Unlike most Caltrain stations, where only a minority of riders get to the station in a car, Tamien station gets 69% of its riders from the parking lot, and another 9% dropped off by car.  Caltrain riders who live in the neighborhood suspect that the high “park-and-ride” mode share is partly a result of the infrequent Caltrain schedule in growing neighborhoods south of Tamien.    Caltrain’s data shows that ridership at Tamien has been growing, but not why. In the coming year, Caltrain plans to do an “origin-destination” study, to get better actual information about where riders come from and go to before and after taking the train.

Of course, new homes next to the station will add a population of potential riders who don’t need to drive to the station.  Another development with 12-story towers was previously approved by the City of San Jose for Swenson Builders at the corner of Lick and Alma Avenues, at the far side of the freeway, would add even more people walking distance from the train, and put more eyes on the tunnel. But that won’t fix the access issue for other Tamien users.

The team of developers and San Jose staff are well aware of the need to address community concerns, according to the VTA Congestion Committee Staff Report, which explained that “another obstacle to the development is gaining the support of the local community. The project team will engage the community throughout the process to get their input and reflect the community vision in the final plan.”

There will be opportunities to provide feedback on the development If you live near Tamien and want new development to ensure safe and convenient access to Caltrain, sign up here and put “Tamien” in the comments field.

But overall, the support for a bond measure was not definitive, leaving key questions for city council about whether to put the city’s infrastructure needs to the voters.

Only 42% of Palo Alto voters surveyed believe additional parking is an important priority to pay for, and 68% believe it is not a high priority to pay for. Voters are more favorably disposed to paying for bicycle and pedestrian improvements, 67% believe it is important to fund safe routes for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Parking structures did better when bundled within a package of investments to provide congestion relief and safe streets; that package all together did clear the 2/3 level needed to pass a measure.  However, based on the standalone unpopularity of parking structures, a ballot measure that included parking structures could be vulnerable to opposition to its most vulnerable element.

The poll did not ask, but it would interesting to know whether any of the opposition is due to residents resisting picking up the tab previously payed by downtown developers and property owners.  Palo Alto’s current generation of parking structures were paid for by bonds raised by business assessment districts, whose members then pay back the bonds.

Given the overall poll results, the big question for Palo Alto City Council is whether or not to seek voter approval for an infrastructure bond measure.  According to the poll, Palo Alto residents are very pleased with the performance of City government, both generally and in specific policy areas, and most do not see a major need for additional infrastructure funding; only about half of voters see even “some need” for additional infrastructure funding.

Overall, 66% of voters are supportive of a ballot measure to finance infrastructure
improvements – though most only tentatively.  A bond measure would require 2/3 vote to clear, however there are some available funding mechanisms that would require 50%.   Palo Alto City Council’s infrastructure Committee is discussing the results of the poll today, after which City Council will review and decide.

Update: as reported by Palo Alto Online, several Palo Alto Council members on the Infrastructure Committee looked on the bright side when interpreting the results of the infrastructure poll, observing that responses vary depending on how the questions are asked, and that there are enough undecided voters who could be brought to support a measure with effective campaigning. The next step of review will take place in August, when the Committee will discuss various packages of projects that could be included in a potential bond measure.

At least at the sketch level, it seems that the developer has been listening to the preferences of the community. The latest sketches shared by developer Merlone Geier show a connected, bike and pedestrian friendly grid and streetscapes in an area that currently has islands of retail stores surrounded by oceans of parking lots. The visioning process had showed a clear consensus in favor of a better environment for people walking and biking, retail facing the street, and open space.

The most attention-getting element of the revised proposal is a multi-screen movie theater; several residents mentioned a theater as a desirable feature for the development.

Because Merlone Geier is pursuing its proposal before the City completes a specific plan, the developer needs to go through a “Gatekeeper” process needing review and approval by the City Council, including negotiation for specific public benefits.  At the study session last Tuesday, the City Council prioritized bicycle, pedestrian, circulation, and transportation demand management investments for the public benefits associated with this development and the plan area.

Because Merlone Geier (and other developers in the next 18-24 months) will get to “jump the queue” and pursue its proposal before the specific plan is created, however, it may be more of a challenge to ensure that the city gets the connectivity and traffic reduction results that residents want, along with open spaces and environmental sustainability standards.  During the visioning process, some residents talked about wanting to preserve views of the mountains.   It is possible for an area to be designed with “view corridors” to frame views of landmarks – but will Mountain View be able to do this without a Specific Plan to guide the developments?

