Three, which is oral communications.

This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the committee on any matter not on the agenda.

Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section.

State law prohibits the committee from acting on non-agenda items.

Would any member, that means if you say something interesting, we can't respond to you.

Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on a not on non-agenda items?

If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or approach the lectern if you are here in person.

We will take in-person speakers first.

Staff will display the timer on the screen.

And I believe we're doing two minutes.

So are there any in-person speakers?

Okay, seeing none, are there any virtuals to be posted?

No hand, please.

Okay.

In that case, we will move on to item number four, which is approval of meeting minutes.

So the minutes for the December 2nd, 2025 meetings are presented for approval tonight.

Would any member of the public joining us, either virtually or in person, like to write a comment on the minutes?

Anyone in person?

Anyone on the hand for this?

Okay, then I'll bring the item back for committee deliberation and action.

Are there any corrections or comments on the minutes among committee members?

Not and I see a motion to do approved.

So move.

Okay, all those in favor.

Okay, pass this unanimously.

We'll now move on to new business.

So Article 10, Chapter 19, 19 is the motor vehicles and traffic section of the Mount View Municipal Code to establish a citywide TDM program.

TDM standing for transportation demand management.

So let's see.

Okay, the next part of my script is a little repetitive, but I'll see if there's anything that I need to redo.

Item 51 is title demand and add new sections to Article 10, Transportation Demand Manager, Chapter 19.

This appears to be what I already just told you.

So I'll just go.

Okay.

So City Council identify the development of a transportation demand management ordinance as a strategic priority for fiscal years 2023 and 2025.

It was identified as a priority as a result of the city's 2030 general plan, the greenhouse gas reduction program, sustainability action plan or SAP 4, precise plans, as well as regional and state laws.

To date, the city's approach to TDM spans a mix of project five and land use types.

There are over 27 entitled development projects in Mountain View that have TDM requirements as part of their conditions of approval.

These current TDM requirements include different targets and measures.

Sorry, the proposed ordinance aligns with the existing policies and strategizing TDM standards and monitoring requirements.

It ensures consistency with the MTA handbook, the BMT screenings, and the city's greenhouse gas reduction program while also standardizing trip reduction targets, the TDM planning process and monitoring enforcement, monitoring and enforcement provisions.

So reviewing the project workflow, staff is currently in the project phase focused on developing the ordinance language seen here in blue.

Over the course of the project, staff has engaged key stakeholders and advisory bodies to gain a broad understanding of current practice with TDM, as well as how requirements can be further streamlined and made more effective under the ordinance.

Key insights were gathered from the Downtown Business Association and the TMA.

One-on-one interviews were held with developers, employers, property managers, and community members.

Collectively, the input gathered has been used to guide the direction of the project, including its vision and goals in the TDM framework.

Staff presented the project vision and goals to VPEC, EPC, and CTC in quarter four of 2023, where members voice their support for the project's objectives.

In quarter one of 2025, staff returned to BPEC and EPC to present the TDM policy framework that includes trip reduction standards, reporting elements, and enforcement provisions.

CTC and City Council reviewed and supported the proposed framework in quarter two and quarter three of 2025.

Staff will present the TDM ordinance to council for the first and second reading in May of 2026.

Next slide.

The goal of the project is we're informed by existing conditions analysis and date.

And then the staff recommendations, which is a little different than what you read, is the staff is recommending that city council adopt an ordinance of the City Council repealing and reenacting chapter 19 over vehicles and traffic of Article 10 Transportation Demand Management of the City Code to establish a citywide PDM program and finding the amendments to be exempt from the CEQA pursuant to SQL guidelines, Section 15.

Sorry, 1530.

Oh, sorry, next slide.

And one more.

So a quick overview of the TDM.

At a high level, the TDM framework seeks to streamline and implement TDM requirements across a project's lifespan from the entitlement phase to the post-occupancy phase.

The new TDM ordinance will apply to all new development modifications, change of use, and expansions of existing sites, generating 200 or more net new average daily trips or ADT.

This will apply across all land uses, residential, commercial, and mixed use.

There are, however, a couple exemptions.

Those are for 100% affordable units, very small projects, which are classified as single family developments of 12 units or fewer, multifamily residential developments of 20 units or fewer, or any office development that is 10,000 square feet or less, as well as patron-driven projects, which with uses less than 100,000 square feet.

Projects will have to demonstrate a plan to reduce projected ADT by 20 to 50% through the use of approved TDM strategies and maintain program management and annual reporting post-occupancy.

The city will maintain records of annual project reports and any noncompliance may result in corrective action and/or fines at theft by the city.

Next slide.

Will be determined by size of the project, and they're divided into three categories.

Small projects are 200 to 499 ADT.

Medium projects are 500 to 999 AT, and large projects, which are 100, I'm sorry, which are 1,000 ADT.

Projects will be required to implement TDM strategies that reduce ADT to the following levels of 30, 40, and 50% respectively.

TOD, or transit oriented design project, and residential project will have reduction target levels of 20, 30, and 40%, respectively.

These thresholds were informed by the city's existing precise plan targets, as well as case studies of similar TDM programs in San Francisco, San Mateo County, Redwood City, and the City of San Jose.

Next slide.

Prior to the entitlement, prospective applicants will be required to submit the TDM plan for city review.

Specifics of the TDM plan will then be included in the conditions of approval preceding adoption by council.

TDM plans will be comprised of two types of strategies.

Core strategies offer an array of flexible proven trip reduction strategies that applicants may select from to develop a project's TDM plan.

Some examples of core strategies include transportation subsidies and band pool incentives.

The auxiliary measures, which when paired with core strategies, are complementary and more effective at reducing and more effective at reducing trips.

Some examples of auxiliary strategies are wayfinding improvements and transportation related marketing events.

Applicants will have access to the TDM toolkit, which is designed to offer a menu of strategies that vary in scale and cost, allowing projects to create site-specific TDM plans fit for their purposes.

Next slide.

Moving into the monitoring elements of the framework, this slide illustrates the various reporting activities that projects will be responsible for, which are again organized based on project size.

Small projects must report out annually for three years, medium projects for 10, and large projects for 20.

Additionally, residential and patron driven uses are exempt from additional project performance monitoring conducted through annual travel surveys and traffic counts.

And with that, I will pass it off to Fed.

Thanks, Allison.

So staff would like to note a few key updates, which have been incorporated into the TDM policy framework based on feedback we've received since last June's study session of council.

Proposed changes include exemptions, such as for patron driven uses, implementation of housing action items, exemptions from site-specific trip apps for residential and patron shipping uses, updates to enforcement provisions, proposed patron-driven uses less than met at 100,000 square feet will be exempted from the TDM program.

Categorized as non-residential use project types typically generate trips that are primarily by patrons, customers rather than by employees.

Examples of such projects would include child care centers, restaurants, entertainment, medical, retail, including general merchandise and groceries as well as other personal services.

This exemption was incorporated into the framework, recognizing the value of such pieces that are neighborhood serving and also support economic by attracting and retaining high quality retail and other service oriented uses.

The next update relates to the city's housing element program, which went into effect in 2023.

Provisions of the housing element require the city to adopt a TDM ordinance to help identify lower cost options for developers to meet TDM requirements.

And to support this effort, the ordinance will allow residential parking reductions and exemptions for projects that enhance features of a TDM plan, which would achieve a higher level of trip reduction over and beyond the minimum requirement.

To satisfy the enhanced TDM criteria, residential project must either one, exceed its ADT reduction target by at least 5%, or to adopt one additional core strategy and two additional auxiliary strategies over the minimum required number from the toolkit.

The enhanced TDM criteria presented are really intended to incentivize higher levels of trip reduction and reduce parking demand while increasing mobility options for residential projects.

And the next update to the framework includes exemptions from monitoring and reporting requirements for residential and patient driven uses.

Specifically, all residential and patient-driven uses will be exempted from meeting site-specific trip caps and associated ADT reduction targets.

The exemptions also extend to the requirements to provide travel surveys and conduct traffic cats.

The noted exemptions here reflect existing conditions and local and state regulations, which seek to collectively reduce financial costs and administrative burdens related to delivering more affordable housing and neighborhood serving uses.

However, so required of these projects will be the requirements to adopt an implement TDM plan and provide ongoing annual TDM reporting in accordance with the moving ahead, the proposed ordinance seeks to align the enforcement provisions under city code enforcement violations and administrative penalties of the meeting.

This approach aligns with neighboring jurisdictions, which also codify violations of noncompliance as the basis for administrative citations for under the meeting code.

So some examples of non-compliance might include failure of a project to submit annual TDM monitoring reports or maintain an ongoing TDM plan.

Additionally, updated enforcement provisions will consistently apply to all projects subject to ordinance rather than by specific project conditions of approval.

For the next framework update, the proposed ordinance will not require projects of PSIs to join the TMA.

Membership in the TMA will be optional and included in the TDM toolkit to incentivize new projects to join as a way to satisfy the TDM requirement and trip reduction goals.

So while TMA membership will not be required, staff will work with the TMA to explore the process of establishing a property-based assessment district or PA following adoption of the ordinance.

Similar to other jurisdictions, such as City of Amberville, the goal of establishing the PIBO will be to provide a long-term and scalable approach to funding TMA provided services, including the NVIGO shuttle.

Most notably, a PVID would support foreign membership in the TMA over time by clearly defining its governance structure and assessment of membership fees.

Currently, staff is working with a project team to develop a cost estimation and implementation planning study as part of this work.

The study will evaluate the range of city staff time and administrative resources required to administer the ordinance, including TDM plan review and ongoing monitoring and reporting activities.

The findings of this report will inform the basis of an annual TDM fee, which will be intended to recover a portion of the city's ongoing costs associated with implementing the fees.

Following completion of this fee study, staff will draft the resolution for the city council to review any property.

When the TDM ordinance is in effect, its provisions and putting trip reduction standards and monitoring requirements will be codified in the city code.

Additionally, the TDM program standards will be a key guiding document to implement the citywide TDM.

The TDM program standards document will be an appendix to the MTA, which may be updated periodically to reflect changes in travel patterns, technological innovation, and TDM best practices.

