2026-10-28 - Planning & Transportation Commission Regular Meeting

17:37you all did an excellent job finding

17:39that balance in between and the city

17:41council recognized that and appreciated

17:42the efforts uh for that project. So,

17:45thank you for for your um your diligence

17:48on that. And then uh upcoming we have uh

17:52the uh city council will take up the SB9

17:54ordinance which you've uh already have

17:56considered. Next slide please.

18:00That concludes my report. Um Azie Arce

18:04is here to uh provide a similar update

18:07for transportation.

18:10>> Thank you, Director Lei. Uh good

18:12evening, commissioners. My name is Azie

18:14Arce, senior transportation planner,

18:16providing this week's updates for OOT.

18:19Uh as the uh slide deck pulls up. Uh

18:22next slide, please. On the programmatic

18:24side, uh bike rodeo season comes to a

18:27close. Just wanted to report that uh

18:29this fall, city staff and community

18:31volunteers reached every third grade

18:32class in the PASD district. And this is

18:35for our annual bike rodeos. Students

18:37participate in this immense outdoor

18:39safety experience. And uh every year we

18:42organize around 200 parent volunteers uh

18:46including a city-f funed personal or

18:49professional bicycle mechanic on site

18:52repairing these bikes as well as uh

18:54partnering with Stanford injury

18:55prevention to provide helmet education

18:58uh uh safety programs on site as well.

19:01Thank you to all who make it possible.

19:03and I participated in one yesterday and

19:06just want to acknowledge the immense

19:07amount of work that goes into hosting

19:09these bike rodeos and it's all done with

19:12a small team. Next slide, please. Uh

19:15other transportation items, just wanted

19:17to announce that Cal Train completed the

19:19San Francisco Keto Creek Bank

19:21stabilization project early in

19:23September. Uh and this is uh a $14

19:26million project which is a joint effort

19:29between the city Cal Train and Menllo

19:31Park to provide long-term erosion

19:34control along that creek bank uh with

19:37final landscaping wrapping up next month

19:39in November. Uh additionally, uh earlier

19:43this month on October 5th, city council

19:45approved of the design contract for the

19:47quiet zones around Charleston Meadow and

19:50Churchill. So, we're excited for uh uh

19:53the advancement of those projects.

19:56Uh next slide, please. Just wanted to

19:58flag some upcoming project meetings for

20:00the community to join us on the South

20:02Palo Alto bike ped connectivity project.

20:05Uh which you all saw last month. uh

20:08currently in phase three of community

20:09engagement and there is a rail committee

20:12meeting happening on November 10th with

20:14city council review of the 15% design uh

20:18or sorry to consider advancing the

20:20project up to two alternatives to 15%

20:23design and that's on December 7th uh

20:26regarding the Bryant Lincoln traffic

20:27calming project which you also saw last

20:29month uh we are heading to city council

20:32on November 9th to request authorization

20:34to advance the project to final design.

20:38And lastly, an item you're you're

20:40reviewing tonight is the Corey Road

20:42Transit Connection Project. Uh also with

20:45the city council meeting scheduled for

20:47Monday, November 9th, following

20:48tonight's PTC recommendation. And I

20:52believe that concludes my updates. Happy

20:53to answer any questions. Thank you.

20:58>> You have questions. Commissioner G or

21:00Vice Chair G.

21:01>> Thank you, Chair. Since being back in

21:04town, I'm excited to see some of the

21:06garage updates, like driving in today

21:07into City Hall, as well as some of our

21:09other garages. I was wondering when the

21:12uh downtown garage project will come

21:15back to us.

21:18I don't have an update for you on the

21:21exact date. I don't know if there is

21:24one. Uh

21:27but we can we can check and circle back

21:29with the commission. And I know that's

21:31something that you all have asked for in

21:33the past.

21:34>> Okay. Regardless, I am excited about the

21:36updates to the downtown garages. And

21:38also, I want to make a comment about the

21:40bike rodeo. I I was lucky enough to do

21:42one when I was in third grade here, and

21:43it was very fun. So,

21:45>> really appreciate the work there.

21:49>> Okay. Uh, I do have some questions. And

21:52first of all, I wanted to thank Kelly

21:54Chaw, who's not with us in the city of

21:56Palo Alto anymore, for her work on the

21:57stream ordinance because she really did

22:00a good job listening to the community.

22:02Um, and also assistant director armor

22:04because she helped along with that too.

22:06Um, [clears throat]

22:08and with respect to the bike rodeos, I'

22:12been the parent lead on that twice, so

22:13it can attest to how much work it is. I

22:16had nightmares the night before cuz I'm

22:19What do we do with 72 third graders with

22:21bikes? Um, [clears throat]

22:24so I had a question for you, Mr. RC. I

22:27don't know if you got a chance to um

22:30find out what the process, this is a

22:32result of one of the public comments

22:34that we received from Ms. Anne Wei. Um,

22:37and the question was around when a

22:40neighborhood wants to do a traffic

22:42calming project. um and it's multiple

22:46intersections in a row. Um do they need

22:49to address a separate do they need to do

22:52a separate petition for every

22:54intersection or how can it be looked at

22:57as a whole?

22:58>> Yes, and thank you for the question and

23:01uh short answer is the form does allow

23:04for uh folks to provide uh boundaries

23:09for the area that they're wanting us to

23:11look into. So it's not we do not want

23:14residents to submit a petition for each

23:16intersection and so it would be on the

23:18application for the petition where they

23:20can note the project boundaries if you

23:22will. Um but thank you for forwarding us

23:25that that uh correspondence and uh we'll

23:28be sure to circle back if responses

23:30warranted.

23:31>> Okay, great. Thank you. I just thought

23:32that it was such a good question and

23:34have received many kind of anecdotal

23:37questions about how does this whole

23:39process work and so I thought it was one

23:41that the public might be interested in

23:42hearing an answer to. Uh that's it for

23:44me. Any other question? Oh, uh,

23:46Commissioner Templeton,

23:48>> sorry to cut cut off the thought, but

23:51before we move on, just wanted to note

23:52that there is also the city's existing

23:54311 process, uh, which also allows

23:57residents to submit uh, those more uh,

23:59specific spot location uh, treatments

24:02for us to look at. Sorry to interrupt.

24:04>> Thank you.

24:05>> You're not interrupting. Don't worry

24:07about it. [clears throat] Um, what uh,

24:10it's good to hear about the quiet zones.

24:12What's the timeline on that?

24:16I assume we'll get started on it if not

24:19by the end of this year uh early next

24:21year with the contract for the design

24:23just being approved. So

24:25>> So it won't be quiet for

24:29a year, two years, five years.

24:32>> If Yeah. If the if director uh Rio Lo

24:36wants to jump in here for more specific

24:38timeline on the actual implementation of

24:39the quiet zone.

24:43Hi, I'm Ria Huch Barrett, chief

24:44transportation official. So the quiet

24:46zone uh process is uh one where uh we've

24:50gone through a diagnostic with federal

24:53railroad administration and now we're

24:56doing the design. Um then the design

24:58needs to get um approved by the CPU, the

25:03California Public Utilities Commission

25:04and the FRA. So there's there's actually

25:06quite a lot of back and forth between

25:08multiple agencies and also Cal Train and

25:11then it will be constructed after that

25:14and then after the construction then

25:15there needs to be a post construction

25:17with all of those eight agencies there

25:19and we need need to get that approved.

25:22So it it's it's like typically a

25:25three-year process. Um but we've done

25:27part of the process already. So,

25:30>> so you're estimating it'll be

25:33>> typical is like 3 years. Um, we're

25:36trying to do it.

25:37>> But you said we we're already started.

25:38So, I don't know what the already

25:39started is deducting.

25:42>> Um, a lot of it is is kind of based on

25:48other agencies. So, it's difficult to

25:50estimate, but I'm that's kind of the

25:51typical

25:53uh

25:54amount of time that it takes for for

25:56agencies to get through all of the

25:58process. Thank you. Uh just to share,

26:00the reason I asked is when we were

26:02talking about uh suicide prevention

26:05approaches for the Church Hill

26:07intersection, um this was brought up as

26:10a solution because it would be quick.

26:12>> And so, if we're talking multiple more

26:15years, um I just thought it would be

26:16good for the public to know that. Thank

26:18you for answering. Thank you.

26:24>> All right. Uh no more questions for

26:27staff, right? All right. Uh so

26:29[clears throat] that brings us to our

26:31first item which is study session. Um so

26:34we are reviewing the 60% plans for the

26:37Corey Road Transit Connection. And it

26:40would be great if we could start with

26:41the staff presentation.

26:46>> Thank you chair. We'll just need one

26:47minute to get Senator

27:15Great. Thank you. Uh, good evening

27:18everyone. My name is Sylvia Starlac,

27:19transportation planning manager with an

27:22update on the Quarry Road Transit

27:24Connection Project. Um, I'm joined by,

27:27uh, Leslie Lowe, Stanford University

27:29transportation director. And um seated

27:33in the audience are Tylin design team

27:36members Sarah Rickman and Kevin Quiardi.

27:39This project is the first step in

27:41retooling the PaloAlto transit center

27:44for enhanced efficiency and safety. The

27:47project will extend Corey Road across El

27:49Camino Rial to connect a transit only

27:52roadway to the PaloAlto Transit Center.

27:57The goals of the project are on this

27:59slide. We are uh enhancing public

28:03transit efficiency. We're reducing trans

28:06traffic congestion. We're improving

28:07safety and convenience for cyclists and

28:09pedestrians. And we're increasing active

28:11transportation mode share by extending

28:14Corey Road to create a direct connection

28:17between the Palo Alto Transit Center and

28:18El Camino Rial for use by public buses

28:22and shuttles. And we're constructing a

28:25protected intersection at Corey Road and

28:27El Camino Rial. Um, I wanted to note

28:30that this project has many constraints

28:32that restrict the degrees of freedom

28:34that the city has to alter the design.

28:37These have to do with CALR standards for

28:39Elcominel and the need to minimize

28:41utility conflicts. The city's several

28:44roles include obtaining and managing

28:46grant funds, sharing costs with Stanford

28:48and MTC, and partnering with Stanford on

28:50design and community engagement.

28:52Next slide.

28:55As background, the project was included

28:58in the 2017 comprehensive plan and

29:00beginning in 2024, steps were taken to

29:03place a ballot measure before PaloAlto

29:05voters to undedicate a portion of El

29:08Camino Park to create a transit

29:10connection to the PaloAlto Transit

29:11Center. The project began in late 2025

29:15and the project has reached 60% design.

29:19Next slide.

29:22This is a project area map showing the

29:25site between the bus depot area and

29:28Corey Road. This site is adjacent to the

29:32Stanford Shopping Center as well. Uh

29:34currently buses enter and exit the

29:38transit center bus depot by navigating

29:41through University Circle which is on

29:43the right there of the uh photo. With

29:46the addition of the transitway

29:47connection at Corey Road, buses

29:49traveling on El Camino Rial can avoid

29:51three traffic lights they currently uh

29:54need to use to exit the depot.

29:59Um,

30:02okay. Sorry,

30:07I've lost my slide. Here we go. Uh, next

30:10slide.

30:14the bus only.

30:17Sorry, I am confused. Here we go. This

30:20is a graphic of the project's main

30:22elements. The project includes firstly

30:26the transit way at the top of the screen

30:28which includes 11 to 13 ft lane widths

30:31with 6 in curbs. Uh secondly, the large

30:35median between the transit lanes. Um

30:38that's there due to you utilities

30:40located in that space. We can't build on

30:43that. Um, and this wide median is

30:46between 28 and 33 feet wide. Um, third,

30:51the realigned multi-use path

30:54in white at the top right quadrant of

30:56this image, excuse me,

30:59um, that will be slightly uh,

31:01straightened out. And fourth, the new

31:03protected or Dutch style intersection.

