Pad present, I think our poll is being to order.

Can we do the role?

Yes.

Uh Vice Chair Bonti.

Uh Chair Barton.

Member Barton.

Sorry, sorry.

Member Barnes.

Former chair.

Um member Hong.

Oh, take home.

And member Stone.

Present.

All present.

Right, great.

That moves to item three, which is for oral communications from the public.

This portion meeting is third person's wishing to address the committee on any matter not on the agenda.

Um, or full portions of public comment in this meeting, we will be limiting ourselves to two minutes given the larger than normal number of public commenters we seem to be having.

Um participants will be limited to two minutes and state law code of the committee from acting on non-agenda items.

Do we have any members of public in the room who want to speak to non-agenda side?

Do we have any members of the book online who want to speak to that?

Great.

That will close general public comment.

We will now move to the consent calendar.

Um any member of the committee wants to poll any of the items, they can uh be aware that we have a lot on the agenda, so be careful about doing that.

Um there any clarifying actually actually does any member of the committee want to pull any item that items from I would like to pull item 4.3 uhless and involves people who would happen to be here anyways or um uh yeah, so I think if you would like to pull it and add it at the end of the agenda, we could do that.

I'm because I'm inclined to put it at the like if we're pulling.

I just had a question about it.

It's just a clarifying question.

I don't think we need to pull.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

Right.

Um, then clarifying questions on any of the consent comments.

Yeah, I guess my question is since the CM3 report has a recommendation and alternatives.

My assumption would be moving it will be the same as supporting the staff recommendation.

Staff recommendation.

That is correct.

All right, which is the cast for the speaking.

Okay.

That was my question.

Okay.

Great.

Then we don't uh yeah, nothing that we are supposed any recommendation that's listed on the agenda, which is recommend to the city council to allocate the accumulated transportation development.

So for the Castro intersection project.

Okay.

All right.

Are there any members of the public in the room who would like to speak on the consent calendar?

Do we have anyone online who has raised their hand who would like to speak on the consent?

Okay.

That we will move to committee comments and hopefully a motion on the consent calendar.

I move the correct second.

Vice Chair Bonte move.

One second.

Member Stone seconds.

Um that can we have a vote?

Consent calendar.

All in favor.

See, five in favor.

So it's unanimously.

With that, we will move.

We have no unfinished business, so we'll move to item six point one, the active transportation plan public draft for review.

I believe we have a staff presentation.

We did question.

All right.

So good evening, everybody again.

We're here today to talk about the mountain view active transportation plan.

And we have our public draft plan here for review tonight.

So quickly for the agenda, we will go over a quick project update, review the mountain view active transportation plan components, and then review the timeline and next steps.

So quick project update.

The project contained three primary phases.

The first phase was background and existing conditions.

The second phase was scoring and prioritization.

And the third phase, which we're currently in, was the development and recommendation of potential project concepts, programs, policies, and implementation of the considerations.

These have all every phase has gone to different community meetings as well as advisory boards through the process.

So our recommendation that we're asking the BPAC to make at this time is to review and provide feedback on the public draft of the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan and recommend the adoption of the plan to the Council Transportation Committee.

So feedback received tonight will be presented to the Council Transportation Committee, and it will inform the update of the document into a final plan, which we will then be presenting to BPAC again for formal recommendation to City Council on August 26th.

The plan will go to City Council for review and approval in September of 2026.

And with that, I will pass it off to Tracy, who is sorry, I should have started with introductions.

Tracy is our consultant with Nelson Nigard, whose team has been leading our active transportation plan.

Great.

Thank you very much, Alison.

Thank you all for allowing me to be here today to and very happy to get to this point in the project.

I have had the honor of presenting to you all before, so I do see some familiar bases.

I know some of the VPAC membership has changed.

So I'm going to talk about the structure of the Bethlehem View Active Transportation Plan and review some of the process we've gone through to get to this point in time.

Next slide, please.

So I want to start by saying this, the plan was developed through a very data and community-driven process.

It is structured so that it outlines projects, policies, and programs that the city can carry forward over the next several years.

Doing a plan such as this, an active transportation plan or a planning process like the safety plan or PDM plan that is under development to is really important.

It's an opportunity for the city to document future planning efforts, future projects, and policies and programs.

So they are documented and then they are eligible for things such as grant funding going forward.

The project or the plan outlines technical consideration of the city sustainability goals and greening goals.

Obviously, um there was a bicycle and a pedestrian, two different plans that were done in the mid-2010s that were formed the foundation of this active transportation plan where we consider the three modes, all those active transportation modes together.

We also looked at other local plans such as the local road safety plan, Access MV, the Green Street and Sustainability Plans that have been done throughout the city, as well as looking at regional and state level plans that are being done by partner agencies in the region, such as BTA, MTC, Altrans also recently completed a district four, their pedestrian and their bicycle plan, and all of those plans as well as some plans done by headquarters, complete street guidelines, were taken into consideration the development of this plan.

Next slide.

Once you go through the executive summary, chapter one outlines, introduces the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan, and outlines the development process of the plan itself and what we've conducted over the past several years.

And lastly, this chapter also lists the vision statement that was developed as part of this planning process and the guiding principles that were part of this plan.

Chapter two is where we go over the existing conditions.

What is it like to walk bike and roll in Mountain View today?

We look at the demographics and the travel patterns that exist within the city of Mountain View, the infrastructure, services, and policies that may affect active transportation, and we end the chapter by looking at a holistic network vision for the future.

Next slide.

Chapter three is where we cover the great things that are already happening here in Mountain View and the infrastructure you have in place and the programs and policies that help to support the active community you have, as well as making recommendations for projects, programs, and policies that can enhance the active transportation environment going forward.

Chapter four is where we focus on implementation.

How do you take these plans, projects, and policies that are recommendation or that are recommended and move them into action?

We consider um sorry.

Can you go back?

One more.

Next slide.

These were developed early on in the project and uh VPAC were brought to VPAC for your feedback.

We can read the vision that is stated there.

Um this also went to the active transportation and policy advisory committee as well as internal staff and technical advisory committee review.

Uh and then our guiding principles for the plan.

Overall, you'll see these repeated when we get to his scoring or guiding line.

This is just a summary of the internal and external engagement activities that occurred throughout the planning process.

Uh we've been to BC several times, and we will be back one more time in August.

Uh presentations to CTC.

I mentioned the technical advisory committee.

That is an internal advisory committee made up of staff members across multiple departments within the city of Mountain View that were involved throughout the planning process, as well as a public advisory committee with representatives from organizations, um, nonprofits, uh partner agencies that uh interact within the city of Mountain View are part of represent the population of Mountain View.

Uh we also conducted several small group meetings to further um have inclusive engagement as well as conducted walking and bicycling tours and uh implemented a community mapping survey to ask people about their lived experiences within the city of Mountain View.

We also conducted um pop-ups and workshops and then presented to City Council who'll close this planning process in September with the presentation city council.

In looking at existing conditions, as I mentioned, active transportation is a part of life in Mountain View already.

Um you have one of the highest rates of walking and bicycling when we look at commute data, um, certainly within the region and within the state and within the country.

So you are an active community already.

Um you also have a very active safe routes to school program within the city that helps to support that as well.

Uh people want to be able to walk, bike, and roll safely throughout the community to access key destinations like schools, work, shopping, uh, community resources like City Hall and Square and Castro Street downtown, as well as getting to transit safely.

Uh there are this doesn't mean that there aren't opportunities for improvement, and that's what that plan the plan has outlined.

Uh the main takeaway from the existing conditions uh in talking with the community members.

One main takeaway is people want to be active and they want to be able to do it safely and have it be a feasible and comfortable uh part of their everyday um transportation options.

As I mentioned, there is uh opportunities for improvement.

While the city has in terms of a sidewalk network network, about 96% of the sidewalk network is complete.

There are gaps within that sidewalk network.

Um, one of the other things that we focused on in this plan is looking at the quality of sidewalk network, so where there's opportunities also for improvement to the crossing um crossing uh opportunities.

Uh the same thing is true for the bicycle network.

You have a decent bicycle network in place, but there are opportunities for uh making that bicycle network more uh complete and connected, as well as improving the quality and the comfort level of the bicycle.

Uh so as a result of that analysis of the gaps in presence and quality, there is uh we developed holistic active transportation.

No, uh she does

No, uh she does so as a result of looking at the gaps that exist within the um the active transportation network, uh holistic network maps were developed for both the pedestrian and the bicycle network again to inform uh the analysis of potential projects that are outlined in the plan.

Next slide.

You'll see in the plan itself, these are two maps that are present.

Again, this is a little hard to see on the screen.

I apologize for it being uh small.

Uh but we have again look looking at the pedestrian network and the opportunities for improvement in terms of where there are facilities and then where are there opportunities for improvement facility, and the same for the bicycle network.

Next slide.

In terms of the recommended improvements for the bicycle network, uh again, we built off of our planning work that had been done, access MB and the previous bicycle plan being two of the items we looked at.

And we focused on the identification of the gaps in the network and um rec made recommendations regarding appropriate facility type, taking into consideration the roadway infrastructure, land use, um, traffic characteristics and demographics.

Uh so we there are several recommendations for facilities uh across the city across the various types of classes uh that California uses to uh to classify bicycle facility types.

Um class one is our shared use path, that is like Stevens Creek or Munante Trail.

Um bike lanes are where we focus that is a class two bike lane is paint on a roadway, maybe buffered, maybe not buffered.

Class three bike route is a signed route but doesn't have paint um to designate a bike lane, whereas class three B bicycle boulevards is more of a low stress neighborhood street that uh may or may not, I apologize, I can't remember off the top of my head, but they're uh Mountain Vie marks that um with a bicycle symbol, like we used to use Sherrows.

I cannot recall at the moment use that or have used that in the past.

Um, whereas class four separated bikeways is our protected bikeways where you have a horizontal or vertical separation, um allowing the bicycle traveler to be physically separated by um horizontal separation from vehicular traffic on the roadway that is on street uh as opposed to a class one being off street.

Uh in terms of the pedestrian network, as I mentioned, the network within the city of Mountain View in terms of physical presence of sidewalks is rather complete, uh, up to 96%.

There are opportunities to there are some gaps that exist within the network, and so those recommend their recommendations associated with filling those gaps.

Uh, but we also again looked at the quality of the pedestrian network.

Are there opportunities to widen a sidewalk in some areas of the city or to improve the crossing environment in some locations, either the distance between crossings uh or the distance of a crossing.

Uh so same as with bicycle uh the bicycle network, you see summary of the recommendations here on this table with a significant amount of crossing improvements that are next slide.

Every single um gap within the holistic mapping process uh was documented in a spreadsheet and was uh considered or consolidated into a project possibility.

All of those project possibilities, which were there were over 100, were scored using these prioritization criteria.

The prioritization criteria are structured using our guiding principles.

These have come to BPAC in the past, and they reflect the community's input, VPAC's input, the technical advisory community's input in terms of putting together diverse set of scoring criteria that can capture the various characteristic and quality of potential projects, also taking into consideration the variation between bicycle projects and pedestrian projects.

Notably, I do want to point out community input was really important in this process.

So we do under safety and comfort.

So again, these prioritization criteria represent the scoring are the guiding principles or structure around the guiding principles, minus the innovation, an action-oriented principle that's partly related to feasibility.

Feasibility is real you know tied to action orientation in terms of the opportunity to leverage existing planned projects, the level of interagency ordination, considerations of cost, things like that.

So from that process, again, every single segment or within the holistic network identification process was combined into a project and was scored.

What you have on the map here is we considered the staff helped us identify priority projects that would move forward into touch sheet development.

So that is what is listed on this slide here, and the next.

Again, looking at what is possible for changes in speed, posted speed limit through California Vehicle Code and California law, as well as enforcement of school zone speed limits.

So that is a sample of policy recommendations that are present in the plan.

And then we also have some program recommendations as well.

Things like road safety education, re-upping bicycle-friendly community designation, consideration of expansion of the very successful state cross school program that exists within the city, and then the importance of maintenance of active transportation facilities and the evaluation of infrastructure projects, which is a requirement for if you receive discretionary funding like the active transportation program through the state of California.

But it is always good to know the benefits of your projects with lastly, chapter four takes into uh looks at implementation considerations again.

Some of the projects that are on the priority project list.

We looked at both um, looked at them in two different phases, a nearer term or like a quicker build of design implementation, such as what could be done when there is a resurfacing opportunity.

If a street is already on the schedule for resurfacing, is there an opportunity to do active transportation improvements, take advantage of that schedule?

And then we also looked at some longer-term uh implementation considerations that would involve reconstruction.

So resurfacing are things that can happen within the existing curb line, whereas reconstruction would involve some curb line adjustments, and this is where we might be able to implement some of the green street infrastructure that was discussed within the plan.

Related to the Green Street, the chapter four also looks at what are the key benefits and trade-offs when you're considering green street infrastructure.

But those should be considered in relation to some of the costs associated with a more expensive infrastructure development.

Lastly, what chapter four also looks at what are some various um various funding and collaboration considerations to take into account.

For example, El Cabino Real is a uh state highway, surface street state highway that uh is Caltrans.

And we also have to take in consideration what the work of our other partners are doing, such as VTA and Santa Clara County.

So some of that inform that's covered in chapter uh four um those implementation considerations and the importance of funding and collaboration and commitment uh to move projects and policies and programs forward.

So Alison will pass it back if you so timeline and next steps.

So we're gonna be busy the next couple of months.

Um we released the plan on April 20th to the public.

It is currently up on Collaborate MV for public comment.

So I encourage those listening and those in the room to provide feedback there.

Um April 21st, we held an at pack meeting where we reviewed the plan with our um community um advisory team.

Um we're here today on April 29th for our BPAC meeting looking for feedback from our BPAC on May 4th.

We will be having a public meeting here in this same room, and we're hoping to have some feedback from the public in that workshop.

On June 16th, we will be taking this to the council transportation committee, and we will provide the feedback that we've heard to them at that time.

In July, we will be making our final revisions and updating the plan based on the community input received in August on August 26th.

We will be bringing the final plan, including the comments received and the changes back to BPAC for a recommendation to council.

And in the September, currently September 22nd, we will be bringing this plan to council for their uh review and adoption.

And with that, just quick reminder of what we're looking for here today.

We're looking for the BPAG to review and provide feedback on the public draft of the Mount View Active Transportation Plan and recommend the adoption of the plan to the Council Transportation Committee.

So for those who are not familiar, we will first be having the uh meetback, ask some clarifying questions that they may have, and we'll go to public comment with the four-mentioned uh two minutes from speaker, and then we'll come back to BPAC for um comments and discussion on the item.

Um there are also a significant number of written comments and feedback numbers asked in advance that are posted on Legislature.

So some questions that you may have interested making there already.

But are there any members of the BAX?

Um response to one of our earlier uh clarifying questions.

You mentioned there was some results rescoping, or we're reviewing the original scoping.

Apparently, some rescoping that happened along the way.

Can you give a little description of what would the rescope change from the 2023 scope document that I have documented?

I'm not sure of how much of the specifics, but um, we just a broad I know one thing that changed because it's in my clarifying question.

Is there anything else significant?

Um that what is your specific?

I I just want to know like all I have is is the scoping document and the current plan and staff change.

I don't know what changed.

So I'm asking what changed.

That's like that's my so I will say generally speaking, the intent of the scope to deliver an active transportation plan is still intact, right?

We have delivered a plan that we've done uh an extensive amount of community outreach.

We have scoring criteria, like the main components at that scope.

I will say there were things that have changed from the original scope.

Um, like the there was a change from uh the council study session that uh added the holistic existing maps.

We went back and did that.

We also went back and changed scoring criteria as some of the outreach.

So in doing some of that um to make sure we stayed on time and on budget, there were some things that were either combined into certain activities or um looked at a little differently.

So um I don't know if there's more to that that you no that's good.

Okay.

Just um some other questions.

And the old bicycle transportation plan, there's a plan for the permanent creek to keep going south all the way to the border.

That's not the current active turn space plan.

Is that being purposefully dropped?

Did we look into and decide not feasible?

I'm sorry, you're asking about the Stevens Creek.

There's a plan to continue it all the way south past El Camino down to the border with Los Algos.

Um, it's not present in the current plan.

It was one of the scored projects.

Oh, was it?

Yeah, yeah.

So it just might not have elevated it to that basically the map is the the top, the priority projects.

There is a map that shows everything, but there's also a map that shows priority projects.

So it was scored and it is in that appendices.

So I mean, I'm looking at the holistic bicycle network right now.

And I don't see there's a permanente creek trail extension between road and six five that is in the list of things.

But I think that's distinct from what Member Stone is asking about.

We can explore that further as a comment as we move to final.

Okay, we'll have to look into that.

I was just wondering uh um for we talked about curb line adjustments a minute ago.

Um so I I know it's hard to adjust the curve because you got like storm water and stuff under there.

Is there a difference in pots between adjusting like the the curve at the edge of the world road versus providing a hard curved bus buffer between uh like a class four bikeway and uh but those those are yeah is is it cheaper?

Is one cheaper than the other because you're not affecting underwater drainage, you just put a curve on the top of the road or I being high.

Um because roads have a slope to them, generally speaking.

If you were to, you know, roads going like this.

Sorry for my visuals, but if a road has a uh a uh crown crown to it and we put something here, you're going to impact water flow, drainage, and if we are diverting water from where the original inlet is, it's still gonna have an impact.

Now uh linear foot of curve in one location versus another was not our cost estimates are not down to that specific level at this time because these are very um these are very preliminary truck.

Yeah, this is more master plan level.

Yeah, I I understand it's just for me to think about costs because we were talking about that earlier.

Um there's a couple other questions.

Uh um, do we have an existing standard walking speed for intersection timing?

Was that part of the N U T C D there is a uh standard walking speed that is part of um pedestrian timing, right?

But then the city doesn't have any separate one, and there was no I'm not aware, no, we don't have our own specific signal timing for pedestrians.

Uh yeah, one more thing is that I noticed uh some of the newer multi-use paths uh don't connect with the roadway.

Um X the Metafuel that just came in as part of a project and uh planting strip.

So you're on the multi-use plan, and it's a bike line here, but you can't get there from here because it's planning strip in the middle.

Um that feels like there should be a policy about that that looked into or during the process.

uh don't connect with the roadway um and and like the one next the metaphyl that just came in as part of a project and it's uh planting strip so you're on the multi use plan that it's a bike line here but you can't get there from here because it's planting strip in the middle um that feels like there should be a policy about that that looked into or during the process I think that would happen during the development phase so that would be when that project comes into development um we would explore that I I don't I I know at least three different times this has happened so I'm thinking anyway this that was a question I'll yeah all right that's all my questions right I assume some people have more questions I know I do hard yeah in particular on the uh the class four bike so it was said we had one mile that we was the number and I guess my question is is that including El Camino and since Al Camino is not continuous how are you counting it as a class four bike looking counted are you talking about the existing class four I think it would be four recommendation or improvement table with recommendations it would probably be an either because Alcamina's complete but I guess I would I'm just curious how non can like El Camino is non-continuous it has it stops and uh the rest of the bicycle traffic into the uh the traffic planes yeah so I guess in my eyes it's like a circuit that's not complete um wondering is that counted because I wonder how we got the 20 miles otherwise then what was on the slide with the table was a recommendation for future projects and it's it's a summary of um added miles recommended additional miles so that portion of El Camino that is complete and already a class four would not have been in that 20 it is recommended improvements for 20 more throughout the city.

