2026-09-30 - Planning & Transportation Commission Regular Meeting

16:20Everyone like to call to order this

16:22regular meeting of the Planning and

16:23Transportation Commission for September

16:2630th, 2026. Mr. Tber, could you please

16:29take the role?

16:30>> Yes. Uh, Chair Chang,

16:31>> here. Uh, Vice Chair G here.

16:35Um, Commissioner Aken,

16:42>> we have a technical difficulty, so let's

16:44hang on for

16:44>> here with a non- workinging mic.

16:46>> Yes. Um, Commissioner Hecman

16:48>> here with a working mic.

16:50>> Yeah. Uh, Commissioner James,

16:52>> uh, here.

16:52>> Commissioner Tleton

16:54>> here.

16:54>> And then I did want to note, uh, I

16:56believe, uh, Vice Chair G will have to

16:58make a brief announcement.

17:00>> Yeah. Um I am participating remotely

17:05for the fourth time this year and I have

17:07no other adults in the room with me.

17:10>> Uh and chair we have quorum.

17:12>> Great. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any

17:15agenda changes, additions, and

17:17deletions? Assistant Director Armor?

17:19>> No, we do not.

17:21>> Wonderful. Okay. So, now is the time for

17:24in-person public comment on items that

17:27are not on the agenda. Do we have any

17:29raised hands or speaker cards?

17:33>> Uh to the chair, I have not received any

17:35comment cards for general public

17:36comment. If there's any members of the

17:38public that would like to speak to this

17:39item, uh please submit a card. Any

17:41members on Zoom, uh please raise your

17:43hand.

17:45>> We do not.

17:46>> Okay, great. Assistant Director Armor,

17:48could you start us off with the city

17:50official reports?

17:52>> Yes, absolutely. And and good evening.

17:54Welcome everyone. Um, I'll get us

17:57started. Just uh look ahead to future

18:01planning and transportation commission

18:02meetings on our next slide here. So,

18:05your next scheduled meeting is October

18:0814th. We have scheduled two items. A

18:11discussion of parking programs update

18:13and downtown parking modernization

18:15initiatives as well as consideration of

18:19a use permit amendment for the Peloalto

18:22Museum at 300 Homer Avenue. on October

18:2628th. We are currently scheduled to have

18:28two items, a discussion of the Corey

18:30Road Transit Connection and the a zoning

18:35text amendment that affects the property

18:37at 51 and Cena in regards to historic um

18:41transfer development rights and

18:43expansion. Also, please note that as an

18:46attachment B to the director's report in

18:49your packet, we did include a list of

18:52the expected dates for your meetings in

18:542027. So, as usual, for the remainder

18:58meetings of of this year and those for

19:00next year, if you are already aware of

19:03travel plans, for example, let staff

19:05know um so that we can be prepared and

19:09um avoid quorum issues at future

19:12meetings. Um, also thank you to those

19:14who have responded already to the

19:17question about a potential special

19:18meeting. We want to make sure that we do

19:20have the capacity as we approach the end

19:22of the year in case we need another

19:24meeting. As usual, we won't have a

19:26special meeting if we don't need it. But

19:28if there's something that's um is time

19:31sensitive, we want to make sure we keep

19:33things moving forward.

19:35And then on the next slide here, we have

19:39council dates either items that have

19:41recently occurred. So on September 9th,

19:44while we were having our most recent PTC

19:46meeting, the council had a special

19:49meeting. They initiated a discussion of

19:52the resoning at 470 Olive Avenue, but uh

19:56continued that for further discussion. I

19:59believe that is scheduled for 10:19 at

20:02this time. And the second reading of the

20:05ADU ordinance was also on consent that

20:08evening. there were some questions and

20:10concerns and so that was pulled from

20:12consent and is currently scheduled to be

20:15discussed um at on October 26th. We will

20:19combine that with a discussion of your

20:21recommendation from that same night

20:23about the potential separate sale of

20:25ADUs. So, uh, bringing that together for

20:28a discussion for council on September

20:3114th, the city council approved the

20:34parking garage at 375 Hamilton Avenue.

20:39And then upcoming on Monday, October

20:425th, the city council is scheduled to

20:45discuss the work plans um as proposed by

20:48four of the commissions and boards and

20:52um will be appointing the new

20:55commissioner for our one vacant seat. Uh

20:57I believe they are actually doing the

20:59interviews right now as we are here in

21:01our meeting. So, um, working to move

21:05forward that so that we'll have a

21:06complete set of seven commissioners. Uh,

21:09and there is no meeting scheduled on

21:12October 12th as that is a city holiday.

21:15With that completes my presentation, but

21:18we do have um Aussie Ors here to speak

21:22on behalf of transportation and give

21:23some updates. Thank you.

21:26>> Thank you, Assistant Director Armor. Uh,

21:28good evening, Chair Chang and

21:30Commissioners. My name is Aussie Ersi,

21:32senior transportation planner uh with

21:34the office of transportation updates for

21:36September 30th, 2026.

21:39Starting uh with project updates. Next

21:42slide, please. Uh for the rail grade

21:44separation project on August 25th and

21:4626, the office hosted two community

21:48meetings at Mitchell Park for the

21:50Charleston Meadow and Church Churchill

21:53grade separation projects. Both meetings

21:55were well attended and team received

21:57valuable feedback on the 15% design. On

22:01September 8th, the rail committee

22:02reviewed the 15% plans and recommended

22:04council advance the plans. And finally,

22:07on September 28th, uh just this past

22:10Monday, uh council reviewed the 15%

22:13plans and unanimously directed staff to

22:16advance the current alternatives to 35%

22:19design. Next slide, please.

22:23Rodeo season is here. A flagship program

22:25for the city's office of transportation.

22:27In midepptember through late October,

22:29the city's safe routes to school program

22:31is bringing second grade pedestrian

22:33safety excursions and third grade bike

22:36rodeos to all 12 elementary schools in

22:38Palo Alto. Thank you to all parent

22:41volunteers, teachers, secretaries,

22:43school PTAs for promoting these

22:45opportunities and encouraging so many

22:47people to volunteer.

22:49We encourage parents and students with

22:51this new school year to visit the city's

22:53safe routes to school web page for

22:55suggested walk and roll maps to your

22:58school. And I believe the link is on the

23:01slide.

23:03Next slide, please. Uh and for other

23:05transportation items, uh parking and an

23:07upcoming community event announcement.

23:10Um for parking, we are thrilled to share

23:13that our city's four new automated

23:15parking guidance systems are getting

23:17ready to go live. very soon at downtown

23:20garages, Alma South, Civic Center,

23:23Copper and Webster, and Bryant and

23:25Linton garages.

23:27If you've been near the garages lately,

23:29you've you've spotted testing underway

23:31and the hardware is fully installed, and

23:34we are currently working through

23:35software configurations.

23:37When drivers arrive, uh exterior matrix

23:40signs will display floor byfloor counts

23:43and total available uh public versus

23:46permit parking at a glance. And once

23:48you're inside, you may have seen this in

23:50other garages, but the interior IO

23:52lights make finding a spot effortless

23:54with green for open, yellow for permit,

23:56and red for occupied.

23:59Uh staff is teaming up with our vendor

24:01to build a data dashboard uh tracking

24:03occupancy trends, and we look forward to

24:05sharing our initial data with the

24:07commission at a future update. And

24:09finally, a quick announcement that we

24:11have bike paloto coming this Sunday,

24:13October 4th, at Fair Meadow School. This

24:15is a community organized event designed

24:18for riders of all ages and abilities to

24:20discover how easy and enjoyable

24:22enjoyable it is to get around town on

24:24two wheels. There are guided maps

24:26available on bikepalto.org's

24:29website and participants are encouraged

24:31to explore many of the Palo Alto parks

24:33and open spaces. Uh Fair Meadow will be

24:36the main hub and there will be fun

24:38interactive booths and activities

24:40throughout the day. So, we encourage the

24:42community uh to join us uh and we want

24:44to see a great turnout for that event.

24:46And I believe that concludes my updates.

24:49Happy to answer any questions. Thank

24:51you.

24:54>> Does anybody have any questions for

24:55staff?

24:58>> U Commissioner Aken,

25:01>> this is for AD Armor. Uh so I'm liazison

25:04to council in October. uh and I have

25:07scheduling constraints, meaning I will

25:09generally not be available after 10:00.

25:12So, uh I don't have a backup.

25:15Uh how should we handle that?

25:18>> We can work through the chair to

25:20designate a backup um if needed for

25:23those. Thank you for letting us know.

25:26>> Thank you.

25:28>> Thanks for bringing that up. Uh okay, no

25:32other questions, comments. All right.

25:34So, we're going to do our first action

25:36item tonight, which is a recommendation

25:38on an ordinance amending various Palo

25:40Alto Municipal Code chapters in Title

25:4316, Title 18, and Title 21. Um, to

25:48replace temporary ordinances

25:49implementing Senate Bill 9 and Senate

25:52Bill 450, and other state housing laws.

25:56Uh, so let's start with a staff

25:57presentation, please.

26:05Good evening. My name is Emily Kalis.

26:07I'm a senior planner in planning and

26:09development services. Next slide.

26:16The ordinance that you are reviewing

26:19tonight is the permanent ordinance um

26:22for an interim ordinance that has been

26:24in place since January 13th, 2025.

26:28The city council adopted interim

26:30ordinance 5645 amending the PaloAlto

26:33municipal code title 1618 and 21 to

26:37implement SB 450 and other state laws

26:41and also as a part of that ordinance

26:44adopted an objective design standard

26:46process to ministerially review twotory

26:49houses. Um that interim ordinance was uh

26:53initially valid for one year but then in

26:56January of this year it was extended

26:57until December 31st.

27:04As a part of um our year and a half of

27:09implementing that ordinance, we

27:11conducted a survey asking both

27:14applicants of individual review uh

27:17single family home applications and

27:20objective design standards projects

27:22which includes um SB9 applications for

27:26feedback on their experience with um the

27:29ordinance. And so the uh survey was sent

27:33to anyone who had applied um and was

27:36listed as the primary applicant in

27:38Asella um within the last two years. Uh

27:42the feedback we received included

27:44support for increased visibility and

27:46awareness of the ODS process and um

27:51supported uh that because the ODS

27:55process is a ministerial review um it

27:58does not have neighbor input. Um and so

28:02as a part of individual review um

28:04neighbors can provide feedback. It is a

28:08subjective process. So there can be

28:10variation from um project to project and

28:14the contextual um neighborhood and other

28:18um items are taken into consideration.

28:21Whereas in the ministerial process

28:24because it is objective and because

28:25every project will be treated um the

28:28same. It um does not have the

28:31opportunity for neighbors to appeal the

28:35decision. However, it also creates

28:37certainty for the applicant and the

28:39neighbors that the same criteria is

28:42being applied to all projects.

28:45Uh the applicant survey also provided

28:48feedback for asking for clarification of

28:51the applicability of the ODS. It is

28:54applicable to any uh new twostory home

28:58or second story edition regardless of if

29:01it is an SP9 project or not. um requests

29:04for illustrations to the objective

29:07design standards. This would be

29:08consistent with um documents that we

29:11have both for the multiple family

29:13objective design standards, individual

29:15review guidelines and uh zoning

29:18technical manual for the R1 zoning

29:20district. Additionally, some specific

29:23changes to individual standards have

29:25been difficult to interpret, comply

29:27with, or um disincentivize the use of

29:31the objective design standards. And so,

29:33um, some of that feedback has been

29:35incorporated into our recommended

29:37changes to the ODS.

29:39Next slide.

29:42>> As stated, this proposed ordinance

29:44incorporates the survey feedback. It

29:46will clarify the process, the ODS

29:49process for twotory houses, make minor

29:51changes to the standards themselves, and

29:54also make permanent other regulations

29:57from ordinance um 5645. the ones that

30:00are unchanged or ones that were, you

30:02know, um, state law requires this that

30:06were just kind of pulled into um,

30:08definition sections and things like

30:09that.

30:15Currently, any two-story home

30:16application may choose to meet the

30:18objective design standards or apply for

30:21individual review. This is um really

30:24what SB450 is about was creating this u

30:28ministerial process. And so um however

30:33currently the zoning code um explains

30:37what individual review is the criteria

30:39how to apply for that and then second to

30:42that says or you can do the objective

30:44design standards. Uh what this is

30:46putting forward is listing the objective

30:48design standards option as the first

30:50option and explaining if you choose not

30:52to meet those standards then you would

30:54go through individual review. Um it also

30:57updates references in other code

30:59sections. Um the IR process is primarily

31:02in chapter 18.12. Um but chapter 1810

31:06and 1813 also include references that um

31:09would need to be updated for

31:11consistency.

31:12Uh the other major change is that this

31:15would add the objective design standards

31:17directly to the code as a development

31:19standard. Um currently it is a separate

31:22document and it can be unclear that both

31:25the 1812 development standards and the

31:28objective design standards apply to uh

31:31these projects.

31:33Another minor change is clarifying for

31:36SB9 projects how ADUs may be used in

31:38combination. There's no change to um

31:43what is allowed but it clarifies um how

31:46and when ADUs are allowed.

31:50>> Next slide.

31:54The changes proposed to the objective

31:56design standards and the urban lots

31:58split standards which are also objective

32:01standards particular to lot splits under

32:04SB9 would streamline review for

32:06applicants and staff. uh remove

32:09redundant and overly restrictive

32:11standards particularly for corner lots

32:13and for oversized lots. It would also

32:16increase usability through uh targeted

32:19changes that I will review in the next

32:21few slides.

32:26Um I thought it would be easiest to go

32:29through the standards that are proposed

32:31to change with um some examples of what

32:34it is shown as on a plan set. Um and so

32:39starting with two standards that would

32:42be proposed to be removed would be um A4

32:47um A5 and A7.

32:50Um

32:52A4 and A7

32:54uh limit the driveway width and garage

32:57width in a manner that essentially

33:01uh limits a project to having a onecar

33:04garage and a one car wide driveway. Um

33:08and so this change would um acknowledge

33:12that that can be overly limiting and

33:15allow for twocar garages

33:18um in locations where they fit. So you

33:23know in some cases um the way that the F

33:28is calculated the garage spaces do count

33:31towards the F. So many applicants do

33:33choose to have a onecar garage for that

33:35reason. Um but this at least gives them

33:37the option to choose. Um in terms of the

33:40screening landscaping, the site plan

33:42shows um that screening landscaping is

33:46required on the interior sides and rear

33:49of the lot. Uh the A5 standard was

33:53separated from the B7 and B8 standards.

33:57So A5 stated that a 2-ft wide planter

34:01strip was required around the perimeter,

34:03but then the details of what went in

34:06that planting strip are in standards B7

34:08and B8. And so this just consolidates it

34:13so that um the screening landscaping

34:16explains what is required and it is

34:18noted that you know your 24 ft box or

34:22your 24in box trees need to be in a

34:2424inch wide uh planter strip.

34:28Next slide.

34:31Uh this shows an example um streetscape

34:34diagram. Again, I included A7 just so

34:37you had an example of what a twocar

34:39garage looks like compared to a onecar

34:42garage. Um, but primarily this slide

34:46would be looking at A11, which is the

34:49changes to roof height for varied roof

34:51pitch and B3 and B4, which is contextual

34:54eve height. So, uh, standard A11 allows

34:59for, um, it limits the maximum height of

35:02the roof relative to the roof pitch. And

35:05so, the intention of this here is that,

35:08um, it tends to be more consistent with

35:11neighborhood development to have lower

35:13roof heights where the roof pitches are

35:16lower. For example, Iller neighborhoods

35:18have very uh, low pitched roofs, and

35:21this takes that into account. and um in

35:25the current standards has a 22 ft height

35:28limit. Um however, some of the feedback

35:30we received was that that in particular

35:33was overly restrictive. We are proposing

35:35to raise it to 23 ft um but keep the

35:38other heights the same uh for the mid

35:41sloped roofs of 25 ft and these steep

35:44sloped roofs of 27 ft.

35:48Uh B3 and B4 also affect how sorry

35:53um how the

35:56roof height is regulated relative to the

35:58neighbors. And so um B3 was for is for

36:03the first story and B4 is for the upper

36:05story stating that the eve height which

36:08is the corners of those roof lines um

36:11must be within a certain distance of the

36:14neighboring two houses on either side.

36:16And so some of the feedback we received

36:19was that you know that can be very

36:20limiting only looking at each house on

36:23either side as opposed to the block in

36:25its wider context. Um additionally we

36:28have A1 which regulates the height

36:31overall as well as um C11 which um

36:36basically either the standard daylight

36:38plane applies or a twoft lower daylight

36:41plane if adjacent to singlestory houses.

36:45And so um those two also help keep the

36:50home in scale with the neighborhood. Um

36:54and so we are proposing to eliminate

36:56standards B3 and B4 um because you know

37:01there are other things regulating the

37:03height. The application of these also

37:05was very unclear for corner lots

37:09um or say other cases where perhaps they

37:12didn't really have an adjacent neighbor.

37:15Next slide.

37:18Another standard we are proposing to

37:21remove from the ODS is um stucco

37:24texture. And so I included an image

37:27here. The standard itself refers to this

37:29technical services information bureau um

37:33document. And so, um,

37:37there are, you know, potentially other

37:40stucco textures that could be

37:42appropriate in PaloAlto and limiting it

37:44to only these two um is overly

37:47restrictive.

37:52>> Next slide. Sorry. Uh, likewise, there

37:55is a standard for window details. Um I

37:59didn't include photos of those in this

38:03particular um set, but it is worth

38:06noting that, you know, when we are

38:07reviewing the plans, we also don't

38:10typically receive photos of the windows

38:12that are going to be chosen. Um a lot of

38:15it is handled through, you know,

38:17architectural details and notes. Um and

38:20so you know this is kind of more um what

38:23we're often reviewing

38:27and similarly the uh details were very

38:31overly prescriptive and limited what

38:34options the homeowners had for um

38:36windows that they could install.

38:40And then a change that may be more

38:43substantial but would be likely to

38:46increase um use of the objective design

38:49standard process is second floor

38:51balconies. So the current um standards

38:55do not allow for rearfacing balconies

38:59which is um something that many uh

39:02individual review applications we review

39:04includes. And so we wanted to create an

39:07option to allow a modestly sized balcony

39:12that would be consistent with the

39:13individual review guidelines. And so,

39:17um, the image shown here with a a

39:21balcony that is well set in from either

39:24side set back as well as the rear

39:26setback and has the 5 and 1/2 uh foot

39:29tall privacy walls on either side uh

39:32would be consistent with what is

39:34currently allowed through individual

39:36review and could be applied in an

39:38objective manner uh through the ODS

39:40process.

39:44And so, uh, staff recommendation is that

39:47the PTC recommend that the city council

39:49adopt the draft ordinance.

39:53Thank you.

39:55>> Thank you very much, Miss Callus. Uh, do

39:58we have any clarifying questions from

40:00the commission

40:02before we take public comment?

40:04No.

40:05>> Oh. Uh, is this a ghost light,

40:07Commissioner?

40:09>> Okay. Sorry.

40:11Uh, okay. with that. Oh, vice chair G

40:14has a question.

40:16>> Thank you, chair. I had a very quick

40:19question. I really appreciate the

40:22compilation of attachment B which is on

40:25packet page 45 which lists basically all

40:30of the uh standards that you've

40:32mentioned. And I also really appreciate

40:35the way in which you've categorized

40:37this. it makes a lot easier for me to

40:38see like A stands for architectural

40:40detail and B stands for second floor

40:43massing etc. So my my question is for

40:47the items in section A for site planning

40:50and architectural detail

40:52are these requirements that already

40:54exist in section A are they already

40:56required for a single family like a

40:59singlestory house or would we be making

41:01these changes such that for a single

41:04family house you would still need to

41:05follow A through A1 through A16 while

41:09for now twotory houses you no longer

41:11need to follow

41:15Currently, all of these standards only

41:17apply to twostory houses. Um, and that

41:22is consistent with how the individual

41:25review guidelines only apply to

41:27two-story houses. Um and so singlestory

41:32houses are required to follow all of the

41:36uh development standards in code section

41:391812040.

41:41And these additional standards for

41:43twostory homes including both section A

41:46and section B um would be included in a

41:51proposed 182045.

41:56>> Okay. um kind of maybe asking a more

41:58detailed like a example. Let's take the

42:02planting strip, right? A5. So for the

42:05planting strip right now, if I were to

42:07build a single like a singlestory house,

42:09would I be required to have a two foot

42:12wide planting strip?

42:16>> You would not. Um and part of the reason

42:19for that is because you would not be

42:20required to have privacy landscaping

42:22between a singlestory house.

42:25Okay, thank you.

42:29>> Any other clarifying questions?

42:32Okay, so then we'll move on to public

42:34comment. Mr. Tber, are there any comment

42:36cards or raised hands online?

42:39>> Uh the chair, I've not received any

42:41public comment cards for this item. If

42:42there's any members on Zoom that would

42:44like to speak to this item, uh please

42:46raise your hand.

42:52And I have no raise hands on Zoom.

42:55>> Okay. Um, Commissioner Templeton said

42:57that she's not sure everybody in the

42:59public knows how to turn in a card. So,

43:02there's a stack of cards behind Mr.

43:03Tivera, and you can grab one of those

43:05cards and fill it out and then bring it

43:06back to Mr. Tivera.

43:08>> All right. Um, so with that, we're going

43:11to bring it back to the commission for

43:13discussion. And how I propose that we go

43:16through this is I'll just kind of go

43:17section by section through the staff

43:19report. And if we all agree with the

43:22staff recommendation, then we won't

43:24discuss that item. And otherwise, we

43:27will kind of take that area and maybe we

43:30can ask all of our specific questions

43:33that relate to that area at that time

43:35when we discuss it. Does that work for

43:37everybody? Uh, Commissioner Templeton.

43:39>> Um, a lot of activity just happened

43:41here. I just want to make sure no public

43:42comments came in.

43:43>> Yeah. And through the chair, uh, the

43:44comment cards submitted are for the next

43:46item.

43:46>> Yeah.

43:47>> Great. Thank you, Commissioner

43:48Templeton. Okay. So the first one um is

43:52on top of packet page 13 where these are

43:56the uh process changes where staff is

43:58proposing that we promote the ODS first

44:02and explain that as an option and then

44:04talk about the IR process. Does anybody

44:06have any objections to that or want to

44:08discuss that?

44:10Okay. So then that will be part of our

44:12recommendation. We will recommend the

44:14staff recommendation there. The second

44:17bucket is objective design standards

44:20changes. And I thought I would look at

44:22the entire bucket of things that staff

44:25suggests be eliminated. So that would be

44:27kind of the bottom twothirds of packet

44:31page 13. Uh so does anybody want to

44:35discuss any of these or have questions

44:36of staff for these? And we've got one

44:38light from Commissioner Aken to start us

44:41off. Ashley, I'm going to postpone

44:43because that light was set before you

44:45proposed the uh reviewed okay

44:48methodology. So, we'll just take that

44:51one off for now.

44:52>> Did you have one because the light's not

44:53working. Okay. So, uh, Commissioner

44:55James,

44:56>> it's just it's very kind of basic

44:58question, but I'm I'm can't tell you how

45:00happy I am to see Stuckco. Like

45:05the the the idea that either my neighbor

45:08or the city had an interest in what kind

45:09of Stuckco finish I would put on my

45:11house is kind of blew my mind. So, but I

45:14guess it goes to the question of I so I

45:16completely agree and applaud uh

45:18eliminating some of these sort of

45:20ownorous um

45:23uh sort of requirements, but I guess

45:25what I'm just curious about is like how

45:28do you how do you draw the line around

45:31what's ownorous? Cuz like some of the

45:32other ones seem like uh a little hard

45:36for me to kind of wrap my mind around

45:37too. But like I I think you I think you

45:39did a good job. I'm just kind of curious

45:41like how how do you decide what what

45:43should be eliminated and what should

45:45still be considered?

45:48>> For a lot of these standards, we do

45:50refer back to the individual review um

45:53guidelines and the houses that we review

45:57through that process. And so through

45:59that um we have an understanding of the

46:03items that kind of do and don't affect

46:06neighborhood character and are

46:09priorities for um neighbors when

46:12individual review projects are being

46:14proposed.

46:17But but I will add that if there are

46:19others that you have seen that that the

46:22planning and transportation commission

46:24wishes to recommend also be removed or

46:27modified um that could be part of the

46:30recommendation.

46:33>> Um so so basically it's like you're

46:35you're kind of not trying to favor um uh

46:39objective design standards over

46:41individual review. You're trying to kind

46:42of match them up a little bit. if I

46:45understood that correctly.

46:46>> I'll jump in on that. I the creation of

46:49the objective standards was based on the

46:52individual review. The choice of which

46:55ones to recommend for removal had to do

46:58with the feedback that we have heard and

47:00kind of the attention that different

47:01things have received over the years. And

47:05so trying to retain some of those

47:08details that we have seen are important

47:11to the community as um these projects

47:14have been reviewed through individual

47:16review um while removing those that that

47:20seem to not have as much of an effect um

47:22to try and simplify. Did I get that?

47:25Yeah.

47:27>> Thank you.

47:29>> Okay. Does anybody have any other

47:30questions or comments regarding these

47:32items that staff is proposing be

47:34eliminated?

47:38Okay. Uh that means that we will go with

47:41the staff recommendation for that bucket

47:42of items as well. Okay. The next area is

47:47on packet page 14 with the italicized

47:49line roof heights. So do we have any

47:53questions

47:54there or comments?

47:59No, please. Commissioner James,

48:01>> I I I think a lot of this is maybe sort

48:03of my inability to kind of uh well, I

48:07see sort of great value in like what

48:09you're doing like streamlining great

48:11more transparency. Love the process, the

48:13feedback from people. So, like I am

48:16really excited about what you're doing.

48:17It makes it easier for everyone uh staff

48:20and and residents who are building. Um I

48:24um I sometimes so I'm I'm I'm completely

48:28in favor of this, but I sometimes kind

48:29of get hung up in the little details of

48:32like why particularly it matters like if

48:35you have a maximum height that you need

48:39different heights for different roof

48:41slopes.

48:42And I'm sure there's a good answer. I

48:44just I just don't know what it is. If

48:48you think about the massing of a

48:52building, right, if it's got a flat

48:54roof, then having a height at 25 ft,

48:59it's going to be a much more substantial

49:02physical presence on the street.

49:04Whereas, if that same overall height

49:08were on a house that was a Victorian

49:11with with tall peaked roofs, the mass of

49:15the walls, the mass of the house is not

49:17going to be as substantial on the

49:19street. And because of that design of

49:22that peaked roof, you want to have the

49:24flexibility to go up higher and still

49:26get normal interior spaces, entry doors,

49:31etc., uh front porches um for that style

49:34of home. So that's why this flexibility

49:37has built been built in to try and have

49:41compatible massing on the street um

49:44while providing the flexibility for

49:46different styles of homes.

49:48>> I get that. So I think the um Yeah. So,

49:52I feel like, you know, this is sort of a

49:54streamline fasttrack process of like

49:56trying to have houses that are mostly

49:58like the other houses on your block. And

50:01I see great value in that. And I guess

50:03there's always a back door that you can

50:04go through individual route review. Um,

50:07I guess it's kind of like where I kind

50:08of trip up is I kind of if you've ever

50:10picked up Architectural Digest, every

50:12house in there is not typical. And so I

50:15kind of I don't want to sort of put the

50:16thumb on the scale and not allow sort of

50:20virtuos virtuous uh

50:23non-typical architecture, but but I

50:26think I'm sort of getting off track here

50:27a little bit, but thank you so much.

50:31>> Uh Commissioner Aken,

50:33>> chair real one this time. Uh on packet

50:37page 23 in the ordinance uh this is

50:4118.12 and045 A8 uh we have the height

50:45limit of 22 ft. Should that be 23?

50:50>> Yes, that should be 23 consistent with

50:52attachment B and consistent with how

50:54it's described in the staff report.

50:56>> Great. or the other uh knits of this

50:59kind that I've already sent you. Um do

51:02we need to review them tonight or do you

51:04have everything you need for those?

51:11>> I I think so little changes like that

51:13are the kinds of things corrections for

51:15consistency that we can go ahead and

51:18just incorporate. Um good.

51:21>> Want to confirm that we do actually have

51:23your list.

51:31Um, one one option uh for discussion

51:35might be the question you had about

51:37historic. Um, wasn't one of the kind of

51:41little details, but we could

51:45>> clear two historic questions, but we

51:48aren't quite there yet. So, correct,

51:50>> we'll check them later.

51:51>> All right. Thank you very much.

51:53Thank you, Commissioner Aken, for the

51:55good catch. Commissioner Tumbleton.

51:58>> Uh, yes. I guess I I guess I just wanted

52:00to give staff an opportunity to respond

52:02to the implicit question in Commissioner

52:05James uh comments. Um,

52:09people who have an innovative

52:11architectural approach can apply for

52:13individual review. Right. We're not

52:14blocking them. Correct. Right. Thank

52:16you.

52:18>> Okay. All right. So it sounds like

52:21there's no objection to the changes

52:23proposed for roof height. So we'll move

52:24on to uh the next area which is garage

52:27location italicides toward the bottom of

52:29pack packet page 14.

52:32Any comments?

52:36All right. No comments. So we're going

52:38to go with that. Next one is garage door

52:40widths at the top of pack page 15. Any

52:43comments?

52:48Mr. Aken

52:49>> minor one just suggesting that perhaps

52:51the language should be up to 20 feet

52:53rather than 20 feet which implies it

52:57might have to be exactly 20 ft.

53:00>> Oh,

53:02that seems like a good suggestion.

53:04Everybody's nodding. So, we're going to

53:06incorporate that as a up to 20 ft

53:10and that will be our recommendation.

53:12Hopefully, somebody can help me keep

53:14track of these modifications. That's the

53:15only one so far that I've flagged. Okay.

53:18And then uh next item is balconies kind

53:22of in the middle of pack page 15.

53:25Do we have questions or comments about

53:27that topic?

53:30All good. All right. We will go with the

53:32staff recommendation now. Moving on to

53:34packet page 16. ADUs with urban lot

53:37splits.

53:42Um, so this is about to per this is a

53:46clarification that just states that ADUs

53:48are allowed on urban lot splits under

53:50late state law. No comments. I don't see

53:52any. Okay. Um, next item is objective

53:56design standards for urban lot split

53:58changes.

54:02I will start with this one. I have a

54:04question about what this means and if uh

54:07Miss Callus could please explain it to

54:10us that would be helpful. What's going

54:12what was Yeah, what it means.

54:16>> Apologies that that was omitted from the

54:19presentation that was an accident. Um

54:22essentially there are three uh approved

54:27layouts for how an urban lot split can

54:29be divided. Um

54:32side by side, you know, if the property

54:35is a rectangle, you cut it in half down

54:37the middle. They both have street

54:38frontage. Uh the second and third is a

54:41flag lot uh with one lot in the front

54:44and one lot in the back. The only

54:46difference is one has a flag pole that

54:49is um

54:51fully divided and deeded to the rear

54:54property so that it has you know 10 or

54:56so feet of frontage on the street

54:58itself. The second is an easement so

55:01there is um a shared uh portion of land

55:06essentially between the two lots or part

55:08of the um first lot which is like

55:11undevelopable to provide access to the

55:13rear lot. Um, as the standards are

55:16currently written, if a property is more

55:19than 200 feet deep, um, they are

55:23required to do the flag lotiguration.

55:26And so this did not take into account

55:28that we have

55:31not a huge number, but certainly many

55:34lots um, that in addition to being 200

55:37ft deep are also quite wide, like 150

55:41200 feet wide. And so requiring them to

55:44do a front and back configuration when

55:47um down the middle makes more sense. We

55:49would like to create that option.

55:52>> Um and then um kind of as a part of

55:55that, there's also a standard that

55:58requires a shared driveway between the

56:01two lots. And so again, initially when

56:04we were thinking about a 60 foot wide

56:07lot being divided, um that would be

56:11helpful, potentially necessary, but

56:14since it isn't necessary for all, um

56:18possible lots that are divided, we want

56:20to create an option for lots that do

56:22have sufficient frontage to accommodate

56:25um one driveway per lot as that option.

56:28And so it would rely on existing codes

56:31in other sections that have minimum

56:33distance between allowable driveways and

56:35that sort of thing um that don't need to

56:38be included in this ordinance because

56:40they are in other sections of the code.

56:42>> Okay. Thank you so much for that

56:44explanation. It's very helpful and seems

56:45to make sense to me. Does anybody else

56:47have any questions or comments? Okay,

56:49great. So then that moves us on to um

56:52standards which are not changed. So

56:54really, I'm asking the commission if

56:56there's anything else that we think

56:58should be changed or comments about

56:59that. And we've got one from

57:00Commissioner Hecman.

57:07>> Um so actually I've got a few of these,

57:10but um in this round to keep this flow,

57:13I just want to talk about the one that

57:14staff has highlighted in the staff

57:16report, which is the 35 or or 40% issue.

57:19Um um in a after we go through this I

57:22would like I've got a few things in the

57:25ordinance which I think are things that

57:27are not changing that I want to get

57:30clarification of or possibly suggest a

57:32change. So but for this um I just um

57:36want to register support for the um uh

57:41idea of increasing this to 40%. Um I

57:45happen to live on a standard 6,000 foot

57:48lot. Um, our house is just under 2,000

57:50square ft. And we have on our um second,

57:54it's a two-story. Uh, the second story

57:57was added in two parts by the prior

57:59owner in the 80s. And we have a master

58:02bedroom with an interior master bath and

58:06closet and then uh two bedrooms with a u

58:11between them um a second bathroom

58:13upstairs. And I think that that that is

58:16a highly desirable arrangement. You

58:18know, our our kids grew up all able to

58:20be up on the upper level with us without

58:24us all having to share one bathroom. And

58:26as I, you know, read the the

58:28descriptions of, you know, typical

58:30square footage for these sorts of

58:32things. I would be concerned that we

58:34might limit somebody building a

58:35two-story to that kind of configuration

58:38where the option was to put kids

58:40downstairs or have them in a cubby

58:44bedroom upstairs and not have two

58:46bathrooms. So, um, uh, for me, that's

58:49why I like the flexibility of, uh, going

58:53to the 40% to make sure that that that

58:56doesn't unintentionally happen, uh, in

58:58these designs that can be up to 2550 ft.