Since the City of Mountain View will be conducting a sequence of “one-off” reviews and negotiations, it will be especially important to pay close attention to the project as it is reviewed.   The new proposal for the Merlone Geier development is expected to be reviewed by Mountain View’s Environmental Planning Commission next week Wednesday.  Watch this page for time and agenda.   And sign up here if you want to stay up to date on this issue and more on sustainable development in Mountain View.

But looking at the results of the visioning sessions and surveys, which were clear in a variety of areas but quite general – Council decided that they needed at least one more meeting before bringing Merlone Geier to present their next iteration of the development.  In March, City Council will hold a study session to further focus priorities resulting from the visioning process.

Last year, when the Council accelerated the precise plan for the San Antonio area – and put the second phase of the large proposed Merlone Geier development on hold – they took the unconventional step of expecting to guide the development only with the results of the visioning process.   Ordinarily, developments would be guided by a full Specific Plan, which defines needed public infrastructure, land use guidelines, parking and trip reduction requirements, and terms for developers to contribute to public facilities. But the full Specific Plan is expected to take two years, and Council did not feel comfortable making the developer wait that long to resubmit their proposal.

Some residents and Council members raised questions about just how the results of visioning would actually serve to guide a developer to create developments that address the vision. Some of the key areas of consensus were better pedestrian and bicycle connections through the area, and public spaces.  Does Mountain View want to hand to the developer the job of designing the circulation and public areas, with very high level instructions, and then see if the results address the city’s intent? If Mountain View hasn’t yet set the rules for developer contribution to the public infrastructure, what can they expect this developer to contribute?

Density is another area where ambiguity may lead to unwelcome results.  The General Plan zoned the area for up to 6-8 stories, which is less than the suspended first-draft proposal that called for twelve story building and two 9-story buildings, but higher than some neighbors would prefer.   If the resubmitted proposal defaults to the new General Plan heights, will people who participated in the Visioning process and preferred less density feel the result was fair? If the City does not give clear guidelines about trip reduction and parking policies, will supporters of dense transit-oriented development be confident that the project will make use of the nearby transit?

Based on yesterday’s decision, there is now another study session coming in March, where Council can refine the conclusions of the Visioning process, and also grapple with the question about how well it will work to guide the developer with a vision rather than a full Precise Plan with land use and circulation requirements.

The next step in developing the plan will be a City Council and Planning Commission joint study session on January 15. If you live in Sunnyvale/Santa Clara, or are interested in longterm opportunities to redevelop Silicon Valley sprawl to be more walkable and transit friendly, read on.

The area around the Lawrence Caltrain station currently has a disconnected assemblage of industrial buildings, scattered apartment and townhome complexes, car repair shops, offices, parking lots, and a few stores. Many locations that are a quarter mile from the train station as the crow flies are a half-mile or more on the street, due to superblocks, busy arterials without crosswalks, one way streets, and other barriers. So the walkable “catchment area” for the train station is much smaller than it seems.

It is no wonder that this sparsely populated and disconnected area is only the 18th most popular Caltrain station, with about 500 riders per day in each direction. With low ridership, the area has correspondingly poor service, about 2 trains per hour at rush hour. The station’s reputation on Yelp is characterized by its lack of amenities.

But Sunnyvale is looking to make longterm improvements to the area within 1/2 mile from the Caltrain station, in coordination with Santa Clara. A Lawrence Station Area Plan will change the zoning, which the city hopes will encourage developers, make the area more friendly for walking and biking, and take advantage of the underutilized train station.

In a series of consulting projects, community workshops, stakeholder meetings and study sessions, Sunnyvale has developed a vision for the area with more mixed use development, creating better neighborhoods and supporting local businesses. Sunnyvale would like to see a walkable community, with amenities and services nearby. A walkable neighborhood near transit and services would appeal especially to an aging population.

That vision would unfold in the coming decades. Today, the first sight that greets a rider getting off the train is the Peninsula Building Materials storage yard. The family-owned business has been in operation since 1923. There are no plans to sell it, but if they did, the land would be worth tens of millions to a developer.