Okay and I guess if you're calling El Camino a class four even with the gaps is that how we're defining class four gaps allowed or um what what the what what what defines class four precisely class one.

I'm gonna introduce myself I'm Lauren I'm sorry I did not realize I need to bring my own name tag I'm better I was uh this is my third day at the city I am the transportation manager prior to this I worked at uh BTA as the bicycle and pedestrian program manager I know member Kuzmal because he's on the BKB pack and so we overlap a little bit and I'm familiar with the the El Camino Real class four bikeway I know what you're talking about it does have some large gaps the bus stops for example and it has gaps as you're approaching the intersections in order to allow cars to move into the bike lane and then take a right hand turn.

Even before that so like a shoreline up here it totally disappears as it were it's not a I think you know it it's a in terms of the I think it would be a judgment call for how you would measure it you could go down to the the feet I would say if it's a long stretch that and the reason why you didn't have the drop and the protection is because there wasn't enough space to put the protection in the width I would probably not consider that to be class four but if the protection breaks in order to allow a bus to move over to the sidewalk and or to deport the the customers or if the protection breaks because you need to have a space for the motorists to merge safely into the bike link before they take a right turn I would still consider that part of the class four bikeway so um but I don't know since so my third day I don't know but to answer the question for what is included in the calculation I will say because this is a master plan and we are looking at everything at a very high level we were not going block by block to the city we are assuming that if there is a drop it is it will be evaluated at the time the project comes online but if it's included generally speaking speaking in our our counts we we assumed the whole stretch of the project would be getting the class four and if space does not allow for that we will we'll look at that as a on a project by project basis but but we are making some assumptions as we we come up with our um our master plan level decisions here.

Okay does that make sense yeah because it I mean similar to ring store people tell us they don't use it because just like light switch it's almost a complete circuit but until you turn it on it doesn't really work and a lot of people they get scared off by that 50 hundred yard gap um it doesn't our intent is to make it a complete circuit that being said there are areas where we will not have complete right away to do some of that and there will be there might be some pitch points.

Let's see if we talk about decreak a little bit.

We mentioned standards.

But I guess it doesn't appear to me that the policy calls for the M U T C D for instance for reference to walking speed.

It doesn't the policy doesn't say that it shall be policy and ATP doesn't say it'll be policy in the city to adopt any particular standards.

Correct.

That is correct at this point.

Okay.

So well the MP M U T C D might be common.

We're not saying we'll always follow that blocking screen we follow anything that is state local state and federal law or in our code as well as we you know practice best practices but so um the policy I guess policy doesn't say which best practice no and I remember that this plan is intended to last you know five to ten years and if I start giving specific plans with dates on them I don't necessarily want to tie it to the that either because at some point those will become dated as well through the process of this document.

So so we set that you know local state or uh federal guide uh standards and regulations is what we can follow when projects come online we'll make sure that they are all up to those okay I guess I want to hear is law is not kind of the the different standards of Caltrans standard or Caltrans standards are best practice recommendations and and we we do most of them have been adopted as the standards I will say when they are guidance then that's where I would say they're not formally adopted.

Okay I guess I guess it would be good to have clear clear questions yeah so first thanks for on throwing out graphic questions with some was put out and I quick turn around so that's it I have more questions.

So um the first one is um thing it was one of the questions asked but you know the the fact that in streets seems to be tied to uh reconstructing the road or or street uh are are there any somewhat recent examples of a road or street reconstructed I know plenty of race all passing I know some new roads but I've the north bashore ones count yeah and either north bashore I say we're we're currently in a planning phase for um ringstorf so that would be a complete street project so that would include greening would be reconstructed as a that is a reconstruction instead of a resurface we're about to kick off our net next it was in the CIP that you guys just uh looked at for Evelyn Evelyn would be also reconstructed and I we've got our uh engineering um uh infrastructure principle but what's probably not clear on the question Robert is all engineer and civil construction road um so we um have plans and we're thinking about shoreline for our um active transportation and utilities approved programs so that that would um some elements north of one on one near the computer history museum is also um I don't know if we have any coming to mind other than that one um we are going through some design uh design work right now projects yeah so that that would be good to know you know rings delta physical is that way we don't render push ring strict and under this categorization the middle field item we're about to hear would that would be like resurfacing our reconstruction that is correct all right okay so I think it's a important I sorry more um let's see yeah so uh I have comments on on the stuff projects and inconsistencies and so on but uh could could you clarify um so I I guess um you look at orbit universal projects you scroll them you picked the up once uh but it looks like if it was further we did also based on you know in directions with catrons or white today or sometimes based on on the project being ordered or the cover in a precise plan something like this so If it wasn't very I don't know if you had a subcalification the the criteria that you use so that's for from the list of the top projects that you fill their limited based on you know well that has to with Caltrons we don't want to do with it for you precise so everything

So I'm if it wasn't very the criteria that you use.

So that's for from the list of the top projects that you feel they're limited based on you know what that has to do with card transfer with it for precise.

So everything was scored.

So everything was scored.

If it elevated to a top or priority project, then it was eligible, I'll say for a cut section or those cut sheets that you see in a later appendice.

We did not give projects that are either currently underway part or part of a precise plan their own cut sheets because they are already covered in another city document.

So the idea was not to either potentially conflict have conflicting information that goes out there or change something that's previously been adopted by by a governing body.

So that's that's why they're still they're still scored, they're still listed, they just did not receive standalone cut sheets.

Right.

And they they're still listed in the priority project list to emphasize that they scored high.

Um which I think helps to reinforce the planning processes that are already underway for those projects.

I probably have multiple cents that are clarifying this.

I will say one of the um benefits of the cut sheets is that that helps us be more competitive when we go after grants.

Um a lot of scoring criteria for grants include public commitment, public uh outreach, and while at some sort of preliminary design.

So having these cut sheets makes all of these projects that much more um competitive as these grant opportunities come.

Now, precise plans already have that in there, so they always already meet that criteria when we go for those grants.

Yeah, I just um I think the whole purpose of this thing is to get people more engaged, right?

Well, you know, engaged uh publicly on with that in the I'm thinking I'm looking at this and I'm thinking now would the the vision plan, the vision zero plan for the city is also similar.

I was wondering would there be some sort of like mention in this pamphlet also to put it together?

Um so they they do the intent is for them to you know work harmoniously together.

One is not supposed to supersede the other.

I think and Lauren and I actually spoke about this earlier today.

I'm hoping eventually the plans will align in the sense that they'll be uh updated at the same time, they will work um together when we do outreach and and all of that.

But yes, that the plans do work well together, and they should be should be looked at as a package.

Yeah, also I'm sorry, it's because I was I was also the project manager for the local road safety plan.

That is a full um road safety analysis, so it's not limited to just bicycle and pedestrian safety, it also is vehicular safety.

It's anybody traveling along the roadway or being a road user.

So there is that difference between the two plans and the projects that were identified there were specific specifically tied to safety concerns based on either crash history or the risk of safety based on um risk-based characteristics again for all road users, not just bicycle and pedestrian users.

So that's an important distinction between them.

Um safety was a consideration in these projects and this project overall and the scoring criteria, but it was one of multiple categories that were considered.

Okay.

Well, I mean, the whole from the the original, the original those I think 2023.

It has them some tasks and uh number five, get uh you know, get people more engaged, and that's the whole function of this uh to get people more alert and more people more, you know, to know what's going on and let uh mountain view become the like the regional first to do this.

And so I was thinking this would there be would it be better if um there would be more uh you know engagement uh plans that's more specific, like um, you know, right here.

I mean that says here like police department, all that stuff, and you know, education, but uh and the original ones it says under task five, like the tools and techniques and platforms and all these uh, you know, let's it just becomes more what do you call it?

And so I was thinking this would there be would it be better if um there would be more uh you know engagement uh plans that's more specific like um you know right here I mean that says here like police department all that stuff and you know education but uh and the original ones it says under task five like the tools and techniques and platforms and all these uh you know that's it just becomes more what do you call it it gets people when they read it becomes more engaged and what's what's gonna do what they could do and so it just cut this them can I ask a clarifying question are you referencing the vision zero as the 2023 no no I'm changing it's got the 2023 scope oh got it so uh so this is to scope what they're gonna do as part of developing yeah yeah so so we did a bunch of outreach we as as um we went through in the PowerPoint you know we have an internal uh technical advisory committee that is made up of all of different city employees in different departments and divisions where who would review and have input in all this we have an at pack which is comprised of community members and local and regional partners that are part that also reviewed this we did multiple pop-ups bike rides uh walk audits um as well and then if this has come multiple times to BPEC CTC and um council for uh buy in on the vision statement as well add the scoring criteria so it has the out we have done a lot of outreach to make sure that we are hearing the community feedback and we'll we will continue to we have a community meeting next week where we're hoping to get to get um some feedback I will ask a few questions I have my questions myself um let's see how to make sure I actually have okay so on the um I asked a question prior to me about the costs in the table eight that we're sort of referencing the resurfacing costs and those costs per the response are sort of for the whole resurfacing is it difficult to compare those to the cost of say if we were just doing the resurfacing without adding the active transportation elements you're asking can we separate the cost of what would a resurfacing project cost?

I assume it can fully separate the cost yeah it's sort of the what is the marginal cost of adding the uh active transportation improvements on I don't have that information for you at the time what we could do is maybe look at historically what a resurfacing project does but but most of our resurfacing projects include things like striping which would be included in in a resurfacing project independent of um active transportation improvements.

Yeah I'm trying to understand yeah I'm just trying to make sure trying to get a feel for like are these costs that's there are more especially at this level of preliminary design it it would be hard to go okay um right questions so if I have two more questions yeah um so the first one is before I also only question uh forgot the lifetime of the plan and you know how frequently what what's it would be for check data and I don't know if you had in mind you know how how the plan would be updated or checking some edit for it okay yeah um so we did we received a question as well and um so the lifetime of the plan is most likely it's 10 years or so right and we expect typically an active transportation plan that's updated every five years or so sometime within the 10 year lifetime plan we will most likely update yeah and and is it like big thing or or general plan working well I wasn't involved in the update of this plan but I mean too it could be a it could be a small update.

Yeah each community I mean handles it differently depending on this the scope or scale of the update the the changes that occurred within the community the region and in the period of time since the last plan uh large I think are one of the main factors that dictate whether they it is a small update or a larger update.

My hope is that it is an update on what we have accomplished and the changes that have been made so how much we've accomplished in that amount of time and then maybe reevaluating what our current priority projects are as the community has changed development has changed.

So it would be looking more at those um ideas and maybe um evaluating if we need to adjust any policies or add any falls so it would be an abridged version of what we just went through.

So it would be an abridged version of what we just went through.

I would agree with that.

Yeah, because it took about five years.

Sometimes to shrink them, I think shortline from ten to eight or something like this.

But could you speak to the difference it makes for pedestrians between five and six feet or six and eight or ten?

So I mean rough of a metric system, so maybe I mean what had been standard way back.

I'm looking at Robert, the engineering.

I mean, sidewalks used to be four foot.

Um so now I think it's five foot standard, and it's a matter of comfort.

And also, what is the utility of the sidewalk at a certain location if it is meant to uh you know like the use too, right?

Your neighborhood sidewalk is going to be very different than what we're trying to accomplish on Castro, right with a uh more of a pedestrian you know, promenade.

Um, so we allowable per code is still four.

We at the city go for five, but so that's our standard is we would we shoot for five.

Um but again, it it depends on the use.

So if there's a huge pedestrian and what what we're trying to accomplish on the project again, all of these will be re-evaluated as projects come online as part of the CIP.

Yeah, no, there's other skills.

That I think this will do this to public comments.

So go to the personal comment first.

We'll do two minutes per speaker.

Um I'm guessing we have members of public want to speak.

I just have one short comment.

My name's Tracy Chu, another Tracy.

Um I'm a Mountain View resident in the Shoreline and West neighborhood of town.

I'm really impressed with the um active um CTP.

It's very impressive to see the comprehensiveness of it, and I learned a lot.

Um, I think that one um suggestion I have is to it has a great vision that's very compelling, and it has a very rigorous like prioritization framework, but I think it would um benefit from having some very specific measurable outcomes to assess whether or not all of these great projects that we're doing are really having the attended ultimate um impact on the community, whether it's like shifting mode or you know, completing a net, you know, more completeness of a network or increasing the safety.

Um, I think it would be really great to have something like more um explicit and um specific that's um summarizing the the impact of this plan because it would really emphasize the importance of it to our company.

So yeah, yeah.

Okay, in fact, I'm uh almost daily using my bicycle year modern viewers since uh years already, and I have a comment for the map of the bicycle map on slide 21 minutes ago.

I'm wondering how well correlated is this map with the prank because you was also public.

For example, if I'm experienced by that's why I'm not looking, I don't use a map anymore, but maybe I'm also starting to use by example.

They use this map, or should say just all maps or Google maps on their own, which is already providing good recommendations.

I see.

For example, when riding from Central Martin Central, I didn't recommend on the maps here, but I cannot find this connection on the biasical network maybe.

Go ahead.

Also a parent and a teacher.

Um, thank you for all the work that's gone to the ATP.

I know it's not been a linear process and it's taken a while.

Um, but there's been a lot of I think really valuable intentional work that's gone into it.

I do want to point out, I feel like from my perspective, I see an urgency for providing safe transportation options for children every day.

Mental wellness for students is a priority in our city, but many children are trapped in their homes with their only option for socialization being through screens.

For children to be both mentally and physically healthy, they need to be able to safely leave their homes and transport themselves around the city.

Parents I talk to aren't worried about them getting kidnapped if they go out.

They're worried if their kids will be hit by cars.

Given all this, I hope we complete this plan quickly and incorporate timelines into the plan for completing projects in a timely manner that reflects the urgency we feel in wanting to protect the lives of our kids.

I think uh like many of the large plans that are coming before council right now, there are many strong ideas, but also several important implementation gaps that still need to be addressed before this moves forward.

Right now, the ATP often identifies what we want, but not how the city will consult and urgently deliberate.

There should be a requirement of yearly progress reports.

Um I liked the idea just last night of a report card dashboard or report the biodiversity plan talked about.

Maybe there should be something like that here so we can see the progress and see that we're getting the things we want to get done.

Um any of the barriers to protected bikeways, safer crossings, green streets, shade, and all and all ages and abilities infrastructure are not conceptual.

They're actually embedded in the standards.

Standard details, municipal codes, lane with assumptions, and project delivery practices.

Um's Greg Colonado.

I live in the Slater neighborhood.

I've lived in the Slater neighborhood for 17 years.

And I just want to echo a comment made by a committee member Martin.

Uh I rode my bike from my house down to California Street this morning and then back on Alpamino to get a good look, paying attention to the bike lanes.

Uh I've used them before, but I wasn't really coming to a VPAC committee meeting that night.

So I went looked at it and thought about it.

And I do agree that the number of times that the bike lanes move around, start, stop, and do unexplainable things is something that I hope the uh committee and council and um all the relevant parties can continue to work on to make it so that when someone says, Oh, you know what, I'm gonna get on my bike, I'm gonna go to Sunnyville, I'm gonna go to Palo Alto today, that they can figure out how to use the bike lane because they're kind of um disjointed.

And so other places I've biked, there's just you know one straight line and the green keeps going.

So I encourage some sort of uh adding that in as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further public speakers in the room.

Right.

I'm guessing we have members of the public online.

Hi, good evening.

I don't know if you can you hear me okay?

Thanks.

Yes.

I'm gonna say thank you for all the work that's gone into this ATP as someone else mentioned.

I know it's not been linear and there's some challenges.

Uh I think there are many strong ideas, um, but I also think there are several several important implementation gaps that still need to be addressed before this moves forward as a truly implementable plan.

My main recommendations are adopt modern multimodule guidance like NACTO.

Pierce cities have done this for complete streets projects, and they're using 10-foot travel lanes while still accommodating garbage trucks, buses, delivery vehicles, emergency access.

I'd encourage staff to look at San Jose, which adopted it in 2018, the council and a complete streets policy.

Um, second, update the standard details and relevant city clothes city codes as recommended in the existing conditions analysis.

Three, establish a stronger implementation for framework for include a more operational complete streets implementation policy that it clearly explains how the ATP will be implemented.

Um I want to point out the October 2023 existing conditions work that was presented to BPAC.

It included a substantial review of standards, the D standard details, um, and the city code.

It explicitly stated that several existing standard details do not reflect.

I say, quote, do not reflect current best practices, end quote, and that existing street cross cross sections, quote, do not reflect streets that support active transportation for all ages and abilities.

Um I would like to see that added back into this report.

It's very common to have an existing conditions in an ATP, at least as an appendix, and um also point out that the cross sections are using 11 foot travel lanes.

And um also point out that the cross sections are using 11 foot travel lanes.

It's almost like putting the cart before the horse because we haven't actually done the standard details update, which is included as a CIP um discussion item.

And um, I think you know, making these changes would make it stronger, especially for future grant opportunities.

Thank you.

Jesse Hey, how are you doing?

Be back.

Um, so I wanted to just give some feedback.

Um, one of the things I think is really lacking from this plan is uh trying to mandate some proactive police monitoring and ticketing of cars that are parked illegally in the bike lanes or near bike lanes blocking site lines.

But there's lots of spots where you legally can't park on California for the purpose of preventing uh people from blocking the view of people in the bike lane, and they're just striped up.

Some of them have bollards, um, but some are just painted striped, and I've been almost hit by cars twice because there were things blocking cars from seeing me.

So that's that's important.

Um, and then you know, when it comes to enforcing people parking in the bike lanes, like I take California and commute there every day to work, and uh it's not uncommon to have uh two or three or four cars um parked on my way to work.

And at that point, that's you know, like half of my commute or more.

I'm going out of the bike lane and going into the free lane, and then cars are honking at me, they're angry at me, it's kind of scary to have a giant car honking at you and uh road raging, and they don't know that I'm there because I don't have a choice because someone's blocking the bike lane.

Um, and there's not a whole lot of opportunity to zip in and out of the bike lane, which is you know a pro and a con of the protected bike lane.

But once you're out, you oftentimes have to stay out for a half a block or a full block.

Um so the leading pedestrian interval was mentioned.

I think that really should be expanded to uh leading bike and pedestrian interval.

That's just a really quick and easy fix um for bikes to cross the street more safely and more comfortably, encourage active transportation.

And uh let them know they're not gonna get hit by a car right turning.

Uh overall, it's a really good plan.

And um, I thank you for your hard work.

Um, but generally, I think we can we can do more um two minutes.

Hi, I'm actually in a very noisy place, and I was wondering if I can cede by time to April because April had some points she was going to make on behalf of a bunch of us, and I'm worried you won't really be able to hear me.

We can both hear you buying Deb, and I'm not sure if we have a good process for seating time right now.

Okay.

Um you okay, so you can hear me.