And then for next steps, um, I'll pass it back to LCD.

So following the CDC review tonight, we will be taking this ordinance to council for comment or for the first read on May 12th and the second reading on May 25th.

And anticipating final adoption of the ordinance in May of 2026, with it going into effect in June 26th.

Once adopted, implementation steps will include development and refinement of the TDM program standards and the TDM toolkit, updating the precise plans and city code to implement housing element action items and ordinance provisions, presenting the annual TDM fee resolution to council for review and adoption, exploring the feasibility of establishing a property-based assessment district for PVIC citywide, integration with the city's permitting and entitlement processes, and it's the establishment of ongoing monitoring and reporting systems, including identifying technology solutions and providers and coordination with stakeholders and regional partners.

And then next slide.

And then again, we're here.

Staff is recommending the city council adopt an ordinance of the city council repealing and reenacting chapter 19 motor vehicles and traffic of Article 10 Transportation Demand Management of the City Code to establish a citywide TDM program and binding the amendments to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to SQL guidelines section 1530.

That is our staff presentation.

Okay, thank you very much.

That is uh always an exciting um project for me to see how our transportation demand management uh program evolves.

So I will now uh we will now uh take questions from committee members.

Do any committee members have questions?

Okay, well it's not gonna make the house too.

Thank you for the report.

Feel comfortable with so um uh on slide 12 where it says parking reduction and parking reductions.

Are we interpreting strictly by what the housing element says we what they can do, or are we making a lot of so that we can do that?

So the housing element includes I believe three action items.

Um, one is to identify lower cost options for developers to meet their team requirements, and then also identify criteria for projects that are to qualify for these parking reductions and exemptions from parking minimums.

So the ordinance here really kind of operationalizes that and defines characterity would be for these projects to not be everything else.

This is the only one I have sort of a concern on because it's a broader picture of if we're building these units and there's restriction that other and they don't have parking parking is going to flow into the neighborhoods, and so the quality of life and the congestion of safety of people all the cars around is a concern to me.

So, is there any way we can do both protect the neighborhood traffic in the cars and so forth?

Yeah, still meet this requirement, right?

So the res the residential ADT targets are set so that the efficient TDM strategies would be needed to be put in place to offset any parking, um, offset any demand for additional parking that would be needed.

So the idea is to qualify for these parking res uh parking reductions and exemptions.

Um, they would either have to again one, um, meet a higher level of trip reduction over and via over and beyond what's required of the medium or adopt additional strategies.

So the idea is that reduced parking or no parking isn't a TDM program in and of itself you would not sell okay it's not a TV program.

It's sufficient it's not it's necessary but it's not sufficient.

And so enough TDM measures would need to be adopted to offset any additional demand for parking so they can get the reduced parking but they have to offset it with additional strategies.

Is anybody reached out to our partners like BTA or that if we start ramping this up they will look and see what they can ramp up for VTAs have struggles right now.

And so but is that something that we're gonna keep them as part of the loop so that when we do something or see a project that they might say we can ask them beforehand so when the planning process we can say hey we're anticipating this and you look at around the ordinance doesn't preclude any coordination of BTA and so BT is actually working on a equitable VMT mitigation program at regional level and that framework is being I think developed in coordination with what is it AB130 also sets a statewide program for VMT reduction.

So all of these are strategies that are kind of being developed in the opting and then once they get more concrete and communication would certainly kind of engage them on on when it would be needed to start then opening up the option for these developers to opt into that strategy.

Okay I have I have several um one is uh one is how um what the opportunity will be to add additional tools to the toolkit uh over time how that will work.

Right.

So since DBC we've or subtract if they're not working certainly um it's very open-ended I mean since EBC we've added an additional five or six strategies so it's it's a moving target um which is to say I mean these could be updated on a cadence which makes sense could be on a yearly basis.

But certainly once we begin monitoring we'll understand performance of these strategies which makes sense where easier for projects to adopt yeah so the toolkit is envisioned to be evergreen so we can update it as either new strategies become common in the area or new technologies come about or new state A B regulations come um down the pipeline but um the idea is as we also collect data from the reports coming in we can also identify what are working what is working and we can also adjust the percentages with their AET reductions.

Or if we see developers really like one and they keep bringing up a bringing it up and it's not in our toolkit we can add it so that it's identified there.

So it is intended to be an evergreen what the cadence is of of updating it we haven't quite figured out but I think we'll we'll see where where that takes us in our first year.

Okay great that's the that's the answer I wanted I think I more well I'll just say the toolkit is a little computer based at this point.

So um so that's good to hear it that you're open to um it's good to hear that it's great.

Um and then I also have questions about um the parking I think that um member McAllister brought up when you've looked at how I've basically the same fear that that member McAllister has that as you reduce parking, people park on the street because I've done it when I've been preference and then there's less room for trees the widening sidewalks, street trees, all the other things we might do to encourage or in bike lanes to encourage other travel.

So when you've looked at how this works, you mentioned a bunch of other cities, but many of them seem like San Francisco, San Jose.

They seemed um, you know, if I lived in an apartment in San Francisco without parking, I would not be parking on the streets.

So have you really looked a lot at comparable cities, and by comparable, I don't there are advanced places and you named Redwood City, I think.

There are dense places in Redwood City and Mountain View, but actual comparable places where there's a lot of street parking available.

Yeah, so I don't know if Laura you can pull up our very last slide and it's in your packet, but we did put together um the pure city examples that we looked at that we have on that list, Sunnyvale, East Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Mateo County, and Jose, and what the their trip reduction targets were and how they are um in terms of their TDM, and that shows you kind of where we fall.

Um, example would be for Sunnyvale.

Um, for their offices, they are looking at a reduction of 65% of peak hour trips.

So for ours, we have uh 50% reduction, so that gives you a but that again that's for offices for the residential, they're targeting 30%, and for our residential, we go between 20 to 40.

So depending on the size.

Um East Palo Alto has a 40% reduction, both residential and non-residential, so we we did try and meet what other cities in our area are doing.

And how do you count trip reduction?

Because honestly, when I lived at park place down the street 100% of the time, they gave me a parking place and 100% of the time I parked on the street, not knowing that.

Um, would that be counted?

You in this metric, you would be counting that as a trip reduction.

Because I didn't have if it was unbundled parking, I would not have reduced the market.

The points of egress and ingress for development, we determined in these kind of space where traffic monitoring would be, but since for residential projects, we're not requiring um you know measuring actual trip reduction targets.

What we're doing is we're requiring adoption of TDM at a sufficient level, which would then offset demand for parking or they need to for parking.

So in our analysis of looking at other pure cities and how they manage parking, this is very much an evolving space.

San Jose would probably be the first jurisdiction that had on both TDM and parking together where they've eliminated parking minimum citywide and adopted in the same action of adopting a TDM order.

So San Francisco took it differently if a project were to provide more uh parking than above what's normally provided or required in their code.

They similarly require additional TDM measures to be adopted.

So it's in this similar vein that we require a sufficient level of TDM in alignment with parking reductions and elimination of parking consumption.

For residential, our enforcement is based specifically on in your approved TDM, you say you're going to do something, you have to do it.

It's not based on the actual trip reduction targets being met.

So that's pretty much what I was saying.

You could, you know, a place with a lot of neighborhood parking, you could get your TDM credit by cutting down on site parking, and people could just be parking in the neighborhood.

It doesn't, it's not reducing the trips, but it's qualifying for that particular is what I only if you're using the housing element additional bonus.

So you're going for an additional, you've chosen either 5% more of reducing in your TDM, the plan to reduce it by five, an additional five percent than what's required, or you're choosing one additional core and two auxiliary strategies.

So in order to qualify to reduce the parking, you have to enact additional TDM measures above and beyond the basement for that size.

Is it okay if I add something?

Yeah, yeah.

So the idea behind residential is that for example on a large apartment, the residential um apartment owner uh would provide a bunch of TDM strategies that are available for the residents living in the apartment building, but they don't have the ability to force the residents to do certain things versus if you're a large scale office employer, right?

We would check on the enforcement because that office employer has more direct control over the trips that are going in and out of the of their uh visits, but to qualify forward that parking reduction or um so and if you're doing a large residential, you need 40% trip reduction in order to get that housing um element incentive, you would have to go for 45% trip reduction or 40% with two additions.

Sorry, Diana, you wanna yeah.

If I could just add a few more things, Diana Poncioli, principal planner with the planning division.

Thank you for the question.

I think the way I look at it is that you know, this is one policy strategy that this the city is um bringing forward.

There are other efforts that we are looking at, which will then have to will act together to see how parking and holds on site.

Uh a lot of other jurisdictions that we have looked at use the residential permit parking program as a key strategy to kind of you know manage the parking spill, making sure parking spillows don't happen in the neighborhoods, which is an obvious concern we hear with a lot of uh developments in the city.

Uh the other part is that you know, we will have to look at how our parking um related strategy in the TDM program is working out, all the recent develop residential developments that I have seen coming to council in the last two years.

Uh developers have said to us that parking is a key asset for our residents, and that is um very key to the marketability of the project as well.

Very few of them will come in with extremely reduced parking uh numbers.

So we're hoping you know it is going to be something that we'll be able to see, but right now the developers have been telling us parking is really key for them to go out on sites and ask.

Okay.

Yeah, it sounds like something that is ongoing.

This is why it needs to be everyone on scrolling launch.

Um, and then I we all got email from uh various interested parties.

Um, one of them was whether uh whether parking reductions, um, this from YMB, which so you've probably seen the question, whether parking reductions could scale with the scale of the of the uh of the appropriate possibility of conduct.

Yeah, we are identifying next steps once the ordinance is adopted.

How we would implement parking reductions, and we got a good comment from EBC which recommended scaling parking reductions based on a certain level.

So whether it's you know one to ten percent or one to fifty percent, the amount of credit that would be given, determining how much parking they reduce from.

Um so that's something we need to add further flesh out, but it's being considered it would be something we can add to the toolkit as we collect more data.

Okay, and then um wider, you had something on uh active, you'll know the phrase better than I will.