31:06The next slide will um uh next slide I'm

31:10gonna talk more in depth about the bus

31:13only transit way. So if we can go to the

31:16next slide. The bus only transit way

31:18supports our goal of reliable transit

31:20times transit travel times. This is

31:23needed now because vehicle congestion is

31:25slowing buses and increasing the cost of

31:27maintaining that service. When a bus

31:29takes longer to complete a route, the

31:31transit agency needs more buses and more

31:33operators simply to maintain the same

31:35scheduled service.

31:37That creates a cycle. Congestion slows

31:40transit. Slower transit costs more to

31:43operate and limited resources make it

31:45harder to provide frequent service. The

31:47dedicated transit way reduces the number

31:49of signals for buses exiting as they as

31:51they can bypass two lights on university

31:55and one on El Camino. Together, the

31:57transit way and transit priority signal

31:59operations at the new intersection will

32:01help interrupt that cycle by reducing

32:03delay behind general traffic and turning

32:07vehicles. More reliable bus travel times

32:09allow the system to deliver the same

32:11service with fewer operating resources

32:13or to improve frequency without

32:15proportionally increasing costs. This

32:17means more reliable transit for our

32:19community.

32:21Next slide.

32:23The other design feature I wanted to

32:25highlight is a protected or Dutch style

32:27intersection. A design that makes

32:29movement safer, clearer, and more

32:30predictable for people walking, biking,

32:33taking transit, and driving. Pictured

32:35here in his example, it's an example at

32:37the Mountain View Google Plex. The

32:39design uses corner islands, protected

32:41bicycle space, bike specific signals,

32:43and pedestrian head and pedestrian head

32:46starts. Together, these features slow

32:49vehicle turns, reduce conflicts, improve

32:51visibility, and provide clearer crossing

32:53locations. Protected intersections are

32:55most useful where many modes overlap

32:57near downtowns, schools, parks,

32:59commercial areas, transit stops, and key

33:01bicycle routes.

33:03Next slide.

33:06Um, the team has engaged in has engaged

33:09the public in many ways that are

33:10described in the staff report. We wanted

33:13to highlight for you today the initial

33:15engagement of bicyclists and pedestrians

33:17who use the area. On May 7th of this

33:19year, the design team along with city

33:21and Stanford staff hosted a bicycle and

33:23pedestrian stakeholder workshop at city

33:25hall to understand current users

33:27experiences and pain points navigating

33:28through the transit center site. We

33:30heard about the need for improved

33:32signage, wayfinding and pavement

33:33markings, improvements to bike

33:35connections within the area and to and

33:38from Menllo Park. request for increased

33:40visibility for people on bikes at the

33:42Corey El Camino Rial intersection and

33:44request to retain all bicycle movements

33:46at that intersection. More details about

33:49the themes raised are detailed in your

33:51attachment B. Throughout our ongoing

33:53engagement, these themes continue to

33:55surface. Next slide.

34:01The project is now at the 60% design

34:03stage and plans are being reviewed by

34:04city staff. As the design has

34:06progressed, several unanticipated tasks

34:09have arisen. Um, increasing the original

34:11design budget of 878,000 to 1,5,000.

34:17Um, which is an addition of 127,000.

34:20The new scope items are to be funded by

34:23the medical center development agreement

34:26funds, um, Stanford University funds,

34:29and an MTC grant. Um, and those items

34:34include a storm water management plan,

34:37additional geotechnical data, CALR

34:39requirements, public meeting support,

34:41and contract contingency. Staff will

34:44bring an amendment to the cost sharing

34:45agreement with Stanford to council later

34:47this year once we've secured the

34:49additional grant grant funds by from

34:52MTC.

34:53Next slide.

34:58To obtain CALR acceptance, roadway

35:01features along or connecting to the

35:04state highway system need to conform to

35:06CALR design standards. Um, where an

35:10existing or proposed feature does not

35:12meet those standards, a design standards

35:15decisions document or DSDD is used to

35:18document and evaluate the non-standard

35:20condition and support CALR's decision on

35:22whether it can be retained. Um, in this

35:26case, we are going to have to file a

35:28DSDD.

35:30Um,

35:31and that is because the existing

35:33receiving lanes on the west leg of Py

35:35Road are approximately 10 ft wide, which

35:37is less than the current CALR standard

35:40lane width. Bringing these lanes up to

35:43standard would require reconfiguring the

35:44median and would likely result in

35:46removal of several existing trees. So

35:49the design team will need to generate a

35:50DSTD in order to retain the existing

35:52lane widths, median and avoid free

35:55removal. And this is one of the tasks

35:56that um additional scope tasks that we

35:58will need to complete.

36:01Uh next slide.

36:04As design advanced um the project team

36:07took a closer look at how the bike lanes

36:09transition through the northwest and

36:11southwest corners of the intersection.

36:14Those are the bottom corners in this

36:16graphic. They evaluated two

36:19configurations. Option A keeps the bike

36:21lanes at street level while option B

36:24raises the bike lanes to the sidewalk

36:26level at these two corners. The main

36:28difference in how each option balances

36:30the pedestrian and bicycle experience

36:32with um sorry, the main difference is

36:36how each option balances the pedestrian

36:39and bicycle experience with

36:40constructibility, cost, and project

36:42delivery risk.

36:45Next slide.

36:47Option A maintains the bike lanes at

36:49street level through the northwest and

36:51southwest corners. One of the primary

36:53advantages of this is that this option

36:55fits within the established project

36:57footprint, minimizing the need for

36:58additional utility investigations,

37:00relocations, and adjustments. From a

37:03drainage perspective, option A allows

37:05the project to maintain a more

37:06conventional layout and avoids

37:09triggering additional storm water

37:10treatment. The smaller disturbance area

37:13also helps limit environmental and

37:15permitting risk. The trade-off is that

37:17pedestrian crossing distances are

37:19slightly longer than under option B.

37:21There's also less direct um there's a

37:24less direct bicycle connection at the

37:26southwest corner. An eastbound cyclist

37:29connecting to the Stanford perimeter

37:31trail would need to make a relatively

37:33sharp right turn onto the corner ramp in

37:35order to access the sidewalk.

37:38Next slide.

37:40Option B raises the bike lanes to

37:42sidewalk level at the northwest and

37:44southwest corners. This creates

37:46additional pedestrian refuge space and

37:48shortens the pedestrian crossing

37:49distances. The raised configuration can

37:52also make bicyclists more visible as

37:54they approach and move through the

37:55intersection. However, these benefits

37:57come with additional cost and schedule

37:59impacts. Based on the current estimate,

38:02it would add approximately 284,000 in

38:05design and construction costs and at

38:06least 3 months to the project timeline.

38:09Option B would also have greater utility

38:11impacts which could require additional

38:13investigation, relocation, or

38:15adjustment. Because the bike lane is

38:17raised, drainage becomes more complex

38:20and would require a less conventional

38:22layout as well as additional storm water

38:24treatment. The larger disturbance area

38:27would also increase environmental

38:28permitting risk.

38:36Next slide.

38:41The city's pedestrian and bicycle

38:42advisory committee reviewed the concepts

38:45uh on October 1st. Feedback received

38:48included the following. Payback members

38:51identified potential pedestrian bicycle

38:53conflicts at the protected intersections

38:56shared use corners and discussed

38:57refinements such as colored pavement and

38:59detectable warning strips. They asked

39:01questions about proposed signal

39:02operations, including no right turn on

39:04red, bicycle only phasing were required

39:06and leading pedestrian and bicycle

39:08intervals. The design team committed to

39:11preparing a color-coded diagram of

39:13bicycle vehicle

39:15and pedestrian movements. Members raised

39:18concerns about cyclist visibility to

39:20right turning vehicles, adequate bicycle

39:22storage and passing space, and cyclist

39:24potentially bypassing the intended

39:25alignment by using travel lanes. The

39:28design team confirmed that option A

39:29provides approximately 6 ft of storage

39:31adjacent to the turning islands,

39:33allowing cyclists on cross streets to

39:34pass behind those waiting near turning

39:36islands. HBEC discussed the planning the

39:39planned straightening of the transit

39:41center multi-use path adjacent to the

39:43transit way and documentation of broader

39:45cycling circulation needs for the area.

39:49They conducted a straw poll showing

39:51option A is preferred by most members.

39:53Please note that payback consists of

39:55pretty experienced cyclists and this

39:58might make them more likely to prefer

39:59alternative A to alternative B. Um also

40:02the additional cost and time estimates

40:04for option B were not available when

40:07this was this information was presented

40:09to payback. Uh but they were informed

40:12that option B would cost more and take

40:14more time. We just didn't know how much.

40:18Next slide please.

40:22Through October and November, standing

40:24comm standing committees, council, and

40:25the VTA ad hoc will review the 60%

40:28concepts. Coordination with Calrans is

40:31ongoing. After plan revisions this

40:33winter, we hope to finalize design with

40:35another round of engagement in the

40:37spring for eventual submission and

40:39likely resubmission of the CALR

40:41encroachment permit. Pending CALR

40:44approval, construction could begin in

40:46late 2027 or early 2028.

40:50Thank you for your attention. We are

40:52here with the team to receive your

40:53feedback regarding options A and B and

40:55answer any questions.

40:59Um [clears throat]

41:01PTC, does anybody have clarifying

41:03questions?

41:08>> All right. Um and so then I think we can

41:11go ahead and take public comment now if

41:13there is any.

41:14>> Um the chair have not received any

41:16public comment cards. If there's any

41:17members on Zoom that would like to speak

41:18to this item, ask that you raise your

41:20hand.

41:24>> There are none.

41:25>> Okay. Then back to the commission. Um,

41:30great. Commissioner Hecman, then Aken,

41:33then Templeton.

41:36>> Uh, thank you for the staff report, uh,

41:39both in writing and in person. Uh, you

41:42know, this seems like a relatively

41:43simple project. Let's just punch a bus

41:46road through uh an unused part of a park

41:49um from El Camino to the station and

41:52save a bunch of time for commuters

41:54riding buses and in the process reduce

41:56congestion around the center. Um but uh

41:59it turns out it's it's as simple as it

42:01is to describe it's not so simple to do

42:04and uh and as reflected in the staff

42:07report there are many many many many

42:10steps uh that have to be taken and

42:13you're taking those steps not uh

42:16PaloAlto in isolation but you're

42:17coordinating both with Stanford and with

42:19Calrans and so I think that from the

42:22time of the measure D funding in 2024

42:25it's really been impressive how house

42:28staff has moved to get us to the 60%

42:30point. Uh, and I appreciate that and and

42:32I like uh what I saw in the roll out of

42:34the schedule to fingers crossed get

42:36construction started winter of 27 early

42:3828. That's all great. Um um uh in terms

42:43of uh feedback um I am persuaded by the

42:47staff explanation of the uh the uh

42:50benefits of option A compared to option

42:53B uh benefits versus detriment and also

42:57um you know take into account that the

43:00PABAC um felt similarly to that that

43:04straw poll was I think a 611 in support

43:07of a uh so uh good work uh keep it

43:10going. Um, and that's my feedback.

43:12Thanks.

43:16>> Uh, [clears throat] Commissioner Aken,

43:18>> thank you, Chair. So, I have a few

43:20questions and a few comments, too. Um, I

43:24spent some time wandering around the

43:26site yesterday and was pleased to see

43:29Calrans was out there with Surveyor's

43:31Wheel um, measuring things. And so, I

43:34asked, "Oh, what are you guys working

43:35on?" and they said, "Oh, we're redoing

43:36the intersection for pedestrians and

43:38cyclists." So, uh, CALR is doing its

43:42part. Um,

43:46let's see. Uh, knock off a few easy

43:48ones. First, uh, I second payback

43:51request for a color-coded diagram. Um,

43:54to make sure everyone understands the

43:57turning movements for all the modes. Um,

44:01as I walked the area, I also wondered

44:03whether it's feasible to have u some

44:06volume estimates

44:08so that we get some sense of which

44:10movements are actually the most

44:12important to prioritize uh if we need to

44:16uh make decisions about them.