Um I wanted to echo what some of the things that April was saying, and also some of the things that Jesse has said, um, and especially about enforcement um of utilization of bike lanes.

Um, so I have a kid who takes a only partially safe route to school.

Um, and one of the things that um affects her safe commuting uh crossing El Camino and then transiting to Graham Middle School is pavement conditions in general.

And I know that there is a separate paving plan, but the separate paving plan does not take into account the um experience of riding a bicycle through the city.

And I'm wondering if there is some way to tie the active transportation plan to the paving plan in order to just increase the safety, especially along major routes to school, um, in areas that don't necessarily get downgraded um for their pay pavement quality because it's fine for cars, but it's not fine for bikes, um and especially kids on bikes.

And I'm thinking in particular of the lane that runs parallel to um El Camino that is a um on the on the south side that is a major transit venue for kids going to grand middle school.

Um and I know that that one is um rated poorly on the pavement plan, um, but it's not in the plan to be repaved.

So that's just an example of you know, there's a known, there are known pavement issues that affect safety and safe foods to school for both biking and pedestrians, but it's still not on the capital improvement plan.

Thank you, Deb.

Cliff, you'll have to hi, uh Cliff Chambers, resident of uh Mountain View.

Uh, thanks.

I think this plan has got a lot of work.

You get an absolute A for community engagement and stakeholder involvement uh since 2023.

Um I I think there's a lot of really good things in this plan, but I'd like to just point out a few things that I'd like you to address.

Um first uh during on the prioritized projects, we're we're really having a lot of expansion of protected bikeways, more comfort, safety.

I really applaud this.

But mostly on our serials, and there's community collector streets, which are called bicycle boulevards, but they're really not bicycle boulevards.

We really need something like Bryant Street, where uh bicycles really have a priority.

Uh second, I walk a lot, and uh the crossings issue.

There was mentioned that there's 30 crossings by Tracy McMillan.

There's none of those on the prioritized projects, so or none of those being uh prioritized.

They should be on the map to be shown.

Many of us lobbied really hard for mid-block crossings for on California Street.

We don't want to have to do that project by project.

There should be a better policy for mid-block uh crossings, uh and they should be identified and prioritized.

We also need uh thinking about regionally connections uh regionally to Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, that needs to be included in in the plan.

And there needs to be better integration, I think, with the biodiversity plan and uh the parks plan to make this plan really shine.

Lots of great work.

I really thank you for uh all your effort.

And finally, I just I do think there needs to be a uh a modal aspiration, as somebody mentioned earlier.

Thank you, Cliff.

Steve, you have two minutes.

Hey, this is Steve Thompson.

I live here in Mountain View.

Uh, I wanted to bring up an issue and what I just wondered if there were any considerations for after action parking and safety checks.

Uh the thing I'm noticing is that after the California Street uh project, I live here on Esquela, and basically every night there are multiple cars parked in the fire zones almost directly in front of fire hydrants on the street.

Uh I've sent in a couple of emails to both uh Regency and also the city, and just haven't seen any changes uh regarding that.

Uh and then otherwise I was wondering uh, are there any kind of engagement metrics in terms of how many people uh from the public are involved uh in in these projects?

Uh like if that could be published at some point.

That's all I have.

Yeah.

And we have Scott.

You have two minutes, Scott.

Hi, um, I am a bicycle commuter who works in uh Mountain View.

And I wanted to the earlier commenters uh comment about adopting NACTO and uh also in particular adopting 10-foot lane widths in this plan.

Um 10-foot lane widths are the modern standard, and they are uh adequate for motorist needs, and they reduce um the frequency reduce uh vehicle speeds, which improves safety for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists alike.

Um it's um yeah, it's uh I think something that is important to consider.

Thank you.

Scott all right.

With that committee comments and uh is it correct that we are not we do not necessarily need a specific motion on this item set?

Or do you need a recommendation?

I and would or would it be helpful even if you don't strictly want it?

It would be helpful to have a recommendation to CTC that you're in support of the generally in support of the ATP.

It will come back to you again for a formal B PAC recommendation to council, but it's not going to go back to CTC before it goes to council.

Is that kind of so it would be helpful to have a general recommendation that you as a BPAC are in support of the ATP so that CTC hears that and can recommend it to council.

So the recommendation would just be to CTC, which is again the council transportation committee, and we will come for a formal recommendation to city council after we have made incorporated the comments and changes we've heard for the community.

Um when this closes on May 15th.

Right.

Yeah.

We go to CTC on June 16.

And then we go into revision phase.

And then we come back to you with the final.

So I think it would be helpful for CTC to hear if you were generally in support of the act of transportation.

Right.

They are going to see the same draft you have seen, and then as council, they will see the fine.

Correct.

Correct.

I still find that uh this plan is really good, but it's still really missing a point there to really reach out to the public or else you know other people's just not gonna know.

You would just microscope, but the pedestrians still not gonna really see it.

Somehow it has to be really reached at the kids to the you know, to the parents so that they can actually read this and no value still read and so for clarity.

You're asking for engagement on the ATP draft itself.

Well, yes, maybe there's this.

So maybe because I know that the police department is also doing these educational work for us in order to get the people engaged.

So I'm wondering whether, you know, this, but in order for this to be a little bit, you know, more these years, we haven't really seen much of you know the kids, you know, doing uh they're they're still having you know issues about riding bikes and all that stuff.

Is it would it be, you know, would it be would you guys be willing to work with the police department, the BPAC committee?

Well, the BPAC committee.

So that uh you know, maybe you maybe giving lectures with the school district and all that stuff.

So we have our safe route to school program, so that would be in a different kind of bucket.

Um, you know, we are doing education with with the students.

We have a pretty robust plan, and one of the updates here is that we're ready, we're going to be awarding a contract for renewing that.

But um, the active transportation plan, the goal of and the intent of this plan is to identify where there are gaps in the network for both bikes and pedestrians, identify projects and how we are going to close those gaps, and then recommend policies that city staff can then implement to help better the the um bike and pedestrian experience through Mountain View.

So the education side would be handled through our safe routes to school for for the the pup the younger public education um from an outreach perspective.

It's on our collaborate MV right now, so we're trying to get the city involved.

But um, you know, all of these plans we do post on our city website, we do do different blasts through council connections, city hall connections.

Um, we're we're trying to reach uh the the whole audience um to make everyone who wants to be aware aware.

I mean, for example, smart commute.

I never even heard about this before.

People know about smart community.

This is like a raffle raffle system for people if kids can write bikes, they give points, right?

And this is also part of mountain view, right?

About them being over and then you know, maybe this could this uh ATP.

I mean, I know the purpose, but if it's more uh, you know, it's more I mean uh if it if it's more letting people know rather than just implementing the system with all these green roads and stripes law, and they don't know how to use it.

I wonder that uh comments if that said, then you know so we have our vision zero action plan, which has an outreach for taking care of this.

We have um, you know, that those are the owls that you see everywhere.

That's part of our trying to educate the public through all this.

Um I'm not really sure that the active transportation plan is the right place for that, but I do think there are plenty of city plans and programs out there to try and educate the public on what we're doing.

Every project we do, we do outreach to the community.

You get a postcard, or you'll see the lawn signs.

Um we are we are trying to reach the community in as many ways as possible.

Assuming more members of the committee have comments on this.

Uh yeah, members don't well.

I actually had prepared some slides.

Did you get those?

Yes, uh, but before I want to speak to a couple of things that the members of the public said.

Uh one is it's my understanding that that it's legal for bikes to use the lead pedestrian interval.

Is that correct?

Okay, so that is uh something we can educate people about when you see the little block in there, and you can also uh get your bike out there and small and help by uh um and the other kind of question.

Someone mentioned a mid-block crossing policy.

And I thought we already had some kind of policy that if there was a certain distance, we want to get to the flow of these gaps.

Am I remembering wrong?

I don't know that we have a policy for it.

Yeah, I don't think it's a policy, but there was best practices, yeah.

Okay, well, maybe we should have a formal also just to clarify on that the some of the some of the projects for input crossings are new mid-walk crosses.

That is correct.

So they all exist in that prioritized list, even if they're yeah, I don't know about multiple.

Yeah, but every project does it inform policy.

So some you know, we don't have a policy, so some of them are 500 feet, some of them are 800 feet.

Staff gets to interpret it, and I think that's the point of the policy.

And I think for all the projects, those that were developed with cut sheets or those that were further down the list, it they have to be evaluated and uh further in terms of conditions that exist.

So I just for some reason thought we already had some kind of uh formal standard we use.

Because we evaluated everything as adding uh we evaluate at every 500 feet to make see if it make where it makes sense, but that's our starting point.

So the the current starting point is to look right at it.

Yeah, that's that's kind of I I know I heard a number from someone now wanting uh okay.

Um you want to bring up my slides so I can go into that.

So as part of preparing for this meeting, I also did a review of some of the other uh neighboring cities recent uh active transportation and bike transportation plans.

Uh and I I'm specifically, I think the plan's good.

Let me start there.

Uh I really think we did a lot of good work here, but I feel like our policies and uh the policy section is not as big as I would like it to be.

There's not as many policies there, policy recommendations.

Um the uh the Palo Alto Active Transportation Plan has 10 pages and 71 specific policy recommendations.

Um we are not anywhere near that.

Um so here's some examples of specific policy recommendations from the Palo Alto uh transportation plan that I liked and I am sharing with you so you I don't have to read it all out.

Um but like these are recommending very specific, you know.

We've got uh, you know, Caltrans DIB 95, we've got the federal highway, uh state systems roadway design hierarchy referenced in uh 1.6.

We've got the AB 43, again the federal highway safe systems approach.

Um these are these are a lot more specific and detailed than what we have in your current active transportation plan.

Can we go to the next slide?

Um I think bikeway repayment program.

Like one of the problems we were just discussing uh reconstruction doesn't happen very often, repaying happens all the time, getting some kind of funding program, funding and and policy about making sure that when we do re paving, there is funds there to do the the little bit extra that that gets us the good quality active transportation infrastructure, like as a matter of course.

Um I would like to see something like that.

Um pedestrian improvements, yeah.

Okay, it's 14 to 16 about the same, once for bikes, one for pedestrians.

Um got NACTO guidelines specifically called out program.

Uh the next slide.

Um, this is from Sunnyvale.

This is again talking about specifically NACTO and VTA bicycle technical guidelines.

Um specifically calling out that we are going to use these guidelines.

I would like to see some language like that.

Um prioritize uh transportation over parking and deciding in the future use of street space.

I would like a policy like that.

Um here clarified sidewalk with stance.

This is maybe not necessarily for sidewalk standards, but like clarify our standards specifically for specific road types.

Um in the general plan, we have kind of some vague guidelines of this road type.

Here's our priority list of pedestrian vehicle uh bicycle.

That's nice.

Uh, but like if you look at uh DIB 94 Caltran says for this kind of road, they have some more detail, like if it's a suburban arterial, bike length should be that between these feet standard, minimum that much, travel lane should be this much, et cetera.

I think developing a policy like that for Mountain View, specific measurements for specific street types.

We already have a street type network, right?

We've already decided these streets are these kinds.

We can map those to specific numbers so that we don't have to debate how wide are the lanes on every single project all the time.

Um, here we go.

East Palo Alto, adopt NAC though, like just do it.

Item 6.5, like they can do it, we can do it.

Uh as the primary design guide.

It's not saying you have to just use NACTA, but we're using that as our primary source.

We will look at them first, and already like performs which you don't have to worry about, you know, it's it's building on top of it.

And we can we can have something like that, though.

I like NACTO, that's what I'm gonna push for, as our other ones exist.

Um, but like when we're doing bikes, we we know what we're using.

We can tell whoever we're like hiring to do the do the design to look at that.

Um yeah, sorry.

And uh finally, this is for from the standard details.

We talked about standard details within the original scope of work, and again, in uh um some of the policies.

This is our our safety triangle.

Um this conflicts with best practices and should be reviewed.

I want specifically to review uh A22 and A23 from standard details to make sure that conform with current best practices and the um the safety, safe systems.

The safe systems was specifically referencing the act of transportation plan.

I don't think this comes this conforms with safe systems, and I think it should be reviewed.

I'm not an engineer, so I'm I'm not gonna say for sure, but I'm telling you my impression and my what I would like to see.

Okay, so uh I think I have one more.

Yes.

So this is from DIB 95 showing Caltrans standard lane widths or uh arterial with transit having a less than 11 foot.

So I think the 11-foot lane standard should also be reconciled.

That's the majority that that's my slides.

I think I had some other things I wanted to say.

Uh uh standard details, ring with one more slide.

No, that's for the next uh and um oh yes, the other thing was adopt uh VMT uh rather than uh level service as our standard for traffic analysis.

This is consistent with the general plan.

Language in the general plan talks about using something rather than level of service.

Uh this is consistent with the multimodal improvement plan.

We council adopted this as an alternative to using level of service.

Uh so okay.

That's everything.

Okay.

Um so yeah, I I have several comments.

Thank you, or uh member stone for kind of um emphasizing some of the same points.

But let me go through and organize uh quickly.

So I I like where there is policy, so things like the scoring criteria, whether I agree with the scoring criteria or not, um, it's important to make them visible and to work uh consistently with that kind of policy.

So I'm disappointed that it didn't reference VMT as a policy.

I didn't get to the uh level, but I think looking at other cities' best practices of policies and being clear on water policies that we can adopt, whether it's uh design and construction standards like DID 94 specifically, uh, or for the NETCO standards.

Um, I think we need to have policies that adapt some little things like curb lips.

I've seen two people get concussions because uh a driveway curb lip was there, a little water in it, they tried to hit at a bad angle and slid out where there's no reason to have a one in a quarter pinch uh two-inch curb lip.

Um so those kinds of standard details should be stated so that there's not interpretation by a contractor or a staff member, it's clear what we're gonna go.

Um so uh policy should lead to metrics.

We've we've heard from several people talking about you need to measure uh so whether it's traffic counts, pedestrian counts, bicycle counts, uh average speeds, uh things in addition to just collision rates and injury rates.

I think our metrics that we should have uh identified and recorded uh periodically.

Uh, if we're gonna do a traffic count on the street every five years, we should be consistent up with this uh and other metrics whether signs or programs.

Uh finally, I think the you know things like the policy we talked about processing.

So I know like at uh McKelvey Park, we said there's a 500 foot standard, but we said oh, we're not doing it, we're gonna be in 800 feet or whatever.

Um so I I'd like to see us be consistent about having the policy and so we've got little deviation as possible because uh it's too easy to ignore stuff or forget stuff otherwise.

A couple specifics.

Um, you know, the ride share and delivery services are not mentioned.

We heard a lot of people talk about parking and the bike uh lanes that do exist.

Um I think having uh mention of ride share delivery services and how to handle those for designs going forward, whether it's in street construction or whether it is in uh commercial or residential development, those should be clearly identified.

I like that we talk about the SAOs.

I'd like again a policy a little more clear about how to identify and get those in precise plan.

So I think um uh there's a lot of good stuff, but I have reservations, particularly in the areas of policy uh and metrics, and then spelling out some of the programs.

So safe routes to school should be enhanced.

That's pretty vague.

So those are three areas that I'll follow up with some of the um uh collapse service details, but in the lines of uh stone looking for best part uh practices.

I think uh putting a prior comment about city of insurance on bike parking, for instance.

I've seen too many racks that the city is rated uh for some parking, uh, like at Costco, you can get half or less of what they have specified semen trader Joe's and many other establishments.

So those are my general comments.

Um I'm gonna try not to read it what this means.

Uh I won't so first I think it's nice to find you get there because it's been kind of a long and process.

Uh just I think uh one thing I would say that this is the first time, but uh I this is only my second time looking at the ATP since I joined the PAC uh yeah ago.

Um and I you know I my one regret was that we didn't get the chance as Back to review the stuff projects, nor the set of policies, and I think it's pretty why you really are a lot of feedback uh on that.

That's something that uh and I understand the circumfenses, so I mean that it's we we maybe we have more comments we we probably should have done earlier on the process.

Um I had two somewhat cosmetic things on it because uh thing.

So one of them, I think you you clarified in the questions is like to make sure that uh previous uh Back Mondas would be listed as uh back knowledge because more about the TV that I did.

So they should get credits.

Yeah.

Um the second one is, and it's a bit my pet give is that's on on most of the maps that I see.

Uh we make a point of putting uh public schools, but we never put the public schools in Los Lantos, but a lot of Mountain View kids at that.

Uh and it's a bit personal for me because my son has gone to public schools, living in Mountain View, but all the time in the Los Angeles school districts, so in no side bus.

So we went to Admon Vegan uh you know side plus high, and he's nowhere on that map.

So and these are very important things, especially to correlate with uh accidents.

So I apologize for that one.

I apologize for that one but I should have and it's kind of throughout so hopefully it's just but yeah I think it's probably a layer that we so um so um I'm struggling with the the the list of projects by reading the documents and again uh part of it is because that never came to be packed so we didn't get characters in provide feedback open segments.

What what I noticed is uh there is some inconsistencies you know about the documents so so it's not very clear um you know there is a list of projects in one section but then the map shows a different set of things uh like for example in the executive summary there is a map that's supposed to show all the projects but it shows only the byte once not not the the the pedestry at once um so that makes it you know and and you know I'm I'm the one who typically skips the executive summary but I'm sure people higher up the only thing may read so you you probably wanted to have this kind of square away and then it's it could use some explanations in in kind of how how that list was arrived I think you you provide it some in the you know in the questions but it it would be nice to have a kind of a narrative you know better explain uh high butt there um I'm you know I have some reservations about cutting some projects because they deal with cat grants uh because that's a reality that's been around forever and this is why you know pretty much we you know and we talk about this in middle field is that we still have those cyborg gap whatever thing so uh that's a complex problem dealing with an overagancy but it's one that I would hope the plan for 10 years you know should should should address uh and so I'm not really on board with cutting projects just because at runs it's more complicated but it's something we we need to need to do um and then um the projects yeah and yeah again it it's most of the maps don't really show the you know the intersections where there are some projects to include them and kind of maybe it's difficult to show but it's it gives the impression that it's most of the projects are either you know bike lanes or uh you know at a corridor level that kind of sidewalk widening or things like this but you know the the crossings are in my mind the the most important part for for pedestrians because it's uh if you look at the you know the the the injury maps uh as well as the feedback but where it's not safe that's at the intersections and and that's pretty much the life of everyone's there um so that's about the this and then uh on the policy I wanted to echo you know most of the comments there I think that it was a bit underwhelming and and maybe it's because we didn't have a dialogue between B back and you there are two policies that I I'd like to recommend uh adding um but the first one is um I mean there I mean two that I actually exist in the book so uh one is that there is an ordinance where um you know um the homeowner or the landowner is supposed to kind of uh uh level the sidewalk when a drive through drive driveway is no longer needed uh and that has some benefits to you know the workability you have less risk to turn your angle or things like this and you can go throughout Mountain View I mean I see some right on my streets and and you know and that's a house that was built like you know 40 50 years ago so but it looks like nobody you know enforced that's I think that's it may be challenging to do it after the facts but um I don't know that there is there is something in the books to address this and I think that should be nice to do this.