Active transportation gaps.

Do those include, is there an as a possible thing that a developer could provide, um, um bridging those gaps?

Um are other similar things that would encourage uh walking like wider sidewalks and more tree canopy.

Are those also, or those considered gaps or how do you figure those?

Because they certainly encourage walking.

Do you are they a part of the toolkit?

We would need to study how that would be operationalized in the toolkit, whether a certain number of trees um right would qualify for I mean it's about essentially trip reduction option.

So to the extent that you know uh planting additional trees might achieve that, we need to study, but I think where it could potentially qualify as condition-oriented uses and amends, you know, that are oriented to you know, active transportation just to the extent that you know multimodal improvements like by facilities and protection and green elements are are considered to that extent might be at least the nexus might be there to establish that, but we would need to further understand how that would be in the toolkit.

But if a developer were to come in and ask to do that as a measure, we would have that conversation and look and ask them to provide why they think that that would be a trip reduction and have those conversations.

So they can come in with their own strategies.

And it sounds like there might be an intersection with the active transportation things that have been identified about potentially.

Anyway, yes.

Okay, and um, did I miss it?

Is micro mobility?

It's in there as part of the it must be right.

So there's bike share membership, and then also uh subsidies that could be provided by a developer, can two tenants, um, residents and employees for uh bike share services.

So if they wanted to provide them credits, eventually once you do have microbiality up and running, the idea is they'll be able to use those credits for it's you know, a number of rides or you know, discount process things like that.

So for micro mobility, it could be just correct.

Okay, we know what I think.

Okay, those are my questions.

I'm I'm so sorry, I'm catching up.

Um, can we address the letter that we got from DMA?

Okay, so um it's difficult when you said they were 445 and we have a meeting at fixed.

Um, but I'm just sure we have not seen this.

Okay, yeah.

So that's why I'm bringing it up.

Okay, um, because I was going back, I know there was a couple other questions that will have method.

So there the subject is PDM coordinates, PMA participation and implementation considerations.

So um I think there.

I'm trying to find whether it's an actual question versus just feedback.

Um if not required through the ordinance, how will consistency with these plans?

I think that precise way I thought we're mentioning, you know, uh North Bay Shore East Westman at San Antonio be achieved as one of their questions.

So I think some of the comments on prior to that question was um they use the words uh consider the legal constraints associated with mandating participation in a private organization at the same time with the lack of participation requirements.

So maybe if staff can share what the conversations were with the TMA leading up to the coming to CTC and apologies, I just thought this.

And I believe uh um fashion on the line, so um he can jump in.

Yes, thank you, Alison, and uh thank you for the question, Councilmember Kamei.

I can shed some light on the legal uh the constraints that the city has.

So historically, the TMA has been funded through individual development agreements with developers who agree to contribute according to the size of their project into the TMA to run the Mountain View Shuttle, for instance.

However, turning that into a permanent ordinance for funding would require compliance with Prop 218 and Prop 26.

And among the restrictions in both of those propositions is that we would have to make findings for the amount of the levy to match the amount of the benefit received by parcel.

In addition, we have constraints on providing funding to private organizations that we have to comply with through state law.

So keeping the exact same funding structure in place through a TDM ordinance would constitute an unlawful franchise agreement with the TMA.

So to avoid that legal issue, it's currently voluntary in the TDM ordinance itself.

However, I am working on a process to make it easier for organizations such as the TMA to create a property-based improvement district that could then fund the shuttle.

Thank you.

And I guess that goes back to the question I asked right before that is kind of what's the engagement been with the TMA.

Do they know that?

They do.

Okay.

They are aware.

I think there is some different points of view.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, and then so the question will just add though that this ordinance will not be retroactive.

So anybody that has already had an active TDM will stay in their active TDM.

Um so one of the questions was about consistency with some of the percentage plan requirements.

So that kind of a choice.

Right.

Okay.

Um okay, so I I think their concern, it sounds like is just participation.

Okay.

But I think there was maybe at least um in the council briefing that I had to stop, like an opportunity if people want to pop in maybe if council goes in that direction, and that might be a way to help address some of the concerns of the TMA.

I don't know.

Again, it is a strategy.

So they can choose, and there's a lot of benefits from the TMA, like the last mile shuttle, they can help with the reporting.

They have there's a lot they can help uh developers in acting their TDM.

So I do think that it still is a good option, especially for some of those developers that are just trying to figure out where to start.

Okay, thanks, Chair.

Okay, thank you.

So now we move on to um members of the public.

Uh would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comments on this item?

So I can bring the raise hand button.

Zoom or we'll take in-person speakers first, and each person will have two minutes.

Is there anyone?

Members of the public in person, okay.

Are there any members of the public virtually wish to speak?

Yes.

David Watson.

Oh, uh I'm David Watson.

Uh, you uh may have seen that we uh uh we sent a letter.

Uh really uh James sent a letter.

Um I uh wanted to start by uh thanking uh Chair Hicks for raising the parking reduction scaling question.

I'm uh glad to hear that that can be addressed administratively.

Uh two more things from our letter I wanted to mention.

Um the limit parking supply credit shouldn't be contingent on adjacent street parking being metered or permanent.

A developer does not control on-streak parking policy.

That's the the city's job, and uh I'm sure you'll hear me back here uh asking for on-street uh uh uh metered or permitted parking.

Uh, because that's something that I think the city should absolutely be doing.

Um uh another is uh please open an enhanced TDM parking exemption pathway for projects under the uh 200 um ADT threshold.

They are uh correctly exempt from the ordinance, but um that means that they are they don't have the parking exemption available to them at all.

Uh they should be able to uh opt in.

Um also the toolkit still has uh seven core strategies marked as placeholders.

Um it's without them the residential mass for the enhanced TDM tier doesn't quite work.

Uh it would be nice if uh that could be um available before the uh council hearing.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Are there four speakers?

Ronnie Hattrick.

Yeah, hello, good evening, transportation committee members.

Ronnie Hatchup with the Mountain View Transportation Management Association.

Um I apologize for the link receipt of the letter that we sent today.

We had literally just convened our meeting of the membership and governance committee yesterday evening.

So we did our best to turn this letter around as fast as possible.

And I think really what the purpose of the letter is just to really address the concerns that we have in terms of not requiring participation in the TMA.

So uh our TMA works because it's coordinated broadly and supported broadly without including new and medium um large commercial and large residential projects or developments, um efforts, risk become disjointed, responsibilities and inconsistency applied, and overall outcomes diminished.

And there are immediate uh consequences that we are concerned about.

If membership growth is constrained going forward, the TMA will likely need to reduce its services, uh, meaning fewer shuttles, reduced coverage, and less reliable service, pushing commuters and residents back into single occupancy vehicles and increasing traffic congestion.

Um, and then one of the considerations I think you had noted there is that uh consideration should be given for how new development will meet the precise plan requirements of North Bay Shore and East Bismond and San Antonio where TMA participation is required and has been promoted through those programs or through those uh those documents.

So we just urge the uh transportation committee to establish a clear path either through the ordinance or other mechanisms.

Um, as Matesh had stated, the Ped being a potential option in the future to ensure robust participation by new development.

And the timing of this is crucial, and I think that's one of the biggest concerns is we're just now exploring potential conversations of a PID.

I have not vetted this conversation with our full board, so I did not address that in the letter.

Um, but we know these processes do take time, and there's a likelihood that our services might be impacted even just next year if our growth is uh significantly impacted from a financial perspective.

So I appreciate your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Are there more speakers?

No, that's all.

Okay, so now I'm bringing this item back to NIDI members for their comments.

One should any of you guys start to us.

I don't know.

No, I would like to.

Um thank you.

Well, um, I am very excited that we are here at this point where we have a final recommendation.

Um that we'll be able to bring to our colleagues council.

Um I know that I was sharing with staff.

I know it's been a long two and a half year journey, but um really excited to where we are now and um didn't have a lot of questions because I had my council briefing yesterday where I helped a lot of them.

Um, you know, I think one of the biggest things when looking at the ordinance is adopting it, but also allowing for that flexibility that we hear all the time from our development community about, you know, kind of the unpredictability of where like our where we are.

Um, and I thought it was really helpful.

Thank you so much to staff who pulled together the uh TDM targets and the case study so they could share it with us.

I thought it was like just really helpful to understand the context which we're operating in and um, you know, I think the city of San Jose adopted their s like three, three years ago or something, four, but yeah, like a while ago.

So um it's nice to to know some of the other cities and what they've done in that in that time for us to think about.

Um I appreciate that we can adopt the ordinance, but we can also um look back at how we're monitoring and enforcing.

I thought that uh Miss Central brought up a lot of points, good points, which is we hear that parking is getting reduced, but we also hear from developers that they need to include it to make it um competitive, and that's what uh people want.

So I think to me, it's really about how we're able to do monitoring, and and I think that's really the hardest part with the North Bay Shore.

We're very fortunate where we're able to kind of have those three gateway points.

I think that like helps it a lot easier, but as we're implementing our housing element, I think and seeing development all across our city.

We're not gonna, we're just gonna have to get food on how to do that.

But I think adopt that doesn't mean we shouldn't adopt the TDM ordinance and the different, you know, uh core strategies and auxiliary strategies.

It just means that it may need to come back to council, and that's okay that we the ordinance allows for that.

So I think that's all good.

Um I really appreciate the thoughtfulness that staff took into patron driven uses, but really the what I call like neighborhood surveying uses.

We've been adopting like our economic vitality strategy, we've been focusing on that as we've been adopting um our our housing element and talking about activation in the different notes of our city.

So, really like that we want to encourage um that to continue throughout our city, and so those would be sad.

I think that's part of the reality we're looking in.

Um I would want I understand and hear what the TMA is saying.

I think that the more incentives that we can provide, the more people we will like voluntarily opt instead of opt out.

And I really like the evolution of where the ordinance had landed because I do think it feels um less heated in and more um participatory.

Um so I think that that is important.

Um the thing that came up in my briefing that I want to like daylight for my other committee members, I think would be really great is council adopted our master fee schedule update.

