Minutes for the Palo Alto PTC Study Session

8/8/2019 Minutes for the Palo Alto PTC Study Session

1/64

_____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 27, 2010 Page 1 of 64

PLANNING& TRANSPORTATION1COMMISSION2

MINUTES 34

==========MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26========== 5Wednesday, October 27, 20106

Special Meeting at 6:00 PM, Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor7 250 Hamilton Avenue8

Palo Alto, California 94301910

ROLL CALL: 6:05 PM 1112

Commissioners: Staff:13Samir Tuma - Chair Curtis Williams, Director of Planning14

Lee Lippert V-Chair Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning Official15Susan Fineberg Melissa Tronquet, Sr. Deputy City Attorney16

Eduardo Martinez Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager 17 Arthur Keller Ron Babiera, Senior Planner 18 Daniel Garber Roland Rivera, Senior Planner 19Greg Tanaka Zariah Betten, Admin. Assoc. III 20

21AGENDIZED ITEMS:221. Update on the Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass/Underpass Feasibility Study.232. Preliminary Discussion and Direction to Staff regarding the Draft California Avenue24

Concept Area Plan.25 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of October 13, 201026

27AT 6:00 PM28

29Chair Tuma: Welcome to the Wednesday, October 27, 2010 meeting of the Planning and30Transportation Commission. Secretary, please call the roll. Five present and I believe31Commissioner Garber I saw a minute ago, and I think Commissioner Martinez is on his way. I32would like to go ahead and get started nonetheless.33

34This is the point on our Agenda where if there is anybody from the public who would like to35address the Commission during Oral Communications on any item that is not in front of the36Commission tonight but is within our purview now would be the time to do that. I am not seeing37any cards. So we will go to item one.38

39ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda40with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a41speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and42Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 1543minutes.44

45 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items46added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.47


2/64


1Chair Tuma: Item one is a Study Session, which is an update on the Highway 1012Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass/Underpass Feasibility Study. I believe Staff has a presentation for3us.4

5 NEW BUSINESS.6

Study Session:781. Update on the Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass/Underpass Feasibility Study.9

10Ms. Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer, Public Works Engineering: Good evening. Thank you11for having us tonight. We have a presentation to kind of go over our steps, the process that we12have gone through to date to look at the feasibility of a year-round crossing essentially from13Embarcadero to San Antonio over Highway 101. The City hired in the spring Alta Planning &14Design, and we have here Allan Calder the Senior Planner and Landscape Architect to go15through the presentation.16

17

Our next steps are basically to try to get feedback from the Commission to kind of confirm what18 the community wanted to study. We are going to look at three potential crossings in detail. We19will get cost estimates, and hopefully take to Council a preferred crossing. The next step after20that step is to do an environmental assessment. With that I will turn it over to Alan.21

22Mr. Allan Calder, Alta Planning and Design: Good evening. Thank you for taking the time out23of your schedule to accommodate this meeting tonight. I know it is a critical night with the24Giants in the Fall Classic here.25

26I am with Alta Planning & Design. We are non-motorized transportation planners. We are very27pleased to be hired by the City of Palo Alto to assist with this feasibility study. What I would28like to do tonight is give a brief presentation of our progress to date, and then open it up to29discussion. We look forward to your viewpoints and opinions on this. We will find that very30valuable throughout the process here. With that I will just jump right on into it here.31

32We have teamed together with a number of other sub-consultants for this project. Mark Thomas33& Company is the civil and structural engineering group involved with the project. We have Joe34Bellomos Office, Bellomo Architects providing direction on some aesthetic possibilities and35some background research. We have ESA Biological who is involved with wetlands CEQA36processes that we might run into in the process.37

38So a little bit of background about the corridor. Our study corridor is actually from San Antonio39Road north to the Oregon Expressway. Along that corridor the existing conditions, we have40three crossing locations. There is the Adobe Creek undercrossing, which is open for six months41of the year, and closed for six months of the year due to the tidal and drainage conditions under42that flow area. We have the existing overcrossing north of the Oregon Expressway as well as the43Embarcadero Road overcrossing that is used to cross the 101 from a pedestrian and bicycle point44of view. Then we also have San Antonio Road, which is to the south of the site area.45

46Matadero Creek also exists along the corridor as an unimproved and inaccessible crossing47location. It is not currently maintained to the extent that the Adobe Creek undercrossing is.48


3/64


1So the Highway 101 has been identified as a major barrier for walking and bicycling in the2eastern Palo Alto area as well as providing a disconnect between the Baylands and the citys3neighborhoods. It has been identified as such in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. There was a call4for improving pedestrian and bicycle access between local destinations as well as the Palo Alto5Bicycle Transportation Master Plan of 2003 where they called for a new and improved all year-6

round Highway 101 under or overcrossing near San Antonio Road.78So we were able to a little bit of research with regards to some other facilities in the region that9are comparable. This here is the Highway 101 overcrossing that was recently constructed in102009 at Matilda. It is a very simple, utilitarian design. It is a U configuration. It ties into the11existing frontage roads and has sound walls as well. So we have identified both soft and hard12costs here. As you all most likely are aware soft are design and engineering costs, and the hard13costs are the construction costs. So this particular overcrossing cost $900,000 in engineering and14design soft costs, and $3.6 million in construction costs. Here is aerial image of the15overcrossing.16

17

Then we have Mary Avenue in Cupertino, which is also a recent construction. This is a more18 elaborate and decorative crossing facility. Interestingly, the city negotiated ownership of this19bridge. It allowed them to do a number of improvements over and above I believe Caltrans20requirements so this was a more expensive construction. It was $7.0 million in both soft and21hard costs.22

23This is the Larkspur Ferry connector in Marin County. It says un-built, but there are24preliminary plans for this overcrossing. This was $14.5 million. It is about 1,000 linear feet of 25bridge. This was $5.0 million in soft cost and $9.5 million in hard costs.26

27This is the overcrossing in Berkeley across University Avenue, built in February 2002 for $12.428million. This does meet Caltrans design specs. It is $6.0 million in soft cost and $6.4 in hard29costs.30

31This is a recent undercrossing that was constructed along Stevens Creek. Now the Palo Alto32Adobe or perhaps Matadero would be a rehabilitation of an existing facility. This here is a brand33new undercrossing. So this was tunneled out for construction. They did incorporate skylights34for natural lighting as well as electrical lighting. You can see it is quite illuminated. This was a35cost of $3.3 million.36

37This is also un-built but recent, Permanente Creek in Mountain View will be a combination38under and overcrossing. It will go under Middlefield and over the 101. This is approximately a39mile south of San Antonio Road. It is identified as about $9.5 million in a fairly favorable40bidding atmosphere. So it is $1.2 million in soft cost and $8.3 million in hard cost.41

42This also is a recent undercrossing from 1997, but it is a very similar condition to Adobe or43Matadero in that this is an undercrossing under 101 that has a trail under it. It has breakaway44railings that meet the Santa Clara Valley Water District needs. At high water events they like to45have the rails removed to preclude any kind of obstruction for flows. It is open year-round but46subject to seasonal flooding. The difference between this and Adobe and Matadero are that we47on these two sites are very much closer to the bay than this particular site is. So this is signed for48


4/64


year-round opening but it is closed subject to seasonal flooding. So it is a little bit different, a1little bit farther away basically is what it amounts to.2

3Now here is a conceptual rendering that Joe Bellomo put together for our overcrossing.4Interestingly an overcrossing has the ability to create an iconic structure for the City of Palo Alto5to provide distinction along the 101 corridor. It also allows the users, both pedestrians and6

bicyclists, to get an aerial view of the Baylands, which is actually extraordinary. The Baylands7 are quite beautiful, as you all know, and quite an asset to the community.89

So with that we did an initial site visit with our team, and we identified all the potential locations10we felt initially that could support an overcrossing location or perhaps an undercrossing. What11we understand about undercrossings like the Stevens Creek project is that Caltrans does not like12or support brand new tunneling, undercrossings. It has to do with 9/11 is what we understand.13They will entertain the idea of upgrading existing crossings but they dont like to create new14ones. So this was a focus on the two existing undercrossings as well as the potential locations15for new overcrossings.16