I know I didn't build my house, but you know, that was kind of a you ish uh kind of redevelopment and put the rubber had to provide a sidewalk.

And that doesn't seem to be a good you know implemented very much.

Yeah, and I think there are some negative issues there, but it's you know, the city should really leverage as a way to I think that's I just wanted to clarify a couple things.

I know it's reminded about one question from a member of the public earlier.

First off, on the projects that develop Cal Trans right away, were those in the set of projects that did get prioritized but did not get cut sheets created.

Yes, they were in like the top scoring projects, they are on the list of priority projects.

They did get score.

Correct.

And they yeah, so they are listed again, like they are listed as a priority project, which emphasizes the importance of the project.

But even in our a hundred projects, they were scored.

Okay.

Yeah, just wanted to clarify that.

Secondly, on the Amor Bonte, you mentioned uh like the black of the the bicycle map are uh since there is also a map of pedestrian projects with the pedestrian projects highlighted, was the not having them both on the same map confused, or was do you see other discrepancies?

There are sudden places that executive summary, there's only one of the maps.

Um so that's just nice.

Okay.

So for instance, I I understand.

Okay, okay.

I I I can't invent from that history on it's you know it I don't think it shows anywhere the update sections.

Um it did, but it was confusing to me as well, I think.

Overall, yeah.

I I I we've we've we've got your comments.

Yes.

Yeah, I just want to make sure I understood the things.

And there's also a question, or I guess a comment from member public about connections to other cities.

Could someone I guess comment on how that it connections to other cities would have played into the scoring of the projects if at all?

I'm just gonna for instance, there's what com things that comment come up, is Palo Alto has a um sort of bike boulevard that connects into roughly where um well, I guess it ultimately goes to California Street, but um that or through like Del Menu.

Was the existence of that connection relevant in um the project prioritization?

Similarly, was the exist I know Sunnyvale has plans to improve to build a bikeway along Evelyn.

Is the existence of that project pertinent in the um prioritization here?

Um yes, it was would be considered almost like a gap.

I'm looking at Tracy for confirmation, but it Evelyn would be an example.

We've got one, we've got some on one side and some on the other.

It would be identified as a gap, and that gap was part of our scoring criteria.

So it would have gotten points per se to make it a uh a score higher project.

Um the specific one you mentioned on Pal Alto, I'm not a hundred percent sure, but the idea is that if there is a bike lane that ends, that would be identified as a gap in in connection.

Thanks.

Um, I'll have I have more detailed list of comments, but I wanted to so just understand what is sort of productive to in the or what we think will be included in the ATP.

I think I will have I have similar concerns about some of the the policies there or or lack of policies in the ATP.

Um I also want to see the ATP be done.

Um for some of these things we're talking about the policies, is it realistic to say include in the ATPA?

We will this actually true if I think if the bullets are in there right now, or basically a the plan is to go and implement this policy, but the ATP itself is not implementing this policy.

Correct.

So if we if VPAC wanted to recommend that the city do something like um EastPout or San Jose and um adopt NACTO as the default design guidelines, um then it would decide the question of whether or not we should or should not adopt those guidelines.

Um that it would not be a huge lift to include the direction that we plan to adopt those guidelines in the ATP, and then the the actual resolution city council would have to pass at some point to adopt those guidelines would be in the future.

Yes, more or less.

I will say we have heard multiple times in our different meetings now that there is a desire to have some sort of standards or guidance included as a policy.

So you will see something between now and the final that addresses that concern.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah, I'll put that.

It's um and I also mentioned on the existing conditions report.

Like, for instance, the site triangles, the policy A22, they're called out in that draft existing conditions report.

I I think it would be great if that if some of that information from that existing that draft existing conditions report could make it through to an appendix in here, even in the cases where I don't know if all of those make sense to recommend as um updated policies.

But I think it'd be great to not lose that information.

So we are going to be updating our city standards.

That is a CIP that will be adopted, will be put forth for council adoption in June for a CIP project to update the city standards.

So those will all be evaluated.

Those will come to BPAC when they are um updated, so you guys will have a chance to look at those.

Um it's in the works.

It's in the CIP or it will be in this case.

It is in the staff recommended CIP that council will be voting to adopt in June.

Okay.

It is in the CIP that you just recommended to council.

How's that?

Yeah, but a lot of um, in terms of my comments, then I I like a lot of stuff in the ATP, I like I generally want the prioritized list of projects.

I think came out, it matches roughly my expectations.

Like I don't I don't know if I were to go through and try to mark every single project in the city, I produce exactly the same list, but I don't expect to, I would have my own biases.

So I that I think it it the set of streets on there that appeared sort of crossings that appear, all that I think roughly makes sense to me.

Um I do think it'd be nice to have um as part of public record the detailed scoring breakdowns.

I don't want people to be going and litigating, oh, this this project should have had this mine, I'm scored this way.

That's not interesting to me.

It is sometimes there's a lot of times when we approve scoring criteria, then sort of goes into the void as far as we're concerned as the pack, and then we get scores back, and we don't know.

Well, should we have suggested this scoring criteria work differently?

So being able to have that feedback and review things would be helpful, but um I like having separate resurfacing and reconstruction projects.

I think that's something we did not have in prior plans.

Um I do wonder if we should have a almost lower threshold than resurfacing as well for some things.

I saw in one of the responses to um VPAC questions, there's a reference of like, yeah, sort of the resurfacing corresponds roughly to quit build projects.

I expect that to be true of the majority of the projects.

I would be interested in whether there's any even smaller projects we can be doing that uh I I just I'm not I think the closest to some example details of that would be there are times and without like resurfacing intersection um or this but yeah without researching an intersection, I've seen plastic use some sort of plastic usually put down to create more of a bulb out.

Um and small things like that I could see being useful.

Um I'm not so I know I don't want to reclude that.

I don't know.

Um the okay, I think it'd be good to be, I think it's alluded to, but I think it could be very clear in the ATP about that the cut sheets are not like finalized.

I know it's said that just that's something that can probably be repeated more times rather than the viewer.

Um I but I do think that like that those cut sheets are actually rather important in my mind.

Like those will be the starting point for any discussions, but we the starting point presume we have where there's any grant filings, and so I do want to make sure we have those reasonable.

And that's I know that's why I may have some questions on the list of questions about a couple of the items.

Like I don't there's a reference in the WISMIN road one to may need to widen the bridge, and it's still not clear from reading the response is still not clear to me why that would be necessary um for the goals of the city.

Um and that would potentially increase the cost of any potential projects by law.

Um topic is standards.

I I my inclination is we should have we should encourage the city to adopt some specific standards.

I don't want to lock us in too much to five years from now, there may be better standards.

But if we can adopt good standards now in the next two years, um, and that's what the ATP recommends, but the ATP doesn't lock us into, oh yeah, 10 five, 10 years from now we'll still be following these same standards.

I think that would be helpful.

Um but I am sympathetic to the I don't want us to write down something here that there will be some sort of recommendation between draft and final of uh guidance and and standards that we will follow as projects kick off, in addition to the city standards that will be underway.

Okay.

Um I'll call it the specific one since I asked about the comments in the questions.

Um it's just the one that I don't think is going to be covered by any of the existing work.

I'm not sure I expect it to be done soon, but it would be nice sometime in the fullness of time to review some of the city fire code.

There was a project for that part of Castro right there that was going to be extremely expensive to do a protected bike lane on because the fire code currently has specific requirements around lane width that doesn't I think it's basically just outdated with respect to having protected bike lanes.

Um it felt like there was a way to done that project in a way that improved safety without being detrimental to buyer truck access.

I don't know if that's something we'll be able to accomplish anytime soon, but it'd be nice to have that eventually.

Um would that be included in the code review that you are saying is recommended in CIP guide for tune that part of the code?

Yeah.

That's just the standard details, I assume, right?

That's just standard details.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

The the the standard details are not part of the city code, right?

They're just a city policy documented approach.

Yeah, that's I'm being told that is correct.

Um okay.

Oh, it'd be good to have as a couple of members of public alluded to, it would be nice to have some sort of progress dashboard report that was regularly updated, not every week, but in progress report for the ATP so that we know we have a sense of if we're accomplishing the things we thought we're going to accomplish.

And as a small one, there's a Mountain View ATP website linked on the city website.

That's yep, saw that.

We will take care of that.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, so to give us to what use would be very quick, just a very quick hasn't not gonna be ever been sued by anybody who has any accidents based on obvious new uh new features that the city hasn't had.

Uh that is a very broad statement.

Um like the protected bike lanes, the new improvements, the new projects on California, is that the question or anywhere else we know?

Um some old ones.

So like there were a couple of lawsuits on Castro when they redo the street lift lip, there were a couple uh collisions.

Um you notice run out the lip, but that was it's still not a standard not to have those buttons.

Yeah, we can look into that and get back to you.

But from a parking protected bike lane, uh those are those are a little newer in the city, and uh I'd have to if you're if that is the specific question, I'd have to look at to that and get back to you.

So the policies might you know might affect it.

We might have to be a little more careful or adopted policy than other people didn't follow this.

Okay.

Yeah, one comment.

So that was also in McGriving questions, but costs that are uh you know very uh the the seem to include both the so race of using are prescribed being where I mean I think it would be very useful to kind of write all that costs uh as wet as you can do that.

The reason for this is that's one that's gonna go to city console to things they're gonna look at the price tag, and they're gonna say, well, we're gonna be spending so much money here again for bikes that is pre-entware.

The amount of money four bikes and prediction is only a fraction of us.

That's something we can read almost every day on X to all or things like this.

People are complaining that you must tons of millions of the bike lines on a community, and it's not accurate.

I mean, that's the results saying was that.

What I can say we can look into is maybe give you historically what we think for projects that have been completed to date, what those differences would be.

I am a little dubious to put them on our proposed projects, but we can give you historically how much of a percentage ad that is just for a data point.

I think that would be very helpful.

In fact, if we could get this for it, I mean we'll find or even or if it's just a general item now.

Yeah, I think we can find we can we can get that and get you some.

And then make sure that's somewhat referenced into the ATP because again, you know, some people may have this deco chunk, and but it's the value of extended citizens.

So that's um okay, just try to move us to the actual recommendation.

Um okay, just try to move us to the actual recommendation.

I think there's a variety of minor recommendations, which sound like Stafford, but I think the broad thing would be something along the lines of be recommended to the ATP with basic with more with us, there'd be more specific policy recommendations for the improving the how the city designs and implements um street safety projects, including but not limited to the adoption of NACTO NACTO um standards.

I would also call out adoption of NACTO standards.

Uh lane widths lower than 11 foot side of where possible.

So can I ask you to look at a different way?

What are the changes that if we're not incorporated, would you then not recommend this to council?

Why are we looking at it now?

Because if you're recommending CTC adopt it for councils, what are the changes that appear the city doesn't make them?

Now all your comments are going to be received.

I'm going to take those comments.

Like I said, you will see a di uh some recommendation of some adoption of the.

I think the DIB 94, Cal Transcended, kind of gives you 11 foot lanes for buses, trucks, 10 and a half foot lanes for vehicles.

Right.

But I'm hearing that it's 11 foot everywhere in the city, which is inconsistent with DID 90.

So what you the cross-section that you for you showed up there is two lanes.

So if there is more than one lane, then yes.

But that's not what I have as an answer to my clarifying question for the next item.

So either my answer was wrong, or our standard is 11 feet.

Our standard is 11 feet.

So would you accept the recommendation for adoption of DIB 94 that gives some standards?

I don't want to specifically say DIB 94.

It could be DIY4, it could be NACTA, it could be something else.

I just want to have something there that says I don't want it to be 11 feet.

I showed you DIB 94 about 10 and a half foot lanes.

A recommendation because it's been shown that narrower lanes are safer in an urban environment.

We should have a recommendation that we explore narrower looks narrower lane.

Like I I would like to see it not just explore.

I would require narrow learning with line with standards adopted elsewhere.

Let me try to provide us a uh motion for that.

Um knowing that a bunch of the specific feedback was heard and we'll get account of um BPAC recommends that recommends the ATP provided that it includes policy recommendations that will result in at a minimum revisiting lane widths on multi-lane arterial roads such that the city yeah revising lane lists on multi-lane arterial roads to improve street safety.

Um what I would say is that you as a and I'm putting words in your mouth now, so so uh that as a body you are looking for the standards to be here to reflect other um guidance such as NACTO and DIV 94 as projects come online.

Um you know every it um projects are looked at on a case by case basis so so we will explore that uh right now 11 foot is our starting point and where we are comfortable yeah it it feels a I don't know it feels awkward to me to include the specific lane with um well I mean let's let's say we like it but we want to make sure that it includes looking at more honest standards such as NACA or did 94 it's always gonna include that and uh in particular language I think we've said that we're including a policy where or we're we're hearing that all of the comments that come in are related to that and we'll include a statement regarding guidance looking at best practice guidance NACTO is guidance DIB 94 is guidance right so I guess I understand that those are guidance and I would like to see something a little more concrete than guidance but I'm not saying that needs to be in the active transportation plan I'm saying in I would like to go to council or go to CDC something specific about um looking into a modern standard we I will we will definitely relay your comments as a body that that was something we heard from you um it's not going to be something that you know is not covered in when we report out of what we've heard on the ATP um so we will have a whole slide on comments of what we heard from the public what we heard it at our at pack what we heard from BPAC and we will we will provide that feedback to CTC and we will also let them know how we plan on addressing it as we move from draft to final I guess I I'm hearing more than just lane list I mean you're putting out I don't want to include well I'm I'm inclined to be willing to trust the comments we've heard enough that we don't need to include everything that would be on the list in fact I'm not sure lane width should be my first priority it would probably be a good canary coal line type of thing but I'm not tripping my first priority so I am my inclination is to keep a motion to we recommend it with provided the with the significant recommendation that it include the ETP include the plan to adopt modern and progressive safety or street design standards along the lines of NACTO or DIB 94.

Let's see what I what I heard from some comments was he was pointing to like Palo Alto he said they have pages and a significant number of policies in their ATP and I I heard from myself and the other members plus the public that we seem to be policy like that's a reservation I have of making a recommendation so it's not just you know a standard adoption but there's policies and metrics were two key areas that I heard in addition to having policies reference standards.

So I'm hearing kind of two different things I'm hearing a request to include some sort of policy to adopt um more progressive standards as part of the ATP that is what I heard from you member Stone and then I have also heard that you are hoping to see a more robust policy section generally I will remind you that the vision zero action plan and our local road safety plan does have their own policy section and none of this is meant to supersede to exceed or exclude those policies um but we also didn't add them back in here.

So so there is a more comprehensive list of policies um on that site too.

Yeah it was more the policies like a preference for travel lanes over parking for instance um that's not mentioned in our um uh road safety plan or vision zero where it was a policy we saw referenced in one of those where um travel I mean we can we can just say we like it we want more specific and actionable policies like I I think that that's that captures the comments pretty broadly and it'll be coming back to us I don't know if we need to really get into the round well there will be late to stop when it actually comes back to us.

I would put it that way we will it'll be difficult to make any changes at the point when the next comes back to us.

I would highly encourage you if there are specific policies to respond on collaborate and v of certain ones that you are interested in seeing.

Member Stone, can you make the motion you just described?

Uh okay.

I motion that we recommend the act of transportation stand to C T C with a note that BPAC would like to see more specific and actionable policies.

Is there a second?

I will second that.

Chair, so member Stone made the motion.

Chair Guzmole seconded it.

All in favor.

All in favor of the motion.

Okay.

All right.

All opposed.

All abstaining.

It's not opposed to it.

It's just oh what it's gonna come out.

So it's it's I mean, it's good to have a plan policy, but the if it's gonna be flexible enough.

If it's too narrow, I think we're starting with the danger of it being uh being able to work with the different streets, the structure might be a little bit too right.

Well, we're not we're not recommending a specific policy at the moment.

We are saying that there's a compromise between something that's too general but doesn't really force anything to happen and too specific, meaning you don't have flexibility.

I feel right now we're a little on the general side in our policy section.

Uh and I would like it to be a little more specific.

Uh and I and we're not saying, I mean, we gave some general recommendations, but we're not saying we won't adopt it if all of these aren't in.

We're just saying we would like to see something just procedurally.

Uh member bucket to do stain from that motion.

Yeah.

Okay, so the motion failed to to what just for the record.

So yeah, I'd like to explain.

So I think a motion that talked more about you know uh recommendations with reservations in areas of policy, you know, in metrics standards, which we heard, and they they can list out those areas of uh policies which were discussed.

Um the idea that metrics should be more specific and that standards should be identified.

So yeah, I want to make sure our reservations I guess are captured in the in the reservations I think we heard and we echoed members of the public.

So you would say you make the motion and say that we have reservations.

I think we should list the areas of key reservations for policies.

Yeah, standards.

And then I would answer so you are.

So you're you are recommending CTC uh recommends the ATP to council, noting that BPAC would like to see more in metrics, policies, and standards between the draft and the final that will be going to council.

So it's it's recommended with reservations, those three buttons.

Okay, okay.

So I don't cite.

Yes, well, we've got all of those copies now.

I'm not gonna bring them all into the motion.

Member Barton, are you saying are you making that motion then?

Um yes, and with the specific word of reservations, the areas listed three areas.

You have that policy metrics and standards and standards.

I I wrote something down.

Okay recommend the ATP.

Maybe this part needs to change.

Recommend the ATP to CTC with a note that the BPAC has reservations in the areas of policies, metrics, and standards.

Is that what you wanted to say?

Yes, yes, except so the motion is from Member Barton.

Is there a second?

I'm comfortable with that one.

Okay.

So we have a second from member Stone.

All right.

All in favor of that motion.

Okay.

I see that it passes you can.

Okay, so that now passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Okay.

I believe this moves us to item 6.2, which is a middle fuel item.

Can I propose five minute bio break?

We will take we can also look over.

We'll take a five-minute.

Project twenty-two oh one.

All right.

Um comedian members.

My name is Juan Will.

Associable Engineer with no Sebo Infrastructures.

I'm here today to present the design set for middlefield competitors.

Oh, because you're about to write my hands.

The project location is on middlefield road between Morfitt and Bernardo as outlined in the red dotted line.

Middlefield over passes even quick trail and Calcrans Day Odefy between Morfett and Easy Street.

Crossing the VTA Light Rail between Elis and Lock Avenue.

And then under cost Caltron State Rail 237 with near Bernardo Avenue.

Scope includes resurfacing the middle field from Morphette to Wisman, class two protected byways between Morfitt and Bernardo, and class two or multi-use facility over state route identifiable.

Pedestrian and bicycle improvement on at four intersections, Morfett Easy, the Revula and Wisman.

Because the city received new grants for middlefield, which will be discussed in next slides.

New scope would add it to the project as shown on the right.

So roadway surfacing now to the for the entire corridor.

So this slide showed the timeline that the project taken so far.

So in June 2022, feedback was presented the complex tree checklist for the back tree grant application.

In January 2023, the city would awarded 2.4 million dollars to the OPACLE grant, and staff went to council in February 2023 to secure the grant.

In May 2024, City Council authorized professional service agreement to see free for desired visit and construction support.

City then received two additional grants for middlefield.

