work for the next 10 years. Ozzy Arce discussed some of the points received from the 8 public and how they were incorporated into the draft plan. The lane mile data had not 9 decreased between 2012 and 2025 but the differences were due to the calculation method. 10 Ozzy Acre highlighted how 2026 was different from 2012. The complete vision was aspirational, 11 not guaranteed. In the near term, the focus would be on developing the low-stress bicycle 12 network, which was the foundation for citywide connectivity. There would be some separated 13 bikeway projects along small portions of large arterials to make connections between high-14 comfort, low-stress facilities on either side of an arterial. The 10-year action plan included 16 15 projects, 23 crossing projects and other key studies. Table 9 outlined the prioritized near-term 16 projects. Although there were hundreds of projects planned for the complete vision, the focus 17 was on the near-term projects. 18 19 Ozzy Arce noted that pedestrian districts would also be developed. The plan provided 20 treatment recommendations by district. The toolbox of pedestrian improvements was not a 21 complete list. The important part was implementation as adoption of the plan would only be 22 the beginning. The BPTP provided the network and policy foundation. Projects would then 23 move into implementation through the standard CIP process with project scoping, design, 24 engineering and construction. There would be community engagement at every step. Ozzy Arce 25 outlined some of the feedback received during the draft plan presentation. The feedback 26 aligned with the plan's focus on low-stress and the input could be incorporated. The points 27 would be presented to Council and a recommendation on which element to move forward 28 would be requested. PABAC wanted to establish formal and direct communication among the 29 Committee, the PTC and Council, which staff was working on and PABAC was broadly open to 30 restructuring. Staff requested that PTC recommend that Council adopt the draft plan. The 31 public comment period would close end of day on November 14. Staff would present the draft 32 plan to Council as a study session on December 1. In early 2026, staff would incorporate 33 Council’s feedback and produce a final plan that would be presented to Council for adoption in 34 early 2026. 35 36 PUBLIC COMMENTS 37 Ken J. was generally happy with the draft plan and requested that the PTC ask Council to adopt 38 it. Ken J. questioned what Attachments B and C might look like if latent demand were done 39 differently and why Wilton Avenue was listed on a high-injury network. Ken J. advocated for all 40 multifamily residential blocks having road verge treatment and for a 20 mph speed limit on 41 Bicycle Boulevard. 42 43 Tom K. supported the plan overall. Tom K. had submitted written comments related to the 1 intersection of Embarcadero, Kingsley and Emerson not being on the near-term projects list and 2 encouraged the PTC to review the Transportation Department’s plan addressing that 3 intersection. Tom K. requested that restricting traffic turning from Embarcadero onto 4 northbound Bryant be reevaluated as it could redirect traffic to Emerson Street. 5 6 Commissioner Templeton requested that staff respond to the comment related to the Emerson, 7 Kingsley and Embarcadero intersection. Commissioner Templeton was generally happy with the 8 plan. Commissioner Templeton inquired how project success was being measured. 9 10 Ria Hutabarat Lo answered that the Emerson, Kingsley and Embarcadero intersection was an 11 active project and Public Works was waiting for an available project manager. 12 13 Ozzy Arce replied that general performance measures were used to measure project success. 14 15 Commissioner Templeton requested that staff use available technology to measure project 16 success. There should be overall improvement in safety, not just collisions but incidents that 17 might not be reported. Commissioner Templeton hoped staff would request funding for such in 18 the coming years. 19 20 Vice Chair Chang was excited about the plan overall. Vice Chair Chang inquired if the pedestrian 21 districts were aligned with the pedestrian overlays. 22 23 Ozzy Arce replied that the pedestrian districts followed boundary lines from the City’s adopted 24 Economic Development Strategic Plan, which focused on areas with high pedestrian activity. 25 26 Vice Chair Chang requested that the City's pedestrian overlay zones be taken into account. Vice 27 Chair Chang referenced Attachment C and the comment related to Embarcadero Road and 28 asked if arterials would be avoided where possible. 29 30 Ozzy Arce replied that the full Embarcadero Road bike lane was not on the near-term projects 31 list and the near-term projects were priorities. It was on the complete list as an option for 32 future consideration. However, the study was a high priority. 33 34 Vice Chair Chang suggested adjusting the description of the Embarcadero Road corridor study 35 on Attachment C. The Cowper Bike Boulevard should be a lower priority among the high-36 priority projects. Vice Chair Chang did not agree with removing parking on El Camino Way. 37 38 Commissioner Peterson queried what the plan was for the bridge behind the Caltrain parking 39 lot and where it ranked in the priorities and if the end of California Avenue at the Caltrain 40 Station could be developed as there were many restaurants, bars, etc., and Caltrain riders 41 should be directed there. 