And I think one of the other ways we can um when the future council um looks at uh revising the master fee schedule, they can include like the implementation of the TDM ordinance, the staff time dedicated to that, um, to do cost recovery, and I think that would be efficient and effective.

So I just want to drop that in right now for my colleagues who will be here when that comes back.

Uh I think I think that's everything.

Um, but I really am thrilled and have you and I can remove the staff recommendations and discussion.

Thanks.

So I'm familiar with this from 2013.

So you've been seeing it for four years.

I think it's evolved from 2013 when we really had a lot of um jobs being created in North Bay Shore.

We did have that shelf point.

We're trying to reduce the traffic on 85, all the others coming, yeah.

And uh, it took some time to get going.

So we flashed forward to now.

And we're we're trying to get something going here.

What I like about the plan is that the enforcement, I know it's a bad word, but it's a good one because we need to to make this a plan work, we need to be able to enforce it.

And that's one thing that we never were able really to do with our other uh TMA.

But we did get a lot of shuttles going through.

One thing that we should be looking for is when I was looking at this to be successful, and the patrons driving, it's not going out the driveway.

So that's exempt.

Where are they they're gonna get these TMs to take them to pretty much to their job sites that are out because otherwise everything else is exempt?

So if North Bay Shore is reducing jobs and we're increasing the housing, uh, gonna be interesting to see how they get the traffic reduction.

If the jobs are, you know, let's say they're moving to Sansa, so I drive to Sansa, how's that gonna affect them out?

So uh and a lot of this is contingent from my perspective, from doing this for a while is the shuttle services and the bus services uh have to be a main component for getting people out of cars, and we're not there.

Um, and if the current situation is we're not gonna be there all the time, no offense to BTA, they're they're having some issues and a lot of that stuff is going on, so uh just again what I emphasize is we have to work with TMA on their shuttles in town.

We gotta work with BTA in their shuttles.

We got Cal Train, BTA light rail, uh that's a bike rail is a whole different story.

It's part of the solution.

It's my comments and I will support more.

Okay, well, okay.

Luckily for me as chair going last, you said almost everything I've written in my notes.

Um, yeah, I'm excited about this too.

I think that you know, it's a fascinating subject we're all should we are also facing as Chairman Callister started to say, really changing times.

Who knows where jobs are going and also how you know automated vehicles might interface with this?

Will they do personal last mile stuff, or will they kill our mass transit, or will they do something else entirely?

Um, you know, those that's so principally one of the big things I like is that this is evergreen, given that there's a time of change.

Um I also uh thought, well, I think the history of it is very like traditional commute relief congestion, and then it seems like the the uh, you know, reduce your carbon footprint was added in, things have been added rightfully added in over time, but I think because of its commute origins, it's very commute oriented, and as Chairman, you know, I'm as member McAllister said, um, yeah, yeah, we we are becoming like the growing element in town of housing.

So and it has all sorts of other restrictions on how we can use this.

So this is so we're really gonna have to monitor this.

I don't, you know, through nobody's fault, various tools may or may not work the way we originally intended.

So I really want to be open to that, but this is kind of a pilot.

Um let's see, I really like that the EPC, I think it was the EBC put in what they call patron driven uses.

I think that's a way of making this more as uh member said it's uh away.

It's uh neighborhood service, you can also call them neighborhood serving uses, and I've heard 70% of trips are um, I don't know if that's true.

I just read it in the webinar, but anyway, a lot of them are, and they are for the kinds of these kinds of uses, whether it's child care or um, you know, groceries, drugs, etc.

I really want to see more of that, and I also want to see more focus on, I think for this plan, we look at mass transit as we should, and we look at bike lanes and and bike uses, but not so much of walking.

And walking in cities that I've seen that reduce SOV use walking is a big thing of it.

So we really, so I think we need to interface with the ATP studies I did when I was a planner at Oakland.

I will not give people a whole page, but I was asked to see how far people were willing to walk from the office to a parking garage, and read tons of studies, and the answer is it depends.

The answer is it depends on what's between the office and the parking garage.

And there are all sorts of elements that I want, you know, tell you about, but one of them is like do people enjoy the walk?

Because they will purposely park far away and get in their daily steps.

So I really think we cannot discount that and make you know make our city into how do I say it a horrible place to walk and then expect people to walk.

Um people will walk, it doesn't have to be a parking garage.

That would be how far will they walk farther if they enjoy it than if they hate the walk.

Um so I want to in the future I want more on green infrastructure.

I want more on all them patron driven uses.

Um I agree with what our YMV letter said about not wanting metering everywhere that regulation, you know, the whatever it's called RPP program is often enough.

I agree with member McAllister that we have to pair this with mass transit and see that as changing things, something we can interact with to make it work better for us, maybe um and uh and um then when we say safe for its school, I always want the word scooter in there because I think most grape school children scoot, not just roll because what that means besides us and uh and um I think I like membership uh being voluntary, and I think that is all of my that's all of my notes.

Oh sure, when does the residential parking record in fact?

Um, I don't know how to answer, but we'll and find out great.

Okay.

Okay, so with that, any last thoughts?

Do we have some did somebody make the motion?

Okay, and you seconded, okay.

All those in favor.

Thank you so much.

Uh, sorry, no, that's fine.

I like that.

The placeholders will be updated with the people.

Okay.

Oh yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Like in the tool in the tool kit.

Um, very accelerated, sorry there, yeah.

But no, okay, thank you, she's a little bit of a thing set up.

You want to have a minute?

Yes, okay.

Or Tonya ready.

I don't know if we've got our two things.

I think we have a lot of people, you're going to be able to do that.

708.

So we are now moving on to I'm going to start the meeting again moving on to item 5.2, which is the middle field of complete streets project 22-01.

The staff presentation will be provided by whole communion.

I don't know if I pronounce that.

Pretty well.

Tell me later.

Associate civil engineer.

So staff donation.

Here with me tonight is Robert Gonzalez, Principal Civil Engineer, and L.

From CFP Engineering, and I will be joining uh remotely.

We're here today to present the design set for middle field capacity.

Project location is on middle field route between Morfett and I like outlighted in the red dots line.

Middlefield overpass, Stephen Creeks, Trail, and Calcrans Dave RD5 between Morfett and Easy Street.

And under cost conference table up to 37 near Bernardo.

Including roadway reservation from Morphe to Wismond, plus four protected by ways, June Morphe and Bernard, plus two by lands of the stability of the D5.

Which will be discussed in next slide.

New scope would add it to the project that's shown on the right.

This project has taken so far.

The first one is the housing center grant.

Um received in June 2025.

City was awarded 1.176 million dollars to the affordable housing availability program.

The OBAC grant is a federal grant that comes with certain requirements, including coordination with California Department of Transportation Caucus, which is also the OBEC administrative authority.

City commits to deliver the project scope indicated in the gratification within the grant funding timeline.

Funding must be obligated by January 2027.

Additional funds received from the housing incentive pool and the affordable housing sustainability communities grants will have the city funded at least no scope.

This is important to the city to invest in middle field because it is one of the city's regional corridor.

Um we want to highlight that middle field is one of the only east west regional corridor in the city network to directly connect the adjacent cities of Sunnyville and Palo Alto, vision zero accent plan and local safety plan identified middle field as part of the high local high injury network.

So the map show major corridor in the TV in orange.

Corridors that have recently received or are planned to receive road diet are highlighted in green.

Therefore, staff evaluated the middle field corridor for potential road diet from two land to one land in duration and would like to share a summary of the results.

The scenarios analyzed were certain conditions, background conditions, and cumulative conditions.

Hourly traffic volumes were evaluated against roadway hourly capacity to identify roadway deficiencies.

The left column show corridor divided into three segments.

The first segment is between MORPA and PSM.

So with implementing the road diet, this segment would appear over capacity for one hour during evening peak hours under existing and background conditions.

Two hours during more than eight hours and three hours during evening peak hours under cumulative conditions.

And the last rows show the roadway capacity on the remaining segment between 237 and distance the limit.

Level of servers is a letter base graded item measuring the operation condition of an intersection with A representing best free flow officials and F representing what jet conditions as shown on the map with road diet implemented by intersection circle would appear as a degrade level of servers to be or F.

Levels level of server analysis is still a common practice for operational analysis of local intersection.

Vehicle miles travel has been brought up, however, it is used more in a sequel traffic analysis context.

QA analysis evaluates vehicle stacking on left land at the intersection.

The road diode would cause substantial Q deficiency and therefore intersection along the corridor.

And to resolve the Q and deficiency, existing land would need to be landed.

So in this slide as one example, I can show how much the left hand line is to be lengthened.

If implementing the road diet on the eastbound direction, the left hand would need to be extended 200 feet, which would require median reconstruction and remove approximately 50 degrees.

On the westbound, the left hand would need to be extended 400 feet, and it is not feasible due to the expensive change in roadway geometry.

Additional location on the corridor include at L Street, Wismond, Lock Avenue, and State Rail 237.

Not by 7.

In summary, the study concluded that a road diet would result in deficiency of the intersections level of service, increased intersection vehicle queuing, and reduce corridor capacity.

Additionally, implementing the road diet would cause the loss of capacity, which will impact the operation of all the SWE arterials and the emergency response time for medical police and fire services.

For the above reasons, staff does not recommend implementing a road diet for me to field over the next slides.

We walk you through segment by segment showing the proponent movements and cross-section along the corridor.

Thank you.

So the existing corridor conversions can be spotted into two distinct segments, segment A from Red to Wisman, and segment B from Worksman to R.

Segment A excluding the segment over state route 85 comprises mostly multifamily homes.

Two travel lanes in each direction, plus two pipelines on all sides, which becomes parking lanes on weekends and after 7 pm on weekdays.

We received from the BPAC last week, included advancing the parking removal now or as soon as possible rather than waiting for design approval.

This would require consideration from City Council.

We'll talk about more of that feedback section.

To implement a full-time platform bike facility on the off-street parking, will need to be remote at all times.

In addition to vertical elements, green bike lane striping on the right on the right, there will be added to conflict zones such as driveways and bus stops.