The first one was the housing incentive pool grant received in June 2025 in the amount of 1.76 million dollars.

And then in December 2025, the city would awarded 5.17 million dollars to the affordable housing sustainability community program.

We have the city funding additional scope.

The exit MV comprehensive model plan identify middle field as a high strata with bicycle level of traffic stress three out of four and a tier two priority corridor for transportation improvements projects, proposing plus four separated by voice.

Proposed improvements on middle field are also part of the draft active transportation plan.

So the map on the right show major corridor in the city in orange.

Corridors that have recently received or plan to receive road diets are highlighted in green.

Staff also investigated implementing a road diet on middle field.

In March 2025, the BPAC provided commons on the Morfet Communist Street project, requesting consideration of a road diet.

Therefore, staff evaluated middle field corridor for our potential road diet from two lands to one land in the direction and would like to share the results.

Criteria used to evaluate scenario are roadway capacity, level observers, and QN analysis.

So on the left, the left column show the corridor will divide it into three segments.

So the first segment between Morphet and Wisman with the road diet, it would experience over capacity for one hour during evening peak hours under existing and background conditions.

Two hours during the morning peak hours and three hours during the evening peak hour under accumulated condition.

The perway capacity for the segment between Wisman and 237, and the last row show overcapacity or the remaining segment between 227 and eastern city limits.

So as show on the map with the road direct implemented by intersection circle in ping would appearance at the gradient level of server to E or F-win analysis.

The road diet would cause substantial QM deficiency at several intersections along the corridor.

And to resolve this Q deficiency, existing latent land would need to be lengthened.

So in this slide, uh example for the Morphette and middle field intersection.

So the slide shows how much left land is to be lented in implementing the road diet.

So on the right on the right, the picture on the right.

So in the northbound direction, the lepton length would need to be extended 25 feet, which is feasible because you know there's no objection on this on the south bow direction.

A hundred feet would be required.

However, if not feasible due to the conflict with the existing left turn and pocket on the south, lengthening the left and lane by 200 feet will require median reconstruction and remove approximately 15 fees.

And on Mr.

Cross Street on Moffat and middle feet.

The left turn lane will need to be extended 400 feet.

And it is not feasible due to change in roadway geometry.

Additional location along corridor include L Street, Wism, Log Avenue, and State Rail 237.

Lock by Silver Road.

So in summary, the study concluded that a road dive would result in deficiency of intersection level of server, increased intersectional vehicle queuing, reduced corridor capacity.

Additionally, implementing a road that would cause the loss of capacity, would we impact the operation of the auto east west arterios and emergency response times for medical police and fire services?

For these above reasons, staff do not recommend implementing a roadback for medial field.

Over the next slides, and that would walk you through segment by segment, showing the improvements, cross-section along the corridor.

The existing conditions for the project can be split into two distinct segments.

Segment A from Moffitt to Wisman and segment B and Wisman to Segment A, excluding the segment passing state route 85, comprises mostly multifamily homes, two travel lanes in each direction, class two bike lanes on both sides, which become parking lanes on the weekends, and after 7 p.m.

on weekdays.

To implement a full-time class 4 bike facility, the entree parking will need to be removed at all times.

In addition to the vertical elements, green bike lane striping will be added to conflict to conflict zones, including driveways and bus stops.

There is a center median, two travel lanes, and a class two bike lane in each direction.

There is sidewalk on the north side, but no sidewalk on the south side.

Including the feasibility of converting the existing bike bicycling to a shared multi-use bike, a shared multi-use path for eastbound bicyclists and pedestrians.

The staff also met with CalTrans, uh, which owns the bridge.

Caltrans staff confirmed that alterations to the bridge overpass, including out limited to modifying the median and adjusting lane list will require a comprehensive review, approval process, which would cause the project to miss over Act 3 deadlines.

Staff will pursue a design of a multi-use path in the separate project.

The separate project will be proposed for additional design and construction planning in the next fiscal year.

The current project for the current project, the proposed layout on the bridge overpass will be very similar to the existing conditions as shown.

The only modification is the lanes will be 11 foot, as you can see here on the proposed section, and then whatever with the left over will be like class two bike lanes.

The segment comprise the segment.

Segment crosses the BTA right right on Log Avenue and Rhines underneath State Route 237 with an on with on and off-round entrances.

And we're referring to that as segment B.

I'm sorry.

That's segment B.

Similar to segment A.

Improvements include class four bike facilities with language to provide separation between bike lanes and travel lanes.

In addition to vertical elements, brain bike lanes, driving will be added at all conflicts and such as driveways and bike box.

Improvements at the intersections will include advisability crosswalks, advanced out stop bars, accessible pedestrian signals, and 88 curve ramp upgrades.

Each intersection was evaluated by existing conditions, and when a uh ADA deficiencies were noticed, a new curve ramp was is designed in its place.

We'll take the B feedback today from today and Google CTC next week on May 5th to give them an update and receive and receive feedback.

Subject to cowpence approval.

We anticipate design completion by end of 2026 and Druxum in some of the thousand twenty-seven.

Okay.

That's all for this session.

Yep.

All right.

I am assuming they're clarifying questions.

So there's three columns uh presented, existing conditions.

Can you explain what those three conditions are?

So and why the traffic counts change between slide you were just on.

So for the scenario, we have three scenario of the exit and condition.

Well, basically um the street layout.

Um background condition that as shown here.

So condition will be z condition plus no plan development and infrastructure changes and accumulated condition, view out is a view out of general bits.

So on background conditions, uh planned developments usually take uh three to six years, I guess.

Is that the time frame that we might experience that?

So member Barton, uh in question nine and classifying question is how we're I guess time frame is what I'm looking at.

Okay, I just yeah.

So the time frame that we would expect to realize background conditions and um how far out the general plan generally.

I will pass the question to Jennifer.

Hi, Jennifer Yang, public works director.

So background conditions for known plan developments vary by type of developments, you know, a smaller developments will take a little quicker to get through the building current process and then get out to construction for improvements out on the street.

Um, a longer project, a bigger project, I should say, that has several phases to it, you know, may take a long time to get to the very end.

Um I would say in general, you know, it's usually something like 18 months or so to get your building permits, and then they typically start with the on-site work first before they so that they don't risk damaging uh the workout in the in the front uh in the public street, typically uh improvements on the street are the last items to be constructed.

So it can be a little bit of a wait.

But you know, known plan developments are ones that were approved a couple of years ago and still just haven't finished all the way up to ones that were approved last week.

So there's a wide span of time that we're talking about here.

Cumulative improvements is built out of the general plan.

Um I want to say 2050 in my head for general plan, but I don't know if I'm getting my agencies picked up.

But it's it's somewhere in the long range horizon for that building.

Okay, thank you.

The viewing links that were shown on these slides corresponded to the full build-out scenario, correct?

Right.

Um, that's my question at this point.

So I have a number of questions.

So on the first on the other past, uh I think you put in the step report, I think stated that CATRAN doesn't want any anything with the name change to trigger review.

So I'm can you can you clarify what what triggers the food review for cat rates?

So basically the the overpass is the rest of all by cow plants.

So any change it to the land configuration.

Um we would require cloud trends permitting uh review and approval process, and it it is a long process.

Um so basically if we we want cow trans would open to reveal the CD for improvement, like for land reduction over the bridge.

But but they we made with Caltrands, and they told us it it would be a long process, and um and if we go that route, we risk um GRB.

We wouldn't make the G plan deadline, and we will miss that.

But just to to my specific point, I mean, in you you you showed in the slide that's there is an existing lane width, and the proposed language is shorter, at least for the second line, right to make room for a bigger thing.

So that does it trigger this type of view, or never well spending the button review.

I think yeah, thanks for the clarifying question.

So you're correct.

Proposed um lane geometry that we showed would not trigger the uh or intense review.

So the simplest Cal trans view is an improvement.

So you keep the wife same link configuration, you're not changing or adding uh things that are outside the Caltrans design guidelines.

Um that's typically acceptable to go through an increase.

Once you cross a threshold and you're adjusting something that is structural or just adjusting something that is off of the design manual account into it, or reducing capacity, then that's gonna trigger it.

So reducing the language was not triggering like doing a road diode on the bridge.

As long as the lane width is within the design manual standards, which one of the reasons why we did why we've seen on LKM and a half is an acceptable adjustment um Caltrans standard.

And I was reminded that anyone speaking from over there should make their voice very clear.

It is project for those on the thank you.

All right, so so uh again on the road diet.

So uh in your study, the did you you know for for I guess you did it by segments, right?

And uh on each segment did you consider the road diet on the full length of the segments or or just the portion of it?

Um you know, because if I look at Miramonty, for instance, we're with the road diets, so it doesn't stop on the camino, for instance.

So the road study we looking at reducing the two length to one length for the entire coidal film, which you put more at two but now pretty much right at the end of the section.

There's no kind of fun order.

You're asking as a transition in your evaluation.

So there is a bit of a fun or two to ease of traffic if you would look at in its entirety, the whole segment.

It it that that's actually that is it at one lane starting above that or or is it a bit further, you know, to have a flat off.

Is there a tapering specifically to the state route 85 processing that uh no no no so for for for the one diet study?

So I think I think the question is if the road and the road diet design, where was the tapering from two to one being done?

Thank you.

Yes, um, sorry, I don't have a job.

So there's enough road capacity before that driveway to incorporate all of the improvements that would be involved.

And then the taper would be after that last driveway that gets it 555.

That's how it was modeled for them.

And we do have X hexagon on the line.

So if you have other modeling questions, again.

Sure, sure.

I'm just curious.

And another question is that I think it was mentioned in the staff recall.

There is a net pulling project by VCA.

Kind of reconfigure a bit for the um 47 and middle field.

That sounds like a pretty big job with you know things like this.

So how does it work with this?

Because I mean we're doing great risk of testing there, but they're gonna bring lots of big equipments.

Um so for this project, but we so actually for that within that um area.

We we're gonna have to remove existence striping and performs low see, which is um a self is just a surface treatment where the auto location along code we do not do overlay.

So it's resurfacing slowly seal is is more cost effective.

Um less less expensive than the overlay because it we consider the areas that we're uh pending the the other project coming to my first market.

So I'll just add that that project will be coming to B package.

Oh and then I'm not sure if it maybe more of the comments, but I asked anyway.

So uh I had a question about the you know again but other class.

I mean, you know, so I I noticed that you you would be adding a project.

Uh what once we expect once the expectation so that project kind of consider you know uh making room for for pedestrians um has it through so I missed part of that.

We were sorry.

I gave false, I gave incorrect information.

It goes to CTV in June and it will come to B Pack in August.

Um sure.

So uh regarding the other pass, I think you know, one issue is that there is a big you know sideboard gap there.

Uh and I understand that you you're gonna be starting on your project for this.

What's the expected timeline?

Closing that gap is not true.

So that that essentially next phase of this project um needs a needs funding through the CIP.

Um, and then we'll initiate those discussions with with CalTrans once we have a a proposed alignment.

So this project helps that helps start that process, but we're really looking at next fiscal year to get that really off.

So this will there will be a gap between delivering this project in the summer of 2027 and going through all of Caltrans's record basis once they get started.

So we haven't started that initiation design review process yet.

One final question on that topic.

Um I should know, but um we just reviewed it, but is it part of the that that's closing that sideboard gap is it one of the ATP projects?

It's been a while since I looked specifically for that for the I don't think we don't feel I mean because it's it's that would seem an important one.

Yeah, movement projects it's the list of projects.

Additional clarifying questions.

I have a couple I have one.

Uh yeah, um so uh okay a long time ago we looked at an uncrossing in Bernardo, which presumably would fight bicycle.

Anyway, just as a context, what's the task of that project now?

Um the status of the Bernardo project is um alive and well.

So we are partners with the city of Sunny Battle on that project along with Cal Train.

Um we finished the preliminary engineering efforts on that, and we are transitioning to the uh final design preliminary design phase, and we're transitioning to the final design phase.

So some ways away um and subject to you know uh affordability, we need to have the funding for that.

But yes, that is um active between us and city of sunny.

I just imagine once that's done, it's gonna increase and get bicycle demand on this station.

Um I have one James.

Um so first off, I was somewhat sometimes the the um software modeling for this has second order effects in it, but I was wondering why the northbound left turn from Moffat on to middle field was would even in the cumulative conditions wouldn't need any increase if the road dieting question was just east of the Moffat middle field intersection.

I'm just trying to understand what was done in the modeling.

Yeah, okay.

I pass it to um hexagon uh who is uh who was the design result that uh yeah, that's the make it out uh uh we see that will make it I mean all analysis we assume that dog is from MOSFET.

So um that account it's in the intersection analysis.

Um we assuming that um we saw that that would be one eastbound and one west bound going past mallet intersection, but I didn't know that if that project going was confided, it's actually with dog is from east of Molfet.

We just account it all the way to MOLFET.

Okay, I'm not going to worry about the detail there, I guess.

Um the yeah, uh sorry, it's just the the I wouldn't have expected the I think it sounds like that maybe some analysis was done with one lane going farther west of the intersection because I otherwise I wouldn't have assumed a northbound left turn lane.

All right, good evening.

I'd like to add to that.

Um Carlo Chaos Senior Traffic Engineer with Public Works.

When we you do a road diet, it doesn't often just start on one side of the roadway, you have to start merging lanes.

So there's there's impacts to to doing that kind of transition.

And you're looking at a road diet, it it typically um impacts the output of the intersection.

So there's often impacts to other approaches as well.

So I think that's where you're seeing this.

Okay.

Okay, that's sort of what I was hoping to as well.

Okay, I will I'll uh I'll take your word for it there.

Um secondly curious the um there was on the map of current or future road diets in the city, there the portion of Moffat between Central Expressway and Middlefield was highlighted.

I wasn't specifically aware of the plan at all, and I know that's come up as part of the Moffitt precise plan.

Is that a formal plan in the city?

Or was it just a potential?

Okay road diet.

So that was that was um I believe the consultant was asked to evaluate that as part of the Moffat Precise Plan, but that has not been done.

Okay, okay.

I was just as I was this first time we'd seen it as a like on paper, so I wasn't I wasn't sure.

Um just covered all right.

So on the uh bridge over state route 85.

The understanding that given the Caltrans um work of Caltrans means there won't be there's unlikely to be any substantial improvements to it as part immediately.

If what would it look like to even have a sort of shared bike head path in that right of way?

I'm trying to better understand what would be feasible to implement if we have two travel lanes in each direction, given that the that right-of-way is not overly wide right now.

Um I just yeah, I don't know.

I've not sure what the project can look like.

It's it's under development, it is an alternative that we're gonna be working through, but essentially the four foot median would need to be reduced to a one foot median.

You may uh reduce the lane with I think at least one of those lanes is above the 11 feet wide.

Uh so you would gain five to maybe five and a half feet, and then you would put all of that into a multi-use path.

Ideally, you your multi-use path is around 10 feet wide.

So you would find a uh vertical element that would be protective at the design speed.

Uh gain uh width, and you would add it to the six footing bike lane.

So whether you do that same elevation, you all all of the elevation issues have yet to be determined.

So that would probably also be okay.

And that might involve also having to restructure the sort of curve on the bridge that's over there or not.

So I'm looking at Adam because he he did a little bit more design work than I did on that.

So he said we'd have to evaluate we wouldn't want to touch the structure.

That's uh no go typically.

What counts as the structure?

Well, so the bridge, um, as far as like the railing, anything with the structural elements of it.

So if you're working within the rails basically, that's what we would do.

So if we had a transition even the medium, so ideally you wouldn't transition any one side like we wouldn't mess with it.

But if you have to transition the medium to get that width, like he's talking about to get it, you may each direction by path that were shared by pathway.

That's what we feel like we have the right of way as far as are the the width between rail and rail to make it work, whether it's reducing the lanes, uh keeping one eleven and reducing the other.

Uh we feel like it's within, but it's just gonna take a lot of work and a lot of coordination with Caltrands.

So that's why the timing thing just doesn't work right now.

But that's the plan long term.

Okay.

Um I think that covers questions.

Um that I believe we'll move to comment on this item, and we'll start with members of the public in the room.

I noted earlier, we make sure to project so that members of the public on Zoom who are raising their hands right now can hear you.

Oh look, I usually I'm uh using the bike here's not you in the past.

I rolled uh the downtown and the area and sunny mail in Massada North Mary Road often.

And the I used I never rolled in middlefield road, so yeah.

I used uh avenue and then a small connection here to the left with the HC trail, which is nice by bikes.

And that is much better to use the middlefield road by bike.

And the only useful part of middlefield road for bike lane is my opinion here, the few blocks near the small commercial area intersection with Bisman Road, Bisman Roadfield Road has a small commercial area.

It doesn't make sense to have the bike lane in the overpass about uh over 85.

With all the bike lane, there it doesn't make sense, but you don't need to because you can ride to the modern view by bike over Stevens Creek trail in and to the right to the east or HC trail or uh more day when you use and on the uh more in Sunnyburn or the Sunside.

Sorry, can you just for the record find your name?

I think it's a lot maybe thank you.

Do you have additional speakers in the Choo?

Um I was just um wondering um why in the analysis seemed to uh specifically speaking to the road I um seemed to um refer exclusively to level of service and queuing and um it I I thought that mountain view and the state in general like pivoted to using VMT to assess um you know these traffic um designs and even I think earlier in the comments on the meeting we said we should have some standards where we're always using VMT rather than level of service.

So I was just kind of interested in understanding um like why uh we we we saw in the analysis a lot of the downside of the road diet because of the uh the queuing and and and um the level of service, but none of the potential upside of um you know VMT, especially if we already know that is uh um you know, like a high stress biking corridor, um having uh you know a calmer street, um, you know, with a you know wider connected bike lane might shift uh you know, convert some of those trips to uh to uh bicycle trips, for example.

So um I feel like the analysis was a little lopsided.

So um I was just kind of curious if that was like a deliberate um decision or why wasn't I thought the standard was to use VMT for these kind of analysis.

So my request is just to have some more transparency and that kind of analysis.

Um I'm hearing quite a bit recently about the fact that uh wide uh driving lanes encourage high speed driving and driving over the speed limit.

And I from based on a sample of one, I find that to be very true.

And that's how fast I drive, not quite, but um so I um would like to see at least one of the I'm thrilled to see the lanes reduced.

I would like to see at least one of the lanes reduced to 10 feet or 10 and a half feet.

Um I see in the existing conditions that one of the turn lanes is actually under 10 feet, and so I would like to see more turn lanes um smaller width and order more space to bicycles and potentially green um elements.

And especially under 237, um, where there are multiple lanes wide.

Um again, my personal experiences closer you get to the highway, the faster you feel like you need to be driving even on the surface streets.

And so I really don't want to see extremely wide lanes there.

It's scary enough.

Uh going anywhere near uh intersection with uh highway on a bicycle.

There's like on ramps and everything else that are just feel extremely threatening.

And so uh at the very least, I think some of the lanes there uh need to be uh 12 plus feet seems crazy.

Um I'd like to see some of those lanes uh reduced at length too.

And I don't know enough about intersections to know if the new design incorporates NACTO standards, but I'd like to see that too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, my name's Greg Coleman and I do I live in the intersection at the corner, Leslie Court and Middlefield.

