Sorry.

And this one on the sounds like we have.

Okay, we're all set on Zoom.

Okay.

Like to call the meeting the order of the bicycle pedestrian advisory committee for our December meeting.

Today, 7th of November.

Can we have a roll call, please?

Chair Barton.

Present.

Vice Chair Kuzmal.

Present.

Members down.

Present.

Member Thonzer.

Okay.

Thank you.

At this time we go to our oral communications from the public.

So this meeting portion of the meeting is reserved for people wishing to speak on items not elsewhere on the agenda.

Speakers are limited to three minutes.

So going to Zoom, any members of the public wishing to comment?

No, no hand raised.

Any members of the public in the room wishing to comment on items not on the agenda.

Okay.

Seeing none, we'll move ahead.

Okay, our next item is the consent calendar.

One item on the consent calendar is the uh minutes from the BPAC meeting of August 27th.

Early of this uh year uh minutes have been attached to the agenda.

Any uh comments from members of the public on the agenda.

None on Zoom.

Any comments um from uh members of the public present in the audience on uh prior meeting minutes.

Okay, so um sorry, we're we're on the consent calendar, right?

I believe so.

So we have to pull things from the consent to talk about that, right?

Um yes, I wouldn't.

If you want to make comments, I will I will want to pull 4.1 from the consent, I think.

I'm sorry, I was just checking something and noticed it.

Um okay.

Okay, so that's a motion to pull an item up.

Uh no, I can just pull it.

And then we have to approve it separately.

Okay.

So uh member Kuzmal has uh requested pulling the prior meeting minutes from the consent calendar in order to make comments.

Yeah.

Um you want to go ahead and go.

Oh, we have to do the rest of the consent challenge.

Sorry.

Okay.

Um I'd like to put 4.2s.

Okay.

Well that's the idea of comments.

Okay, so we have two items being pulled.

Um, the meeting minutes again.

All right.

Well we have this 4.3 something.

Yeah, just there's a 4.3.

Yep.

Also the work plan.

Oh yeah, you're looking at the minutes.

Okay, okay.

So we've had request to pull item 4.1, prior meeting minutes, item 4.2, the vision zero action plan, uh road safety plan, um, item 4.3, uh, year 2025-26 work plan remains on the consent calendar.

Right.

Okay.

Uh at this time uh we call for a vote on uh this consent calendar, meaning only item 4.3 on.

I'm Kusmal will move that we um approve the remainder of the consent, which is item 4.3 um the uh Back Fiscal Year 2025 to 2026 work plan.

Okay, is there a second?

Second that motion.

Okay, thank you for Mr.

Stone from the second uh all in favor of the consent calendar, which is item 4.3 the work.

Okay, um, back to 4.1.

Yeah, so 4.4.1.

Um, I wanted to confirm.

Sorry, this I only literally just realized this and I apologize for that.

Um the on the approval of the meeting minutes.

I was checking the motions again.

Um, and one person abstained from approving the meeting minutes at time because they weren't at the prior meeting.

My notes said that Chair Barton abstained and the uh official meeting minutes said that member uh that member bot abstained.

Uh since I didn't notice that it's in advance, I'm not actually sure who abstained.

So I I believe I can comment on uh Mr.

Umde and I abstained because we were actually why have you as having to stain because you were absent from the prior meeting and the meeting minutes have search is having abstained.

So you think the names are mixed up is when you're yeah, the names got swapped.

How about we will verify?

Yeah, so okay, I think and for me, um I mean I guess ours you know where for for Monte.

I think one of them was actually absent for the meeting.

But yes.

Um I just had refused meeting from the item.

I mean, not that it not used so.

But it has Barton as the second, so I'm gonna assume you wouldn't have seconded meeting minutes and then abstained.

So I I my honestly, I don't know my notes have me making the motion and member stone seconding.

So I we will complete that is whatever I wrote during the meeting, which.

Okay.

So I guess that would be a then I will.

Um yeah, and I think the other motions looked uh correct.

Um I'm I will move that we set item form and one the meeting minutes with the staff will go back and verify the um names on the approval on item 4.1, which was the approval of the prior meetings minutes.

I was like on this.

Okay, so that's proposed by the best joke was mode and secondly by myself.

Calling for the vote, all in favor.

So I think that's my attendant.

Okay, so um to the second item that was pulled from the consent calendar, item 4.2 then.

Um road safety plan.

Um do we have any comments from members of the public online?

I have one hand raised, April.

April, you're allowed to talk.

If you can give me one second, I'm gonna pull up my timer.

You see my timer, bro?

I do, yeah.

Thank you.

Um give me one more second.

My uh, yeah, for sure.

Take your time.

Okay, I'm starting the timer.

Go ahead, April.

Thanks.

Um yes, I I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Vision Zero Action Plan.

Um I had a look through, and there were a couple of projects that I was interested in hearing more about.

Um one is um SR7, the safe systems training.

Um it's listed as completed.

It talks about attendance at conferences like the Silicon Valley uh bike Summit um and some sort of peer exchange.

Um, but I noticed that it didn't list the standard training that um the Institute of Transportation Engineers puts forward in partnership with the FHWA, and that's the implementing the safe system approach training and certification.

It's the industry standard.

And I'm not sure staff's familiar with it, but I think it would be really useful for them to go through it to understand how to translate.

It's basically the standard way of translating Vision Zero into implementation.

And then also SR10, updating the city standard details.

It's listed for 2026, but it shows no progress or no information about it being moved forward in the next year.

And I think this is probably the most important project in all of Vision Zero, or one of the, and I want to stress that updating the standards, the city standard construction details is really important to move forward for um seeing vision zero move from policy to practice.

And um that sort of that incorporates any of the details that are needed at the city level to make changes in the street that the teams on on the street doing implementing all the designs and plans.

All of those need to be updated to be consistent with vision zero.

So if that doesn't happen, all of these projects are going to be one-offs, and it really helps to have that in place first.

So it's kind of like we're putting the chicken before the egg.

Um I would like to see that move forward.

And then also I noticed that I can't remember which item it is, but the um visiting um integration of NACTO and ProAG and all of the you know, how we're trying to be a bit more progressive and how we move forward in um adopting the state of the art when it comes to design uh standards and guidelines, not just in California, but the state, um, that's not moving forward either.

So I would like to see that bumped up.

Um and I noticed DIB 94, which was um just really forward-thinking in that it um reduced um wane lane widths, sorry, um, to 10.5 feet and and other um uh narrower indicating, you know, showing that in many of the our projects, we don't need wider widths.

Um, and I I think that should be included in that list as well.

Um thank you so much for the opportunity to comment.

Okay, probably my time.

Okay.

Any other comments from members of the public on Zoom?

Yeah.

Okay, moving to public comments from uh members of public attending in person in the room.

We have any comments from the public, uh again on the uh vision zero road safety plan item.

Okay, seeing none uh going forward to committee comments then.

So I had one, but I'm um, so I I we are approving the you know the both plan updates uh obviously, but um I had one comment I wanted to make on on um one action, I guess, uh identified there, but had to do with um doing a workshop or work tour with the at the Senior Center, and I guess to to look at the senior community.

Um I wanted to, you know, uh definitely support, you know, doing this there, but uh I wanted to highlight its importance.

Um, you know, first, you know, if you would get the latest fatalities for pedestrians, they were um editory people.

Um, you know, uh I think at the square and I think uh there was an accident, uh, more like an accident, not another injury, I guess, uh at at shoreline and Femino, and in both cases we were uh entering people.

Um also at um earlier October i spent time in new york uh with my var my various was reaching close to to you know uh 90, I guess.

So uh and and walking with her you know she walked our life in in new york and and and things like this but we're working with her was pretty um illuminating so she now works with a cane because she's you know she wants to be steady of things like this and and uh working with her you know got me to to realize what what she's worried about and and that's like uneven pavements uh that could be you know lack of of lights or or or not not great lights at night because she our vision is not that great at that at night um it's also you know whether there would be benches where she can break uh a walk or or in in parts and um so i think there is great value in in doing that type of workshop to to to learn more about that that population because it it's very important for for other people to keep on walking um i think you know when people are stuck to walk or to be able to walk that's kind of you know then confined at home and then we're we have you know quickly the terror yet so just wanted to highlight the importance of this thank you thank you um yeah actually wanted to follow up on the sort of questions that um the number of public raised so on sr nine which is the one related to that standards which has a year of 2025 listed on it and sr 10 which is for the standard details and s next year listed are those uh years the years we should expect to see uh those completed or i mean the 2025 one especially seems a bit uh optimistic if it's still to do uh maybe it's really small item this is on page 11 of the attachment or the memo yeah i can I can uh give a response and allison can join it um so we do include these guidelines into our various of our projects and the plans that are coming out of transportation team including Marimonte um ATP and we're also going to be starting working on ringstorf so we do include uh them as part of our planning and design process um adopt uh this specific thing this specific uh strategy we are working through in different projects but not in this you know unique vision zero action plan set yet um so that's why it said not started but we do include them in our ongoing projects and placket process.

I was an included but not I guess I'm not sure to draw the extinction for it is practiced.

Yeah and but I it's yeah it's not a citywide policy at this time but is best practice per project as we used we start planning and design for each project.

Okay and is the intent and and do you have a sense of when it will become sort of the parts of the city's standard uh standard details of this little bit.

I do not have an answer for you on that right now um it's something we can look into um yeah but CrowWag has not officially been adopted by the feds so we would have to look into that um so there's nothing to adopt on that side of things and then NACTO we're obviously following with as we plan our our our work accordingly but citywide adoption we expect that updates to the standard details will happen in 2026 or is that my understanding is there's they're being looked at but I don't know that there's going to be this huge overhaul of standard plans and specs.

I don't know how the timeline number on these different it varies from the expected completion date numbers so but okay, that's just my questions, I think.

Yeah, I definitely say as we go through them and we're working on projects, if we notice issues that we can address that would help reflect what's identified in vision zero, we will update those plans those standards to reflect what is shown in vision zero.

Thank you.

Remember so any guns?

I guess.

Well, I mean, I'm also interested in these projects.

I you're talking about going through project by priority, then we are of course seeing those projects.

But is there are should we expect at any point uh items specific to SR9 or SR10 to come before the B pack?

Uh I don't know that yet, but that's a feedback we can take and work through of what that may look like coming to B Pack.

Okay, or yeah.

Yeah, I would say standard details are typically signed off on by the city engineer.

So that's not necessarily something that we would unless you all have PEs that I'm unaware of.

But um, those are typically, you know, um there are usually some some engineering behind those, which is why the city engineer um signs off on those.

They're standard, meaning that they do not require an engineer to stamp and sign them to use them, right?

So that's why the city engineer stamps and sign them.

So those are, you know, we can show you, we can walk you through them if you want to understand why they are the way they are.

Happy to do that, but from an engineering perspective, they're going to be engineered so that they can be insured, and the city is covered on all of those bases when we go to stamp and sign those.

I mean, yeah, I understand the importance of standards, but you know, as things relate to vision zero, and if we're thinking it's yeah, we can show you what specific to vision zero would be there.

We can show we can definitely explain why we're doing things and where they tie in to the importance of our vision zero action plan.

Yes, and and why they're important and what safety aspects we're using um as we move forward.

And I'll just say the even an informational item on that would be helpful since just speaking from the information I have gotten from um uh similar channel Gonzalez's presentation on pavement management program has been very valuable to providing other feedback.

Yes, the education, yes, for sure.

We can do that.

Okay, so yeah, I guess you know, since we pulled this, um, we endorsed the idea that we were going to adopt those standards and update the city standard details, and that's obviously not changing.

We're just accepting that the report, right?

Yes, yes.