17

So we identified 12. We threw the kitchen sink at it. What could accommodate the conditions18 for an overcrossing? Importantly, what is required is very extensive ramping is what it amounts19to. We have to get 18 feet, six inches clear above the 101 roadway and then another foot and a20half or two feet for decking for the bridge itself. To get up to that elevation at a ramp that is21acceptable by Americans with Disabilities Act standards, which is five percent, we have run the22ramp 400 feet long. So it is quite a long ramp on both sides. So that is basically the23configuration you are seeing here on these 12 alignments.24

25So after we had those we worked very closely with City Staff and went through an evaluation26criteria matrix. It was an opportunity through this matrix to prioritize criteria for these particular27crossings. Which crossing locations met safety concerns? Which provided the biggest appeal to28different user groups and abilities? Which had the lowest environmental impacts, and complied29with existing plans? Which ones looked good, had good aesthetics? Which ones were high cost,30and which ones were low cost? Which ones were visible both from a user point of view, and a31community point of view? Which ones disrupted the auxiliary lane project, which we anticipate32will be happening along the 101 corridor? Which ones were convenient? So with that we ran33that through this filter and came up with a priority list of five suggested crossing locations. This34includes the two existing undercrossings, Adobe and Matadero, and then three potential35overcrossing locations, which are one at Adobe Creek, one at Loma Verde Avenue, and one at36roughly the Matadero area. These were the three crossing zones that we honed in on with the37five locations that we presented to the general public in public meeting number one.38

39We were able to generate, and I believe in your packets you received some information about the40Seamless Study. We were able to run the Seamless Study on the locations and what we found is41that the zones D and E would accommodate 55 percent of the projected trail users, both42pedestrians and bikes.43

44So with that we went to the public and we had a very good turnout, what we felt was a very good45turnout, 50-plus people showed up, a very interested and passionate crowd. We had a very good46dialogue and discussion all night long about the project and issues associated with it. We had a47number of folks that biked to the meeting. Very good turnout. We broke out into three different48


5/64


groups in those three zones that I just showed, and had a very robust discussion around the pros1and cons of each of those three zones and the pros and cons for each of the five crossing2locations.3

4One of the last things we did before we let everybody leave for the evening is we had them vote.5We said, now with knowing what you know, and what we know, which do you prefer and which6

do you not prefer. We got a pretty clear direction that came out of that, which were these three7 top alignments. E, which is the Adobe Creek Undercrossing, came up as number one. D, which8was the Adobe Creek Overcrossing, came up as the second choice, and A, which was the9Matadero Creek Undercrossing, came up as the third.10

11So here in detail, this orange alignment here is the existing undercrossing location for Adobe12Creek. This purple line here actually represents a 60 KV line that is overhead. A little bit of a13challenge in that PG&E requires 12 feet clear from the bottom of their lines, which tend to move14in weather, colder they are tighter and hotter they are lower. They require 12 feet clear from the15bottom of their lines to the top of any bridge facility that we would incorporate here. So what16this orange, or rust/orange, line represents is the alignment for the overcrossing. Now I will just17

point out that this is actually a slight departure from what was presented to the public only in that18 we have incorporated some of the publics comments here on this alignment. We originally had19the ramp running north from this location, and we found out very clearly through the public that2095 percent of the people who cross Adobe go north to access the trails over to the Shoreline21Amphitheater area, to Google into it, and to NASA. So instead of running the ramp north we22took it to the east. Assuming, as many of you know, this is the San Francisco Bay Trail that runs23through here that if somebody did want to get back onto that facility they could actually get off 24the ramp, come back, there is an existing bridge here, and they can get back onto the Bay Trail25System. So that exists as well.26

27So with that we looked at the pros and cons of each of these and I will start with the Adobe28Creek Undercrossing. So pros with the Adobe Creek is that construction would not conflict with29the 60 KV overhead wires. It is an existing improved facility. It is the southernmost location,30which tended to be preferred by folks who lived in the area. It is deemed to accommodate the31highest number of users through the Seamless Study, and it is an anticipated lower cost because32it is an undercrossing as opposed to an overcrossing.33

34Now, what are the cons associated with it? It is subject to flooding at high water events. We35have met with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and we feel that if this undercrossing is to36be pursued that a detailed operations and management plan would need to be put in place to37close and reopen the crossing at high water events, and provide cleanup and maintenance after38that event before it would be opened again. There would need to be a determination of a39responsible party as to whether it was the City DPW that took that maintenance on or whether it40was a private consultant. There is additional hydraulic analysis that may be required. We are41anticipating some improvements under this area that could potentially mitigate a five-year event42such as a short stem wall along the trail edge that would keep water out of the trail system. It has43been done in other areas. We saw an example in Boulder, Colorado where they did this, and it44might be applicable here. So in order to do so there is a bit of a hydrologic analysis that needs to45be conducted in order to make that right. Flooding did occur in this area in 1998 with the San46Francisquito Creek. It was offsite but it affected this area. The auxiliary lane project will cover47up the two existing skylights that exist between east and west Bayshore and the Highway 101.48


6/64


7/64


101 in all three zones to be 69 daily pedestrians and 88 bicyclists. So I just want to clarify those1two numbers. It says 104 and something else. Anyway, that is from the Seamless Model that is2a proprietary model developed by the firm. That is just one tool to look at what is the most used3crossing potentially. So it is just one tool to look at. With that that concludes it, thank you.4

5Chair Tuma: Okay, great, thank you very much. With this being a Study Session and having6

somewhat limited time I think we are going to go first to the public and then we will come back 7 to the Commission. At this point I have one card. Each member of the public will be given five8minutes, given the number of people that we have. The one card I have is from John Abraham.9Welcome, John.10

11Mr. John Abraham, Palo Alto: Thank you very much. As a user of the existing Adobe Creek 12Underpass I find that perfectly acceptable. I do think this is being rushed through a bit too13quickly. There doesnt seem to be too much controversy about that. Any of these plans would14be fine except that they have considerable cost. I do think it makes sense to go for a low cost15thing so that something will happen in the foreseeable future.16

17

I remember I was in the focus group for the library and Staff did not want to talk about cost.18 Finally they were bugged to the extent they had to reply, and they say well look, just assume the19money is there. Fifty million, $100 million, just make that assumption. I kind of think we are in20the same bag here. We still dont have a library. When this gets to the Council or wherever21people are going to say why are we spending money on a pedestrian overpass or whatever and22we dont have a police building? So this is a tough sell to get money for it so far as I can see.23That is one real problem. So I would go for cheap. Apparently the underpass is cheapest of the24three. It is perfectly acceptable to me.25

26The real objection I have is that in the interim getting across 101 is shutdown. It is shutdown27now. You cant get across except if you want to you can go to Matadero. If you are feeling28daring you can go over the railing and go to the underpass that is open night and day. The word29unimproved is probably a kindly word for that.30

31What I would really like to see you do is ask Staff for an interim plan so that you can it doesnt32have to be fancy. For example, rather than have it shutdown completely right now go for33Matadero and put some dirt up next to the wall in the back, or in any convenient location, so you34can walk up to that, put your bicycle over and go down the path. The other problem is you have35a path that is very steep with gravel on it. So you are taking your life you are going to get an36injury if you are careless, and you are going to get back injuries if you have to bring your bicycle37over the wall. So I would appreciate it if you would get the Staff to do some kind of interim plan38very simple, very simple. Alternatively leave Adobe Creek open all year and just let it be up to39the user to get through, and dont make a big deal or expensive deal out of maintaining it. I feel40that there is no emphasis on the present. The upshot will be well, lets just let things go like they41are, which is unsatisfactory. That is my objection. If you have the money or you can get the42money fine, but in the meanwhile nothing is happening. You cant get across there. It is not43practical to go across unless you want to take some changes. Thank you.44