42 43 Ozzy Arce replied that there was a vision to utilize the existing facility as an opportunity site. 1 The near-term list was not ranked. 2 3 Commissioner Hechtman enthusiastically supported the plan and asked if the plan should be 4 called 2.0 instead of an update. Commissioner Hechtman noted that the San Antonio Road 5 separated bikeway would be the most expensive in the near-term plan and it had some lead 6 time, so he wondered if it would be an appropriate place for an assessment district. 7 8 Manager Transportation Planning Sylvia Star-Lack noted that San Antonio Road Area Plan would 9 look into implementation, funding, assessment districts, etc. The recommendation in this 10 document would be moved forward as part of that planning. 11 12 Commissioner Templeton suggested calling this plan the 2026 BPTP as it was important to 13 include the year. Commissioner Templeton appreciated that El Camino Way was included but 14 work might need to be done with SRTS to make the other avenue an acceptable route to 15 parents. 16 17 Commissioner Ji suggested adding the addendum that was provided in the slide deck to the 18 table on Packet Page 139. Commissioner Ji requested clarification of Boulevard 24 as Packet 19 Page 148 referenced only the portion from Castilleja to Lambert but the description in the 20 presentation referenced the Castilleja-Park-Wilkie section. 21 22 Ozzy Arce answered that initially Boulevard 24 only included Park Boulevard. After public 23 comment, staff added a section of Castilleja to Wilkie to the Mountain View city limit line to the 24 project. Mountain View also had plans for that section that Palo Alto could try to build from. 25 26 Commissioner Ji noted that BPTP Page 19 and the near-term improvement projects indicated 27 that the Park Boulevard pink dotted line went all the way to Arastradero but in the description 28 it was Castilleja-Park-Wilkie, so Commissioner Ji asked what the path would be and why James 29 Road was listed as part of the bike boulevard on the BPTP map. Commissioner Ji spoke to 30 SB_11a on Packet Page 147 and inquired why that part of Middlefield was included. 31 32 Ozzy Arce explained where the path cut-in would be in regard to Park Boulevard, Arastradero 33 and Castilleja-Park-Wilkie. A section of Middlefield was being proposed in response to Council’s 34 feedback and to drive connections between 2 low-stress facilities on either side. 35 36 Sylvia Star-Lack answered that James Road was a connector to El Camino Way. 37 38 Commissioner Ji suggested using Bryant to facilitate the connection to Menlo Park. 39 40 Ria Hutabarat Lo stated there were multiple safety issues to address on the Menlo side, not just 41 bicycle access. 42 43 Commissioner Ji felt that having more bike infrastructure there would encourage more usage so 1 there could be more collisions. Commissioner Ji addressed SB_12 and queried if bicycles would 2 travel both directions on Homer between Alma and Bryant. Traffic was potentially dangerous 3 around Whole Foods. Commissioner Ji did not consider Cowper a priority. 4 5 Ozzy Arce replied that bicycles would travel both directions on Homer. The infrastructure was 6 already set up. 7 8 Commissioner James supported a 20 mph limit, 4-way stops at Lincoln and Bryant and making 9 El Camino Way and the Gunn pathway to school safer. 10 11 Chair Akin enthusiastically recommended this move ahead. Chair Akin provided an example of 12 there being confusion between the definition of the project and how implementation would be 13 handled. For example, if northbound turns should be restricted from Embarcadero onto Bryant, 14 the traffic would go somewhere else. Chair Akin questioned at what point in the process 15 consequences would be dealt with and if they could result in modification of the project. 16 Diverting traffic to a children’s heavily used bike route might be an issue. If during the 17 engineering study process for making changes to Bryant it should be discovered that traffic 18 calming was needed on Waverley, Chair Akin would want to know that the process used would 19 accommodate such other considerations so that the definition of the project would not be the 20 be-all and end-all, that there would be further analysis going into the implementation. It was a 21 general issue that would apply to this and other projects. Chair Akin addressed policies and 22 programs on Page 96 and suggested that TDM enforceability be added to the paragraph. Chair 23 Akin asked if there were opportunities to pursue cooperation with way-finding providers to 24 encourage them to favor particular bike or pedestrian routes and to disfavor particular vehicle 25 routes. 26 27 Vice Chair Chang requested that Middlefield to San Antonio be safer for bicyclists or, at least, 28 that it be safer going around to Fabian. 29 30 Sylvia Star-Lack voiced that the San Antonio Road Area Plan was looking at enhancing safety 31 there. 32 33 Vice Chair Chang suggested that something be included about the connection because it was on 34 the map as a priority project. It would render the San Antonio Class 4 bikeway much more 35 useful. It was more important than Cowper. 