But I think we're all concerned that those are two that are not started to some extent we know the staffing issues.

Um we can come back to those a little later, but I I think want to emphasize that we'd like to see the standards, we'd like to see them uh be implemented so that it's the uh non-conformance that comes back and takes the extra effort as opposed the other way around.

Someone has to make sure um that each of these uh ideas is in the you know uh being implemented in the project, even if the standard didn't say so.

So I think those are both uh concerns.

Obviously, we know um you know that things take time when we're under staff, but um you know getting the standards and uh our objective and that the city, like you said, uh those are going to be implemented without special sign off.

I think is the goal.

Can I move that we receive the item 41 to the um vision zero action plan local road safety plan 23 for 25 buttons?

Please do.

I'll move that.

I'll second it.

Okay, all in favor?

Aye.

Okay, so we've done for two.

Sorry, can I who seconded?

You guys went you went from like that too.

Now that I'm trying to make sure we got it all.

I have to translate, it's recorded.

It's recorded, but it's hard to see who's talking sometimes.

I think it's that unless you know everyone's voices really well.

Even in this cross, we should weigh when we say gone far.

Okay, so we're caught up on 4.14243 now.

So we're on to new business.

Um, so moving on to um item 6.1.

I believe we have a presentation.

Yes.

And before the presentation, uh I will be recusing myself from this item since I live near the project boundaries.

So I will be sitting outside.

Not outside outside.

The member goes well.

We'll call you back as soon as we can go.

Good evening.

Chair of committee members, my name is Joy Houghton, Senior Civil Engineer, joined by Robert Gonzalez, Principal Civil Engineer in Public Works, and we are here to present the Transit Center Grade Separation and Access Project or the Castro and Evelyn Interim Improvements Project and receive input on the design concept.

To start with some background, grade separating Castro Street from the railroad tracks has long been a high priority for the city, aimed at improving safety for all modes of travel.

Starting in 2015, the City Council authorized the development of the Transit Center Master Plan, which includes the Transit Center Grade Separation and Access Project.

I will outline the scope of that project on the next slide.

Design work for the Transit Center Grade Separation and Access Project began in 2022 with Caltrain leading project delivery, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority serving as a funding partner, and the city serving as the project sponsor.

In September 2023, up to 65% design milestone, Caltrain provided the city the updated project costs, which was significantly higher than the Caltrain provided project costs at 35%.

In January 2024, City Council received an update on the status and cost estimates for both the Castro and Rainstorf grade separation projects.

City Council selected to prioritize Rangstorf and move forward with the Castro interim improvements to implement improvements at the at grade crossing at Castro Street.

In June 2025, staff received the 35% design submittal.

And today we are continuing to progress design to 65%.

Now I'd like to share some background regarding the Castro Street closure.

Temporary signage and barriers remain in place to prohibit vehicle movements and queuing at the rail crossing for southbound traffic on Castro Street heading towards Evelyn Avenue.

And this is to support the Castro Street's program that was implemented in June 2020.

And the Castro Pedestrian Mall that was established in October of 2022.

The Transit Center Grade Separation and Access Project is the first element of the Transit Center Master Plan implementation.

The project proposes to eliminate the vehicle at grade rail crossing, construct a new vehicle ramp from West Evelyn to Shoreline, a shared use path on the south side of Evelyn, between Franklin Street and West Side of Shoreline, and under crossings underneath the Caltrain tracks and central expressway with access points at Castro, Sterling Road, and Adobe.

As previously mentioned, council selected to prioritize the ringstorf Avenue Grade Separation Project, recognizing that there are interim improvements that can be implemented at the rail crossing at Castro.

And with council support, staff has shifted focus on the interim improvements at the Castro Rail Crossing with what we now refer to as the Castro and Evelyn interim improvements.

Castro Street, including Evelyn Avenue crossing, is the critical gateway to downtown and the key access point to the mountain view transit center.

The existing crossing at Evelyn Avenue and Castro Street carries heavy pedestrian and bicyclist activity with more than 1700 pedestrians and 800 bicyclists crossing the railroad tracks each day.

The Castro and Evelyn Interim Improvements Project will remove the vehicle at grade crossing of the Caltrain tracks at Castro Street and provide a safer crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists across the rail corridor and central expressway, improving access to both downtown and the transit center.

The proposed improvements are organized into three segments and will be implemented all together.

Segment one is Evelyn Avenue between Hope Street and Bryant Street.

Segment two is Moffitt Boulevard between Central Expressway and Jackson Street.

And segment three is the Castro-Eveline Rail Crossing.

Starting with segment one, Evelyn Avenue, east of Castro Street between Hope and Castro.

The project will install a class two buffered bike lane on the north side of Evelyn for westbound bicyclists.

And a class four separated bikeway on the south side of Evelyn for eastbound bicyclists.

The bike lane improvements in this section will result in elimination of two parking spaces along Evelyn Avenue.

In addition, the traffic signal at Evelyn and Hope intersection will be modified to accommodate the elimination of the eastbound vehicular access or traffic between Castro and Hope.

Continuing on with segment one, Evelyn at Castro.

The project will install Class 2 buffered bike lane on the north side of Evelyn that transitions to a Class 3 bike route west of Castro for westbound bicyclists.

And the class 4 separated bikeway on the south side of Evelyn for eastbound bicyclists.

Landscaping will be installed on the north side of Evelyn, which will include curb and gutter to restrict vehicular access and green stormwater infrastructure.

And also on the west side of Castro, which will include trees and planter boxes.

These landscape areas will not only serve to enhance the area but also help channelize pedestrian traffic to use the Mart crossings.

The two pedestrian crossings on both sides of Castro will be upgraded with Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA compliant curb ramps, pedestrian crossing signage, high visibility crosswalks, and street lighting.

On the westerly part of segment one, Evelyn Avenue, west of Castro.

This is between Castro and Bryant.

Class 3 bike route markings will be installed on the north side of Evelyn between Castro and Wild Cherry Lane for westbound bicyclists.

Class 4 separate bikeway will be installed on the south side of Evelyn for eastbound bicyclists between Castro and Wild Cherry Lane.

The bike lane improvements in this section will result in elimination of 10 parking spaces along Evelyn.

Next is segment two, Moffitt Boulevard north of Central Expressway for Orientation.

Jackson Street is on the right and central expressway is on the left.

The project will convert a portion of the existing southbound class two bike lane to a class four separated bikeway, utilizing the existing southbound vehicle lanes, which are currently closed due to the Castro Street closure.

No changes are proposed to the northbound traffic or bicycle facilities on Moffitt Boulevard north of Central Expressway.

Future improvements will be addressed through the Moffitt Boulevard Precise Plan, which is currently in development and will include recommended street cross sections for this segment of the corridor.

Continuing on to segment two, Moffitt Boulevard at Central Expressway.

This intersection will be converted to a T intersection with the elimination of northbound vehicular crossing at Castro.

The project will modify the intersection's traffic signal to remove the rail preemption, which is a safety feature that links the railroad equipment to nearby traffic signals to clear vehicles from the tracks when a train approaches.

Eliminating the rail preemption will shorten the pedestrian and bicyclist wait times at Central Expressway as their crossings will no longer be delayed by gate down times during the train activity on Castro.

The project will also refresh the Central Expressway crosswalks and install ADA-compliant curb ramps on the south side of Central Expressway.

And additionally, green bike lane striping and bicycle ramps will be installed for bicyclists crossing the intersection.

Next is segment three, rail crossing at Castro and Evelyn.

For orientation, Central Expressway is at the top, and Evelyn Avenue connection at Castro is at the bottom.

The proposed improvements at this location include the elimination of existing northbound vehicular access at Castro Street, removal of crossing gates, traffic signal, roadway asphalt concrete, and concrete track panels.

Elimination of the westerly pedestrian at grade crossing and widening the existing easterly pedestrian at grade crossing from 10 feet to 15 feet.

Installation of curb gutter and concrete surfacing on Castro south of Central Expressway to permanently restrict vehicular access.

Installation of decorative fencing along the Calcrane tracks and right-of-way to enhance safety.

And upgrades to street lighting to improve nighttime visibility.

Staff is currently exploring the feasibility of adding landscaping along central expressway to further enhance user experience.

As mentioned, the project will enhance the pedestrian and bicycle experience by reducing the wait times at Central Expressway by eliminating the westerly at grade crossing and minimizing conflict points at the railroad crossing.

These changes will result in a minor adjustment to pedestrian and bicycle circulation.

For pedestrians heading southbound from the northeast corner of Moffitt and Central Expressway, no change is proposed to the circulation or access to the transit center or downtown.

There is a minor adjustment for bikes and pets heading southbound from the northwest corner of Moffitt and Central Expressway.

Bikes and Peds will cross Central Expressway and head east to the widened at grade rail crossing and continue on to Evelyn Avenue to the transit center or downtown.

This new path adds a short distance to the travel path from the west side of central of the central expressway intersection.

No change in circulation is proposed for bikes and pets on the east side of Castro heading northbound from downtown or transit center.

And for bikes and pets coming from the west side of Castro heading north, they will need to cross Evelyn Avenue head east and cross at the easterly rail crossing to continue northbound.

Similar to bike pad circulation, there are also some adjustments proposed to vehicle circulation as a result of the elimination of the northbound vehicular access on Castro, westbound vehicles on Evelyn heading northbound to access Moffat Boulevard or Central Expressway will be routed to Villa Street through either Bryant Street or Franklin Street.

From Villa Street, vehicles will use Shoreline Boulevard to connect to Central Expressway to head northbound on Moffat Boulevard.

Similarly, southbound vehicles originating from the north heading into the transit center or downtown will continue to have access via Shoreline Boulevard, Villa Street, and Hope Street.

Moving on to the project costs and next steps.

The project is funded through final design utilizing the 2016 VTA Measure B funds.

The project cost estimate based on the 35% design is $6.6 million.

And the project has sufficient funds to construct the project when design is complete.

For next steps, staff will be presenting the preliminary design to the Council Transportation Committee in December 2025 and will be sharing BPAC's feedback.

Staff will evaluate BPAC and CTC's feedback and we'll forward a recommendation to City Council to approve the design concept and advance to final design.

Final design of the project is expected to be completed in fall of 2026, and construction is anticipated to begin early 2020.

To conclude, I'd like to display staff's recommendation to the committee on the screen.

Staff has presented the project update and we welcome your feedback on the design.

Thank you.

Okay, um moving on to public comment.

I believe it's oh excuse me we get clarifying questions.

That's right.

We get that clarifying questions.

So uh clarifying questions from the committee members before public comment.

Uh yeah I have one more that I didn't ask but there'll be questions.

So did we look at since we're restricting Moffat the possibility of putting uh bike lane in north extending the bike lane in northbound direction since there's we're getting that lane is no longer being used.

It seems like there might be space for that look at we tried to minimize the improvements on Moffitt Boulevard knowing there is a uh the Moffat Boulevard precise plan that will then guide the feature improvements needed at that corridor.

Okay.

I guess the the proposed striping is very similar to the striping that currently exists.

I'm wondering what it what what is the motivation for the changes you are considering versus the idea of extending at least a little bit the current northbound bike lane like what what's the what's the pros cons that came down in the in the direction of what we are seeing.

For the southbound direction we were looking to modify the striping to permanently restrict the southbound traffic on Castro it it's temporarily closed but this project will permanently close or restrict the access to Castro from it and central.

Okay.

I would add to that that um we wanted to further clarify the intent for cyclists traveling southbound on to Moffat and that when they are when they approach the expressway intersection sometimes there's a little bit of confusion about um where they can go or what's accessible to them.

So having that additional striping in the southbound direction um was more of a priority more protective than the northbound didn't seem to be as as critical an element okay we don't know who we can go back to striping I guess I'm missing the the major difference between the current conditions in the striping specifically.