59:06>> I was going to say the same, but less

59:07eloquently.

59:08>> Oh, wonderful. And then I think we've

59:10got uh, Commissioner Aken.

59:13>> Yeah. Um, so, uh, seeing this, I

59:17immediately went out at measured

59:20to see what our, uh, bedroom sizes were,

59:23and we meet the, uh, 35%

59:27uh, standard fairly comfortably within

59:29the estimates that staff made. However,

59:32what's missing is passage space. Um, so

59:36while uh I think 35% is probably

59:39sufficient for the rooms themselves, I

59:41have no objection if we want to raise to

59:4340 in order to deal with some of the

59:46ancillary spaces you might need.

59:50>> That makes sense to me. I'm I have no

59:52objection. So, does anybody any

59:55commissioner have an objection? And then

59:56we'll just incorporate this into our

59:59rolled up motion.

1:00:01Nobody has an objection. So I think what

1:00:03we're proposing here is that we would

1:00:06the PTC would recommend a shift to 40%.

1:00:09Correct? Okay. Great.

1:00:13Okay. Um and then I don't think there's

1:00:16anything to discuss for housing element

1:00:18consistency. So then that takes us on to

1:00:20modifications for for historic at the

1:00:23top of packet page 18. And I know that

1:00:26Commissioner Aken has something for that

1:00:27one. So let's start with him.

1:00:30>> Yeah, a couple of things. Uh first was a

1:00:33clarification. Um in the uh draft

1:00:36ordinance on back at page 34, it

1:00:39discusses urban lot splits located

1:00:41within an historic district. And I have

1:00:45a question as to whether that applies to

1:00:46any lot in a district or only to the

1:00:49lots of contributors.

1:00:55>> Where is this?

1:00:5834F

1:01:00>> subpart F13.

1:01:03>> Correct.

1:01:11>> Yes. So, um that language is taken

1:01:14directly from Senate Bill 9. Um and so

1:01:18it is my understanding that it is any

1:01:20home in the district as opposed to um

1:01:23being limited to contributing

1:01:24structures. Um, but it would, yeah,

1:01:29remain in the ordinance as written by

1:01:31the state.

1:01:34>> Okay. There probably some interesting

1:01:35trade-offs there, but I don't think I'm

1:01:38able to evaluate them tonight. Um, I'll

1:01:41go ahead and throw in my other historic

1:01:44U issues comment um, which is in

1:01:48response to the question posed on packet

1:01:50page 18. Uh, so 12 years ago I was

1:01:53serving on the Professorville design

1:01:55guidelines committee. Um, and I argued

1:01:58for objective standards for

1:01:59Professorville back then, but I was

1:02:02overruled. Um, so I would suggest that

1:02:06we recommend uh that more objective

1:02:09standards be developed. Uh, though I

1:02:12expect it'll probably be a low priority

1:02:15project. So, um let's just make sure

1:02:18that uh if there's agreement that that

1:02:21request is documented.

1:02:23>> Okay.

1:02:24>> Uh Commissioner Hackman,

1:02:27>> I I I think I feel the same on this as

1:02:29Commissioner Aken. Um recognizing that

1:02:32the um we're not I I take it from the

1:02:37way staff has posed this in the staff

1:02:39report that we're really talking about a

1:02:41specialized set of design guidelines uh

1:02:44objective standards that take into

1:02:46account the historic nature of these

1:02:47structures and so I do think it's likely

1:02:49a low priority. Uh I do think that uh

1:02:52ultimately um we should be able to

1:02:54achieve it and and uh I think the

1:02:58benefit is we'll have a streamlined

1:03:00process that because of these specially

1:03:03tailored objective standards will

1:03:06address sort of the typical concerns we

1:03:10might hear from neighbors uh applying

1:03:13the more subjective standards. So I like

1:03:15the idea of moving that recommendation

1:03:17to council. Um, does any commissioner

1:03:20object to moving that recommendation?

1:03:23All right. So, I'm going to include that

1:03:25also in our recommendations.

1:03:28>> May I follow up just a second?

1:03:30>> Yes, please.

1:03:31>> Uh, yeah. The uh one of the

1:03:33characteristics of Professor Hill is

1:03:35that it is um a salad of different uh

1:03:40building sizes, architectural types, and

1:03:43historical significances. So that's why

1:03:47it's interesting to try and uh come up

1:03:49with some objective standards rather

1:03:51than making it as entirely subjective as

1:03:54it is today.

1:03:57>> Thank you for that additional detail,

1:03:58Commissioner Aken. All right, so that

1:04:00takes us to other changes and I think

1:04:02this is when maybe Commissioner Hecman

1:04:04had some other ideas. So, let's discuss

1:04:05those and we'll start with his ideas and

1:04:08then if any of us

1:04:09>> Oh, if Yeah, if I may through the chair.

1:04:12Um, we've got a hand up on Zoom.

1:04:15>> Yes, Councelor Yang.

1:04:18>> Thank you. Sorry. I just wanted to

1:04:20clarify uh in response to Commissioner

1:04:22Aken's question about the historic

1:04:25district, if it's anything in the

1:04:27district or only contributing

1:04:28structures. um that language that you uh

1:04:33pointed out on packet page 34 is

1:04:35actually outdated and um there is a more

1:04:41narrow uh exception now in the state

1:04:43law. Um basically it has to be either a

1:04:48contributing structure uh or you are um

1:04:53demolishing exterior walls. Um

1:05:00that yeah, it's got to be a contributing

1:05:02structure or or listed individually.

1:05:06>> All right. Thank you. Um so does that

1:05:08mean then that before this moves to

1:05:10council, staff will update that section

1:05:13with the new newly updated changes to

1:05:16state law?

1:05:17>> That's right. Yeah, we'll make that

1:05:18correction.

1:05:19>> Perfect. Thank you. All right. Now on to

1:05:22the additional items that Commissioner

1:05:24Hecman had wanted to discuss.

1:05:28>> Uh thank you. So I think probably front

1:05:30to back in the ordinance is the most

1:05:32logical way uh to go through this. And

1:05:36so um I think all of uh well my comments

1:05:39are going to start in section four uh

1:05:41which is on packet page 22. And as I go

1:05:44through, I will just sort uh we've

1:05:46already had a few comments to the

1:05:48ordinance and I've located the correct

1:05:50places. So I'll just flag that reference

1:05:53for ease of staff uh going forward. So

1:05:56on packet page 22, the concept of up to

1:06:0020 ft rather than 20 just just 20 ft is

1:06:03going to be found at uh uh 1812045A

1:06:07subp part 4 just below the bottom uh

1:06:10just below just above the bottom of the

1:06:12page.

1:06:13Um and then moving on to uh 23

1:06:17packet page 23 in subp part 8 is the

1:06:21change commissioner Aken mentioned uh

1:06:23should be 23 instead of 22.

1:06:26Um then I get to my first question which

1:06:29is in uh subp part 11

1:06:32um we're talking about um

1:06:35uh windows with minimum dimensions of 3

1:06:39feet and I just I was trying to

1:06:40understand what does that mean? Does

1:06:42that mean it has to be 3 feet by 3 feet?

1:06:46Um or just one dimension has to be three

1:06:49feet.

1:06:51So uh I'm I'm personally curious and

1:06:54then um maybe we could change that

1:06:56language to make it clear.

1:07:02>> Yes. The intent is for um a window that

1:07:06is a minimum of 20 square feet with a

1:07:10minimum dimension in

1:07:13one of the um

1:07:16>> in either direction.

1:07:17>> In in either direction, but I don't want

1:07:18to like measure it diagonally like a

1:07:20screen

1:07:23>> vertical or horizontal.

1:07:25>> Yeah.

1:07:27So, I could do 3 feet by seven feet.

1:07:31>> Could I do 2 feet by 10 feet because I

1:07:34still have one dimension that's at least

1:07:36three feet?

1:07:37>> No. One the smallest dimension would

1:07:40need to be at least 3 feet.

1:07:42>> Okay. So, you may want to maybe this is

1:07:45in practice not an issue because nobody

1:07:48wants a 2x10 window. Um but you might

1:07:51consider um putting the word each or or

1:07:55some other change. Um moving on in the

1:07:59in subp part B the second floor massing

1:08:03uh the uh subp part two uh this is where

1:08:06I think we have consensus of the

1:08:08commission to go to the 40% rather than

1:08:1135 figure. Um and then a question I have

1:08:15regarding uh subp part three um uh

1:08:20height of a roof over attached garage

1:08:23not exceeding 15 ft. So uh in my house

1:08:26our master bedroom is built directly on

1:08:29top of the garage. And so in our house

1:08:32the roof above the garage is probably 22

1:08:35or 23 feet tall. So, what I'm wondering

1:08:37is, does this mean you can't have a

1:08:41bedroom above a a garage?

1:08:50The intent is to limit the onestory

1:08:55height of a garage. Um, and typically

1:08:59with things like the daylight plane, um,

1:09:03and the position of a garage typically

1:09:05being on the edge of a house, we do more

1:09:10frequently see, um, that the garage has

1:09:12a one-story form um, as opposed to a

1:09:16part of the house over it. Um, so we

1:09:19will definitely take a look at that

1:09:21because limiting that is not necessarily

1:09:23the intention there.

1:09:24>> Okay. Thank you.

1:09:27Uh let's see uh now packet page 24

1:09:30middle of the page subp part seven

1:09:34um

1:09:36uh where privacy landscaping is required

1:09:38and there's a an easement like a public

1:09:41utility easement on along an interior

1:09:43lot line you you plant basically between

1:09:48the easement and the building correct so

1:09:51I first wanted to ask is an interior lot

1:09:54line those

1:09:55side or rear. Is that right?

1:09:58>> Yes, that's correct.

1:09:58>> Okay. So, my house

1:10:01u again standard 60 by 100 lot and I

1:10:04think the back 5 ft of our lot is a is a

1:10:09power line easement to the PaloAlto

1:10:11utilities as I think is directly across

1:10:14our back fence. The neighbor has a 5T.

1:10:17So, what this says to me is and

1:10:20incidentally um I have lovely lush

1:10:23landscaping back there that blocks the

1:10:26visibility between my neighbor and I to

1:10:28both of our benefits. And every couple

1:10:31of years, the PaloAlto utilities comes

1:10:33by and trims whatever they need to uh to

1:10:37keep them off the lines. And it it it

1:10:39works great. But when I read this, what

1:10:41it tells me is I if I were to tear down

1:10:43and rebuild, I would have to essentially

1:10:45create a no man's land back there, my

1:10:48back five feet, as would my neighbor

1:10:50behind me. And so we would have like my

1:10:53privacy five feet in from my property

1:10:56line cutting our already um narrow

1:11:00backyard making it more narrower as

1:11:03would my neighbor. And so we'd have

1:11:05privacy 5t of dirt fence 5t of dirt

1:11:10um their privacy u landscaping. I I

1:11:15um I don't think that's likely the

1:11:18intent here to create that. And so I'd

1:11:20ask staff, and again, I think this is

1:11:23probably existing language that's just

1:11:25been transported. Um, but I'd ask staff

1:11:28to look at that and and uh consider

1:11:31whether that's really what we want.

1:11:34>> Um,

1:11:36the utilities department will not allow

1:11:39new landscaping to be planted in an

1:11:42easement. And so there are, you know,

1:11:44many many examples where there is

1:11:46existing landscaping that does get um

1:11:49trimmed when work is required, but they

1:11:50will not allow new landscaping to go in.

1:11:53And um I'm not 100% sure, but I think if

1:11:56you're doing a new house, they might

1:11:58also require it to be removed. And so

1:12:00the intent of this standard is to make

1:12:04sure that those properties are not

1:12:06exempt from providing privacy

1:12:08landscaping um between the two homes. Um

1:12:12but something we could consider is

1:12:15clarifying

1:12:17um where we discuss in B7 that um

1:12:22existing trees can be retained um that

1:12:27discusses you know across lot lines.

1:12:32um

1:12:35kind of looking at how maybe something

1:12:37in there can reflect. Um yeah, and I

1:12:42would add to that that in addition if

1:12:44something is existing in that as you

1:12:47said it gets trimmed and therefore might

1:12:49not be providing the privacy that was

1:12:51intended um by you know planting uh

1:12:55trees in that area to be tall to to

1:12:57screen between windows for example.

1:13:00However,

1:13:01if the commission would like to

1:13:03recommend removal of this, it could be

1:13:05done. That could be included as part of

1:13:08your recommendation. Okay. I

1:13:14I don't want to cut the utilities

1:13:17commission out of this discussion, but I

1:13:19I do have serious concerns when when I

1:13:23hear that that the utilities group

1:13:26doesn't want anything done in the back

1:13:28fivet of potentially my house because to

1:13:32me that feels like a taking if I if I

1:13:34can't use it, right? I I mean basically

1:13:37if I want I have to I'm going to be

1:13:39required to have this privacy screen

1:13:41which is going to really kind of block

1:13:42my ability to get back there and then I

1:13:46and I can't use it uh because I the only

1:13:48thing I could do is plant it. I suppose

1:13:50I could you know put a walkway there but

1:13:53I'd have to walk through my privacy

1:13:54screening to get there. So, I'd like to

1:13:58just take this out uh recommend that

1:14:01this come out and then I'd suggest that

1:14:03there be some internal

1:14:06discussion uh within the departments

1:14:09about

1:14:10how this is really how this really

1:14:13should work.

1:14:18One one option would be just to state

1:14:21that the existence of a pee along a

1:14:25property line does not exempt the the

1:14:28property from requirements of privacy

1:14:30screening. Um because as they do um

1:14:34propose a new home, they would need to

1:14:36comply with with whatever that easement

1:14:39requirement is. The intent here wasn't

1:14:43to say this is where you have to put

1:14:45your screening trees. I mean, that's how

1:14:47we we put it in here to try and clarify,

1:14:50but um

1:14:53if that helps.

1:14:54>> Yeah. And I don't really have

1:14:57an objection to tackling it that way. I

1:14:59do feel like it's kicking the can down

1:15:01the road because the real issue I have

1:15:03here is is there a policy in the city

1:15:07that with new home construction that's

1:15:09twotory so it requires a privacy screen

1:15:12if there's an easement which there is in

1:15:14very many occasions um you can't use

1:15:17that land you effectively can't use that

1:15:19land because it's on the wrong side of

1:15:20your privacy screen. Yeah, I think

1:15:22Commissioner Hecman is raising an

1:15:24objection to the utilities policy more

1:15:28than um the privacy screening per se.

1:15:31So, it's just something that um like we

1:15:35hadn't been aware of before and it may

1:15:38have this strange effect of creating a

1:15:4210-ft wide no man's land um that's

1:15:45unusable for property that or

1:15:48practically unusable for property owners

1:15:51on either side of it

1:15:54all over the city.

1:15:55So I I do think the assistant director's

1:15:59suggestion is kind of an eloquent way to

1:16:02kick it down the road a little bit. Let

1:16:04us move the recommendation forward. And

1:16:06again, I would just encourage there be

1:16:08some departmental discussions um and

1:16:10investigation about whether because I I

1:16:14you know I haven't heard anybody

1:16:16complaining about this that that I had

1:16:19to have a 5-ft no man's land in the back

1:16:21of my yard. So, so I'd like and and so

1:16:24maybe it's not really a problem, but it

1:16:27just appears one because we don't have

1:16:28all the answers. So, so I'm going to uh

1:16:32uh u support um Miss Armor's suggestion

1:16:36that that the language be something

1:16:39along the lines of of the existence of a

1:16:42pee does not um uh eliminate the

1:16:46requirement for privacy landscaping. Is

1:16:50that

1:16:51that along the lines of what you were

1:16:53suggesting?

1:16:56>> Yes.

1:16:56>> Okay. Uh let's see. I don't think I I

1:17:00think I have one more.

1:17:06Oh. Um on packet page 34, um I'll just

1:17:10point out that in uh 21.1030 1030

1:17:14subp part F. That's where

1:17:17uh Assistant City Attorney Yang is going

1:17:18to update the language currently listed

1:17:21as historic district.

1:17:23Um on packet page 36 at the top. So this

1:17:28has to do with the U flag lot split uh

1:17:32where we're listing as uh one option the

1:17:35minimum street frontage uh be 10 feet

1:17:37wide per parcel. And my my only question

1:17:41there is whether uh that would

1:17:45essentially equate to a 10 foot wide

1:17:46driveway on a on a flag lot of that

1:17:49configuration. My only question is

1:17:52whether that u dimension will satisfy um

1:17:56uh our fire department. Um because I

1:18:00know in some of the jurisdictions I work

1:18:01um they refer to a minimum driveway size

1:18:04as 12 feet. And so um

1:18:09I know that other sections of the zoning

1:18:12code refer to driveway minimums as 10 ft

1:18:15of clear space um 8 ft of which must be

1:18:17paved. Um

1:18:21okay.

1:18:21>> And I know that for lots that are deeper

1:18:25than 150 ft, there are different buyer

1:18:29access requirements. I don't quite know

1:18:31where those intersect. Um, but it I see

1:18:37what you're I see what you're saying and

1:18:40the fire department would still be

1:18:43reviewing the parcel maps and it may be

1:18:46possible that there could be instances

1:18:49where a 10-ft minimum would not satisfy

1:18:54um access requirements for certain

1:18:56properties, but I don't believe it's

1:18:58universal enough to recommend changing

1:19:01this standard. Well, so but I'm

1:19:02wondering if we could augment the

1:19:03standard to say 10 feet wide per parcel

1:19:06or um wider as necessary to meet fire

1:19:09code.

1:19:12>> Yes.

1:19:13>> Okay.

1:19:17Uh let's see.

1:19:20Uh packet page 37,

1:19:23which is the last one. So I'm sorry this

1:19:27is taking so long. 18. Uh yeah, pack

1:19:30page 37 subp part G. Um so this puts an

1:19:35obligation uh on the director um where

1:19:38the director denies an application, they

1:19:40have to

1:19:42um come back to the applicant

1:19:46uh with a description of how the

1:19:48applicant can remedy the application.

1:19:51And I was just curious,

1:19:54is it possible that there's a scenario

1:19:56where the application can't be remedied

1:19:59and so the director cannot meet his

1:20:01obligation

1:20:02of this uh or of you know of this

1:20:05language and needs to tell the applicant

1:20:09there's no way this can fit.

1:20:14So I don't know that um that might

1:20:16require some coitation and so

1:20:20>> this may be a legal question because

1:20:22that does look like the sort of thing

1:20:23that might have come from state law.

1:20:26>> Mr. Yang,

1:20:27>> that that requirement is taken from the

1:20:30state law. Um, so

1:20:34it is probably possible that there's

1:20:37some strange lot out there where it

1:20:40wouldn't be possible uh to remedy the

1:20:43application. Um, but we'll just have to

1:20:46cross that bridge when we get there.

1:20:48Guess this is the language that we

1:20:50passed.

1:20:50>> Yeah. Well, that it wouldn't be the

1:20:52first time that uh our state legislators

1:20:54were shortsighted uh in their crafting,

1:20:57if you if I use that term loosely, of of

1:21:00statutory language. Okay. So, we're

1:21:02going to leave that one alone. And those

1:21:03are my comments. Thank you.

1:21:06>> Okay. I don't see other lights, so I

1:21:07think we're probably ready for a motion.

1:21:10Uh does somebody want to take a stab at

1:21:12it or I'm happy to, but then I need

1:21:14help.

1:21:17>> Sure. Yeah. So, um

1:21:21uh I will move the staff

1:21:27recommendation

1:21:28with the uh revisions to the draft

1:21:32ordinance uh referenced in my comments

1:21:35just concluded and a um include in the

1:21:40recommendation

1:21:42uh that the

1:21:44get to 15 18. Yeah. Um

1:21:50that the council consider directing

1:21:52staff to develop objective design

1:21:54standards for professorville as a future

1:21:57council objective.

1:22:02>> Second.

1:22:02>> Second.

1:22:03>> Okay. Great. Commissioner Aken second.

1:22:05>> Do you think Oh, sorry. Do do you think

1:22:07we need to add uh additional comments

1:22:10that Commissioner Aken had already

1:22:12emailed as part of the motion or does

1:22:14staff already just have that?

1:22:18I think the corrections are already

1:22:20included is what staff had clarified.

1:22:24>> Okay.

1:22:25>> Yeah, my substantive comments have all

1:22:27been addressed. The rest are typos and

1:22:29clarifications and language. Nothing

1:22:32significant.

1:22:34>> Great. Any further discussion?

1:22:37All right. Mr. Tivera, could you please

1:22:39take the vote?

1:22:40>> Yeah. U Commissioner Aken?

1:22:43>> Yes. Uh Commissioner Templeton?

1:22:45>> Yes. Commissioner Hecman,

1:22:48>> yes. Uh, Commissioner James,

1:22:50>> yes. Vice Chair G,

1:22:52>> yes.

1:22:53>> Chair Chang,

1:22:53>> yes.

1:22:54>> Motion carry 6.

1:22:56>> Wonderful. Uh, and thank you to Miss

1:22:58Callus for a really excellent staff

1:23:00presentation and staff report that

1:23:02helped us take care of all of this.

1:23:04Thank you. All

1:23:07right, with that we move on to our

1:23:11second action item, item number three,

1:23:15which is a discussion of the South

1:23:17Powalto bike ped connectivity review of

1:23:20the preferred design alternatives and

1:23:22network enhancements for the Midtown

1:23:24bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing.

1:23:27So

1:23:29I want to

1:23:31remind people because it looks like we

1:23:33have a lot of interest here tonight and

1:23:36I want to remind people of our

1:23:38procedures. So if somebody in chambers

1:23:41would like to comment later on process

1:23:44for that is to grab a comment card from

1:23:47behind Mr. Chava uh complete it and then

1:23:49give it back to Mr. Java. Um, in

1:23:53addition,

1:23:55uh, it's a reminder that, so we're going

1:23:57to start with the staff report and then

1:24:00if somebody wants to make a public

1:24:02comment, that person should raise their

1:24:05hand on Zoom or turn in their speaker

1:24:07card within 5 minutes of the end of the

1:24:10staff presentation because then we will

1:24:13uh, make a determination at that point

1:24:15based on the number of people interested

1:24:17in speaking on how many minutes to give

1:24:19each speaker.

1:24:21All right. So, let's start with the

1:24:22staff presentation.

1:24:26>> And with that, I will pass it off to our

1:24:28office of transportation staff to give

1:24:30the presentation this evening.

1:24:33>> Thank you. And good evening,

1:24:34commissioners. My name is Charlie

1:24:35Kohl's, senior transportation planner

1:24:37with the office of transportation, also

1:24:39the project manager for the South Palto

1:24:40bike ped connectivity project. I'm

1:24:42joined by Ria Hud Low, our chief

1:24:45transportation official. Sylvia Starlac,

1:24:47our transportation planning manager. Uh

1:24:49we also have two consultants on the line

1:24:51uh part of the project team here to

1:24:53assist with questions.

1:24:56Next slide please.

1:24:59Staff recommend the PTC review the two

1:25:02preferred design alternatives for a new

1:25:03grade separated bicycle and pedestrian

1:25:05uh rail crossing in the vicinity of

1:25:07Elorado Avenue, also known as the

1:25:09Midtown bicycle and pedestrian

1:25:10undercrossing. the planning level

1:25:12assessment of those alternatives, the

1:25:14initial circulation study, and the draft

1:25:16network enhancements to integrate the

1:25:18undercrossing into the surrounding

1:25:19street network. This meeting is intended

1:25:22to obtain PTC feedback on the two

1:25:25alternatives and associated network

1:25:27enhancements prior to the next phase of

1:25:29community engagement and release of a

1:25:30public draft report. And if PTC chooses,

1:25:34staff recommend that the PTC take action

1:25:36to provide a recommendation to council

1:25:38on up to two alternatives to advance to

1:25:4115% design and endorse the accompanying

1:25:44network enhancements for further

1:25:45refinement and presentation with the

1:25:47community for the next phase of

1:25:49community engagement. Next slide,

1:25:51please.

1:25:53Here's the agenda for this evening. I

1:25:55will go through some slides rather

1:25:56quickly uh since most of this

1:25:58information is in your staff pack uh

1:26:00staff report, but I'll spend um extra

1:26:02time on several slides as I think

1:26:04there's some important context to to

1:26:06expand on. But as always, happy to

1:26:08answer any questions when we get to PTC

1:26:10discussion. Next slide, please.

1:26:13Next slide, please. The purpose of the

1:26:16south palletto bike ped connectivity

1:26:18project is to improve bicycle pedestrian

1:26:20access across the rail corridor in the

1:26:21southern portion of the city by

1:26:23identifying a location and locally

1:26:25preferred design concepts for a new

1:26:27grade separated bicycle pedestrian

1:26:29crossing. The current scope of work with

1:26:31the project team as approved by the city

1:26:32council on September 9th 2024 is

1:26:35summarized on this slide.

1:26:37Next slide please.

1:26:40The need for additional grade separated

1:26:42bicycle pedestrian crossings has been

1:26:44identified in several prior city council

1:26:47adopted plans, county plans, and council

1:26:49discussions as a long-standing east west

1:26:52connectivity challenge. The rail

1:26:54corridor and Alma Street create a

1:26:56significant 1.3 mile barrier in low

1:26:58stress walking and biking access across

1:27:02uh the the rail alignment between

1:27:04California Avenue and the undercrossing

1:27:06there and Meadow Drive and the Agrade

1:27:08rail crossing at at Meadow Drive which

1:27:10forces long out of direction detours and

1:27:13exposure to high stress segments such as

1:27:15Oregon Expressway and Meadow Drive.

1:27:17Relevant city and county plans are shown

1:27:19in your screen and discussed further in

1:27:21your staff report. In several council

1:27:24discussions, council members have

1:27:25expressed an urgency and would like to

1:27:27see this project move forward as soon as

1:27:28possible. I will also add that the city

1:27:31council that at the city council meeting

1:27:33on Monday this week, city council

1:27:35members referenced this project and it

1:27:37appears that they may be interested in

1:27:39this project being constructed first

1:27:41before other rail grade separation

1:27:43projects. Next slide, please.

1:27:46Here's the overall study area for the

1:27:48project which which focus on the rail

1:27:51corridor in the southern portion of Palo

1:27:52Alto south of Oregon Expressway. The

1:27:55preferred concepts we are discussing

1:27:56today are in the vicinity of Elorado

1:27:58Avenue which is identified with a blue

1:28:00dot on your screen. I also wanted to

1:28:02note that there are many other ongoing

1:28:04and future projects that are happening

1:28:06in this part of the city. This includes

1:28:08the new housing to be built per the

1:28:09city's adopted housing element update

1:28:11and recently adopted North Ventura

1:28:13Coordinated Area Plan, which would will

1:28:16transition the North Ventura area into a

1:28:18more mixeduse transit oriented

1:28:20neighborhood with more housing. There's

1:28:22also the ongoing San Antonio Road area

1:28:26plan effort, the Coverly Community

1:28:27Center project, rail grade separation

1:28:29projects at Church Hill Meadow in

1:28:31Charleston, and much more. Overall,

1:28:34there's a lot happening and all these

1:28:35things go together. and a bicycle and

1:28:37pedestrian undercrossing in South Pala

1:28:39will support all these other projects in

1:28:41the future by providing traffic relief

1:28:43as well as supporting a robust low

1:28:45stress bicycle and pedestrian network

1:28:47for in town travel in support of the

1:28:49city's mobility and sustainability

1:28:50goals. Next slide, please.

1:28:55Here's the project timeline which shows

1:28:56where we are in the overall study

1:28:58process approved by the city council. In

1:29:00late 2025, the city council directed

1:29:02staff to continue focusing evaluations

1:29:04on two bicycle and pedestrian rail

1:29:06crossing concepts in the vicinity of

1:29:08Elorado Avenue, also called alternatives

1:29:11A1 and A2 with a preference for A2.

1:29:14Alternative A1 was defined as a tunnel

1:29:17with a signalized crossing of Alma

1:29:19Street at Elorado Avenue. And

1:29:21alternative A2 was defined as a tunnel

1:29:23under both Alma Street and the Cal Train

1:29:25tracks in the vicinity of Elorado

1:29:28Avenue. I also want to emphasize that

1:29:31the preliminary concept designs for

1:29:32alternative A1 and A2 are still in a

1:29:35very early planning stage. The city has

1:29:37not made a decision to construct a new

1:29:39bicycle pedestrian undercrossing at

1:29:41Elorado Avenue. We are now in the third

1:29:44phase of community engagement. City

1:29:45council is the final decision maker for

1:29:47this project and will use input from

1:29:49these engagement activities to provide

1:29:50direction on which alternative or

1:29:52alternatives should move forward to 15%

1:29:55design and what network enhancements

1:29:57should be a prioritized modified or

1:29:59adopted or added prior to the release of

1:30:02a public draft report.

1:30:04We expect to complete this round of

1:30:05engagement and present the preferred

1:30:07alternatives and network enhancements

1:30:09for city council consideration in late

1:30:112026 tenatively scheduled for December

1:30:147th 26 meeting.

1:30:17Next slide please.

1:30:21Uh we we presented the site last time.

1:30:23We wanted to include it again because it

1:30:25frames the rest of this discussion and

1:30:27acknowledges that we are still at the

1:30:29very early stages of a high-profile and

1:30:31complex project. There are multiple

1:30:33stakeholders and agencies involved

1:30:35including the city, Cal Train,

1:30:37neighborhood residents, community

1:30:38groups, and potential outside funding

1:30:40partners. There are also many complex

1:30:42engineering, utility, rightway, traffic

1:30:44circulation, and emergency access

1:30:46considerations. And there may be and

1:30:49there are many design trade-offs that

1:30:50will be explored going forward. The goal

1:30:52tonight is not to approve or provide a

1:30:54recommendation

1:30:56on the final project design project

1:30:58design. We are still in the conceptual

1:31:01planning phase. Designs remain very

1:31:03flexible and there's still substantial

1:31:05community engagement and technical

1:31:06design work ahead. What we are looking

1:31:08for is your feedback on the basic design

1:31:10concepts, the refinements that should be

1:31:12studied further and the surrounding

1:31:14network enhancements that should move

1:31:15forward with this project. Next slide,

1:31:17please.

1:31:19I'll now talk about uh community

1:31:21engagement and what we've heard to date

1:31:23through the first two major phases of

1:31:25engagement.

1:31:27Uh phase one shown on your screen uh is

1:31:30an overview. So shown on your screen is

1:31:32an overview of the tools and activities

1:31:33that was used during phase one of

1:31:34community engagement.

1:31:36Phase one of engagement occurred in the

1:31:38spring of 2025. Introduced the project

1:31:40to the community and gain input on the

1:31:42goals, priorities, and opportunities and

1:31:44possible um crossing locations for the

1:31:47great separated bicycle pedestrian

1:31:49crossing. Input and feedback from the

1:31:51community helped establish design

1:31:52priorities and evaluation criteria and

1:31:55informed the development of eight

1:31:56preliminary rail crossing alternatives

1:31:58commissioned by the city for the

1:31:59community uh consideration. Next slide,

1:32:02please. The main takeaway from phase one

1:32:04was strong support for a new crossing to

1:32:07improve connectivity and safety for

1:32:08bicyclists and pedestrians in southern

1:32:10Paloalto. Committee members identified

1:32:13improving mobility as a top design

1:32:15priority, followed by enhancing the user

1:32:17experience and maximizing ease of

1:32:19construction. We also heard that the

1:32:21crossing itself is not enough.

1:32:22Additional infrastructure in the

1:32:24surrounding neighborhoods is needed to

1:32:25create a safer and more connected

1:32:27network for people walking and biking.

1:32:29Next slide, please.

1:32:32Here's an overview of the tools and

1:32:33activities used during phase 2 which

1:32:35occurred in fall of 2025 where the city

1:32:37gathered feedback on the eight

1:32:39preliminary rail crossing alternatives

1:32:41at six different locations in South Palo

1:32:43Alto. The goal of phase 2 was select was

1:32:46to select and advanced two crossing

1:32:48alternatives. Next slide, please.

1:32:52Shown on your screen are the eight

1:32:54preliminary design concepts that were

1:32:56presented to the community during phase

1:32:572. The project team considered over 25

1:33:00potential design alternatives. This

1:33:02looked at bridges and tunnels as part of

1:33:05the initial screening process and those

1:33:0725 and of those 25s, eight were selected

1:33:09based on the project goals and community

1:33:11design priorities informed through

1:33:13public input. Alternative A shown here

1:33:17is the same basic design concept as

1:33:19alternative A1 that we'll be discussing

1:33:21tonight. Alternatives B and C are two

1:33:24concept designs at LMover Verde Avenue.

1:33:26I'll circle back to these designs in my

1:33:28next slide. So, I just wanted to mention

1:33:29that here. And next slide.

1:33:33During phase two, the community showed

1:33:35the most support for the rail crossing

1:33:36concepts located at Elorado Avenue,

1:33:38Lomde Avenue, San Antonio Road, and Fern

1:33:41Avenue. We heard support for the

1:33:43alternatives that minimize impacts to

1:33:44private homes, provide direct routes,

1:33:47reduce long crossing distances, uh

1:33:50reduce long distances between existing

1:33:52crossings, serve higher bicycle and

1:33:54pedestrian demands, and improve user

1:33:56comfort and safety. We also heard

1:33:58specific interest in design refinements,

1:34:00including tunnel height and depth, ramp

1:34:03length, use of the east side of Alma

1:34:05Street, and a desire for full grade

1:34:07separation under Alma Street.