Within the segment, the uh state route 85 overpass is approximately 1000 feet long, it's shown here on the right, and spans across state route 85.

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

No sidewalk on the southbound side.

Staff evaluated closing the sidewalk app along the south side of the bridge over State Route or 85, including the feasibility of converting the existing bike lane to a shared multi-use path for eastbound bicyclists and pedestrians.

Staff met with California Department of Transportation Caltrans, which owns the bridge, Caltrans staff confirmed alterations to the overpass, including but not limited to modifying the media and adjusting lane widths will require a comprehensive review and approval process, which would cause the project to miss the OBAC 3 funding grant deadline.

This separate project will be proposed for additional design and construction funding in the next municipal year for the current project and proposed layout of the bridge overpass will be similar to the ACC condition as shown.

The top diagram here is the existing condition, and the one otherwise is the proposed section.

So the next segment segment is the Wisman Road to Bernardo.

This segment comprises mostly commercial buildings, two travel lanes, and a full-time class two bike lane direction, left turn lanes and center landscaping median islands.

This segment crosses the BTA light rail near Logue Avenue and runs underneath State Route 237 with on-ramp and off-ramp entrances.

A new crosswalk at the BTA light rail crossing to connect to the existing multi-use path was considered as a project element.

This project will require CPUC approval and VTA coordination due to the proximity of VTH rounds.

Given this context, it will be addressed as the similar to segment improvements include class four bike facilities with buffers and vertical delineators to provide separate separation between bike lanes and travel lanes.

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

Typical intersection improvements include high visibility crosswalks, advanced stop bars, accessible pedestrian signals, ADA compliant firm brand upgrades, and a note here I have the directional programs design will be evaluated or feasible.

The diagram we show here shows ADA curve ramps that can point it to the middle of the intersection.

The design standard is to provide directional curve brands where practical and feasible.

Thank you very much.

Last week on April 29th and receive the following recommendations.

Remove Hopkins and convert the exit and pop time by land to full-time ahead of project design completion.

Um feasible, but it will require formal notification and council approval.

Considering available staffing and block in both transportation plan and street maintenance.

Delivery will be toward the end.

2023.

The second one, the second feedback, is implementing road diet or middle field.

It's not recommended by the the road as study.

Also, implementing road app would require the project redesign, which would cause the city to miss the orbit fee for funding application deadline of January 2027 and potentially and we'll lose the product.

The third one is considered including protect the intersection design.

Middle field is a VTA route and intersect with drug routes including more thing.

That will require wider that would be wider once.

Protect the intersection is not recommended due to the need to buy a listener right away and reconstruct the intersections.

Which will have to impact on the project cost schedule.

The next fact is to close the cyber gap on the south side of the state file for pass.

Not feasible to be included as part of this project due to the expensive calculus permitting review and approval process.

However, it will be evaluated by a future project, which will be a proposal for funding in the next fiscal year.

And last is considered 10 or 10 half-foot wide vehicle lens.

Are not city standards?

City follows next to recommendation with 11 foot land based on the type of roadway middlefield is a transit corridor.

So staff will incorporate feedback and synthesis feedback and proceed with the design.

CF3 will assist with initiating the design coordination with CalTax, subject to Calder's approval.

We anticipate the design completion by end of 2026, and with construction in some of the 2027.

So we have the entire presentation last time.

So I had a question about when we move from class to bike place to fast pool, do we see a whole difference for that?

Or do they tend to be the same if it's not possible?

This is usually situation by situation.

So if the corridor stays the same, we're not changing anything.

It's 14 feet.

It's like very um generous.

You will see a lot of speeding in those lines.

If you take that and put three or four feet into a buffer, you've got a fast four bike lane, you've got a buffer, and you've got a narrower driving.

So those in those situations, the driver feels like they have a lot more restriction.

So the natural tendency is to slow down.

I think one sometimes when the topic of the roadway is not really just like the speed, but um, but I was just looking here, looking over the staff report, it seems like the you know, another issue in addition to the funding is just like the volumes, which we're seeing people use their vehicles a lot in one middle field.

I agree that correctly, it sounds like we have literally thousand almost two thousand vehicles.

Yeah, that's that's correct, yes.

Okay, and if we went to the road tide it would go down if it cut it in half.

Is that what I think?

I just want to make sure I read everything.

Yeah, the capacity of the road would go down okay um and right now do we I'm so sorry I didn't think of these questions prior so how many feet is middle field now like the two lanes of the widths of the lines if we use the software I'm just wondering if I could expect you can do some math for us and figure out if we can space that's why I leave it to um professional um but I that was just one of the things yeah so segment B show the existing two travel lanes on the top so um the widths vary but it's about uh eleven and eleven so that's about 22 feet lane on on the one direction and then yes each lane and excuse me 22 feet total 11 and 11 and then 12 and 11 in the other direction so if you do a little bit of map on the bottom we propose giving some of that to a buffer area about three feet and then um the existing bike lane going from about eight feet down to about six feet so taking some of the area from the bike lane and putting it into the buffer but each of the lanes would be reduced down to the city standard about 11 feet.

Okay another question so I think we council had looked at this project originally as like one project but as a result it sounds like there may be three projects coming out of it which is this project which we can use the funding a segment over 85 and then the basically the the VTA CPU C part and we TBD on um when those two new projects segments would be determined that would come back to council as part of this or as a mid-year total hi good evening at a rango director um thank you for the question um so as far as timing um I can give you approximate timing based on um clear thing to do so um we're hoping to do a mid year for the we understand the important six point on the one um so we're looking to get this through design which is we expect to be done at the end this year and then how do council at that time frame do make your capital project to fund um to get funded and then we can proceed with that um and then as far as the um the size yeah the crossing at the uh black rail tracks we had discussed you know timing um but we we evaluate that as part of uh project or separate we we need that we come back to you okay great thank you um okay um I had other questions another like it was yeah come back we'll figure your trigger your trigger again no no retrigger my mind yeah because I started thinking so I've submitted a few questions and um I I appreciate everybody's patience you have a lot of you have been looking at this since 2022 so I'm coming in with this with fresh eyes and not hearing a lot of the background so when I asked a lot of questions was to just give me some background information get a sense of what's going on and so every time I look at bike line it's always asked what what's and I listened to EPC and I didn't hear one person ask about how many people are asking why do I think I pit where asked about people who uh riding on land and they came back with some information from 2018.

Has there been any uh data collected or counting graphic counts since 2018 for bike riders on this roads?

Not to my knowledge.

Um so the transportation planning is usually responsible for the transportation and evaluation parts of this.

Um projects that are identified as priorities come out of planning studies like vision zero and access to committee and the future I have the transportation planning.

Those projects are identified as priorities, and then they're both delivery.

So as part of those studies, they identified this.

I think the high priority uh collision network, high injury network was identified as well as the performance of the road in terms of strats.

So that's sort of got me my next question.

You answered it.

Ridership is not a criteria, these other items are criteria for the speed.

That's right.

Um, and I asked another question that was these answers are great, and I appreciate your staff.

Whoever did it, uh they were hopefully they were straightforward questions.

Someone can bang it up.

So short time you guys didn't.

I appreciate oh, you're your whole department, there's a really nice one.

Uh I had another question.

So, scope of the open low bag three granite.

And I asked uh one of the questions.

What was the upgrade on Black Lane's glass requirement requirements?

And your response was the upgrades were included.

It didn't really answer the question.

So was there an option, or is that part of the criteria of other things that the class will be the problem?

So we proposed class four as part of our application, and the obey criteria scores the applications based on uh the element the project elements and the benefits to that.

So they saw the class fours and they gave it a score, and that's how we were awarded.

Okay.

Um, uh, you guys answered that.

I mean, I have some comments going forward, but well, let me ask you this.

They're easy.

There wasn't a response.

You sent out 1700 postcards, and I asked what was the expected turnout.

I noticed there was 20 responses and eight people in person.

So uh 1700, we got 28 responses.

That's I couldn't give you an answer at all.

Okay, I know.

I can't really give a good answer now in terms of return.

So if I was a surveyor in a holster, I would have that.

It's just uh I'll bring that up in comments.

Um, okay, there's another thing.

So I know that's it.

You get a good job.

What are a lot of questions?

Very good answers.

Good questions.

That trigger your question?

No, okay.

Well, I'll have you can be kids.

I'll ask if you want to see if so tell me a little more because many members of the I'm gonna ask mostly questions that members of the public fast.

Um so I see you reducing lanes from uh 11 and a half to 12 to 11 feet, and then people have said that also sometimes 10 feet is the if you used to people claim it's been used on Al Camino Real.

I'm not double check to see if they're if they're right, um, and then I think in the presentation you just gave, you said we're not doing that because corridor of this type, we don't go down lower than 11, but it also later in the it says we'll review that during the design standard review.

So can you just give me a little more information on when you go down to 10?

I like that you, oh it's the comment, but I like that you're steadily adding them to the buffer, and maybe someday they go down further, the buffer will become something else.

But um, but yeah, can you tell me a little more about what you think about 10 feet in various places and why you choose?

So let's talk about let's start with Al Camino Rean.

So it's a major corridor, lots of lots of different types of traffic.

Um, and my understanding from the Caltrans design was it was designed for most of the corridor, one of the 11th lane, and a 10 10 and a half foot lane.

So 11-foot lane is closest to the curve, that's where all the buses are, 10 and a half foot is right next to it.

On pinch points.

There probably are areas that might that ten and a half might have had to go lower, but that's how it was designed.

So the feedback that we've gotten from our traffic team is that that could be very, very challenging on basically a box truck.

Yeah, you mean on middle.

Well, in terms of feedback of all the net, the the 10 and a half foot lane on El Camino now can't be a challenge.

When you have a box truck next to the um next to the bus, it feels like a very uh very tight corridor.

Most people navigate it.

I don't know if there's been an up to uptick in volitions, but that's been the feedback.

So the feedback from that is we want the city standard to be 11.

Um the second half of your question regarding the design standard is that that is a CIP project that everyone on council is very enthusiastic about, heard that uh last month.