Sorry I just I just want to get in here slide you want uh this one is one yes exactly so this is this is very very similar I think it it merges later is the main difference is that correct or the bike lane I mean for the left turning uh traffic excuse me the southbound traffic turning onto um eastbound the expressway you're talking about the vehicle traffic the the bike traffic so the you're so you're talking about the merge the the transition yeah I'm talking about where the yeah where the bike lane uh crosses the the track the the vehicle lane is further south than it is in current conditions yeah so we try to keep them uh protected along the curve as as long as possible and then move them over to the the left term pocket excuse me for a minute priority I got a message that the uh public can't see the screen.

Okay.

Yeah so okay so there's that change that that the merge happens later in the southbound direction.

I understand what you're saying there.

Is there any other changes here?

I should be able to see that I am presenting just the bike lane um protection using that existing southbound lanes as the buffer between the bicycle and the left turn movements.

Heading to eastbound um central.

Sorry, can you the left turn movements?

So from Moffat onto Central.

The left turn is so it's just already far away from the yes bicycle.

So it's just really utilizing that as the buffer between the traffic lane and the bicycle lane.

Sorry.

Sorry um I think the intent is that the the striping is improved as under the current conditions.

So it's it's more visible along with the vertical elements.

So yeah okay okay.

And for bicycles we can travel on central although I personally would never do that.

For the left turning uh bicycle traffic are we expecting them to turn left from the bicycle lane here or merge in with the left turning vehicle they can turn from the bicycle lane.

Okay.

Okay.

I mean we're on Dani.

Sure I have a number but since we're on this I had a question if I want to bike on Muffet and then turn right on central expressway for whatever reason.

When does it mean I need to continue riding.

Can you repeat that no if I were to to bike from um Muffet towards uh central and then make a right on on central how would I where should I go I guess for southbound bicycle traffic to right onto central westbound central expressway to you merge in with the vehicle turn lane you could merge in with the vehicle right turn lane or you could also stay on the bike lane and make that right turn we're trying to avoid then I would be conflicting with a cars right so you have to cross over it would be very you can't it should be no right turn from the bike lane anyway I I'm not planning to have the right turn from the bicycle lane to avoid that right turning movement with kind of the the through traffic well through traffic is turning right as well.

So you would have bikes on the left of cars making the left the right turn lane which would be I don't know if it's legal but it would certainly be very dangerous.

So you basically have kind of two right turn lanes.

So it would be from the right turn lane.

Yeah so the share rows would extend okay with the right turn lane.

So things that's yeah that would that should have been shown on the uh on the draft drawings is that the share roads would continue on the right turn lane so that so this chairbart is correct that we would not uh want those cyclists moving from the bike lane and making that right turn on central expressway simply because we we don't have we're not we're we're trying to correct coordinate with uh Santa Clara County but they control the intersection so that we wouldn't need to get that feedback from them and they're not they're not changing their that intersection for that and honestly there are not too many people biking on central so you see them yeah yeah but I mean it's it's not the majority right I'm anyway I I've never skinny one turn right the bike lanes on central one I possibly you said you had it oh sure I had um more questions so um I don't want to say so I ask a bunch uh already in the uh yeah so um one thing I was unclear um so I had asked you questions about having butards to to kind of uh protect the the you know essentially pedestrians or or cyclists who are on the two new sort of plazas that we're gonna have on on either side of uh on on both sides of a of a tracks um from retention I I guess I'm sorry I I understand your answer where you you know on the castro side, I guess, um uh of that plaza, uh you you do mention that you're gonna have some some um some curves but also some landscaping like uh you know water collection of things like this.

Um it would be nice to see visually you know how how well of a protection it would be uh you know for that, but I I don't see anything similar on the other side uh which seems to be even more uh riskier because we are like by an expressway, uh where you know you're more likely to have uh a car speeding and and jumping uh the thing, uh jumping the curb.

So uh so it's a so currently there is nothing planned.

Uh there's not a similar treatment planned on the I guess that would be the the north side of the crossing.

In addition to the curb and gutter that will already help restrict vehicle movement or access, um, we are also exploring the feasibility of adding some landscape uh features.

And it'll be similar to to the one you're proposing on the other side or it may be, um, but it's something that we have to coordinate with the county because it is their intersection.

Sure, sure.

I have some comments on that, but it's all right.

So uh since we are still uh around Sanford Expressway, so I'd ask a clarify a question about the uh whether or not there was complement uh it was contemplated to to have a protected intersections, you know, like a Dutch style uh you know uh treatment.

And I guess the answer was that it was not in scope uh for this project.

Uh and also that it's you know, we're at the mercy of uh Santa Clara County or things like this.

Um my question is, you know, is it in scope then for the Muffet streetscape?

And if it's not, when can we do improvements really on the intersection of Versailles?

Um so I would say that since we started this project, the um Santa Clara County has moved in a different direction.

So they were they were contemplating an active transportation plan programmatically for the entire county.

Um when we start what first started this, and we're still in draft form.

So they were not supportive of a protective intersection.

We didn't even we didn't even really discuss it with them.

Um they didn't have a policy in place.

They have a since then they've adopted an active transportation uh program for the expressways.

We can go back and look at that to see if it is consistent with that.

But then we would be that would be part of the the precise plan is to consider what that looks like.

I don't I haven't looked at that section.

Because yeah, I believe it's north of the I've seen a lot of plants where the intersection is kind of left.

I believe the Moffat Precise Plan starts uh north of the intersection because the central expressway Moffat Boulevard intersection really does belong to the county they own and operate the intersection.

So any improvements the city wishes to um that's kind of a donut holding require approval from Santa Claus.

Okay, um, any changes they make require approval of the city.

Depends on what the impacts are to city streets.

Okay, I'd hate to see the situation at Ringstorf and Central where the county eliminate the bike lane.

Um, but and they added the power lane and eliminate the bike lane.

It's a very uh dangerous intersection.

So you know, I'm not sure if they can trump us all the time or how that happened, but I can say that they are also involved in the rainstorf um avenue grade separation coordination.

So um we are working with the county on making sure that we get um bicycle and pedestrian improvements along um central expressway within the project area.

Like I said, they took it away.

And if we didn't object or we weren't asked at Ringsdorf.

Yes.

So it used to be three lanes going across in a bike lane now with four car lanes.

I believe based on counties' current policy, they delineate, but yeah, not designated.

About 12 years ago when they eliminated the bike lane.

They're not opposed to bicycle lanes.

Um at this time for race dwarf grade separation.

I had a few marks.

So if you can put the slide that shows the the modified lights at hope and not east, they can.

Yeah.

So I guess from what you presented, the the idea is that we won't have, I mean, very much we we currently don't have, but we won't have vehicles coming um, I guess from the the west, right?

That uh on Evelyn.

Correct.

But they would be people biking on the west, so uh so I'm not sure.

If the modifications would be you're not sure what the modifications would be.

Well, I mean, because uh I guess vx, yeah, maybe you can walk us through what what they are because uh they they would be bikes coming that way because we're putting a bike lines uh it's only restricting um eastbound vehicle access, but bikes may continue to go eastbound.

So the signal wouldn't be changing, I guess is the question.

We would keep the signal for bikes, but then there would be no signal for vehicles, right?

From the it's the same signal now.

Yes, yes, so it would just be um some minor modifications.

So longer cycle for bikes.

I I guess I'm not understanding what modifications you have in mind.

It would be adding a um signal for bikes only because there would not be um westward eastbound vehicle traffic.

So the signal would be for bicycle.

So the sensors would be installed in the bike lane only, yes, and then the lens would video detection is okay, my understanding.

And then the lens instead of a solid green circle would be just the circle and then the green bicycle outline, I guess.

We do not have that detail yet, okay.

So but it would be to accommodate the bike movement, east.

Yeah, so these might worries.

Uh the uh it if I have a green lights on hope to make a left on Evelyn.

It would be a red light for bikes, uh yes, so they would because that's a cycling.

I want to cyclists would have their own uh phase uh eastbound on Evelyn.

So yes, they would have a red light there until it was their turn on the phase.

Okay, okay.

As it should be, but uh I just think you're saying the phasing would all be the same, you know, uh eastbound, westbound uh with turn, um, and then um I guess it's uh well yeah, east and westbound, then um northbound.

So it's just the vehicles won't be cars, they'll be bikes.

And so we may change the um some of the equipment so it's more you know bike-specific.

Okay.

Sorry, I just looking at this.

Uh has this been cleared with VTA?

Because currently the stop bar is far back from there, and I assume that's for the bus turning into you've got ballards there, and I don't know if those will actually be able to go in with the large bus turning radius into the transits area.

I guess have you cleared it with VTA?

Is the question?

Not yet.

Okay, but buses will be entering prior to Hope Street.

Yeah, I don't think we're gonna that left turn.

So they go left and around.

Right now, the stop bar is very far back, and I'm assuming the reason it's that far back is to accommodate the large light buses going in there.

Are you talking about eastbound on Evelyn or on Hope?

Yeah, so for yeah, you can actually see the old stop bar in this design underneath the the ballards halfway between Hope and uh and uh the driveway, the alleyway.

Got it that you can that's where the stop bar is in there.

There's that clean keep clear.

Um and uh so I had always assumed that it's that far back to to accommodate large buses.

Um I don't know.

We will confirm that the buses can make that turning.

And uh from from that slide, I actually so uh can you describe a little bit what that's uh looks like there is a buffer of some kind for for to protect the the soft side back lane, uh but what what again is it just paint?

Is it like vertical stuff?

Is it like I don't know?

It's paint with some vertical elements.

Okay, so it's pretty wide, so uh so the vertical elements will be in the center of those or or um closer to the bicycle lane, it doesn't look completely centered within the buffered area.

So a car would be able to ride on part of it, I guess.

We'll make sure that cars would not fit between the ballards.

Not that they should, but it's okay.

Okay.

Uh and then uh then uh I guess if you could go back to um, was one slide showing the you know what the original, I mean the vote project looks like, you know, with the underground and the yeah, so this one here.

So um on the yes, I'm always challenged with the orientations here, but I guess it's on the north side uh of the trucks.

There is an area that shows uh that's for bus uh dropping or or pickup or things like this.

So um uh in my craft equations, uh, I'd ask, you know, if there were plans to use, you know uh some of us uh I guess to the left of this uh is uh there is a kind of a a turning line on to there that that's I've seen people use for for that purpose, pick up and drop-off.

So I that's why I was asking the questions is to see uh if it could be uh maybe switched or or or kind of take a jump on the the next plan there because that I think it would simplify the the car traffic or the bus traffic.

Um I mean if I take an Uber to try and it would be cheaper for me to to be dropped there, so that's um but anyway.

So that that was the VR.

Installation of the passenger drop-off pickup areas were included in the transit center grade separation and access to it.

Not in the interior plants, like not the end of it.

So that was the clarification.

I think that's our head.

Okay, uh, questions going back to the Evelyn flow uh, I guess.

Okay, on this one, so on the crosswalk shown there.

The are there um reverse arrows by the crosswalk in the bike lanes there.

What are those little arrowheads?

Right next to the crosswalk at the top and the bottom, opposite.

I can't see your cursor.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Um, the little triangles are are yield signs or simple.

Okay, okay.

So they're not to yield directly at all.

Okay, just want to make sure it's not supposed to be two-way or something.

Okay, um, can and then I think it uh probably uh segment two is a better as you go from let's say westbound Evelyn.

Um how do you access the tracks?

If you could trace that path.

So I'm coming on westbound Evelyn.

I'm I make the first of the S turns to the right, I make the second S turn to the left, uh, and then I enter the ramp at the crosswalk to go to ride across uh central.