Next to the storage yard is an isolated section of townhouses. There aren’t enough residents to support a supermarket or coffee shop, so people who live there need to drive to do the most basic of errands.

The street next to the townhouses is very wide, although it gets very little car traffic. The turn radius to the train station is very wide to accommodate the trucks for the building supply store next door. So drivers race down the short section of street and zip around the wide curve.

On the other side of the townhomes are some auto repair businesses. New zoning could allow those properties to be turned into more houses or stores. In the vision for the area, enough houses will be built to support businesses for the residents. If that transformation happens, there will need to be some other location for the auto repair shops.

Between the townhomes and the auto shops, there is a drainage right of way, which could also be turned into a bike/pedestrian path. This would provide pleasant green space and also help residents from the homes bordered by Evelyn and Reed to the train station or any new stores in the area without traveling on busy Reed. The designs also propose bike/pedestrian crossing of the train tracks

On the other side of the street, the side of the street without a sidewalk, is a new daycare center. As properties redevelop, they will be required to add sidewalks.

The street lets out onto busy Reed Ave, without a crosswalk. People who live across the street, in the apartments to the left or single family homes to the right, live only .25 miles from the Caltrain station as the crow flies, but need to walk a half mile to get there, detouring to cross at a light.

Crossing Lawrence at Reed/Monroe is particularly forbidding, with high-speed traffic whipping around wide curves. Pedestrians take refuge in islands amid the flow of cars.

On the other side of the street is an Extreme Networks office building complex in the city of Santa Clara. This site is also up for redevelopment, under a new zoning plan that calls for mixed use residential with retail. The first step of an Environmental Impact Report process started in April 2012, but that process may re-start since the parcel now has a new owner. Santa Clara and Sunnyvale residents concerned about the area should watch for news.

The Extreme Networks office site is connected to the train station by a one way street to the station. A transit rider wanting to bring a bike from the station can ride the wrong way for less than a quarter of a mile, or can ride legally about a half-mile around the other end of the station.

On the other side of the Lawrence Station are offices surrounded by large parking lots. In the new zoning, the parking lots could be filled in with buildings. Parking would move to parking structures or underground. One opportunity for new developments in the area is to follow the lead of Moffet Business Park, about 3 miles away. The Business Park has a Transportation Management Association for about 15 businesses, allowing them to share the expense of shuttles to the Caltrain station, carpool programs, and other programs helping employees get to work without driving. Sunnyvale could encourage or require new businesses and developments in the Lawrence area to participate in a TMA, enabling smaller employers and residences to get the benefits of shuttles, discount transit passes, and other transportation benefits.

There is a well-hidden staircase connecting the parking lot behind one of the office buildings on Kifer to the area behind the Caltrain station. If you don’t know the hidden short cut which connects you to the station in under a quarter of a mile, you need to walk a half mile around a large block to get to the station on the street.

The preliminary plan proposes creating a grid of streets and bike/pedestrian paths through what are currently superblocks of office buildings and parking lots, making the area easier to navigate on foot and by bike.

The tour was lead by Gustav Larsson, who is the chair of the Planning Commission, but led the tour as a private citizen. He gave about 15 neighbors, Sierra Club volunteers, and nonprofit staff background on the area, and listened to people’s suggestions.

Another part of the long term plan for the area might be to depress the massive Lawrence Expressway overpass which shadows and divides the area. Not only is the expressway a physical barrier, it divides the area visually, so you cannot see nearby streets and buildings.

The Sunnyvale City Council reviewed the Lawrence proposals earlier this month. The project will be studied in 2013, for inclusion in Santa Clara County’s 2014 Expressway study. Funding for a project of this magnitude could take over a decade.

As for the Lawrence Station area itself, the next steps are a City Council and Planning Commission Joint study session on January 15, and City Council review on February 26. After that, design guidelines and open space plans would be developed, the city would conduct environmental review, and the zoning would be changed. According to the timeline, the plan would be complete by April 2014.

There is still a lot to be done to flesh out the vision, refine the new street and bike/pedestrian grid, define programs that encourage use of transit, and more. The efforts are particularly important since Caltrain electrification is likely to bring more frequent service to the area in 2019 or so. The new developments, pedestrian and bike access would make better use of the transit service.