1:34:10Based on community feedback and a

1:34:12recommendation from the rail committee

1:34:13and staff, the city council directed

1:34:15staff on December 1st, 2025 to advance

1:34:17the alternatives in the vicinity of

1:34:19Elorado Avenue, alternatives, which are

1:34:21called alternatives A1 and A2 for

1:34:23further evaluation and a preference for

1:34:26alternative A2.

1:34:28Now, a common question that we've

1:34:30received recently is um uh explain

1:34:34further explanation as to how city

1:34:36council came to the um kind of the

1:34:38conclusion of the focus on Elorado

1:34:40Avenue. And so, if I may, I just wanted

1:34:42to spend a few minutes kind of talking

1:34:43through that because I think it's

1:34:44important uh context and it's it's been

1:34:46quite a while since that conversation.

1:34:49Uh so city council considered various

1:34:51challenges with with all concepts and um

1:34:53the discussion mostly focused on the

1:34:55concepts at Elorado Avenue which is uh

1:34:58referred to as or was referred to as

1:34:59Elorado A alternative A and uh the

1:35:04crossing there were two crossing

1:35:05concepts at Lovery Avenue which were

1:35:07referred to as alternatives B and C.

1:35:10Uh property impacts was a major

1:35:12discussion point as part of that

1:35:14conversation. Alternative A requires a

1:35:16portion of a parking lot in the west

1:35:18side on the west side of the railroad

1:35:20tracks and no residential properties.

1:35:22Both Lomma Verde alternatives u

1:35:25alternatives B and C requires at least

1:35:27two residential properties likely more

1:35:30in the very constrained area on the east

1:35:32side of the railroad tracks.

1:35:35Residential property impacts again was a

1:35:37major consideration and at the time uh

1:35:39city council was not willing to accept

1:35:41property impacts if there was an

1:35:42opportunity. um and there were other

1:35:44options available which is part of the

1:35:47reason why Elorado Avenue rose to um to

1:35:49the top of their list. Elorado Avenue

1:35:52would also serve as a connection uh so

1:35:55uh connectivity uh between nearby

1:35:57destinations between Midtown and the

1:36:00Vure neighborhoods. Uh there was

1:36:02discussion of the MVCAP area which I

1:36:04talked about before and the additional

1:36:06housing that will be going there. Um,

1:36:09also there's a new park in the Ventura

1:36:11neighborhood and the a strong connection

1:36:13to the Stanford reacher research park

1:36:15which is a major employment center in

1:36:17the city of PaloAlto.

1:36:19Elorado also connects well with the

1:36:21existing bike network. Uh there's the

1:36:23portage bike path recently installed

1:36:25nearby on the east side of the railroad,

1:36:27sorry, west side of the railroad tracks.

1:36:28I might be getting my east and west

1:36:30mixed up here. Um there's also the Bull

1:36:32Park path that's a bit further across El

1:36:36uh El Camino Riale

1:36:38and uh uh to the north connecting to the

1:36:42Bryant Street bike boulevard or I guess

1:36:44that would be to the east potentially

1:36:46and potentially through all the way to

1:36:47Hoover Park and uh through Hoover Park

1:36:50and connecting all the way to

1:36:51Middlefield. Uh so there's discussion

1:36:53there about the opportunities to kind of

1:36:55complete that connection u for bikes and

1:36:57pedestrians.

1:37:00Um, El Dorado and El Carmelo connections

1:37:02were also discussed as a preferable

1:37:05bicycle routes because of the lower

1:37:06volumes on Elorado and El Carmelo and uh

1:37:09that was um compared to the higher um

1:37:12vehicular volumes uh so lower vehicular

1:37:15volumes on Elorado and Carmelo and uh

1:37:18compared to the higher vehicular volumes

1:37:20in comparison uh on Lomie Avenue. Uh so

1:37:24there was a desire council desire to um

1:37:28if we're looking at adding more bikes on

1:37:30a roadway, prioritizing a roadway where

1:37:31there's less vehicles.

1:37:35Uh so all that being said, uh city

1:37:37council directed staff to explore a full

1:37:39grade separation option under Cal Train

1:37:42and Alma in this area. Uh and that's uh

1:37:45the the kind of the the place which this

1:37:47alternative A2 was created. And so that

1:37:50part of our direction was to explore

1:37:52what concepts might be possible um in

1:37:56this Elorado vicinity. So hopefully that

1:37:58help that context kind of helps frame

1:38:00the discussion tonight. Next slide

1:38:02please.

1:38:05We're now in phase three of community

1:38:06engagement where we're gathering

1:38:07feedback on the draft Elderorado Avenue

1:38:10concept alternatives and proposed

1:38:11network enhancements for additional

1:38:13refinement prior to the release of a

1:38:15public draft report. Summary of the

1:38:17tools and activities being used during

1:38:18phase three is listed here. Next slide.

1:38:24Uh, next slide please.

1:38:27This slide provides a sideby-side view

1:38:29of the alternatives A1 and A2. A1 would

1:38:32include a sign a tunnel beneath the Cal

1:38:34Train tracks and users would cross Alma

1:38:36Street at a new signalized crossing of

1:38:39um at Elorado Avenue. A2 would provide a

1:38:42full grade separated tunnel beneath both

1:38:43the Cal Train tracks and Alma Street.

1:38:46The current representative A2 uh concept

1:38:49is also referred to as A2A in your staff

1:38:51report was selected among six variants

1:38:54because it balanced user experience,

1:38:56accessibility, utility constraints, and

1:38:58neighborhood impacts.

1:39:00Next slide, please.

1:39:03At this planning level, A1 has fewer

1:39:06anticipated utility impacts, a lower

1:39:09cost estimate of approximately 72 72

1:39:12million, preserves two-way vehicle

1:39:14access across Elorado Avenue, and has no

1:39:16immediate emergency access concerns

1:39:18identified at this stage. The main

1:39:20trade-off is that users will still cross

1:39:22Elma Street at grade, although at a new

1:39:24signalized crossing that's designed for

1:39:26bicyclists and pedestrians. Overall,

1:39:28this means A1 is simpler and less

1:39:30impactful in several ways, but it does

1:39:32not fully respond to the community

1:39:33interest in avoiding an ATR grade on a

1:39:35street crossing.

1:39:37It's important to emphasize that at at

1:39:40this stage, the signal shown um is not a

1:39:43final design concept. Um at this stage

1:39:46the project is really identifying the

1:39:48location and function of a potential

1:39:50signalized crossing. Its detailed

1:39:52geometry, signal phasing, permitting uh

1:39:55u permitted turning movements and

1:39:57related roadway treatments have not been

1:39:59determined. There's a broad range of

1:40:02possible designs each with different

1:40:03trade-offs. For example, the city could

1:40:06prioritize bicycle and pedestrian

1:40:07comfort and safety, neighborhood traffic

1:40:09management, vehicle access and

1:40:11circulation, transit operations,

1:40:13emergency response, or some other

1:40:15combination of these objectives.

1:40:19Those policy and design priorities would

1:40:21guide the ultimate signal configuration

1:40:23if alternative A1 moves forward into

1:40:25subsequent design phases. The current

1:40:27planning level analysis assumes that

1:40:30left turns at Elorado Avenue and Alma

1:40:32Street would be restricted during the

1:40:34peak period and shows a decrease in

1:40:36vehicle trips on Elorado Avenue. This is

1:40:38an analytical assumption used to

1:40:40understand the potential circulation

1:40:42effects, not a final operational

1:40:44decision.

1:40:47So the key point is that A1 identifies a

1:40:49potential signalized crossing at this

1:40:51location but it does not predetermine

1:40:53the final uh signal design or traffic

1:40:56operations. Next slide please.

1:41:02So this slide illustrates one possible

1:41:05operational concept for the new proposed

1:41:07signal with left turn restrictions. It's

1:41:10intended to show how access management

1:41:11could help discourage cut-th through

1:41:13traffic on Elorado Avenue while

1:41:15maintaining a direct crossing for people

1:41:17walking and biking. This is not a

1:41:19proposed final signal design. Depending

1:41:21on city and community priorities, future

1:41:24designs could evaluate other approaches,

1:41:26including different turn restrictions by

1:41:28time of day, ride-in ride out

1:41:30operations, physical turn control

1:41:32measures, pedestrian and bicycle focus

1:41:34signal operations, or related

1:41:36modifications at nearby intersections to

1:41:38accommodate vehicular circulation. If A1

1:41:41advances, future design phases would

1:41:43evaluate those options through further

1:41:45traffic analysis, engineering design,

1:41:48emergency access review, and agency

1:41:50coordination, and of course, additional

1:41:52community engagement. The objective

1:41:54would be the objective would be to

1:41:56identify an intersection design that

1:41:57appropriately balances safety and

1:41:59comfort for people walking and biking

1:42:00with neighborhood access, circulation,

1:42:02and operational needs. Next slide,

1:42:04please.

1:42:08Alternative A2 provides the full grade

1:42:10separation under both Alma Street and

1:42:11the Cal Train tracks. This is a new

1:42:13concept design that responds directly to

1:42:15community interest in city council

1:42:17direction and in avoiding an atgrade

1:42:19crossing of Alma Street in the vicinity

1:42:21of El Elorado Avenue. Several variants

1:42:24explored for A2 in the vicinity of

1:42:26Elorado are discussed in your staff

1:42:28report. At this planning level, A2 has

1:42:31greater utility risk, a larger

1:42:33structure, deeper excavation, and a

1:42:35higher estimated cost of approximately

1:42:3687 million. It would require full

1:42:39acquisition of two east side properties

1:42:40containing four dwelling units and

1:42:43emergency access constraints would need

1:42:45to be uh further resolved. So, a central

1:42:48question could be whether the benefit of

1:42:50a full grade separation under Alma

1:42:52Street outweighs the additional property

1:42:53access, utility, cost, construction,

1:42:56emergency access challenges at the

1:42:57Elorado location.

1:43:00Next slide, please.

1:43:03The city received a petition requesting

1:43:06an evaluation of the Lommo Verde Alma

1:43:08median hybrid plan. The petition and

1:43:10supporting materials are included in the

1:43:12staff report. At a high level, this

1:43:14concept would relocate the proposed

1:43:15signalized Alma Street crossing from

1:43:17Elorado Avenue to Lomma Verde Avenue. It

1:43:20would then connect that crossing to the

1:43:23proposed rail underpass near Elorado

1:43:25Avenue and Park Boulevard through an

1:43:27approximately quarter mile bicycle

1:43:29pedestrian facility along the east side

1:43:31of Alma Street adjacent to the rail

1:43:33corridor.

1:43:35Next slide please.

1:43:38This is not yet a city developed

1:43:40alternative and it is not and it has not

1:43:42been fully developed or evaluated at the

1:43:44same level as alternatives A1 and A2.

1:43:47For discussion purposes, we have

1:43:49completed an initial highle review to

1:43:52identify some key trade-offs for the

1:43:53community to consider. For this concept

1:43:55to advance further, we would require

1:43:57city council direction and additional

1:43:59community outreach, including outreach

1:44:01to potentially affected LMA verde area

1:44:03residents.

1:44:05As listed on your screen, there are

1:44:06several potential benefits associated

1:44:08with this concept. First, it would use

1:44:11the shorter tunnel beneath the cow train

1:44:13tracks similar to alternative A1 rather

1:44:15than requiring a longer structure

1:44:17beneath Alma Street and the rail

1:44:19corridor. Second, locating the

1:44:22signalized crossing at Loma Avenue would

1:44:24strengthen bike access from that

1:44:26corridor and could use the landscaped

1:44:28area between Alma Street and the rail

1:44:31corridor for the connecting facility.

1:44:34Third, based on this preliminary review,

1:44:36the concept may avoid full residential

1:44:38property acquisitions anticipated with

1:44:41the current A2 concept.

1:44:44Next slide, please.

1:44:48Uh this is a continuation of the initial

1:44:51feedback. So, one primary consideration

1:44:54is the directness and anticipated use of

1:44:57this um crossing and its proposed

1:44:59design. Compared with the crossing at

1:45:01Elorado Avenue, this concept adds

1:45:04approximately one quarter mile of travel

1:45:06along the Alma Street corridor between

1:45:08Lomover Avenue and the underpass. That

1:45:10additional distance may be more

1:45:12acceptable for bicycle trips um compared

1:45:15to some walking trips and people

1:45:17traveling to and from the areas north of

1:45:19Lomma Verde may need to travel south to

1:45:22cross Alma Street and then backtrack

1:45:24north along the penina bicycle facility.

1:45:27Because directness and travel time

1:45:29strongly influence whether people choose

1:45:32to walk or bike, the additional quarter

1:45:33mile and required backtracking in this

1:45:35concept would likely make it a less

1:45:37effective facility, particularly for

1:45:39pedestrians and reduce expected use

1:45:41compared with a more direct crossing.

1:45:44Lower use facilities that are

1:45:47constrained or isolated also face

1:45:50greater maintenance, security, and

1:45:52unwanted activity challenges over time,

1:45:54potentially creating pressure for

1:45:56operational uh changes or closure. Palo

1:45:59Alto has experienced related concerns.

1:46:02Um, and an example of this is the former

1:46:04pedestrian undercrossing beneath El

1:46:06Camino Royale near the Page Mill Road

1:46:08and Oregon Expressway intersection.

1:46:11This outcome is not inevitable, but it

1:46:14underscores the importance of designing

1:46:15a route that is direct, visible,

1:46:17well-lit, and integrated with the

1:46:19surrounding street network from the

1:46:20outset. The concept would also require

1:46:23additional work beyond the over

1:46:24underpass itself. This includes

1:46:27construction of a long um of a long-term

1:46:30mainten construction and long-term

1:46:31maintenance of the parallel bicycle

1:46:33pedestrian facility. EVA eval evaluation

1:46:36of a box covert extension and supporting

1:46:38structure near Madera Creek and review

1:46:41of potential effects on drainage,

1:46:42landscaping, utilities right ofway and

1:46:45apartment driveway access near the LMA

1:46:47Verde um Avenue and Alma Street

1:46:49intersection.

1:46:53Further uh a further consideration is

1:46:55the user experience along the parallel

1:46:57facility because it would be located

1:46:59between Alma Street and the rail

1:47:00corridor. The future design would need

1:47:02to carefully address visibility,

1:47:04lighting, sight lines, emergency access,

1:47:07and convenient and convenient entry and

1:47:09exit points so that the route feels

1:47:11open, safe, comfortable at all times of

1:47:14day. The city would also need to assess

1:47:17how the new signal and crossing

1:47:18operations could affect vehicle

1:47:20movements on Lom Verde Avenue and

1:47:22adjacent streets. It's also important to

1:47:24understand that if council directs staff

1:47:26to evaluate it further, staff would need

1:47:28to pause the project, develop a scope of

1:47:30work and cost estimates, obtain

1:47:32authorization for additional consultant

1:47:34work, prepare conceptual designs and

1:47:36cost estimates, update the technical

1:47:38technical analysis, and conduct focused

1:47:40engagement um with uh key residents and

1:47:44and stakeholders. Pausing or materially

1:47:47extending the project would likely

1:47:49increase construction costs through

1:47:51continued escalation,

1:47:53lengthen delivery timeline, and

1:47:55heightened the ris risk of the project

1:47:58um not actually advancing to

1:47:59construction. This is a lesson that

1:48:01staff have heard from other peer

1:48:02agencies who wish that they had moved

1:48:05great separation projects faster. Again,

1:48:08staff have not completed a formal

1:48:09evaluation of this concept. For this

1:48:11concept to advance further, we would

1:48:13require city council direction. Next

1:48:15slide, please.

1:48:19So these next slides will now focus on

1:48:21again just the alternatives A1, A1 and

1:48:24A2.

1:48:26The purpose of this assessment is to

1:48:27compare the relative advantages,

1:48:29disadvantages, and risks between A1 and

1:48:31A2 at a planning level. It's based on

1:48:33information readily available at this

1:48:35stage and is not intended to represent

1:48:37final engineering conclusions. The

1:48:40alternatives were evaluated against a

1:48:42subset of criteria drawn from the prior

1:48:45project phases. So the version of this

1:48:47table may look familiar to you. Higher

1:48:50scores are shown on black in black or in

1:48:52darker gray represent stronger alignment

1:48:54with community values whereas lower

1:48:56scores are shown in light gray um

1:48:59indicate weaker alignment. These results

1:49:01are one of several considerations in the

1:49:03process of selecting alternatives. Next

1:49:06slide please.

1:49:08The project project team also prepared

1:49:10an initial circulation study that looked

1:49:12at how each alternative could affect

1:49:13neighborhood circulation and travel

1:49:15patterns in the in the Midtown

1:49:16neighborhood. Overall, the study found

1:49:19that the crossing fits well within the

1:49:20surrounding low volume, low stress

1:49:22neighborhood street network. Nearby

1:49:24neighborhood streets currently carry

1:49:25under 200 vehicles per hour during peak

1:49:28periods, which is within typical bicycle

1:49:30boulevard thresholds.

1:49:32The initial circulation study as as I

1:49:35mentioned earlier assumed left turns

1:49:36would not be per permitted at the

1:49:38Elorado and Elma Street signalized

1:49:40intersection during the peak hour.

1:49:42Traffic on El Dorado Avenue is projected

1:49:44to decrease by approximately 30 vehicles

1:49:46per hour. Those trips would be

1:49:48redistributed to nearby parallel

1:49:50streets. Next slide please.

1:49:54Shown on the screen is the Oh, next

1:49:56slide please.

1:49:58Shown on the screen is uh the proposed

1:50:00network enhancements which fall into

1:50:01several categories. First is an Elorado

1:50:04Avenue bicycle boulevard and operations

1:50:06package. I would also like to note that

1:50:09due to the current width of Elorado

1:50:11Avenue parking adjustments may be

1:50:12considered during design refinement to

1:50:14address daylighting, visibility and

1:50:16emergency access needs. Second is

1:50:19intersection and crossing safety.

1:50:21Third is vehicle speed and cutthrough

1:50:23management. And fourth is placemaking

1:50:25and wayfinding.

1:50:27Overall, the intent is to make the new

1:50:28undercrossing connect with the broader

1:50:30network of comfortable, intuitive, and

1:50:32accessible walking and biking routes.

1:50:34So, now that I've covered the crossing

1:50:36alternatives at Elorado Avenue design

1:50:39network uh changes, I'll briefly

1:50:41summarize the feedback we are hearing

1:50:42through phase three of engagement so

1:50:45far. And there's additional information

1:50:47in your staff report. Next slide,

1:50:49please.

1:50:51Next slide, please.

1:50:54During phase three, we are generally uh

1:50:56we are uh we have generally heard a

1:50:58broad support for improving bicycle and

1:51:00pedestrian rail crossings in South Palo

1:51:02Alto alongside differing views on the

1:51:05appropriate location, design, timing,

1:51:07and level of investment. Feedback on

1:51:10alternatives A1 and A2 is mixed. Some

1:51:13community members favor A1 as a simpler,

1:51:15lowerc cost option, although traffic

1:51:18operations remain a concern. Others

1:51:20expressed concerns that A2 would be more

1:51:22complex and costly with greater

1:51:24potential impacts on residential

1:51:26properties and utilities. We have also

1:51:28heard requests to evaluate the LMA verde

1:51:31uh Elma hybrid plan and other crossing

1:51:33locations

1:51:35in the Elorado Avenue. Residents raised

1:51:37concern that the roadway width parking

1:51:39driveway access cut through traffic and

1:51:41emergency um emergency access response

1:51:45as concerns.

1:51:46Finally, there is support for targeted

1:51:48traffic homing and bicycle boulevard

1:51:50improvements with requests for further

1:51:52analysis and community engagement. Next

1:51:54slide, please.

1:51:56Next slide.

1:51:59So, the feedback we receive during this

1:52:01next phase will help refine the

1:52:02alternatives and the network

1:52:03enhancements before the project returns

1:52:05to council. Near-term scheduled

1:52:07engagement meetings are shown here,

1:52:08noting that these dates are tentative.

1:52:10Additional community engagement is being

1:52:12planned for this project. So, please

1:52:13check the project web page in the city

1:52:14calendar for the latest meeting schedule

1:52:16for this project. Uh, next slide please.

1:52:21Next steps for the project team

1:52:22following completion of conceptual

1:52:24design including uh includes the

1:52:26presentation

1:52:28um sorry the following the completion of

1:52:30conceptual design includes the

1:52:32presentation uh the refined 15% designs

1:52:35and network enhancements as well as

1:52:36funding and imple uh funding and

1:52:38implementation plan to the community for

1:52:40feedback and consideration in early 2027

1:52:43followed by a final report in spring of

1:52:452027. Staff will then pursue subsequent

1:52:48phases as directed by the city council,

1:52:50including the next steps shown on your

1:52:51screen. Next slide, please. I also

1:52:54wanted to share that the city has been

1:52:56awarded approximately a little bit less

1:52:58than $460,000 in funding from the 2016

1:53:02measure BIC and pedestrian planning

1:53:05grant study program cycle 3 for this uh

1:53:08for this project. This grant award would

1:53:10fund the next phases of work including

1:53:12additional data collection, analysis,

1:53:14review of conceptual designs and

1:53:16community engagement, collaboration with

1:53:18Calra for thirdparty review and Cal

1:53:20Train board review as part of the rail

1:53:22corridor use policy process.

1:53:26That completes that presentation. I look

1:53:29forward to discussion. Thank you.

1:53:33Um, so I'm going to give I think we can

1:53:36have like five minutes of clarifying

1:53:37questions from the commissioners while

1:53:39we wait for additional um public

1:53:42commenters to turn in cards or raise

1:53:44their hands on Zoom. So, I'm going to

1:53:46start with Commissioner Tumbleton.

1:53:50>> Thank you very much for um a thorough

1:53:53presentation. I appreciate bringing in a

1:53:55lot of color for some of the decisions

1:53:57that have been made so far. Um, I also

1:54:00want to to state for staff and also for

1:54:03the benefit of the public that our

1:54:04purpose here is to um do our due

1:54:08diligence. So, we're going to ask some

1:54:09tough questions and that's okay because

1:54:12I'm sure you're prepared for them and

1:54:14it's it's part of our process. So, um I

1:54:17hope that uh any questions I bring will

1:54:20be taken in that light. Um, so the first

1:54:24thing uh that that I noted um when you

1:54:27were talking about the benefits of uh

1:54:31the crossing at this location

1:54:34um was a list of of benefits like

1:54:38accessing Baron Park and uh other

1:54:42trails. Do you recall

1:54:45providing that list? Um, and I know that

1:54:48this location, um, this proposed

1:54:51location is about half a mile from the

1:54:55California Avenue underpass. Is that

1:54:58right?

1:55:00>> That's correct.

1:55:01>> Right. And so, are any of these benefits

1:55:04exclusive to the Elorado crossing or do

1:55:07they also occur at the California Avenue

1:55:10crossing?

1:55:16So, the benefits of uh the benefits that

1:55:19I mentioned are the connection between

1:55:21the Midtown and Ventura neighborhoods.

1:55:24Um the NVCAP, the North Ventura

1:55:26Coordinated Area Plan area with the

1:55:28additional housing there.

1:55:29>> You mean NVCAP where the California

1:55:31Avenue underpass is? Like I I'm I'm just

1:55:35trying to be really real. This is this

1:55:37is all very approximate. So, um those

1:55:40the don't worry that's that's fine.

1:55:44>> Let's yeah, let's go through the items

1:55:46um in response to your

1:55:48>> I only want the items that are not

1:55:49available from the California um Avenue

1:55:52crossing.

1:55:53>> Okay. So, to clarify what you're

1:55:55interested in knowing is what benefits

1:55:58does this particular uh crossing add to

1:56:02what's already available through the

1:56:04California Avenue?

1:56:05>> Right. and put this another way um

1:56:07because our responsibility is to

1:56:09evaluate this and recommend to city

1:56:11council

1:56:12>> um what justifies the $80 million and

1:56:16how many other years it's going to take

1:56:17and so that's

1:56:19yeah so just to respond to that question

1:56:22thank you for your question um so

1:56:24council did weigh that consideration

1:56:27when they were choosing this this

1:56:29location it is I think it was the

1:56:31furthest north of the eight locations is

1:56:34that right from the previous step. Um,

1:56:36and so that was that was something that

1:56:39they

1:56:41that they weighed um along with the

1:56:43property impacts and other and other

1:56:45considerations

1:56:47>> and and would you share I mean that

1:56:49that's the part of the recap of what

1:56:51happened at council that I'm missing and

1:56:53so that's why I'm asking for clarifying

1:56:55purposes because we've got over 30

1:56:59people here um in in person to discuss

1:57:02it but we also have to evaluate and give

1:57:05feed feedback. So, um, again, I I I can

1:57:08read your expression here, like why is

1:57:09she asking this, but this is this is

1:57:11important to get us all on the same

1:57:12page. So, thank you. I appreciate you

1:57:14taking the time to share that with us.

1:57:15So

1:57:17what is Oh, so yeah, I mean that was

1:57:21that was one of the things that they

1:57:22kind of weighed that the location,

1:57:26you know, didn't ex didn't provide as

1:57:28much benefits as some of the other

1:57:30locations potentially in the middle of

1:57:32the area. I mean they they're rang

1:57:34between Meadow, Charleston, San Antonio

1:57:38and then Calab. So that was part of

1:57:41their discussion and I think on balance

1:57:43they were particularly concerned about

1:57:46property impacts. So that was part of

1:57:48the decision there. But they did want to

1:57:50provide a new pedestrian bicycle

1:57:52undercrossing in the South PaloAlto

1:57:54area south of Oregon expressway. It's

1:57:56barely south of Oregon though. Like did

1:57:58you I guess what I'm trying to ask is

1:58:00did staff discuss that with council?

1:58:04Yes, that that was part of the

1:58:06discussion of that council had right.

1:58:08the the discussion of how of these

1:58:12different options as mentioned this was

1:58:14the one that was farthest north um there

1:58:18were some you know concern that if they

1:58:20were too far south then it wasn't um

1:58:23applying to as many PaloAlto residents

1:58:27and so

1:58:29yes this doesn't give as much access as

1:58:32some of those that were further south

1:58:35might have given but it also didn't have

1:58:38the impacts they were concerned about of

1:58:41property acquisition for example. Um so

1:58:45inputs in this discussion and feedback

1:58:49in tonight's discussion about the

1:58:52concern that maybe this isn't giving

1:58:55enough benefit to balance the the cost

1:58:58and impacts that absolutely can be part

1:59:01of the feedback that you provide tonight

1:59:03and when we get to that discussion part

1:59:05we can talk

1:59:05>> can I just quickly interject on this was

1:59:07council aware of the price tag at the

1:59:10time because when it was at came to the

1:59:12commission I had asked You know, we had

1:59:14said that Lumie might be more expensive

1:59:16than Elorado, but we didn't know how

1:59:18much more, and we certainly didn't know

1:59:22that on the low end, this would cost $72

1:59:25million. So, at the time, council was

1:59:29balancing, you know, which options to

1:59:32advance. Was council aware of the order

1:59:36of magnitude of um like the price tag

1:59:40for this?

1:59:42The last phase we did not have um cost

1:59:45estimates, construction cost estimates.

1:59:47We had only developed cost estimates

1:59:50once we had uh options narrowed down.

1:59:54However, as part of the evaluation,

1:59:56construction cost was a consideration

1:59:59but it was um presented as you know

2:00:02high, medium, low kind of ranking and

2:00:05compared the eight alternatives against

2:00:06one another.

2:00:07>> Right. Okay. because like 3 versus 5

2:00:10versus 10 is one thing and then 72

2:00:14versus 75 versus 78 would be a different

2:00:17kind of right and and that is the

2:00:20benefit of having this discussion again

2:00:23at this point where we're still only 5%

2:00:26design. Um we've done enough work that

2:00:29we can get some numbers. They will get

2:00:30more and more precise as we go along.

2:00:33>> Oh, you definitely got our interest now.

2:00:35and and so we can have this discussion

2:00:37so we can receive the concerns from the

2:00:39public and from the PT.

2:00:41>> Thank you. I still have more questions.

2:00:42So, um I that those great questions,

2:00:45Chair Chang, thank you. Um so, uh the

2:00:48other um thing we we talked about this

2:00:51is only half a mile south of the

2:00:52existing southernmost crossing in

2:00:54PaloAlto. Um and then um you know

2:00:58there's like about two miles to get to

2:01:01the border of uh the city down by San

2:01:03Antonio. Are um not part of this

2:01:07presentation so far, but I'm going to

2:01:09ask the question. Are we thinking that

2:01:11bikes will be able to get through if

2:01:13ever um grade separations are performed

2:01:17at Meadow and Charleston?

2:01:20Is that why we're thinking not to put

2:01:21them there? I'm just trying to

2:01:23understand what's the logic. Um so um

2:01:27the grade separations came to council on

2:01:29Monday night and they um recommended

2:01:32that staff continue through to the 35%

2:01:36uh design uh something that they

2:01:38>> on both of those two

2:01:40>> on uh Meadow Charleston and Church Hill.

2:01:43>> Oh okay great we have a grant that

2:01:46covers all three.

2:01:47>> Awesome. Um

2:01:49and part of that conversation they

2:01:51reiterate, they've said it previously,

2:01:53but they reiterated that Charleston is

2:01:55their first priority and our bikes going

2:01:58to be yes included. So that's sort of

2:02:00the mentality of why it's not so

2:02:03desperate that we're putting this up

2:02:05here because we're going to have an

2:02:06opportunity 10 or 20 years down the road

2:02:09in in South Palo Alto. Is that right?

2:02:11>> Yeah, they're thinking about the whole

2:02:13corridor. So yeah.

2:02:14>> Awesome. Okay. Well, um thank you for

2:02:16clarifying that. I appreciate those are

2:02:17my clarifying questions.

2:02:19>> Mr. Aken,

2:02:22>> is it worth pursuing discussion of

2:02:26additional modifications to A2 tonight?

2:02:31>> Yes, we welcome all your feedback.

2:02:35>> Okay, thank you. I'll have some later

2:02:37then.

2:02:40>> Um, okay. So, I have a question that

2:02:43would be great if Mr. Kohl's could

2:02:45explain why bridges why the options

2:02:49um you know we started with almost 30

2:02:51options and then got narrowed down to

2:02:53eight and I think it might be helpful

2:02:54for the public to understand why bridges

2:02:57were eliminated.

2:03:00>> So that has to do with the Calra

2:03:03electrification system and the clearance

2:03:05and the amount of uh space it would take

2:03:08to actually get over the electrification

2:03:10system. Um it's approximately just to

2:03:13give a level like a sense of the height

2:03:15it's approximately three stories up that

2:03:17you would have to go and so to meet

2:03:19current ADA standards what that means is

2:03:21you have a very long ramp and what this

2:03:23equates to is a very big structure um

2:03:26which requires space. So um we looked at

2:03:29that along the whole South Palatoto

2:03:31corridor between Oregon Expressway and

2:03:33San Antonio and um ultimately

2:03:37recommended that those uh ideas didn't

2:03:40advance any further past that initial

2:03:42kind of early phase where you know it's

2:03:43part of the 25 or so conceptual designs

2:03:46that were originally evaluated.

2:03:47>> Yeah. Essentially due to cost and

2:03:49practicality and feasibility of those

2:03:51really long ramps. Correct. Okay. And so

2:03:55that's thank you for the context because

2:03:56I just wanted everybody here to hear

2:03:57that. Um secondly,

2:04:01question about what the funding sources

2:04:02for this ultimately would be. Are these

2:04:05you know if it's a 72 million or 80

2:04:08whatever million uh dollar project is

2:04:12that going to be something that would

2:04:13come out of PaloAlto's general fund or

2:04:15would it be funded from other grants or

2:04:17funds that are designated for a

2:04:20crossing? Um, we don't currently have a

2:04:22funding plan for this project, but we

2:04:25would be seeking grant funding and we

2:04:27would expect that that would cover the

2:04:28bulk of the costs.

2:04:30>> Thank you. That's also helpful to

2:04:31understand.

2:04:32>> Okay. Um, I don't see other lights right

2:04:35now.

2:04:37Um, so I've got a request for a break,

2:04:41but I want to make sure that we don't

2:04:44No, I don't want to make the members of

2:04:45the public wait for that. So, let's

2:04:48start by saying um let's check in to see

2:04:51how many people have submitted

2:04:54or public comment and so that we can

2:04:56make an assessment. And I think that we

2:04:57might take a break in the middle really

2:05:00short because we need a bio break up

2:05:02here.

2:05:03>> Um but let's see how many speakers we

2:05:06have first.

2:05:07>> Yeah. Uh through the chair, we have 14

2:05:09requests to speak uh being 12 individual

2:05:12speakers and two group speakers.

2:05:14>> Okay. and then online

2:05:16>> uh one one is included on those one

2:05:20online then they're already on the list.

2:05:22>> Okay. So then I think what we'll do is 2

2:05:24minutes per speaker and then for groups

2:05:27we can stick to the 10 minutes but I

2:05:30just want to beg the public for their

2:05:31understanding that at a certain point we

2:05:33might take a very short break so that we

2:05:35can address our needs. Thank you.

2:05:39>> Sorry. Oh yeah. and we'll still hear

2:05:41everybody but we'll just

2:05:44>> Yeah. Um our first uh group speaker is

2:05:46David H speaking on behalf of five um

2:05:51>> sorry and also just could we please just

2:05:54in the this is just a decorum and how we

2:05:57handle this um for public comment in the

2:05:59public meetings just please refrain from

2:06:02applause or cheering or booze. Uh thank

2:06:06you. Yeah, and also for the public uh

2:06:08there is a timer on the pulpit so that

2:06:12you can uh see your time uh when it ends

2:06:14and nearing ending. Um but with that

2:06:16being said uh David you may begin.