Yes, um, we're still exploring um a designated bike ramp at this location.

Okay, because it's I I guess the gravelly, it's not clear uh how the bikes would cross at the end of the crosswalk there on the north side, north end.

Okay.

It would be in around the crosswalk area.

So sorry, we couldn't see your cursor.

I know.

Yeah.

So just for clarification, the gravelly look is it's a hatch mark for concrete, so that's just meant to be concrete showing a new and um or the and then those yellow domes that you typically see for the ADA.

So that's showing a new.

But there's some bike path at the north end of the uh western crosswalk, I guess.

So it's at this point the way it's designed.

Is that we we are exploring uh a bike ramp at this location, yes.

Okay, and and I guess just continuing because you're gonna come up um going north on the western um crossing ramp, you're gonna cross and then you're gonna cross to the east and go and go north.

Yeah, okay.

So yeah, just making sure that's clear um and well marked and then spacious for easy turning and uh separation of pedestrians.

I actually got one more question.

Okay, if it's on the side, go ahead, sir.

Sure.

Um for the two crosswalks that are are the signal.

These are signal uh crosswalks or no signals.

Um we're just putting in a lot of pavement markings to make sure vehicles are aware that there are crosswalks um at the S curves, and also um the design speed at this location for vehicles is 15 miles per hour.

Okay, and but no, pedestrians have four pedestrian signals or um, and pedestrians would have a right-over, it's standard California law.

Yes, correct.

All right.

Okay, um, and then I guess we're reviewing the interim project this time.

Um the non-interim part of the project is 2030 or beyond at this point.

I do not have a timeline for that.

Um the city has prioritize the race of Avenue Race.

We have no timeline.

When we have a funding plan in place for the cluster of grade set, to be does report.

It would have to be brought back to the B pack.

Yeah, because um a lot of my concerns were when I saw the preliminary again that the scale of the tunnel sizes, I think the questions were answered um and uh it just didn't look like giving the spread of the tracks at slightly less than five feet, trying to translate the scale that the tunnel, I guess was answered as entering at 20 and leaving at 40 feet.

Um and then the bike ramps are it's at 10 feet.

I assume that's 10 feet on each each uh part of the U.S.

Okay, yeah.

So the scale wasn't clear on that, but um okay.

So you're updating us on the interim plan.

Uh it's coming back to us at this point because it's gonna go to council transportation committee.

Um and it's reached the funding.

Uh so you don't require any motions at this point.

Uh, it's kind of information only.

Um you've heard our clarifying questions.

I guess we go to the comments from Zoom now for members of the public.

And if someone on the public could raise their hand and make sure they can see the screens now, that would might also be informational.

We got it up.

Okay.

I'm gonna stop share because I'm gonna do the time.

Okay, it's okay.

I'm just going to remind.

She just kicked you.

Do you want me to unplug then?

Oh, I got it again.

Um, April, you're allowed to talk.

So whenever you're ready.

Thanks.

And I just wanted to share.

I yeah, I wasn't able to see anything on any of the presentation that staff made.

Um, so I don't know if there's a way to identify that earlier next time, but I couldn't see any of the any of the changes that were being talked about.

Um, in terms of my comment, um, I want to say I live on Central Avenue and I've been using this intersection to bike downtown to go to the Eagle Pool, restaurants, post office, what have you, for about 15 years.

So I'm very familiar with it.

And I want to say that I'm I'm rather concerned that staff stated that safety improvements on Moffitt will not be considered in the near future because of the Moffitt Precise plan that's in flight.

Given the pace at which things move in these types of project and the fact that the plan still needs to be completed and approved.

And then after that, a capital project being created, added the CIP and hopefully prioritized, and then funding needing to be identified.

Realistically, we're talking about I don't know, maybe another five more years until anything's built.

And I'm really concerned because the current design leaves a hanging bike lane that forces people to merge into 40 to 45 mile per hour traffic and it exposes them to a right hook risk at Central Expressway.

Um this is objectively unsafe and that's unnecessary.

Um some changes like quick build, paint only fixes, even continuing the bike lane further, maybe a short road diet at that spot, somehow extending the protection.

I don't think it precludes future work, and I think that's not a great argument.

Um city could also maybe remove some parking and make space so that um well past the intersection so that um it there's a clear and predictable merge zone.

Um I don't think we should wait long term to correct a hazard that's already been created.

And I wanted to point out that um this intersection was actually made worse during the pandemic.

Staff added in the bike lane and it forced the merge after the intersection.

Before that, there were share rows and bicyclists could take the lane before the intersection, and it was clear how to merge.

Um I also want to point out that I personally experienced multiple near misses at the exact location.

I almost got sideswiped by a large truck, nearly hit by a truck toying a boat as well.

Um, that nearbiss of like a decade ago is what got me into advocacy in the first place.

Um I think also giving these risks, um, it's fair to ask whether a recent traffic study or speed study is being done at this location, maybe some field observations, um, maybe a no-right turn on red.

Is that being considered?

And I'd also like to request a community walkthrough of this project given how critical it is as a gateway to our downtown major transit hub, etc.

I think this would um greatly benefit.

And finally, um, on the figures, if you could add legends that identify what the colors are, I think would help to improve the um like readability.

It's really hard to understand the figures right now.

Thank you so much.

Next, I have Peter.

Peter, are you able to talk?

Yeah, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

Um hi, so I'm Peter Sarah Farsfield.

Um I live on Evelyn, a few blocks east of here.

I bike or walk through this intersection almost every day.

Um right now, I'm really excited about this.

So I want to thank the staff and also thank the committee for the great clarifying questions.

Um, right now, when I bike southbound across the tracks, um, there's a pretty sharp left turn to get on to Evelyn.

Um it's kind of awkward.

Uh so I guess my main point is like, I really hope that the bicycle movements like from Stirling Road to like east on Evelyn, east, you know, east of uh Castro, it are smooth in both directions.

Uh it's really awkward for me to go, you know, west on Evelyn and then up to Stirling right now.

I have to do some kind of unsafe things to like cross the tracks and avoid cars through there.

Um, I think on on figure nine, it's kind of unclear to me how I would bike from that northwest corner of the intersection at Stirling, down, cross central, cross the crossing, and then head east on Evelyn.

Like that is kind of unclear.

I'm afraid I would have to make some kind of sharp turns and have a lot of interactions with pedestrians.

Um and I think one of the clarifying questions is about the kind of the reverse movement going west on Evelyn and going up to the crossing.

Like it's not super clear how that's gonna work.

Um so I really want to make sure that that's like those bicycle movements are like really smooth.

Um other big point I want to make is like about curb ramps.

Um a lot of new curb ramps are just installed downtown.

Pretty disappointed by them because they do a lot of the 45 degree thing that sends wheelchair users right out in the middle of the intersection, and then they gotta like go down the ramp, they gotta then turn to actually go in the direction of the crosswalk.

Um even ones where you don't have a single 45 degree angle curb ramp, you have two that are neither of which are aligned properly with the crosswalk so the bumps don't help blind people know what direction the crosswalk goes.

Um so I really wanna make sure that you avoid that mistake here and have the panels correctly aligned everywhere.

Um that's it.

Thanks.

Okay.

Michael, are you able to talk?

Yes, hello.

Yes, we can hear you.

Oh yeah, I wanted to comment on the uh proposed crosswalk at the the S turn at Castro and Evelyn.

Um the proposal on figure four kind of shows a um direct crossing that goes uh right towards Olympus Cafe and Bakery.

Uh that creates a kind of narrow pedestrian area that causes people to kind of make their own chicane around the seating area.

Um additionally, there seems to be already an 18-foot gap in the landscaping uh that looks to beckon pedestrians to go from Castro Street itself uh directly into Centennial Square.

Uh that is a direction I would prefer to see developed uh rather than um developing more walkways that push onto the sides of Castro.

Um where I think the pedestrian pedestrianization of Castro Street would benefit more from um flow directly down the street rather than onto the sidewalks.

Uh that's the only comment I have for uh for now.

Thank you.

And we have one more closure.

Can you hear us?

Hello, yeah, I can hear you.

Yeah, it's all gonna Citizen Mountain View.

I appreciate this change of everything into a one-way car road because I submitted it already four years ago in a city meeting.

Was a good uh avenue meeting for Castro.

I don't know which meeting it was.

It was a public meeting, uh when the tunneling was discussed.

And uh also because I'm using uh the crossing of uh central expressway by bike, well, that's another good reason to have it.

Good to see that it is possibly happening here.

And I second uh Michael's uh suggestions of changing the prediction crosswalk between Centennial Plaza and Castro Street to a diagonal crossing instead of the straight ahead crossing.

You pointed out this narrow part in the north uh east end corner of Castro Seat there.

And that's all it for me.

Great.

That's that's all the all the folks that raise their hands um on Zoom.

Okay, thank you.

So now we can move to uh members of the public here in the room.

Any comments on this item?

Okay, go ahead, come forward to the um podium, introduce yourself and you have three minutes.

Yeah, so my name's Daniel Holz.

Uh I live in Mountain View.

I work in the Moffitt Field area.

Uh I bike extremely regularly from the Caltrain station to the Moffitt Field area.

Um Moffitt Boulevard is just very bad and very unsafe currently.

And a lot of people take it.

A lot of my colleagues take it on a bike because the main station is right there and it's the most direct visible route.

I there are some alternatives you can do.

I do the alternatives, but Moffitt is the most direct visible route.

Um and so every single complaint I get from my colleagues uh is who are also cyclists is when are they gonna fix Moffitt?

Uh and why haven't they done it already?

So I think with this, there's a real urgency to this project.

There shouldn't have been cones out there for five years, you know, like as soon as we we got to that state, there should have been something immediately to fix that.

But also we need to take the public like consensus around the Moffat Boulevard Precise Plan that has happened in public meetings that there should be bike lanes on Moffitt very seriously now when we're actually doing a part of a project that is going to feed into that.

Um and so that's that's what I came here to say we can get a bike lane southbound as well as northbound and have them be good bike lanes where you don't have to merge into cars uh for seemingly no reason.

Um, you know, so we could actually use this infrastructure.

I think that's uh that's really a big priority uh for me.

Um the other the other piece, you know, uh I I wanted to point out uh since I also have colleagues who take work shuttles up to the uh Moffitt field area.

Um this project by closing off that that outgoing thing on Moffitt is actually slowing down those shuttles by a good five minutes or more.

Um, so it would be nice if there was some sort of place where we could say, you know, if you're going up here, like you could do that from the north side of Central Expressway, could be on Moffitt.

There is a lot of space on Moffitt that is not really adequately used.

Um so just some accommodation for that because uh really the superpower of the Mountain View Transit Center is the shuttles.

Um that's why it gets such a high ridership.

And so when we slow them down, we're actually making it a less transit-friendly place.

Um that's my comment.

Thank you.

Um, please introduce yourself and yeah, three minutes.

Hello, my name is Lucas Mello.

I live just west of the transit center, and I walk or bike through Evelyn to the transcenter pretty much every single day.

Um, and I'm very excited to hear about this proposal to add bike facilities and uh crosswalks to close that gap from Evelyn to Castro.

That's really great.

I can't wait to see that be implemented.

But I am worried about this addition of a westbound travel lane um on Evelyn.

That's gonna remove a modal filter that we currently have.

Um, and it's gonna significantly increase the level of traffic in a lane that's already 25 miles per hour.

Um I would be fine with biking that, but there's also a lot of kids that walk or bike to school there.

So there's a school at the end of Avalon, and I am just surprised that there's no like better facilities there.

It's a very wide section of lane.

There's parallel parking, perpendicular parking, and two car lanes.