Um, so as part of that, we'll be looking at and codifying the the width of the streets based on type of streets, so arterials, corridors, um, residential areas with a lot of transit will get different lane treatments.

Okay, thank you.

I have a much better understanding now.

There's it is that way at controls on alchemy know there may be problems you're evaluating and community.

Okay, um, and then uh so VPAC said, could you advance?

Could you uh do the parking removal ahead of the project is the answer?

Is the answer yes to that or maybe?

So the answer is yes.

I think we put a couple caveats there because our transportation planning can is reduced to staff.

Um our street management, backlog, particularly more backlog.

So we kind of put that in terms of like, yes, we can do it, but the expectations would be it would be a meeting, yes, according to your staff demands.

Um again, heterango.

Um I just want to reinforce what uh is all as mentioned.

Like it really is staff resources.

Um we have a lot of we're trying to get through the the efforts.

Um we're very diligent, we're being very um aggressive in our our project delivery process.

Um and this effort requires us to notify all the residents, be sure that there's adequate time, and then there is an ordinance that doesn't need to get it in the conference for this as well to officially remove the um we're supportive of it because of course it's very in line with the project, it just requires staff resources uh towards the end of this calendar year.

Okay, thank you.

So thinkable about it comes on staff resources.

And uh then I'm gonna ask a couple questions that a bunch of members of public wrote a group letter, and I'm gonna ask some questions from there.

Um one question they asked was um, can you evaluate a middle feet?

I got these in the course.

Yes, okay.

I'm just understanding them now.

Maybe you've read them.

Can you evaluate a middle field road diet as part of the current resurfacing project?

I just seems that's the question.

Just like sure.

How do how does the city approach looking at a roof?

That might be helpful.

Okay.

Is that okay?

Yeah.

I love questions that piggyback.

Well, and it's not just, I think it's just not as the middle field, but if like we were to like look at other variations, I just want to understand that process.

Yeah, so there's a there's a there's a couple things that happen, but during the planning process, during the XSMB or transportation plan, um, or other areas, uh other uh planning projects, uh, planning exercises such as that, they will look at the corridor use, they will look at the physical constraints of the corridor that curved and curb, with and they'll look at current uh uses, see where the bike uh tree and activity is now, um, and then they'll recommend corridors for evaluation.

So they kind of just look at the demand side first, and then from there, the next trigger is really a traffic demand study, to really evaluate what kind of how it's used now in terms of capacity so we've done that now with I think the example where it's in front of us with middle field is a really good one it has look at the road capacity the viewing impacts and the level of service thank you for the different intersections um so that's typically what we'll do is we'll bring on a traffic consultant to evaluate those kind of modeling results after we've identified a quarter that's a good candidate for at least looking at a road diet.

So going back to your question can we do an evaluation of a road diet for middle field is that the question is so I'm not sure the answer is yes the answer is yes the answer is here we are um so if there's other like if there's questions specific to the to the study I'm happy to answer yeah I thought that these were uh let's see um these seem to be more comments on things so if they are more questions then um we're here if you're gonna be in questions um okay so those are my questions are there any other questions that are triggered okay then we will move on now to uh public comment on this item uh if you are here in person to make a comment please uh the lecture and it or online yeah hi I'm Valerie Fenneck I am a member of the performing arts committee I'm not speaking for that committee I'm neither speaking for my employer either former member of BPAC um I see familiar faces here um I I bike walk commute and drive on this corridor uh lots of cyclists that that right now the part time parking is a real problem because particularly as it gets dark um it and particularly as it gets dark people just start parking there in the winter it makes it very dangerous particularly in the rain incredibly dangerous it's a regular part of my when I am able to mute my bicycle physically able that is part of my regular commute um I heard that one segment is at capacity would be at capacity with a road diet why wasn't that considered uh queuing could that be handled with signal changes uh what other things can we do that maybe isn't a full road diet of removing a lane but instead making the lanes narrower where it is safe to do so um I live on one of Mountain View's famous narrow streets fire engines still get down there trucks uh we have bought big giant pit that's a separate topic where somebody's dug out their entire plot of their house but uh they got the land movers in no problem um I noticed the level of service presented here was only for cars I bike I ride I drive this segment almost every day I walk on this area I also bike ride and walk on California Avenue and love the road diet on there love it uh the residents are starting to really love that as well um there's a lot of residents here highway 85 overpass people are using both sides of that bridge uh you can see the dirt um where there's no grass growing because you can walk there um it is also near the dollar store there uh in that segment which is a very popular stop for a lot of families where they get out there it is the local store um but I would also like to urge the CTC um thank you for serving here today but also to consider a reduced speed limit um more urgently and removing that part-time parking.

Palo Alto has reduced their speed limit on middle field to 25 miles per hour.

I drive that uh several times a week and it used and I put my bike on it.

Used to be people went 45 50 miles per hour, and now they go 30 35.

So, you know, it's not 25, but it is slower and they first maybe um so you mentioned that it would be that uh middle field would be at capacity or fairly congested if road diet were being implemented.

Would that like if there was congestion, would people that bike, or would they go to other roads, or how would that work?

Hello, my name's uh council transit committee.

My name's Greg Colinato.

My house is at the corner of Leslie Court and Middlefield.

I've lived on the corridor for 16 years.

One of my bedroom windows looks at middlefield, and the other one has glorious view of the Dollar Tree.

Okay, as we saw in Mr.

Nguyen's sixth slide.

Uh it's strange but true, but Middlefield is the only way you can get from one side of Mount View to the other, east to west on one road.

None of the other roads go through.

That in itself to me is a reason to upgrade this bike path this bike lane from class two to class four so that you can get through the city on a road.

Uh I am a cyclist myself and I often use middlefield.

I like to address Mr.

I maybe member McAllister's concerns.

The traffic count on this road is not very high, but that's because biking in that bike lane sucks.

So, like you can't just use the count and say no one uses it because it's dangerous to use this lane because there's always cars parked in it and always people popping out of driveways.

So you're not gonna know the actual natural traffic level in that bike lane until normal people feel safe biking.

So I mean, I get that the and by the way, you should count more than every year.

So, like if the last count was 2018, we should update that for sure.

Uh, but I think that you'll see a lot more traffic in this lane when it's safe to be in.

Um, there's I think that you should probably uh go to full-time bike lanes when you can staff resources permitting.

I also think that a road diet would be good, although it doesn't seem consistent with the fund the deadlines for this project.

So maybe later do a road diet because there are a lot of drag racers on middle field.

And I uh I know this because they comes right in my window when I'm sleeping.

Okay, I'd also like to just point out that if the bus lanes, if the bus is park in the bike lane, that makes this lane a lot less appealing.

You have to go around a bus lane.

Around a bus, which is not safe, maybe put the bus stops on the right lane.

Thank you.

I'm doing more in person.

Thank you.

I I just want to mention really quickly that the um audio is pretty poor, particularly for Ellen and also for Allison, might be your distance from the microphone for the system, but kind of hard to hear everything you're saying.

Um, see what I can get into this amount of time.

Uh April Webster's letter is key to the things that we've been talking about out here, and so I won't repeat what show what she said.

Um there's a lot in there to consider.

Um, but the the ATP work out of transportation plan should be uh played into this project as much as possible.

Is one comment.

Uh we hear VMT and levels of service, but we're interested in seeing VMT emphasized for application to this project and any project like this, really.

Um multi-mode is the direction for active transportation and all of our projects in the city should reflect that.

Um the most important comment from me that you might not hear from anybody else tonight is about the abrupt curb at the north end of the path between Wisman Station going past Pyramid Park and uh Middlefield.

The east-west projects will expand the amount of connectivity from those using the path today, including to access the park and the adjacent light rail stations.

So uh Google was going to fix that.

They had plans for it so the city could I believe just leverage what Google's already put together in order to make that happen.

Um really quickly with the time I have left.

Lane width reductions and green complete streets are important.

Uh all the BPAC input from their meeting, including community comment, very important, very detailed, and um hope that you will take that into account as much as you can.

Um what jumps out to me is that the definition of the project probably should have been fleshed out earlier because we're seeing the limitations and um uh risks of compromising the funding that we don't want that to happen.

Um then no, I think I'm out of time.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you.

Are there more virtual speakers?

Uh Sylvia Paymer.

Hi, um, I also second everything in um April's letter from that included green spaces.

Um sorry, Celia Paymer, Resident of Mountain Viewer member of Greenspaces.

Um I also just wanted to add on a few things I noticed during the meeting um today.

I was sort of surprised to hear that there was somehow a road diet would necessarily make it necessary to increase pavement space.

Seems like if we're going to a road diet, one of the lanes could become a left-hand turn lane as necessary.

Um then um I do want to hear more about the timeline and if it's possible to get an extension so that we can get better results, because you know, we don't do these very often, and we're putting a lot of money into it, and so it should be what we want.

I don't want to delay, obviously, um, but if it's something that we can maintain the majority of the timeline and get you know 100% better results, that would be great.

Um sorry, I lost my notes.

Um I did do want to say like I would like to see some more kind of quick build options so that we could get stuff in and then um maybe if the geometry is not quite right, it could be adjusted.

Um I do see on El Camino that we've seen the traffic slow down and the buses do still fit.

Um, and so it would be nice to either narrow streets or if we went to a road diet, then we wouldn't need to narrow the lane and everyone would still fit.

Um so that seems like a good option.

Um I do think it's ironic that we spent the first half of this meeting talking about how we would encourage private developers to encourage mode shift, and then now we're not following suit.

So I do think we should kind of do what we preach and look for that mode shift and try to reduce vehicle miles traveled and increase our active transportation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mary Daniel, large section of the will have protected icons and parking removed.

We were just reminded that they'll be your voice spotty.

Maybe you can start over again.

Can you start our two minutes?

Okay, start over again now and see if we can.

Yes, I think now.

Try again.

Your voice is a little spouty, but maybe we'll bear with it.

Mary, are you there?

Yes.

Okay, can you start?

Oh, I changed my microphone.

Still not working.

Okay, maybe we can come back to you, Mary.

Is there someone else?