44:19Um, a lot of bus parking on the

44:22southbound El Camino offramp. I assume

44:25given the way things are drawn that that

44:27does not change. Um, is that correct?

44:32>> Yes.

44:34>> Okay. So, those folks will still be

44:36going around University Circle, but they

44:37just need the uh they need the space to

44:40wait. Is that what's going on?

44:43>> Mhm.

44:45Yeah. Yeah. The buses need the

44:48overspace.

44:49>> Okay. Um,

44:53let's see. Um,

44:56getting to the harder questions,

44:59uh, that turn onto the, uh, perimeter

45:02trail at the southwest corner does look

45:04awkward. That was the one part of option

45:06B that I missed, uh, as I, uh,

45:10considered the the choices uh, there on

45:13the site. Um, so the two parts uh I

45:18might two pieces of feedback I might

45:20want to give on that are uh are there

45:23any small ramps we can build to help

45:25mitigate that? Um, and

45:30perhaps uh more relevant to payback. Uh,

45:33do we expect a lot of expert riders to

45:36just turn directly onto southbound El

45:38Camino rather than using the perimeter

45:41trail? Yeah, granted there's no bike

45:44lane there, but

45:46strong cyclists might want to just take

45:48the lane. So, I'm wondering if there was

45:51any um any feedback given to you about

45:55the likelihood of that happening.

45:59>> We didn't get feedback and Leslie feel

46:01free to hop in if you want. Um we didn't

46:03get feedback on that potentiality. I

46:07think we are hoping to have wayf finding

46:11so that what you suggested would not

46:13happen. Um

46:16yeah, the the other thing is if they

46:19make that right turn, they would if they

46:21don't go to the underpass, they still

46:23have the off-ramp to go to so they could

46:26access the perimeter trail once they get

46:28to that next intersection.

46:30>> Yeah, I don't know what the standard

46:32pattern would be. Uh there's certainly a

46:35lot of multidirectional bike traffic um

46:39up there near the intersection of the

46:40offramp and university.

46:43Um and I suppose that leads me to my um

46:47last difficult question which is

46:51all the paths that I saw being used were

46:55you used heavily by cyclists in both

46:58directions.

47:00So is it realistic for us to assume that

47:04um unidirectional bike paths

47:08uh are the right design? Do we need to

47:11uh do we need to anticipate that people

47:14will use them birectionally regardless?

47:19>> That's a good question. Um I'm not sure

47:20if anyone on the design team wants to uh

47:24talk about why we are proposing them to

47:27be single um direction, but I think that

47:30has to do with CALR

47:32um standards and the the need to avoid

47:37conflicts. I think

47:38>> it's a nice design as long as people are

47:40willing to obey the the constraints. I

47:43think that there's a second reason which

47:45is to do with enforcement and um

47:48allocation of faults if there's a

47:51collision. And so we want to encourage

47:53people to ride in the direction of

47:55traffic.

47:56>> And so um I guess then that raises the

48:01question of uh should there be physical

48:05diversions that make it harder to go the

48:08wrong direction?

48:10I don't know what form those might take.

48:13Um but uh

48:17simply yeah simply

48:19>> signage alone might not be enough

48:25>> based on what I saw. I mean there's a

48:27there's a lot of birectional traffic all

48:29around there.

48:32>> Yeah, we can um we can think about that.

48:35We can try to figure out how to develop

48:37a norm uh for that.

48:39Maybe we have, you know, like what

48:42Stanford does on campus, like go this

48:44way around the circle. So Stanford has

48:46some um ideas on how to get people to do

48:50the right thing, I think.

48:52>> Okay. I think those are those ideas are

48:54definitely worth pursuing.

48:57And let's see. I believe that is

49:00everything for me. Thank you very much.

49:03>> Thanks. Thanks for that. Also, I wanted

49:05to mention thank you for the ramp idea.

49:06We'll look at that.

49:11Uh, Commissioner Templeton,

49:14>> thank you. Um, great presentation and

49:16it's really exciting to see this project

49:18coming along. Um, I had a couple of

49:21questions. I I I think that, uh,

49:23Commissioner Akin's questions were

49:25really valuable and I do hope that you

49:28will take some serious thought. Um, you

49:30know, we we've seen all sorts of bad

49:32behavior even on on the side of El

49:34Camino in terms of what direction people

49:37want to go. if it's expedient, they

49:38don't they don't cross the street,

49:39right? They want they want to go the

49:41other way. Um so, uh looking into that's

49:44a really good idea. So, um the other

49:47question, uh I have two questions. One

49:49is um you mentioned that they have three

49:52traffic lights that they have to contend

49:54with uh currently what's the count going

49:57to be? Are we

50:00>> You mentioned it in a way that made me

50:02think we're going to reduce the number

50:03of lights that that the buses have to

50:05contend with. So, can you tell me more?

50:08>> So, the um there would be the one

50:11intersection, the one light if people if

50:13the buses are using the new transit way,

50:15but currently in order to get out of

50:17that bus depot, they encounter a light

50:21at uh University A on the east side.

50:25Then they travel University A and then

50:28they encounter a light to make a left

50:30turn onto El Camino. So, that's lake

50:33number two. And then they end up on the

50:35on-ramp to El Camino. And that's light

50:37number three.

50:38>> Right. And so this is going to just

50:40reduce it to one. And they're not going

50:42to have to contend with that light on El

50:44Camino.

50:44>> Correct. Because they will be bypassing

50:46that light on El Camino because they'll

50:47be going through the underpass under

50:49University Avenue.

50:51>> Cool. Um then the other question I have

50:54is um pedestrian refuges on uh crossing

50:59El Camino. Um, I can't tell if

51:05by the diagram if we have them in the

51:07middle. Um, one of the the cons that you

51:10mentioned for option A was how long it

51:13was to go across El Camino and um, we've

51:16discussed that many times here. Uh, it's

51:19a it's a very large number of lanes. Um,

51:22so is there a place where someone could

51:24stop if they started too late when

51:26crossing the road and had to stop in the

51:28middle, have somewhere to stand?

51:32>> So, right. So, there is on option A,

51:35there does appear to be a space. Um,

51:39>> is this the little gray semicircle or

51:41what is the space?

51:42>> We pull up option A just so every

51:44>> Yeah, it could be slide um you could

51:47also use slide 11

51:49which has both of them.

51:51Okay.

51:53>> So, the north leg has that space, but I

51:56don't uh there's also a little bit on

51:59the east leg as well if you got caught.

52:02>> And I would just add to this that all of

52:04this design work is pending CALR

52:07approval. Um so, CALR trend has been

52:10towards not having sign. You might have

52:13noticed like in they tend not to have

52:14the uh signal poles in the median

52:17anymore. They tend to have the long mast

52:18arm from the side and they tend also not

52:21to have pedestrian buttons in the

52:23middle. So that's that's what I've seen

52:26trending in terms of cow trends. So

52:28>> Oh yeah, I agree with all of that. We're

52:30not disputing that, but um we have seen

52:33um when when you have to cross seven or

52:36nine lanes of traffic that sometimes

52:38younger people don't make it all the way

52:40across in one light cycle um or slower

52:43people with different mobility issues.

52:45And so, um, I just was hoping to to

52:48understand right now I see this these

52:51hash mark for the, um, crosswalks and

52:53the bike lanes going all the way across.

52:56I see this kind of gray semicircle on

52:58one side. I don't see it on the other

53:00side, and I don't think it's big enough

53:01on the side it's on where somebody could

53:04wait, but people will, right? So, that's

53:08that's the thing. I'm not suggesting

53:09you'd have any kind of signaling or

53:11something that if a car were to go over

53:13that without people in it that they

53:15would hit something, but it would be

53:17nice for people that can't make it

53:19across to have somewhere to stay because

53:22they will. That's that's what I'm trying

53:23to get at. So, if if you were going to

53:26um you know, as as you mentioned,

53:28iterate on this again. I think that

53:30might be something to consider. Um and

53:33you know when you're coming from Mllo

53:34Park uh down towards PaloAlto

53:37there's an obvious space but when you're

53:39going towards um towards the mall or

53:41towards Milo from from Palo Alto there's

53:44not really an obvious place where people

53:46could stand in the current design. So I

53:51guess I would love for you guys to think

53:53about that because especially if we are

53:55going to have more people walking, do we

53:56think that number of people will

53:58pedestrians will increase like people be

54:00coming through this bus area more?

54:04>> Yeah. Do you want to talk about that?

54:07>> Hi Les, executive director of

54:09transportation for Stanford University.

54:11Um the university currently has a

54:14application in with this the county of S

54:16um Santa Clara to look at housing on

54:19that corner that's opposite of the um

54:22shopping center for 500 units. So

54:24absolutely we think there'll be more

54:26pedestrians because we want to create

54:27that synergy between

54:29>> the transit center and the housing site.

54:32I will also say that that um this

54:35intersection is also adding pedestrian

54:37and bicycle um access on that I guess

54:41northbound um if you're going north on

54:44the on the right side of the diagram.

54:47I'll say that I don't know which way is

54:49north and south on this um diagram. Um

54:51so that's a new pedestrian access

54:54crossing because right now you can only

54:56cross on the on the Menllo Park side.

54:58So, um, this will be hopefully

55:01increasing people's pedestrian

55:03experience at that intersection.

55:05>> I I think it's I think it's fantastic.

55:07The the um

55:11um I live very near an El Camino

55:13crossing right by a school that's

55:15heavily used on a bike path to several

55:17other adjacent schools. And um I'm I'm

55:21in complete earnest when I tell you

55:23people can't make it all the way across.

55:25Um so if we are adding that there and

55:28the reason that it's it's a little bit

55:31oh that's a very thin there's no place

55:32for someone to hide and wait uh if they

55:35if they stupidly cross too late uh which

55:38people do um then then maybe that's

55:41something that we hadn't thought about

55:42before that you can add in. So I think

55:44on both sides but otherwise um I think

55:46it's very exciting. I I do hope that we

55:48can figure out a way um

55:52to plan for

55:54and mitigate bad behavior um because

55:57people just do their best and they just

55:58want to cross the street and they don't

56:00think about it the way that we all think

56:01about it. So um especially if you're

56:05going to be adding some young people and

56:08maybe young families in that area

56:10additionally uh important. So thank you

56:13very much.

56:13>> Oh, thanks thanks for the comment. I

56:15just wanted to say that um

56:18the reason people get caught is because

56:21the timing is not long enough. Um and

56:24Calrans has recently shown that they are

56:26willing to work with us on timing for

56:28crossing particularly at Los Robles. So

56:31they've just extended green times. So

56:33I'm I am

56:34>> Stop. I'm blushing.

56:36So um so I so we will be you know hoping

56:40we we'll be trying to uh impress upon

56:43them that they need to adjust time uh

56:48times appropriately for the level of use

56:50that's happening here and the types of

56:52users here. That's amazing. It's very

56:54exciting to hear. I'm so glad. I know

56:55you've been working on getting that

56:57dialogue open for some time. So thank

56:59you. Uh in case I didn't explicitly say

57:01it, option A was my preference as well.

57:04was very excited to hear that. That's

57:05Payback's preference, strong preference.

57:07So, I think you'll see some um

57:09solidarity with us. Thank you.

57:11>> Thanks,

57:13>> Vice Georgie.

57:14>> Thank you, chair. Um, since we have the

57:16slides up, do you mind going to the

57:18timeline? I don't know what slide number

57:19that is. I think it's back a few at

57:21least.