One car lane's being removed and parking is being removed, and there's still not space for um even like a buffered bike lane or something like that.

Um it would just be unfortunate if this project that is trying to increase safety for everyone ends up uh removing safe routes that people of all affiliates are already using today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other members of the public wishing to comment in the room?

Thank you.

Moving forward to um, I can go first.

Uh I have quite a few comments.

I also regularly go off the same exception.

Uh and okay, I think starting with what a couple of members of the public mentioned that the southern uh in uh pedestrian uh crosswalk near Castro Street across Evelyn is currently angled and has been changed to a straight.

Uh I think it is definitely better angled.

People will uh cross to that 18-foot gap if we implement it like this.

Uh pedestrians and bicyclists, and I don't know, I wouldn't be surprised to see a car park there as well.

If we don't like like block that off, um yeah, I think that is very small but impactful improvement to the project.

I don't think we should remove the second pedestrian crossing at the CalTrain tracks.

It's there, it's fine.

I don't know.

The answer to why we're getting rid of it is seems to be mostly that Cal Train doesn't want to maintain it, which is I don't know.

I feel like that's their problem, not our problem.

Uh it's it's a straight, like we've got a we got a crosswalk on one side, we've got a crosswalk on the other side, and diverting everyone around is very pedestrian hostile.

Uh and that's kind of par for the course for Caltrain.

They have a lot of pedestrian hostile designs.

Uh and I mean it's there now.

I want to I would really like um it's not a big deal for somebody who's physically fit to make that little detour, but this this crossing is used by a lot of people, and not all of them are going to transit center.

There's a lot of destinations downtown.

Uh as just mentioned the school down the way uh that people might be going to.

Um yeah.

Uh we'll get rid of it eventually anyway, right?

Once once the full project is done.

Correct.

Uh so for the interim, I I really would like to to see that kept.

Um as mentioned before on northbound Moffitt, at least to the alleyway, I would like to at least look and see if there's any kind of improvement.

Uh there is a lot of okay.

The fact that there isn't problems there is because most of the drivers are paying attention, but I don't like that as our safety feature because that's not a reliable safety feature.

I would like to see if there's at least some design that we can do.

Um in rush hour.

I a lot of times it because there's almost always someone traveling in the travel lane on a bike at rush hour, northbound Moffat.

So usually what happens is all of it all of the drivers merge into the left lane and it's fine.

But if there's an aggressive driver, someone who doesn't want to wait and try to move around.

There's a lot of space there.

It really feels like something could be done and not too expensive.

At least, you know, make the merge more gradual, like do something on the right turns.

It's only going to be right turns, right?

And not turns now, right?

But not to worry about the straight traffic.

So that's something can be done.

The most of the parked cars there are from the repair shop.

Right.

They park on the office side, they park on the other side, they park on the sidewalk.

I don't know.

I feel like if that was gone, there would be no problems at all right there.

Uh anyway, um I would I would really like to see it if we could do something there for the interim.

Uh yeah.

Yeah, we're not going to have the problem of people making U-turns anymore, which is good.

I'm not, you know, as people will go straight and then make a U-turn to turn right on to Central.

Because if you closed off the left turn, I think they're being clever.

So which street are they starting on?

So like the expressway.

Yeah, this is because we're closing off the I brought this up, I shouldn't explain.

But it's the most frustrating thing to me is people going northbound on uh I guess Castro crossing Central into Moffitt, make a U-turn and then make a ride turn to get on to Westbound Central.

A lot a lot of people do that.

Uh and it's not with the film.

Right after all of those ballards that you've set up.

They just go, oh, that far and make the goal through most of them.

We didn't know that.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Uh anyway, and so that'll end.

And I will be very happy.

Yeah.

That's my comments.

Okay, thank you.

Um yeah, I guess my first comment is there's a lot of connections go through here.

That's why it's called a transit center.

Uh obviously you have Caltrain riders uh uh VTL right rail riders, it's a bus hub.

Um it's a shuttle hub.

Uh it is an attractive site uh for pedestrians and bicyclists, and it connects uh obviously for pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars to various other destinations.

So it's a lot of complexity.

Um, we're doing an in-road design on the way to something eventually uh uh more permanent and uh you know with the great separation and moving the various modes of traffic apart from each other.

Um but I I think um it's hard to follow even on the diagrams, all the movements and uh the directions and the surrounding destinations.

Um I almost think there should be a uh a walk audit of the existing conditions, um, you know, with some of the points that have been brought up by members of the public and the VPAC uh with uh notes taken to the designers.

So you know, obviously the diagonal crosswalk versus a straight crosswalk being a key one, uh, as well as the dual crosswalks, um, you know, the Caltrans is opposed to.

And again, I can't quite figure it out.

They have the arms that is there, um, why they wouldn't want uh why it's a problem to continue with the dual crosswalks until the tunnels are available.

Um so it's it's complex, it's good that we're doing something in the interim rather than waiting for some unknown time frame.

Uh, but I think uh at this point of the design, it would be good to have a site audit with uh you know the designers and members or the public and staff invited just to see and have dialogue with it actually in front of them because it's uh kind of complex to envision all the movements and current situation and the future situation.

So that would be uh a key uh request or advice of mine.

The two things I would keep in mind is the transit oriented development bill, I believe, becomes effective January 1st, 2026, um removing local control of uh certain development limits near transit.

I know Palo Alto recently released a major plan for their transit center, envisioning how different properties are likely to be developed uh as you know high rises near transit to accommodate uh more residences and perhaps some offices.

I would expect that will also happen in Mountain View, so there'll be a denser concentration of residences, um, you know, near within the whatever the half mile radius of the transit center.

Um so we should envision you know far greater counts of pedestrians, bicyclists uh wanting to access the site is especially as um you know they can live and work there without owning a car.

Um the idea of uh fixing Moffett Boulevard and if it's uh um uh couple changes to diagrams and a little paint um as an interim before the Castro or the Moffat Boulevard precise plan, uh seems very wide at this point.

Um, you know, like say especially at the five, six o'clock hours and uh or in the morning when the uh majority trains arrive, it could be a mess.

Uh very hazardous.

So those are my general comments.

Um, I guess the question is, assuming it goes forward from council transportation committee.

What is the next time frame?

To go to council.

Well, after the transportation committee, it's gonna go to council and it's gonna go to council.

What's the budgeting time frame going farther out?

Or actually builder implementation, is it a 2026 capital project, or do we know yet?

We are anticipating um construction to begin in 2027.

Okay.

This is a Caltrain-led project.

So we are taking cities' comments and providing it back to Caltrain and their uh project designer will move forward with that.

So we'll take your comments, CTC's comments, feed it back to um Caltrain's designer and council first.

Council's comments as well.

So this design that you received in July was from Caltrain or consultants hired by Caltrain.

Consultants hired by Caltrain.

Okay.

All right, so it's not a city, it's it's a city-sponsored project, okay.

Oh, all right.

But with Caltrain led design.

Yes, yeah.

So I guess I'd share my comments.

Let's go ahead.

Uh so um I I actually use that that intersection across the tracks there every week because I do a uh volunteer shift at CSA.

So I'm actually walk.

So I leave west of uh Castro and my destination is also west of uh Muffett.

Uh, I use the British pathway or around in the new building there, you know.

Uh so I'm pretty familiar with this and with I mean all times of a year of things like this.

Um so I I feel very strongly about not getting rid of the segments cross uh crosswalk, I guess, or or the second gate of additional access.

And I feel so strongly that I would be happy to put it on a motion to make sure to make the point because that's uh uh to me it's first of all, it's it's yet another added a few minutes to to people walking the way I walk, and to give it in perspective, uh I have about a mile and a half from from CSA.

So, you know, if I had no interruption, no zigzagging, no, no, no, no, uh signals to to abide, it would take me 20 minutes.

I never made it in less than 30 minutes.

Uh, and it's because you know, I have to cross Shoreline, I have to cross at Camino, um, I have to cross California.

Uh I have a few stops also when I take the pedestrian mall because you know it's not always instant, and then I have a very long light at uh uh to cross uh central expressway.

So so every time we think of something that's gonna add like maybe a minute, you know, to a pedestrian, that really adds up and and it blows away think concepts like the 15 minute city, uh, you know, where you can go place.

It blows, you know, the another metric that's used for the parks and rides, which is 10 minutes uh walking access to a park.

Uh if you had even just a minute or two, you you above that.

So I think that's really something we wish, you know.

And in this case, it's not like we're asking for for something to be built, it's already there, it's functioning.

It's maintained well enough, I guess.

I don't think there has been any uh uh malfunction.

Uh and also the thing that I dislike about removing it is that we're gonna be funneling pedestrians and bicyclists going in two directions into one larger but still 15 feet, it's not very large.

Um, you know, uh I and it's gonna create lots of contacts.

I mean, especially if if cyclists, you know, as they want to do, uh want to continue biking through through this.

I mean, you know, uh it's gonna be like even just to to walk your back, you have to to stop and and things like this.

That it's not a good solution.

And there's something that's working fine.

I mean, that's not you know, it shouldn't cost it should save money actually, not to destroy something.

So uh so that I feel very strongly about this.

And I think, you know, if my other commissioners are are okay.

I mean, I'd like to put it in the motion.

So um the other um uh and and uh the the other thing I'm I'm questioning is um the fact that there is no uh signals for for the crosswalks uh across Evelyn.

Um I think it's a bit dangerous.

And it's also not consistent with the way we handling uh the pedestrian mall.

Uh the pedestrian mall, we you know, when you walk there, pedestrians, you know, and that's a mall, but we have to press a button to to get uh a right to walk.

And it's a bit inconsistent if it's not the same system, uh when the same process, if you will, when when you cross uh Evelyn.

Um and then I also uh I don't know, I think it would be nice to have a crosswalk that's really aligned with the the the pedestrian mall uh and and we could make it wider.

We could maybe even make it like a scramble, uh which would make uh council member uh fix uh happy.

Uh but that that's the kind of things, but but preferably with some sort of a signal to to do this, because uh uh as much as you know the the low is on the pedestrian side, uh but the the tonnage is on the shuttles and and the the the way mows and and and and things like this that you know this is a transit center, so people are in a hurry to get to work or things like this.

Uh I you know I'd be I'm concerned that people will not yield or fancy.

So if there's a way to put some lights and maybe consolidate the crosswalks into one and align it with pastro, uh that would be a better solution, but but at least some sort of signal uh to be consistent with the rest of the mall uh and and to ensure that that people will stop hopefully stop more than if it's just uh that that's a California lows.

Um and the the first item that I uh I had brought up is um putting some sort of pod or separations uh there.

Um and it's something where um you know uh I I grew up in Nice, France, and and in the 14th of July in 2000 15 uh or 16, sorry.

Uh uh a terrorists took a truck, uh jump the curb on the at the busiest time of the year because that's when you have the fireworks.

Um he was stopped in four minutes uh thanks to the bodies.

He killed um 80 plus people and hundreds were injured.

So it's to me that's every time I see a big confrontation of pedestrians and and no buttons, I I cannot have to think of this, and it's kind of a it's unfortunate, but it's a you know uh having bottles or some ways to prevent things and and from Central Auto Expressway, you know, it's a straight shot.

I mean, for for somebody with intention to just run through for this, so that that's my thing, but uh, but I I'd for for the not getting rid of a second, um, you know, sounded in a motion if it's agreeable.

Okay, so yeah, yeah, I I heard uh I think from um some comments or uh recommendations.

Uh the the first thing that was clearly called for a motion was the uh dual crossings on the Caltrank tracks, correct?

So okay, okay.

So you can go ahead and make that motion or Isaac, you want to comment first?