2:06:19>> Respected chair Chang and members of the

2:06:23planning and transportation commission.

2:06:26I am speaking on behalf of 300 residents

2:06:29and voters in Poalto. We have signed a

2:06:32petition objecting to the city's

2:06:34proposed bike path

2:06:37on Elorado because of serious safety and

2:06:39health concerns and we are asking the

2:06:42city to consider the city and commission

2:06:45to consider an alternative hybrid

2:06:47proposal which we believe maximizes

2:06:50utility for the city. Next slide please.

2:06:53The dominant issue is a structural one.

2:06:56El Dorado is simply too narrow to safely

2:06:59handle higher additional volumes of

2:07:01traffic. The easiest way to understand

2:07:04this is to drive north on Elma Street

2:07:07and make a right turn onto Alada. I

2:07:10presented photos in this slide to

2:07:12illustrate the situation. As you are

2:07:15entering Alado shown at the left photo,

2:07:18you will need to rapidly slow down from

2:07:19about 35 miles an hour to make the turn.

2:07:22You will be squeezing often between cars

2:07:25parked on both sides of the street.

2:07:29Furthermore, you can encounter cars

2:07:31trying to exit El Dorado as shown in the

2:07:33right photo. You will have only interest

2:07:36to spare to avoid a collision. Next

2:07:38slide, please. And next slide, please.

2:07:43This slide shows a car that did not

2:07:45negotiate the turn into Elorado and

2:07:47ended up crashing into Cindy and Dave's

2:07:50fence at the intersection of Elorado and

2:07:53Elma. They have had numerous accidents

2:07:55on their property over the years. Next

2:07:58slide, please.

2:08:00Again, the dominant issue is a

2:08:02structural one. El Dorado is the

2:08:05narrowest street between Oregon

2:08:07Expressway and San Antonio Road. El

2:08:10Dorado is 27 feet wide. In comparison,

2:08:14El Camalo is 35 ft wide and Lom Verde is

2:08:1842 ft. Next slide, please.

2:08:23On top of this already tight and crowded

2:08:25situation, the city has proposed to

2:08:27layer on a bike boulevard with

2:08:29additional bike and pedestrian traffic.

2:08:32I will now go through how the city's

2:08:35proposals on this narrow street may play

2:08:38out. The city is considering two

2:08:40alternatives for a bike crossing to

2:08:42connect Elorado to Park Boulevard. A1

2:08:46would establish a traffic light at Alma

2:08:48to allow surface crossing of bicycles

2:08:50across Elma and then create a tunnel

2:08:52under the train tracks to continue well

2:08:55to connect ultimately to Park Boulevard.

2:08:58A2 would create a tunnel under both Elma

2:09:01and the train tracks.

2:09:03All variants of A2 would require eminent

2:09:06domain and the taking of private

2:09:08residences in whole or in part. One

2:09:12variant would take units of affordable

2:09:14housing at Alorado and Elma.

2:09:17Why take housing at all when the city

2:09:19needs more housing units? Next slide,

2:09:22please.

2:09:24A1 would place a traffic light at Alma.

2:09:27This would be the only traffic light

2:09:28between Churchill and Grocery Outlet.

2:09:31This would draw a neighborhood traffic

2:09:32wanting to make protected turns.

2:09:35Navigation apps such as Google Maps

2:09:37would route cut through traffic here.

2:09:39The result is very likely to be much

2:09:42higher traffic volumes.

2:09:44To put this in perspective, this would

2:09:47be on top of the 2600 additional bike

2:09:49and pedestrian trips daily estimated by

2:09:52the city for this bike path. Next slide,

2:09:54please.

2:09:56This increased volume of traffic is

2:09:58likely to result in traffic congestion

2:10:02which could further result in delay and

2:10:05emergency response vehicles

2:10:07service to culac residents especially at

2:10:11peak hours. This would adversely affect

2:10:1590 houses of residents as shown in the

2:10:18picture.

2:10:20Increased accident risk for residents

2:10:22exiting and entering their driveways

2:10:24along Elorado is another further result

2:10:27that could happen. Next slide, please.

2:10:32The proposed traffic circle at Bryant

2:10:34Alvo will have numerous negative

2:10:37consequences.

2:10:38Ross Road is already proof of this. As

2:10:41you can see from the map cutouts of Ross

2:10:43Road and El Dorado cut out to the same

2:10:46scale, the circle size for Elorado would

2:10:48be smaller than Ross Road, further

2:10:51exacerbating dangers and risks. Why

2:10:54repeat a flawed and dangerous design?

2:10:58Next slide, please.

2:11:00We neighbors are concerned that the

2:11:01proposed traffic circle would present

2:11:04increased collision risks to pedestrians

2:11:07and school children and also for

2:11:09residents living near the intersection.

2:11:11Increased collision risk from cars and

2:11:13bikes exiting out of the traffic circle.

2:11:17Next slide please.

2:11:19And next slide.

2:11:23And next slide.

2:11:27If a city wants to maximize utility to

2:11:30the residents of Palo Alto, why not make

2:11:32a choice that makes sense? Lumber Verde

2:11:36passes through the centrid of population

2:11:38between East Meadow and Oregon

2:11:40expressway.

2:11:41As stated before, Lumber Verde is much

2:11:44wider. That's 42 feet compared to

2:11:47Alorado's narrow 27 ft. Next slide,

2:11:51please.

2:11:54Lumber Verde has a far better reach. It

2:11:56crosses middlefield and continues to

2:11:58west bayshore. Then in half a mile it

2:12:01connects to the bike bridge across 101

2:12:04allowing access to the bay lens and

2:12:06shoreline areas. Elorado by comparison

2:12:09stops at Kalper.

2:12:12Next slide please.

2:12:14So how can Lom Verde be connected to

2:12:17Park Boulevard? To figure this out. I

2:12:20went to examine Elma Street and made

2:12:23measurements. The landscaping strip

2:12:25between the east edge of Arma and the

2:12:27sidewalk is 16 feet. The width between

2:12:31the west edge of Arma and the rail

2:12:33railroad ride ofwayo is about 11 ft.

2:12:36That's according to diagrams and city

2:12:38proposals.

2:12:40If 5T is left as a safety barrier next

2:12:43to the sidewalk, there is potentially

2:12:4622 total feet width available from both

2:12:51sides of armor.

2:12:53Next slide, please.

2:12:56I next pulled elements from the city's

2:12:58proposals and existing infrastructure

2:13:01and develop the hybrid plan. The

2:13:03elements are as follows.

2:13:06Locate the traffic light at Lom Verde

2:13:09between Lumber Verde and Elorado. Shift

2:13:12Alma Street eastwards to widen the

2:13:14median strip between the railroad and

2:13:16Elma.

2:13:18And then from the 22 feet of resulting

2:13:20available width, construct a protected

2:13:23bike and pedestrian path in the median

2:13:25strip and connect from the traffic light

2:13:28crossing to the city's proposed tunnel.

2:13:32A prime benefit of this plan is no

2:13:34eminent domain private house

2:13:36acquisitions.

2:13:38Next slide, please.

2:13:41With the list of concerns reviewed in

2:13:44this presentation and the hybrid plan,

2:13:46we created the neighborhood petition to

2:13:48inform neighbors and present our

2:13:50objections and solutions to the city. To

2:13:53date, 300 residents have signed this

2:13:56petition. This is a large majority of

2:13:58the 400 houses in the neighborhood

2:14:01between Elma and Kappa Street in Oregon

2:14:04Expressway and Matadoro Creek. We

2:14:07neighbors have opposed this Elorado bike

2:14:09path choice also at the transportation

2:14:12department community workshop on August

2:14:1427.

2:14:16Here we voted on the city's proposals. I

2:14:18have already emailed the voting results

2:14:20to the commission. About 80 to 90% of

2:14:23the neighbor votes were strongly against

2:14:25all of the variants of the city's

2:14:27Elorado bike path proposals.

2:14:30Next slide, please.

2:14:33Many of us 300 signitories are here

2:14:36today in person or online.

2:14:40We ask the city and planning and

2:14:42transportation commission to one

2:14:45completely remove Alorado Avenue from

2:14:47consideration for the South Palto bike

2:14:50ped connectivity project.

2:14:53Two, formally evaluate the hybrid plan.

2:14:58Uh so at this point uh chair Chang can I

2:15:03ask that those in the audience who

2:15:05support the position and the hybrid plan

2:15:08stand up or is that going to be so would

2:15:12you please stand up or wave your hands.

2:15:17Thank you. Thank you chair Chang and

2:15:20commission.

2:15:22>> Thank you very much. Next speaker. Our

2:15:24next speaker is Annette G speaking on

2:15:26behalf of five followed by Bruce H.

2:15:38Good evening, Chair Chang and

2:15:40commissioners. I do support a south Palo

2:15:44Alto bicycle and pedestrian crossing in

2:15:48the stretch between Cal A and Meadow,

2:15:50but El Dorado is not the right street.

2:15:55Why shoehorn a major transportation

2:15:58project into the narrowest and most

2:16:01constrained streets in the corridor when

2:16:04other and better alternatives exist?

2:16:08As said, the El Dorado is only about 27

2:16:11feet wide, has approximately 25

2:16:15driveways, and serves five culde-sacs

2:16:18with about 175 homes. Those who live on

2:16:22culde-sacs that are closest to ALMA

2:16:25right now have difficulties in exiting

2:16:28their driveways.

2:16:30Both alternatives A1 and A2 would

2:16:33significantly affect neighborhood

2:16:35access, circulation, parking, and

2:16:38potentially emergency response.

2:16:42The staff report does not adequately

2:16:44reflect the community opposition both at

2:16:47the August 27th meeting as well as the

2:16:52meeting on Sunday when over a hundred

2:16:55residents of the Elorado neighborhood

2:16:58came out to oppose the Elorado crossing.

2:17:02And David mentioned the sign the

2:17:04petition now has over 300 signatures in

2:17:08an area and I counted them today on a

2:17:10zoning map of about 525 households in

2:17:14support of the LMA Verde hybrid

2:17:17solution. That is a very high

2:17:19percentage. So I ask you for several

2:17:22options. First take off the Rube

2:17:26Goldberg A1 alternative from

2:17:29consideration.

2:17:31A2, as mentioned, would require the

2:17:34acquisition of four residents, three of

2:17:38which are lowincome housing run by Alta.

2:17:41And the council, as you know, has

2:17:43strongly avoided eminent domain of

2:17:46residential properties. A2 would

2:17:49restrict El Dorado to a narrow 13 foot

2:17:52one-way westbound street with the fire

2:17:55department already complaining about

2:17:58emergency access. The staff report also

2:18:01identifies significant utility

2:18:04conflicts, including a 24in

2:18:06high-pressure gas line, water and sewer

2:18:09lines, and their concerns about a toxic

2:18:12plume.

2:18:14There also is restricted driveway

2:18:16access, and one property wouldn't even

2:18:19be able to access their driveway.

2:18:22Second, direct staff to fully evaluate

2:18:26alternatives, especially the Loma Verde

2:18:30hybrid solution, but also there's El

2:18:32Carmelo in Matadora Creek. As mentioned,

2:18:36LMA Verde is over 15 feet wider than El

2:18:40Dorado. It's midway between the points

2:18:44and already functions as a bicycle

2:18:48corridor. And it goes all the way to

2:18:50Beayshore.

2:18:52Council member Bert's

2:18:54motion on o in December of last year

2:18:58asked staff to determine whether El

2:19:00Carmelo or El Dorado was a better

2:19:03option. That council member request

2:19:08deserves a clear answer. Third,

2:19:12reconsider the best solution for a

2:19:15traffic light and remove A1 from

2:19:18consideration. A traffic light at Lomma

2:19:21Verde would make more sense. It's

2:19:24further south. It would provide a better

2:19:26buffer to absorb a higher volume of

2:19:28cars, especially during peak hours.

2:19:32The assumptions that were at council on

2:19:35December 1 that favored El Dorado,

2:19:39including an eminent grade crossing to

2:19:42Meadow, which does not look likely now,

2:19:44have changed in cost have changed since

2:19:47the December 1 council meeting as

2:19:50engineering analysis has progressed.

2:19:55I invite you to come to Elorado and see

2:19:58the conditions for yourself. and we did

2:20:00invite you. We do need a South Palo Alto

2:20:06bike crossing. I know any choice of this

2:20:09crossing is going to have consequences,

2:20:12but

2:20:14if you pick a solution, put it in a

2:20:17location that is the safest,

2:20:20most practical, and has the least impact

2:20:25on the surrounding re residents. El

2:20:28Dorado is not that location. Thank you.

2:20:33>> Thank you.

2:20:35>> Our next speaker is Bruce A followed by

2:20:37Stanley Q.

2:20:41>> Thank you. Uh my name is Bruce Arthur.

2:20:44I'm the chair of the payback committee,

2:20:45but I'm here speaking from just myself

2:20:47tonight. I'm also a Midtown resident

2:20:49who's not far from this. Not immediately

2:20:51Jason, but pretty close. I just want to

2:20:53say how important it is that we add a

2:20:56low stress bike and pedestrian crossing

2:20:58in this section of town. Uh the

2:21:00California AB tunnel is lovely, but it's

2:21:02not low stress. I was in it this morning

2:21:04facing hordes of middle schoolers riding

2:21:06at high speeds. It is not ADA compliant.

2:21:09It is dark. It is narrow. It is too

2:21:11steep. We need something more along the

2:21:12lines of what we have at Homer. But that

2:21:14that's a, you know, that's what we want.

2:21:16This item has been on the it's in the

2:21:182024 pedestrian bike plan. It's also in

2:21:21the 2010 pedestrian bike plan. It's been

2:21:23on the books as a request for a very

2:21:25long time. It is really, we need to make

2:21:27something happen here. This connection

2:21:30also connects the two better bike routes

2:21:32in Palo Alto, connects Bryant Street and

2:21:33Park Boulevard. These are both excellent

2:21:35bike routes. And by adding a a

2:21:36connection that goes between them, you

2:21:38really make them much higher utility. It

2:21:40makes it easy for me to get to edgysical

2:21:42uh therapy on El Camino. It makes it

2:21:44easy for people on the other side of

2:21:45town to get to Calav. This is just a

2:21:48wonderful way to connect to existing

2:21:49structures.

2:21:50Additionally, I also want to say that

2:21:52after talking to some residents, the

2:21:53speed of the vehicles on Alma is a

2:21:56problem. And that's sort of outside the

2:21:58scope of this, but I like the idea of

2:22:00adding a light to Alma just to slow down

2:22:02the racetrack between East Meadow and

2:22:03all the way up to Churchill. And in

2:22:05fact, it might be a good idea to

2:22:07consider adding lights at Alma Verde and

2:22:09even at Oregon A where it comes out to

2:22:11allow cars coming up Oregon to make a

2:22:13left and go south on Alma. uh slowing

2:22:16down the traffic on Alma would be a big

2:22:18benefit to the people who live there. Um

2:22:20a lot of the affordable apartments in

2:22:21PaloAlto in that section of town and

2:22:23those people deserve a street that works

2:22:24for them, not just as a as a you know

2:22:26expressway. Thank you.

2:22:29>> Our next speaker is Stanley Q followed

2:22:31by David M.

2:22:36>> Hi. Um I'm the property owner of the

2:22:41>> and what Oh, okay. Sorry. I'm the I'm

2:22:45Stanley Quan and I'm the property owner

2:22:47right at near the corner at 149 Elorado

2:22:51and I urged the planning commission to

2:22:54just basically cancel this project and

2:22:57reject all proposals. Um,

2:23:00if if the A2 alternative is is uh

2:23:05implemented or even the other one,

2:23:07basically there's a tunnel wall that's

2:23:10like built right in front of my property

2:23:11and I would only be have a right turn

2:23:14into my driveway and uh backing out of

2:23:18or exiting the driveway would be

2:23:19extremely difficult. Um, not only that,

2:23:23the current proposals would use eminent

2:23:26domain and purchase all the neighboring

2:23:28houses around me. Um, I think this would

2:23:32be kind of an abuse of of of of city

2:23:36funds. Um,

2:23:39so I don't really think there is a need

2:23:41for the panel at Elorado because we do

2:23:44have the um the uh California Avenue

2:23:48exit and uh the the California Avenue uh

2:23:52pedestrian uh tunnel crossing. And if

2:23:55you would enhance it with better

2:23:57lighting, perhaps it would make it look

2:23:59a little bit be safer. um you could

2:24:01spend the same amount of money um making

2:24:03that that that tunnel wider, but

2:24:06basically you all have the same benefits

2:24:08of the California Avenue um crossing

2:24:11instead of at Elorado. Um the other

2:24:15thing is that the current study for the

2:24:18uh projection of number of people that

2:24:21would actually be using the the Elorado

2:24:23tunnel for the year 2031 is only 100 or

2:24:27se 70 people walking

2:24:30uh through the tunnel and 150 bicycle

2:24:33trips at the 8 8 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. um uh

2:24:37crossing. So for a project that would

2:24:40cost roughly $80 million,

2:24:43it seems like the total number of people

2:24:45that would actually use a tunnel uh is

2:24:48is is is

2:24:50pretty much not a good use of of city

2:24:53funds.

2:24:53>> This concludes your time.

2:24:55>> Okay. Anyway, I urge you to uh uh cancel

2:24:58this project. Uh

2:24:59>> our next speaker is David M.

2:25:08Okay. And I just wanted to um say

2:25:10something that I'd forgotten to say. So

2:25:12if you agree with speakers before you

2:25:14don't feel the need to use up your two

2:25:16minutes, uh you can just say I agree

2:25:19with that other person. Thank you.

2:25:23>> Very good. Thank you. Uh thank you for

2:25:25allowing me this opportunity to uh speak

2:25:27on behalf of the hybrid program, the

2:25:29hybrid project. Um I happen to be that

2:25:31resident at the corner of El Dorado and

2:25:33Alma and since 20 since 2002 I've have

2:25:3724 years of experience at that

2:25:39intersection and if you want any you

2:25:41know firsthand knowledge of how that how

2:25:44unsafe that uh intersection is just ask

2:25:48the um I can't uh the the Elorado as we

2:25:53mentioned is less than 28 ft wide. Uh

2:25:56it's the long it's the narrowest um

2:25:59stretch along that stretch of uh Alma

2:26:02and uh we already know that there's

2:26:05parking issues we've talked about um

2:26:08along that uh along that corridor. So um

2:26:11I'm here to simply say that as a

2:26:14resident uh who is in that um eminent

2:26:18domain discussion uh for both A1 and A2

2:26:23um I have to say I'm quite opposed to

2:26:25the the present uh alternatives at those

2:26:28two loc at those of those two projects.

2:26:31So in conclusion, I'll basically say um

2:26:34I'm in support of the hybrid program,

2:26:36the hybrid hybrid plan and uh that's

2:26:40that's all I got to say. Thank you.

2:26:42>> Thank you.

2:26:43>> Our next speaker is Sherei Vasan S

2:26:46followed by Paul A.

2:26:49>> Hi. Um so um I speak for myself. So any

2:26:54outburst, any show of irritation at the

2:26:57whole proposal is just my fault, not my

2:26:59family or my friends.

2:27:01Um, I don't know how this even came

2:27:05through. I mean, you're asking good

2:27:07questions and I don't know why you have

2:27:08to be so polite. You know, why are you

2:27:10doing this when there's California

2:27:11Avenue? I biked and I go to California

2:27:14Avenue under pass to go to the

2:27:15California, you know, that's where the

2:27:16shopping is. So you what's there in

2:27:19venture? So the whole thing doesn't make

2:27:21sense. So I strongly object. My kids

2:27:24grew up there. They learned to bike on

2:27:27Elorado and this you know and then they

2:27:32go to Hor Park. It is a peaceful

2:27:35community and you're ruining it with all

2:27:38this stuff. I don't know what those

2:27:40surveys are. I don't know if you ask

2:27:42them, hey, do you want the bike pass or

2:27:44you want to cut off the $72 million?

2:27:46What did they say? You know, it just

2:27:49makes no sense. So I don't know how how

2:27:52to say it and as I was listening to the

2:27:54previous point you know how you were all

2:27:56saying you know my house is already tall

2:28:00you know how is it all these new rules

2:28:03how is it going to affect you know

2:28:05that's what that's what we all here for

2:28:07you made a plan but you didn't even talk

2:28:10to anyone or most of us will be affected

2:28:14and some of what you're proposing

2:28:17basically puts me in house arrest I

2:28:19cannot get out of the house cuz it's

2:28:20going to be a you know electric bike or

2:28:24whatever stuff is going to be going one

2:28:26side and you know next what uh if I get

2:28:30on wheelchair you're going to have a

2:28:31blue lane so that I can just take my

2:28:33wheelchair and go. I don't know it's

2:28:35just I shouldn't say stupid but uh it

2:28:40just makes no sense.

2:28:43So I strongly oppose it. Okay city

2:28:46council has done this stuff. I'm going

2:28:49to be active. I thought I would just

2:28:51take my spiritual path and be peaceful,

2:28:54but you guys have gotten me out of this

2:28:56stuff includ

2:28:59>> nuts. Don't do this.

2:29:03>> Our next speaker is Paul A, followed by

2:29:05Arthur L.

2:29:14>> Good evening. My name is Paul Appan. My

2:29:16wife and I have lived on Emerson Street

2:29:18near El Dorado for 50 years.

2:29:22We know the troubles with El Dorado.

2:29:25We've lived it. Tonight, I want to ask

2:29:27one question. Is El Dorado the correct

2:29:30location for this grade separated

2:29:32crossing and class 3B Boulevard? We

2:29:35believe the answer is no. The street is

2:29:38too narrow. drivers regularly run uh

2:29:41stop signs driving at speeds appearing

2:29:44um well above 25 miles per hour and

2:29:47oversized overweight vehicles are

2:29:50common. Those are things that are not

2:29:52great for bicyclists.

2:29:55As we've as you've heard over 300

2:29:57neighbors have signed petitions opposing

2:29:59both city plans. But let me explain our

2:30:02concerns starting with the Alma

2:30:04intersection. Plan A1 adds a traffic

2:30:07light. Navigation apps will send drivers

2:30:09to that light to turn left onto Elma,

2:30:12pushing more cars onto El Dorado. That

2:30:14is in that is the opposite of what a

2:30:17bicycle boulevard is meant to do. Cars

2:30:19queuing at the light will also block

2:30:21residents trying to leave their

2:30:23driveways and culde-sacs.

2:30:25Plan A2, the tunnel, would require

2:30:28taking entire homes through eminent

2:30:30domain and elim and eliminate parking

2:30:33for homes opposite the tunnel. It could

2:30:36also slow emergency service responders

2:30:38to nearby homes. No design should move

2:30:42forward without a comprehensive response

2:30:44time analysis.

2:30:47Additionally, closing El Dorado

2:30:49eastbound will shift that traffic to

2:30:52Colorado or El Carmelo. Now, the bicycle

2:30:55boulevard, because El Dorado, El Dorado

2:30:58is a substandard width street, parking

2:31:00would be limited to one side to fit

2:31:02two-way traffic and more cyclists.

2:31:08You've heard that there's 25 driveways

2:31:10on on the street. picture backing out of

2:31:12one watching pedestrians, cyclists,

2:31:15faster bikes, and uh cars all at once.

2:31:18The risk of collision rises

2:31:20significantly.

2:31:21>> Thank you. That concludes your time.

2:31:25>> And uh to the chair, I just wanted to

2:31:27check in with you. We are at the halfway

2:31:28point of public comments. That's

2:31:29>> fine. We'll just finish.

2:31:30>> Okay. Our next speaker is Arthur L,

2:31:32followed by Richard Y.

2:31:39Good evening, Commissioners. I would

2:31:41like to speak on behalf of people who

2:31:44are not here, children who are biking to

2:31:47school. I think many of the people who

2:31:50live in Midtown, I live in Baron Park,

2:31:52so I think I'm going to be answering

2:31:53some of the questions that you posed

2:31:55initially, Carrie. Um, Mr. Samson. Um,

2:32:01at one of the community meetings, at the

2:32:03first community meeting, I think many of

2:32:05you people live in Midtown understand

2:32:08that a good part of the Ali High School

2:32:11district lives south of Oregon

2:32:14Expressway.

2:32:17At one of the at one of the community

2:32:20meetings, a parent came up to me. This

2:32:22was a community meeting at the the

2:32:27Mitchell Park Community Center when when

2:32:29the ideas were first being expressed for

2:32:32having a location. He said that a child

2:32:36a tunnel would make his child going to

2:32:39school much safer. Right now he's very

2:32:42uncomfortable having his child having to

2:32:44bike across Oregon Expressway. If a

2:32:47child is able to able to bike or walk

2:32:51through the tunnel to get onto Park

2:32:53Avenue, Park Avenue is a very low

2:32:56district, low traffic street. It's going

2:32:58to be a bicycle boulevard, I believe.

2:33:02Hopefully,

2:33:03that would be an easier way for someone

2:33:05to get to school.

2:33:09Secondly, if there are housing that's

2:33:11built in the Fry area, the North Ventur

2:33:15community area, a child would now have

2:33:18to go to Baron Park Schooling crossing

2:33:21El Camino.

2:33:23Whereas, if the tunnel were built, the

2:33:25child would be able to go to El Camello,

2:33:28much closer.

2:33:30So I think that in both those cases I'm

2:33:33speaking on behalf of kids and as Bruce

2:33:36Arthur said I think we needed a um a

2:33:41tunnel in this area for a long time.

2:33:43Thank you.

2:33:44>> Our next speaker is Richard Y followed

2:33:46by Robert N.

2:33:51>> I'll try to be brief. Uh my first point

2:33:53is uh Elorado Avenue is a very very

2:33:56narrow street. So I welcome all the

2:33:58commissioners to take a drive yourself

2:34:01and see uh you know how challenging it

2:34:03is if you try to turn from Elmo Ensville

2:34:06bad it's very rare that you don't have

2:34:08to negotiate with the cars coming uh

2:34:10towards you to figure out the right way

2:34:13to pass each other uh and if we consider

2:34:15adding more traffic and the pedest more

2:34:18vehicle and pedestrian traffic uh to the

2:34:20same street where the traffic light is

2:34:22going to be it's going to be even worse.

2:34:23Second point is um uh with Elorado so

2:34:26close to K Avenue uh it's hard to

2:34:29believe that it is the most optimal

2:34:31location to add a second crossing

2:34:33especially if it's meant to serve the

2:34:35entire South Palatoto. Uh that you know

2:34:39um uh we're we're talking about about

2:34:42two miles from Oregon Expressway to San

2:34:44Antonio and and this is spot that we

2:34:46found to be the most optimal location

2:34:48that doesn't seem to be very convincing.

2:34:50The third point is um looking at the

2:34:52price tag that we're planning for this

2:34:53item, right? We plan to spend 70 plus

2:34:56million dollars on this project. Uh we

2:34:58should spend it wisely and we shouldn't,

2:35:00you know, settle for something that is

2:35:02just convenient, right? It has to it has

2:35:04to make the most sense. So I urge

2:35:06commissioners to uh seriously consider

2:35:08the hyper hyper plan. Thank you.

2:35:12>> Our next speaker is Robert N followed by

2:35:13Ryan G.

2:35:17>> Thank you and good evening.

2:35:19I'm really glad to see this project

2:35:21coming to PTC this week. The vision of

2:35:23an additional bicycle pedestrian

2:35:25crossing at California on across the

2:35:28Calra Alma corridor in the visit

2:35:30vicinity of Elorado on Lum or Lomover

2:35:33has been on Palo Alto's active

2:35:35transportation plan

2:35:38for at least 20 years and this project

2:35:39will be the f is the first to take a

2:35:41serious look at how to implement that. I

2:35:44think this will benefit active

2:35:46transportation trips across the corridor

2:35:48from Midtown to El Camino Royale and the

2:35:50research park and also from Baron Park

2:35:52and Ventura to the Midtown shopping,

2:35:54Midtown parks and athletic fields.

2:35:57A couple of inputs. First, the

2:35:59California Avenue Tunnel is really

2:36:02substandard. If we want to talk about

2:36:05another place to spend $70 million, it

2:36:07would be on rebuilding the California

2:36:09Avenue tunnel to to regular standards.

2:36:12So depending on that is not a great idea

2:36:14and actually the process of getting

2:36:15across Oregon is not a great thing

2:36:17either if there's a much more direct way

2:36:18to get across. The second is that the

2:36:22proposed hybrid to um LMA does add

2:36:25significant distance. I'm glad the city

2:36:27staff city report mentioned that many

2:36:30track trips will be a half mile longer

2:36:33be by having to go divert all the way

2:36:35over to Lomo Verde and then perhaps go

2:36:37back over towards El Camaro El Dorado to

2:36:39get finish their trip.

2:36:42So I think the grade at grade crossing

2:36:45at Elorado is one of the two original

2:36:47options that's worth bringing to the 15%

2:36:49design and there fact and uh other I

2:36:53think you should give staff flexibility

2:36:54to consider other things for example uh

2:36:57signalized pedestrian and bicycle only

2:36:59crossing somewhere between El Dorado and

2:37:02El Carmelo avenues with widened

2:37:03sidewalks on both to connect to both El

2:37:07Dorado and Car El Carmelo so that the

2:37:10additional crossings single would have

2:37:11little impact on traditional on

2:37:13vehicular traffic in the neighborhood

2:37:16and or waiting to find someone willing

2:37:18to sell a house near Loie. Thanks.

2:37:22>> Our next speaker is Ryan G followed by

2:37:24Lori G.

2:37:28Evening Chair Chang and commissioners.

2:37:30My name is Ryan and I'm speaking as the

2:37:32chair of the Midtown Residents

2:37:34Association. Uh we live across from

2:37:35Hoover Park. I have two kids, one who

2:37:37bikes to JLS and one who bikes to Pali.

2:37:40So Midtown supports the goal of creating

2:37:43a safe bicycle and pedestrian crossing.

2:37:45However, we do not support either El

2:37:47Dorado alternative A1 or A2.

2:37:51So more than 300 neighbors have signed a

2:37:53posit a petition opposing these

2:37:55proposals and me many residents

2:37:57participated in Sunday's meeting. Now

2:38:00that kind of response reflects the deep

2:38:02concern in the community about this

2:38:04project. El Dorado is, as we've heard,

2:38:06an unusually narrow road, 27 ft, with

2:38:10some segments so constrained that a

2:38:12single parked car or trash cans left out

2:38:15and turn it into a one lane road.

2:38:18Now, both proposals would significantly

2:38:20affect traffic circulation, parking,

2:38:23driveway access, and potentially

2:38:25emergency access.

2:38:27We believe there is a better approach to

2:38:30Midtown supports further consideration

2:38:32of the hybrid plan that's been discussed

2:38:33tonight which could provide the needed

2:38:35connection while avoiding many of these

2:38:37impacts.

2:38:38We urge the commission not to advance A1

2:38:42or A2 and instead further evaluate the

2:38:45hybrid plan and other alternatives.

2:38:47Thank you.

2:38:49>> Our next speaker is Lori G followed by

2:38:51Paul G.

2:38:54>> Said what I wanted to say. Our next

2:38:57speaker is Paul G.

2:39:06>> My name is Paul Goldstein. I am a former

2:39:09member of uh Payback. I just want to um

2:39:14several of the previous speakers have

2:39:17said much of what I wanted to say. This

2:39:19plan has uh this crossing has been on

2:39:22the plan. It's been desired for at least

2:39:2520 years. So the entire time I was on

2:39:28payback, it was the South PaloAlto

2:39:30bicycle crossing. Everybody

2:39:34wanted it. It was high priority for the

2:39:35people in the south. And when uh the

2:39:38alternatives were presented to council,

2:39:40this alternative on El Dorado was the

2:39:43clear winner. Um is it perfect? It is

2:39:47not perfect, but it is lower cost than

2:39:50any of the other and it is most likely

2:39:52to be built sooner than any of the other

2:39:55plants. I want to emphasize that speed

2:39:57is important in this situation because

2:40:00the crossings at Meadow and at um at at

2:40:06Churchill and at Charleston are likely

2:40:08to be closed for extended periods of

2:40:11time while we navigate the road

2:40:15crossing, the railroad crossing that has

2:40:18only been going on for maybe 15 years um

2:40:22and probably has another 15 years to go.

2:40:25The concern about a traffic light at El

2:40:27Dorado I certainly get. But as staff

2:40:30mentioned, the configuration of that

2:40:33light is totally undecided. It could be

2:40:35a pedestrian bike light only, which

2:40:38would not drive uh vehicular traffic to

2:40:42it. Um so the cons and as far as

2:40:46narrowness of streets, one of our nice

2:40:48bicycle boulevards is Castileo Street

2:40:51right opposite Alley High. That is a

2:40:54very narrow street. I don't know if it's

2:40:5627 feet wide, but it is certainly no

2:40:59wider than 3030. And it is a totally

2:41:02adequate bicycle boulevard.

2:41:06Thank you.

2:41:09>> Our final speaker is on Zoom. Uh Euan,

2:41:12uh you may now speak.

2:41:18>> I won't be speaking tonight. Thank you.

2:41:23Uh then through the chair uh that

2:41:24concludes public comment on this item.

2:41:26>> Okay. Thank you everybody for coming out

2:41:30tonight and thank you so much for your

2:41:32public comments. We really appreciate

2:41:33them. We're going to take a 7 minute

2:41:36break right now and then resume

2:41:38discussion.

2:54:01Welcome back everyone.

2:54:06>> All right, welcome back everyone. We're

2:54:07going to get started again here.