To learn more about the background of the plan see the Lawrence Station page on the city’s website. For updates on the Lawrence Station area (and other Caltrain stations you use), sign up to adopt your station.

The improvements include adding bike “loop detectors” which turn the light green for waiting bicyclists at signaled intersections at Arguello and Whipple, Brewster, Marshall, Winslow, and Broadway as well as Middlefield and Chestnut. The plan calls for a “pocket lane” for bikes at Whipple and Brewster protecting cyclists from right-turning vehicles. The plans also include “sharrows” (share the road markings) and route sign markers on Stafford, D Street, Arguello, Winslow, and Middlefield.

You can see the detailed plans below.

Plans for a pilot test of “protected bike lanes” on Arguello have been deferred until after major construction near the train station is completed.    It will be exciting to get them installed, but it doesn’t make sense to have to move them repeatedly while construction affects different sections of the street.

Staff is collecting feedback on these plans, so if you think that sharrows, loop detectors and signs are out of place or missing, let Christian Hammack know by the end of November, at chammack@redwoodcity.org.

San Mateo County and Santa Clara County each formerly provided under $1 million dollars of grant funding per year. Now, the amount of money available has increased to $11 million on a yearly basis.

Grant applications are due this year- calls for projects will be issued shortly.  The deadline is December 14 in San Mateo County and not yet set in Santa Clara County.

The evaluation will be done at the County level in the first quarter of 2013.  The Metropolitan Transportation Commission plans to award the money in May.

Key criteria to be eligible for the grants include:

* The City must have approved a Complete Streets policy by January 31, 2013.
* The City must have a Housing Element in place
* The project must be either within a priority development area or connect to a priority development area.

The City can apply for the grant if its Complete Streets policy is in progress and expected to be adopted by January 31. If the City has a Housing Element in progress it can apply for a waiver.

Here is a list of Priority Development Areas – it is a bit out of date, so if you don’t think it is right for your city, ask city staff.

This money is available from two programs:

* CMAQ – Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding. This can be used for classic bike and pedestrian projects: paths, bike lanes, sidewalk improvements. Click here for a lot more detail.

* TLC – Transportation for Livable Communities. The goal of this funding is to improve infrastructure and/or streetscaping to make a community more inviting for biking, walking, and transit. MTC administers this funding.  Click here for much more information. 

Here is a description of the grant rules for San Mateo County.

The best current description of the grant rules for Santa Clara County can be found in the staff report October VTA board meeting.  Search for “OBAG” in this PDF file.  http://www.vta.org/inside/boards/packets/2012/10_oct/bod_100412_packet.pdf

Is your city applying for the grant funding it is eligible for?

The area in Mountain View bordering Los Altos and Palo Alto is the subject of very different ideas for the coming decades.  Developed in the 1950s as an auto-centric outdoor shopping mall, the area has seen intense interest from developers.  Should it continue to feature big box retailers surrounded by parking lots, or should it require stores to be pedestrian-friendly – some “big box stores” including Target are creating pedestrian-friendly formats these days.   Or should it follow the path of some revamping shopping centers and add back a street grid, with stores facing a street?

Will attractive storefronts be built facing El Camino, or will El Camino remain an unappealing place, and should new developments face inwards, with blank walls facing El Camino?

The San Antonio area is richly served by transit, with a Caltrain station at the Palo Alto border and VTA express and local bus service on El Camino. But pedestrian and bike access is challenging and stressful.  Should the area improve pedestrian and bike access, helping visitors from the neighborhoods and the region shop without driving, or should the area maintain its car-centric streets?

City Council decided in July to change the order and bump up San Antonio in the queue, following resident feedback.   Council confirmed the decision on September 11, but the agenda item had some unexpected council debate. For example, Council Member Jac Siegel expressed skepticism about doing a plan, since there is not going to be a change in the area’s land use.   (Although change is occurring already; the question is whether the change will take into account residents and stakeholders’ current needs and values).

What do you think? If you live near San Antonio, shop there – or would shop there if it had better bike and pedestrian access – come to one of these two visioning exercises and share your ideas.

Saturday October 27, and Saturday, December 1, both 9am to 12pm at the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, 2440 W. El Camino Real Mountain View, Suite 300 .

If you are unable to attend an in-person meeting or have more ideas you want to share, contribute your thoughts at the San Antonio Visioning site.

View Larger Map