45Chair Tuma: Thank you. Seeing no other cards or members of the public we will come back to46the Commission. Lets just go around the table. Commissioner Keller, do you want to get us47started? This is an opportunity for both questions and comments with an eye again towards48


8/64


hopefully wrapping this up. The next item is supposed to start at seven oclock. We could go1later but we will see how we do. Yes, five minutes each to start.2

3Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So the first question I have is is Matadero undercrossing a4legal crossing? Are people technically trespassing on Santa Clara Valley Water District land and5doing so illegally?6

7 Ms. Ames: That is correct. It is not a legal, accessible crossing at this time. Matadero is not.89

Commissioner Keller: With respect to Adobe Creek am I correct in the assumption that the10reason that the Adobe Creek undercrossing is closed for the period of time it is is because the11Santa Clara Valley Water District does not want to worry about the liability or expense involved12in opening it or closing it at certain times?13

14Ms. Ames: My understanding is it is the Citys liability if we decide to open the crossing during15the winter months. I believe that the City would have to go in and close it, and if we wanted to16open it we would have to maintain that and it would be our responsibility.17

18 Commissioner Keller: When the undercrossing is closed for the winter are all the fences19separating the undercrossing and the rest of the channel removed in order to allow is there any20fencing? Is anything removed or is that just the way it is?21

22Ms. Ames: I am not certain what happens during the winter. I believe that they just close it off 23at the top and they leave it as it is down below. I am not sure if anybody, maybe Holly would24you know that?25

26Chair Tuma: Excuse me, you have to speak on microphone, and identify yourself for the record,27please.28

29Ms. Holly Boyd, Project Engineer, Public Works Engineering: Public Works Operations does go30in and remove the fencing that separates the pathway from the creek channel and then closes it31off at each entrance.32

33Commissioner Keller: I assume the purpose of that is to allow for overflow in the case of a flood34so that branches or trees or other debris is not caught by the fencing.35

36Ms. Boyd: Right, correct.37

38Commissioner Keller: So if the undercrossing were to be extended for more of the period of 39time during the winter then presumably there would be an obligation by some entity, presumably40the City unless some other entity were to take it on, so that when a storm event was predicted41then the internal fencing would be removed and the site would be closed. Then later when the42storm event passed then to put back the fencing separating the underpass from the rest of the43channel and opening the crossing. Is that a reasonable assumption?44

45Ms. Boyd: Yes, but we are still evaluating the possibility of a more permanent structure, either a46small stem wall with removable handrails or something like that that may be different than the47fencing, but they would have to go in there and remove it each time it opened and closed.48


9/64


1Commissioner Keller: So we can have an undercrossing that might improve it and allow it to be2open for somewhat more period of time. Any undercrossing could not be open for a full 3653days a year because it would have to be closed during expected major storm events, but it would4be less expensive and more secure if we built the short wall. Is that the idea?5

6

Ms. Boyd: Less expensive than?78Commissioner Keller: Than an overpass would be.9

10Ms. Boyd: Yes, that is what we expect.11

12Ms. Ames: I just want to clarify. It would be cheaper to do some rehabilitation to the13undercrossing but the problem is it would have to be closed during those winter storms. It would14have to be monitored. Then we would have to go in there and clean it up. So there is potentially,15depending on the type of year, the wet season that we have, it could be closed five to ten times16we are thinking. We are just looking at the storm data to kind of asses what this would mean, but17

it is potentially going to be closed we are thinking maybe two to three months even if we do the18 rehabilitation. So we are still studying this but it is not going to be accessible like you were19saying all winter.20

21Commissioner Keller: So since I have limited time let me ask one last question. To what extent22is it possible to relocate or adjust the 60 KV line over the freeway, over 101, in such a way that23the western portion of the ramp didnt have to have such a funny crook in it and could be24extended down Adobe Creek? Is that something that is possible or is that something that is25infeasible?26

27Ms. Ames: I have not had conversations with PG&E but I think PG&E might be open to28something to move a pole. It would be rather expensive but I dont think it is off the table.29Allan, do you have any comment on that?30

31Mr. Calder: I have not had discussions with PG&E on that, but we could look into it.32

33Commissioner Keller: I think that might increase the usability of it if it extended down Adobe34Creek perhaps, as well as it could have the potential for having a more aesthetically appropriate35and usable facility. So I would suggest evaluating that. Thank you.36

37Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg.38

39Commissioner Fineberg: Can you show us on the map where the 60 KV power lines are? You40showed us the 125 KV lines that were on the eastern or the bay side of the highway.41

42Mr. Calder: Yes.43

44Commissioner Fineberg: I am wondering, are they the ones behind the Sterling Canal?45

46Mr. Calder: Yes.47

48


10/64


Commissioner Fineberg: They are behind the first commercial properties and behind the canal?12

Mr. Calder: Yes, they are right here represented in this purple line. So there is the Sterling3Canal along I believe it is the north or the east side over here.4

5Commissioner Fineberg: The reason I am asking about that, and maybe Staff can confirm, but6

several years ago when there was discussion of PG&E trimming the eucalyptus trees behind a7 new project, Classic Communities at Sterling, I believe there was discussion that PG&E is not8running power through those lines but that they maintain them at some very small amount so9they stay active and could restore usage. Director Williams, do you have any recollection of 10that? I am remembering that they were preserving their right, preserving their easements, but not11running high voltage through it. So I dont know if that would change how it progresses. It12might be worth, early on in design stage, confirming if PG&E is using them, if PG&E needs to13continue to use, if PG&E would be willing to give them up if they are planning on not using14them. We can leave it for later to have that confirmed what the current and future status is.15

16So here is a pie in the sky question. I dont want to give it up yet until you tell me no. You have17

talked about the undercrossing at Adobe Creek being the most desired by the public. Having18 lived in that area I would venture to guess that the reason that is the most desirable area is19because that is what everybody is used to using now. They want what they have now, and they20want better than what they have now, which would mean year-round and safer. In order of sort21of ranked priorities the further you get away in either direction, north or south, from what people22are used to is less desirable because your users use what is there now. So going to that third23alternative, I believe it was A, is the furthest north. It is the closest to the alternative that exists.24If someone wants to safely get over Highway 101 on a bike during the rainy season their two25choices are taking their lives in their hands and using San Antonio, or going north to Oregon26Expressway and using the overpass, which I have done with five-year-olds and you need to be27careful crossing streets but it is pretty safe. So having something farther north still leaves people28further south without alternatives, and then two alternatives like up by Greer Park, they are fairly29close. So in ranked priorities having two close to each other and nothing further that I dont30think serves the most people the best. So keeping it further south I think has, in terms of 31location, a tremendous advantage.32

33Now, getting back to my pie in the sky. If you are staying then with that Adobe Creek location34because it is simply better, would there be a possibility for some kind of widening of what is35under there so you dont decrease the flow for the water, and putting a waterproof tube in that36undercrossing? If BART can go under the bay it cant be a huge engineering feat to put a37waterproof tube under a short span of a highway. That would keep it out of the water even if the38water was above the level of the tube. It would mean people couldnt fall in. It would mean the39City wouldnt have to maintain it, wouldnt have to clean the mud, wouldnt have to open and40close it. It might increase the cost slightly but it would mean it could be a true year-round and41safe underground alternative.42

43I dont know if it is feasible. I dont know if the cost is realistic. But coming back and saying44we are going to have a year-round alternative, but we are going to have to close it when there is45high water that is marginally better than what we have now. It means you would pickup46October, November, December, January, February, March, April, and part of May but it is a lot47of cost for only a little better.48


11/64


1I have one more quick thing if I could. For future conversations with stakeholders can we make2sure that we are getting input, feedback, whatever from folks from Google and folks from the3International School of the Peninsula, ISTP? Google when they put their childcare facility in4talked about people with little trailers with kids wanting to use that crossing. So we know there5is a large population that are young and active and have little kids that might use that, and the6

same with ISTP. They are the school right behind the post office. Those would be two huge7 groups that would use it, the Monday to Friday, not the recreational bikers on weekends. I dont8know if those two groups were included in your models if that would change anything, but9please make sure that the Google staff and ISTP are factored into considerations. Thanks.10