2:54:15>> Okay, so I thought here um so just so

2:54:17that everybody is aware once we're

2:54:20finished with public comment. So, we're

2:54:21closing public comment now and the

2:54:23discussion is going to come back to the

2:54:24commission. Uh, we're going to start

2:54:26with commissioner questions so that

2:54:29because I'm sure a lot of us have them.

2:54:31So, light it up, please.

2:54:37Commissioner Tumbleton.

2:54:39>> Hello. Thank you. Um, thank you very

2:54:43much to everybody in the community who

2:54:44came out and it was really good to hear

2:54:46our biking activists and our

2:54:48neighborhood community organizers.

2:54:50Um,

2:54:52one of the questions that I have that

2:54:54I'd like to start with, um, is a

2:54:56question of staff. And, um, this is just

2:55:00reflecting off the comments we heard in

2:55:02the public comment. Um, what is

2:55:07what is the reason that the California

2:55:10Avenue underpass, which is everybody

2:55:14seems to agree is subpar, is not been

2:55:18repaired or brought up to to code.

2:55:25Um, it has not been put on the the

2:55:28capital budget yet. um it is in our list

2:55:32of things that we are trying to push

2:55:34through the pipeline to add it at some

2:55:37point in the future when when that gets

2:55:39um added to the budget.

2:55:40>> And is that something that the $80

2:55:43million that is being discussed here

2:55:45could be used to do instead?

2:55:48>> That would be a different project. Um so

2:55:52just in terms of potential funding

2:55:54sources um uh a pedestrian bicycle

2:55:59crossing underneath the tracks um south

2:56:03of Oregon is something that has been

2:56:06listed in the ballot measure for measure

2:56:08B um the you know VTA's measure B. So,

2:56:11so that source would not be suitable for

2:56:15something north of Oregon, but it could

2:56:18be, you know, there are other sources

2:56:20that we would also be seeking for any uh

2:56:23project that moves forward.

2:56:26Okay. So, these are separate things, but

2:56:29um how when's the last time council has

2:56:31been asked to fund

2:56:34improving the crossing that already

2:56:36exists

2:56:38that is subpar such that many people

2:56:40avoid it? Um so as part of the bicycle

2:56:43pedestrian transportation plan that was

2:56:46identified as a project on on the rather

2:56:49long list that we have of um of projects

2:56:52throughout the city and also we did

2:56:55raise it during the last capital budget

2:56:57go round um for an outside year. So

2:57:01>> an outside year

2:57:02>> it means it's not it hasn't been

2:57:04approved for this year but we we raised

2:57:07it as something that we would like to uh

2:57:09consider in a future year. So, we're not

2:57:11thinking 5 years ahead. We want to have

2:57:13it in the pipeline for the future.

2:57:15>> Cool. And so, for the scope of today's

2:57:18meeting, um we're focusing on um I'm

2:57:23asking for validation here. We're

2:57:24focusing on a South Paling. That is not

2:57:27it. And that also hasn't been funded,

2:57:30but could we include it in our motion to

2:57:33encourage council to fund that somehow

2:57:38or

2:57:38>> We welcome your comments if that's one

2:57:40of them.

2:57:41>> Well, I'm I'm specifically asking if

2:57:43it's disallowed. So, it sounds like not

2:57:46disallowed. So, that's great. Um, okay.

2:57:49And then the other thing um that came up

2:57:52um we had some really good comments by

2:57:54people who have been studying um biking

2:57:57and pedestrians uh uh movements here in

2:57:59PaloAlto and I really appreciate that.

2:58:01One of the things that came up um is

2:58:05crossing Oregon is hard and dangerous

2:58:08and scary. Um,

2:58:11is that something that is also on the

2:58:14the payback plan

2:58:17to make it easier for people to access

2:58:19the existing tunnel?

2:58:27Does staff agree that it's hard to cross

2:58:30Oregon

2:58:32>> from Midtown? I think we're consulting

2:58:34to see whether we it was part of the

2:58:37existing bike ahead plan. So as as part

2:58:41of the um the safety action plan um

2:58:45Oregon was identified as part of our

2:58:47high injury network. So it's something

2:58:49that we could consider as like a an

2:58:51intersection improvement

2:58:54>> but but it's not it's a county facility.

2:58:57So we would be we would need to work

2:58:59with a county. Oh,

2:59:01>> it's a C. That's great. That means

2:59:04contacting your supervisor

2:59:07will help uh in addition to contacting

2:59:10council. That's good to know. Thank you

2:59:11for clarifying that. Um Supervisor

2:59:14Margaret Abika. Um okay. So then um did

2:59:20staff consider at all closing the

2:59:24intersection from El Dorado to Alma so

2:59:28that bikes and pedestrians could go and

2:59:31cars could not go as part of this whole

2:59:34thing.

2:59:37I didn't see it on the plans those it

2:59:39wasn't A or B or A1 and A2.

2:59:44>> Yeah. So just to make sure you said

2:59:45Elorado closing Elorado, is that right?

2:59:48>> That intersection with all my

2:59:49>> intersection. Yeah. So one of the

2:59:51variants looked at a culde-sac option

2:59:53>> um on El Dorado and that would close it

2:59:56for um uh that was a variation of

2:59:59alternative A2.

3:00:00>> Okay.

3:00:01>> And uh would close to vehicles but allow

3:00:03um uh cyclists and pedestrians to access

3:00:06the tunnel and go underneath Elma and

3:00:08the uh Cal Train tracks.

3:00:09>> And was that one you guys wanted us to

3:00:11consider? It wasn't presented. So, I'm

3:00:14guessing no, and if not, why?

3:00:15>> Uh, it's mentioned in the staff report,

3:00:17and you're welcome to uh putage it. Um,

3:00:21>> I mean,

3:00:23I I I am trying to ask you to just speak

3:00:26it out loud, but if you want me to read,

3:00:27I'd like to know where.

3:00:29>> Um, if I recall correctly, I think that

3:00:31this was one that the fire department

3:00:33was didn't want. That's exactly the

3:00:35answer I was looking for. Thank you. Um,

3:00:38okay. So, and then um

3:00:44the last question is the bike path along

3:00:48Alma that was proposed by the community.

3:00:51Is that one that needs that is first of

3:00:55all, is that feasible? It sounds like

3:00:57possibly yes. We'll have to investigate

3:00:59more. Is that correct?

3:01:02>> That's correct assessment.

3:01:03>> And could it go all the way down? Like

3:01:06does it have to stop at Lomma Verde or

3:01:08is that something we could and is that a

3:01:10cow train project or a city project?

3:01:14>> So do you mean what do you mean go all

3:01:16the way down?

3:01:17>> So right now I believe biking is not

3:01:21encouraged on Alma, right? But if we

3:01:25wanted to provide a facility adjacent to

3:01:28the tracks for bikes, could it go from

3:01:32Oregon all the way down to Charleston?

3:01:35Is there any reason it has to stop at

3:01:36Lomma Verde? Like if we were to get

3:01:39excited about this or to discuss it or

3:01:41recommend it, do we have a constraint

3:01:43that it has to stop somewhere?

3:01:45>> That I think that that's a possibility.

3:01:47And um just to refer back to the bicycle

3:01:49pedestrian transportation plan um as

3:01:52part of that plan, there was um a

3:01:56facility along Alma near San Antonio

3:01:58station.

3:02:00So, if you want to go even further, it

3:02:02would may connect to something in the

3:02:04future.

3:02:05>> I love that suggestion. Uh, okay, that's

3:02:07all my questions for now. Thank you.

3:02:12>> Uh, I'm not seeing other lights, so I'm

3:02:13going to go. Um,

3:02:16okay. So, was there So, sounds like

3:02:21council had had, you know, had asked

3:02:24staff to look at a light at Elorado and

3:02:27then a tunnel in the vicinity. Um, was

3:02:31El Carmelo ever considered or Matadero

3:02:35Creek and could you speak to those a

3:02:37little bit more?

3:02:41>> So, uh, connections to Madera Creek and

3:02:44El Cornelo were considered. Um, the and

3:02:47that was part of an A2 variation. So,

3:02:49the A2 variation is full grade

3:02:51separation under Elma and Cal Train

3:02:53tracks. the the real challenge there

3:02:55with the connection to Lom Verde and and

3:02:58the Manadero Creek are the uh driveways

3:03:01on um the east side of Alma Street.

3:03:05There are several and many of them

3:03:07connect to multif family housing. So um

3:03:10when you cut off access to a driveway,

3:03:12you're essentially essentially uh

3:03:14preventing any vehicular access to that

3:03:17residential complex. So those options

3:03:20were ruled out and were in advance since

3:03:21part of our evaluation. Okay. And then

3:03:24was there ever one that looked maybe as

3:03:26at using Matadero Creek

3:03:31um not necessarily coming up at Elma but

3:03:34just making the entirety of Matadero

3:03:37Creek a bike path.

3:03:42So, uh, that was so part of the Matador

3:03:45Creek idea is part of a 2016, um,

3:03:49Midtown,

3:03:51uh, connector study. I'm not quite

3:03:53getting that name right. Um, and so

3:03:57that's sort of where that idea

3:03:59originally was explored. Uh, the

3:04:02challenge there is what do you do once

3:04:03you get to Alma Street and the Cal Train

3:04:06tracks? How do you get across? um when

3:04:09you're looking at I don't know if

3:04:10there's a visual we can potentially pull

3:04:12up to look at that and if if that's

3:04:13helpful I'm happy to kind of do that.

3:04:15>> Yeah, I think that would be helpful.

3:04:16>> I think it's actually

3:04:18>> Yeah.

3:04:20>> Yeah. there at the very the very last

3:04:22slide. Um, I just threw in a aerial map,

3:04:30slide 81.

3:04:38So, it's somewhat difficult to see here

3:04:39when it comes up, but you'll see that

3:04:41along the Madera tree creek canal on the

3:04:43north side, um, there's space until you

3:04:47get to right at Elma Street. And this

3:04:49maybe isn't the best photo, but um right

3:04:52at that point where you see there's a

3:04:54residential unit just to the north on

3:04:57that corner where Manad meets Alma

3:05:00Street. That's a 4-unit residential

3:05:02property. And just south of that in the

3:05:04meta in the in the canal is a um an

3:05:07access route for maintenance vehicles,

3:05:09valley water maintenance vehicles. And

3:05:11so what that basically, you know, what

3:05:14that says is that if we were to try to

3:05:16make some kind of a connection from

3:05:17Manadero Creek to Alma and and somehow

3:05:20across the railroad tracks in this area,

3:05:22you would need to acquire that 4unit um

3:05:25residential property at that location.

3:05:29>> Okay. So, just to be clear, this

3:05:31wouldn't talk about tunneling under Elma

3:05:33Street alongside the creek or in order

3:05:37to tunnel, you need to acquire that

3:05:39property. Is that what you're saying?

3:05:41No, this is just at grid just to get to

3:05:44Alma Street and then from there we're

3:05:46Yeah, even once we got to that point it

3:05:49we sort of ruled that out as an option.

3:05:51>> Is there ever an option looked at that

3:05:53would put a tunnel at Matadero

3:05:57like at the creek

3:06:00>> underneath Elma and the road tracks.

3:06:02>> So I think similar type of concerns

3:06:06would arise as part of that. So you're

3:06:07needing to start to tunnel down

3:06:09somewhere along the Medadel Creek and

3:06:11now we're within valley water water

3:06:13right of way that becomes very

3:06:15challenging. Um I would invite uh Jaggy

3:06:18from BKF on the line if he wants to kind

3:06:20of expand on this. He's been part of uh

3:06:23other rail crossing projects has been

3:06:24involved in this so he's he's got the

3:06:26engineering background and can probably

3:06:28speak to this better than I can.

3:06:35>> Hello. Good evening. Um, just to, you

3:06:37know, expand on, uh, Charlie's

3:06:39commentary, uh, we did look at trying to

3:06:42squeeze in an, uh, an alignment at the

3:06:44Matador Creek crossing. Uh, we found it

3:06:47to be geometrically infeasible. Um,

3:06:50there are several constraints on the

3:06:52west side of the Cal Train corridor. Um,

3:06:55there's a small sliver between Matadero

3:06:57Creek and where the the railroad tracks

3:06:59are located. uh but it's just not wide

3:07:02enough in order to uh build the tunnel,

3:07:05you know, uh underneath the crossing. Um

3:07:07based on the methodology that we're

3:07:10assuming with the bor and jack, there's

3:07:11just not enough room to get those uh

3:07:14areas in there to squeeze a tunnel box

3:07:16underneath both and then come back up to

3:07:19grade. Um on the east side there are

3:07:22similar challenges because uh Valley

3:07:24Water has a maintenance pathway that

3:07:27runs from Alma down to Madera Creek for

3:07:30their maintenance purposes. We would be

3:07:32completely eliminating that access um in

3:07:36order to squeeze something in there as

3:07:38well as complicating some of their uh

3:07:40maintenance operations further to the

3:07:42east where um it runs parallel to the

3:07:46the canal. So, we eliminated any grade

3:07:49separation alternatives at this location

3:07:51for those reasons.

3:07:53>> Thank you. Okay. And then I had a

3:07:57question about um

3:08:00whether the utility impacts are the

3:08:02same.

3:08:05So, there's the tunnel option, A2

3:08:07option, there's some significant utility

3:08:10impacts. Are those the same anywhere

3:08:14along the tracks or is it specific to

3:08:16the Elorado location? In other words, if

3:08:18it were at Lamarie, would there be the

3:08:21same concerns?

3:08:25>> So, again, I'll I'll tee up joggy to um

3:08:28to expand or correct me if I'm wrong,

3:08:31but uh when we're looking at the

3:08:33city-owned utilities um on Alma Street,

3:08:36they're located along the entire stretch

3:08:38of Alma Street. So it would be the same

3:08:40concern for all of the alternatives that

3:08:42we looked at.

3:08:43>> Okay. Then the follow-up question to

3:08:45that is that back when we were looking

3:08:47at eight options, there was a hypothesis

3:08:49that

3:08:51um construction at Lom Verde would be

3:08:53more expensive than at Elorado.

3:08:58Is

3:09:00is that still the case given what we

3:09:02know now with the additional cost

3:09:04implications?

3:09:05Um,

3:09:08and if so, do you have a sense of what

3:09:10that order of magnitude is? Is it like,

3:09:12oh, we would now be 120 million over at

3:09:15Lovery?

3:09:18>> So, it depends on which um it depends on

3:09:21which alternative you're

3:09:22>> so comparing say tunnel to tunnel,

3:09:25>> right? Yeah.

3:09:26>> Yeah. So, there's there were two options

3:09:27for lom verde uh B and C. B at B I

3:09:32believe was the full grade separation

3:09:35with a connection down the middle of LMA

3:09:38verde and then a signal at um at Alma

3:09:42would be alternative C. I think the

3:09:44alternative C option would be relatively

3:09:48comparable to what we're looking at for

3:09:50alternative A1. uh it's a tunnel with a

3:09:54signal, but it's we're still, you know,

3:09:57there's a lot of assumptions built into

3:09:59these calculations at at these point and

3:10:01these uh cost estimates that been

3:10:03prepared for A1 and A2, but relative

3:10:06order of magnitude, they'd be similar

3:10:08because they're basic design concepts

3:10:10are similar. Having said that, there are

3:10:12many challenges that we might might

3:10:14encounter when we actually go down and

3:10:16explore, you know, what's actually

3:10:18underground. What type of soil is there?

3:10:20And I'm sure again Jogie could speak to

3:10:22this much more clearly if that's

3:10:23something you're interested in.

3:10:25>> Do we want to hear

3:10:29we're interested in hearing? Yeah, I

3:10:30mean I I I like Mono Verde like the

3:10:33first time around from this uh just

3:10:35because of the connectivity and because

3:10:37the we've heard a lot about sort of

3:10:39suite. Um and so I guess I would like to

3:10:42kind of know a little bit more about

3:10:43like are there problems with the

3:10:45landing, you know, location

3:10:48if you did a lama verde tunnel or even

3:10:53a light crossing and then a tunnel under

3:10:55the the railroad.

3:10:58So it might be helpful um to pull up

3:11:01slide 47 and then we can toggle between

3:11:0447 and 48. So these are the original

3:11:08concepts at LMovery Avenue uh that were

3:11:10presented to you last time. Um and with

3:11:13that, Jogie, I'm not sure if if uh you

3:11:16wanted to kind of expand on some of the

3:11:17cost considerations that were put into

3:11:19the original estimates for B and C.

3:11:22That'd be helpful.

3:11:23>> Yeah, absolutely, Charlie. Um I I think

3:11:25you captured it pretty correctly. The

3:11:27rough order of magnitude for both

3:11:30options are pretty comparable to what we

3:11:33came up with at um El Dorado. So um you

3:11:38know what's shown on the screen right

3:11:39now considered grade separating the Cal

3:11:42Train corridor and Alma Street with a

3:11:46ramp that would come up in between uh

3:11:49Loma Lomma Verde Avenue. Um this cost

3:11:52would be very comparable to what you see

3:11:54in A2.

3:11:56um because we're great separating both

3:11:58um the Cal Train Corridor and Alma

3:12:00Street. I I think the the added

3:12:03difference here is on the west side

3:12:04where we need to build a structure in

3:12:07order to ramp up from the tunnel um in

3:12:10order to connect up to Park Boulevard

3:12:13and then the rightway impacts come into

3:12:15play on the west side with full

3:12:16acquisitions versus the partials that

3:12:19are considered um at the Elorado

3:12:22location.

3:12:23And then conversely, you know, if you

3:12:26look at um alternative C, which was at

3:12:30the Loma Verde um location, that cost

3:12:34would be comparable to what you're

3:12:37seeing with alternative A1. Um we're

3:12:40essentially just great separating the

3:12:42Cal Train corridor here. Um, so you

3:12:47avoid all the complexities with having

3:12:49to go underneath Alma and those utility

3:12:51impacts, you know, that were previously

3:12:53described, but you're coming back up to

3:12:55grade in that uh landscaping area

3:12:58between the Cal Train Corridor and Alma

3:13:00Street. So, you'll need um similar types

3:13:03of structures at that location. Um and

3:13:06then you know again on the west side you

3:13:08have um a couple more complications

3:13:11given the rightway impacts and

3:13:12additional structures to get back to

3:13:14grade up here. But I think if you wanted

3:13:16to make you know a rough comparison to

3:13:20El Dorado, you can compare them back to

3:13:23the A1 and A2 alternatives respectively.

3:13:27And do you have a sense of what parcel

3:13:30impacts would be on the east side if it

3:13:33were at Lmer Verde? Maybe can't speak to

3:13:38that without fully designing it out.

3:13:42>> Well, we did look at it

3:13:43>> for the tunnel. For the tunnel. Yeah.

3:13:45>> Yeah, we we did look at it um you know,

3:13:48at a high level. I I think with

3:13:50alternative C that you see here, the

3:13:52east side doesn't have any of the

3:13:54property impacts. um we're staying

3:13:56within the public rightway um in order

3:13:58to get back up to grade. Um alternative

3:14:02B assumed utilizing the public right

3:14:05away with the ramp coming up in in the

3:14:08middle of the roadway and then having

3:14:10the two-way traffic go around it. So um

3:14:14there there weren't any, you know,

3:14:17property impacts on that side in order

3:14:19to conform. Granted, the configuration

3:14:21of Lomma Verde and how it operates would

3:14:24be altered in that, you know, a lot of

3:14:26the properties would have right in right

3:14:28out driveway access um around the ramp

3:14:31that's coming up to Great.

3:14:34>> Thank you. Very helpful. I'm going to

3:14:36stop with my questions and let Vice

3:14:37Chair G ahead.

3:14:40>> Thank you. Um, since we're on the slide,

3:14:42do you have a sense of how many parcel

3:14:45impacts would be on the west side here

3:14:48on alter alternative B?

3:14:52>> Uh, we assume two.

3:14:54>> Two. Two. So, the um and it would be too

3:14:56full compared to A2 which is two

3:14:59partial.

3:15:01>> Yeah. And maybe I can just kind of jump

3:15:03in here and expand. So, we you know, at

3:15:06the conceptual level, we're showing two,

3:15:08but it could be more. And so that's why

3:15:10we show the partial impacts and then we

3:15:11have the potential partial impacts

3:15:13recognizing that this is a very

3:15:15constrained space at the Lom Verde

3:15:18location between Park Boulevard and the

3:15:20railroad tracks compared to other

3:15:21locations on the corridor. They're very

3:15:23close together and the parcels

3:15:25themselves are smaller comparatively to

3:15:27other parcels along the corridor. Um and

3:15:30again these are conceptual. There are

3:15:32still many unknowns and it may require a

3:15:34bigger footprint when we actually look

3:15:35at constructibility. And that was part

3:15:37of the conversation that we had uh with

3:15:40council last year.

3:15:42>> Okay. Thank you. And then I had a

3:15:44follow-up question about the the mad

3:15:47creek. If you could pull that back up.

3:15:56So, just to kind of tee off the

3:15:59conversation here, are you saying that

3:16:02any tunnel underneath

3:16:04the Cal Train or Elmo at the tunnel at

3:16:08the creek would be very difficult or is

3:16:09it mostly the coming back up to grade

3:16:11portion that would be difficult?

3:16:15Or both?

3:16:18>> Charlie, I'll I'll jump in and take

3:16:19this. Um, I'm saying both. it it's it's

3:16:22extremely challenging to

3:16:25uh get an alignment in there and

3:16:27furthermore to construct it especially

3:16:29given the constraints on the west side

3:16:31with the creek configuration and where

3:16:34the tracks are located

3:16:37>> because I'm just kind of I'm not nearly

3:16:40studied this as much as you but I think

3:16:42there if the coming up to grade is the

3:16:45main problem at the creek I think there

3:16:47could be some potential

3:16:49experimental ideas that I just have out

3:16:51there, which is for example, we could

3:16:53just follow the creek further up and

3:16:55kind of wrap around to go into park. We

3:16:56could maybe leverage some of the land at

3:16:59the power plant if that's an issue on

3:17:01the west side. And on the east side, I

3:17:03know that you've mentioned that the

3:17:04there's a valley water accessible ramp

3:17:06for their maintenance, but maybe a crazy

3:17:10idea could be to extend the bike path

3:17:12along the creek to Bryant or something.

3:17:14So, I know that you mentioned that like

3:17:17the actual crossing at the train tracks

3:17:20in Elma is like a big consideration, but

3:17:24if there are issues to coming at grade,

3:17:26I think that there may be other creative

3:17:28solutions. I was just curious if you'd

3:17:30looked into any of those.

3:17:33>> Yeah, I can um maybe provide a little

3:17:35bit of clarification on a couple of the

3:17:37ideas you just raised. You know, one

3:17:39concern here is that we've heard from uh

3:17:41Cal Train that there's the desire to

3:17:43have the fourtrack configuration. Um I

3:17:45believe it's from uh Churchill to

3:17:48Meadow, so right in our study area. Uh

3:17:51and so in the future, Cal Train would be

3:17:54uh running four tracks through this

3:17:56area, which essentially means we need to

3:17:58be really careful not to propose

3:18:01anything that's within their right of

3:18:03way, at least at this early stage. um

3:18:06because we we suspect that that's going

3:18:08to be a very difficult conversation

3:18:10considering that kind of being in their

3:18:11future plans and what they've

3:18:12communicated to us so far. We haven't

3:18:14had any of those um uh potential

3:18:17right-of-way use con uh conversations

3:18:19with them specifically, but at this

3:18:22early stage we're we're starting with

3:18:23can we do something within the own

3:18:25within the city's right of way first and

3:18:27see what's potentially possible. Um the

3:18:30other thing you mentioned too is use of

3:18:32the substation and that um just to the

3:18:35the um right adjacent to Park Boulevard.

3:18:39Um uh this was something that was

3:18:40mentioned as part of that Midtown

3:18:42connector feasibility study that 2016

3:18:44study that I was mentioning earlier and

3:18:47uh providing the connection along the

3:18:49creek and then uh they showed three

3:18:51different options for what you could do

3:18:53uh to connect all the way to Park

3:18:55Boulevard. Two of those connection

3:18:56options use portion of the substation.

3:18:58And we have uh since then have had

3:19:00conversations with the utilities

3:19:01department uh who owns this. This is a a

3:19:04city-owned facility and had strongly

3:19:07advised that we do not um uh propose to

3:19:10build anything within this uh within

3:19:12this property and the land there. Um

3:19:14there's many reasons and I'm happy to go

3:19:16into that and I even have a backup slide

3:19:17if you're interested in learning more.

3:19:19Uh but it's all very uh yeah electrical

3:19:22technical type jargon stuff.

3:19:24>> We want the backup slide.

3:19:26Yes,

3:19:26>> you can open up slide 79.

3:19:32>> He's got it already. So, uh the key kind

3:19:34of feedback was that the the rightway

3:19:36should be avoided. This is and there

3:19:37were seven reasons uh to support that

3:19:40kind of conclusion. First is that this

3:19:42is a critical city facility and any kind

3:19:45of work within uh the substation would

3:19:48require um u turning off the power plant

3:19:52and this power plant uh provides

3:19:54electricity to half of the city is what

3:19:56I'm what I'm told. Um there is many

3:19:59equip there's much equipment within uh

3:20:01the property including underground

3:20:03facilities that are not visible and were

3:20:05not apparent as part of this early 2016

3:20:08study and it would be very difficult to

3:20:10move and consolidate any of that

3:20:11equipment. Um another kind of

3:20:14perspective that they brought that uh we

3:20:16hadn't considered was that space must be

3:20:17retained for maintenance and potential

3:20:20future growth. Uh electricity and

3:20:22building out the electrical grid in Palo

3:20:23Alto is a is another priority. Um and uh

3:20:26so they kind of uh recommended that

3:20:28being another reason why we don't use

3:20:30some of that space that from an aerial

3:20:32looks to be available. Uh and and then

3:20:34they sort of uh suggested that this is

3:20:36not an appropriate setting for bicycle

3:20:38and pedestrian activity uh considering

3:20:41there's lots of high-owered electricity

3:20:44in this area and there are certain

3:20:46safety standards that uh you need to

3:20:47keep uh buffers. I don't know the

3:20:49specifics of what those buffers are um

3:20:52but that was also part of the

3:20:53conversation.

3:20:56Thank you. Um, I actually had a question

3:21:00about another thing that you said, but

3:21:01if any of the other commissioners had a

3:21:03question about the utility,

3:21:05you can jump on here or I'm going to

3:21:07move on to another thing that Charlie

3:21:08had said.

3:21:11Okay. I think your faces are really

3:21:13small, so I'm just going to move to my

3:21:15other question.

3:21:16>> Go ahead. Go ahead. which is so one

3:21:20thing that really stuck out from what

3:21:22you just said Charlie is that Cal Train

3:21:25wants to put the four track uh

3:21:28potentially put four tracks in our

3:21:29section. Wouldn't that really impact the

3:21:34proposal from the neighbors about the

3:21:37hybrid plan? Because if you were to want

3:21:42to put four tracks, there would be no

3:21:43longer any space for a bike path along

3:21:47the Cal Train alignment, right?

3:21:51>> So all of the designs that we had

3:21:53proposed uh that use that uh planted

3:21:56median strip between the railroad tracks

3:21:58and Alma Street is from uh from what we

3:22:01understand within the city's property.

3:22:04So we are we are working outside of

3:22:06Calr's right of way. So that would not

3:22:08be um that would not be a concern.

3:22:11>> No, no, my question is for the one that

3:22:12the neighbors have proposed the like

3:22:15hybrid plan. So that would also be

3:22:17outside of the Cal Train right away.

3:22:20>> That's correct.

3:22:22>> Okay. So that's really helpful because I

3:22:24was a little bit worried about that.

3:22:26Okay. Um those are the ends of my my

3:22:27questions for this round and I'll let

3:22:29the commission continue.

3:22:31>> Commissioner Aken.

3:22:34>> Thank you, Chair. Um,

3:22:37if you travel west through the Homer

3:22:40tunnel from downtown, one of the first

3:22:43structures you see after you've gone

3:22:44under the tracks is a standalone

3:22:47elevator unit

3:22:49and it's about well by 15 ft. You could

3:22:54probably fit two people and two bikes in

3:22:56there. Um, so in looking at some of the

3:23:01concerns with A2,

3:23:04um, I began to wonder if a somewhat

3:23:07larger elevator unit, uh, that could fit

3:23:10in the, um, in the space along Alma near

3:23:16El Dorado,

3:23:18uh, would be viable as a way to get

3:23:21people down to and up from a tunnel.

3:23:26Um the reason this is interesting uh is

3:23:29that it eliminates the need for parcel

3:23:33acquisitions. Um it eliminates the

3:23:35emergency emergency access concerns. It

3:23:39eliminates the driveway u diversions.

3:23:43Um and it eliminates the need for a

3:23:45signal on Alma.

3:23:48So the question I have for you is, is it

3:23:51worthwhile pursuing

3:23:54um mechanical systems as an alternative

3:23:57to ramps to get people up and down?

3:24:00>> Um maybe I can respond to that. So um in

3:24:05terms of some of the parking work that

3:24:07the city does, we have elevators in

3:24:09places that don't have many people in

3:24:11them at nighttime. We get a lot of

3:24:13damage to those. So, as staff, I don't

3:24:16think that we would be recommending

3:24:18an elevator like a mechanical system in

3:24:21a place that has not got a lot of eyes

3:24:24on it 24 hours a day. Um, yeah, it's

3:24:28they become quite unpleasant sometimes

3:24:30as well.

3:24:32>> Okay. Yeah, the security concerns

3:24:34bothered me uh as well because you have

3:24:37to come up with a way to have adequate

3:24:39visibility uh particularly at the tunnel

3:24:42level. Um but

3:24:46it given the advantages it might be

3:24:48worth seeing if there is some solution

3:24:51that's u active rather than passive.

3:25:00>> Commissioner Templeton.

3:25:02>> Thank you. Um, yeah, there's no no

3:25:04reason to limit that to to working with

3:25:06the tunnel as well. If you're if you

3:25:10think about the cost comparison to going

3:25:12up three stories in an elevator versus

3:25:14building a tunnel, you could do Cher

3:25:17Chang's idea of going over as well. So,

3:25:20if if an elevator were to be considered,

3:25:22it sounds like there may be some reasons

3:25:24not to do it. Um, the cow train. Uh,

3:25:31just going to throw this out there cuz I

3:25:32I know you're working on this, but we're

3:25:37very constrained with space in PaloAlto

3:25:39and they have lots of space by Central

3:25:41Expressway, one city south. That perhaps

3:25:45would be a better location for the

3:25:49four-way passing lanes. However, um here

3:25:52in PaloAlto,

3:25:54um the wrinkle, I don't remember who

3:25:57just brought it up. Um Commissioner G,

3:25:58maybe. Um the the wrinkle here in Palo

3:26:02Alto is that that any construction we

3:26:04might do may have to interfere with that

3:26:07space. Um, we've looked at, I think it's

3:26:11called the Shoefly,

3:26:13uh, tracks would be going not only into

3:26:16that, um, PaloAlto owned area, but even

3:26:19partially into Alma. Um, so, you know,

3:26:23that that really does, um, constrain us.

3:26:27Um, and then the the thing that I really

3:26:30think we should talk about, u maybe, uh,

3:26:33and I'm gonna try coming at this from a

3:26:35slightly different angle because we've

3:26:37sort of beat Matadero Creek to death.

3:26:39Are there other creeks that PaloAlto has

3:26:41that go under the trains?

3:26:46>> Don't worry, the answer is yes.

3:26:49>> Yes.

3:26:51I'm wondering if we could look at those

3:26:53and consider those because um when I

3:26:56first moved here in um in 2006, I I had

3:27:00to go under the 101

3:27:02uh in the only half a year available

3:27:05bike lanes to the shoreline office park.

3:27:08Um and um you know there was a creek and

3:27:13it was a channelized creek like many of

3:27:14our creeks here in PaloAlto but also it

3:27:17had a bike lane um beside it and it went

3:27:20all the way under um I mean I don't know

3:27:24how wide it is there eight 8 to 10 lanes

3:27:26of of 101. Um and so like it's possible

3:27:31to do these things. Um the the question

3:27:34is um of course could we keep it open

3:27:38all year? Probably not. Certainly the

3:27:40one under 101 we couldn't because it was

3:27:42flooding constantly uh once rainy season

3:27:45started. Um and I do remember um many

3:27:49times in rainy season here watching the

3:27:52the creek levels and it does get up

3:27:54pretty high. So it would not be um a

3:27:57perfect solution, but um it does offer

3:28:03us the chance to imagine

3:28:07if we've already channelized these

3:28:09creeks, what additional engineering

3:28:12could we do

3:28:14that would make this usable in other

3:28:17ways besides flood prevention, which is

3:28:19the primary goal right now to find if

3:28:22there's any transportation options

3:28:23there. I don't pretend to know and I

3:28:25know you guys haven't studied

3:28:27everything, but just to throw that out

3:28:28there because what what I anticipate

3:28:31based on the comments tonight, which you

3:28:33might hear from us, is we don't think

3:28:36that that the identified options are are

3:28:39really going to work for the city. And

3:28:42we want to be able to say, what if you

3:28:44check this out and check this out so

3:28:45that you when you go back to council,

3:28:47you have something um actionable. So,

3:28:50that's sort of what we're trying to

3:28:51figure out. How do we um give you good

3:28:54useful feedback? So, if if there were um

3:28:58other channelized creeks that we should

3:29:00look at or mention, feel free to bring

3:29:03it up. I assume they don't all assume

3:29:05the others don't have power stations on

3:29:08top of them. Um so, that would be

3:29:10something else to investigate. Um and

3:29:13feel free to let us know if you learn

3:29:14any of that during tonight's meeting.

3:29:16Thank you.

3:29:18>> Okay. I did have a few more questions.