57:25Yep. Okay. Thank you. I was wondering if

57:27staff could talk a little bit about the

57:30one-year gap between the measure D

57:32passing in November 5th to the November

57:343rd cost sharing agreement with Stanford

57:37as to why it took a year to get to

57:39there.

57:40>> Um, we did not have a project manager

57:42available to lead this project.

57:45>> Okay, that makes sense. And hopefully we

57:48will get some more project managers to

57:50help manage this cuz I'm very excited

57:51about this project. Um, and then can we

57:54pull up the slide with the project area,

57:56please? I don't know where that is.

57:59Okay, thank you. Um, I was wondering if

58:03staff could explain um kind of how we

58:06came up with the project area. Is this

58:08like in the ballot measure or did this

58:10just come up through the contract that

58:13city council helped negotiate? Help me

58:15understand the project area defined

58:17here.

58:18You are correct, commissioner, that the

58:21project area was defined by the measure

58:23D. It it's largely um the scope of what

58:27the um city of Palo Alto residents

58:30approved for um addressing what the

58:33transit connection was. So is what we

58:36had in the concept design plus a 10-ft

58:38buffer on either side. So it was very

58:41limited because we didn't want to um

58:44decommission any parkland that would

58:46need that that wasn't necessary for the

58:48project. And then of course it needed to

58:50extend into El Camino Riel in order to

58:54make sure that we were addressing the

58:55signal need

58:57>> and then as a follow-up question to that

58:59was there any discussion during the

59:01design about potentially connecting to

59:03other parts of downtown? So, for

59:04example, as a biker that's coming down

59:07the trail on the other side of

59:08University Circle, it's a little bit

59:10hard to navigate over here. So, is there

59:13is any kind of signage or any other

59:15projects connecting these two pieces or

59:17with other parts of downtown is that

59:19within scope for this project?

59:23>> So, no, it's not within scope for this

59:25project. However, if that is something

59:27that um council wants us to pursue, we

59:30could do that assuming we can find

59:33resources.

59:34>> Yeah. Go ahead.

59:34>> It would require an amendment.

59:36>> Can can I just um also add that there's

59:39two other projects that we are working

59:41in concert with VTA on that would

59:44address some of the commissioner's um

59:46comments. one there's um MTC is doing a

59:49wayfinding signage a pilot at this

59:51station and so I think that will help

59:53with wayfinding and um the city and the

59:57transit agencies in Stanford have been

59:59weighing in on those um concepts and

1:00:01those are supposed to roll out soon. Um

1:00:04and the second piece I'd like to mention

1:00:06is that Stamford VTA and um the city are

1:00:10also have a VTA mobility um study that

1:00:14we will be doing a larger transit area

1:00:17study led by VTA and I'm sure that will

1:00:19come to you at some future meeting.

1:00:22>> Thank you. Apologies, Miss Low. I

1:00:24actually didn't hear what you had said

1:00:25when you chimed in there. Could you

1:00:26repeat that? um in order to if we if we

1:00:30are directed to expand the scope that

1:00:32would require an amendment.

1:00:34>> Yeah,

1:00:34>> an amendment is what you said. Cool.

1:00:36Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I

1:00:38capture that and and thank you for

1:00:39explaining that further. Um what is the

1:00:41timeline do we know for these other two

1:00:43projects that are happening in parallel?

1:00:46the the signage and the Yeah, the

1:00:51>> I don't recall off the top of my head

1:00:53when the MTC is supposed to roll out

1:00:56their signage, but it's imminent. I

1:00:58think they I believe that they are

1:01:00working with a vendor to help um look,

1:01:03they already have a plan and I think

1:01:05they're just going through and figuring

1:01:06out the cost and the timeline. So, it's

1:01:09it's in our near future. I will add um

1:01:12the second the second scope of work

1:01:14which is the station area plan that they

1:01:16are working on. They are in the process

1:01:19of negotiating a contract with a um

1:01:22consultant and so that will be coming

1:01:25online pretty soon for public to go

1:01:28through their process. But yes, that is

1:01:30also um about to kick off. [snorts]

1:01:33>> Okay, cool. Thank you. because I think

1:01:35that the public may be a little caught

1:01:39off guard by how long some

1:01:40transportation projects happen. And so I

1:01:42think it's very exciting that these are

1:01:44coming pretty soon. I had another

1:01:46question about I think the slide that

1:01:48had the different lane widths and

1:01:50especially the port the portion where it

1:01:52says that the quarry road uh kind of

1:01:55left turn onto it the the entrance you

1:01:57said is shorter like less wide than the

1:02:01recommended CALR width.

1:02:04Um

1:02:05so yeah the 10 foot versus whatever is

1:02:09>> uh

1:02:11>> yeah that's slide uh 10.

1:02:13>> Yes. Uh okay thank you. Um so just so I

1:02:18understand what you said. Are you saying

1:02:20that we will have to do the median

1:02:23reconfiguration entry removal or we're

1:02:25trying to apply so that we don't have to

1:02:28do the removal?

1:02:28>> The second thing that you just said.

1:02:30>> Okay. Perfect. I just wanted to make

1:02:31sure I un understood that because it

1:02:34says removal. So I was just

1:02:36>> Yes. Sorry. We should change that to say

1:02:38potential removal.

1:02:39>> So that was my question because I think

1:02:41the words that were coming out of your

1:02:42mouth were contradicting what was on the

1:02:45on the

1:02:46>> Yes, we are trying to avoid taking the

1:02:48trees.

1:02:49>> Okay. Um that's appreciated. And then I

1:02:53had another question about kind of

1:02:54echoing what Commissioner Templeton had

1:02:56said about the slightly longer uh

1:03:00crossing for options AM and B.

1:03:02Approximately how long is that like 6 in

1:03:05longer or is this like five feet longer?

1:03:08How much longer are we are we

1:03:10approximately estimating here?

1:03:14>> Okay,

1:03:15>> we can circle back to that while while

1:03:17um staff is looking

1:03:18>> the team will look at that.

1:03:19>> Team is looking into that. Um, and then

1:03:21I just had some general comments. I am

1:03:23in agreement with Payback and my fellow

1:03:25commissioners about option A as my

1:03:27preferred for several reasons. One is

1:03:30that when I think about this

1:03:31intersection, especially with the

1:03:33housing that's going to come on this

1:03:34corner as well as the type of traffic

1:03:37that tends to come into the shopping

1:03:40center, I think a lot about pedestrians.

1:03:42And so I actually prefer having the

1:03:46pedestrians on the sidewalk and the

1:03:48bikers below mostly because then you

1:03:51won't have as much congestion. So when I

1:03:52was recently in China, we had a lot of

1:03:54bikers on the sidewalk and it was uh

1:03:56made walking pretty painful. Um and so

1:04:00as an area that I foresee to be very

1:04:02walking heavy, I think that having the

1:04:05separation there is preferred. And then

1:04:08my second comment actually is more of a

1:04:10question. I was wondering if we could

1:04:11pull up the satellite image for this

1:04:13corner because I couldn't quite wrap

1:04:15around my head uh this awkward turn

1:04:18you're talking about with the perimeter

1:04:19trail. So, if you could just kind of

1:04:20show me what that is because that wasn't

1:04:22on my radar prior.

1:04:24>> All right. You um

1:04:25>> to the I think it's the southwest

1:04:28corner.

1:04:29>> So, number slide 13.

1:04:36>> Sorry, slide 12. That's the one. I'm

1:04:39sorry. It's slide 12. So if you look at

1:04:41the um bottom right corner of slide 12.

1:04:46>> Hang on one second.

1:04:47>> Yeah. So that

1:04:48>> Yeah.

1:04:49>> Okay. So the bike lane um that is on the

1:04:53right side there that's going up the the

1:04:57graphic. If a cyclist in that bike lane

1:05:02there uh would like to turn right and

1:05:04get onto the Stanford perimeter trail

1:05:06that goes to the right off the graphic,

1:05:08they would have to turn very sharply

1:05:12right onto the um ADA ramp that you see

1:05:15there at the corner.

1:05:17>> Can I

1:05:19Okay. Okay. Wait. So, can you say that

1:05:21again? I will try to draw what I

1:05:23understood that you said.

1:05:25>> Yeah. the uh a cyclist at the

1:05:29um bike lane on the right side there at

1:05:31the uh bottom right corner um would have

1:05:34to make a I'm sorry I'm back in the bike

1:05:38lane. Your circle is further up.

1:05:40>> Okay.

1:05:40>> Um

1:05:44>> like

1:05:46Oh, I like like here.

1:05:48>> Yes. They'd have to turn a very hard

1:05:52right to get onto the um ADA ramp

1:05:54>> like this.

1:05:56>> Yes, that.

1:05:58>> I see. Okay. Um I see. So then in option

1:06:02B, because all of it is like a big

1:06:04sidewalk mush, you can just kind of like

1:06:06go over without having to do this

1:06:09>> Yeah.

1:06:09>> sharp turn.

1:06:10>> Yeah. they would already be on the on

1:06:12the sidewalk because of the ramps that

1:06:14ramp up prior to the intersection and

1:06:17they could sort themselves and get

1:06:19around the corner.

1:06:20>> Okay, thank you. And then I'm going to

1:06:24clear this so well. Okay. So

1:06:29then I also had another question about

1:06:32the

1:06:34the potent is there going to be a right

1:06:35turn on red potentially here because as

1:06:37we now have a crossing that is now the

1:06:41new crossing that we're adding like this

1:06:42this new crossing uh this right turn is

1:06:46heavily used and so I was wondering if

1:06:49there's any if there's been discussion

1:06:51about no right on red or any other uh

1:06:54potential mitigations for to increase

1:06:56the safety of this new crosswalk.

1:06:59>> We have to have no ride on red in a

1:07:01protected intersection design.

1:07:04>> Okay. Um, great. That just uh covers

1:07:07most of my questions. And um, again, I

1:07:09want to reiterate my support for option

1:07:12A. Thank you,

1:07:14>> Commissioner James.

1:07:17>> Thank you. Um, this is exciting.

1:07:20Um, uh, I certainly, uh, don't think I

1:07:25know better than the staff and the and

1:07:26the and the bikers. Uh, and and so I'm

1:07:29I, uh, am happy to kind of embrace, uh,

1:07:32a, um, I would, uh, add that I do think

1:07:36the, uh, the color-coded diagram that

1:07:38you mentioned, I think would be super

1:07:40helpful. Uh, and it's it's a little

1:07:42niggly National Geographic uh of me to

1:07:46say, but I think the directional on on

1:07:48where north is I I felt like a lot of

1:07:50people got turned around.

1:07:51>> Yeah.

1:07:51>> And I feel like on the big maps, it's

1:07:54kind of hidden in the corner. It could

1:07:55be closer to the legend or wherever you

1:07:57think it should be, but I think it's not

1:07:59here at all on the small maps. And I

1:08:00think for when it gets to council, I

1:08:02think that would be helpful.

1:08:03>> Thank you.

1:08:06>> Thank you.

1:08:09>> Yeah. Yeah.

1:08:09>> Okay. Um, can we circle back to the team

1:08:12to see if they have an answer to that

1:08:14question?

1:08:17>> If you could stand up and come to the

1:08:18mic so that people online can also hear

1:08:21you.

1:08:25>> Yes. Do I press anything or

1:08:27>> All right. Hi, Sarah Rakeman with TY

1:08:29Lynn. I'm the deputy project manager for

1:08:31this project on the consultant team. Um,

1:08:33the distance will be about 8 feet longer

1:08:37in option A.

1:08:41total.

1:08:42>> Yeah.

1:08:42>> Okay. Thank you. Um, thank you. So, I'll

1:08:47go with my comments now. I'm fine also

1:08:50with option A. My questions have mostly

1:08:53to do with bike circulation and

1:08:56connection to things that are not in

1:08:59this picture. Um, so if we could go back

1:09:03to the slide that has the yellow box.