Give Mary some time.

April, Leipzig.

April.

Thanks.

Can you hear me?

Yes, perfect.

Um, so I was really wanting to talk about moving forward and a process and how do we, you know, the implementation.

Be a little louder.

Can you hear me?

I'm talking I'm yelling.

Can you hear me?

Okay, keep yelling.

Can you restart my time?

Sure.

Thank you.

There's been issues with the sound recently.

Okay, I'm ready.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

I just want to start saying I was I'm really disappointed about not being able to focus on what I wanted to tonight in my comments, um, and that's implementation and how we move from policy and plans into delivery.

But I instead uh find myself needing to focus on a few claims I've heard tonight.

Um, first uh staff um continuing this that continuing to evaluate a road diet could require design a redesign and jeopardize a project timeline.

Um that raises a really important question.

Why was the either a non-road uh road diet design advanced at the same time while the traffic analysis was underway, we only did the non-road diet design.

Um traffic analysis is really only useful if you do it early enough to actually shape the project.

Um if it happens uh if only one design direction is advanced, then the public input um and even the analysis really doesn't have ability to affect the outcome.

Which then um, you know, talking about that whole process um and also on grant timing.

I wanted to jump onto that.

Sorry.

Um, I don't think we should assume the OBAG 3 deadline prevents design changes without until we confirm with MTC, VTA and Caltrans.

Um I work with MTC on one of their committees, and I spoke with them back in March 2025.

They told me the OBIC 3 deadline should not prevent the city from re-evaluating or and or modifying the project design to address public input.

Um, we should check and see if the flexibility still applies.

It's a year later, but we knew a over about a year ago, and staff was added to that thread in June.

Um, then uh in terms of NACTO, I'm reading from the urban bikeway design guide.

Um, on the designing protected bike lanes chapter, it says motor vehicle lanes should be narrowed to support the widest feasible bike lanes at posted speeds of 35 miles per hour or less.

General purposes travel lanes can be 10 foot wide and still support transit and truck uses.

Where transit or heavy trucks are rare, a travel lane of nine feet isn't is acceptable width for a general purpose travel lane.

Okay, so now the time is up.

Thank you.

Okay.

Hi, uh Cliff Chambers, resident of Mountain View.

I just want to reiterate a few things that have been said in both April's letter and James Casumel had wrote a very thoughtful and great letter, and I hope you've all read it.

First off, with the OBAG deadline, professionally I did a lot of work and contracts with MTC and they regular regularly extended contracts, changed it.

If there's community input, they make changes.

So please look into that.

And if you if staff hasn't asked them, I hope that uh staff asks staff to check with MTC to make sure that it is indeed a constraint.

Um I think the whole corridor needs to be thought of because that it is a whole quarter in the draft um uh ATP plan.

Uh class four along all of Middlefield Road.

One of the things that does the whole discussion of the road diet focuses on all the constraints and it doesn't talk about the benefits, the safety benefits, the reductions of speed.

That is why we did the California streak because of a fatal accident.

There are a lot of benefits of road diets that are not covered in in the staff report.

I am all for along the entire corridor having full-time bike lanes in the interim before it even goes to class four.

It's extremely dangerous.

If you go out on Crittenden Middle School, students learn how to ride the bikes in those on those lanes, and then on the weekends they have to cut into the main traffic lanes.

It's dangerous.

Somebody's gonna get killed.

There's somebody mentioned earlier that middle field is a drag street.

It's true.

I live right on middle field.

People oftentimes 50 55 miles an hour between uh ranksdorf and old middlefield we need to reduce the speeds we need to reduce the speed limit if we can't have a road diet we need to think about speed limits.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jesse?

Jesse you're up.

Hey, thank you.

Oh Jesse, can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay great.

So I bike on this road and um I just want to agree with everyone else who's been saying it's it's a dangerous road to bike on particularly when people are parking in the bike lane all the time when they're not supposed to be so that that's an easy fix to make that bike lane permanent.

I support um narrowing the lanes reducing the speed limit having a permanent protected bike lane all that good stuff.

And it's just a little disappointed to hear that the vehicle miles traveled is um apparently given so much weight and it's kind of like the end all deal and um yeah it'll be more congested if we do a road diet but do we know how many people are going to switch to biking how many more people will walk on the street and how much safer it's going to be I really think human lives should come first over you know some congestion and people will reroute to other roads as well.

So I know we've had uh some really great protected bike lanes put in on El Camino Real and on California Street and I'm wondering has the city done a full before and after to see you know how much um bicycle and pedestrian activity goes up after those changes because I haven't seen it I know it's a significant increase but I don't know if it's you know are people riding their bikes 100% more or 200% more do we have the count and could that be used as kind of a an estimate to say like oh yeah we're going to um through the road diet or through you know whatever measures we take fewer people will end up driving here but we can expect approximately you know this much of an increase um in people walking and biking and using uh active transportation so I really think that should be kind of the standard is to consider the the benefits um not just the downsides to road diets thank you thank you.

Mary Daniel Mary you're up again hope this works better oh sounds better okay so I am uh happy to see about uh the more protected bike lanes and that parking is going to be removed um but we're just reminded that middle field's a high injury network and I think we all realize that a lot of people drive much faster and that this endangers all members of the public including the drivers cyclists and walkers so if we sent officers out all the time to enforce it that would be expensive um there's a much lower cost method that we've been hearing um that reliably reduces speeding and that's to narrow the lane with so um that would be a permanent corrective action that could be implemented with without too much cost via paint.

Cal trans is demonstrated on ECR that 10 and a half foot wide lanes are workable.

I would suggest that the primary questions to ask about the 10 and a half foot wide lanes on El Camino.

Are not is not the question is not whether box trucks feel crowded next to buses, but instead whether speeding's been reduced and whether the total number of accidents and the severity of accidents have been reduced on El Camino.

So I think one lane um on each side of the road and in the new design should be reduced at least to 10 and a half or 10 feet to encourage vehicles to drive at the speed limit and create more space for bike lanes.

I think more bike lane space is gonna um bike lane space is going to grow in importance as more bikes and especially e-bikes start using these lanes because bikes are going to need to be able to pass each other.

They're gonna need space for passing.

Also um I think a road diet should be considered at least for the overpass on the street in Palo Alto reduces down to one lane and traffic moves along just fine there.

So I think uh road diet uh as you're approaching and leaving the overpass is perfectly reasonable to uh to consider thank you.

Thank you.

All right there are more speakers.

One more virtual one more virtual and then we'll take one right tracy.

Yes can you hear me now sorry of course now my dogs are gonna bark because they heard you uh I just wanted to say that I support the letter uh by April and the comments by the public I do live uh on Farley Street which is right off of middlefield I could be going up and down middlefield on my bike but I do not feel safe enough to do it so I definitely support a road diet um I even my grandson uh works over in Charleston Plaza is little after school job and I basically have to drive him there one time I was busy and I was like uh can't you ride your bike?

It's not very far and he's like uh he wrote it and he's like I'm never doing that again so and I can't ask him then I paid more attention to it even I I really can't ask him to do that.

So we're doing extra trips up and down middlefield I would love it if it extended further I know it's not part of this project but I just want to say that I do support having safer bike lanes uh when I lived in Palo Alto that was one of the things I did love that Bryant Street was really a place where I can go up and down the city without really a lot of worries about cars but here in Mountain View I don't have as many I I really appreciate that your thinking and planning towards it and uh thank you.

Thank you.

Any more virtual speakers is that true uh I think this is our last in-person speaker.

And I think one thing is if if we could reconsider the question around the road diet a way to think about it might be what are the alternatives that car commuters have and what are the alternatives that bike and pedestrian have.

Right now car commuters have central expressway and they also have 101 not far from a car perspective bicyclists is you know mentioned by this other cyclist don't have another alternative for going this direction any kind of a safe way.

So if we're gonna like look at this question around because I think there's a question of saying like if we do a road diet in for commuting through volume but that might just move that volume over the central expressway or to one on one which are both reasonable I think commuting options for people trying to go any kind of a distance bikes don't have any kind of option and on the pedestrian piece I would love you guys to think about that overpass.

I know there was a question around timing but you know if folks look at the situation right now Stevens Creek is a very common walking and biking path and it empties out where there is no pedestrian overpass option holds 85 and there's even no good way to cross field anywhere near there.

And so we are seeing people walking um on a very unsafe portion of middle field there.

So I think like that's something to just bring back it to make sure that the pedestrian option there for being able to cross over 85 is a solid option given how well it connects up with other fantastic pedestrian options.

Thank you.

Okay, so last check.

I think we're done with speakers.

Do you see any more?

So questions and the questions that have come up and comments.

Or committee members.

So sorry.

Okay.

So one of the things that came up was this green street complete green street checklist, and if that would be possible for future projects, does that have an answer to that question?

But I don't know if I saw that question before, but it came in as part of the letter.

And I think that I think that is a technical technical.

So that was actually filled out in 2022 when we apply for the grant, and that went through the VPAC process written by BRAC at that time.

So all projects going forward would do that same same effort at the time of the kind of an issue.

Whether they're regional or not.

Actually, all projects with regional funding will go through that.

Typically, our larger projects, larger corridors are the ones with our regional funding.

So it's California or Monte or this one.

Smaller projects like a resurfacing would not be subject to this because we don't usually go those more street maintenance for now or residential streets.

So we we we are in compliance with the street uh with the complete streets policy going forward if if there are updates.

One part of the question is that the complete streets checklist today looks different than it did in 2022 because it's frequently updated.

Just to follow up, um, for some Gonzalez very well comprehensively addressed that.

Um I think um sort of reading between the lines a little bit is do we apply this to all projects?

Yes, I think that would I think that's where you're gonna get into.

Um, so to answer your question on that, um it depends on the type of project.

When we're to identifying a complete street project, it does make sense to apply it.

So I know that we have um the next one that we're looking at which is rank store, um, so that we would apply it there, but it it isn't applied to every single project as it depends on the scope that we're doing.

Sometimes we're not doing an integer corridor, we can do a portion.

We may be just doing just general maintenance.