3:29:20So, um, some public comments brought up

3:29:22the me mentioned a toxic plume and my

3:29:26quick internet research suggested that

3:29:28that extended possibly 15 to 30 ft deep.

3:29:30Is that something that would increase

3:29:32the costs um or make infeasible a

3:29:35tunnel? Um, and one of the diagrams I

3:29:39saw like there's a pretty big toxic

3:29:41plume right at the end of El Carmelo,

3:29:43but it actually extends

3:29:45all the way possibly to Lumaver. And if

3:29:48you guys don't know the answer, that's

3:29:49just fine. But I just wanted to ask if

3:29:51you what you knew about it.

3:29:53>> If you wouldn't mind opening slide 74,

3:29:55please. Um, so we are aware of uh the

3:29:59the underground plume. Um, so it's a

3:30:02groundwater and coil vapor contamination

3:30:04from historic industrial uses. I believe

3:30:07it was HP or some other computer

3:30:10manufacturing um company. It's common

3:30:13multiple. Yeah, it's uh it's common not

3:30:16just it's it's uh common in I wouldn't

3:30:19say common but they are around in

3:30:21Silicon Valley. Um and uh so we've been

3:30:25coordinating with the planning

3:30:27department uh public works and the Santa

3:30:29Clara County Public Health Department.

3:30:31Um and if this alternative were to

3:30:32advance uh this is uh something that

3:30:34would need to be coordinated with the

3:30:36San Francisco regional water quality

3:30:38board and Kosha to understand the level

3:30:41of contamination and requirements. uh

3:30:43for the project. Um a tunnel can be

3:30:46built uh in or near the plume uh plume

3:30:49area, but it requires additional

3:30:51environmental investigation, engineering

3:30:54controls and and oversight uh during

3:30:56construction. There's a there's a

3:30:57process for this. Um and it's something

3:30:59that the city has done and and other

3:31:01nearby cities have done as well. Uh not

3:31:03for tunnels. Maybe I'm sure there has

3:31:05maybe there has been a tunnel, but um

3:31:07there

3:31:08>> there's been studies and you can you can

3:31:10build on on top of uh the plume and and

3:31:12and there's a process for that.

3:31:14>> And this contamination presumably

3:31:16predates Oregon Expressway. So, it's

3:31:18been done.

3:31:20>> Yeah. Uh and I think to to answer uh

3:31:23your question is is it may uh affect

3:31:26project cost and schedule. It all

3:31:28depends on where the contamination is

3:31:31actually located, it's its levels and

3:31:34and where the project would would be

3:31:37built and what construction methods are

3:31:38used. So um a lot of unknowns at this

3:31:41point uh but it's nothing that causes

3:31:43concern to stop the project.

3:31:46>> Okay, two final questions. one um were

3:31:49there any parking studies done in terms

3:31:51of the parking utilization for the first

3:31:54couple blocks of Elorado, El Carmelo,

3:31:57Lverie coming from um Alma to the

3:32:02east?

3:32:04And then the second question so that you

3:32:06can answer them at the same time um was

3:32:10were there any studies done regarding

3:32:12the impacts of adding a light on to Elma

3:32:16with respect to how far the backup would

3:32:19extend um you know would like as far as

3:32:22Oregon potentially in the loop-de-loop

3:32:25there or any information about that that

3:32:30>> I I can answer the it's basically the

3:32:32same response for both of those

3:32:33questions. Uh the answer is no. We

3:32:35haven't done that yet. Uh we anticipate

3:32:37that being something that would come at

3:32:38a later phase uh to understand the you

3:32:41know uh some of these unintended

3:32:43consequences and and ways to address

3:32:45them um and validate a lot of the

3:32:47concerns that we're hearing from the

3:32:48community.

3:32:50>> Thank you. Okay. So I think that I don't

3:32:52see other light. So I think that's it

3:32:53for my questions and all of our

3:32:54questions. So now on to our comments.

3:32:59Commissioner Hugman.

3:33:04Yeah, thank you. So, I u didn't have any

3:33:07questions of my own, but but I I thought

3:33:09there were a lot of really great

3:33:10questions that have um pulled out a lot

3:33:13of uh good additional information. uh

3:33:15and I want to stay uh thank staff and

3:33:19really their predecessors and ancestors

3:33:23for all the work that brought us to this

3:33:24day because this concept is as reflected

3:33:28in the reports. It it it's been worked

3:33:32on for you know decades and um and and I

3:33:37also want to thank uh uh all the

3:33:39neighbors who galvanized

3:33:42uh on this issue. I've been on the

3:33:44planning commission six and a half years

3:33:46and and this was um I think easily the

3:33:50the the most neighborhood public

3:33:53participants and not only is it your

3:33:57numbers but but you know I I we all I'm

3:34:00sure read all the letters and and they

3:34:02weren't just a form uh there were a lot

3:34:04of different ideas expressed and so we

3:34:07really appreciate that and staff really

3:34:11um uh took notice of that. You can tell

3:34:14because it was very unusual when a

3:34:17neighborhood comes up with an idea sort

3:34:20of late later in uh in the process for

3:34:23staff actually to fold it into their

3:34:26report um their presentation. And so I

3:34:29want to acknowledge that staff did that

3:34:31and let you know that doesn't always

3:34:33happen, but it's a reflection of of that

3:34:35they they listened um and that they're,

3:34:38you know, trying to give some initial

3:34:40feedback on those plans. So, so you

3:34:44know, sort of stepping back, the the

3:34:45purpose of this project is is to provide

3:34:50uh a a safe way to get from one side of

3:34:55Elma and the train track to the other

3:34:58that is south of California. That's the

3:35:01that's the goal. And that's an a really

3:35:04important goal that that people in this

3:35:06city have been working on for decades.

3:35:09the the

3:35:11issue arises that it is impossible

3:35:16to meet that goal without impacting

3:35:19somebody. It's impossible.

3:35:22Some if it's ever going to happen, some

3:35:25neighborhood

3:35:27I is going to take one for the larger

3:35:29community.

3:35:31That's just that's just the reality of

3:35:34changing

3:35:36public improvements to accommodate

3:35:38things that don't exist today.

3:35:41And in in the imminent domain work I do,

3:35:45there's there's a finding that's

3:35:48required of government that really is a

3:35:50good test even where no eminent domain

3:35:52is involved, which hopefully this

3:35:55project when it reaches its fruition

3:35:57won't involve eminent domain. But that

3:35:59test is, is the project designed to

3:36:02achieve the greatest public good with

3:36:05the least private injury?

3:36:08The greatest public good with the least

3:36:10private injury. And that's really the

3:36:12exercise that this city has been engaged

3:36:15in

3:36:16in in analyzing these uh various uh

3:36:21alternatives in winnowing down and then

3:36:24focusing more on the ones that seemed

3:36:28most likely to meet that test. Greatest

3:36:32public good, least private injury. Um

3:36:36and as we know uh at the council level

3:36:41uh their last action they seem to be

3:36:43focusing on these two elderorado

3:36:47as sort of meeting that criteria but uh

3:36:52as staff pointed out in response to our

3:36:54chair's questions

3:36:57staff went away and dug into these two

3:37:00and has a lot of information that the

3:37:02council has not yet seen including u not

3:37:05the least of which is the the potential

3:37:07cost of 72 million 87 million um and the

3:37:12impacts I think um that that weren't

3:37:15fully known when the council directed

3:37:18them to u go take a look at this. So is

3:37:22the um El Dorado solution A1 or A2

3:37:28provide the greatest good with the least

3:37:30private entry?

3:37:32Maybe it may be, but it it also may be

3:37:36true that it's not. And I'm feeling like

3:37:39we're not far enough along

3:37:42yet. We can use more information

3:37:46before taking a next step forward. Um

3:37:51Kurt Vonagget once wrote that

3:37:54um a step backwards after a wrong turn

3:37:57is a step in the right direction.

3:38:00And I don't I don't think the city has

3:38:02taken any wrong turn yet. I think we had

3:38:05to get to here to really start to

3:38:08understand the impacts of these two. But

3:38:10the question is what we go what are we

3:38:13going to do going forward? What is the

3:38:14council going to do going forward? And

3:38:16is that going to be a wrong turn?

3:38:19Um

3:38:22I think we're not ready to pick an

3:38:24alternative or maybe two tonight to

3:38:27recommend to council. I don't feel like

3:38:29I am. I don't understand, you know, um I

3:38:32heard in the staff uh presentation

3:38:33tonight that, you know, one of the

3:38:35things that council didn't like about

3:38:37Lomma Verde alternatives that turned

3:38:39them toward El Dorado was they weren't

3:38:42wanting to accept property impacts,

3:38:44meaning takings. But now it turns out

3:38:46we've got a number of takings in A2 and

3:38:51and so I don't know if council

3:38:55once they were aware of that would have

3:38:57the same same feeling. Does that mean

3:38:59they're only interested in A1? I I I

3:39:01don't know. Um uh I think the the hybrid

3:39:06idea is

3:39:08um it it it has some uh first of all as

3:39:12I said I appreciate staff doing this

3:39:14sort of initial uh review of it and

3:39:18clearly

3:39:20there may be a little less um

3:39:25public good if it's more ciruitous and

3:39:28gets um less use, but

3:39:34maybe that's a fair tradeoff for a lot

3:39:36less private injury. And I think we need

3:39:39more information on that. So, I think

3:39:41it's worth recommending to the council

3:39:43to look at that. And then finally,

3:39:46um I'm I'm interested in the overpass

3:39:49idea. Um um it's it it wasn't, you know,

3:39:53referenced in this staff report and and

3:39:55I appreciate uh staff's uh telling us

3:39:57that it was the a concept that was

3:40:00considered in the original 25. Um but

3:40:04didn't make like the cut to eight. Um

3:40:07and actually I went back and looked at

3:40:09this was in front of the planning

3:40:10commission twice last year. I went back

3:40:11and looked at those staff reports to see

3:40:14if I could get some information about

3:40:15like where maybe it didn't make the cut.

3:40:18I I couldn't find it. Now, I didn't

3:40:20rewatch the videos. I didn't read the

3:40:22attachments, so maybe it's in there

3:40:23somewhere. But but I do know that that

3:40:26um San Mato considered this um uh an

3:40:30overcrossing

3:40:32>> um

3:40:34in light of the the greater difficulties

3:40:36with the electrification of the lines

3:40:38and and um the need to go higher. And

3:40:42they found my understanding is they

3:40:44found they could physically do it but

3:40:46the co the price tag was 20 to 25

3:40:48million and to solve whatever problem

3:40:50they were dealing with they had a lower

3:40:52cost solution so they turn toward that.

3:40:55Um we built our uh last uh highway 101

3:41:00San Antonio area um uh bike uh crossing

3:41:05for I think 23 million. So, so those

3:41:08figures um make sense. Um and

3:41:14now we know that the alternatives were

3:41:16looking at um with A1 and A2 are three

3:41:20three times that and then some. And so

3:41:25um

3:41:26maybe it's worth now that we know what

3:41:29these price tags are, maybe it's worth

3:41:31looking at this again. I understand that

3:41:33there are uh design challenges um and

3:41:37you know you need a lot of ramp up to at

3:41:407% to to get three stories up. Um but

3:41:45again it's it's you know San Mateo

3:41:47looked at this and found it feasible and

3:41:50maybe now that we know that the

3:41:51alternatives are three times as much as

3:41:5525 million um it's worth looking at

3:41:58again um at least to get to you know a

3:42:025% review. So so you know those are my

3:42:06thoughts. I appreciate that slowing this

3:42:10train is inconsistent with the timing

3:42:14that the council seems to want, but my

3:42:16thought is, you know, this is a facility

3:42:18that's going to serve us for a century

3:42:21and then be replaced with the another

3:42:24kind of the same thing. It's it's like a

3:42:27permanent thing for the future of our

3:42:29city. And so if it if it takes, you

3:42:33know, a few more years to get it done

3:42:35right with the greatest public good and

3:42:37least private injury, then that's the

3:42:39path we should take.

3:42:45>> Commissioner Aken, Ben Templeton,

3:42:49>> that's a hard act to follow.

3:42:53Um,

3:42:55I wanted to start by uh revisiting um

3:43:00why Elorado seemed attractive to me the

3:43:02last time this came before us at PTC,

3:43:05which was almost exactly a year ago.

3:43:08Uh so the state is forcing us to grow in

3:43:12population but it's not funding new

3:43:16transportation infrastructure

3:43:18at the same level not to match.

3:43:23We have to prepare for that or we're

3:43:26going to start seeing cutth through

3:43:27traffic increase everywhere

3:43:31whether we build this uh crossing or

3:43:34not.

3:43:36Um,

3:43:38one thing that we discussed the last

3:43:39time this came before us is that one

3:43:44thing we can do to deal with this

3:43:45reality is we can look for ways to shift

3:43:48short trips away from cars and

3:43:51particularly toward bikes.

3:43:55So where are the great opportunities to

3:43:58do that?

3:44:00Well, near Midtown, the largest number

3:44:03of short trips across the tracks is on

3:44:05Oregon Expressway.

3:44:07So, that suggests

3:44:10that what we want is something that's

3:44:13relatively close to Oregon Expressway,

3:44:16but on the south side so that people

3:44:19don't have to cross.

3:44:22And

3:44:24that's largely what drove me

3:44:29um

3:44:31except that a crossing at El Dorado was

3:44:34the most appropriate place

3:44:37and the circulation studies that were

3:44:39presented to us at the time suggested

3:44:41that we would get better utilization of

3:44:45a crossing at El Dorado than we would at

3:44:47Lomma Verde um or a number of other uh

3:44:51options in between

3:44:54and finally of course it had the

3:44:57advantage that we wouldn't require

3:45:00property takings on the west side of the

3:45:02tracks.

3:45:04Okay, so all that said

3:45:07um

3:45:11A2 is just not going to fly.

3:45:16you know, there's there really is no

3:45:18point in pursuing the design without

3:45:21some

3:45:23drastic change in the way that uh that

3:45:26that's organized, which is largely why I

3:45:29suggested elevators. Something that

3:45:32drastic is what you're going to need to

3:45:34make A2 workable.

3:45:37A1 looks viable to me,

3:45:40provided we have the network

3:45:42enhancements that you've already alluded

3:45:44to.

3:45:46And

3:45:48given what I've seen elsewhere, I

3:45:51believe that's possible.

3:45:53We simply haven't reached that point

3:45:55yet. So that you can make a convincing

3:45:58argument for people who are less

3:46:00familiar with how that works.

3:46:02Um,

3:46:04so where that leaves me is

3:46:07I would be inclined to recommend that uh

3:46:11A1 proceed

3:46:15And if we're going to make a

3:46:17recommendation,

3:46:19then another option

3:46:23would be good.

3:46:25Uh right now, the one we have before us

3:46:28is the hybrid option. If you wanted to

3:46:31take more time to try and uh redevelop

3:46:35something at Lomma Verde, for example,

3:46:38um then that probably would be

3:46:40worthwhile despite the delay that that

3:46:44that would cause in the in the project.

3:46:48But um so if you ask me uh if you ask me

3:46:51today to make a recommendation, a one

3:46:54goes through and I would like to see

3:46:56something else in addition.

3:46:59So that's

3:47:00>> Could I ask a clarifying question? So um

3:47:02just then you mentioned um something at

3:47:05Lom Verde. Do you mean a hybrid at Lom

3:47:08Verde or do you mean the uh what was the

3:47:10BC? Was it were those the numbers

3:47:13>> given given that uh we're looking at um

3:47:17costs that are similar B and C probably

3:47:20should be reconsidered.

3:47:25Uh yes, the property acquisition on the

3:47:28park side is a problem, but compared to

3:47:33the property acquisitions uh that A2 is

3:47:36demanding of us along Elorado,

3:47:40that's a wash.

3:47:42Uh council needs to understand that.

3:47:46>> Commissioner Temple,

3:47:49>> thank you. What interesting commentary

3:47:51I'm so excited what a good discussion.

3:47:53Um, I would say, um, I you you've got me

3:47:57thinking, Commissioner Hecman. Um, wow.

3:48:00Onethird of the cost to do an overpass

3:48:04is very exciting and worth

3:48:06consideration, and I hope that staff

3:48:08will somehow

3:48:10bring that information

3:48:12uh to council. Um but more interestingly

3:48:17what what that brings to us is

3:48:20tremendous opportunity to deal with the

3:48:22problems that were just raised. Um when

3:48:26I'm thinking about the when you first

3:48:29mentioned the reasons not to do an

3:48:30overpass

3:48:32um I think staff said something like uh

3:48:35the ramps would be really long and

3:48:37inconvenient.

3:48:39But could that be an opportunity for us

3:48:42to have one of the ramps start at Cal A,

3:48:47go over and come down on the other side

3:48:52of Oregon, solving a lot of problems at

3:48:56once and making the California Avenue uh

3:48:59crossing compliant, improving it, also

3:49:02connecting both sides of Oregon

3:49:03Expressway. Who knows? I don't know. I'm

3:49:07spitballing here, but I what I'm trying

3:49:09to say is if you do look up and discover

3:49:14that what Commissioner Hecman mentioned

3:49:16is true, that you can do one-third of

3:49:19the cost um and perhaps solve two

3:49:24problems at once, that might be

3:49:26something to consider. Um that said, um

3:49:32I would not want to recommend

3:49:35alternatives A1 or A2 to council. I

3:49:39think what we have um achieved and how

3:49:43staff may choose to present this is the

3:49:46investigation that council authorized

3:49:48has proven that these are not viable to

3:49:51the community. And I think that means

3:49:55that the money is well spent, the effort

3:49:57was well spent, and we learned something

3:49:59actionable going forward, which is we

3:50:01need to find a different alternative.

3:50:03So, um I I know it's I see the grimaces,

3:50:06but it is what it is and that is

3:50:10sometimes how it goes and why we do the

3:50:12different percent investigations before

3:50:14going all the way through with anything

3:50:17um that we learn along the way isn't

3:50:20going to work. So, um I do also uh wish

3:50:24that we could consider um

3:50:29um

3:50:30the

3:50:32LMA verde

3:50:34options including the hybrid uh a little

3:50:36bit more deeply and I don't know if you

3:50:38need to go back to council to get

3:50:39authorization to do that. Are you can

3:50:41staff tell me if that is that one of the

3:50:43things that would have to happen that

3:50:46>> Yes, we would need to get authorization

3:50:48to go back to those options. Great. Um,

3:50:51and if

3:50:53I'm just trying to think of forming the

3:50:55motion um, as we go forward, do we also

3:50:59Commissioner G has his hand up for going

3:51:00next? Um the do we need to specify

3:51:05whether it's El Dorado or Alma Verde or

3:51:09use the the lettering nomenclature that

3:51:11you had already for you to look into if

3:51:15we did an overpass where would it come

3:51:18down on either side? Like we don't know.

3:51:22That would be a question for you guys to

3:51:23figure out. Do we need to specify it

3:51:25with those letters or can we just say

3:51:27something like

3:51:29um that to see if council wanted to fund

3:51:32an exploration of that?

3:51:36>> Um I wouldn't want to limit you in in

3:51:39how you give a recommendation. So any

3:51:40kind of feedback you give and we can

3:51:42just make sure that we un try to

3:51:44understand what what it is you're you're

3:51:45the recommendation you're making and if

3:51:47there's some clarifications we think

3:51:48might be helpful to make that clear for

3:51:50everybody, we can we can certainly help

3:51:51with that.

3:51:52>> Okay. Um, so I'm going to leave it at

3:51:54that because I want to hear from

3:51:55Commissioner G and then maybe we can and

3:51:57there's others who are in line. So,

3:51:59thank you,

3:52:00>> Commissioner James and then Vice Chair

3:52:02G.

3:52:05>> So, there we go. Um, I guess if this was

3:52:09easy,

3:52:11>> um, I'm not going to quote Vonagget, but

3:52:13my dad used to say measured twice and

3:52:15cut once, you know, and I think it's

3:52:17kind of along those those lines. So I

3:52:20appreciate um your observations and you

3:52:24know I don't see you know a clear winner

3:52:29uh in my mind. Um I always like Palo

3:52:32Verde. Um uh I do feel like El Dorado is

3:52:36too narrow for a ramp. Um um I was

3:52:40intrigued by some of the the uh

3:52:42residents comments um about uh crossings

3:52:47that were limited to bikes and

3:52:49pedestrians. And I feel like there's

3:52:52something there that's sort of

3:52:54interesting to me in terms of not sort

3:52:56of solving like cut through traffic and

3:52:58and so forth. I don't think I have a

3:53:00clear idea where the best place for that

3:53:02would be, but I think that is um it

3:53:05sounds virtuous, let's say, uh in in the

3:53:08absence of evidence to the contrary. Um

3:53:11so I'm left, you know, I I I maybe I

3:53:14have had a hard time moving off of my

3:53:16first first choice being Lum Verde. Um I

3:53:19guess I would love to see that explored

3:53:22uh more fully. I think there um may be

3:53:27some some virtue to the resident's uh uh

3:53:31suggestion um of a hybrid. Um so I guess

3:53:34I'm sort of left uh

3:53:38in a very similar kind of state of mind

3:53:40with Mr. Hecman uh Commissioner Hecman.

3:53:42Um that I I wish um I wish I had uh

3:53:47evidence that would lead me to you know

3:53:51a great conclusion. Um it is a lot of

3:53:54money. I think we do need to make sure

3:53:56we get it right. Um you know um nobody

3:54:00wants to kick it down the road like

3:54:01another decade. Um but I really do wish

3:54:05we had you know two clear uh viable

3:54:09alternatives and I have a hard time sort

3:54:11of seeing those.

3:54:15>> Vice Chair G.

3:54:17>> Thank you and for the great discussion

3:54:19with my fellow commissioners.

3:54:22I think that where I come down on these

3:54:25lines is very similar to Commissioner

3:54:27Hecman in that this is the kind of

3:54:31project that will last for a very long

3:54:33time and we need to make sure we do this

3:54:35right

3:54:37and the trade-offs that we have to make

3:54:38are between the public benefit and the

3:54:40potential injury cure.

3:54:43And something that really concerns me is

3:54:46spending quite a large amount of money

3:54:48to build something that ends up being

3:54:51not very used. So for example, if we say

3:54:56something like the hybrid plan has the

3:54:58least amount of potential parcel

3:55:00impacts,

3:55:01but the S shape and the additional half

3:55:05a mile potentially that people are

3:55:06traveling reduces the amount of trips

3:55:09taken. Are we actually getting that much

3:55:11public benefit out of the project? Could

3:55:14could the money be better spent

3:55:15elsewhere?

3:55:18And I want to comment also on what

3:55:20Commissioner Akin had mentioned about

3:55:21how the transportation study in the last

3:55:24time we saw this indicated that more

3:55:26trips came through on the Oregon side.

3:55:29And I wonder if that's a little bit of a

3:55:31chicken and egg problem, right? in that

3:55:33we see more trips coming through Oregon

3:55:35because the people who live there

3:55:38see that as an easier route to get

3:55:40through to the other side via Calav,

3:55:42right? More bike and ped trips may

3:55:44inherently already occur because there

3:55:46is a way to get there, right? It's

3:55:49really unclear that that demonstrates

3:55:52that having a tunnel further south, for

3:55:54example, at LMA Verde wouldn't create as

3:55:56many trips. And I also want to tie this

3:56:00together with some of the new housing

3:56:02that we've seen along El Camino. For

3:56:03example, 366 El Camino, which will be at

3:56:06Madero and which is kind of right across

3:56:09from where Lomma Verde would come out

3:56:13to, as well as other projects like the

3:56:14fish market, NVCAP, and others. And kind

3:56:18of tying this back to what Commissioner

3:56:19Templeton had mentioned at the very top

3:56:21of our discussion.

3:56:23It's hard for me to see what benefits

3:56:26the Elorado tunnel is providing that the

3:56:27Calv tunnel is not already providing.

3:56:32And in kind of some across all these

3:56:35different options,

3:56:37I'm not left with very

3:56:40many good options. I'm pretty

3:56:42unhappy with recommending either A1 or

3:56:45A2. I also want to think about the

3:56:47potential implications of the light. As

3:56:49Chair Chang had mentioned, we haven't

3:56:52seen a transportation study with uh a

3:56:55traffic light on Alma, and I think that

3:56:56would pretty dramatically change the

3:56:58potential traffic patterns that may

3:57:00occur there.

3:57:02In addition, I also am curious about the

3:57:06potential behavior impact that we create

3:57:09by putting a light there that comes out

3:57:10to a bike tunnel. So, for example, I

3:57:13actually end up seeing quite a lot of

3:57:14people biking on Alma, like in the

3:57:17street in downtown near Homer. And why

3:57:20is that? Well, it's because the Homer

3:57:22tunnel comes out onto Alma and then, oh

3:57:26well, I'm just going to bike on Alma

3:57:28because I'm already here, right? And I

3:57:30feel like that's significantly more

3:57:31dangerous and we shouldn't be

3:57:32encouraging this kind of behavior.

3:57:36In terms of potential next steps,

3:57:39I think that one issue that I had with

3:57:41Lomover Verde in the previous version

3:57:44when it came to us was the costs. But

3:57:46now that staff has mentioned that the

3:57:48costs are pretty similar, I'm pretty

3:57:51interested in option B, the LM Verde

3:57:54with um with the full tunnel without the

3:57:56traffic light. And so if I were to be

3:57:59asked to recommend something to council,

3:58:03I would probably recommend continued

3:58:05exploration of option B. And as

3:58:08Commissioner Templan said, I think this

3:58:10is money greatly spent. As we've

3:58:12previously discussed as a commission,

3:58:14some of these like pilot projects, the

3:58:17whole point is to iterate quickly and

3:58:18get feedback. And that doesn't mean that

3:58:21just because we've continued with a 5%

3:58:24means that we should go all the way to

3:58:25100%. Right? Sometimes the best way to

3:58:28look at it is we've spent a small amount

3:58:31of money to test to iterate quickly and

3:58:33determine that neither of these options

3:58:35are ones that we'd recommend.

3:58:37And if we if I had to recommend a second

3:58:39option, I would probably recommend the

3:58:41hybrid option just for a comparison

3:58:44against the tunnel at Luma Verde. Thank

3:58:46you.

3:58:50>> All right, I will opine now. Um my my

3:58:53thoughts are very aligned I think with

3:58:56Commissioner Beckman and Templeton and

3:59:00Vice Chair G and um Commissioner James.

3:59:04So I do have one quick question of

3:59:06staff. Was city council aware that

3:59:09Elorado is the smallest street between

3:59:12Cal A and San Antonio when they made the

3:59:17decision?

3:59:20I I don't think we on the commission

3:59:22were aware of that at the time we were

3:59:25advanc we were choosing options from the

3:59:27eight options.

3:59:29>> It did come up as part of the

3:59:30conversation. Okay. Yes.

3:59:32>> All right. Well, what I would say is

3:59:34that for me, Elorado as a non-starter,

3:59:37as a bike path, um it's just too narrow

3:59:40for a bike path. And if we're really

3:59:42anticipating that number of trips and

3:59:44we're expecting all this growth in our

3:59:46city, um, and you've got, you know,

3:59:49several multiund unit developments going

3:59:53on in the El Camino Rail Focus area and

3:59:56Ventura and then

3:59:59potentially a lot of development going

4:00:01on in South Palto.

4:00:03I don't think that we pick we should be

4:00:06picking the narrowest street uh for

4:00:08that. And I understand I've heard from

4:00:11people who say that okay well lumberie

4:00:14is busier. It is busier. It is a little

4:00:17bit busier. None of the streets in that

4:00:19area are extremely busy. What we've got

4:00:21right now is

4:00:24safe routes to school down Charleston

4:00:26down Meadow. Those are busy. And so I

4:00:28think there's a lot of room between tiny

4:00:32little Elorado and massive streets like

4:00:34Charleston and East Meadow um that that

4:00:38accommodate

4:00:40a bike lane and some cars because we

4:00:44have all these residents living in these

4:00:46areas that need to get in and out. And

4:00:48so I think that Elorado just doesn't

4:00:50make sense because it's too narrow

4:00:51because of the culdeacs.

4:00:53Um secondly with respect to a light I'm

4:00:57very and we would have to do the

4:00:59additional studies to see it but because

4:01:02I drive down Elma

4:01:05almost every single day and then I see

4:01:08how the traffic backs up um as you know

4:01:13things are very congested at Page Mill

4:01:15and El Camino and so cars back up all

4:01:18the way on the clover and then and then

4:01:22onto Elma. Uh, and that's only going to

4:01:24get worse as we increase our population

4:01:27and increase the development. Um,

4:01:30particularly with the amount of

4:01:31development that's being slated for

4:01:32South Palto. So, I'm very concerned

4:01:35about a light that is that close to the

4:01:39to Oregon. Um,

4:01:43and furthermore, there's this really

4:01:46unique point where I understand that

4:01:48cast, you know, uh, somebody had

4:01:49mentioned that Castile is a very narrow

4:01:51street and it works great as a bike

4:01:52lane. There's a fundamental difference

4:01:54here where

4:01:57Elorado represents critical parking for

4:02:01the

4:02:02naturally affordable housing on Elma.

4:02:05And that is a situation that just simply

4:02:07doesn't exist in many certainly on

4:02:11Castilea, but we have all these multif

4:02:14family units um or like duplexes

4:02:17uh and there simply isn't parking on

4:02:20Elma. There's just no option. And so as

4:02:23we as the current situation stands, we

4:02:25have people who have to hike like more

4:02:28than a block. And so

4:02:32while I understand that for bike

4:02:33infrastructure we may need to remove

4:02:35parking. My thought is that for a wider

4:02:37street like Lumie maybe we can preserve

4:02:40more parking there or at least some

4:02:42because uh even I was driving around and

4:02:45the utilization is actually quite high

4:02:47uh even in the middle of the day for um

4:02:51for for all the streets along Elma. So,

4:02:55it's just a there's a practical

4:02:56implication here. And much as we would

4:02:59like everybody to get out of their cars,

4:03:01there just needs to be parking.

4:03:04Uh, and there just really is no other

4:03:05option uh for a lot of these homes. So,

4:03:09I don't think that I would want to

4:03:11advance either Elorado option as

4:03:13currently stands. I think the hybrid is

4:03:15worth investigating. I'm also very

4:03:17concerned about creating an option,

4:03:19however, that doesn't get a lot of use.

4:03:22I was always in more in favor of low

4:03:24mortarity. I know that there's these

4:03:25negative impacts of parcel impacts, but

4:03:29something on a street that's already,

4:03:33you know, has a good bike lane, uh, just

4:03:36seems to make a lot more sense to me. I

4:03:38love the idea of the other options like

4:03:40a bridge, but I don't know how feasible

4:03:42that is realistically. Um, so I would be

4:03:45interested in looking at both B and C at

4:03:47Lum Verde, uh, as well as the hybrid.

4:03:53That's it for me.

4:03:59>> Oh, Commissioner Hecman and Templeton.

4:04:04>> Thanks. So, a question of staff and then

4:04:06a comment. Um, after council gave you

4:04:10direction to focus on A1 and A2, I I

4:04:15think what you you went away and did was

4:04:18I think you called it like a 5% design.

4:04:21I want to kind of use the the right

4:04:24terminology. Is that Did I hear that?

4:04:30>> It's all we usually just refer to it as

4:04:32conceptual design.

4:04:33>> Concept. Okay. All right. So, so after

4:04:37the last time, last time you were at the

4:04:39council, you had eight potential

4:04:42uh uh concepts and they sent you away to

4:04:47work on two conceptual designs. Okay.

4:04:53All right. Um thank you. I'm asking that

4:04:56because it might be useful in framing a

4:04:59motion later. Um the other thing I want

4:05:01to do is just clarify. I am not

4:05:03suggesting I don't want to be

4:05:05misunderstood to suggest that we could

4:05:08do an overpass solution for 25 million.

4:05:11I I have no idea how much it would cost.

4:05:14That figure I heard from San Mato. I

4:05:16think that's the correct figure um um

4:05:19for the one we did over 101, but those

4:05:21are different circumstances. This could

4:05:24cost um you know twice that. I don't

4:05:26know. It may be geometrically impossible

4:05:30without taking multiple parcels. I I I

4:05:32don't know that. But I do know that if

4:05:35it I mean the reason I'm attracted to

4:05:37looking at it is because

4:05:40if it can be done it it provides no at

4:05:45grade crossing, so it's the safest. It

4:05:48provides no dark nighttime tunnel, so

4:05:51it's the the safest in that regard. It

4:05:54provides no utility interface problems

4:05:59like a tunnel. and it you're not going

4:06:02to run into a plume. And so so there are

4:06:06some potential benefits that and and you

4:06:10know um some of those aren't measured in

4:06:12dollars, but some are. And so that's why

4:06:14I'm I'm interested in in

4:06:18having staff look at a conceptual design

4:06:22for an overcrossing at whatever location

4:06:25between Colorado and Charleston staff

4:06:28determines might involve the greatest

4:06:31public good and least private injury.

4:06:35>> Commissioner Templeton,

4:06:36>> thank you. I just want to add one more

4:06:38benefit that you didn't list.

4:06:40um we can choose where the ramp starts

4:06:43and where it ends which gives us a lot

4:06:46more flexibility to work with the

4:06:49available parcels with the that would

4:06:51reduce potential takings even more. So,

4:06:55if your motion is going to be uh bring

4:06:58Lomma Verde options B and C to

4:07:01conceptual stage and um scope out a

4:07:06potential overpass

4:07:08uh in terms of pricing and location

4:07:11options, I think I would be very excited

4:07:14about that. I hope that we will be able

4:07:16to include that. If it can't be done,

4:07:19staff will tell us. But why not ask for

4:07:21it? Because it could be the most

4:07:24economically feasible and the fewest

4:07:26takings.