1:09:07Um,

1:09:11so

1:09:12let me just back up a little bit. When

1:09:14we look at the appendex in the

1:09:17[clears throat] staff report, the

1:09:18appendix um showed a bunch of uh aerial

1:09:22photos with sticky notes and with

1:09:25people's comments. Um, and so that's

1:09:28where all the comments about wayfinding

1:09:30and kind of connectivity with the bike

1:09:32path uh come up. And I understand that

1:09:37right now the you're saying that the

1:09:40project scope is purely within this

1:09:42yellow area. Um, and I just want to make

1:09:46sure because

1:09:49I just want to make sure that whatever

1:09:50we do doesn't preclude whatever solution

1:09:53might come with the VTA Mobility Hub

1:09:56project. And is the VTA Mobility Hub

1:09:59project including I assume the full

1:10:02transit center as well?

1:10:05Yes. Okay. Um, and so right now my

1:10:10concern is, and maybe I'm not

1:10:13understanding exactly how the flow will

1:10:16work.

1:10:17Right now, it looks like

1:10:20we're actually slowing down

1:10:24bike traffic because if somebody is

1:10:26coming from, looking at this picture,

1:10:28the top right side, which is where the

1:10:30bike path ends, then they would have to

1:10:33go make their way through University

1:10:35Circle,

1:10:37go into Mitchell Lane, and then come out

1:10:41at an intersection.

1:10:44Yes. Right there. And at the at the end

1:10:47there where there is no road now there's

1:10:49going to be the quarry road extension

1:10:51and they're going to have to cross the

1:10:53bike only the bus only lanes and they're

1:10:56going to have to wait at a light there.

1:10:58Correct.

1:10:59>> Correct. And then when you add the fact

1:11:01that there's this oneway travel,

1:11:06um I I think it's birectional. If I

1:11:10looked at uh right at the

1:11:14top side of Elino,

1:11:15>> the [clears throat] east leg is

1:11:17birectional,

1:11:17>> right? I don't want to like the

1:11:19northwest, east, south was um confusing.

1:11:22So that's birectional and that's good.

1:11:25But then the other side isn't

1:11:28birectional. So then there could be

1:11:31really long wait times at traffic

1:11:33lights.

1:11:34>> And based on what I've seen with bikes,

1:11:38they don't always observe stop signs.

1:11:41And if there's no traffic there, they

1:11:43kind of go anyway. And so my concern is

1:11:46that if we're having if we're making

1:11:49bikes wait a substantial amount of time

1:11:53that it might

1:11:57well if the goals of the project are to

1:11:59increase or enhance safety convenience

1:12:03for cyclists and pedestrians, these long

1:12:06wait times might

1:12:09make it less convenient for bicyclists.

1:12:11And similarly, if we needed to increase

1:12:13the light time, crossing time to for the

1:12:16safety of pedestrians, that means that

1:12:17the bicyclists would have to wait even

1:12:19longer. So, I'm concerned about that.

1:12:22And I didn't know if there were any

1:12:24things that we could do. Um it might not

1:12:27be in the scope of this project, but it

1:12:29seems that it'd be really critical to

1:12:33um make sure that we didn't preclude any

1:12:37potential rerouting of the bike path

1:12:40like around the transit center for

1:12:42example,

1:12:42>> right?

1:12:43>> Um similarly, if bikes didn't have to

1:12:47wait like you know there are only so

1:12:51many buses. So if bikes were able to

1:12:54cross at a different point than right at

1:12:56the intersection and if they were able

1:12:59to go even when cars can't go um like

1:13:04somewhere between El Camino and the

1:13:07train tracks

1:13:10um

1:13:11maybe at where the exactly where

1:13:14Commissioner G has has has drawn a line

1:13:18like if is there some way that we could

1:13:21make it so that the bikes don't have to

1:13:23wait as long that the bikes aren't bound

1:13:25by the same rule. So like a bike ped

1:13:29only crossing.

1:13:32>> Yeah, that's good feedback. Um we can

1:13:34look at that. The transit center is a

1:13:36very very busy place and um we don't

1:13:39want to put bikes in the way of buses.

1:13:44So I'm I'm not sure what is feasible

1:13:47given the existing footprint that we

1:13:50have available to work with. We were not

1:13:53planning on a signal there um which

1:13:57would require it. And actually we

1:13:59probably can't even put one there

1:14:01because of the utility conflict. So

1:14:02yeah, Leslie probably has things to say

1:14:04about that. Um I just wanted to say we

1:14:07did have someone who had brought this

1:14:09idea of a cross through the the transit

1:14:11operators were opposed to it because of

1:14:15their own reason you know driver safety

1:14:17and and such and the buses will be

1:14:19queuing in those spaces. So now you know

1:14:22you'd be creating more stacking that

1:14:24could go into the transit center. Um and

1:14:26then again yeah the there are multiple

1:14:29utilities in the middle that we are

1:14:30trying to avoid with the design. Um, and

1:14:33then the other thing just to comment on,

1:14:36we we're taking all the comments that

1:14:38we've heard through this process that

1:14:40don't apply to our project and making

1:14:42sure that VTA has them for their study

1:14:45so that they're as they're looking at

1:14:47the whole of the transit center. So, we

1:14:49don't want to lose the information that

1:14:51we've gotten from the public thus far.

1:14:54um understanding that and we and we do

1:14:56tell them yes that's outside of our

1:14:58project area but we're going to collect

1:14:59your information anyway because I feel

1:15:00like it it is for the good of the order.

1:15:03>> Okay. Yeah. It's just maybe there should

1:15:05be as part of this design as it moves

1:15:07from 60 to 100 um places where you could

1:15:10pencil in a connection to a potential

1:15:13when we don't know what will happen to

1:15:15the to the bike to the designated bike

1:15:19path kind of from where the bike path

1:15:21ends through this mush of transit

1:15:24center. Um

1:15:27and then they do at some point have to

1:15:29move through or pass the yellow box. So,

1:15:33it seems like we should guess at what

1:15:36they might come up with and

1:15:39design a solution that would allow for

1:15:42that connectivity.

1:15:45>> Uh, Commissioner Aken,

1:15:49>> thank you, Chair. Let me see if I can

1:15:51draw this.

1:15:54So, there is another path here. Um

1:16:08uh so the multi-use path goes through

1:16:10here and you can uh go down University

1:16:14Circle or I suppose you could even

1:16:16negotiate going through a parking lot if

1:16:19you wished but you can reach that uh

1:16:22birectional path right at the front. So

1:16:25you don't need to add another crossing

1:16:28over the yellow area. You can just use

1:16:31this one. Does that address the sort of

1:16:34question you were you were after or not?

1:16:37>> I mean I think my concern is that

1:16:40crossing where your crossing the yellow

1:16:42area where you are uh where the red line

1:16:46is right now could be a very long wait

1:16:50for bicyclists. Um, and they

1:16:55might ignore the weight.

1:16:58>> Yeah. I mean, there's a

1:17:02You're hoping you were hoping to have a

1:17:06crossing up here.

1:17:08>> Oh, or just completely. Yes. Completely

1:17:11go around. Or or what if we were able to

1:17:13have the bike lane just go above the

1:17:15transit bus depot and around so that

1:17:18bicyclists going from Pal to Tumlo Park

1:17:22could just circumvent the whole mess.

1:17:26>> Okay. I'm just trying to understand what

1:17:27you're

1:17:28>> that I mean that would be ideal. Yes. If

1:17:30we could do the purple line,

1:17:33>> but I I don't know what's feasible and

1:17:36what's not there. But we do know that a

1:17:38lot of bicyclists come out at the start

1:17:40of the purple line and then they have to

1:17:42navigate the mess of the transit center

1:17:45and they need to continue on. And by

1:17:48adding lights there, it might encourage

1:17:51bad behavior as

1:17:53>> Yeah.

1:17:54>> Yeah.

1:17:54>> Yeah. I was curious because of course

1:17:56this segment right here flows as long as

1:18:00El Camino flows, which is most of the

1:18:02time.

1:18:04Um, so

1:18:06>> right, correct. And because the transit

1:18:09way is only going to have conflicts on

1:18:11it when there are buses, it we could

1:18:14have that be available for it could be

1:18:17green for cyclists for most of the time

1:18:19except for when the we expect movement

1:18:22into the transit way.

1:18:24>> Okay.

1:18:26>> Okay. That's all I had to suggest.

1:18:28>> Commissioner,

1:18:31thank you. Um, I I love this idea. And I

1:18:35I guess the the the the

1:18:38takeaway here is

1:18:41none of the diagrams you have presented

1:18:44tonight show that path that goes along

1:18:47behind Pali over behind town and country

1:18:50and nearly connects with this. It goes

1:18:53through that parking lot and I think

1:18:54that's what what you're referring to.

1:18:56So, um I would suggest for the purposes

1:18:59of helping people who don't live here

1:19:01but are designing this, um I would add

1:19:04that bike path in because it's really

1:19:06heavily used. Um so if if they see it,

1:19:11then they'll understand about connecting

1:19:12with it much like they're trying to

1:19:14connect with that perimeter path for

1:19:15Stanford. Um so that's one piece of

1:19:17advice is figure out how to connect that

1:19:20through and bypass as many obstacles as

1:19:22possible. Um and then we talked about

1:19:25the uh safer pedestrian crossing and

1:19:27then we talked about the connecting

1:19:29better with the pedestrian path. Are is

1:19:31it reasonable uh like do you want us to

1:19:35provide any additional guidance on that

1:19:37those objectives but because it seems

1:19:38like you understand them uh even though

1:19:41you know option A doesn't have a good

1:19:43connection to the perimeter path you

1:19:44know that you need to work on that that

1:19:46kind of thing. Is there any more detail

1:19:48you'd want from us or on these things or

1:19:50have we captured it? I think I think we

1:19:53have everything everything you're saying

1:19:55are things that we're hearing from uh

1:19:58people who use the space.

1:20:00>> Look at us speaking for the people.

1:20:03>> No, that's great. Thank you so much,

1:20:04Miss Starlac.

1:20:08I think uh commissioner vice chair G has

1:20:11a comment and then we can

1:20:14>> I actually had a question about how long

1:20:16is this light for one cycle right now

1:20:19because as I remember right because that

1:20:22the traffic that comes out from

1:20:24university circle is also a separate in

1:20:27injection into El Camino it's it's

1:20:29actually been quite long and then if we

1:20:31add no right on red the right turns

1:20:32might be long so I was just wondering if

1:20:34we have a sense of how long this light

1:20:35is today.

1:20:41>> Yeah. The like this inter the quarry

1:20:43road elo intersection that we're

1:20:44discussing right now.

1:20:48>> I think our design team can help us with

1:20:50this.

1:20:54>> Hi. Um the current cycle length at the

1:20:57intersection is 150 seconds long and it

1:21:00is coordinated with other intersections

1:21:02along El Camino Rail. So um we also

1:21:05studied sand hill road so it's time to

1:21:07be 150 seconds um with that as well the

1:21:11um actual lengths themselves um the

1:21:14various cycles are actuated so it's

1:21:15demand based

1:21:18>> thank you um I'd like to make a motion

1:21:21unless anyone else has any other

1:21:22comments

1:21:24>> if I if I can interrupt chair the study

1:21:27session item so

1:21:28>> oh right we don't need a motion point

1:21:30>> thank you So, are we good then? Do you

1:21:35need a straw poll or anything that's not

1:21:37official? We're

1:21:38>> will do a straw poll for A versus B

1:21:40because that's the clearest thing. All

1:21:42right. Um, so

1:21:47all in favor of A, raise your hands and

1:21:49we'll just sort of that's unanimous. So,

1:21:53hopefully that gives you your straw

1:21:54poll. [laughter]

1:21:55>> Thank you very much.

1:21:56>> All right, with that um then I think

1:21:59we're ready to go on to the next item.