There was sorry the the the comment by the member of public uh about continuing uh the pipeline a little bit on Evelyn, uh Westbound Ellen.

Uh I guess I wanted to bring that comment before staff and give you an hint.

Uh it does seem to me there's a lot of space there, especially as we're moving those parking lots, and if we leave that space on occupied, people will park there.

So it seems like uh an easy win, you get it more of bike lane and you uh discourage it for parking, but could you comment to that?

Like was it looked at or thought about this is westbound Evelyn, west uh between Castro and Wild Cherry, where we're removing the parking lot or the the parking spaces, um, but there's a share of in the design in that in that I guess half a block, if it would be feasible to just obviously space because we're getting rid of the parking spots to have a uh bike lane there and then maybe a more clear merge lane in in the second half towards Bryant or something along that line.

But the reason why it was designed for the bicycle to have that transition closer to the crosswalk is it's what makes sense um for us to transition at that area rather than kind of mid-block, since we are not eliminating all of the parking, the um perpendicular parking on the north side of Evelyn.

Right.

You would you will keep the parking well between wildcherry and uh Brian, doing some some of the perpendicular parking may remain on the north side of that one, right?

But between wild cherry and castro, because it's one way, it would have to be removed.

Is that correct?

On the south side of Evelyn, correct.

Well, I mean, but on the north side, you wouldn't be able to get out legally because it's a one-lane road, or you wouldn't be able to get in.

We may convert some of them to um diagonal parking.

That would still be, I guess you could get in and then you'd have to go out.

The direction it just seems like you're encouraging people to drive against traffic by keeping the parking.

How many how many spaces is that?

Like eight maybe spaces.

I don't know.

Eight is being generous.

Uh I guess I assume you said your sum parking would be removed.

I had assumed it was the north side, some on the north side, but uh mostly on the south side of that.

Okay.

That wasn't clearly.

So we're putting in the protected bike lane um all the parking on that side.

So the north side parking is currently, but we did turn them to diagonal.

Yes, to deter.

I thought you were getting rid of it.

So not all not all of them.

Okay, okay.

But the signal parking is more dangerous for cyclists.

Well, definitely is not correct.

I mean that's perpendicular is not great, but at least the studies I've read show that angle parking is the most dangerous uh of parking.

So we can look at further parking removal, but we know that that is controversial in any context, and there's a lot of parking demand downtown.

Yeah.

So we were trying to balance those those two issues.

We can transition, we can look at transitioning the to share rows further down, but that would require us rethinking those parking spaces.

Okay.

I yeah, it wasn't clear to me.

I would have looked at that more closely.

So it's if you put a part of your motion motion, we take it back to our design team and we we reconsider those elements and we also put it in front of CTC for their awareness.

Yeah.

Uh it's also bumpy, but would be accessible only for one direction.

So one direction, you'd have to enter from one direction and exit from one another direction.

I feel like people are gonna.

No, no.

If you bump there, you you have no trust button.

That's one way for it.

Yeah, but so you'd have to continue like you would have to get to that legally from the transit center, and then park.

I just feel like people are not gonna do that.

They're gonna come from like the wild cherry side and just kind of sneak in.

Uh I mean I realistically, that's what people will do, and it feels very dangerous.

Uh yeah.

Sorry.

Uh uh I'm I'm I'm absorbing the new information.

Well, again, you can you know they can take that information back and they can explore.

Um do we know how many of those uh spaces, how many spaces are we talking about here?

It look according to Google Earth.

So just look at it, it looks like about six at most.

Okay, the project will be removing a total of 10 on the west side of the castro.

All right.

So it's a combination of those perpendicular parking as well as the on-street parking on this side.

But some of those are being kept as angled parking, you are saying some will be converted.

Yes.

Okay, so the 10 is all of them removed minus the ones that we're keeping or yeah, I'm assuming that's a total net loss.

Yes, the total.

So it would be a you would be losing more than 10 if you were to remove those, correct?

Okay, so how many would be left?

So I guess you would probably be losing an additional say four, okay.

I I mean, I don't we would have to look.

We would have to, I mean, this is yeah, I understand.

Uh but I will say there's also trees right there.

So I'm not sure that what you can fit in, because I'm not I'm not going to remove heritage trees.

Right, no, so I wouldn't.

Yeah, so so there's a lot of constraints in that area specifically.

Yes, that need to be evaluated.

I would I was assuming that all of the parking was being removed in the one what lane one-way section of that, and so there would be a lot of room to do more uh of a bicycle lane.

Um since that's maybe not the case, I would advocate that that I do think that that would be best um to just get rid of all of the parking in that half a block.

Um yeah, and that's all that's uh, you want.

So, well, we have one motion I think that Sergio would like to make that's clearer.

Um do we want to keep that a separate motion and uh another recommendation, or do we uh Isaac are you just for clear point of clarification?

Your motion would be a request for CTC to recommend staff to Caltrain.

Again, uh all of your comments will be presented to CalTrain.

I mean presented well, yes to Caltrain, but also to CTC.

Okay, I'm trying to draft language now.

All right.

Would you like to make your motion?

Uh but it's not like I've written it, but uh I can uh I can try and write something so that it's fair.

Uh yeah, because I'm I'm thinking we have a motion on the the Caltrain crosswalks.

We are requesting that CTC recommend staff uh bring to count uh these changes uh uh definitely we want to keep both uh penestrian crossings, for the trucks.

Oh yeah, yeah, I assume the county's not changing theirs on central so existing.

That's training, uh not eliminate the uh and I think that's the one you are strongly feeling on.

But do we want to add any other?

Yeah, the question is you want to on uh separate motions or when I think we put everything on one that we're all aligned on, uh and it can be nice and long like we didn't before.

Okay.

Keep going.

And the longer you make it, the harder it is for CTC to pass in one.

So we can break them off, but again, uh and they don't all have to be motions.

It doesn't mean that your comments aren't going to be taken to CTC or to council and not going to be conveyed to, I mean, we all have notes of your comments, the crosswalks, the pedest.

I understand your pedestrian crossing that that is a priority.

That's a motion you would like to make exploring the parking.

I think that that's something that would happen as they the design develops to be honest.

The keeping of the two crosswalks is a change in approach.

So that to me is the one if that is truly something you would like to be explored, that is worthy of considering a motion.

The rest to me would probably shake out through the design process based on conversations.

I guess the other thing that I that might be motion worthy would be uh to explore the bike lanes northbound on Moffitt.

Um, so that's less clear to me what exactly we're recommending because I don't it's sort of I feel it's a bit out of scope.

I mean, I don't know.

So that seems to I would I would remind the committee that we are working with Caltrain and the more work we do away from the rails, it's it's out of their jurisdiction and it's more um administrative burden on on the city um to go through that.

So this might be an opportunity for us to look at other we ways of delivering that that type of project.

So I'd be sitting down with the the department leadership to figure out like what's the best way of delivering that.

It may not be attaching it to a Caltrain project.

And that's that makes sense to me.

Um, but yeah, so I I think that needs us perhaps I think with that.

Caltrans on the correct and presents, but yeah, it's the goal to it.

So that's that's one motion.

Another one is just expressing our strong concerns, um, that they be relayed so that no question about what we said, because it's a motion that goes through staff to Caltrans and the the CTC to Caltrans, so that it's really clear um, you know, what the statement was, and then obviously everything else comes in under discussion and concerns that were raised and be addressed by uh uh whatever group is doing the design is possible, but I think we kind of grade them into the must-have of the crosswalks.

It's a straight message to Caltrans.

Um Caltrains, trains.

Caltrans is not here, but um, just as our sensitive, you know, our concerns and issues that we want to put on the table that people can say no on the CTC, we are not concerned about the same things, and then finally just summarize what we have discussed that uh is not in a motion that should be conveyed.

Okay, so it's not with a crossings, the motion uh requests that CTT recommend staff uh ask Caltrain to keep both existing pedestrian crossings of the tracks.

That sound about right, you know, and it might to align with the Google crossings at Central Expressway.

So for the the benefit of the committee, I'll just um relay our last conversations with Caltrain, the engineering group, and their comments back to us regarding the second crossing.

They looked at this as an opportunity to consolidate and further not just simplify but further make the crossing safer.

So that their vision is systematically is whenever there's an opportunity to eliminate crossing or a duplicate crossing, they're going to pursue that.

So that was their communication back to us.

We were we were clear that from a community standpoint, we were we were expecting that this would would play out just as it is.

So we wanted the the pedestrians and it would be beneficial to have two from their perspective from a systematic rail perspective.

Their vision is the fewer crossings the better.

Yes, yeah, I yeah.

I understand their perspective and I'm wanting to city to push back as much as they are able to.

That's pretty much a community to push back.

We're expecting thank you.

Yeah, I mean, unless it unless they fence the middle, they would they would fence it, the people do hop the fences, uh, so okay.

So I think our motion is still clear.

We yeah, we want to give the city ammunition to say it came before us.

Uh it was a strong concern, and there was a motion to keep both.

If it dies at some point, it dies, but I think we're clear we want to make the statement that's our request.

Yeah.

So I have requests CTC have staff convey community desire to keep both pedestrian crossings.

Is that that works for me?

Okay.

So is there uh I may have motion, I guess.

So we just made the motion, I will second the motion.

Okay, calling for a vote.

All in favor.

Okay, now's up.

Um, okay.

So I think the second motion would be the concerns we uh feel strongly enough to include in a motion.

Um that uh the CTC can then discuss directly uh and uh vote on as far as uh I guess if I if I would I don't know if we need to make a kind of motion, but if we were gonna make one, it would be something to what uh uh simple engineer Gonzalez said of consideres to northbound law, separate from this project that could be delivered earlier than the full uh precise plan, which is several years out of this.

Is that feel like or I don't know?

I think we just leave it.

What do you guys think?

You think there's gonna be increasing pedestrian bike traffic, the nicer uh castro street gets um and the um Evelyn improvements are gonna attract.

So I I think it's you know something that we should point out that you know the the most dangerous point may move, um, but it's still nearby on Moffat Boulevard there.

Could you remind me just real quick?

The precise plans in design right now.

Well, not yeah, the precise plan is in development, so it is a is a planning document led by community development, and that um from that once it's adopted, then it it turns into uh projects.

Yeah, it may become projects, but we don't know if we know any any changes through that mechanism is at least five years out.

Is that realistic?

I wish I had that answer.

I have not done a precise plan here, okay.

Um I don't think anybody at the table has done a precise plan here.

Um five years is a reasonable time for yeah, it probably depends on something precipitating if there was a major development or something that said hey, right for this development.

Something else probably has to precipitate referring to the Moffitt's specific specific plan is scheduled to be coming to BPAC in spring of next year.

I think it's on our February or March towel.

Yes, so that again that's the plan, and then there will be projects coming out of the plan.

Yes.

Uh, yeah, we're we've we've got the plan for the north of Moffitt that is coming a lot sooner.

And I think anything from this nice plan will come and it would be really nice.

Um I guess as someone who bikes this stretch.

Well, I bike the southbound all the time because there's never an embark on that side.

Never ever.

Not a single time as I seen anyone parked on the southbound between uh uh uh central and middle field, yeah.

But on the northbound, there's always someone parked there.

Uh it's it's uh you got the repair station and you've got the uh content on the side, yes, uh, which generate a lot of parking.

Um but there's traffic is very small and it will get even smaller with this design.

So it really does feel like something can be done.

Um, but I'm I'm side tracking again.

What do we want to do?

Well, for for Muffet, I think it's not really in scope for for this.

And I think if it's gonna come in in you know in May, I think it's maybe the better time to do it.

Ice plan comes in May.

February, yeah, or in spring.

Uh, but if we want something, some actual interim improvements to come, we can ask.