11Mr. Calder: Thank you.12

13Chair Tuma: Vice-Chair Lippert.14

15Vice-Chair Lippert: Do you have any idea as to what base flood elevation is in that area?16

17

Mr. Calder: We found out that the elevation at the creek path level is two and a half feet above18 sea level. We are basically at sea level through here because the tides meet the watershed of 19Adobe Creek, and Adobe Creek goes way up into Los Altos Hills and drains. A 14 square mile20watershed comes right through Adobe Creek. Then a similar amount comes right through21Matadero Creek.22

23Vice-Chair Lippert: So during the time of the 1998 floods that we had Bayshore Freeway was24pretty much flooded. So my guess is that under the bridge would be under water, correct?25

26Ms. Ames: That is correct. I believe that was a 100-year storm. If not it was very close to that.27I believe San Francisquito Creek overtopped and flooded areas as well.28

29Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. They are talking about with global warming what we previously30experienced as a 100-year flood will now become what we consider to be a ten-year flood. So in31other words it is going to be a ten-year reoccurrence. Is that something that you have heard32about?33

34Mr. Calder: I am sorry no I have not heard that. We have been aware of rising sea levels is the35discussion that many of the planning organizations are taking into consideration, but that36frequency I have not heard.37

38Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, whether it is rumor or anecdotal I think it is worth checking out,39because I think that is going to have a lot of bearing on the overall solution.40

41Ms. Ames: I thought I had read something that it might increase the bay elevation by a foot over42the next 100 years or something like that. I have heard figures but it is really hard to determine.43

44Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. So that is just something to be aware of. With regard to I guess a45five year flood and a ten-year flood what is important here is I guess if we are looking at an46undercrossing and that is impassible, but if we have the bridge that comes overhead and you47cant get a ramp then that is also impassible. Then if the park itself is inundated then it is not a48


12/64


route to be used anyway. So I think that in terms of elevation that is real important to sort of take1a look at with regard to these studies to see. Where I am going with this is I am inclined to lean2towards the under-passing solution, the low-cost solution, and the least impactful solution as3long as it is something that is going to be workable. The question really is what is going to be4the real use? If in fact the tidal area is inundated and it is not used for commuting well then it5doesnt make a difference whether you have a bridge there or whether you have an under-passing6

there it is just not going to be used. However, what I am also thinking is that we already have7 two bridges that cross over 101 that in fact if the under-passing is inundated there is an8alternative route. I am a cyclist. I know that I sometimes have to go maybe a mile and a half out9of my way if I want to get from point A to point B. That is something that you plan for, and I10dont think we are looking at a mile out the way here.11

12Then the last point that I want to make, because I about 60 seconds left, is with construction13costs the way they are right now and where bids are coming in and everything with the low cost14solution we may be able to get a two-for. If you have two different methods of construction, in15other words a bridge structure and an under-passing there is no efficiency in construction. If you16were to look at two under-passings you might be able to get those two under-passings at a17

reasonable cost because there are efficiencies because you are doing the same sort of work, the18 same sort of engineering at both Matadero and Adobe Creek. So your buck might go a little bit19further. So that is something I think worth exploring or looking at. Thank you.20

21Chair Tuma: Commissioner Tanaka.22

23Commissioner Tanaka: So I would like to thank Staff and our consultant for your work, and also24thank Mr. Abraham for your comments. I have a few questions for Staff. For any of these25alternatives who pays for it? Where does the money come from?26

27Ms. Ames: Currently there is no funding for the design and construction. We only have funding28for an environmental assessment, which is some design I should say, in order to do the29environmental assessment we might at a 30 percent design. That is the only funding that we30have. I believe that there is a funding plan for the 20 years. This project is listed on some 20-31year transportation plan. I dont know Curtis, can you help?32

33Mr. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment: Yes, thank you34Commissioner Tanaka. The VTA, Valley Transportation Authority, long range transportation35plan includes list of projects that will have some priority for funding when and if funding36becomes available. I am not sure of the exact amount but I think there is something on the order37of $12.0 million or something like that for a pedestrian/bike bridge at 101 on that list. There is38no money for it right now but we have started to look at grant opportunities and that kind of 39thing. So our anticipation is that we would be looking at a City match portion, which obviously40is less if it is the undercrossing than if it is the bridge. That would be the way we most likely41would be able to fund this. Obviously, no time in the near future could we pay for the whole42thing.43

44Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, great, thank you.45

46Chair Tuma: Let me just interject a clarification on that before we lose that point. You said47there is a City match component. Right before that you had talked about other grants we might48


13/64


pursue, is that the context when you are talking about a City grant or the pot of money that is out1there from VTA?2

3Mr. Williams: Well, the VTA funding or just about any kind of grant funding requires the City4to match like 20 percent, pay 20 percent essentially of the cost. So there is a dollar commitment.5So it would be something along those lines.6

7 Chair Tuma: Okay, thanks.89

Commissioner Tanaka: So does it help to have a project that is shovel ready per se or does it not10matter when you apply for these grants?11

12Mr. Williams: Yes, definitely. They are going to be looking at having at least some level of 13design in place, having the environmental review done, those things are pretty much prerequisite.14It is not going to be 100 percent design but it might be 35 percent or something like that design15so that they know that it is a real project, and that the estimates on the costs are accurate.16

17

Commissioner Tanaka: I see, okay. So for that reason this makes sense even though we dont18 have the money today to pay for it.1920

Do we have any idea of the rough cost difference between these different options? Roughly how21much it is going to cost? I know you have kind of a qualitative feel, but do you have more of a22quantitative ballpark figure as to what these options cost?23

24Mr. Calder: I can add to that Elizabeth, if you would like. We are obviously in the midst of 25studying which options would go forward. We will cost these three options, the two26undercrossing improvements as well the overcrossing. The overcrossing itself you can see in the27examples that I showed can range quite a bit from a very simple aesthetic approach, more28functional and utilitarian, to more aesthetic and iconic. So the range on the overcrossings I think 29we are going to see something between I think a total of $4.0 to $6.0 million on the low end to30$12 to $14 million on the high end depending on the ultimate goal of the overcrossing. The31undercrossings I think could be as little as in the $1.0 million range to roughly $4.0 million32range. Order of magnitude wise the high end of the tunnel could be the low bridge option.33

34Commissioner Tanaka: I see okay great. Thank you for that range. So lets look at the35undercrossing that seems to be the public preferred option. For this $1.0 to $4.0 million, and36correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like we get something that is open not just six months of 37the year, it is open maybe eight to ten months of the year or something on that order. So we get a38few more months of service and perhaps better lighting for $1.0 to $4.0 million. Is that correct?39

40Mr. Calder: I would be hesitant to commit to that number at this point because we just dont41have all the answers. That is the ballpark that we are looking at. The cost that is not included42there is an ongoing annual operations and maintenance cost that would be in addition to just the43capital cost of the project. There are actually ongoing operations.44

45Commissioner Tanaka: Yes, it seems like a lot of money for an incremental improvement.46

47


14/64


Have you considered just a more labor intensive approach of leaving it open year-round and just1using forecasting and putting in the gates and taking them out, and have that cost comparison2between this $1.0 to $4.0 million versus just the more labor intensive cleanup, put the gates in,3and that kind of stuff? Have you done that estimate if you were to do that year-round how much4that would cost?5

6

Mr. Calder: That is a valid point. We have not provided that cost but we could put our hands7 around those numbers.89

Commissioner Tanaka: I think that would be very interesting to see. If you factor in doing all10this extra work for this underpass and get it open only for a few more months, and you still have11to do maintenance on it versus just leave it the way it is and put more manpower on it. I know12that doesnt get us the VTA grant but maybe the VTA grant is for the new bridge across 10113perhaps. Thank you.14

15Mr. Calder: Thank you.16

17

Chair Tuma: Thank you. Commissioner Garber.1819Commissioner Garber: It may have been in the report but I am not recalling. Was there an20analysis of how many people use the underpass right now? That is the existing, how many21people use that daily?22