1:22:01Thank you. Thank you for bringing us

1:22:04cool stuff like this.

1:22:09Uh okay. So this next one is an action

1:22:13item and it is uh on it's a uh public

1:22:20hearing quasi judicial item on 51 Incina

1:22:24Avenue and the PTC needs to make a

1:22:27recommendation on a zoning text

1:22:29amendment to Palatoto Municipal Code

1:22:31section 18.18.080 080 which is the

1:22:34transfer of development rights and

1:22:37section 18.16.060

1:22:40on the CS zone development standards to

1:22:43expand the floor area bonus and transfer

1:22:46of development right benefits for

1:22:47category 1 and two buildings on the

1:22:50city's historic inventory in the CS zone

1:22:53district.

1:22:58>> Yeah, thank you chair. So, um I was just

1:23:00going to make a note and I believe we

1:23:02have uh city attorney uh um Howard Yang

1:23:06on

1:23:08uh on Zoom, but this is listed as the

1:23:11quasi judicial item, but I believe it's

1:23:13more it's a legislative action and so I

1:23:15don't believe disclosures are

1:23:17>> That was my next question. Thank you. I

1:23:18didn't I thought it odd that we needed

1:23:20disclosures on this one.

1:23:21>> Yeah, I don't think we do, but uh

1:23:23perhaps the city attorney can verify

1:23:26>> that. That's right. That's an error in

1:23:28the um in the agenda for it been listed

1:23:31as quite judicial.

1:23:33>> Great. Thank you. So, it's a legislative

1:23:35item. Mr. Switzer, would you like to go

1:23:37ahead with the staff presentation?

1:23:40>> Sure. Will.

1:23:41>> All right. Well, how about we all take a

1:23:44trip to 51 and Cena?

1:23:47[laughter]

1:23:48All right. To orient oursel here, I have

1:23:51uh just the project location. So uh some

1:23:55adjacent uses to the north is the Palo

1:23:57Alto Medical Foundation campus. Uh to

1:24:00the east is the Peninsula Healthcare

1:24:02Connection. Uh to the west are some

1:24:06additional um CS that service commercial

1:24:09zone properties and to the south is the

1:24:12Town and Country Village Shopping

1:24:13Center. And for a little bit more

1:24:15context on the historic resource in

1:24:18question tonight, I have few details

1:24:21listed on the screen. Uh this is a

1:24:23category 2 historic resource. It was

1:24:25added to our inventory in 1986. The

1:24:28significance is under exploration and

1:24:30settlement. Uh it's a colonial revival

1:24:33architecture building. It was built in

1:24:351900 and some interesting history here.

1:24:39It it was built for Mary Greer O'Brien

1:24:42who was the daughter of Captain John and

1:24:44Mary Louisa Sodto Greer. And uh Mary

1:24:48Louisa Sto's actual father was part of

1:24:51the Deansza expedition. Um so if we go

1:24:54back to the 1700s, that original 240

1:24:57settlers from Spain that founded the San

1:25:00Francisco uh Presidio mission. So this

1:25:04was part of that original Mexican land

1:25:06grant in 1835.

1:25:10So on to the actual request here. It is

1:25:14to expand the bonus floor area and

1:25:16transfer of development right program

1:25:18those TDRs to a historic category one or

1:25:22two buildings in the CS zone district.

1:25:26So a little bit about the transfer of

1:25:28development right program

1:25:32the next slide. So, this was a program

1:25:35established in the 1980s with the city

1:25:37to help encourage and offset some

1:25:39historic and seismic rehabilitation

1:25:41projects in the downtown area. Um,

1:25:44subsequently since the 80s, it's been

1:25:46expanded in 2003 and 2007 with

1:25:50city-owned historic properties and into

1:25:53our south of Forest area sofa

1:25:55residential properties. There's

1:25:57approximately

1:25:5932,000 square ft of uh bonus floor area

1:26:02available on the market and this

1:26:05property would be eligible for up to

1:26:082,500 square ft of bonus floor area.

1:26:13And just on that, um the transfer

1:26:17development right program um allows for

1:26:19qualifying properties known as say

1:26:21sender sites uh to receive that bonus

1:26:24floor area um when they either preserve

1:26:26historic resources such in this case or

1:26:29complete a seismic improvement. That

1:26:31bonus floor area represents say the

1:26:33unused development potential that can be

1:26:36transferred to another property known as

1:26:38say a receiver site. Um and some other

1:26:43considerations were the comp plan

1:26:46policies that we have for adaptive reuse

1:26:48of historic resources. Um expanded

1:26:52historic incentives as well as

1:26:54encouraging innovative preservation

1:26:56approaches in our comp plan. Um this

1:26:59project would help um offset some of the

1:27:02costs for the adaptive reuse of a

1:27:05category uh 2 historic resource uh that

1:27:09may be say um scuttled by some financial

1:27:12constraints due to the lack of

1:27:14development incentives currently

1:27:15available with the city. Um a little bit

1:27:18on potential impacts to the program.

1:27:21This would be sight specific. So,

1:27:23there's currently only one eligible CS

1:27:26property, the one in question tonight.

1:27:28And staff did pull all of the properties

1:27:31in the CS zone that are over 50 years of

1:27:34age. So, there's 68. Some of those have

1:27:37been evaluated. And some of those 68 uh

1:27:40properties are air parcels. So, that

1:27:42leaves us with 46 unevaluated

1:27:45properties. So out of those 46 um if any

1:27:48of those would need to one have a

1:27:51determination to be found historic and

1:27:54to go through the process of being

1:27:56designated through city council and

1:27:57historic resources board to be eligible

1:27:59for um the same benefits that the

1:28:02current property is requesting.

1:28:07So for the sequest status here it we're

1:28:10seeking an exemption with the common

1:28:12sense uh provision and that leads me to

1:28:17the recommendation

1:28:19which is that the PTC recommend to city

1:28:23council to adopt the proposed ordinance

1:28:26by modifying those uh municipal code

1:28:29sections listed consistent with the

1:28:31applicant's request. And the applicant

1:28:34is available online for some questions.

1:28:37And with that, I can entertain any

1:28:40questions myself.

1:28:47>> Do we have any clarifying questions

1:28:48before I take public comment?

1:28:53>> I am seeing no lights. So, uh, Mr. Traa,

1:28:56are there any comments?

1:28:59>> Uh, do the chair have not received any

1:29:00public comment cards? If there's any

1:29:02member of Zoom that would like to speak

1:29:03to this item, please raise your hand.

1:29:07>> There are none.

1:29:08>> Okay, great. So, let's start with

1:29:10Commissioner James then.

1:29:14>> Um, yeah, I mean, I think this is pretty

1:29:16interesting. I love I love the uh the

1:29:18kind of innovative uh incentives and

1:29:21fundings for for uh historical

1:29:23preservation. I think that's uh uh I

1:29:26didn't know about that and I think

1:29:27that's um pretty admirable. and I loved

1:29:30reading about the history of this house.

1:29:32Um um I do have some questions about

1:29:36TDRs and and um do we know uh for a fact

1:29:40now the that the owner of this property

1:29:42would want to um not take the 2500 as

1:29:48buildable area? They want it they want

1:29:50it to be a an exchanged uh or of it put

1:29:54it on the market as a TDR if that's the

1:29:57right terminology. Well, I can't speak

1:29:59for the applicant, but based on their

1:30:00request, they're trying to seek some

1:30:02financial um kind of offsetting the cost

1:30:05of the rehabilitation. So, that would be

1:30:07implied that they would be selling that

1:30:09bonus floor area on the on the market to

1:30:12to get that. So, and they're online to

1:30:14answer a question.

1:30:16>> And do you have a sense? I mean, 32,000

1:30:18that's sort of available that kind of

1:30:20suggests there's more supply than demand

1:30:22for this. I mean, I don't want to get

1:30:24into the economics lesson, but I mean,

1:30:27you know, I guess um

1:30:30so so I was I was kind of I looked back

1:30:32to see like what the city has has sold

1:30:35some TDRs. Um and it looks like they go

1:30:40for about uh I think 300 a square foot.

1:30:43So there's this this is sort of like,

1:30:46you know, I I don't want you to accept

1:30:48my math, but just as kind of my way of

1:30:50understanding it, there's there's

1:30:51potentially like threequarters of a

1:30:52million dollars that could be sort of

1:30:56returned to historic preservation if if

1:30:59they sell the TDR or if it's exchanged,

1:31:01whatever the terminology is. So, but I

1:31:04guess so, so that's not really really

1:31:06where that math is. I don't think that's

1:31:08in the ballpark. just using what the

1:31:10city has done in that there were three

1:31:12three things I think sort of between

1:31:132015 and 2018. So I just trying to get a

1:31:16sense of like the value here and and I

1:31:19think the reason that I wanted to do

1:31:20that is I wanted to kind of make sure

1:31:23that uh there is some provision or

1:31:26assurance that that the value that would

1:31:28be uh gained from that

1:31:33would would be guaranteed to be turn

1:31:35returned to the historic preservation.

1:31:37And I didn't see anything in the

1:31:38ordinance that that so I wouldn't want

1:31:40I'm not suggesting this owner would do

1:31:42that, but I wouldn't want it be possible

1:31:44for someone to use this provision to

1:31:45strip value out of a property and then

1:31:48return a small portion of that for the

1:31:52the preservation. Does that make sense?

1:31:54>> Yes, it it does. Um just to maybe

1:31:56address a few of the things that you

1:31:58mentioned. I mean the the city doesn't

1:32:00track say the actual um cost of of the

1:32:03TDRs or say that that square footage. Or

1:32:06if you want to think about it, kind of

1:32:07bookending the process, right? We award

1:32:09it if we review a project based on

1:32:12either compliant with the Secretary of

1:32:14Interior standards, which we would be

1:32:15looking at in this case. Um, and then

1:32:18whenever that transfer does come up, say

1:32:20they find a buyer for that square

1:32:22footage, we would be doing that final

1:32:25stage of awarding that to say a subject

1:32:29site downtown that would want to use it.

1:32:31um the situation that you're describing

1:32:34wouldn't come up because the the

1:32:36property itself would have to have a

1:32:37compliant project with the Secretary of

1:32:39Interior standards in order to receive

1:32:42that that benefit of the floor area. So

1:32:46um I mean certainly they could apply for

1:32:48an application but um we would need to

1:32:51have that revised that would be

1:32:53compliant with the Secretary of Interior

1:32:54standards.

1:33:01Are you

1:33:01>> okay? Thank you.

1:33:03>> Other questions or comments?

1:33:06Commissioner Aken, then Hecman.

1:33:10>> Thank you, Chair. Yeah, not much. Uh, I

1:33:12would really like to see um

1:33:15[clears throat] this house improved and

1:33:16preserved. Um

1:33:19the location will be amusing for all

1:33:22time to come but uh but the house itself

1:33:26uh looks very much worth preserving both

1:33:29physically and for its historical

1:33:31significance. So uh however we go about

1:33:35it, it would be I think it would be nice

1:33:36to make this to make this happen. So

1:33:39really the only concerns for me are uh

1:33:43are there any potential unintended

1:33:46future consequences as other properties

1:33:49in CS um come uh designated category 1

1:33:54or two and it sounds like

1:33:58both that's not likely to be a huge

1:34:02issue and that there is a process to

1:34:04make sure that um

1:34:08the uh seismic or historic value is

1:34:12adequately preserved before um rights

1:34:15could be transferred. Um so the I guess

1:34:19the the substantive question that goes

1:34:21along with that is I think of Dames and

1:34:24Moore as having surveyed absolutely

1:34:26everything.