So um be affecting a few feet from my property line.

So uh I think that it's good to make the bike lane usable on middle field right now.

It's a mess.

You're biking down it at half the time.

There's a car park there, even outside of 7 p.m.

to 2 a.m.

Uh so it is gonna make it much better to bike down middle field than it is, as you mentioned.

Basically, the only way to get from east to west on that side now.

So I think that's great.

The um the downside is that all the people that live in the department complex with auto buildings, their friends when they come over for the Super Bowl party or something.

They have to park on the street.

There's no place for them to park.

So I don't know whose problem it is to figure out what to do about the fact that that there is no there's not sufficient parking for visitors to this part of town.

I guess it's not the city's problem, and I guess it's the property owner's problem, but I don't know how they're gonna make a parking structure or add parking at this point in the game.

So the people that um don't have a driveway or a garage are not gonna like this, but that doesn't mean we should make it bad to bike on middle field forever.

So I think this is probably a good idea, even though the ox of the uh condo dwellers is gonna be a bit gored by this project.

So I'd like someone at the city to think of something to do about this because several projects with hundreds of units are coming in on middle field and right next to it in the next couple years.

So it's only gonna get worse.

Thank you for listening to my comments.

Speakers online.

I guess that's me.

Um Bruce England, Wisman Station Drive.

Interesting discussion and comments from the public.

I uh will be short, I think, because I will echo all the comments been made so far.

And I've read April Webster's letter, which I'm sure she'll speak to eventually, and I agree with all those points too.

So I won't repeat what she expressed very well there.

Um the aspect of looking at middlefield as a multimodal thoroughfare where active transportation needs to be paid attention to, which of course is not historically been the case because we're shifting our focus here in Mountain View and other cities in the area.

And so that means means we need to shift our thinking.

And I think that's been reflected in the conversation so far and also earlier about the ATP.

One specific location I would really like uh you to consider and look at.

I don't know if it rises to level of making a motion for it, but it it is very important.

The path that goes from um bike pad path that goes from uh Wisman station up to Middlefield, and it stops there at Middlefield, right by where the light rail crosses is an abrupt curb.

And um that's really a problem for people on bikes who hit that point, but also people of any kind of rolling devices, strollers, wheelchairs, any of that.

Google was going to fix it as part of their middle field campus project.

And now that's either on hold or it's gone forever, but they had the plans for it, uh, at least up to a certain point.

So the city could leverage those plans from Google and get that done.

But in any case, um that really needs to get done.

Also, the there are going to be paths additionally that connect to pyramid park going east-west related to the um office or commercial projects on middlefield that are upcoming.

So it can be very interesting, but it can't end abruptly there up at middle field.

Thank you.

Uh hi, Lada Adamic, uh resident of Mountain View.

Um, I just wanted to request uh, if possible, for the lanes, the current bike lanes to be made uh permanent, uh so usable on evenings and weekends ahead of the completion of the rest of the project because I think um the parking study has already been done and uh it would require, I guess, uh council approval.

And there are many middle school students who could, you know, um benefit immediately because when parking is allowed during other times, it kind of spills over into cars parking there during the day too.

And on a different section of Middlefield, I was biking just when the school had come out and there was a car parked in the bike lane, and you just saw all of these kids streaming out into the car lane, and it just seemed very um unsafe.

Yeah.

So um, I think it would be great if the if that change could be done as soon as possible, um, not just on this segment, but maybe in one swell swoop for all of Middlefield.

And furthermore, if city vehicles could stop parking in the middle field bike lanes when parking is prohibited, because currently they do that.

And I think since there are two car lanes, that they should park in the car lane if they must park on middle field.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You know, two minutes.

Hi, uh, I'm a bike commuter and I uh often use middle field for uh east-west travel because there aren't a lot of good alternatives, but it is kind of stressful.

Um I want to uh ask about the um modeling that was done for the recommendation to not adopt the road diet.

Um it seems like that the increase in queuing and uh decrease in level of service was a big justification for rejecting the road diet, but that seems to have an assumption that traffic will continue at similar levels, but just compressed into fewer lanes.

But um often when a lane is removed, um, there is demand destruction.

Uh in addition, um, this plan would improve transit and biking conditions, which should presumably uh in uh cause some mode shift to uh alternate um modes of transportation, which should help reduce uh the uh traffic in this corridor.

uh similar levels but just compressed into fewer lanes but um often when a lane is removed um there is demand destruction uh in addition um this plan would improve transit and biking conditions which should presumably uh in uh cause some mode shift to uh alternate um modes of transportation which should help reduce uh the uh traffic in this corridor um so i'm I'm wondering if though those factors uh demand destruction and mode shift were included in the modeling um one more point uh there was a mention uh that emergency services would be impacted uh but I know in other jurisdictions um emergency services are often allowed to use transit only lanes or even uh dedicated bicycle lanes um in an emergency and bicycles can quite easily get out of the way uh of a an emergency vehicle in a way that a car cannot so it often results in uh improved uh emergency service response time when there's a wide dedicated cycling lane thank you Daniel you have two minutes hi can you hear me yes okay uh hi my name is Daniel Holt I live in Mountain View um and I am a big fan of this project I'm I'm glad we're doing it um I think we should be improving our bike lanes from ones that are sort of temporary literally temporary only available through the day and the things that are much more permanent and uh reliable uh infrastructure for uh commuters um I I do have one comment on on this study which is that it seems a little bit kind of not a good faith effort um in the sense that we we've only studied or quantified the potential harms of the thing being done and there was no study of any potential benefits and so you know I I'm not really necessarily big on the it it needs to be a road diet myself I I think getting rid of the parking is is fine but um I don't think this should be the basis on which we make that decision I I think you know either it should be the city says you know we don't want to do this because we're halfway through designing the project and it would be a lot of rework uh or it should go through a good face evaluation of the costs and benefits and actually design uh like what a good uh version of this would be um before evaluating it instead of just like looking at the worst uh straw man case of of what a a thing would look like so that's my main comment uh and uh I I hope this this project moves forward and uh hopefully becomes more permanent in the future thank you Daniel Valerie you have two minutes hi I am Valerie Fenneck a resident of Mountain View I am on the performing arts committee but I'm not speaking for that committee at this time nor for my employer um I have uh this has been part of my bicycle commute for years not recently but I have seen um the part-time bike been issue particularly when the sun is setting before 7 p.m.

So I I want to second Lata's comments that maybe just start saying no parking ever sooner than later would be great.

Also second the comments that April sent in her message just keep that short.

I also share the concerns of everyone here with the uh lane widths I did serve for eight years on the bicycle pedestrian advisory committee obviously I'm not speaking for that committee now but the those wide lanes I I drive that on a regular basis this whole uh corridor here um they don't need to be that wide um and I'm seeing cities like Palo Alto where this is getting narrower and people are slowing down also Palo Alto marking the speed limit 25 miles per hour while aspirational has slowed the traffic on middle field from 45 miles per hour to about 30.

So you know that is good luck there.

I also on your diagrams for the intersections um take the cross crosswalks for the curb cuts I really want to point out um something I did for many years and it's not part of city standard now curb cuts should be lined up with the crosswalk perpendicular perpendicular this is critical for low vision users walkers um this is critical for parents with strollers this is critical for people that are using wheelchairs uh it looked like on your diagrams you were planning diagonal curb cuts um which send people low vision wheelchair users and parents into the middle of the intersection as opposed to safely across the street um this is really where wherever there is space I urge this to be a city standard and please thank you Valerie April you have two minutes hi thank you um I want to start out by seconding what Daniel and Scott had to say about um and also Tracy the lopsided of the analysis um and that there seems to be a lot of focus on one group of users in this study um and that's people driving and how quickly we can move them through this space and we don't focus

April, you have two minutes.

Hi, thank you.

Um I want to start out by seconding what Daniel and Scott had to say about um and also Tracy, the lopsidedness of the analysis.

Um, and that there seems to be a lot of focus on one group of users in this study.

Um, and that's people driving and how quickly we can move them through this space.

And uh we don't focus on the benefits and we don't open up it's kind of biased towards one group of users, and we're not considering the people who are walking or biking or or living in the neighborhood per se, and wanting um sort of a comfortable and safe space.

And I think this is really important.

Um, just to really point out, and I I would ask um the BPAC to pass a very clear motion um asking that this study be expanded to include those other types of analyses.

Um I also want to add a few other things um on top of that.

Um Middlefield in the report has um trap 15,000 vehicle, less than 15,000 vehicles per day.

That's generally when cities green light a road diet.

Um also, as I mentioned before, these the concerns raised are all about car traffic.

Um the memo doesn't say a road diet is physically impossible.

It's just says that traffic operations may not meet what staff considers acceptable.

And that's a really important distinction because ultimately this is a policy choice about how the city balances um car transportation priorities and then allocating public space and and meeting the needs of other users.

Um without a road diet, we likely lose opportunities for stronger bike protection with landscape buffers and trees.

That's much more substantial than plastic flex posts, which a lot of people won't bike with, like 60% of folks.

Um we also opportunity for more climate resilient core design and floating bus islands.

Thank you.

Betsy, you have two minutes.

Hey, Back.

This is Jesse Cup.

Um so I wanted to say this road currently feels very unsafe to bike on, especially during commute times, um, especially when cars park there, which is all the time, it seems.

Uh I agree with Lada that we should make all of the middle field um to a permanent bike lane as soon as possible.

It's just very counterproductive to have a some space be for cars sometimes and for bikes other times because inevitably the cars just kind of take over and then you know have any usable bike lane.

I strongly support a road diet and protected intersections and addiction to a protected bike lane, so that more people will choose to use active transportation here.

We won't need as much parking here in the future if we make it safer and more comfortable for people to choose active transportation now.

And this is the kind of thing that really I think needs to be built up before you have more housing going, whether it's affordable apartments or condos or whatever, um, having that infrastructure in place before people move in means they're so much more likely to get started in their new home with with the healthy active transportation style commute rather than just default to cars.

And then once once you've started that, it's very hard uh for people to choose to switch.

Um I believe we should reduce the lane width to reduce speeding, which a lot of people have said.

Um Valerie, April, I agree with all their comments.

So just to reiterate, um, the strongest things I'm supporting are road diet, protected intersections, and a protected bike lane.

Thank you.

With that, we will move to committe comments and the clarification.

I guess what are we looking for as the outcome of the comments here?

So the ask is to so the ask of B pack is to receive an update on the conceptual design and provide.

And that is the same as that is CTC.

This is one that uses CGC next week.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um since members, I believe, had a slide or something.

I'll I'll speak to some of the comments by members of public.

Um I guess there was a few comments back saying don't do change it to no parking right now.

Um I mean, obviously can do it, but it wouldn't be free.

Can you have you thought about that?

Do you have any comments about that idea?

It never entered your mind, so um yeah, changing the sign, the physical part is easy for the bike lines.

It does uh a lot of uh was correct that it does require uh council uh approval to do this.

Um you could do this for a portion of middle field.

They have the uh one year authority too.

And once it's done, staff could switch those out.

So it could be done in advance of the project.

Um we weren't recommending it for tonight, but we're absolutely taking a deep end.

Okay.

I will just clarify it requires an ordinance change.

So there's code change, and it will would require two hearings from council.

So just that's what we mean by the process by council.

You know, with physical change would just be changing out the science on yeah, and then it would be a matter of enforcement um when we do things, police like to do it informational and then ramp up enforcement there, but yes, that that would be all rolling.

So thank you for the clarification about the going and actually having to do an ordinance and public hearing.

And that would be no different, whether now or later as part of the project.

I'm struggling to think of a difference.

I'm not sure.

The project would have to go to council for an award.

So it will have to go to council at some point.

So if you pair it with the project, it's going twice instead of three times.

Um there was another one.

Yeah, there was another question by the number problem about the modeling.

Uh I wanted to point out.

So I I asked in one of my background questions about if it included mode shift, and the answer to that was no.

The other question was did it include demand distraction.

I'm repeating that question.

Did the modeling include demand distraction for the traffic?

Um positive.

So we the model we did show that if we reduce the capacity, some of the traffic has to use some out of parallel um network like US Wow and uh um Central Expressway, which is already congested, but because we force it to reuse the capacity and then um low traffic being diverted farther away, may have to travel over time, or it's being all congestion on the highway.

But uh for our operational analysis at interaction lava and lower label, we we assume the travel um travel path is the thing.

So pretty much we we take no divergent traffic and they just reduce the roadway capacity to um to do that as is so it's assuming that all the all the same trips between a original destination by car being taken that they are right now.

Okay.

I'd like to add a little bit.

Um and part of that was the and I think as noted in the report that there are limited east-west corridors, one of them being one of one that's already at capacity.

So it's uh you know, diverging the traffic to um other streets, it would not be as likely.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um and the the other one was about emergency services using the bike lanes.

This was answered in a clarifying question.

I just think for the for the members of the public, and we should repeat that answer.

I could read it.

Somebody else wants to read it.

I don't remember which number it was, but I remember reading it earlier about emergency services using all the bike.

If you want me to read it, I don't know that unless one of the project team members whoever finds it first.

I mean this so the the there's a question about uh the impacts on emergency response times.

Unless there was another one, the response was that they road diet on middle field road limit through traffic to one lane, police and fire emergency vehicles would not have access to center double left turn lane due to the race intermediate, a class four bike lane would need to be 12 feet wide for a fire truck to use the lane, even if the vehicle pedestrian and cycling collisions are substantially reduced.

Which I don't think I was thinking about that that I don't I think that did assert that the bike lane to be usable would need to be a certain width.

I don't think it had that did not include comments about whether that would even be done or is plausible.

So I'm going my interpretation of that is that in order for the multi-use trail to be used by fire, it would need to be 12 feet.

As Robert mentioned earlier, I think the what we could the naggle out of that is closer to 10.

So therefore the vehicles are not.

No, you're both you're you're correct.

We would we would have lane width.

Um class four bike lane has vertical elements, so we would have to select the vertical elements that would be unsubstantial enough to be run over by a fire truck.

Um so that that's one you know that that's just one factor.

Um and then secondly, staff has not reached out to fire about the and had that conversation.

So we have not discussed that particular use of a bike lane with our fire department.

So just to confirm that would be even if it were even if the bike lane were say 12 feet wide, which would be quite large by the standards of our bike lanes.

Um even then you would still want to use vertical elements that would be easily run over by uh emergency vehicle.

This is probably something that I would be need to talk to the fire department about.

Um the the downside of having a 12-foot lane is that it looks a lot like my concern with that would be a people would be more likely to park in it, so we'd probably need to take other considerations.

And I I would like to add that um it's not just a through straight, right?

So the fire department, ambulances, and police all have to be able to access it.

And they would um part of that concern with emergency service delay is that there the access points are going to be limited, even even if they are um slightly raised, you know, not your typical channelizers or um race elements.

So the just having to maneuver in and out of the um area would slow down um the access of the emergency services.

I will say to and typically when that's used, like a resident brought up.

It's usually a class one trail when there's two lanes of a bike and pads and it's on an area where there's not a road too.

It's typically a trailer easement that's that they'll use for access, it's not necessarily boring road next to a road because they already have access on a road.

I think there's some videos on the internet, very urban environments which do involve bike lanes, but I think it yeah.

Um I think more to say.

So yeah, okay.

So that there's a few smaller things before I get into my slide.

Um I want to point out a few problem points that I have uh on the sidewalk.

I don't know if sidewalk configuration was even thought of in this program, but there is one spot um on the southeast corner of Pirella and Middlefield where there is a post directly in the middle of a four-foot sidewalk, and so you can't get around that with stroller or wheelchair or anything.

People are going into the road all the time in that corner.

Uh so I would if possible, like to see that particular annoyance addressed.

Um a couple other annoyances.

I forgot to say it's a great plan.

I don't know if you need all the arch you did on it.

I know we spent all this time complaining.

We always want better stuff, but I'm I'm happy to be talking about improving middle field.

Uh this is an important thing to do.

Um the trail connections.

Okay.

So in the vision zero local road safety plan, there is a recommendation for a mid-block clock crossing at the LRT, which uh member of the colleague also brought up.

Uh Google was going to do it for us.

I don't think they're going to.

And we're doing the re-surfacing.

I would like to look at uh fixing that connection.

So trail in the north is a trail and side south, and they both end in a curve, and there's no uh way to cross private line rail tracks.

Um and the other trail connection.

So if you want to go from northbound Stevens Creek to Westbound Middle Fuel, there is no good way to do that.

Uh and it bothers me in particular because I do want to do that almost every day.

Um the trail connection, there's a median there, so you can't make a left, even if it was allowed.

Um, and you can't circle around and come down the other way because there's stairs for the for the bit of the path that goes up and over and around.

So you can't do it with the bike unless you're strong enough to lift it directly over your head because it's also very narrow.

Um I don't know if it's possible, but I would like that to be looked at.

Um the other thing, it's a minor thing, but uh bike lane width measured include the gutter, and I believe the standard is to not include the gutter 94 doesn't include the gutter in your bike lane.

Um I I yeah, I I would just like to see that some of the some of the lanes are are listed as six foot, but they're like in reality four lane if you let it um and now we can we can come up into my slide and I can talk a little bit about why I think we can have a road diet, um which we heard a lot already.

Um, but I've got some sources assigned.

So this is from the 2015 uh California streets uh uh vehicle traffic analysis.

Uh you can see that even in existing volume, it goes from D to F.

And then we've got the the near term and the future terms.

Very similar analysis.

Uh it comes out a lot worse, yet we still were able to do the road diet, and it didn't happen right away.

I want to remind you of the history.

This was 2015.

Uh and it took about 10 years and a lot of community pushing to actually get the road diet in.

Um, and I don't want to see it feels like there's a lot of community support for a road diet.

We we don't typically get this many people in a VPAC meeting.

Um surprisingly got more comments for this item than the previous item.

So I really feel like we might have the same thing again where we don't do it and then we have to do it because everybody wants it.

And so point number one, okay.

I've got some more points.

Uh point number two uh is in our general plan.

Uh middle field is identified as an avenue, and has specifically saying bicycle priority is greater for this stream.

Uh this is pages 106 and 108 of the general plan.

Um in our multimodal improvement plan, uh we are talking about other options to reduce level of service, such as mode shift, right?

We are building these bike lanes to encourage motion.

This is also in uh in our name of it, uh it's in the general plan as well.

Uh and the um yeah, and the VTA transportation analysis, you can use VMT or LOS, right?

We we chose to use LOS for this analysis, but it's not dictated by any of our manuals.

Um additionally, when we are doing our multimodal traffic analysis, we're supposed to analyze multiple nodes, right?

We did the level of service and the queuing, which is matching the VTA transportation analysis guidelines handbook, but we did not do bike or pet quality of service analysis, which would show the benefits of might show the benefits of the process.

I'm assuming what is showing benefits of the button.

Um, some other points.

Um it was just analyzed to do a full road diet the whole thing, which is not our only option, right?

It's a long corridor, and most of the problems are at intersections.

You can still road diet other parts, or I'm I'm going to pretend to be an engineer here and say that your left turn lane doesn't need to be straight.

Like if we did a road diet, there's a lot of extra space.

This is the this is the point.