Yeah, but it I mean, to me, it would be another CIP or some right angle.

We we can, it's not a we can take it back to the design team to see what other northbound improvements that we can make, say from uh the expressway to what's the next intersection, is it central on the northbound side?

Yeah, uh, central, yeah, yeah.

So to see if we can make a longer merge or I would also say we're so close to getting the precise plan, you might want to see it and then prioritize where what you want to do with it rather than make a decision prior to seeing what they're recommending, you know, kind of a carp for the horse.

We're what three months out from seeing what they're gonna recommend.

We might, you know, yeah, at least see where they're they're recommending and then make a decision on.

We can still look at it from the design side, yeah, but they you know, yeah, does we're not saying they're coming in three years with a precise plan, it's it's three months.

So the two-lane input to Moffat is being eliminated, right?

So there's only one lane input for a right turn and one lane input for a left turn now, yeah.

Um, so the two-lane input.

Um yeah, I think the main danger is is that right hook coming on uh from southbound from uh central northbound on the Moffitt?

Well, the southbound right hook, but oh central northbound on the Moffitt.

I see, yeah.

Uh westbound, sorry, to Moffat Northbound.

Uh which yeah, there's that little tiny bike lane, but uh, I guess that's more.

Anyway, uh we can I mean you have our comments, yes.

Okay, so should we summarize some of the key areas then?

So the comments are clear, or maybe we can ask one of those.

What do you mean?

Yeah, what do you have there?

Your notes from us.

So I've got to look at the Avalan and Castro crosswalk crossing, I can diagonal, yeah, crossing.

Um we will highlight the north round Moffitt and look at that area.

You're looking forward to no U-turns on Moffitt.

Um we will also evaluate the parking on the West Cherry Castros span and just see where that is the design shakes out.

Um we will look at doing a walk audit again.

That's not our design team, so we'll have to explore what our options are there.

And I guess I would say with city staff, if Caltrans isn't willing, but hopefully Caltrans would even be Caltrain would even be willing.

Um there's the you mentioned we need to look at the development moving forward, knowing that transit development is coming within the half mile radius of transit oriented design.

Um again, look at Moffitt.

That was and then um we mentioned that we are working towards construction in 2027.

Everybody mentioned keeping the second pedestrian crossing, but we have a motion on that one, and then look into signals at the crossings, the new crossings being uh provided.

Is there anything else Joy?

You wanted to add to that.

Those were my main takeaways, maybe one, but uh, that's to have some sort of boat out or safety feature uh on the um the new plaza if you will that you have on the central.

So, in agreement with looking at looking at that.

I think so, yeah.

Yeah, I think the other comment was and you you uh you know confirmed that the design for the north side of the crosswalk was uh still in process or whatever.

Design north side of which crosswalk.

So the second crosswalk, the north side of the second crosswalk of Evelyn.

Oh okay.

So the bike ramp.

Yeah, yeah.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

So that design area.

I mean, that would be a good conversation in the walk audit to confirm the current thinking and lay it out.

Um, but yes, there were concerns about that.

Yeah, I think in general, we could look a little more about all of the all of the various movements because there's a lot of movements there that aren't really clearly expressed in the design document.

Uh yeah, that would be to help with little things.

Everything from the oh you you know, you can't make turn right turn from the bike lane.

You have to have the share of the lane near the curb, and maybe the bike lane should be labeled as a left turn because you're gonna, you know, the crosswalk's gonna be on the left side anyway, so you have to you should make that left turn and not assume you're going straight or whatever.

So a lot of little details at a walk audit might um be able to go if we had uh you know drawings in hand while we're walking out the site.

I'm sorry, and then I also have review the bus movements with the VTA.

Oh yes.

Yeah.

If we if the pickup drop off for shuttles on the north side can be done in the interim, that would be I think really good, but I don't know.

Yeah, I guess one more comment.

Okay.

Yeah, the prevalence of uh, you know, used to be called ride shares, but taxi services and Waymo's um is only likely to increase.

And I don't think there's much provision within the Caltrain parking area and drop off there.

Um, you know, I was thinking some of those removed parking might be a good way because they're likely to stage there anyway.

Um, but I think that's a general comment for this project than any other.

Where are the rideshare?

Um you know uh is gonna occur legally or illegally, and which ones of those would be a safety.

So anybody as I walk there, I can tell you that on central expressway.

On but not uh you know, useless uh left uh right zone on two things.

And I see, yeah, it's very done.

That's logic problem.

I mean, that's like it's not actually totally unsafe there.

There might be other locations where like people do it's uh and that's where it's both unsafe and illegal.

Um I was just walking away completely.

So there was one comment I forgot.

Sorry.

Uh it's around the the uh uh you know quiet zones, uh you know uh prospect as for questions and and uh my understanding from from what Aloalto uh is doing is that they you know they're still debating on how to do great separation so that's that's a bad you know at all process I guess uh but in the interim they they doing some some changes to the existing crossing so that they can have a quiet zone and and the changes they they they make is really to make sure that you have barriers on all possible things and I think it's gonna be the case here right we can have you know only pedestrians and dice can cross and they are gated uh properly in in both directions so uh I'm not sure who we need to push but it would be nice to have also a a quiet zone there because that's you know my my my watch has like some some warnings when it's too loud and it got triggered a few times on on that closing so I think what you're saying is the some of the contemplated improvements may make a quiet zone easier to implement so there is a quiet zone feasibility study as part of the 25 26 CIP so that will kick off in spring with staff increases.

When I have more than this and to to add to that my understanding is that in those locations you put down a quad gate that's the term of art for uh for that that's the improvement that that gives the opportunity to evaluate a quiet zone.

Those areas are typically not adjacent to a a station so there may be further requirements that as you're that's something that could be sufficient that rings off but not right and it's all it's all evaluated through federal regulations so it will be a process right but but there is a project identified so we will we will take that on.

And since it's only pedestrians and and and this maybe can be lower the bit because that's a federal insulated into uh it's a federal regulation for the volume of the bells on the or the horns on the train actually yeah 85 decibels so yeah it is but better better safe than sorry.

Okay so I think we've uh done our motion we've reviewed the list.

Um we ready to close out this item yeah thank you right okay so we can move on can we request a quick break I don't know if you've noticed but we're having this little we need to reset the system so that you guys can get a screen.

Yeah we need time for he's got zoom now but it's just not do you want to try to find the consultant always no it's none of them are showing it's the actual system.

No, very large tech company start the whole thing yeah okay all right that's comforting just tell them sorry it's hi everyone we are having some issue with our TV monitor so we are going to restart the system and hopefully that will fix the issue.

So give us like two minutes.

And actually we do it this one yeah let's kill that one.

No, it's a lot of the I think Sorry, we just have slides we want to share, so I want to make sure that it can I can do that.

The lines aren't there anymore.

They're pretty worn last time I remember.

Oh, yeah.

I think that's just cool.

I'm just make your own part of my seat.

All right.

James, wouldn't you like to go first or anything?

It's just kind of the agenda order.

Thanks for messing with the under speculative.

Yeah.

All right.

It's fine.

And we're unmuted now.

Okay.

Well, we're just nice.

All right.

All right.

Then we're live.

Okay.

Okay.

Moving on, staff comments 7.1.

Are we recording?

Yes.

Yeah, yeah.

We're back.

Okay.

Hi everyone.

This is Prigaty Ahmed.

I am acting transportation manager for um this end of part of next month.

So I'll be providing the staff update.

So this uh last two months we had quite a few um outreach events.

So uh Monster Bash was on October, and this year we had multiple um uh parts of Monster Bash.

We had a bike ride from City uh library to uh Ringstorf Park and 42 bike riders joined.

Uh we also had bike repairs, um, about 35 bikes got repaired, and our big event was the bike rodeo, which 219 um kids and youth joined.

So that was a big success for uh Safe Rest to School and Vision Zero and All Things Safety.

Um we also joined we also had Ruben Cut uh Can we never been cutting that um some of you joined us for the bike ride that was hosted.

Um Cal uh Caltrans had um a ribbon cutting in Palo Alto.

You can see the picture, and we also had Emswell Bridge Ruben Cutting on November 3rd, and you can see the new bridge biking happening.

Uh yesterday was SVBC's uh organized bike ride on California, and I heard 40 riders joined in, and it was a great success.

And uh we wanted to give you a legislative update.

Yeah, so I know in the past you guys have usually gotten these at the end of the year, just an update of what's coming in the next year.

As I'm sure you are well aware, laws are changing fairly quickly right now, and so we're gonna go over some of the ones we're watching and some of the big ones right now, and our intent is actually to start adding these to this staff updates so you'll see them more regularly because there's a lot happening, and so um the ones that we're watching, we'll we'll start putting up here and just kind of keeping you abreast of things as we see them coming.

So a little different process, but same intent.

Yeah, so we have um three we wanted to highlight.

The first one is AB 413 daylight law.

Um, as you have uh seen this in in many cities started to implementing that it it aims to improve visibility of roadway users to reduce collision uh by prohibiting parking within 20 feet from marked on unmarked pedestrian crosswalk.

It's on the approaches.

Um it does require sub-parking removal at relevant location.

If there was a parking provided.

It was adopted in uh it's effective starting 2025 in January.

The second one we have is uh as we set it's V79, uh Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act.

Uh it ensures minimum level of multi-use zoning near transit.

It only applies to high transit location, high-quality transit stops.

So that would include uh Mountain View and San Antonio cart uh Cal Chain Station and VTA orange line stops.

Um this also allows cities to have flexibility in implementation uh if they allow increased density elsewhere.

The last one we are featuring today is A B 31.

Sorry, yeah.

The implementation date on that one.

Um, July.

Okay, it's I think it's July 1st.

It just uh just passed.

Okay, yeah.

The other one is it's already implemented.

Yeah, yeah.

So this one went into effect the beginning of this year.

So as our projects are coming online, you'll start seeing red curbs going in.

Um, but just something to be aware of when you're parking.

On the next one, the uh housing.

Yeah.

So is that the I can't remember the numbers.

Is that the high rise one as well, or is that a separate one?

That's January.

I thought it was January 1st.

Okay, up to seven floors.

Okay, okay.

So that's that's SB 79.

Yes, okay.

So that's the one.

The last one.

Sorry.

Uh is it enforced?

Now I'm interviewed or it can be if you call it.

So it's yeah, I believe they were.

I believe they started with citations.

I do not know if they've moved into enforcement at this time.

It can be.

And is it something where you re both people?

I mean, or this is more like active enforcement, but we can ask in our next um conversation with Lieutenant Holt.

Yeah.

Uh the last one we have AV3 uh 177 mitigating vehicular traffic impact.

This one sets lower traffic mitigation fee for eligible housing developments near major transit stops.

It prohibits mandating developers to widen street if it if it is located near transit.

It was signed into law and went into effect in September 2024.

And the level of transits defined there is we know.

Is it only high-quality stops or that that would be a different one than the map from SB79 though?

There's different, yes, there's a different levels of high depending on yes, it's ranges between every 15 minutes or every 20 minutes, depending on what yes.

So I guess my thinking was Palo Alto's development on San Antonio.

Um, you know, the cross section was there.

It doesn't allow for bike lanes in some at present.

Not familiar enough with their development in that area.

And we'll bring this up again as it kind of goes into effect and we start seeing that.

So that's all I had today.

Um, so our staff updates.

Um, so for community comments, we want to start with the VTA report.

Oh no, we need to public comments, excuse me.

We need to question this one.

Um, there was no hand raised.

Oh, we had two.

Sorry, I don't know if I have two things from my VTA meeting, so I'm not sure what you're gonna bring up from BPAC.

So I'm just I don't want to steal your thunder, but they're not that exciting.