1:34:28So did did they identify anything in CS

1:34:31that was uh significant naturally

1:34:34significant

1:34:35>> just this property. So, um this was the

1:34:38only property that was identified in

1:34:40that kind of citywide dames and more uh

1:34:43survey. Um since then we've had some

1:34:45other development applications um come

1:34:48through that required a historic

1:34:50resource evaluation just um and

1:34:52reviewing say SQA for for those

1:34:54projects. I believe it was four or five

1:34:57that had an evaluation and they were

1:34:58determined to not be historic. though um

1:35:02that I mean remains right that the

1:35:04question say those 46 other properties

1:35:06that are unevaluated um I mean whether

1:35:09they've retained their integrity whether

1:35:11they've had building permits um you know

1:35:13that have substantively changed since

1:35:15their construction date lots of moving

1:35:18pieces would need to go forward before

1:35:21say 46 new properties would be category

1:35:24ones and twos on our inventory that

1:35:26could be available to pursue this

1:35:28expansion

1:35:30Yeah, I think you've reassured me that

1:35:32uh I shouldn't worry about this,

1:35:35but I wanted to check to make sure.

1:35:37Thank you,

1:35:38>> Mr. Hman.

1:35:41>> So, I'm I'm pretty familiar with this

1:35:42property because often when I go to

1:35:44PAMP, I go past this property and I've

1:35:47always been fascinated by the the barn

1:35:49behind the house because, you know, like

1:35:52everything's up to date in PaloAlto.

1:35:55Everything's clean. There aren't

1:35:56buildings with tarps over them, but but

1:35:59that barn behind that building is like

1:36:01you you you go by that and you're like,

1:36:04what's the story with that? Um, and so,

1:36:08you know, I understand from the staff

1:36:09report is is actually not directly part

1:36:12of of what we're looking at, but but

1:36:15mentioned in the staff report is a

1:36:16separate application to uh demo that uh

1:36:20structure. Um, so, so I I I did want to

1:36:24piggyback a little bit on Commissioner

1:36:26James's point because it's kind of a

1:36:28chicken and egg thing. If if I can sell

1:36:33my TDRs for a half million dollars and

1:36:37use that to, you know, which I don't

1:36:40have until I have it and then I can use

1:36:42that to fund the renovation. But if I

1:36:45get the money and then say, "Eh, you

1:36:47know what? I decided I didn't want to do

1:36:48the renovation. Now I've got the half

1:36:50million dollars and but this

1:36:54our TDO TDR program is older and so like

1:36:58this this issue has been

1:37:00>> dealt with

1:37:01>> dealt with somehow and so I just how

1:37:03does it work? Do you get um do you have

1:37:07to, you know, get your certificate of

1:37:08occupancy before the TDRs are issued and

1:37:11then you might have to do some

1:37:13short-term financing to to bridge until

1:37:16you can get the TDR cash from the sale?

1:37:19>> Yes. So, you would have to complete the

1:37:22uh rehab, say seismic or historic first

1:37:25and then upon completion of that, the

1:37:27city would award the that um incentive

1:37:31right for the bonus floor area. So it

1:37:33really helps offset the costs of the

1:37:35investment that the property owner would

1:37:37be putting up front. So

1:37:38>> yeah. Yeah. Okay. So that that makes

1:37:41sense. That's that's a logical way to do

1:37:43it. And like I said, you might need some

1:37:44bridge funding to to carry you through.

1:37:47Uh it does seem from this backlog of uh

1:37:51TDRs that we have 32,000 plus uh

1:37:54already, you know, basically available

1:37:56to purchase, not being purchased. Um,

1:37:58not really on topic tonight, but um, I

1:38:01think it's curious that there is square

1:38:05footage that people are not finding

1:38:08economic, uh, value to purchase to use

1:38:12downtown. Um, and so, um,

1:38:17any any gut on why that is so?

1:38:21Uh, so I I don't have an answer to it,

1:38:24but I there is um the commission may

1:38:28recall um reviewing changes to the

1:38:31downtown

1:38:33uh uh

1:38:35>> shrink wrap, put that way,

1:38:36>> the shrink wrap provision and that

1:38:39really limited uh development. So we

1:38:41have COVID and a reduction in in office

1:38:43demand downtown and then we had this

1:38:45really um restrictive shrink shrink wrap

1:38:49rule um which just you know recently

1:38:51passed through the city council. So, uh

1:38:54I think the combination of sort of the

1:38:56office market and which is what the TDRs

1:38:58can be used for and uh or commercial uh

1:39:02and um and that shrink wrap rule uh I

1:39:06think pretty much constrained um

1:39:09interest in in that program. So, uh not

1:39:13to say that it's going to pick up and

1:39:15there's going to be a demand for it, but

1:39:16uh I think those are um factors.

1:39:19>> Okay. Thank you. That's that's helpful.

1:39:21But but I I think it reflects maybe the

1:39:24reality of this concept we're talking

1:39:26about that that we're trying to

1:39:28incentivize these historic um structures

1:39:32from reinvesting and we give them these

1:39:34couple of tools. You can add more square

1:39:36footage or you can sell TDRs. But if the

1:39:39TDRs really can't be sold because

1:39:43because of other constraints on

1:39:45potential receiver sites, then we're

1:39:48only giving them the one tool. And so I

1:39:50think at some point um uh that needs to

1:39:54be uh examined to see and and maybe it

1:39:59if we are seeing the the historic

1:40:02structures rehabilitated at a good pace

1:40:04without a realistic TDR market then

1:40:07maybe it's okay that they don't have

1:40:09that tool. Um, but if we're finding

1:40:12people are not willing, you know, they

1:40:15have these sites, I can't add square

1:40:16footage. Um, and I can't realistically

1:40:20sell TDR, so I'm just got to sit on it.

1:40:22Um, then I think we have to to uh look

1:40:24at that. Um, I do note

1:40:27I'm supportive of the staff

1:40:29recommendation here. I note that that

1:40:32this already applies this, um, these

1:40:35benefits already apply to cityowned

1:40:37historic structures citywide. And I

1:40:40generally feel that if the city gets to

1:40:42do it, the private property owner should

1:40:44be able to. Um I note in the general

1:40:46plan from this uh uh excellent staff

1:40:50report that that our general our comp

1:40:53plan actually promotes that the that

1:40:56incentives be provided in all zones. And

1:40:59so uh providing them here in the CS zone

1:41:02um I think is is consistent uh with that

1:41:05as well. Um

1:41:08um I did have a couple of questions

1:41:14in the draft text

1:41:17on packet page 34.

1:41:23um

1:41:25at the top um subp part one

1:41:31seems to me

1:41:33um to conflict with 2B. 2B says all

1:41:38bonus square footage counted as square

1:41:40footage for the purpose of the project

1:41:42size limits specified in this chapter.

1:41:45But

1:41:47in one it seems to say

1:41:51um

1:41:52um the 2500 uh square foot can be added

1:41:56without having this increase count

1:41:58account count uh count toward FAR. So in

1:42:01one place it seems like it's saying it

1:42:03doesn't count and the other place it

1:42:05says like it does. And so I'm wondering

1:42:08if you if staff could look at that and

1:42:10decide if maybe some kind of clarifying

1:42:12language would be appropriate there.

1:42:16And you don't have to do that here.

1:42:18That's a feedback for staff to consider.

1:42:22Um it may not be inconsistent. I'm just

1:42:24not seeing it.

1:42:26>> Thank you.

1:42:27>> All right. And then the other one is uh

1:42:30the deleted language uh at the top of

1:42:33page 35.

1:42:36So, so, um,

1:42:40I was, you know, what's what was deleted

1:42:43is, uh, this section is only applicable

1:42:45to projects in the CD zone. We are now,

1:42:50um, if if this is approved, we're adding

1:42:52the CS zone, but but there's still the

1:42:55CN zone, which is not being added. So, I

1:42:58was wondering why are we taking this

1:43:00language out rather than adding CN to uh

1:43:05sorry CS to it so that that language so

1:43:09it clearly doesn't apply to CM.

1:43:13>> Great question. Um, so in anticipation

1:43:17of that, um,

1:43:20uh, so let's see here. We were thinking

1:43:22ahead rather than providing say a

1:43:24laundry list of what zones it could be

1:43:26provided in to kind of clean up the

1:43:28language um in in the code to just have

1:43:32it as if you go up to the sentence above

1:43:35uh the eligible sites. So it's listed uh

1:43:39explicitly in bonus floor area in that

1:43:41following section which we're not

1:43:43touching here or in these in those

1:43:45subsequent um zoning districts um that

1:43:49are that are detailed out. So rather

1:43:51than providing a list of what's already

1:43:53written out in the code um we just

1:43:56wanted to have it as eligible sites and

1:43:57then the property would know that they

1:43:59were eligible because it would be

1:44:01specified within their own zoning.

1:44:03>> Okay. So if I understand you correctly,

1:44:05today in our code, we have provisions

1:44:08similar to what we see at the top on on

1:44:10packet page 34, all this new language

1:44:12about the CD. And now we're adding this

1:44:16specific language which as it says in

1:44:17point one is about the CS, but we don't

1:44:20have anything about the CN. And so its

1:44:22absence basically means today CN doesn't

1:44:26get to use it.

1:44:27>> Correct.

1:44:28>> Okay, that that then the deletion works

1:44:30for me. Thank you for explaining it. Uh

1:44:33those

1:44:36yeah those are my comments. Thanks so

1:44:37much.

1:44:39>> Uh if I can jump in I can also just

1:44:42explain the apparent inconsistency on

1:44:45you know what counts for F. Um our

1:44:48commercial zones have limits on certain

1:44:51types of uses. So that is um

1:44:56uh that is the project size limit that's

1:45:00referred to where the F does count. Um

1:45:03so you can't if we have for example a

1:45:0510,000 foot limit on a particular type

1:45:08of establishment, you can't exceed that

1:45:10but you can have your structure be

1:45:12larger. You just establish different use

1:45:15uh in that additional square footage.

1:45:24So I I think Mr. Yang, what you're

1:45:26saying is for the reasons you just

1:45:28explained it's not inconsistent.

1:45:31>> That's right.

1:45:33[laughter]

1:45:34>> Okay. Um I'm I'm

1:45:39one's one is um

1:45:42there's a a I was just repeating sort of

1:45:45what Albert had said there. there. Our

1:45:47code has limits on how big an office

1:45:49could be. For instance, in this ES zone,

1:45:51you can't exceed that 5,000 square foot

1:45:53limit. Um, you can't use TDRs to exceed

1:45:56that limit. But your F for that site

1:45:59might be 0.4

1:46:02and you you could exceed that with the

1:46:05TDRs, but you couldn't exceed it beyond

1:46:072.0.

1:46:09>> Okay. So really then the the key I'm

1:46:12need to be focused on is is subp part

1:46:15one at the top is a reference to F

1:46:18whereas

1:46:20uh 2B is a reference to project size

1:46:23limits

1:46:25which would involve like a 10,000 foot

1:46:27cap on a particular use.

1:46:29>> Yeah. And and uh maybe what we can do is

1:46:31take a look at that and see if we can

1:46:33refine that language so where we're

1:46:34tying it back to the the land use

1:46:36limitation that's set forth in the code.

1:46:38>> Okay. I think I think that might be

1:46:40useful. All right. Thanks.

1:46:45>> Before we go, I think uh Commissioner

1:46:47James had a second round comment, but

1:46:49didn't know if anybody else had first

1:46:50round before we do that.

1:46:52>> Go ahead, Commissioner James.