There's a lot of extra space.

You can make your left turning lane go around those trees.

Uh and have the other lane go around that left turn lane.

Uh if you need to make it longer for the queuing, you know, because there used to be another lightning, there's obviously space.

Um you can also use that extra space for things like um parking.

Uh in California, we have a huge problem with delivery trucks, parking, not just California, everywhere.

If we have dedicated delivery space, if we make if we do a road diet, can I have a delivery space?

It can even be nighttime parking for how your your super uh as a member of the public asked for.

I think there's a lot of benefits that we get from the road diet, and that's why I'm talking about it.

I think there's a lot of public support for the road diet.

That's why I'm talking about it.

Uh and I don't think that the I think that the I'm not saying the analysis is wrong.

I'm saying that we the analysis is saying there's going to be some problems, but we as a city can say we understand that there are going to be some problems, but our people feel like it's outweigh the problems, and we can go ahead.

Uh and I know we can't do we don't have the funding to do like physical green elements, but if we do the road diet, there'll be a lot more space for like bioretention, bioswales, and and and uh you know urban forestry.

This is also uh uh overlaps with some of the identified corridors in the draft biodiversity strategy where they want more biodiversity.

So having space for that would be a nice staff.

That is all of my options.

All right, other members of the committee of very fast.

Um I support what Valerie said about uh you know the road has to be you know tailored to to meet the the needs of people who are you know blind or who needs hard of hearing.

So that uh and I want to know if uh the city has uh they're implementing this, they're considering this in into their the roadmap.

I mean, not roadmap, but into their in the project.

Is it part of uh part of the plan?

I mean part of part of a design.

Yeah, I'd be curious about that.

I know the question about diagonal versus um, I don't even perpendicular.

I don't know what the right term would be.

Directional perfect directional ones has come up before, and I can't remember what was discussed last time.

So directional is standard best practice.

Okay, and what will what is currently intended to go in here?

So it kind of depends on the existing geometry.

So ideally, yes, you want it to be both perpendicular and directional, so you do a connectional ramp, but also perpendicular.

And so I deal with an ideal situation.

Uh sometimes when they come as far as if the roads come in at an angle, you can't always have both just because the way they cross, you don't want to pull it too far away from the intersection either, as far as your crosswalk and as far as the middle, because the whether you get you affects sideline and the visibility too.

So there's a balance, and I get what she's saying because that's ideally what we try to do.

But sometimes the one we did show was a little bit skewed.

Most of them are uh perpendicular and directional at the same time.

So that might be a one-off that uh we had shown up there.

But yes, that's that's what we're trying to accomplish.

It's but the rest of the message building that figure outside stress.

That's a bad idea.

And then for that eight, the overpass, right?

With the overpass, we're um, I think you guys are gonna use that for multi-purpose for pedestrians and to for the pedestrians in the five bicycles to write together.

Will there be some sort of the signal and some sort of like uh you know?

I mean, it's uh if it's uh if it's I find a riding bicycle and walking um could be dangerous, but uh it was was that in regard to the shared path is what you said, yeah, and that would all depend on the existing rail rail over the Cal Transit, and that would be something City will work out.

Uh don't know exactly the solution there because it is fixed.

We don't obviously want to affect the the California bridge.

That's that's a big deal.

So uh that would kind of depend on further investigation.

So yeah, I think a lot of the comments were very good.

I think they point out the need for policies and standards, so we don't have to get discussion of diagonals versus perpendiculars and you know, lane width of dip 94 and calfing standard, 11 foot city standard or whatever.

So I think uh a lot of that came out, and so I think we're on the right track on the ATP as well.

Um, but I I'd like to I think overall we were presented a false choice.

It was road diet entire way or no road diet.

So that's not the real choice.

We um used LOS, uh VMT seems to be more appropriate.

Um kind of local street avenue, it's the standard for uh certain California projects and VTA for instance, they use as appropriate.

So it seemed like VMT and recognizing both the benefits and potential demand and destruction or opposite induced demand uh would have been appropriate on this uh analysis.

Um I think you know we do have to think about um well going back to parking.

Okay, uh a temporary bike lane uh it's not really a bike.

So I commuted down this route for about two years, um you know, a hundred times a year, I guess, um, and coming through and parking starts you know at 430 oftentimes or earlier uh delivery trucks are an issue.

Uh but uh so I think the elimination of the parking, you can go ahead faster, all better.

Um the idea of the development's gonna come.

We talked about the general plan, you know, out in 2050 or beyond is going to have more people and potentially more jobs in the city, and a lot of the level of service issues is near Ellis there and the uh uh employment center.

So I I think you know we're gonna have to assume demand destruction, uh whether because of this project or just because of uh the density that'll come, and we have to build to handle that and get uh look for that future.

Um so the plan is gonna have to obviously assume there's paid public parking for people who are visiting or intermittent.

Uh and uh so I think I think I I have reservations about the current proposal of uh kind of recommendation of just going forward with uh no lane reduction for any part of it.

Uh and uh not identifying why we might do something else.

Thank you.

Uh sure um so I just wanted to share I I I might move the whole language back and forth you know earlier today to just refresh my memory on on the rod that I I used many videos ago uh on this.

So I I didn't see any any big depart, but it was around two p.m.

So that's probably not because I didn't see any uh parking there.

Um one thing I noticed is that um I I didn't see anybody walk on the other bus, but that's so evidence that people do it.

Uh so if you go uh towards um Sunnyvel on the other bus, uh right after the other bus, there is a batch of grass.

There is a walking path that's been built by just people who want to see uh and it's no surprise because that's a way to access Stephen's gig try.

Uh also you know uh avoiding kind of a 952 or based on very well.

So there is an existing problem.

And you know, we talked about the shell bike and pedestrian things, but it's for reality today.

There are people walking on the bike, uh maybe not allowed, but enough to make a path on that batch of grass.

So there's something to address better.

Um I also think that's that it's not only a question of safety, it's a question also to be true to our commitments in other plans.

Uh so the parks and rights master plan calls for better access to you know, like they have a metric which is like 15 minutes walking access to this, and this is exactly what's this would enable for for for many multi-year residents who live there.

So what is to say about you know, the the faster we trust that gap the better for for safety, but also to provide uh the better to enhance the access to box and multi.

Um so uh I only just again the the idea of a panicular crossings.

This is you know standard.

I mean I understand the geometry there, but uh as much as possible.

So uh as to the and one comment on a comment, I guess.

I guess there were plans to have a crosswalk by the light ray things, but according to a staff report, it was moved for budgets and so it's to be done later, I guess.

Um specifically about emergency.

I think one difference between California and middle field is that there is no uh turning lane uh on middle field.

So uh I think if you you know if a fire truck were to go on to California, and I'm sure they do, they can use that middle line to kind of go around traffic uh at the fix and uh for middle field that would require removing the median, uh which should destroy a lot of trees and and would be also costly because you know that's not cheap to to remove concrete.

So that's one something to keep in mind.

So uh and as to using the the back lane, the white bike lane for for the emergency vehicle.

I've seen some EMT vehicles actually use those, use the back lanes on that cabino, uh, because there are some sections that are wide enough.

Um counterpoint to this is that unfortunately I've seen many cars use that which could be extensively protected parking, but that's nice.

So that's kind of pick your poison, but it's it's also uh it's not all the places are not like this on the cabino, but there are some sections where the MTV probably and they do and I'm not uh so on on the road diet, I think um I think functionally I think it's a was viewed as an all or nothing.

Uh you know, and uh what I like to to suggest when you look at the other path is to do the road diets just on the other path.

Um that would you know obviously would have to work with that train, uh cat runs, uh but I think it would have many benefits.

First of all, you could definitely make more than enough room for for a pretty good size, you know, uh shelled path or or shared things.

You could even separate it if you wanted to.

Um it would also reduce speed where the the speed is the most extreme.

So again, I backed there, and you know, just gravity, uh, this is where you pass this.

Uh it's also where you have the the least visibility because again, because of the other of the path, you you actually whether you drive or bike, you don't see what's on the other side uh until you get to the top, and it may be too late.

Uh so uh so I think there are a lot of benefits there, and and it would be a bit of a funnel in a way on middle field, but it should have some some some benefits in terms of reducing the speed or throughout.

Um so but that's that would be my suggestions on this, but again, that would have to be run by Catrons, but it may be less expensive actually working with the medium, so uh I want to just rather question um on the left turn points.

I was actually had forgotten to ask what Ember Stone brought up, which was or the turn pockets that are on middle field going onto side streets.

Why would we need to alter the median if we did a red diet?

Because presumably the physical road space exists to have the left turn longer if if we were to go down to one three line.

So I mean, I get yeah, some of those are cross-streets, and in fact, the one the couple of those do that have to be extended would be on the cross streets where you don't have that convenience, but yeah, is there a reason we couldn't we would need to adjust the median to extend those left-turn pockets in the road diets?

No.

So would the road diet so vehicle waiting for to make a lefton?

Yeah, so if the vehicle because we only have one cruel end, and then if people waiting to make a lepton and uh the lepton have to they have to be waiting on the only single through land, so that's why they block in the through that traffic.

Yeah, I understand that what I'm saying is that you can take the left-hand through lane, make that kind of a cue for the left lane, and then make the new only one lane kind of wiggle around it because you're gonna have the space if you do a run, right?

There's already in most places enough space to do uh kind of protected bike lane as we've seen in the design.

So there is space also in between there's still space for two eleven foot lanes, but one of them can be a Q, the left turn, and the other one can be even through lane.

You gotta wiggle, but that's also like a traffic calling you stuff.

I'm cool.

So the issue there though is so I understand what you're saying, because say the left turn pockets 100 feet because for our number, right?

And then you can use now say I through 150.

You can use that 50 feet because you don't know wind, is what you're saying.

Yeah, the issue there is also speed, right?

You can't just all of a sudden turn so sharply that the reason they are done that way is you have to uh you have to have enough time to slow, and then now you defeat the purpose of having the larger uh buffer lane for the bike.

So now all of a sudden you that's why they're saying you have to extend the the feeding or take out some of the left walk in.

You're doing the whole purpose that you're gonna slow it down, or you're gonna not slow down, and you're gonna just uh basically have your left turn bucket not be straight.

But why I don't think that's typical, like you don't have your turn bucket skewed that much.

And the other thing is you're gonna feed your purpose so that you don't have your lane widths.

So you have two 11-foot lanes.

Now you're gonna narrow your down your bike lane too, right?

Yeah, so that would the whole point of the road diet is to have a bigger bike lane.

So now you're cutting through that.

Yeah, I think in that case, it's that it would it would not help as much for some of the right-of-way available right-of-way width, but it would mean you only need you only need that you only need an extra vehicular space for the sections where you want to extend the left turn pocket effectively.

You don't need it in the for most of the roadway.

For instance, that meant lets you you have one through lane effectively along the whole corridor, and then some spots you have the same amount of pavement maybe that you have right now, but in others in a lot of spots you don't need to s like on the on the 85 overpass, you can be just 11 feet in each direction.

I guess I forgot to uh fully articulate one of the reasons I want to uh road diet.

Uh the the plan already has pretty good protected bike lanes.

I mean, they're pretty good.

Uh you know, I'm happy.

But I I think I write everything fast, but I think we could get some protected intersections, at least in some places if we did a road diet, and that is the thing that I'm very interested in.

That's my second question.

Why it is the reason that there are not protected intersections in this plane because of an absence of right of lane because of the um in part presumably because of the two lanes per direction, or is it because there's another reason or like a policy.

Was it looked into that if we did a road diet, could we get some protective intersections at some of these intersections?

I mean that looked at uh I don't I I don't think we look at that uh that it's a that the section with the road diet yet.

Yeah.

Um we didn't do an entire road diet layout and evaluate how that would function intersect.

Um we did do is we did evaluate um the turning movements at some of these intersections we lack.

So we have a lot of large coaches that run through the city, not just the VTA buses, not just the shuttles, but um specific vehicles that have uh corporations drive around.

So whether it's on Wisman or Ellis or anywhere else, those those turning radiuses often will dictate um what we can do and what we can't do.

Because we started this out of notes.

We started as um trying to lay out uh protected intersections at multiple locations.

What we learned along the way, especially along California, is that the turning uh particularly California and Ringstore become very problematic because when you're turning from a a uh um a road with cause it working out.

I'm imagining it in my head.

Um a two-lane road and your your your turning vehicle is in the right lane onto a um uh road diet road, that protected intersection is often the direct path of travel.

It's it's no longer protective unless you put in unless you have enough real estate to put in a razor, you have enough road for the vehicle to make a very clean turn.

And we found through through the turning templates that we ran on this one, that was problematic.

So am I saying this right, Adam?

Yeah.

With the right away too, I think someone said it to yes, could you move everything over when you just don't have the right-of-way either?

Because there just wasn't enough real estate on that side to keep the idea was also to keep the Kerbigator alignment.

Because obviously the back block is typically where the right-of-way is.

So we're also restricted in that too.

I'm just trying to understand how the geometry works and the turning movement for that.

So is the is the problem.

I I guess the problem is even so in the non-road diet scenario, which is the sort of baseline is what we're seeing at LAN's for.

If we were to protect the intersect, protect the um protect which it basically end up having blocking um explaining where the border is blocked out from.

So you have a tighter turning radius, and the effectively the bike and pedestrian space takes up more of the real state in the intersection than a vehicle that is turning from the one right lane to another right lane, that ends up having to cut over the um it has to cut over the protected elements, the intersection.

Correct.

Or it's or it's turning into the second receiving.

And if it's turning the second receiving lane, does it have does the geometry work out then to avoid running over the protected elements typically?

We'd have to run those templates, but it also changes how the signal how the intersection would have to be well function.

So that would be that'd be that might get to a request I would have for no right on red to be considered at these intersections anyways.

But um the no um no coming left turns.

Like a left turn, oncoming left turn would also have to be restricted.

Yeah, so that you don't have people turning right while there's traffic coming into the um but that would that would be accomplished if you had no right turn on red, or I guess some of these intersections don't have dedicated left turn signals on the cross streets.

We have to look at that.

I'm not sure.

Um, it might not.

But I guess in the my uh thought is also that if that is what be the concern, even in a road diet scenario, well, it feels like in a road diet, it seems this is that is something that seems like we should be able to achieve these actually when I I do quite I I'm thrilled that we are doing this much particularly.

Like there have been eight years ago.

If we were doing a this sort of resurfacing of a street, we would not be doing even what is as been presented here.

Um I do not like the mixing zones from the right turning cars into the um onto the side streets along middle field.

It's not obvious to me that those I'm I'm willing to believe that there is research saying that those mixing zones are safer than just running the protection straight into the intersection and taking the right hooks, but I'm not convinced of that.

Um I I would much rather these be protected intersections.

Um, and if that means if we can make that happen by having no right turn on red and forcing right turning vehicles to end up waiting longer and then they can do a wider turn if they need to do the wider turn, right?

Um in road diet scenario, I would assume that we try to make the receiving lane width much wider than the normal 11 feet or something so that vehicles have space to turn out wide.

Um, but I would I would like to try to avoid that mixing zone if we can that all avoid it.

Um we'll take that in as comments.

I believe we incorporated that onto California because it is a standard, and I think we were looking at either an acto standard or a BTCT standard that specifically called out mixing zones for protected intersections, and that is actually specific length approach so that both vehicles and bikes had that mixing zone.

As I said, I'm willing to believe it every single time I ride something like that, it feels worse.

Um, buffed ups.

Um my impression is that I still don't like the bus stops that where buses pull in and walk, but I I can't see that right now it's not useful to be differently because of the road.

They're lack of road diet in part.

I assume it would be much easier to put in a bus island if we had more right of like that's just a general comment.

Um question, I don't think.

Um I I clarified some things because I wanted to buy those.

My actual I think I'd make it for my comments clear, but um, I like this inner I like having the improvements by do not particularly like the analysis that was presented regarding the road diet.

It's I I to what some members of the public said it felt like this excluded some of the majorities of a road diet, um, including some of the safety benefits you have to reduce speeds middlefield is not the worst corridor in the city, but it is on the list of high collision corridors or intersections on it that are some of the highest collision intersections of the city.

Uh, we know that reduced speeds that would come from a road diet, severely reduced numbers of crashes and severity of crashes.

Um reduced lanes reduces the width of crossings.

Um it makes more space for loading zones, makes more space for better bike lanes, it makes more space for greenery when we have the budget to start adding more street trees in.

All the things that members don't mention.

Um it will make it much easier and uh simpler to do the actual improvements on the 85 overpass.

I don't with regards to emergency view.

I know I was asking about 12 12 foot bike lanes basically because I want to know if it is an option, it would be interesting to hear.

I I'm I do not think that is my general impression is that the any reduction in emergency vehicle response times that we experience would be more than paid off for by the reduced number of people getting hurt on the roadway, um, and that the actual penalty would not be that severe in terms of response times, but I think it'd be appropriate to investigate whether or not um the bike lanes could be made nice and wide and maybe have I don't know how you prevent cars from parking and maybe use vertical elements that that can be run over pretty readily, but which discourage parking.

Um and uh yeah, the I also don't like I I am not particularly compelled by the uh proposed projections for traffic.

I if the I would be thrilled if the full general pan were built out in the lifetime of the repaving of the street.

I do not consider that particularly likely.

And even if it does happen, I would much rather we be planning for the mode shift we modal shares that we want, which I don't think correspond to having 26,000 vehicles a day on middle field road.

And so I don't think we should be planning for that at all.

Um I also mentioned I alluded to this in one of my writing comments.

I think uh if we're planning for a Moffat Boulevard road diet, then I think that the only spot in the existing traffic levels where you needed to remove trees probably goes away because you stop needing to have as much as many lanes on Moffit.

And so you can actually do exactly what we're describing with the um rejigling some of the lanes for left turn pockets to make it so that that the turn lane from south down Moffat on to middle field is actually as long as it needs to be without having to restructure that median.

That also doesn't have to be done strictly as part of this project.

It feels like that can be staged later if we wanted to.

Um and that's that's the only one that sounded that's the only left-turn pocket that if we assume existing traffic levels needed to be needed major restructuring, if I recall, um, and everything else.

If the traffic levels are getting high, and if we need to restructure the left turn pockets, we can do that, but I don't see why we would need to do that as part of this project if there are those changes are years or decades out.

Um so yeah, for all those reasons, I I would say we should do the road diet on the whole corridor.

I don't the whole corridor need safety improvements.

I don't there's opportunities to use road space everywhere.

I don't think trying to do it's not clear to me that trying to do we could do something partial, especially to save costs on the eight to five overpass, but that's also the five traffic part of it already.

Um so it's not clear to me that's actually what people would prefer.

Um so and I said I'd like to get to investigate in the right turn on right, especially if it makes it enables the turning movements we need for protected intersections.

Um, and I would like us to do the if we can do the short-term 24-7 bike lane, that'd be great.

It looks very silly right now when you go down by print.

I'd be nice if we could also do the section of middle field that goes down by printing as well as part of that.

So we can do the whole of middle field to 24-7 protected bike lanes immediately, because if you go down by print on the weekends, you'll see a bunch of parents have lined up their cars and take their kids to soccer at the print and field rather than parking in the parking lot that's right there, and are blocking the bike lane that presumably other kids would like to be able to use to get to the soccer fields.