4:07:30>> Do you want to make a motion? Do you

4:07:31want to make a motion?

4:07:34>> Are there any more comments?

4:07:35>> No.

4:07:36>> Do you mind if I make

4:07:38>> Yes, vice chair G.

4:07:40>> So, I want to jump on this. If we ha

4:07:44choose an overpass, we can kind of

4:07:46choose the beginning and end. Having

4:07:48recently um been to I was recently in a

4:07:52place that had a lot of these

4:07:53overpasses.

4:07:54And one thing that I saw that really

4:07:57reduced the amount of parcel impacts is

4:08:00by starting and ending a lot of these

4:08:02overpasses in parks.

4:08:05and some parks we there's not as many

4:08:08parks along Elma or the Cal Train per se

4:08:10in this area, but if we need to achieve

4:08:13the 7% at grade, this is one potential

4:08:16way to extend it, right? So, we could

4:08:18say, oh, like we want to we can use the

4:08:20the public land that we already have

4:08:22that would minimize a parcel impact and

4:08:24then have the long ramp from a park

4:08:26going into somewhere else. I also wonder

4:08:28if this potential strategy could be

4:08:31interesting if we decide to also connect

4:08:35somewhere to Calav, right? Because on

4:08:37the east side of the Calav tunnel, we

4:08:40end up in a park, right? And as

4:08:41Commissioner Akin had mentioned, it is

4:08:44potentially pretty difficult to get

4:08:46across Oregon. And so that could be

4:08:47another area where we could kind of

4:08:49interconnect, where we could say, hey,

4:08:51uh, we can make another easy way for

4:08:54folks in Midtown to get across Oregon.

4:08:56So these are just some different ideas

4:08:58that I was kind of bouncing around based

4:09:00on the most recent discussion.

4:09:02>> I love it.

4:09:12>> I will try a motion and get some

4:09:14feedback on it.

4:09:16So, I move that

4:09:20the PTC recommend to council that they

4:09:26hold current alternatives A1

4:09:30and A2 in obeyance

4:09:33until the completion of uh concept

4:09:37conceptual designs equivalent to what's

4:09:40been done for A1 and A2 or or possible

4:09:45other alternatives,

4:09:48uh, LMA Verde option B and LMA Verde

4:09:52option C.

4:09:55uh the hybrid that um has been

4:09:58referenced in much of the Elorado

4:10:00neighborhood correspondence and was part

4:10:03of our staff report and uh an

4:10:07overcrossing

4:10:09at the location that uh staff feels

4:10:13provides the greatest benefit and least

4:10:15injury.

4:10:17>> Second.

4:10:21>> Any additional discussion?

4:10:25Is there any interest in adding

4:10:27something along the lines of

4:10:31focusing on uh h or like having

4:10:34discussed criteria such as parcel

4:10:36impacts, cost and others that kind of

4:10:40help us guide us to this decision.

4:10:45>> I I I don't think we need to do that

4:10:47because I think it's baked into the

4:10:49conceptual design process. you know,

4:10:52that that shaded bar graph that um staff

4:10:56did, I thought was super helpful. And

4:10:58you know, I can envision a a new version

4:11:02of that if council so chooses that would

4:11:04have all six and and sort of categorize

4:11:07them along this uh gray spectrum. So, I

4:11:10think staff understands that as part of

4:11:12the conceptual design process.

4:11:15>> Okay. Yeah. The reason I the only reason

4:11:16I mentioned that is that I want to help

4:11:18council understand why we kind of

4:11:20decided not to move like why we don't

4:11:23believe A1 and A2 are good rationale but

4:11:26I also do agree with you that staff has

4:11:28done a pretty good job with the bar

4:11:29graph. So I just am throwing that out as

4:11:31an option but I'm happy either way.

4:11:37>> Okay then I think we're ready for our

4:11:39vote.

4:11:41Um, Commissioner Hecman,

4:11:43>> before we vote, just want to check to

4:11:45see if there's clarification needed.

4:11:48>> It was uh more of just um just make sure

4:11:50we have the terminology correct. So, um

4:11:54LMA verde option previously referred to

4:11:58as alternatives B and C. Those

4:12:01conceptual designs have already been

4:12:02completed. So, those are those are at

4:12:05the conceptual design level and we've

4:12:06done an evaluation of tradeoffs. Um, so

4:12:10I just wanted to clarify that because I

4:12:11thought that I heard something

4:12:12different. I thought you said Lovery A

4:12:14and B, but I just wanted to make sure

4:12:15we're speaking the same language.

4:12:16>> I did say B and C, but this gets back to

4:12:18my question of what do you call what you

4:12:20did to A1 and A2? Because you brought A1

4:12:23and A2 to us with price tags. And as far

4:12:26as I know, B and C don't have price

4:12:28tags. So whatever you did for LMA verde

4:12:32B and C is not the equivalent. And the

4:12:34purpose of trying to get the right name

4:12:38is I I would like uh that my motion is

4:12:41for you to do with these four other

4:12:43alternatives

4:12:44the level of study you did for A1 and A2

4:12:47Elor Dorado.

4:12:49Thanks for clarifying. Okay.

4:12:54>> Okay. Uh Vice Chair G, is that a ghost

4:12:57hand or a

4:13:00>> ghost hand?

4:13:01>> Okay. I think we're ready for a vote

4:13:04then.

4:13:05>> Uh, Commissioner Hecman,

4:13:07>> yes.

4:13:08>> Uh, Commissioner Aken,

4:13:10>> yes. Uh, Commissioner James,

4:13:12>> yes.

4:13:12>> Commissioner Templeton,

4:13:14>> yes.

4:13:14>> Vice Chair G,

4:13:16>> yes.

4:13:17>> Uh, Chair Chang,

4:13:18>> yes.

4:13:18>> Motion carry 6.

4:13:21>> All right. Thank you everyone.

4:13:24>> We're going to go on to the next item,

4:13:26which is more transportation.

4:13:33Um, so the

4:13:37last action item tonight is Bryant

4:13:40Street Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue

4:13:42trafficcoming project initial design

4:13:45concepts. Could we start with the staff

4:13:48report, please?

4:13:53We'll just take a moment to get staff

4:13:57swapped out here uh to get this. Also

4:14:00giving the audience time to clear

4:14:03chambers so we have quiet for

4:14:05discussion.

4:14:50So, I would just like to note that

4:14:52Commissioner Aken needs to leave at

4:14:5310:45.

4:15:02>> All right, go for it, Mr. Ray.

4:15:05>> Thank you, Chair Chang. Hello,

4:15:07commissioners again. Uh my name is

4:15:08Aussie Arcles, senior transportation

4:15:10planner uh with the office of

4:15:12transportation. Tonight I'm presenting

4:15:14updated design concepts for the Bryant

4:15:16Street and Lincoln Avenue traffic

4:15:17calming project. Uh the effort advances

4:15:21a near-term project from the 2026

4:15:23bicycle and pedestrian transportation

4:15:25plan, also known as the BPTP, and also

4:15:29addresses specific resident concerns

4:15:31regarding vehicle volumes and speeds

4:15:32along the Spike Boulevard and school

4:15:34commute corridor. Next slide, please.

4:15:37Our purpose tonight is to present a

4:15:39suite of ideas and suggestions for

4:15:40traffic calming in this area and most

4:15:43importantly to gather your feedback on

4:15:45the updated concept plans. I will

4:15:47present some existing conditions data,

4:15:49best practice thresholds, and the

4:15:50suggested improvements. This is about a

4:15:5310-minute presentation.

4:15:55The recommended action tonight is to

4:15:57review the update next slide, please. to

4:15:58review the updated concept plans for

4:16:00portions of Bryant Street and Lincoln

4:16:02Avenue and recommend council direct

4:16:04staff to advance the elements listed on

4:16:08the slide also in your staff report.

4:16:12Next slide, please. The Bryant Lincoln

4:16:14traffic calming project merges two

4:16:16initiatives. the 2024 neighborhood

4:16:19traffic calming petition the city

4:16:20received from residents in the area. And

4:16:23like I mentioned earlier, it advances a

4:16:25near-term project from the 2026 BPTP,

4:16:28also known as the Bryant Street Bike

4:16:30Boulevard downtown access project. This

4:16:34allows the city to effectively deliver

4:16:35on both goals simultaneously.

4:16:38Separate yet related and important note

4:16:40is that the city is interested in

4:16:42revamping its traffic calming policy

4:16:44from 2001 and using this project as a

4:16:48pilot test case to understand how to

4:16:50better deliver traffic calming

4:16:52improvements in accordance with best

4:16:54practice. This includes understanding

4:16:56how to better balance the lived

4:16:58experience of residents with current

4:17:00safety standards to to advance traffic

4:17:02calming projects from design all the way

4:17:05through to construction.

4:17:07Next slide, please. Our primary goal is

4:17:10to enhance the boulevard as it

4:17:12approaches downtown, creating a

4:17:14worldclass low-speed all ages and

4:17:16ability street, which is a goal of the

4:17:182026 BPTP.

4:17:21We also want to optimize the street for

4:17:23bicyclists actively discourage cut

4:17:25through vehicle traffic as described in

4:17:27the neighborhood traffic calming

4:17:29petition received. According to the

4:17:31National Association of City

4:17:33Transportation Officials or NACTO, a

4:17:35successful bike boulevard relies on two

4:17:38things. Low vehicle volumes and low

4:17:41speeds. So, just really quick on these

4:17:43best p best practice guidelines from

4:17:45NATO. Uh it targets fewer than a,000

4:17:48daily vehicles. Uh ideally between 500

4:17:51and a,000 for bike boulevards. Um and

4:17:54during peak hours that drop to just 50

4:17:56to 100 vehicles. Regarding speeds, the

4:18:00goal is for the 85th percentile of

4:18:03drivers to travel at 15 to 20 mph. And

4:18:07just for additional project area

4:18:09boundaries, this is between Bryant

4:18:11Street uh between Embaradero Road and

4:18:14Homer Avenue and Lincoln Avenue between

4:18:17Waverly and Emerson.

4:18:21Next slide. So, how do we measure up to

4:18:23those targets today? Next slide. Uh in

4:18:27May 2026, our project team collected new

4:18:30volume and speed data. Uh the short

4:18:33answer is both volumes and speeds are

4:18:36too high when compared to best practice

4:18:38thresholds. And I'll direct your eyes to

4:18:40the table on the top right. Looking at

4:18:42the numbers, daily vehicle volumes have

4:18:44jumped by about 35% since 2015, going

4:18:47from just over,500 to nearly 2100

4:18:50vehicles today. That's more than double

4:18:53the nacto ideal target for a bike

4:18:55boulevard. Speeds have also crept up.

4:18:58The 85th percentile speed is now 28 mph.

4:19:01When you consider a typical bicyclist

4:19:03travels roughly 13 mph, that creates an

4:19:06uncomfortable and unsafe speed

4:19:08differential.

4:19:11Uh this might lead to why it's no

4:19:13surprise that our peak hour bicycle

4:19:15counts are sitting at 55, well below the

4:19:17target of 100 to 200 for a bike

4:19:20boulevard. Next slide, please. The daily

4:19:22volume suggests that commuters are

4:19:24frequently using Bryant Street to travel

4:19:26north towards downtown. So, this using

4:19:29and using Lincoln Avenue to bypass

4:19:31heavier traffic on University Avenue and

4:19:33Embaradero Road. This cutth through

4:19:36behavior impacts safely and we have a

4:19:39significant concentrations of collisions

4:19:41between uh where Bryant Street meets

4:19:43Lincoln Avenue as well as multiple

4:19:45collisions further up on Channing

4:19:47Avenue. As you can see from this map,

4:19:50between 2016 and 2024, there were 10

4:19:53reported collisions on Bryant Street.

4:19:5530% of the collisions involved the

4:19:57bicyclists and at least 50% involved of

4:20:00the collisions were broadside.

4:20:03An important note here is that the city

4:20:04has also received several 311 inquiries

4:20:07in recent years from resident expressing

4:20:10safety concerns in the project area with

4:20:12a concentration of 311 tickets submitted

4:20:15at the Bryant Lincoln at the Bryant and

4:20:17Barkadero road intersections.

4:20:20And anecdotally, residents tell us of

4:20:22frequent collisions that are not

4:20:24reported. So we know the actual activity

4:20:26on the street is higher than what's in

4:20:28the record.

4:20:30Next slide, please. So how are we

4:20:32proposing to tackle these issues? Next

4:20:35slide.

4:20:36Uh to reverse these trends, our strategy

4:20:39relies on three pillars. Reducing

4:20:41vehicle speeds, reducing traffic

4:20:44volumes, and improving the streets

4:20:46legibility. So everyone knows it's a

4:20:48bicycle priority zone. So I'll walk

4:20:50through these three strategies in the

4:20:52next few slides quickly. So let's talk

4:20:55about reducing speeds. Drivers tend to

4:20:57speed up when they see a long

4:20:59uninterrupted clear path. To disrupt

4:21:02that visual roadway, we are suggesting a

4:21:04new traffic circle at Kingsley Avenue, a

4:21:07new traffic circle at Bryant and

4:21:08Lincoln, and suggest upgrading the

4:21:10existing circle at Addison to include

4:21:12crosswalks, splitter islands, and a

4:21:14mountable truck apron.

4:21:19These small traffic circles are similar

4:21:21to those you see already on univers uh

4:21:23north of University Avenue. For example,

4:21:25at Hawthorne and Kalper shown on the

4:21:27image, Everett and Webster and Everett

4:21:30and Emerson. So, this is something the

4:21:32city has implemented in the past and

4:21:34currently is on our city streets.

4:21:37Um updated traffic circles serve a dual

4:21:41purpose for this corridor. From a

4:21:42neighborhood traffic calming

4:21:43perspective, they address residents

4:21:45concerns around uh physically forcing

4:21:48vehicles to slow down at key

4:21:49intersections. And from a BPTP

4:21:51perspective, traffic circles preserve

4:21:53continuous low stress momentum for

4:21:56cyclists. Uh just a quick note here that

4:21:59traffic circles in Palo Alto do include

4:22:02either two-way or four-way stop control,

4:22:05unlike a roundabout that traditionally

4:22:08has all yields at intersections, no stop

4:22:10signs. So that's an important

4:22:12distinction that we wanted to make.

4:22:15Continuing with reducing speeds. Uh next

4:22:17slide please. We are proposing curb

4:22:20extensions at Homer Avenue and Channing

4:22:22Avenue intersections. Uh this is similar

4:22:25to what you see entering Carfree Cal A.

4:22:28Now I won't go into too much detail

4:22:30about these but really the point here is

4:22:32curb extensions are identified by the

4:22:34Federal Highway Administration as a

4:22:36safety countermeasure. physically

4:22:38tightening the roadway at intersections

4:22:40and visually narrowing the roadway to

4:22:42slow turning vehicles. And this um is an

4:22:46intentional safety design. Uh by

4:22:49narrowing the throat, drivers are forced

4:22:51to slow down so to bicycle speeds,

4:22:54creating a single file and highly

4:22:56predictable intersection for all users.

4:23:00And regarding volumes, to address high

4:23:03uh next slide, please high traffic

4:23:05volumes, we need to deter cutroughs.

4:23:07This is something that the residents uh

4:23:09spoke about a lot. Uh currently about

4:23:11half of the vehicle tra vehicle traffic

4:23:14on Bryant Street enters via the

4:23:16eastbound left turn from Embaradero

4:23:18coming from Town and Country. So staff

4:23:21suggests a pilot to restrict the left

4:23:23turn from eastbound Embarcadero to

4:23:25northbound. And we can do this in a

4:23:28short term with paint and plastic

4:23:29delineators to understand the outcomes

4:23:32and impacts of that turn restriction. So

4:23:34proposing that as a pilot first

4:23:37and finally legibility uh back a bike

4:23:40boulevard should be instantly

4:23:42recognizable. We are proposing to add

4:23:44highly visible bike boulevard pavement

4:23:46legends directly on the road of each

4:23:48block.

4:23:50Uh and just lastly a point here about uh

4:23:53managing additional vehicle volumes on

4:23:55Waverly. So recognizing that restricting

4:23:58that left turn at Embaradero might move

4:24:00some of that traffic to the next

4:24:02signalized intersection at Waverly

4:24:04Street at Embaradero. So to proactively

4:24:06manage this and prevent Waverly from

4:24:08becoming a new cut through, we suggest

4:24:10installing a new additional traffic

4:24:12circle at the Lincoln and Waverly

4:24:14intersection.

4:24:17So to summarize uh based on data and

4:24:20recent community feedback, staff

4:24:22recommends advancing the package of

4:24:25improvements shown on the slide. Sorry,

4:24:27next slide please. Uh to directly

4:24:30address uh the resident concerns and

4:24:34again uh move forward with a priority

4:24:36project from the BPTP. And couple slides

4:24:39over just to close out with some next

4:24:41steps. There is an online survey open

4:24:44now through October 9th for the public

4:24:46to provide feedback on the concept

4:24:48plans. And tonight, we're asking the

4:24:50commission to recommend that the city

4:24:52council direct staff to advance these

4:24:54updated elements. And again, following

4:24:56tonight's meeting, we will present these

4:24:58plans to the city council on November

4:25:009th to get their uh authorization to

4:25:03advance the project to either 65 or 100%

4:25:07design. And that concludes my

4:25:09presentation. Thank you. I'm available

4:25:11to answer any questions.

4:25:13>> Okay. So, we've still got quite a few

4:25:15people in chambers for 10:10 p.m. And

4:25:17so, just wanting to remind everybody to

4:25:19get your speaker cards in um because

4:25:22usually we cut off uh notification of

4:25:26public comments 5 minutes after the

4:25:28staff presentation. Um

4:25:31commissioners, any clarifying questions?

4:25:35>> Commissioner Templeton, Ben James.

4:25:39>> Thank you. Uh thank you for a great

4:25:41presentation. I love the diagrams that

4:25:43you provided so much useful information

4:25:45to help us prepare. So thank you very

4:25:46much. Um I I wanted to ask you said you

4:25:50had gotten some community feedback. How

4:25:52how is that like volumetrically? Do you

4:25:56feel like some significant portion of

4:25:58the community has weighed in on this or

4:26:01are we going to be surprised like

4:26:05sometimes happens. So,

4:26:08>> uh, we hosted a, uh, neighborhood

4:26:11meeting with, uh, residents from the

4:26:14immediate adjacent area. There were

4:26:16about two dozen attendees. Um,

4:26:19>> two dozen

4:26:20>> two.

4:26:21>> Okay.

4:26:21>> Two dozen about 24

4:26:23>> Yeah. folks showed up and um

4:26:27overwhelmingly in support of the project

4:26:30and if anything asked us to uh move as

4:26:33fast as we can towards implementation.

4:26:36There was um some debate around whether

4:26:40there should be a traffic circle or a

4:26:42diverter at the Bryant and Lincoln

4:26:44intersection and I went a little bit

4:26:46more into that in detail in the staff

4:26:47report and I'm happy to elaborate. Um

4:26:49but overall we feel relatively confident

4:26:52about the initial engagement that we

4:26:54did. We passed out about a hundred uh

4:26:56paper flyers to the neighborhood

4:26:58announcing the meeting and we have met

4:27:01with additional residents from the area

4:27:03on a one-on-one basis after the meeting.

4:27:06Um and I looked today and there's about

4:27:0850 survey responses.

4:27:11>> And you're feeling generally there's

4:27:12still positive support. Looks like you

4:27:14have a comment as well.

4:27:16Um so I would like to add that the

4:27:19petition came from neighbors you know

4:27:22across both both streets Bryant and

4:27:24Lincoln. Um at the neighborhood meeting

4:27:27we had um passed out the flyers also on

4:27:30Waverly right um but they were not well

4:27:34represented at I don't there might have

4:27:36been one person who's actually other

4:27:38dest from from Waverly um

4:27:41>> thank God for you

4:27:43>> so yeah so staff noticed that that

4:27:45>> okay

4:27:45>> that street even though we' noticed them

4:27:49it was not well represented at the at

4:27:51the neighborhood meeting

4:27:52>> it can happen right so it's it's good to

4:27:54talk about it and you still have it

4:27:55Sounds like it's still open for public

4:27:57comment. So,

4:27:58>> yes, that's good.

4:27:59>> And I think that also in terms of um the

4:28:02community feedback,

4:28:05we had initially proposed a diagonal

4:28:07diverter at Lincoln and Addison and um

4:28:12Lincoln and Bryant, sorry. Um and the

4:28:16feedback from the immediate neighbors

4:28:18was uh

4:28:20maybe not. And um I would expect that as

4:28:23you go further away it would be get more

4:28:25negative. And so that was part of our

4:28:27thinking as we shifted to the circle in

4:28:29that location that

4:28:30>> that's really good context. Yeah. Thank

4:28:32you for that. Um I have one more

4:28:34communityoriented question to find out

4:28:37if it plays at all. Um, in my

4:28:40conversations with people in this area,

4:28:43like I'm I've definitely heard um all

4:28:45the same stuff about Lincoln, but I I

4:28:48heard Emerson is giving people fits and

4:28:52has been for decades. Is that some place

4:28:55that still needs attention? I say I see

4:28:58Miss Starlac over there may have heard

4:29:00the same kind of comments. I don't know.

4:29:03Um, is is this going to improve the

4:29:06situation at Emerson and Barkadero or is

4:29:08it going to make it worse?

4:29:09>> Um, my understanding of the situation at

4:29:12um Emerson is to do with kind of the

4:29:15concept of a clover leaf. So, as you're

4:29:18coming off Alma turning to the and you

4:29:20want to go onto Embaradero heading

4:29:23towards Stanford. So, people are turning

4:29:26to the right on Lincoln and then right

4:29:27on Emerson then right on Oh, no. That

4:29:30doesn't make sense, does it?

4:29:32>> Yeah. I'm thinking I'm thinking about

4:29:34bites though. It it's used as a clover

4:29:36leaf to get to somewhere. Um

4:29:39>> Embaradero.

4:29:40>> Yeah, you're not wrong. That's right.

4:29:41Yeah. Yeah, it's fine. It doesn't go

4:29:43through. Um and so

4:29:46>> but so I don't bikes though. It's not

4:29:48the cars that's the problem there. The

4:29:50bikes in that specific area. There's

4:29:53people who live there and are like

4:29:55constantly like nashing their teeth

4:29:58about the dangerous bike situation. I

4:30:00don't know if that is going to be made

4:30:03worse or better. It sounds like better

4:30:05because

4:30:05>> so over the summer we completed a

4:30:07project at that exact location.

4:30:10>> So that's better now.

4:30:11>> It's much better.

4:30:12>> That's all I need to know cuz I I that's

4:30:15what I was I was concerned. I was like

4:30:16if this is going to make that worse then

4:30:18no. But already you've got improvements

4:30:20there. So we're good. So this is the

4:30:22next step.

4:30:24>> It's just it just Yeah. In addition to

4:30:27that project, just another effort. The

4:30:29Emerson Street improvements were done

4:30:30right before the start of the school

4:30:32year.

4:30:32>> Great. I haven't been down there. I'll

4:30:34have to go look. That's great. Okay.

4:30:36Well, that's all I need to know. Thank

4:30:37you,

4:30:39>> Mr. James.

4:30:41>> Um, well, as luck would have it, um, I

4:30:44lived at Brian and Lincoln, uh, and was

4:30:46on the one of the people that signed the

4:30:48petition. Um and actually Miss Low uh

4:30:52right after she um came to work in

4:30:55PaloAlto um went out and knocked on

4:30:58doors in the in the area. So and was um

4:31:01including mine and uh so I was very kind

4:31:03of impressed from from the start at how

4:31:06you uh

4:31:09uh wanted to talk to neighbors. I think

4:31:11maybe at that point maybe they were

4:31:13painting 21 foot red stripes and and and

4:31:16there needed to be some uh some

4:31:18conversation. So, but I I have uh picked

4:31:20up bikers out of my front yard and and I

4:31:23have uh lots of pictures on my phone of

4:31:26crashes that so even though we're sort

4:31:29of you know primarily like bike safety

4:31:31is driving this, it's going to be sort

4:31:32of have some great benefits for uh fewer

4:31:36fewer uh t-bone collisions right there.

4:31:40Um, so I I wanted to ask about the um

4:31:42the circle at uh at Addison. You said

4:31:46that would be sort of upgraded. Um, and

4:31:48I think that you referred to these as

4:31:50small circles and I actually live very

4:31:53near the one Hawthorne and in Kapper

4:31:55now. Um, so I'm I'm familiar with that.

4:31:57Is that does that one that one always

4:32:00seemed like it kind of pushed cars

4:32:03pretty close to the crosswalks to me?

4:32:07Um, and I think if I read the the

4:32:10drawings correctly, um, the design for

4:32:14these actually there's, you know, pushes

4:32:16the crosswalk back a little bit from the

4:32:18corner. Is that right? I guess if I just

4:32:21get you to kind of comment a little bit

4:32:24is are you are the new circles going to

4:32:27be the same size as Addison? Are they

4:32:28smaller? You mentioned the trunk apron.

4:32:31I mean, that's just kind of the one that

4:32:33I have a kind of comparison to there. It

4:32:36does feel a little I think the ones over

4:32:38near Hawthorne are are smaller.

4:32:42Um so just kind of wondering if you can

4:32:45talk a little bit about the design of

4:32:47those and am I reading it correctly that

4:32:50you know there sort of bulb outs to get

4:32:52more sort of visibility of pedestrians

4:32:55and and artwalks sort of moving back

4:32:58from the corners a little bit to create

4:33:00space. Can you just talk about that a

4:33:01little bit?

4:33:05I would say it's a it's design

4:33:07consideration at this point. Uh we

4:33:10haven't at 15% concept designs. We

4:33:13haven't drilled down to that level. What

4:33:15I will say is that they will be more

4:33:18fitting to the specific intersection.

4:33:21>> Uh will they all have the same

4:33:23dimensions? Probably maybe not

4:33:26considering, you know, these

4:33:27intersections might look slightly

4:33:28different. The feedback that we've

4:33:29received from the Addison traffic circle

4:33:32is around the curb that it currently

4:33:36has. And uh also

4:33:38>> the curb on the

4:33:39>> on the traffic circle itself

4:33:41>> uh rather than it being flush or this

4:33:43truck apron that we're referring to um

4:33:46in addition to the comment that you

4:33:48mentioned around uh it has a feeling

4:33:51that the cars move into the pedestrian

4:33:54space. So we would need to look at the

4:33:57entire design of the Addison traffic

4:33:58circle again to ensure that uh it's more

4:34:02form fitting to that intersection. Um

4:34:06there uh we do have uh uh uh Hugh from

4:34:12uh Faren Piers the consultant on the

4:34:15call if they want to elaborate a bit

4:34:18more on the traffic circle dimensions.

4:34:21Um, another point I want to make is I

4:34:24don't want to confuse the traffic circle

4:34:26proposals or recommendations to the curb

4:34:29extensions and those can happen in

4:34:32different intersections and the curb

4:34:33extensions do uh bulb out bring out the

4:34:37the walkway to shorten to tighten the

4:34:40the intersection. Um, again, all for

4:34:42traffic calming purposes, but you might

4:34:44not see those at the same intersection

4:34:46simply for space purposes.

4:34:50>> Thank you.

4:34:51Um, so I don't see other lights. Let's

4:34:54go to public comment.

4:34:56How many do we have?

4:34:57>> Uh, chair, we have six requests to

4:34:59speak.

4:35:00>> All right. Um, let's do three minutes

4:35:03and hopefully you don't need it.

4:35:05>> Okay. Uh, our first speaker is Rob S,

4:35:07followed by Jack T.

4:35:16>> Good evening, uh, Madame Chair, uh,

4:35:19commissioners. My name is Rob Steinberg.

4:35:21I'm an architect. I've lived uh on the

4:35:24bicycle boulevard for the last 45 years.

4:35:27I have been working with the city on the

4:35:30safety of that for the last 20 years.

4:35:33I have been one of uh two members that

4:35:37have um brought in 40 signatures of our

4:35:41neighbors and I think I speak for many

4:35:43of them tonight when I say we are 100%

4:35:48in favor of staff recommendation

4:35:53100%. Number two, the transportation

4:35:58department. These four people sitting

4:36:00here deserve an attab boy. They have

4:36:05done a phenomenal job of It took us a

4:36:09while. It took us a long time to get

4:36:12their ear, but when we got it, they have

4:36:14listened to us. They have responded.

4:36:18They have been flexible. They have

4:36:20adjusted to what the community wanted.

4:36:22And it's really they should be commended

4:36:27for the process that they've gone

4:36:28through to get us to this point. And my

4:36:32third point is

4:36:34I have an ask from you. We have been

4:36:38discussing this for years. It is a

4:36:41safety concern for all of our neighbors.

4:36:44We saw how quickly the city was able to

4:36:48construct the intersection of Emerson

4:36:51and Embaradero. When the city made up

4:36:54their mind to do it, they did it

4:36:56quickly. And we're asking for your help

4:36:59tonight. Please send a message to the

4:37:03council. We want this done. We've been

4:37:06talking about this for years and years.

4:37:09It's time to move forward. We're all in

4:37:12agreement. Please make this happen

4:37:15quickly before we have a tragedy. Thank

4:37:18you.

4:37:19>> Thank you.

4:37:20>> Our next speaker is Jack T followed by

4:37:22Monica White.

4:37:32>> Uh good evening. Uh my name is Jack

4:37:35Turner. Um I want to thank everybody for

4:37:39all their hard work and for helping move

4:37:41this project forward. Um, I am now

4:37:45raising my children in the house that I

4:37:47grew up in

4:37:49on Brian Street and uh things that maybe

4:37:53I didn't notice as a kid uh have become

4:37:55very apparent to me as a parent and uh I

4:37:58worry about my kids, their safety

4:38:01crossing the street. I don't think a day

4:38:03goes by that I don't hear a screech of

4:38:06brakes at that intersection. Um, and

4:38:09occasionally we get we do hear uh a

4:38:12crash. Um, we've got pictures of cars in

4:38:16u your guys' yard. Um, and uh so I was

4:38:22the one who uh one of the one of the

4:38:24people who participated and sort of

4:38:26brought that um petition I think back in

4:38:292024. And so, uh, I think everything Rob

4:38:32said, um, is is on point with, I think,

4:38:37how I feel and I think all the neighbors

4:38:39feel. So, we would love for it to move

4:38:40forward as quickly as possible. Thank

4:38:42you.

4:38:44Next speaker is Monica Y followed by

4:38:46Adrien A.

4:38:58Good evening, commission commissioners.

4:39:01Um, I'm Monica Young Arma and I live on

4:39:051052 Brian Street, right at the corner,

4:39:09north

4:39:10west corner of Brian and Lincoln for

4:39:14more than 30 years. So I have observed a

4:39:18lot of activities there because I have

4:39:20my home office at home in the front. I

4:39:23would say we average probably about once

4:39:28a week at least one accident per week

4:39:33that is not noticed by other people

4:39:36because if there is no injury is never

4:39:39reported to the police. So it's not in

4:39:41any of your records that you can see.

4:39:44But by my observations and maybe perhaps

4:39:47other people's observation they can tell

4:39:50you that this happened very frequently.

4:39:53The reason for that is Lincoln is a

4:39:55street carry the traffic all the way

4:39:58from university crescent park community

4:40:01center area middlefield to Elma. A lot

4:40:06of people have high school students to

4:40:08bring their kids to Pali, but they don't

4:40:11use Embado because the traffic is pretty

4:40:15bad. So I think people that are local,

4:40:18they are they are very aware of that. So

4:40:21something need to be done to that

4:40:22because Brian Street is a bike lane and

4:40:25it doesn't have any stop sign. So as

4:40:28soon as the people start on embado they

4:40:31will speed all the way down without

4:40:34consider anything in a hurry to get to

4:40:37their destination. So I think that for

4:40:39that anything that you do with uh

4:40:43slowing the traffic will be helpful. Uh,

4:40:46like the gentleman said, one accident of

4:40:50the one that I mentioned, we were not

4:40:52home,

4:40:54but the car ran into my yard right at

4:40:56the corner. I have a metal fence, metal

4:41:00post, but the metal post actually fell

4:41:03down. So, you could imagine how much

4:41:06impact that is. And that's not good. And

4:41:12I saw the report that says in 1912 a

4:41:15study was done on stops four-way stop

4:41:18sign but it wasn't um implement because

4:41:21it was not recommended. So I would say

4:41:24that anything that you do whether it's

4:41:26stop sign or circle will slow down the

4:41:29traffic will be helpful. Um another

4:41:31thing that I didn't mention that I

4:41:33wanted to mention today is the traffic.

4:41:36You go on Brian Street in the morning

4:41:38and in the afternoon, there is the fine

4:41:41spot. When the sun rise and the run

4:41:43sunset, when you look ahead of you, you

4:41:46can't really see very far distance. So,

4:41:48it's actually very dangerous for people

4:41:50that are driving very fast. And uh

4:41:54lastly, one more point, not related to

4:41:56the subject. This is um going on for a

4:42:00long time, street cleaning signs. And I

4:42:04asked for that for many many times but

4:42:07it's just never have any response.

4:42:09Transportation would say public work,

4:42:12public work would say street cleaning.

4:42:14So we need to coordinate to get that

4:42:17done so that you don't have to nail a

4:42:20nail on the streets.

4:42:23>> Thank you.

4:42:24>> Our next speaker is Adrian A followed by

4:42:26Paul G.

4:42:30Uh good evening and thank you for the

4:42:32opportunity to speak to you. Um I do

4:42:35want to affirm the uh the good work that

4:42:38the staff has been doing on this. It's

4:42:40been really really wonderful to work

4:42:42with them on it. So kudos to them. Um my

4:42:46main comment regarding the uh proposals

4:42:49is first of all that there there is

4:42:52virtually 100% support in the

4:42:54neighborhood for this. Uh we've talked

4:42:56to other neighbors that weren't at the

4:42:58meeting and they all agreed that

4:43:01something needs to be done and this is a

4:43:03pretty good approach to it. Um my one

4:43:06thought was which I expressed to staff

4:43:08and they have incorporated it in their

4:43:10revised proposal is to do it in phases.