23Mr. Calder: No, we actually did have onsite counts in three locations for a two-hour period24during an evening commute during the high season, which was the summer. So we did get25numbers along those lines. Those can be extrapolated into annual counts. There are a number of 26ways to go about that. One was the seamless study that includes employment density, population27density, and then the Class 1 facilities in the area.28

29Commissioner Garber: Let me interrupt. I understand how you create your projection. I am30curious about what you actually found. Do you have any data on that?31

32Mr. Calder: We do. I do have that summarized and I could surely provide that to you.33

34Commissioner Garber: Is it more or less than the number that you have projected?35

36Mr. Calder: It is actually very close to the projection. It is a small number because it is only a37fraction. It is a one-day snapshot of the annual.38

39Commissioner Garber: Understood. It gives you confidence that your model is not in fact far40off.41

42Mr. Calder: Right.43

44Commissioner Garber: Do you know what the daily use is for the Embarcadero overpass?45

46


15/64


Mr. Calder: Again, we did counts there on that. We did it at San Antonio, at Adobe1undercrossing, and the overcrossing at north of Oregon Expressway. We could extrapolate that2into an annual but we did just get a two-hour pocket.3

4Commissioner Garber: Do you recall what those numbers were?5

6

Mr. Calder: I dont have them handy but we can get them to you.78Commissioner Garber: Just a couple of comments, real generally, and then if necessary I can9come back. In general, I find myself aligned with it sounds like the results of your work session10supporting the development of E, D, and then A. It seems to me though that this is a speculative11development at best given that we do not have a funding source. So my support is based on there12being one, but as has been suggested by one of the members of the public that spoke, I really13cant imagine that happening at the detriment or taking that money away from something else14that is happening in the City. If money were found for this that didnt impact other priorities in15the City it would be very easy for me to imagine.16

17

I do have one suggestion and that is for D, if D were actually chosen, and money could be found18 for it. If I am understanding correctly D is the overpass over Adobe Creek. Rather that the19design for the bridge be done as a design competition, and that the competition be not just for20design but be the complete package, so that there is a design team in place that would include a21contractor as well as potentially the financing source, and that the teams then are or you create a22competition around those teams such that the City could do this as a turnkey operation,23potentially realize some savings there. That is all I have for the moment.24

25Chair Tuma: Commissioner Martinez.26

27Commissioner Martinez: You mentioned the operating cost, which was something I was curious28about. Do you have a sense of the difference between a bridge and a tunnel?29

30Mr. Calder: With regards to operations?31

32Commissioner Martinez: Yes.33

34Mr. Calder: The overcrossings are going to be your basic maintenance but much lower35maintenance and involved with manpower from a manpower point of view than an undercrossing36operation and maintenance plan would be. You have your basic painting and upkeep, graffiti37repair, etc., but that is a very low cost. I would say on an annual basis an overcrossing would be38as opposed to the undercrossing. The undercrossing is more intensive actually just for months of 39the year really. There are nine months of the year the undercrossing is actually fairly low40maintenance too. It is just during the storm events where you would find your higher41maintenance costs on the undercrossing.42

43Commissioner Martinez: That is what I figured. I would think that for bikers the overcrossing44would be more appealing, more of a pleasant kind of thing. The problem that I have with the45overcrossing is two fold. One is those 400-foot ramps that parallel the side of the freeway46regardless of the design make it heavy. If you look at on 85 the Homestead kind of curved47overcrossing is fairly ugly. The new Caltrain overcrossings by the Oakland Airport are just48


16/64


humungous. I also find that they seem to be in the wrong place. Maybe that is just the nature of 1them. The Merry Street overcrossing is beautiful but as you are driving, I know that is not the2most important thing but we talked about it as a signature, it just appears out of nowhere. It3doesnt seem like it is a signature for Cupertino or it is some kind of icon. It is just a beautiful4bridge that just kind of dropped from the sky. Similarly with this location, Adobe Creek, I am5not sure I would want my signature icon for Palo Alto there. So the appeal is kind of going away6

for me of having this beautiful bridge kind of having its presence near San Antonio Road.78I look at the cost and I wasnt really clear. It looked like in some cases your soft costs and your9

hard costs were almost identical. Did I miss something?1011

Mr. Calder: No, that is true. I think environmental comes into play on many things. It is the12impact. CEQA is a big process.13

14Commissioner Martinez: Yes, that is extraordinary. I think I am in the wrong business. So I15tend to come back to what our public speaker had to say. Even Commissioner Fineberg16suggested another tunnel is probably going to be far less expensive than trying to build this17

bridge that we would all feel becomes part of Palo Alto. Thank you.1819Chair Tuma: I have just a few comments. I would just come right in on the tail of what20Commissioner Martinez just said. To be honest with you where the $14 million comes from,21how much of it comes from Palo Alto or wherever, or $10 million or something in that number,22to me it seems almost absurd that we are having a discussion about spending that kind of money23in this kind of climate or even in the next five years regardless of where those funds come from24for an overcrossing. I dont know maybe only in the Bay Area. You go outside the Bay Area25and these types of dollars to be expended on these types of things seems excessive to me. So tat26is sort of a general comment.27

28I think the tube idea is something that should be looked into as a potential. I think Commissioner29Tanaka makes a very good point about costing out what would be involved in sort of a more30manual way of making it work.31

32I also think it would be very good to know, we have these Seamless Travel Model numbers, and33I cant figure out how those vary seasonally. So intuitively it says to me that in the months that34we would be talking about potentially this being closed or flooded I would think we would have35less pedestrians, we would have less bicyclists, fewer people out and about in those modes of 36transportation during the winter months. So what is the real impact of not having that open37during those months? I am sure it is some, but is spending millions of dollars to solve that38problem where we ought to be putting our money? To me it seems out of balance. Maybe that is39

just me. That is all I have.4041

I have a couple of people who have indicated they would like to make a few follow up42comments. Commissioner Fineberg and then Keller.43

44Commissioner Fineberg: I just want to talk for a minute about the winter flooding in the existing45conditions. There was some mention that in the 1998 floods the walls of the creeks overtopped46and there was flooding on the otherwise dry land. My impression from living pretty close to the47Adobe Creek area, and actually very near Adobe Creek but over near Louis, is that in what might48


17/64


be considered normal heavy rains the water level is high enough that there are raging1whitewaters a couple, maybe three, feet from the top of the cement walls. If I see that near Louis2then it is way over the level of the bicycle deck by the time you have lost another foot of 3elevation and you are closer to the bay. Having biked along Bayshore a couple of times on those4beautiful February days when it is 70 degrees and you get everybody and go outside, and then a5day later it is pouring rain again, I know I have looked down in that channel and just seen raging6

whitewaters. So I would have to guess but probably somewhere between three and ten times a7 winter at a minimum that deck is under water. I dont know if we have members of the public8that can is it okay with the Chair if I ask a member of the public that lives in the area what his9impression of how often it is flooded is? It will be a quick answer. That is going to impact10whether there is anything viable we can do by putting up a chain link fence. I dont know11whether we need to measure it or count it better, but putting up a detachable rail fence if it floods1220 times a year is not viable. Mr. Foelsch if you could come to the microphone. How often per13year do you think the existing bike deck is under water?14

15Mr. Boris Foelsch, Palo Alto: Hi. At least three to ten times definitely, like you said, probably16more. What happens is it gets mud. Like the water will rise, even if it only rises say six inches17

above that deck it gets this covering of mud which makes it pretty unsafe. So I commute that18 way probably 100 to 200 times a year because I cant do it that often. What I do is use it when I19can and when I cant I find another way to cross 101, because like a lot of people I connect on20Bay Trails over to Destinations south and east along the freeway. So it is very practical when it21is open but in the winter it does with the rain and the tides get a lot of mud and water on it. So it22would be in my opinion yes, a lot of maintenance overhead to try to keep that usable.23

24Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. I appreciate that. The last point is we are putting this there25for both bicycles that are commuting to work, but also so that residents can get to public parks26that are literally within just a few hundred feet of where they live and work but they cant get27there because 101 is just an impassible barrier unless we get people across. So we have built281,000 or 1,500 houses in the area in the last few years. We have gorgeous parkland only a few29hundred feet on the other side of 101. So I understand that you are not going to build a $1430million bridge to get 100 people to the other side. But we have several thousand new residents,31thousands of existing residents and it is a way of making frankly some of the worlds most32beautiful parkland, the bay is just a treasure and it is a way of getting people to that bay easily33and safely.34

35Then also in your counts you talk about counting on a weeknight commute. The heavy traffic36that I see is weekends for families and recreational use. That is going to have a totally different37profile, and just from the 15 minutes it takes me to approach and leave, if you multiply out the38number of people I see coming and going in both directions, at least on those beautiful days on39weekends your numbers are going to be way higher. I know that averages out but you need to40capture that snapshot too. Thanks.41

42Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Keller.43

44Commissioner Keller: I am intrigued by Commissioner Finebergs tube idea if that can be made45feasible and not too expensive. The interesting thing I heard about the idea that Caltrain is not46interested in new crossings under 101, but widening them through a tube might be feasible. I47also want to point out because this has not been talked about in the mix here is that there is a48


18/64


study called Peninsula Gateway, I think it is 2020. That is talking about ways of getting from1101 towards the Dumbarton Bridge. The extent of that study is from Highway 84 down to2Highway 85. It certainly includes San Antonio Road, and I believe as part of that there is a3consideration of rebuilding or widening San Antonio Road. So it is worthwhile exploring that4and seeing the extent to which it might be possible as part of the reconstruction of San Antonio if 5that were part of the Peninsula Gateway 2020 project, the idea of adding pedestrian crossing as6

part of that, that we are safer. The other part of that is the realignment of things like the way that7 San Antonio Road intersects with 101. There were a whole bunch of things that were part of that8idea. So it is worthwhile exploring and seeing whether this can be put in that mix, because9presumably there would be a big project and a lot of money behind that. It would be easy to, if 10you will, bury the pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing over San Antonio Road as part of a safety11issue on San Antonio.12

13I also think that it would be worthwhile considering if you do put in an overcrossing to put in a14better overcrossing. In particular if we could do something as Commissioner Fineberg15mentioned about the 60 KV line whether it is in use or what. I dont know whether for example16that 60 KV line might come to a pole, go down underneath for example the bike/pedestrian17

crossing so that that could extend down Adobe Creek where it would be more aesthetic and more18 useful I think. Thank you.1920

Chair Tuma: Commissioner Lippert.2122

Vice-Chair Lippert: I just wanted to make a couple of clarifications here. The reason I had used23a mile and a half previously is that a mile and a half is the distance that your average cyclist can24get in five minutes on flat level ground. So that is the reason why I had mentioned a mile and a25half. Five minutes out of the way on your commuting route is really nothing.26

27The second point I wanted to make is I wanted to respond to what Commissioner Martinez had28said being a road cyclist. It is different for road cyclists who are doing it for exercise versus29people that are cycling and commuting to work for instance. It is preferred as a road cyclist yes,30you can ride uphill, downhill, it is all work, and it is all exercise. However, for a commuter31when you have a certain rise to run ratio and it is extremely high it becomes cumbersome and a32commuter is likely to go out of their way to not have to do that. I am thinking of the most33extreme example which is up near 92 where there is bike bridge that crosses 280, it is really a34chore to get over it and then you have a hill after that. What I would be inclined to look at is that35the crossing right now at San Antonio Road and Embarcadero Road are really very gradual for a36commuter if you were to bicycle across those. It really builds up to the point where a commuter37can get over it very easily without breaking a sweat. Whereas the grade along the creek where38Adobe Creek and Matadero Creek are is depressed enough that you would then have to get up to39at least the height of the roadbed for 101 and then go even higher than that to get across on an40aerial structure. So it becomes really quite an effort for your average commuter. So I just41wanted to point those out as informational.42

43Chair Tuma: Finally, Commissioner Tanaka, do you have some closing comments?44

45Commissioner Tanaka: I will keep this brief. I actually do also share the Chairs comments46about where we spend out money these days. I think in terms of these alignments really only47


19/64


support this if we do indeed get the grant. Otherwise taking money away from a police building1or some other priority seems not the right idea.2

3I think Commissioner Finebergs tube idea I also like, and is something that we should probably4explore.5

6

One last minor comment is if we do this tube idea I think right now when you go on Fabian Way7 and you go down to the underpass there is a bit of a tricky crossing that you have to do. So that8might be something to study as you move forward. Thank you.9

10Mr. Calder: I am sorry, Mr. Tanaka, could you repeat that location?11

12Commissioner Tanaka: Fabian Way, as you go from the Fabian Way street to the entrance of the13Adobe Creek entrance. You have to basically either ride on the sidewalk or ride on the other14side and then make a crossing where there is no crosswalk or anything, and it is not very well15signed.16

17

Mr. Calder: Okay.1819Chair Tuma: Okay, thanks. Do you have some comments to close us off with?20

21Ms. Ames: Yes, thank you very much for these comments. I just wanted to clarify this tube22concept. Alan, do we have any cost data on constructing a new tunnel under 101 or an expanded23tunnel? I dont think we had those numbers up on the screen.24

25Mr. Calder: No, no we didnt evaluate a brand new tunnel. The issue around the tube, if you26recall our discussion about the Santa Clara Valley Water District is you basically have, the27opening right now is designed to accommodate a 100-year event. When you put an element in28there that takes away obviously from the capacity you have to widen. We did mention the idea29briefly with Santa Clara Valley Water District about widening. I think what it came down to was30the fact that the new structure will effect Caltrans and their operations when you take their31abutments out and widen. So there was some discussion around it. We initially evaluated that32concept and thought that the issue surrounding Caltrans was so problematic that we start to get33into a cost like an overcrossing when you do something like that that we abandoned the idea.34But not to say that we cant continue to flesh it out and get some exact or closer numbers. I think 35there has been some discussion around that concept.36

37Ms. Ames: Thank you very much. I just want to point out that the undercrossing, if it was a38brand new undercrossing separate from or next to Adobe it would be maybe, potentially as39expensive as bridge. We need to look at that but I wanted to clarify. Thank you.40

41Chair Tuma: Okay, great. With that I will close the public hearing and conclude this matter.42We will take a five-minute break and we will come back for item number two.43

44We will begin item number two. Item number 2 is entitled, Preliminary Discussion and45Direction to Staff regarding the Draft California Avenue Concept Area Plan. Staff, do you have46a presentation for us?47

48


20/64


AT 7:00 PM12

2. Preliminary Discussion and Direction to Staff regarding the Draft California Avenue3Concept Area Plan.4

5Ms. Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Yes, than you Chair Tuma. Tonights draft Concept Plan was6

prepared per the work program prepared by City Council in 2006 for the Comprehensive Plan7 Amendment. The Council specifically directed Staff to prepare a land use evaluation for the8California Avenue area including the existing 12-acre Frys Electronics site.9

10The purpose was to prepare a Concept Plan to identify general land use policies for the plan area.11The Concept Plan would identify appropriate land uses, circulation patterns, development12intensities, and scale, including identifying appropriate locations for the higher density13residential developments. This would be the first preliminary step that would determine future14implementation.15

16The process was designed to involve a significant amount of public outreach including17

stakeholder meetings and community workshops. In addition, Staff also conducted three walk-18 throughs of the three sub areas with one to three Commissioners at any one time. The19consultant, Design, Community and Environment, will give an overview of the process and the20draft Concept Plan following this report. After the consultants presentation Staff would like to21explain the additional information that was put at places this evening in response to Commission22requests. That concludes Staffs report.23

24Mr. David Early, Design, Community and Environment: Good evening. I am the founder of the25firm and the principle in charge of the project. With me this evening is Dahlia Chazan who is26our Project Manager.27