1:46:55>> Just one other thought, um, which is

1:46:57that for me the the most uh uh

1:47:03interesting part of this of this

1:47:05historical structure is kind of the

1:47:07narrative history. Um, I actually find

1:47:09it a little more compelling than the

1:47:11architectural, you know, nature of the

1:47:13of the building itself. Um, and I feel

1:47:16like if we're going to this trouble to

1:47:19try and incentivize it for the

1:47:21betterment of the public, it would be

1:47:22kind of great if we could um require or

1:47:26encourage a historical marker because

1:47:28most of the public is not going to know

1:47:30that history walking by that by that

1:47:32house. But it would be kind of great and

1:47:34particularly because it's so far out of

1:47:36context, right, with all the other

1:47:37buildings around it. It's like you kind

1:47:39of look at it and go, "What's that?" And

1:47:41it would be really great if if we

1:47:44weren't if we were kind of celebrating

1:47:46that history and the reason that we are

1:47:48trying to incentivize preserving it. I

1:47:50think it is as much or more narrative

1:47:52than it is architectural style. I don't

1:47:56know if we can do that or not. if we

1:47:58would be willing to kind of add that to

1:48:00the to the um uh you know it could be

1:48:03just an ask a suggestion.

1:48:08It's been suggested that that I should

1:48:09offer this as a suggestion. [laughter]

1:48:11Okay, I'm happy to do that.

1:48:13>> Well, just to uh put a few thoughts here

1:48:15in in the discussion. I the applicant is

1:48:18online so they are listening. So, I

1:48:20think that's a great suggestion and

1:48:22staff will work with them when they

1:48:24apply uh for that rehab project to see

1:48:27what they can propose.

1:48:31>> All right. I'm not seeing any other

1:48:33lights. So, would somebody like to make

1:48:34a motion?

1:48:37>> Um like my light's still lit. Let's I

1:48:41I'm I uh move that we approve um the

1:48:44amendment as proposed by staff.

1:48:49Second.

1:48:51Any additional discussion?

1:48:54>> Okay, Mr. Tivera, could you call

1:48:57interrupt?

1:48:58>> Sorry.

1:48:58>> See the light. Sorry. Sorry.

1:49:00>> The clarifications discussed by

1:49:01Commissioner Hecman are assumed.

1:49:06>> Okay. Thank you. and and and let's just

1:49:08make that clear for the record that the

1:49:10vote was uh includes the uh Commissioner

1:49:13Hecman's refinement to the use category

1:49:17um F point that we discussed.

1:49:21>> Yeah, maker and secondary.

1:49:23>> Um I'm with that. I'll accept.

1:49:25>> Okay, great.

1:49:28>> Now, any other questions or discussion?

1:49:32>> All right, Mr. Divera, could you please

1:49:34call the vote?

1:49:35>> Commissioner Aken. Yes.

1:49:37>> Commissioner Hecman.

1:49:38>> Yes.

1:49:39>> Commissioner James.

1:49:40>> Yes.

1:49:41>> Commissioner Templeton.

1:49:42>> Yes.

1:49:43>> Vice Chair G.

1:49:44>> Yes.

1:49:44>> Chair Chang.

1:49:45>> Yes.

1:49:45>> Motion carry 6.

1:49:49>> Thank you. All right. So, next we have

1:49:52the approval of minutes uh for the draft

1:49:56and summary minutes for August 26th.

1:49:59>> Uh and to the chair, I just did want to

1:50:01note that uh Commissioners Templeton and

1:50:03Vice Chair G were absent for that

1:50:04meeting. So when we vote if they could

1:50:06abstain

1:50:08>> and Okay.

1:50:11Any comments? Anybody? Any public

1:50:12comments?

1:50:15>> To the chair. We have not received any

1:50:16public comments for this item.

1:50:19>> Do we have a motion?

1:50:22>> I'll move approval as revised.

1:50:24>> Second

1:50:26discussion.

1:50:28All right, let's take that vote.

1:50:31>> Commissioner James,

1:50:32>> yes. Commissioner Aken,

1:50:34>> yes.

1:50:35>> Commissioner Templeton,

1:50:37>> abstain.

1:50:38>> Commissioner Hecman,

1:50:39>> yes.

1:50:40>> Uh, Vice Chair G,

1:50:41>> abstain.

1:50:42>> Uh, Chair Chang,

1:50:43>> yes.

1:50:43>> Motion carries 402.

1:50:46>> Okay.

1:50:48Uh, now we're on to commissioner

1:50:49questions, comments, announcements, or

1:50:52future meetings and agendas.

1:50:56I don't see any lights, but I have a

1:50:58quick question. Um, so I have a question

1:51:01for well I would kind of wish this is

1:51:04director armor were here but maybe uh

1:51:06Mr. Da can also answer this. [laughter]

1:51:10Sorry. Sorry director but maybe you

1:51:13could just pass this message on to on to

1:51:15her. Um so when we receive public

1:51:21comment

1:51:23um that is that kind of requires a

1:51:27response or asks for a response often

1:51:30from staff. What is the protocol that we

1:51:33go through um before that's in the

1:51:38process right now? I think Mr. Tivera is

1:51:40batching that for us and then these

1:51:43things are coming sometimes only to the

1:51:45PTC inbox but really they should be

1:51:48directed to

1:51:51a relevant staff member.

1:51:53Um what's the process for getting to

1:51:57that relevant staff member?

1:52:00>> Yeah, so I believe we monitor that uh

1:52:02mailbox and I believe uh assistant

1:52:04director Armor does look at those and

1:52:06and uh Sam does too. So where things

1:52:09come in that and we have this for a

1:52:12similar format for the city council

1:52:13mailbox. Um we monitor that and then we

1:52:16send an email to um the staff person to

1:52:19follow up uh on that. We don't usually

1:52:23um include the um uh PTC in that reply.

1:52:28Similarly, we do not um include the city

1:52:32council when we respond to those city

1:52:33council mailboxes just to keep the

1:52:36traffic, you know, done. But we we do

1:52:38follow up on those. So I would say if

1:52:40there is one that you see and you don't

1:52:42need to do this, but from time to time

1:52:44if you are curious, hey, did staff ever

1:52:45follow up on this? You can certainly

1:52:47shoot us an email and we can we can let

1:52:48you know what this

1:52:49>> Okay. Thank you. And then is that done

1:52:51timing wise? Is that done? So a lot of

1:52:54times we don't receive like if for

1:52:58example there's a twoe gap between our

1:53:00our last meeting and our next meeting we

1:53:03might not receive the comments

1:53:06um that are

1:53:08like there's no urgency I would imagine

1:53:11for Mr. Tivera to be batching them for

1:53:13us. But if there isn't that urgency, is

1:53:17somebody still reviewing these comments

1:53:19on a regular basis um kind of in that

1:53:23two week interim?

1:53:25>> Yeah, we're not waiting for the twoe

1:53:27batch to to look at the emails. We we

1:53:29monitor that

1:53:30>> and they get forwarded on to and then

1:53:32they'll get forwarded on to not just

1:53:36planning staff but transportation staff

1:53:37if it's relevant. Correct.

1:53:39>> Correct.

1:53:39>> Okay. Thank you.

1:53:41>> And if there's like project specific

1:53:43questions for an item coming before the

1:53:45PTC, those will go to the project

1:53:46planner. But again, we don't want to

1:53:48engage this the commission in a dialogue

1:53:50about that.

1:53:51>> Yeah. No, I I just uh this last batch

1:53:54had three or four transportation

1:53:57specific

1:53:58um questions that kind of requested a

1:54:01response and it wasn't on something that

1:54:03was coming to PTC and it wasn't really

1:54:05something that PTC could answer either

1:54:08because they alluded to prior action

1:54:10taken with in this case office of

1:54:13transportation. So yeah.

1:54:15>> Okay.

1:54:16>> Can I can I just add to that? I mean the

1:54:20P2C is not the

1:54:23appropriate customer service channel for

1:54:26these departments as well. We are an

1:54:28escalation point and visibility point.

1:54:31Um but I don't think that we are the

1:54:34primary ingress to reaching staff. So I

1:54:39think you know just I not for you I'm

1:54:41not telling I I know we know here but

1:54:43just to say for anybody who's in the

1:54:45public that wants to um reach out to us

1:54:48what what what we want to do is engage

1:54:50the public on things that are coming

1:54:52before this commission. Um if somebody's

1:54:54reaching out about something that's not

1:54:57in front of us needs to reach staff. It

1:54:59sounds like that's being handled and

1:55:01it's good to verify that.

1:55:03uh just you know make sure if you're out

1:55:05there in the public um that our domain

1:55:08is generally what's in front of us or to

1:55:11escalate and make sure there's

1:55:12visibility on issues that are being

1:55:14raised.

1:55:14>> Right. And through the chair, sorry to

1:55:16cut in. Um the specific messages you

1:55:19referred to in dispatch, um just like in

1:55:21other times, um those were forwarded to

1:55:23office of transportation. Uh Director

1:55:25Armor was aware of them and we made sure

1:55:27that they got them so that they could

1:55:29reply to those people that were

1:55:31requesting feedback or comment.

1:55:34>> Right.

1:55:35Thank you.

1:55:38>> Uh we've got Vice Chair G and then Yeah,

1:55:40Vice Chair G. So I guess that might be

1:55:44an indication to staff that maybe the

1:55:46public isn't finding the appropriate

1:55:49ingress that we are having. So I'm not

1:55:51sure what that looks like, but maybe it

1:55:55means advertising the email for

1:55:56transportation to user or something. I

1:55:58don't know. Just food for thought since

1:55:59they're coming our way.

1:56:01>> Uh you know, we've talked about this

1:56:03before and we have never had the

1:56:05privilege of having director late here.

1:56:07So, now's the chance for us to just make

1:56:11sure, you know, uh, we really want this

1:56:15whole emailing scenario thing to be

1:56:17worked out. And we keep, um, being told

1:56:19it can't handle the truth. No, I'm just

1:56:22kidding. Um, they we keep being told

1:56:24that they they don't know how to manage

1:56:26um, groups and aliases uh, and having

1:56:29public access. So, what we're asking for

1:56:33and and this was very subtle. Uh, Vice

1:56:36Chair G, I appreciate that so much. Um,

1:56:39is if people were to write in to the

1:56:42planning commission, but probably should

1:56:44be also made aware through a we've

1:56:48received your email. Here's an

1:56:50autoresponse of other ways to

1:56:52communicate with us. That would be

1:56:54great. The reason that they're bypassing

1:56:56that because that doesn't exist. they're

1:56:59going directly to all of us and they're

1:57:00not getting that kind of um you know

1:57:03autoresponse from the body if that makes

1:57:05sense.

1:57:06>> So emails are coming into the PTC

1:57:08mailbox, no response because it's

1:57:10related to something or or not issues.

1:57:13>> Yeah. Uh and then they'll follow up

1:57:14individually with uh commissioners on

1:57:17>> they bypass it. Well, or they sometimes

1:57:19bypass it or they just direct copy based

1:57:22on

1:57:23>> the emails that we have on the PTC

1:57:25website and our bios and contact

1:57:27information because

1:57:30>> well, so full disclosure to everybody

1:57:32else. So, I've been

1:57:34director late heard this because we

1:57:36mentioned some of this in the um I

1:57:39mentioned some of it at the work plan

1:57:42>> uh presentation to council, but also

1:57:45I've been emailing with Chris Jensen

1:57:48uh to try and understand within the

1:57:53limits of Brown Act and public

1:57:54disclosures of public comments, how can

1:57:57we be more responsive to the public and

1:57:59they're [clears throat] working it out.

1:58:02Yeah.

1:58:02>> Okay. Uh, thank you for the comment.

1:58:04I'll I'll follow with Jennifer and

1:58:06>> responder

1:58:08for generic inboxes that has your

1:58:10generic inboxes, too. [laughter]

1:58:12>> Thank you.

1:58:16>> All right. Uh, any other comments or

1:58:19questions from commissioners?

1:58:21Okay. And now it's time for virtual

1:58:24public comment on items that are not or

1:58:28were not on the agenda tonight. Is there

1:58:30anybody who would like to speak?

1:58:32>> Uh if there's any members on Zoom that

1:58:34would like to speak uh for virtual

1:58:36public com.

1:58:40>> There are none.

1:58:41>> Okay, great. Uh so with that we are

1:58:44ajourned. Thank you everyone.

```*