Well, and because well, or they are using the bike lanes and they're just being forced into the road by parents of other kids.

So um, I think it would be if we can immediately do the 24-7 bike lanes and do a large part of the corridor, I think that'd be worthwhile.

Um did we need to craft a motion on this?

If we want to send the recommendation to CTC, then hearing I will say a recommendation was not requested or a motion was not requested, and the comments will be reflected in what goes to CTC.

So I would be in favor of the motion as well.

I just wanted to bring up something, but that's fair.

So I'm I you know I agree with you know trying to make it better, but I think there are very good things here.

I don't want to fix it.

Now it's been studying.

But I mean, not both for report about design.

So I mean that's I'm I'm just pushing.

Yeah, I'm doing not given information on timing or anything.

We're just being asked for a recommendation for it.

But but uh some password is phrasing that we would like to see this if it just can be done without jeopardizing the um necessary timeline of the project.

We've done that at least once as a like suggestion of what if we're just trying to craft a motion up here to make it clear what the group's recommendations are.

Um it might make sense to use that same.

Yeah, yeah.

So recommendation for a road guide, yeah, the title.

We know the answer, so I don't we don't.

But we can ask about yeah, and we make the recommendation.

I'm guessing that what is being asked for would require again.

This is a different department or division division.

So I I don't want to completely speak out of turn here, but would require additional engineering work, which might require additional budget, which would require additional council input, which could require additional design, which then requ you know, and you're hitting a final design need of December.

So just um from a overly simplified education of what what that ask is.

Um yeah, if I can pick it back on um what Alison mentioned, at a rango on this one.

Um so what I also noted is correct.

Um so we're on a constricted timeline and uh doing a redesign for the project would jeopardize uh let me reseat that would sacrifice pullback pre-funding that we've received.

We will not make it to uh with a redesign and going through another effort of getting through the process and obtaining the go back three funds.

We will not make the one it's just clarification.

This is just uh how our process works and the effort needed to do the redesign in order to do a company.

And you will hear momentarily that OBAG4 is about to come out, and if we as a jurisdiction cannot show that we can meet commitments that we have previously stated, we would hit in grant applications.

We're not setting ourselves up for success for future grant applications.

I would still prefer my inclination would be to still include language regarding the road diet in the motion because I want I I think it is worth making I would like to see when projects like this come forward in the future that we have these options or fully evaluated before we are forced into making having a certain project appear, but there are other elements in the project that I think we can make recommendations on as well that I think we've mentioned.

Um have a strong opinion on motion.

Yeah, I mean I mean I'd be in favor of making a motion.

I mean it's sensible to me to make all of them feel uh by 24 hours.

So I mean we could do it as a separate motion.

I won't support the one thing.

So yeah, we need some two things.

One is uh separate motion on uh temporary bike things, okay, and then uh a motion that basically said um we are concerned and felt boxed in by lack of view.

I don't know that that needs a motion.

Um the statement.

Um CTC where we're at where we again, all of your comments will be reported out to CTC.

Um they that will be presented as a slide when this goes to CTC of what we heard both from you and the public.

Um I also want to be careful if you are looking to make a motion on the permanence of the bike lane as a reminder, you cannot direct staff, so you would be asking CTC to propose to council that staff do something.

So just an understanding of what what that motion would need to entail.

Again, uh what we heard tonight was very clear.

We got some really good feedback.

We really do appreciate it.

Um we want to uh take all this comments and use these going forward.

You know, really allow us to understand um the feedback that we got tonight, and then for future projects, we've we're hearing this analysis more balanced, a lot of elements, very clear of us.

Um this project again, the timeline, it really will sacrifice our OBAG funding and then therefore could sacrifice the entire project.

We're not uh staff would not recommend uh we don't need a motion.

I understand the committees because I already have one, but we've heard the feedback and it will be committed to the CTC.

Members center part new you two seemed most interested in having C permis lesson motion.

If either of you want to craft one, then uh take your chance now, but otherwise I will probably move us along in the meeting.

It's not necessary.

I really don't think it's necessary to something.

They all know what they're doing.

You know, we're just here, you know, giving feedback, but then this motion, I think they have time, they need the time to really decide what's necessary for us bikers.

I don't think they really know I mean five years.

I think the motion is more for CTC.

Not directly, I think the purpose is the purpose of the motion would be to make clear what the the overall feedback was.

If the overall feedback is already clear, then it's less it's I don't know that it's strictly necessary, but sometimes it's not been obvious that there's consensus.

I will say we are not asking for a motion from CTC either.

We are asking for feedback from them as well.

Yes, but we're not asking them to make a motion.

Has is there anything that has felt like it is there was a lack of consensus in BPAC that you are not sure about whether or not you would want to communicate that to CTC because that's sort of thing that might clarify.

All right, okay.

If I don't hear a motion, then I'm gonna close this item.

All right.

I will move us then to close this item and move us to item six point three.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Report by Spoon pedestrian recommended member appointments.

I don't know if we have any.

Not when did we do this?

About April last year.

Around this time last year, but um currently Chair Kuzmal is RBTA rep for the VTA B Pack.

He was filling he was filling in the remainder of a two-year term.

That two-year term is expiring, and VTA is asking us to appoint a new member, or or renew them what you know, however you want to say it.

Yeah, um, so the idea is we we are looking for a nomination for a BPAC member to or council to appoint to the county or sorry to the VTA B PAC, and it would be for July 1, 2026 through June 30th, 2028.

So it is a two-year commitment.

Are there any committee questions?

I'll clarify questions.

Uh you've been serving for six months or so.

Six months.

Well, actually, sorry, we yeah, we appointed me in April, but control things by the time you actually sat down and yeah, you're finishing out a term.

Um appropriate to ask if you're willing to I'll make the comment that I think continuity for the two-year terms or slightly longer is a good thing.

We can discuss that in the committee comment section.

Any other clarifying questions?

I will say there is no constraint for a back-to-back appointment.

Yeah, just one clarification.

But uh it's just to make sure that it would still be on the back.

Yeah, he said.

I think you had mentioned right.

Uh, there is a uh I guess a nuance to it that anybody who would like to nominate themselves for this, you need to, or we would like you to still be on BPAC in 2028.

So we don't have to do this, you know, or in 2027.

So we're not doing this next year.

So if you're going to be terming out during this section, which I think you're not terming out, but you're up for renewal.

I think is two of you at the end, right?

Uh right.

Well, I think you're filling out.

Yeah, but you're you're filling a term and then and you can be reappointed, but my point is is that you're pending a reappearance.

Yes.

Unfortunately, I think it has.

Do any members of the public in the room want to comment on this item?

Do any members online about great?

Um, I'm happy to do that to do the BK back for over two years.

Um if anyone else would like to forget to actually it is requires less in person stuff than it did before because V T the VTA for their I think board and some M SM bodies like the BPEC are adopting some of the newer guidelines about um remote brown act remote body participation.

So it requires less in-person participation than it used to, but if you want to be in person, it means going over to um heading or not heading street, well, that'll be in a few years.

Um the River Oaks um every once a month on those days.

Until VTA moves to the new building in downtown San Jose, which is accessible by Caltrain, which will be in November, December of this calendar year.

Oh, it's that soon.

Okay.

But anyways, I I didn't inclined myself up to be a good point, but anyone else is how do you see yourself being a do you think that you you're being able to like the your voices consistent with other cities or it's consistent with other cities?

I'm not going to talk about others as uh Lauren can test to I mean I'll I'm green to do it.

But yeah, there's no if anything, it's actually a bit feels a bit awkward sometimes because like San Jose has one member and they're half the population of the county and this right now has one friend.

So that's also um but I uh yeah, everyone gets funny.

I think everyone has a building and a chance to get their voice heard.

I don't yeah.

I think I'm referring to Seting Slows.

Yes, we do need a motion.

Cheryl Plus Miller.

So we're looking for a motion to BTA.

Well, I don't know.

Yes, they would have to second that motion.

Right.

All in favor.

Great.

Moving on.

Yes, okay.

Um item we don't have a six point, right?

That is correct.

7.1 staff.

We do have a quick presentation.

So first I would like to, I know we're you know, four hours in, but I would like to introduce um our new transportation manager, Lauren Lidbetter.

We are very happy to have her, and she's made it back to day three, so I'm very excited.

Um I'll let her do a quick introduction for those of you who don't know her.

Sure, I feel like I gave the the little brief one.

I apologize.

Yeah, I'm very excited to be here.

I like I mentioned in the beginning, I have been uh I work at VTA for 12 years managing the bicycle and pedestrian program as a staff liaison for the VTA B Pack during that time.

Um prior to that I worked for Alta Planet Design for eight years doing bicycle pedestrian work.

So basically my entire career I've been doing like in head work.

Um, but in the last uh several years at VTA, I've been working very closely with a highway program for their uh concept designs and their designs for highway interchanges.

Um pretty instrumental in ensuring that they move toward a more complete interchange redesign, um, and also working with uh the engineers on complete streets for hauls, what we would call reconstruction, which is extremely expensive.

Um what else can I say?

I uh live nearby.

I plan on biking to work, but I haven't been able to do it yet this week.

We'll see, maybe tomorrow.

Friday, I can't.

Uh I don't think there's anything else.

I'm excited to be here and look forward to working with you all.

Well so with that, um, just some quick updates.

Do you want to like computer guy on my notes?

Okay, so we had Earth Day here on April 18th, and as you can see, we had Sharky uh work on our uh little safe routes to school town that we have up and helped encourage the kids to participate.

Um we had a lot of people come out for that.

We also had as part of that bike mobile, which you can also see over a little bit there, which is on April 28th with Mountain View High School and South of High School.

We had a bike maintenance day on April 28th, and then Bike Model was out for that.

Um project updates.

We have an upcoming contract, um, safe routes to school.

Um that current contract is um sunsetting, and we have selected a preferred consultant and are in the process of executing a contract with them.

First year of the scope includes safe routes to school program adoption for those of you who don't know.

The city never adopted the safe routes to school program.

So we are working to adopt that so we can guarantee that the city prioritizes funding for that program.

So that will be one of our first items right out of the gate.

Um we have a school safety education portion, community encouragement events, um, Monster Bash is our big one if you guys are aware.

Um, program evaluation, and then the final report.

So that's what we'll cover in the first year.

It will be a three-year contract.

Um the TDM ordinance.

Oh, sorry.

I'll get to a question if it's not appropriate.

Well, what is it?

I thought this is my last slide.

So if you all just let me um so our TDM ordinance um quick update, it will be going to CTC on Tuesday.

Um the first ordinance reading is scheduled to go to council on May 12th with a second ordinance reading on May 26th.

So very fast approaching here.

Once it is adopted by council, it goes into effect 30 days later.

So we will be able to start implementing the ordinance um once it is adopted.

And that will be on any project new new project going through the entitlement phase.

So bringing everything up.

Thank that's my last slide.

So with that, that one.

Okay.

Um, so contract terms up there.

What's changing, I guess, with the new contract?

Is it the same?

It's it's pretty much the same.

Same level.

Okay.

Yeah, like I would say, like I said, um, one of the big things is we want to adopt the actual plan and we will be taking that to council so that we can make sure that the funding um commitment is from the city annually, and that I'm not asking for it on a year-to-year basis.

So the ATP we're envisioned growing, that's not happening yet.

It is um because our education portion we're we're working on growing.

Um, there is a um curriculum that we are trying to roll out, but a lot of that involves some uh school participation that we're working through with the district.

So this is an expansion of the yeah, there's some expansion with it as well.

Thank you.

There's also some optional tasks in there to partner with the city of Los Altos to try and work with there is quite an open.

I I have heard like I said, I do apologize for missing that in the HTML.

That's one idea.

Are there any public comments in the room or online on the staff comments?

No, no, okay.

Uh any committee comments on staff comments.

Uh I I will add a couple on the staff comments.

Well, I I I related, I guess it's my own individual comments.

Oh, we can we can move to the committee comments next item.

Let's do that.

All right, we will go to committee comments item 7.2.

Uh there were parts like you have a couple of committee comments.

Yeah, so I've uh been invited by a couple schools, ran some bike buses, and uh Santa Rita, which draws from Mountain View and Palo Alto and Los Altos.

Schools actually in Los Altos Springer, which draws from Mountain View and Los Altos, and it's actually in Mountain View and Bub, which draws from Mountain View and is in Mountain View, but travels through Los Altos.

Um so um they've all I think the schools were all pleasantly surprised about this success in terms of numbers and enjoyment.

Uh each one's had different levels, some on the community or smaller.

Um they were very happy.

Uh I think both uh my reaction is you know, had everything from parents say I didn't know it was so easy.

Uh last week I did it twice on my own or three times on my own after experiencing it.

We're keeping it up.

And others, it's like I'm not my reaction is I'm not quite sure.

The ones that are there are really enjoying it, but I'm not quite sure what it takes to get more kids on bikes because some of the schools if you get you by Palo Alto, you'll see four you know, times as many bikes in the bike rack as the school and most often's around.

So uh it's a lot of fun.

I invite everybody to come.

We have one uh two C Springers on Friday, maybe their last one, depending on parent uh um request and involvement, and the bug button went so well that they are kind of taking it on to do it every Monday, at least for the rest of the school year.

So it's a temporary website, bike lafeltows.org that has details on maps and times if you want to show up.

Okay, not drawing ones.

Yeah, exactly.

You wait.

Do we have the PDFs into my okay?

Uh we have your okay.

That is a bit overly zoomed in, but um to get my VTA B pack update.

Uh, there were two VTA B PAC meetings since our last meeting.

Um they actually have some similar items on them.

Uh, the March 11th meeting, I pulled out the more exciting items.

There were some other items as well.

Um we heard about the SB63 local investment plan.

That is the corresponds to the ballot measure that if it gives enough signatures in the next month or two, we'll be on the November ballot to fund transit.

Um, and the BPAC, it is not an active transportation thing so much, but it does in transit, of course, interacts with active transportation.

Um, and the main BPAC comments were about deficiency serv investments in improved service and transit speed um as potential um priorities for BPAC.

Use each transit agency is put putting together plans or how they would spin the money.

Um you can go to that URL if you want to find comments there.

I think they are finalizing things, so get comments quickly.

Um there was also a draft uh for the OBAC four.

Currently we're in OBAC three, and that's what partially funds that middle field project.

So we saw a draft program and project selection criteria for that.

Um, and that affects like how when you get cities submit all their proposals to VTA, VTA scores them.

VTA sends, I think a subset of those to MTC, assuming they received enough projects.

Um MTC then actually handles um shoot doing the final choice and sending things out.

Um I feel like Allison andor Lauren will correct me if I say something wrong.

Um then we go to the next meeting, which was this month, where we had a bajillion consent um calendar items, which were varying levels of interesting, um, but which included several uh grant program sort of up informational updates, which were interesting, felt like we were hearing a lot about grant selection criteria, which is part of why I just wanting to see the more detailed scoring from the uh ATP projects, um, as well as an update on a roughly small brand program for the transfer communities and the passing complete streets, which is a major reconstruction project, which I think is part of why Lauren's mentioned that being expensive, that is doing some uh moving around of funding so that it can happen on the timelines with funding.

Um then we actually saw the more finalized OVAC project selection criteria.

As a note, the call for projects closes on June 10th, 2026.

There are some intermediate timelines that cities have to need to get their complete streets checklists checked off.

It sounds like Allison and city staff are sorting out what it is.

I'll talk about it now in our study July.

I'll have to double check that.

Okay.

I thought it was later.

I couldn't.

It closes June 10th.

The call for projects closes July 10th.

Okay, I might have written the wrong one.

My bad.

Um it was it's a tight timeline either way.

It's very tight.

Um matter what's it's definitely not June 10th.

June 10th, because yeah, yeah.

Well it's in July.

Okay.

I actually think it's late July, but I then maybe maybe I wrote the VT B pack meeting dates.

That's what you did.

Okay.

There's VTA B pack meeting that'll review each treats checklist for cities that don't want to do their own complete checklist.

Okay.

I I meant to put the correct date in there.

My bad.

Um, VT nominate nomination projects by October 31st for MTC, and then MTC at some point actually awards and things.

Um there is public end up being looked for on the across barriers connection plan that VTA is doing that is um looking to identify and figure out ways to address locations that were highways at barriers.

Um, and to so looking for community feedback on that plan right now.

Um, and then if we go to the next slide, we got a presentation on the foothill, something stuff that could have expressed my stuff um that the county roads department is doing it.

It's currently being funded by VTA measure B funds, 2016 measure B.

Um, and uh to perhaps me or some of what we just saw, county staff are advising against the road die due to congestion concerns of the intersections um and the current alternatives, which uh the BPAC was did not seem ultimately thrilled with were either a um class one path that would be relatively expensive and involves the tree removal along the corridor, which is alternative one, or alternative two, which was going to do a bunch of intermingled um class four bike lanes, parallel routes, that sort of thing that would likely involve a lot of crossing football expressway to stay on the bike route.

Um both those alternatives do leave a wide shoulder in Fundal Expressway for um higher speed recreational side quests.

If you're interested, you can go look at the details of the project.

And that is all that I had.

Um I can just add something.

If you go back two slides, one of the consent items that you approved and that has gone to multiple boards is the the uh the competitive grants for measure B.

So the city it was successful in an Avalon grant for that, and so that will be going to the VTA board for over next month or do it May or June, I can't remember exactly.

But um, so we are looking forward to that being officially recommended or approved by their board, and then we'll we'll enter it to an agreement with VTA and take that project off.

And then one non-VTA thing I was going to mention is that I believe it is May 30th that SVBC is running another Al Camino Real bike ride, and they I believe are still looking for volunteers.

So if you want to join in a couple hundred people riding down El Camino on all our fresh new bike wings, um you can join that and or volunteer for that.

And those cities that don't have them yet.

Yes, it includes riding through some cities that do not have such lanes.

Um get an email for that easy uh figure out how to distribute the I don't know how to send that control about that.

Yeah.

Um so the next meeting we have scheduled is Wednesday June 24th in this room, but at 6 30 instead of five.

Um the currently for that meeting, we've got the draft work plan.

So we will be bringing that before BPAC.

Um we'll also have our collision data review update from our public safe or public no police um here, and we will be bringing OBAG4 complete streets checklists so that we can hit that very tight timeline as um Chair Cruzwal mentioned.

It's the by 27.

We shouldn't have just the VTA B PAC meeting.

So the check list is it the good stuff projects so no, it's it's called a it's called a complete streets checklist, and I can let Lauren go into more details on exactly what's in it, but each project that we plan to apply for for OBAG 4 has to have got it, doesn't have to be approved by BPAC, but it has to have gone before the BPAC.

So um depending on where we are at internally on our project selection or recommendation, we might come with more projects than we plan to apply for just so that we've covered those bases.

Um has to go to the BFAC before applying before we apply.

Well dynamic.

Middlefield had complete streets, middlefield and moffit both had complete streets check quests that the questioned post, so we should make sure that we discuss them.

So with that, I think that moves us to adjournment.

And so I will adjourn this meeting at 9 36 p.m.

All right.