28I am going to give you, as Elena said an overview and background about the project, describe the29alternatives that we have been assessing, and then give you a brief summary of comments that30we have heard both at public workshops and from the City Council. Then we will ask you a few31questions that we are hoping that you will address this evening. Elena will then give the32background information, and then we hope to have your discussion. At the end, if you would33like, we can talk briefly about the next steps on the process.34

35The area we are looking at, as I think you know, is one of two Concept Plan areas that we are36addressing as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. We are also looking at the East Meadow37Circle/Fabian Way area which coincidentally you were really looking at just now in your38previous study item in looking at the overcrossing there. We tonight with your are focusing on39the California Avenue area, which as Elena said, is the area around California Avenue and40including the Frys site.41

42This plan is intended to address a whole series of issues for the area including how to sustain and43improve the retail business district along California Avenue, how to address Park Boulevard, and44how to address the Frys site. We are also looking at issues of parking, pedestrian and bicycle45connectivity, and open space and park amenities. We are doing this within the context of the46Transit-Oriented Residential designation. I want to just take a minute and remind you about that47designation. This is a designation that exists in the Comprehensive Plan today and that applies48


21/64


uniformly to areas within 2,000 feet of the two Caltrain stations. Under that overlay designation1any land within that 2,000-foot radius is eligible to be included in the PTOD zone, and the City2has subsequently gone in particularly at this California Avenue area and identified an area that is3appropriate for the PTOD zone. That zone has been applied in an area that is roughly4coterminous with our study area for this process. So in that area we have the possibility of 5higher densities of residential units, as well as mixed use, 40 dwelling units per acre and an FAR6

of 1.25, which are already allowed under the PTOD zone within the study area that we are7 looking at.89

The plan that we are working on has already been through three community workshops, as Elena10mentioned. We had a first workshop in February 2009 to talk with the community about issues11and opportunities in the area. In June 2009 we met to develop concepts that we would want to12study in this plan. Then in February 2010 we had a third workshop at which members of the13community looked at the ideas that had been developed, which are the same ideas you will be14seeing this evening, and gave us comments about those ideas. We are now here this evening to15introduce those ideas to you. We are looking for your feedback this evening. You may be able16to give us guidance on some of the issues, if not we will come back to you at a subsequent17

meeting for formal guidance.1819So I am going to be addressing with you three separate areas within the Concept Plan area. They20are the California Avenue area itself, the Park Boulevard area including the former Agilent site21now leased by AOL, and the Frys site. You will notice that the study area, which is22coterminous with the PTOD designation, does also include residential neighborhoods both on the23far north side and just to the south of California Avenue. Although those areas are within the24PTOD zone and are within our study area we do not anticipate significant changes in them within25the life of the Comprehensive Plan, so they are not a part of our particular study. Again, we are26going to be looking at just these three areas.27

28I will begin by talking about Subarea I - California Avenue. That study area does consist of 29California Avenue itself and the lots behind it going out one block in each direction. Most of 30that area is already designated for regional and community commercial. There is a parking lot31across the street from the county courthouse, which is designated as Major Institution because it32holds the parking lot.33

34We put together three alternatives for this area. I want to point out all of these are alternatives as35to how land use designations might be changed. So I will be showing you some concepts of 36building types that might emerge under certain land use designations, but these are not designs.37These are not projects that the City can actually control. What we are doing is putting in place38land use designations and then those land use designation will to some degree or another39promote a certain type of development that the private sector will engage in. So I will be40showing you concepts that might emerge without being able to be sure that those things will be41the things that might be built.42

43Under Alternative A we would be retaining the existing Regional/Community Commercial44Comprehensive Plan designation. So there would be no change to the designations in this area.45Under that scenario we believe that there is likely to be very minimal change over the next ten to4620 years. The designation has already been in place for awhile. It does not allow significant47additional development relative to what is built today, so we believe that we will see only48


22/64


gradual modernization of buildings in the area. This is an aerial view built on a computer of 1California Avenue today, and as it may occur in the future. We have identified one location2where the City might elect to build as much as a three-story parking structure either on3Cambridge or along Sherman. Otherwise, we think under this scenario there will probably be4very minimal change along California Avenue itself.5

6

Under Alternative B we would create a Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan designation that would7 allow for two to three-story development in the area. This would essentially add one to two8stories of development capacity to what is there today. It would result, we believe, in an9economic incentive for a few of the sites within the area to redevelop. This is a view again,10generated by the computer, of where some of those building sites may be. Again, we dont know11for sure where they would be, but we have projected that here at the corner of El Camino Real12and on several sites further towards the train station where there are relatively small buildings on13relatively large sites today that this land use designation may well promote redevelopment of 14those sites. We also believe under this scenario that there would be cause for construction of two15or perhaps even three parking structures, including the one on Sherman and the one on16Cambridge that I already showed you and one further up on Cambridge as well, and maintaining17

some surface parking in other areas. Now of course these parking structures could be built on18 other sites instead of the ones that we have shown here.1920

In Alternative C we would similarly create a Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan designation but in21this case we would allow not two to three-story buildings but three to four-story buildings22instead, trying to take advantage of the transit-oriented opportunities that are enabled by the23California Avenue train station. Under this scenario we believe that there would be even more24incentive for the private sector to do redevelopment in this area. I will show you in a minute25some possible sites for such redevelopment. We believe that there would be possible new26parking structures built. We also see a potential under this scenario that we have enough new27residents coming into the area that it may well be appropriate to look at a site for a community28park as well, which we have shown on the courthouse parking structure site. You can see all of 29those ideas in this view. Here you have again new buildings on more sites along California30Avenue. You have the four parking structures in this case, two now on Sherman as well as two31on Cambridge, and then the parking lot in this area can be replaced with a public park that can32serve the entire corridor. In this case we have located it at this eastern end of the street because33we believe it is appropriate to have it both close to the transit station and also close to some of 34the nucleus of new development that we believe might occur under this scenario.35

36Let me give you a little bit of background about some of the comments we heard regarding these37ideas at our workshop number three with the public. There was broad support for maintaining38the existing retail uses on California Avenue, but also support for seeing additional mixed use39development along California Avenue with a general preference for more office development40than residential. There was a statement by many people that if additional housing is built it41should be located near transit. There were some concerns voiced by local community residents42about three or four-story building heights as shown in Alternative C with a little more comfort43with the two to three-story heights that are shown in Alternative B. There was general support44for the concept of the park as shown in Alternative C, but many people stated that they would45like to see it farther west on California Avenue to be closer to the center of the subarea. Then46there were a variety of comments about the streetscape project in that land area as well. I wont47


23/64


go into those because that is really the subject, at this point, of a separate study being conducted1by the City. That concludes my comments about the Subarea I.2

3Let me go on and talk to you a little bit about Subarea II. Subarea II is the area of Park 4Boulevard and the Agilent site, as we call it. It is leased now by AOL. In this area we have a5variety of land use designations including a Light Industrial designation, some6

Regional/Community Commercial, and an existing multifamily project with multifamily7 residential in this area. The Agilent building is designated Research/Office Park.89

Alternative A for this area makes two possible changes to the Comprehensive Plan designations.10In the first of these changes this triangular property is re-designated to Research/Office Park to11allow another option for a research or office building to be built here. The 195 Page Mills site is12also designated for Mixed Use to allow that project as has been at times proposed to move13forward. We would also explore a number of streetscape improvements in the area including14sidewalk bulbouts at the intersections of Park at Sheridan and Page Mill, removing the right turn15lane on Park between Sheridan and Page Mill, and replacing that with street parking, limited16sidewalk improvements, and a crosswalk across Sheridan at Park. This would not really change17

the overall development potential in the area, and we believe there would relatively limited18 capacity for new development under this other than a possible project on the 195 Page Mill site19as is shown on this slide, and perhaps a little more further north as well.20