4:43:13you can start soon. Um, and the the

4:43:17first thing you can do is close off the

4:43:19access to Embaradero at Bryant. Um,

4:43:22which is easy to do and actually was

4:43:24done um a couple months ago for the

4:43:27because of the construction

4:43:29and u because I live at Lincoln and

4:43:31Bryant I would expect that to be pretty

4:43:33inconvenient but actually it wasn't.

4:43:36It's a very very minor inconvenience to

4:43:38have it closed and there's really no

4:43:39reason to have it open when there's a

4:43:41full intersection at Waverly and

4:43:43Embaradero. So that's something you can

4:43:46do. And then the next priority would be

4:43:48the traffic circle at Brian and Lincoln,

4:43:51which is the the major um problem area.

4:43:55Um but I don't think you need to do the

4:43:57whole project at once. You could

4:43:59implement that and then see if that's

4:44:02enough. And I I kind of doubt whether

4:44:06you need a traffic circle at Kingsley

4:44:08and Bryant because Kingsley is a dead

4:44:11end street and under the proposal Bryant

4:44:13become a dead end street at Embaradero.

4:44:16Um and there's a dip there. So there's

4:44:18signs that say 15 miles an hour dip. So

4:44:21I'm not sure you would need it and maybe

4:44:23if you implement the circle at Brian and

4:44:24Lincoln that would be enough and you

4:44:26would not need it to spend the money on

4:44:28that. So I urge kind of a step by step

4:44:31maybe phase by phase process um and then

4:44:34we can stop when it's good enough. Thank

4:44:38you very much.

4:44:40>> Our next speaker is Paul G.

4:44:48>> Thank you. My name is uh Paul Goldstein.

4:44:50I live at 1024 Emerson Street. Um,

4:44:54and I strongly support doing something

4:44:58on Bryant. I am a bicyclist. I was on

4:45:02the payback for many years. Um, Bryant

4:45:06Street is the premier bicycle facility

4:45:09and the oldest bicycle boulevard in the

4:45:12country. it. Um

4:45:15I've lived in my house for over 50 years

4:45:19and it has just gotten much busier

4:45:23especially in the last maybe 5 years. Uh

4:45:27traffic volumes have to be cut down and

4:45:30I strongly support having no left turn

4:45:34off um embaradero. I agree with the

4:45:37previous speaker. I think we can do this

4:45:38in phases and uh we can pilot the no

4:45:42left turn, see if that cuts down the

4:45:44traffic. I've not found the speeds to be

4:45:46quite so high, but I trust the speed

4:45:49study. As a pedestrian in the area, I do

4:45:53not like the Addison Circle. I live

4:45:57about a block and a half from it. I walk

4:46:00through it about every day, maybe

4:46:03sometimes twice. cars do not slow down

4:46:07as much as they should, maybe with

4:46:09better signage or something or maybe

4:46:12even street decorations or something.

4:46:16Um, but because the circle is large, the

4:46:20cars swerve out into into the pedestrian

4:46:23crosswalks. Maybe having marked

4:46:26crosswalks would work, but as a

4:46:28pedestrian, I do not like them. As a

4:46:31bicyclist, I have no trouble slowing uh

4:46:34as I say, slowing down traffic isn't as

4:46:37much of a concern as just reducing the

4:46:39number of cars. And I would hope that

4:46:41the left turn um restriction would help

4:46:44that. The improvements on Emerson

4:46:46Street, which is the street I live in,

4:46:49have been I I would like to congratulate

4:46:52uh transportation on that. They were

4:46:54done quickly. Um and I feel that they

4:46:57work they work well at the moment. There

4:47:00is there is some um driver malfunction

4:47:06with them but I can I can handle that

4:47:08with transportation staff. That's all I

4:47:10have to say. Thank you very much.

4:47:13>> Uh our final speaker is Bruce A.

4:47:16>> Uh thank you very much. I agree with

4:47:18what everyone said. Let's do this. Let's

4:47:19do it quickly. I would only add if it's

4:47:21not enough, I'd like to add a modal

4:47:24filter on Bryant. Also, there's a lot of

4:47:26people who get directions from south of

4:47:29here and the directions of downtown will

4:47:31take them down Embarcadero and down

4:47:33Bryant Street. And if we could add a

4:47:35modal filter like we have the other ones

4:47:37on Bryant that work so well in that same

4:47:39neighborhood, that would be a

4:47:40spectacular improvement if the circles

4:47:42and the ballouts prove insufficient.

4:47:45Let's do it fast. Thank you.

4:47:48>> All right, the chair. I have no other

4:47:50requests to speak.

4:47:51>> Thank you. Um, so I just want to make

4:47:53sure that we get uh, Commissioner Aken's

4:47:57comments in before he needs to leave

4:47:59because he lives in this neighborhood,

4:48:00too.

4:48:03>> Thank you, Chair. Yeah, apologies to

4:48:05everyone. I have a family obligation I

4:48:07can't um, omit. Um, everyone has been

4:48:12thoughtful and extremely responsive on

4:48:15this project. It's been very well

4:48:18managed and uh I think the uh I think

4:48:22the outcome is excellent. Uh so along

4:48:25with uh my neighbors I uh hope that it's

4:48:28uh that it proceeds to implementation

4:48:31fairly quickly. Um the only comments I

4:48:36have are fairly technical.

4:48:38Um it'll be interesting to see the

4:48:40physical design standards for the new

4:48:42traffic circles. um

4:48:46what sizes of particularly trucks are

4:48:50going to be able to make it through

4:48:52them. Um

4:48:55whether the straight through bicycle

4:48:58paths encourage additional stop sign

4:49:00running uh beyond what we already have.

4:49:04Uh and whether there are uh ballouts on

4:49:08the curbs which have been sources of

4:49:10complaint uh in other areas.

4:49:14Uh so if someone uh demands that you

4:49:19uh compare and contrast these traffic

4:49:23circles with Ross Road, you should be

4:49:25prepared.

4:49:28Um

4:49:30I think the last comment I want to make

4:49:33is um

4:49:36about traffic on Waverly.

4:49:39So the as you see from the data that you

4:49:41provided uh weekday average is around

4:49:443,700 vehicles a day now.

4:49:48Uh so that's up from the years that I

4:49:51was doing traffic measurement. Um and if

4:49:55you actually succeed in taking a

4:49:57thousand vehicles off Bryant, you don't

4:49:59want those adding to the 3,700 that are

4:50:02already on Waverly. Um, the last time I

4:50:05measured traffic on Lincoln, um, it was

4:50:08just shy of 2500 vehicles a day. You

4:50:12don't have a direct equivalent to that

4:50:13in the measurements you've taken for

4:50:15this, but just be aware that there's a

4:50:19lot of load at that intersection.

4:50:22So, you may need to uh

4:50:25uh at least

4:50:27uh take some measurements once the

4:50:29implementation is done and figure out

4:50:31what's really going on. uh as a result

4:50:34of these changes.

4:50:36But that in no way uh means that uh I'm

4:50:40recommending against the changes.

4:50:46I think those are all the essentials.

4:50:48Thank you very much for uh your work on

4:50:50this project.

4:50:53Thank you. All right. I don't see other

4:50:55lights. Are there other people who would

4:50:57like to speak? Commissioner Hecman

4:51:00and then Vice Chair G.

4:51:04uh a few

4:51:07I guess that's a combination of

4:51:08questions and comments. Um the uh 10

4:51:12collisions uh along Bryant um in the

4:51:1910y year 8year period those aren't um

4:51:24those aren't necessarily involving

4:51:26bicyclists. Those could be card uh two

4:51:28automobiles.

4:51:30>> Correct. Okay. All right. Um I I do

4:51:33think uh it's not acceptable. I I I

4:51:38don't know if we've got another fourb

4:51:40block nonarterial

4:51:43with with 10 crashes in eight years, but

4:51:46to have it on our famous bike boulevard

4:51:50is a bad look. So, um I'm really glad

4:51:54staff is uh tackling this uh project and

4:51:58um I like the street furniture concepts

4:52:02that you've come up with. Um

4:52:05I noticed in uh on packet page 2011, the

4:52:10project goals include restoration of

4:52:13some on street parking. And when I look

4:52:16through the six actions, I could see

4:52:19that the curb extensions may actually

4:52:22reduce a couple of on street parking

4:52:25spaces, but I couldn't tell whether any

4:52:28of the other five added on street

4:52:30parking. And so maybe you could clarify

4:52:33that. Um yes. So as part of so the

4:52:36original request that staff received as

4:52:39I understand was for a fourway stop sign

4:52:42and um it didn't make warrant in terms

4:52:45of the manual for uniform traffic

4:52:47control devices. Um but a secondary

4:52:50analysis that happened as part of that

4:52:52was um sight triangles based on the

4:52:56highway design manual. And so we

4:52:58actually have some red curve out there

4:52:59that is quite long and that would be

4:53:02reconsidered as part of this process of

4:53:04introducing these new treatments and

4:53:06also um

4:53:09I'm not sure how the timing will work

4:53:11out but we we're also planning on doing

4:53:13speed surveys to potentially reduce

4:53:15speeds and that would also reduce those

4:53:16triangles.

4:53:17>> Okay. So my suggestion is as this moves

4:53:20to council just

4:53:23you don't want to take up their time

4:53:25asking the same question I just asked.

4:53:26How are we going to add parking? So

4:53:28maybe just add a sentence somewhere

4:53:31because I I did read somewhere else in

4:53:32the staff report that this there was a

4:53:35tempor there there was a reduction of

4:53:37parking and so I figured okay I think I

4:53:40think we're putting that back but I

4:53:42wasn't sure. So anyway, I think you can

4:53:43clear that up. And then the other

4:53:45question I have is kind of technical.

4:53:46I'm curious about the um uh the no left

4:53:51turn from Embaradero on to Bryant. And

4:53:53so u I was just trying to understand the

4:53:57traffic volumes that will be reduced by

4:54:00that. And so I'm looking at packet page

4:54:04uh 218

4:54:06and I want to find out am I reading this

4:54:09right that that

4:54:11in the AM peak by having this

4:54:15restriction we will basically

4:54:18stop what's typically 48 cars from

4:54:22making that movement

4:54:26then on 218

4:54:31Uh, I believe you're correct, but I will

4:54:33ask Hugh to jump in here. Uh,

4:54:37Hugh, I don't know if you have page

4:54:38packet 218 open.

4:54:41I think you're mute. You're you might be

4:54:43muted, Hugh.

4:54:44>> Sorry. Hi, Huge from Fran Pierce. I I

4:54:46don't actually Sorry, I need a minute to

4:54:48grab that, but yes, that sounds correct.

4:54:50>> Okay. And then in the PM it's 126 it

4:54:56looks like

4:55:00that's on 221,

4:55:04>> right? That sounds correct as well.

4:55:06Yeah. And to be fair, those are peak

4:55:08hour numbers, not all day numbers.

4:55:10>> Yeah. Yeah. Peak AM and PM. And then is

4:55:13there some place in these tables that

4:55:15tells me what the the total daily is?

4:55:19No, we just have the peak. I think we

4:55:22have might have peak two hours. So, we

4:55:23might have about four hours out of the

4:55:25whole day. And we could give a rough

4:55:27estimate of what that is given general

4:55:29shares, but um but not an exact number.

4:55:33>> Okay. So, um yeah, I'd be I'd be

4:55:35interested in that kind of rough

4:55:36estimate just because I think the one of

4:55:38the slides shown was that we've got like

4:55:41twice the traffic on that road than the

4:55:44desirable metrics would provide for. And

4:55:47so so you know it looks like just during

4:55:48the peak we're cutting almost 200. I

4:55:51would hope maybe you know maybe twice

4:55:52that over the course of a day which

4:55:54would be great. Yeah. All right. Uh

4:55:57thank you. So I'm I am supportive of

4:56:00staff recommendation on this.

4:56:02>> Vice Chair G.

4:56:04>> Yeah. Thank you. Uh I have two

4:56:06questions. One is Mr. Arce you said you

4:56:09could elaborate further about the

4:56:11diagonal diverter. Could you talk about

4:56:13why that was no longer recommended?

4:56:19Yeah. So, as uh the director mentioned,

4:56:22uh we received feedback from the

4:56:25residents and it was split about the

4:56:27diverter or the traffic circle at Bryant

4:56:30Lincoln. And um in this in the spirit of

4:56:34implementing quickly and and not

4:56:37necessarily needed to head in a

4:56:38direction where we would potentially be

4:56:40asked rightfully so to do additional

4:56:43analysis and data collection on uh

4:56:46modeling what that diverter would look

4:56:48like in either direction. Um, and as as

4:56:52the director noted that if we feel like

4:56:54as we're doing additional community

4:56:56engagement, as the project advances and

4:56:58more people from the neighborhood find

4:56:59out, it it might not necessarily get

4:57:02more popular. And so under the context

4:57:06of again moving fast and this idea of

4:57:08residents and neighborhood support, uh,

4:57:11we shifted to the traffic circle.

4:57:14>> Okay. And I see listed in the staff

4:57:16report that item on packet page 203 that

4:57:19items 1 through five were supported. But

4:57:21I see that you've still included the

4:57:24short-term parking

4:57:26for the uh item

4:57:29uh the short-term parking zone. I think

4:57:32was that let me just double check.

4:57:35>> Yeah, I see that that wasn't one of the

4:57:37items that the community had been

4:57:40supportive of, but yet you're still

4:57:42choosing to advance that as a staff

4:57:43recommendation. Can you explain that?

4:57:45>> Um, yeah, I can respond to that. So,

4:57:47this was something that was not strongly

4:57:50supported at the community meeting, but

4:57:52it was also not strongly opposed. Um, it

4:57:54is something that is, um, requested by

4:57:57our fire department. Um, as someone who

4:58:01rides along this street every day, the

4:58:03fire department is at this location more

4:58:07than once a day. And so it would be nice

4:58:09for them to have a spot that they could

4:58:11stand in and that doesn't cause the

4:58:13students to have to ride on the wrong

4:58:15side of the street as they're getting

4:58:16past the the fire truck.

4:58:19>> Okay. Awesome. Thank you. That that

4:58:20context is helpful and I'd recommend

4:58:22putting that information in the report

4:58:24that goes to council. I'm generally

4:58:26supportive of this project as a whole.

4:58:29I'm very excited. Um but two main

4:58:32comments I want to provide. one is that

4:58:35I'm when looking at the data that

4:58:39Commissioner Hecman had mentioned which

4:58:40is about kind of the traffic at Brian

4:58:44and Lincoln and Brian and Barkadero like

4:58:47so for example on packet page 212 I'm

4:58:49looking at Brian and Lincoln during peak

4:58:51hours it looks like there's just a sheer

4:58:55volume issue we have a volume issue at

4:58:57this intersection and in south Paul Alto

4:59:00Bryant has significant modal filtering

4:59:02and on Park Boulevard, which I bike

4:59:04often as well, there's a lot of modal

4:59:06filtering. And so for me, I think that

4:59:10the most obvious solution to be reducing

4:59:14demand is to just prevent the cars from

4:59:17driving there. In fact, uh sometimes

4:59:20after commission meetings, I drop off

4:59:22Commissioner Akin at his house, which

4:59:23is, as we've noted, in the zone. And

4:59:25what does Google tell me to do? Tells me

4:59:27to drive down Lincoln, right? And so and

4:59:31then also potentially sometimes turn on

4:59:33Bryant to go down in Barkadero, right?

4:59:35And so I feel like for me personally,

4:59:39modal filtering would be the best

4:59:42solution

4:59:44to the problem at hand. And I admit that

4:59:47um from staff's I agree with staff that

4:59:50we don't want to spend that much time

4:59:51potentially at this point investigating

4:59:53further into that. But I think that the

4:59:55the cor the quote unquote correct

4:59:57solution to be resolving this issue is

4:59:59to add modal filtering here on Bryant

5:00:01instead. And then the other thing that I

5:00:05want to say is that I'm not as

5:00:08supportive of the permanent curb

5:00:11extensions. So I've biked on several

5:00:13streets where we do have the curve

5:00:16extensions come out and I do agree that

5:00:17it is great for pedestrians because it

5:00:19does shorten the distance that the

5:00:21crosswalk needs to have. But what I find

5:00:23that happens to me as a biker is that

5:00:24pushes me into the lane with the car and

5:00:27I really don't see the car slowing down

5:00:30because as noted in the diagram on

5:00:33packet page 205,

5:00:35you'll see that the curb out really just

5:00:38comes to kind of where the a little bit

5:00:40further than where the parking is. And

5:00:42so the cars don't really have that much

5:00:45of a narrowing that occurs because

5:00:48they're already avoiding the the parked

5:00:49cars that are already there. and but

5:00:51instead as a biker that usually ends up

5:00:53what happens is that forces me into the

5:00:55road where I'm competing with cars and

5:00:58so that's one that I'm not as

5:01:00enthusiastic about but otherwise I'm

5:01:02generally supportive of this project as

5:01:04is

5:01:07>> commissioner and for the record

5:01:09commissioner Aken has left

5:01:11>> thank you

5:01:13>> u thank you before I make my comment um

5:01:16does staff want to respond I mean I

5:01:18assume this is best practice ice, but

5:01:21could you respond to vice chair G's

5:01:25>> um in terms of the bulb out the

5:01:27>> Yeah, he said it's it's bad for him as a

5:01:29biker. So, what do you say to that?

5:01:31>> So, the um curve ball belts are included

5:01:34by the Pedro Highway Administration as a

5:01:38um proven safety counter measure and

5:01:39they do reduce speeds. So it it can be a

5:01:43little counterintuitive because it is

5:01:45coming into the roadway, but I think

5:01:47psychologically motorists respond to it

5:01:50by driving at a slower speed. And so and

5:01:52also for bike boulevards um we do expect

5:01:57the cyclist to ride in the lane to take

5:02:00the lane um and there is parking so they

5:02:03will already be taking the lane. Um,

5:02:05when we do uh safe routes to school, we

5:02:07encourage the students not to swerve

5:02:09back and forth between the parking lane

5:02:12and the the travel lane when they're

5:02:14riding along a street because that can

5:02:15make them unpredictable and so staying

5:02:18in a straight line is is what we

5:02:20recommend anyway.

5:02:22>> Thank you. Um so my um question is um

5:02:26for the pilot of of removing the left

5:02:29turn capability um

5:02:33what are the success criteria and what's

5:02:35the timeline?

5:02:37So how do we in other words is this a

5:02:39reversible pilot? We've been burned by

5:02:42that one before. So um like how do we

5:02:45know when it's done and is there the

5:02:48option to roll it back?

5:02:54Sorry,

5:02:55I didn't mean to catch off guard with

5:02:57that.

5:02:57>> Yeah, those are that's a great question.

5:02:58I you know, I don't know if we've we've

5:03:00given it as much thought as um as maybe

5:03:04at this point uh simply I think because

5:03:07of this more more recent pivot to to

5:03:10turn it into a pilot, okay, as the

5:03:12initial phase. Um

5:03:15I think the bottom line though is that

5:03:17we want to learn and understand from the

5:03:20pilot program. So there will be a data

5:03:23collection effort and observations done

5:03:25once implemented.

5:03:27Um but I would think um that maybe we

5:03:30give that a little bit more thought as

5:03:32we go to council.

5:03:33>> I love that suggestion.

5:03:35>> Yeah. So I think the key criteria that

5:03:37we'd be looking at are speed and volume.

5:03:39And so we would look at the speed and

5:03:42volume before and after

5:03:44>> and anything like reduction in collision

5:03:47rates or anything like that

5:03:49>> and collisions. Yes.

5:03:50>> So um I is the next step for this to go

5:03:52to council.

5:03:54Right. Okay. So if that's the next step,

5:03:56my recommendation to you guys would be

5:03:58to come up with success criteria and a

5:04:01timeline. So, for example, people if a

5:04:06person were to get frustrated that

5:04:07wasn't part of the feedback community

5:04:09you've already reached, they would be

5:04:11able to say, "Okay, I'm willing to give

5:04:13it six months and see how this works or

5:04:15I'd be willing to give it three months,

5:04:16whatever it is." Um, but also for you

5:04:19guys to as a department to measure um

5:04:22and start start thinking about it in

5:04:24terms of objective criteria that you can

5:04:27provide to council for the next step to

5:04:29finalize something because that would be

5:04:31super valuable to them. I think. Okay.

5:04:33Thank you guys. I'm I'm supportive of

5:04:35the staff motion.

5:04:38>> All right. Um I just wanted to

5:04:40understand something that I've heard.

5:04:42It's not partially related to this

5:04:45project. Um so can you explain

5:04:49the regulation of stop signs by the

5:04:51California Manual for Uniform Traffic

5:04:54Control Devices because I know that

5:04:56that's something that's been requested

5:04:58in many neighborhoods. Um, and we find

5:05:02ourselves needing to put a circle

5:05:03instead of stop signs. And I just I

5:05:07think it's be good for us all to

5:05:09understand that process.

5:05:11>> Um, so I don't have the numbers off the

5:05:13top of my head. Um, but stop signs are

5:05:17um

5:05:19essentially treated as something to

5:05:21control the the flow like where it's

5:05:23essential to deal with travel flow um of

5:05:26of vehicles. And so there's a specific

5:05:28volume that is required under the MUTCD.

5:05:32Um and particular like I think the

5:05:36collision number of collisions is

5:05:37another one. Um I'm not sure what the

5:05:40other criteria off my head. Um but a lot

5:05:44of locations don't meet those

5:05:46thresholds.

5:05:48>> So today we heard from somebody who said

5:05:51that there's Go ahead.

5:05:52>> It it looks like maybe our consultant

5:05:55would like to say something. Yeah, great

5:05:57>> if I can. just a lot of it's about the

5:05:59balance of the flows, right, from

5:06:00different directions. So if you have one

5:06:03direction that's your primary direction

5:06:04and another that has a a more light

5:06:07volume, right? That typically is one

5:06:09where they aren't uh incur they're

5:06:12discouraged, right? Because you're

5:06:14creating a situation where people will

5:06:16not they will learn to not stop um

5:06:19despite there being a stop sign and then

5:06:20that actually makes it feel or become

5:06:22often less safe for folks. So that

5:06:24that's that's the rationale behind it,

5:06:27right? Is you have stop signs that are

5:06:29not followed because they're not

5:06:30actually representing a condition that

5:06:33that would be a normal stopping

5:06:34condition. You know, it's trying to sort

5:06:36of match human behavior as best you can.

5:06:39>> Okay, that's a helpful explanation. And

5:06:41at the same time, we know, I mean, we've

5:06:44got public commenters who've said that

5:06:48there's weekly accidents here. And so,

5:06:50and I've heard the same thing from other

5:06:52neighborhoods, right, where there's lots

5:06:55of unreported accidents and then as a

5:06:58result, we can't get stop signs. So,

5:07:01I'm sure you guys are very familiar with

5:07:04this challenge. Um, and and yet like a

5:07:08circle is probably not the right

5:07:09solution in each of those places. So,

5:07:11it's just as I've been talking to

5:07:13neighbors, every single school has one

5:07:16of these near it and some of them have

5:07:18had serious accidents actually. So,

5:07:21particularly with the safe routes to

5:07:22school, I just don't I'm asking, you

5:07:24know, it's not particularly it's not

5:07:25specifically related to this project,

5:07:28but what can we do to get our safe

5:07:31routes much more protected? Um, since we

5:07:35don't seem to be allowed to to to get

5:07:38stop signs. Um, okay. Uh, then also not

5:07:43directly related to this, but I was just

5:07:45visiting the improvements that you guys

5:07:48made at Emerson. Yay. Those were

5:07:50fantastic. Um, but then the uh the car

5:07:55misbehavior that was uh mentioned

5:07:58earlier. Um, I think that there's a

5:08:01solution that's been in discussion with

5:08:03you guys about some delimiters and

5:08:04stuff. Do we know what the time frame is

5:08:06for for that improvement? So um yes we

5:08:11um so what was implemented was phase one

5:08:14of the Emerson

5:08:16actually inbucket road improvements um

5:08:19and phase two will be in the coming

5:08:22year. So our plan is to incorporate some

5:08:25potential tweaks to phase one as part of

5:08:28the phase 2 design. So it's like on a

5:08:30proper stamped plan and then um

5:08:33implement those when phase 2 happens on

5:08:35the south side.

5:08:37>> Okay. I guess there's a lot of people

5:08:39are saying faster please, but okay. Um,

5:08:44I'm supportive of the changes here. I I

5:08:47did want to

5:08:49comment that there were a couple public

5:08:51commenters had said that perhaps we

5:08:54could get some of this done more quickly

5:08:56and then kind of add to the project as

5:09:00like you know with if if Bryant and

5:09:02Lincoln is the epicenter there. um along

5:09:06with the traffic reduction with the no

5:09:08left turn. Um but then

5:09:12uh what I'm particularly sensitive to is

5:09:15the bulbout

5:09:17because they were so controversial with

5:09:20Ross Road. And so

5:09:22um I just wouldn't want people to start

5:09:26hating this because it's so needed. Um

5:09:29and so if there is any sort of phasing

5:09:31and prioritization of like uh the the

5:09:36starting at the epicenter and then

5:09:37moving out that maybe that's a good idea

5:09:41uh in terms of getting buy in.

5:09:46>> Thanks. So, Vice Chair G.

5:09:50>> Oh, yeah. Actually, I was going to ask

5:09:52if staff had any thoughts about the uh

5:09:55phasing

5:09:56that the public comment has mentioned.

5:10:05Uh, I think staff supports the idea of

5:10:08phasing. I think we'll give that a

5:10:11little bit more thought as we head into

5:10:13council and maybe we have some of uh we

5:10:18have additional improvements that we can

5:10:19implement via a pilot. But I do

5:10:22appreciate the strategy and thinking

5:10:24about prior efforts and how we can maybe

5:10:26not repeat some of those same mistakes.

5:10:28So appreciate that strategy.

5:10:33Okay, then I think uh vice chair G is

5:10:35that just a ghost hand now.

5:10:37>> Oh, I guess I was just going to move

5:10:39towards a motion. I don't know if anyone

5:10:40else had

5:10:41>> Please. No, wait. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.

5:10:44There's one light here.

5:10:45>> Yeah, I I want to make sure other people

5:10:46go first.

5:10:47>> Commissioner He

5:10:49>> Thanks. Just on the on the bulb outs, I

5:10:53I um what vice chair uh G said kind of

5:10:58resonates with me because when I get um

5:11:00to those bulb outs, I I also get

5:11:02uncomfortable pulling toward the middle

5:11:05if there's a you know, car I can hear a

5:11:07car coming up behind me and you know, so

5:11:09do I have to turn and look to make sure

5:11:12as I pull in, you know, to avoid hitting

5:11:16the curb, I'm not going to run into it

5:11:18and and Maybe it's just because I grew

5:11:21up before there were bike lanes where I

5:11:23was supposed to ride down the middle of

5:11:24the road, but that that to me that just

5:11:27feels wrong. I should kind of stay out

5:11:29of the way of the cars until and so and

5:11:31I don't know that I'm going to learn

5:11:32that new trick. Um but I might try. But

5:11:35what I was going to say was um uh on

5:11:38Ross Road just just south of Richardson

5:11:41Court there are a couple of these

5:11:43bullouts and the it's it's an island

5:11:46really because there's a gap between

5:11:49this curb structure that extends into

5:11:51the road and the the rolled curb where

5:11:55the sidewalk is. And so um often I'm

5:11:58more comfortable riding between the

5:12:02island and the sidewalk. um you know

5:12:05it's it's it's only you know two or

5:12:07three feet and and is there any reason

5:12:13it's hard you know these diagrams don't

5:12:14really show the design but is that the

5:12:17typical design that there is that gap or

5:12:19do you more normally run it all the way

5:12:21to the curb so a biker couldn't stay out

5:12:24of the middle if they wanted to

5:12:26>> um so I think the design that you're

5:12:28referring to is actually the goal of it

5:12:31is more to do with drainage but that's

5:12:33also something that we could potentially

5:12:35consider. Some people are not

5:12:36comfortable in the size of that. Like

5:12:38>> it is a little narrow. I could

5:12:40understand that, but

5:12:41>> it's not necessarily designed for a

5:12:43cyclist, but maybe it has a secondary

5:12:45effect for people who are not

5:12:47comfortable.

5:12:47>> Yeah. And I think it could be wider,

5:12:50right? I mean, really, it's it's that

5:12:52furniture in the middle of the street. I

5:12:53mean, you don't want to make it so wide

5:12:54that a car thinks, "Oh, I could use that

5:12:56as a turn lane, right?" But but I think,

5:12:59you know, 3, four feet. Um, anyway,

5:13:02something to think about. Thanks for the

5:13:03clarification. So, normally though, the

5:13:05bulb belts you were envisioning run all

5:13:08the way to the sidewalk. So, there's no

5:13:10gap.

5:13:11>> Uh, yes.

5:13:12>> Okay.

5:13:14>> All right. That's it for lights here.

5:13:16Vice Chair G, if you'd like to make a

5:13:17motion.

5:13:18>> So, what's actually really funny is I

5:13:20was going to mention the same thing as

5:13:21Commissioner Hecman because there is

5:13:23another island over on Margarita on Park

5:13:25that I also use the little drainage

5:13:27ditch for. Um, so,

5:13:31um, actually originally I was going to

5:13:33say that I wasn't going to be supportive

5:13:35of the the curb extensions and they

5:13:38separate those out of separate motions,

5:13:40but if there's interest from the

5:13:42commission, I would be willing to

5:13:44incorporate that as a potential part for

5:13:47um, council council to look into. So,

5:13:49I'd make something like, I support the

5:13:51staff recommendation of the six items

5:13:54listed in the staff report on packet

5:13:57page 197 with potentially looking into

5:14:02one uh having a little path or drainage

5:14:06ditch in between the the bulbout portion

5:14:09and the sidewalk that potentially could

5:14:11have bikers. and two to look into having

5:14:14a phased approach focusing on the

5:14:18epicenter at Brian and Lincoln and the

5:14:21pilot left turn at Embaradero and

5:14:24Bryant.

5:14:33>> I kind of lost thread of it.

5:14:36>> So we lost the thread of it over here.

5:14:39Could you please hurt?

5:14:40>> Oh,

5:14:41>> yeah. So, so, okay. So, I I would move

5:14:44the staff recommendation for the six

5:14:46items listed on packet page 21 197, the

5:14:49traffic circle at Brian and Lincoln,

5:14:50etc. The curb extensions at Bryant

5:14:53Channing, Bryant Homer,

5:14:56the the high visibility crosswalk, the

5:14:58Bryant pavement, Bryant Boulevard

5:15:00pavement, the short-term parking zone,

5:15:02and the pilot left turn restriction. So,

5:15:04that's kind of like the staff

5:15:05recommendation. And then in addition to

5:15:07that, I'd like to explore having a like

5:15:12drainage ditch or little gap between the

5:15:16bulbout portion and the sidewalk. And

5:15:18then also I would like to uh have staff

5:15:22look into a phased approach focusing on

5:15:25the epicenter at Bryant and uh Lincoln

5:15:30and then also the left turn and phasing

5:15:32outwards.

5:15:37Yeah. Um, yeah, sure. I will second

5:15:39that.

5:15:41>> Okay, great. Any further discussion?

5:15:46>> Staff clear on the motion.

5:15:49>> Yes. Thank you.

5:15:50>> All right, let's vote.

5:15:53>> Commissioner Templeton,

5:15:55>> yes.

5:15:55>> Uh, Commissioner James,

5:15:57>> yes.

5:15:57>> Commissioner Hecman,

5:15:59>> yes.

5:16:00>> Vice Chair G,

5:16:01>> yes.

5:16:02>> Chair Chang,

5:16:03>> yes. Motion carries 5-0.

5:16:05>> Thank you. All right.

5:16:09>> Yeah, very exciting. So many safety

5:16:11improvements.

5:16:13>> Oh, 501. Not Commissioner Absent.

5:16:17>> Thank you, Commissioner Huckman. All

5:16:18right. So, now we're on to commissioner

5:16:21questions, comments, announcements, or

5:16:23future meetings and agendas. And there's

5:16:26one thing that I'd like to quickly talk

5:16:27about, which is that Commissioner Aken

5:16:29had asked for a backup. Uh, so I think

5:16:32let's just address that right now.

5:16:36Um,

5:16:38>> want to say thank you to the people who

5:16:39stuck it out this long before they head

5:16:41out.

5:16:41>> Yes. Thank you all. We're very excited

5:16:44for your neighborhood, too.

5:16:48Um,

5:16:50so

5:16:51>> I'm I'm wondering if this would be

5:16:53better

5:16:55um handled online where everybody can

5:16:58look at their calendars and and perhaps

5:17:01uh tell Ms. Arner, you know, what what

5:17:06um Mondays in October we'd be available.

5:17:13>> Okay, let's look at our calendars.

5:17:15That's the suggestion. And let's do

5:17:16that.

5:17:18>> Great. Anything else?

5:17:20Commissioner comments, questions. Uh,

5:17:23yeah.

5:17:25Announcements, future meetings.

5:17:28All right. Now, now it's time for

5:17:31virtual public comment on items that are

5:17:34not on the agenda. Mr. Trava, do we have

5:17:36any raised hands?

5:17:38>> Uh, to the chair, there are no raised

5:17:39hands. If there's any members of the

5:17:40public that like to speak, uh, you may

5:17:42raise your hand.

5:17:44>> I see none. Fantastic. So this meeting

5:17:47is adjourned.