So um he okay, you included them, so I'm gonna let you I checked out okay.

So they're all yours.

So we should go through uh public comments.

You go through public comments, okay.

So public comments on the zoom meeting, apparently none.

Um, I believe what uh somebody raised their hand.

Um April, give me one second.

I'm just gonna pull up my timer and share my screen.

For sure.

So if I didn't get this, okay.

Okay, bro, go ahead.

I um just a quick comment on legislation that's coming through the pipeline.

Um, specifically, I wanted to ask about AB 413, the day leading bill.

Um, if we could get more information about um, especially in projects, when we're removing parking, how many of the parking spots that are getting removed?

Um would have been removed regardless because of the daylighting bill.

So for example, on something like California have, you know, X number of parking spots were removed, but we would have been removing Y of those because of the daylighting bill.

And if that could just be something that the standard that's done for each project, and maybe also just you know, when you're talking about these bills, what it means for the city and how that's going to be implemented.

I think someone I don't know if it was for AB 413, but um someone mentioned how is that going to be enforced.

So it's nice to take it, you know, when you talk about these the legislation, what it is, but how is that going to be carried forward within the city?

So taking it a step further, what it means for us.

Thanks so much.

Any other public comments on Zoom?

Nope, that's all we have.

Uh any members of the public in the room seeing none.

Okay.

Going to um staff or excuse me, committee member questions.

So I um maybe I I missed this, but um is it uh is it possible to get an update on the active transportation plan or or is it something you plan to do later in the agenda?

Um we are working through it right now.

Um we just reviewed through staff um a bunch of our priority projects and cut sheets.

We're in the process of developing components of the plan.

The intent right now is to have the plan available to come to VPAC in April of 2026, and it would be available for public review and comment around that same time, and then it would go to CTC.

And it could be for final draft or it would be draft for public comment.

Yeah, but no interim thanks because uh um I I think the plan was to to have things like our own policies, for instance, or funding, you know, before the if you look at the the previous work plan or or agenda lists of the there were a few.

There were a few meetings, you know, scheduled just around now this.

So I think we could just thought they changes.

We'll have to go, we can go back and take a look.

Yeah, and I um so there were there have been projects identified and and all of that will be um, you know, the scoring criteria has identified the projects.

You guys were all involved in in determining the scoring criteria, so that um has identified projects.

Um, and then those projects have been turned into project kind of key sheets, and that will be included in the plan.

So we're in the process of reviewing those as staff and making sure that they're you know meet what can you know a work product that we can put out um from both an engineering and planning and all those sides of things, um, and consistency.

So there will be 20 of those, so those will be the top scored projects, and then all of those components will be put together in the plan, so that will be available in April for review.

So all of that will be done at that time.

Okay, so you were asking about the policies specifically.

I've I don't record exactly the things, but I thought it was one topic, like you know, like what policies would be there, and I think it was also something scheduled around funding.

Uh a funding plan.

Uh funding.

I don't remember the funding what.

I don't know what funding would be in an ATC.

Funding structures or items on the late.

I wasn't I what can you recall how specifically they had been talked about as to the agenda items.

I don't want to fund anyone in particular, other than that may have just been a referencing to the project list potentially in general.

Yeah um i i yeah but the the draft the draft that will be up for review in april will include information about the policy plans or no all it will be the everything okay yes everything will be up for review at that time yes okay uh any other comments um actually i should clear uh not related to the TP uh should we expect any sort of any updates from um asking v tickets or the such and I know Brandon would do particularly thorough uh reviews of those I'm going to be completely honest I'm looking at my staff right now um Ben is not because Ben is Ben is doing his um his Asian excursion for this month so I'm really downstaffed um so give us a little bit of time to try and get I'm right now I'm prioritizing the big projects that I think it's to come back someday they will and they haven't completely fallen off the radar we just honestly couldn't get it for this meeting that it was one of those that we went it wasn't the top of the list I think that's fair so it is on the radar they're not going to be still conduct collecting all that information it's just summarizing and putting it for the meeting.

Okay.

Will we go on?

That sounds appropriate.

Okay.

Committee comments maybe starting with the VTA report yes I will so we didn't actually get this added a separate agenda item so there's a limit to the to the degree to which we can discuss this but we can do that at the next meeting if there's a need for substantial discussion.

I was well the we recommended me to be appointed to the BTAB pack I I don't know in like May or June or something but then it has to work through counts our council formally approving it and then the VTA board ratifying it.

So I did attend most of the August 13th VTA B pack meeting I was not actually on the BPAC at that moment in time.

The items there were largely informational to educate BPAC members about what is going on.

There is an um item about the uh collision database that the county uses it's called crossroads it is apparently relatively old and doesn't do great at exposing the information for public access so that's what many of the BPAC comments centered around um item the second item there was about the county's local road safety plan for county roads and expressways I imagine for Mountain View that's mostly relevant for how that might impact central expressway since by definition any other county roads are not in the city of Mountain View.

But it would affect something like uh not Mount Hamilton Road I think or such an unincorporated pockets.

Um it's at this point it may actually be adopted but at the time it was very near final adoption and a lot of the comments were around um strat infrastructure strategies for uh improving safety that I would imagine would match with m most of what people here would be familiar with.

And then there was an update on a uh what the county was doing for sort of for basically managing traffic signals um that were referenced various projects to coordinate I think it was one project coordinate traffic lights um and I think I don't know if that included like on-ramp lights at freeways or the such to uh reduce congestion um next slide please the September meeting uh had a bunch of items I I think I call I'm calling out the the most relevant seeming ones um the that what about state the STIP funds from the state there was some basically fund swapping going around because of actions the VT had previously taken related to what projects were ready at what time basically, there's some funding that's got going to a Vascom complete streets project, which involves a major restructuring of the entire street.

So it's sort of both rebuilding the street and doing the complete streets improvements, which is why the price tag on that one's quite so high.

And there's also some homestead safe house to school improvements that correspond to some infrastructure.

And actually, I don't know if that's the programs or just infrastructure.

My apologies um but I believe it involves some actual infrastructure.

And then the second item on that, the second major item on that agenda was doing complete streets checklists coincidentally for those two projects.

And then there was an item about VTA updating its um grant scoring criteria for measure B projects, which presumably will be things that the city, the city can apply for this type of funding.

Some of it was just cleanup, especially around things where it's like, oh, it's requiring data that not all cities had like data conveniently available for that exact window, and some stuff around making it so you could uh have more flexibility in what you refer to in the grant application.

There are also they took an entire section and changed the title so it didn't say equity because of the federal government, apparently.

Um I think that's most of that for that meeting.

The October meeting, there are a couple of those items actually came back because there were minor revisions, and so they came back on the consent calendar.

Um there's a much more involved chair vice chair election procedure at the VTA VPAC.

They create a subcommittee that figures out who to nominate and whatever.

Um there were some things about TOD site access for several of the light rail stations where there's um TOD expected in the near to medium term, um, so that would involve basically generating lists of like, okay, we want to we have these projects that we care about.

And so if we have if a developer is doing something or if VTA's funding projects, these are projects to prioritize for access to the station and to make TOD actually successful because virtually all those stations are also on major roads that are extremely obnoxious to cross.

So uh things like making it easier to safely cross safely and quickly cross the roads if you're a pedestrian, are desirable.

Um then there was an item that was about how educational item about how the county manages doing uh review of some of its of new projects that come in unincorporated area, including some documents that are about 50 years old that describe how when you take agricultural land, build a housing or commercial development on it.

They you are required to the county requires you to like leave a certain amount of space for future arterials that are based on these ancient standards.

Um they may update these standards that there was some discussion about updating these standards and hopefully the not too distant future, but uh if you follow that URL, you will see the old standards that are still in effect.

Um, next, please.

And then the meeting last week was uh some information about the Super Bowl impacts, which mostly affects the Santa Moss Trail and uh for a couple weeks and VTL like VTA by rail service day of, um, and presumably some more impacts will occur during the um World Cup.

Uh and Clipper 2.0 will start rolling out next month, which is the thing that allows to have to pay with credit cards.

It also includes some other benefits.

I think it involves better transfer discounts if you're going between like bus and train systems.

Um there's an item of a consent item about the congestion management program, which is a massive document that VTA is required by state law to maintain.

It is interesting in that state law still requires that that document to have targets related to vehicle level of service rather than VMT, which involves a bunch of ways that basically they are trying to set their criteria and manage the document in a way that doesn't force uh VTA to build massive amounts of lanes more so than they do currently, despite the goals being to do better VMT.

There's some interesting things where cities can adopt um like infill opportunity zone areas that don't know the exact requirements of that then exempt them from some of these requirements that I know San Jose does.

There was another consent item about uh some a pilot program that I'd done to figure the technical feasibility of automated bike and wheelchair counting on buses to try to like provide live feeds of how many uh bikes or wheelchair spaces there are in a bus.

That was that was a very small-scale project, it's not clear how where that'll go from here because of grant funding.

Um there's complete streets policy the VTA has those getting minor revisions, but several committee members expressed some more significant concerns about um the exceptions to the policy.

And so they're maybe depending on what is what BC staff want to do, uh there may be more substantial revisions to that.

But most of that was around uh your normal, it's been a few years since we passed the policy, making some revisions.

And then there's an information item from the county about their equivalent task mount your the or a three-one system.

Um and the one interesting thing about that was they do have a policy of making sure any tickets they receive they forward to other agencies via their systems because especially with the county figuring out what jurisdiction any problem is is difficult.

I think those old items did that hit whatever things you were going to mention, Alison.

Great.

Hope that was a useful level of detail.

Okay, thank you, James.

Um, so any other committee comments.

Um so I I guess I'd like to make one.

Um two things.

One, appreciation.

I guess I'm getting more and more enthused about the El Camino bike lanes and the impact that's having.

And you know, the city did an excellent job of kind of leveraging Caltrans to make that happen.

And I think we applied funding to some of the pedestrian crosswalks, which are coming online or about to come online.

So, you know, anecdotally, I just noticed more people walking and biking and making use of those as opposed to dodging traffic and uh doing all kinds of goofy things.

Um, so uh I think that's more visible.

Uh, but also in line with staff, um the hiring, I guess I think it's been a while since we had a transportation hire.

Is there a role for BPAC to review um job descriptions or suggest or um anything that we can do to help that process or no?

That's all through the it's all posted publicly and it's through the union or the negotiating bodies through the city and our HR department.

So that's all that said.

I guess I uh it was more thinking of just the job description and making sure that biking pedestrian is appropriately represented with kind of the latest expectations of familiar area standards and processes.

Um again, the job classification is all up and on our website, and job descriptions are all done through HR and through our bargaining units.

So any changes would lengthen this process.

So I would um don't really want to change any job descriptions at this time.

Okay, I obviously it's important for us to get the staff on board and making sure um that they have the range of skills that uh and experience that would be useful.

The transportation manager job description, all of all city jobs are listed on the website.

So you are can go there anytime.

If you want to see what a associate planner two does.

I don't know, I just made up a title.

I don't even know that that exists, but if you wanted to look that classification is on the website, you can see what the title is, what qualifications they need to have, what the expectations, who they report to, all of that is public information and all on the city website.

So for any job in the city.

Okay, great.

Yeah, I mean we'd welcome um staffing up.

Yes, I guess that's my only comment.

Um anything else, or ready to move on?

Okay, so um leading committee comments.

Uh next action is our next scheduled meeting is the usual last Wednesday of the month on January 28th.

Back to the usual time at 6 30 p.m.

at this point.

Yes, thank you guys for.

Oh, that's a change.

So um that is basically um, and we're scheduled again last uh Wednesday in February, March, and April looking ahead at this point.

Um, no other items uh to discuss.

I think we can call it adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.