21Under Alternative B we would make more extensive changes to Comprehensive Plan22designations including a Mixed Use designation that would extend all the way along Park 23Boulevard from the southern end of our study area all the way up to the northern end near the24train station. We would see the triangle parcel re-designated as in Alternative II. The 195 Page25Mill site is also re-designated. Then the site here between Page Mill and Oregon Expressway26and Sheridan would be designated for multifamily residential. This would, we believe, create a27moderate amount of mixed use development as I will show you in a moment. In that scenario we28are also looking at the same street improvements as well as a four-way stop at Page Mill and29Park. In this scenario you can see some of the additional development that we believe may30occur. For instance, multifamily housing development on the site between Page Mill and31Sheridan, the 195 Page Mill site, and perhaps an additional mixed use project or residential32project opposite Olive.33

34In Alternative C we create similar designations, but perhaps with some additional development35capacity as well. We believe that this could then allow for more development than exists in36Alternative B. You can see some of that potential in this slide where we have for instance shown37the possibility of additional townhouse development, both a greater amount in this area, as well38as some in this area as well.39

40Some of the comments that we heard at workshop number three about these possible alternatives41were that there was support for mixed use along Park Boulevard but with a caution about retail42on Park Boulevard that it should not be competing with the California Avenue retail. There was43also support for retaining the Light Industrial designations in the area as well. So that was44somewhat conflicting information from various members of the public some of whom thought45mixed use, and particularly residential would be appropriate, while others felt that retaining the46Light Industrial designations would make sense. We did also have people who were expressing47quite a bit of concern about improving safety and accessibility of the street network. There was I48


24/64


think a general consensus that some of those street improvements that are suggested in our1Alternatives would make sense for the area.2

3Let me wrap up by talking a little bit about Subarea III, the area that does include the Frys site.4The majority of this site is actually designated today Multifamily Residential despite the5presence of the Frys store there. There is limited Single-Family designation on the existing6

single-family homes in the area, and a very limited amount of Light Industrial designation as7 well.89

Alternative A in this for us here is to change the Frys site to have a land use designation of 10Service Commercial, which would in fact match the existing use. So we wouldnt be foreseeing11multifamily housing on the site any more. Instead we would be looking at maintaining the Frys12site as it is today and having a Service Commercial designation to match that. We believe that13there would be minimal change to the existing development pattern there if that change to the14land use designation were made.15

16In Alternative B we would keep the multifamily designation in this area, and apply that also on17

some other portions. Then apply a Neighborhood Commercial designation along Park so that18 you could actually have both sides of Park potentially with mixed use or retail in this area. We19are also in this alternative considering changing the Single-Family Residential designation on20Olive to the Village Residential, which could result in a more moderate density multifamily21development pattern in that area. Here is a view of some of the possible outcome that might22occur in that area with limited residential development along Olive, many of those single family23homes maintained, but quite a significant change at the Frys site where that store would be24removed and replaced with townhouse development, and with mixed use development with25ground floor retail and either residential or office above it along Park Boulevard.26

27We have received a property owner submittal for this area as well that does consider some28possibility similar to that option. I think Staff can tell you more about that as part of the follow29up comments that Elena will be bringing up.30

31Under Alternative C we would be changing the entire site not to keep the multifamily32designation and propose multifamily there, but to change it to a Mixed Use designation allowing33a range of office, retail, and residential uses. Under that scenario we would foresee the34possibility that the Frys site could be redeveloped actually with several street blocks. You can35see here a new street network coming through the site connecting Portage and Acacia out to El36Camino Real, those two streets merging and coming into a new intersection along Park 37Boulevard with new mixed use development, parkland, and mixed use development along the38new street as well. As well as townhouse or housing development along both Olive and on some39of the background areas along this site. This could also create a park along Matadero Creek and40a very extensive open space network through the area that would really create a node for new41mixed use development adjacent to the California Avenue rail station.42

43Let me give you a summary of some of the comments we heard about the Frys site at our third44workshop. There was strong support among community members about retaining Frys. One45group suggested moving the store to El Camino Real, but all the small groups at our workshop46really all wanted to see the Frys maintained as much as possible. There was interest in therefore47changing the Frys site designation to Service Commercial to reflect the existing use. People did48


25/64


talk about what should happen if Frys were to leave despite the Citys efforts to maintain the1Frys store. There was some support for retail on the site, some folks wanted to see any retail or2office close to El Camino Real, and there were two groups that did support housing on the site,3and one group supported mixed use development. So there was quite a wide range of possible4outcomes that people foresaw if the Frys store were to be closed or relocated. There were two5groups that favored keeping the single-family housing along Olive Avenue and spoke very6

strongly about that.78We have shown these, or Staff has presented these to the City Council as well. City Council9gave somewhat extensive comments. I wont go through these in detail since I have two full10slides of them, but I might note that the Council did agree with the community that retention of 11the Frys store would be very important, and that Staff should perhaps explore incentives and12options to keep the Frys store there. There was some desire to accommodate mixed use and13startups within the context of the types of development that already exist in the area. So I will let14you read this one for a moment, and in a moment I will change to the second slide.15

16So we did have additional comments here about a desire to improve pedestrian and bicycle17

circulation, wanting to see additional economic analysis, which will be done I should say as part18 of the Comprehensive Plan Update. There was a desire to protect single-family neighborhoods19such as the one along Olive. So that concludes my presentation. I will turn it back over to20Elena, and just ask you that once Elenas presentation is done I am certainly available to answer21any questions, I can put slides back up for your review. Our hope tonight is that you will have a22discussion about each of the three Subareas and then let us know which of the three alternatives23for each of those Subareas is closes to your vision, and ask you to provide us any guidance as to24what components among the alternatives might be combined or mixed and matched to create25something you would feel would be truly supportable. Again, if you can get through that this26evening I think that would be great. We can also come back to you in a subsequent meeting to27get your formal guidance on this before we move it forward to the City Council. Thank you.28

29Chair Tuma: Thank you. Elena, do you have something?30

31Ms. Lee: Yes, just a few more comments. Subsequent to the distribution of the Staff Report,32and in response to Commission requests, Staff has prepared and put at places four maps. The33first 11x17 map shows the ownership pattern and owner names of the parcels within the Frys34subarea. The second 11x17 map shows the building heights within the entire Concept Plan area.35A separate table was provided to give the number of stories or height of some of the taller36buildings along the perimeter or near the study areas, particularly along El Camino Real.37

38To provide additional background information Staff has also provided two smaller maps39originally presented at the first workshop. The two maps show land use and general land use40patterns. These maps were prepared at the beginning of the process before the Concept Plan41boundaries were modified. We would like to clarify that some of the land uses identified will42need to be updated. For example, the property owner clarified to Staff that the uses on the Frys43site include not just retail but also office type uses in addition to the electronic retail store. In44reference to Frys as David had mentioned the Frys property owner, the Wheatleys, did present45a proposal with slightly different land uses presented in Alternative B of the Draft Concept Plan.46In that one basically the applicant is showing slightly less commercial uses along the Park 47Boulevard, but generally it is fairly similar, and Staff is supportive of it as something for you to48


26/64


consider. In addition, Peter Lockhart, the property owner of properties along Olive Avenue, also1presented his proposal where he would like the properties along Olive Avenue to be designated2multifamily residential consistent with the interior of the Frys site.3

4Just to point out that the property owners are available tonight to answer questions if needed.5Also, that those are basically items that Staff would like you to consider. Also, just to clarify6

that the property owner of 395 Page Mill, the former Agilent/AOL building, is present, and their7 proposal was included in your packet. Basically they are in agreement with retaining the8Research/Office Park designation. However they would like consideration to allow higher floor9area allowance for more office space on that site.10

11So Staff basically requests that Commission provide comments and directions to Staff to enable12us to return at a subsequent Planning and Transportation Commission hearing specifically to give13us direction on identifying appropriate land uses, circulation patterns, develop intensities and14scale, as well as identifying appropriate locations for higher density residential development.15We are as David mentioned, Staff and consultant, are available to answer additional questions.16This concludes Staffs report.17

18 Chair Tuma: Great, thank you very much. Good presentation. I think what we are going to do19now is before we go to the public we are going to go through the Commission with one round of 20questions, focusing on clarifying questions that we may have. We will go to the public for21comment and as I understand it there are several landowners within th

Documents

Minutes for the Palo Alto PTC Study Session