36 37 Commissioner Ji was excited about the Quarry Road Transit Project and there being stronger 38 connections to the mall. Commissioner Ji suggested that the separated bikeway on East/West 39 Meadow not be concrete on both sides. Commissioner Ji shared photos of illegal parking on El 40 Camino Way related to Palo Alto Commons and provided an example of a route that would be 41 safer for children. 42 43 Commissioner Templeton stated the route Commissioner Ji outlined might not be preferred 1 because there was no stop sign. 2 3 Commissioner Ji responded there was no stop sign but there was a signal light. In the BPTP time 4 frame, the aforementioned route could be the best one. In conjunction with the improvements, 5 cross traffic stopping for bicyclists should be considered instead of bicyclists stopping for cross 6 traffic. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton questioned if the Meadow improvements were in the same area 9 where there had been a recent severe injury. Commissioner Templeton wanted to ensure that 10 there would be a protected lane for students so they could ride beside each other and that cars 11 making left turns would not be able to use the bike lane. 12 13 Sylvia Star-Lack replied that the South Palo Alto Bikeway Project was on East Meadow from 14 Alma to Fabian. There would be a separated bike lane. 15 16 Chair Akin stated the pedestrian component of the plan was underappreciated. Chair Akin 17 questioned what was intended for walking activity referenced on Page 50. It was noted that 18 most walking trips were under 5 minutes with a mean of 11 and a median of 7. If the median 19 was 7, it was not possible for most trips to be under 5. Chair Akin referenced Page 100 and 20 questioned if the intent of the language was to allow crossing at completely random places by 21 decriminalizing it or explicitly encouraging it. If so, Chair Akin would worry about the safety 22 implications. If not, the language should be changed. On Page 108, the description of Project 23 Intersection 05 referenced California Avenue and it should have been University. Chair Akin 24 asked how the annual commute mode share on Page 29 was measured. 25 26 Kittelson & Associates, Inc., Amanda Leahy would recheck the numbers related to walking trips 27 but thought the overall intent was to say the average walking trip was a short distance. 28 29 Ozzy Arce would look into the language on Page 100. 30 31 Sylvia Star-Lack replied that normally the census data for commute to work was used to 32 measure the annual commute mode share. If specifically looking at bikes, the SRTS for school 33 data was also used. 34 35 MOTION 36 37 Vice Chair Chang moved the staff recommendation that the PTC recommend Council adopt the 38 plan. 39 40 SECOND 41 42 Commissioner Templeton seconded the motion. 43 1 VOTE MOTION 2 3 The clerk conducted a roll call vote. 4 5 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Commissioner James, Commissioner Hechtman, Commissioner 6 Templeton, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, Vice Chair Chang, Chair Akin) 7 Ozzy Arce was excited to present the item to Council. 8 9 Chair Akin was looking forward to a quick approval. 10 11 5. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 12 Minutes of September 6, 2025. 13 14 PUBLIC COMMENTS 15 16 There were no comments. 17 18 MOTION 19 20 Chair Akin moved to approve the minutes as revised. 21 22 SECOND 23 24 Commissioner Ji seconded the motion. 25 26 VOTE MOTION 27 28 The clerk conducted a roll call vote. 29 30 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Commissioner Templeton, Commissioner Peterson, Commissioner 31 Templeton, Commissioner James, Commissioner Hechtman, Vice Chair Chang, Chair Akin) 32 6. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 33 Minutes of September 10, 2025. 34 35 PUBLIC COMMENTS 36 37 There were no comments. 38 39 MOTION 40 1 Chair Akin moved to approve the minutes as revised. 2 3 SECOND 4 5 Commissioner Ji seconded the motion. 6 7 VOTE MOTION 8 9 The clerk conducted a roll call vote. 10 11 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Commissioner Templeton, Commissioner Peterson, Commissioner 12 James, Commissioner Ji, Vice Chair Chang, Chair Akin) (Commissioner Hechtman abstained) 13 14 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR ANNOUNCEMENTS 15 16 Commissioner Templeton inquired if smaller envelopes could be used for small attachments. 17 18 Jennifer Armer wanted to be cautious about discussing items that were not on the agenda but 19 smaller envelopes could be used. 20 21 Vice Chair Chang thanked Jennifer Armer and staff for the information related to 660 University 22 that was in Council’s packet on November 10. It was a very accurate representation of PTC’s 23 discussion. 24 25 Commissioner Peterson announced that the Water District’s Independent Monitoring 26 Committee was preparing to start reviewing the Water District’s bond and all the projects and 27 to make public comment in the next few weeks. 28 29 Commissioner Ji mentioned there was a youth group through the Sustainability Department 30 that had a mobility subgroup that encouraged students to bike and walk more. Commissioner Ji 31 wanted to know if there were any other youth-related activities through the City and, if so, to 32 learn more about them in order to encourage more youth participation. 33 ADJOURNMENT 34 35 Chair Akin adjourned the meeting at 10:32 p.m. 36