Um, but if we are have identified a corridor that it absolutely makes sense to, then I agree, so it's fine.

Okay, so right now the ones I'm remembering are California Middlefield Redstore.

Yeah, but those those three are the ones that I recall off the top of my head that are like complete green street projects.

Oh, yes, yes, how can I forget?

Okay, always okay.

Um there was some public comment about quick build, and I was just wondering if that kind of address that is that's um I think that there was an idea that we could link it to the active transportation plan that's you know in progress, but um how we might be able to add a build program now.

I don't I don't know.

I'm trying to understand, but that sounds like part of the question from Red Down on my job.

I'll try to tackle the first part here.

Well, but can we understand the implications of what a quick build program is on the city or some context to that, right?

I'm getting this um from your question, how can a quick build be implemented?

What's that technical framework like?

Um, I think I'll start the first half and then maybe if uh directory has anything to add.

Um as we've are stepping back and looking at the old department, um, we are splitting off the transportation planning and engineering discussion.

Um that may be a good opportunity to really um get the cohesion between the planning uh texture planning and traffic engineering.

They already are well communicated well together, um, but under one division, that would really help.

And I think at that time we can evaluate what a program looks like for quick buildings.

How can we implement that?

How can we engage our street maintenance folks or other vendors to identify kind of level of quickness?

Can I think back off that and ask a question?

Um, so when you're talking about how to implement quick bills, is VPAC asks, can you advance the parking removal and uh put in 24-hour bike lanes ahead of the rest of the project?

In essence, isn't that a quick bill sort of a request?

Or is it quick build something other than quick build really to be something that you're implementing in the field?

Um that is really a new improvement, something that changes.

Um, I guess in theory, we are changing your parking restriction, but I'm envisioning you know an intersection improvement, uh, a corridor section improvement that you're adding something that is more related to example quick bills.

Okay, if you did that, did eliminated the parking and in a 24-hour bike lane with plastic followers, then is that a quick bill?

That could be considered, yes.

Yeah, and again, once um, you know, we are we reorganize the public works department and have this transfer for the engineering revision.

I think that's an element that they would put into reference.

How can we program look like uh what kind of resources are you doing?

Okay, sorry for the yes, okay.

So I'm now remembering, and this is kind of in context to a project that council saw recently.

So um this not only do we have pedestrians and cycleists uh as users, this is the VTA bus route that's and so um, and I recall the conversation about the duckout, particularly in front of um the one upcoming um project.

So as we are doing improvements along middle field, and apologies if I missed it in any of the uh attachments, I don't recall.

How will we be addressing the safety of the new class four bike lanes with the existing this existing BTA button route?

Hopefully that's it.

Um so I think you're referring to the 490 East Mill project at the at the corner of Alice, um yes, like that's just one example of what a bus stops along that corridor.

Sure.

So I think um for just the bus stops along the corridor, I'm gonna let Junior Gonzalez um kind of initiate that response and then I can speak to 49th.

Sure.

So the project is the 35%.

Um we're moving into the 65%, we're just initiating our conversations in Caltrans.

So there is time to look at those treatments and see if there's ways to improve those.

But at this point, we would be creating a we would call a conflict zone.

So all of the green striping that you see typically see in intersections or on driveways, that would be the same type of treatment you would see at a bus stop.

So um bus drivers, vehicle uh drivers and cyclists are all kind of cued that this is a conflict zone.

Um so the other recommendation that was evaluated was could you have in-lane stops for for buses?

Um, in some cases, those are those are practical and feasible, and a lot of other cases you need additional right-of-way, you have to kind of find a way to scoop the bikes and the pedestrians behind the bus for those to look.

So it's a lot more work to uh to make those work.

So we can evaluate uh case-by-case basis to look to see if there's opportunities there, but right now we have the conflict striving in the lane and in the bus stop area, um, so we can essentially just a week.

Is um when this comes, sorry, before I forget again.

When this comes back to council, might staff be able to work with mutate to let us know just how many stops there are along that code for the middle field portal, like road directions.

I just think that would be like helpful context for us to understand.

Just yes, okay, great.

Yes, and then to your question regarding specifically to the development at 490's middle field.

So we expect that um the middlefield complete streets project is going to be constructed before the development.

So that as part of the development process, um, we do a pretty detailed view of development projects.

Part of that is to involve sort of the sidewalk or bike lane, travel lanes, uh, any modifications.

They will be.

So we're coordinating with the developer, but there's gonna be a duckout associated with that.

And so once we like uh principal generation, but we'll evaluate those we use and the proper application of bike lane treatments and we would do that.

That would be an effort to make sure that it's safe, um provides enough disability, um, and that the treatments work flying there make the most sense, so we do that with the development application process.

They can submit the plans, we reveal it, we'd make sure it can the middle field street process with me, and then they're coming in and basically revise that this is okay.

Yeah, I I think I'm less concerned with that project and more about if that would exist along the court along the corridor.

If we would see you know, maybe other redevelopments do that same thing, and if that's kind of where it was like that.

Thank you.

I think that um and then um one of one of the things that I had brought up when we're looking at that project is that aren't a lot of uh cues on what the speed limit is, and so in I'm curious if, in addition to um removal of the parking prior to the complete street project going forward, if we could just add some more signage on what the speed limit is because I have lived at Moffat in Middlefield and now I live near Middlefield and Woodsman, and I do think a lot of the speeding is there are no signs.

I can walk from Ellis to Wisman and I don't even think there's a sign, at least on that right that right side.

Um I don't even know if there's a role that I don't know.

Yeah, so that whole yes, that whole block, which is very large, right?

Have no signage, and I think that's why people go 50 plus on that.

Is that something that staff could look at doing as a part if we go forward with the I think recommendation?

I would just ask colleagues that that would make sense.

Okay, great.

Sorry, to get into comments.

Do you want to straw or I don't know if there's any other questions, but those those are the ones that I'm now remembering.

Thank you, Chair for let letting me ask this with those comments.

You're on a roll.

Uh, what's the problem?

It's gonna go to council.

Is that yeah, I think um we need an option, we're just looking for people.

I think, yeah, um well, thank thanks, staff very much.

Um, thanks to the the residents in the community for the cut.

I think um one of the things that I that comes to mind is that we can move forward with the this version of the complete streets project, and it won't preclude us from looking in the future at a potential road.

I think that I'd love to see if the improvements that we make will help address the concerns that residents have about the user experience on middle field.

Um before moving to a road height.

Um I think when we have looked when the city tends to look at um what is the process called for the speed reduction?

Um the N TMP, yeah, there's um different levels with which there's different options with which we can choose, and I think there's different levers with which we trigger depending on what the issue is in the neighborhood.

And so I would see this as um complete street project is being kind of step one as of an improvement I think moving to from class two to class four um I think um we'll be able to remove that parking um immediately putting more signage all of those will be heavy improvements um to what exists now I'm um encourage that staff is already in my notes but at least for this the Caltrans segment it sounds like there's a path forward not too long after um the design moves forward for from design resort at this project for the project um while I'm concerned about the CPU C TA section I think the most immediate is just the middle hill corridor in general and then the the overpass oh over 85 um because I um I do see people scurrying across it it always makes my dummy churn um but there is an entrance on the side where there are an exit entrance on the side where the sidewalk is for the trail um so um I'm not sure which side if people are on the other side which how they're how they're getting up there because there's um no path on that side um but I think we're headed in the right direction um and I do feel like just because we don't have a a recent number for uh member McAllister of somebody who walks and runs in the area I am seeing more people out and I do see more development coming in and we have a new user who is um in in the space um on on Ellis and so I'm already seeing a lot of walking and talking meetings happening so I think the sooner we can make improvements um the better okay member McAllister.

Okay a little more uh not as just as you guys are gonna say I have this is fresh ice so I'm gonna probably be a little more pragmatic and more objective this project or the concept behind project I support not a road diet I had conversations with others that we are still a car centric and this is a regional quarter and yes we have we have El Camino we have central but those get bogged out because there's a lot of commerce we still need to have ways to get through highway 101 is always backed up but that's besides we have north corridors that we need to be very conscious about ramp roadmone San Antonio we have east like Questa we have El Camino we have middlefield and so we still need to be conscious that cars are not going away they're still here and when I bring up the numbers I always like to say what is the data to support these projects I see a lot of passion in people and their desire to put this in and every time I see public comment people say oh there's a lot of support for well of course you're gonna see a lot of support because these people are wanting these particular changes but we still have a silent majority out there that I sort of represent that this is a place I need to get point A to point B and I want to get there efficiently and safely.

I don't see a large percentage of the city bicyclists.

I understand that there may be three percent or people on bikes.

And so for us to spend money, which is limited for us for the city, we have a lot of projects that I want to see a demand.

I want to see a critical mass of people using it.

Yes spend millions of dollars on a project that only benefits so many few that that does.

I need to be able to feel better about supporting it.

They're talking about road diets.

There was just recently making the lane smaller.

Just recently, we had a report from the fire department.

The fire department said the response time is slowing down because of congestion.

And all of a sudden you're taking major artery, and you need to make the lane smaller.

And I think that's going to affect, and brought that was brought up by staff the emergency response for people to get there.

And we do not want to show any uh access that the public safety needs to get to certain areas.

Uh I did spend, I said I watched EPC uh VPAC and the comments, and uh they again they're passionate, but I want to see data.

Uh we saw data from 2018.

How many people are really using it?

We saw traffic accidents from 2019, and it's a high thing.

So, in some regards, I see people looking at this subjectively, not objectively.

And this is a broader for what I see throughout any project that comes along.

And so from 2019, yeah, 2020 to 2019, there's 26 accidents.

Well, people say it's getting worse.

Well, how can you say that unless you we have the data to support projects?

And that's my feeling how we go forward on it.

The green spee uh space, the ATP, all that stuff I support because that will enhance people, but that doesn't mean that just because you build it, they will come.

And um Valerie, don't hate me for this one.

I have a business right on El Camino.

I'm there all the time, and I do not see people using El Camino to what some people say expected.

So when I hear people say there's a lot of demand for it, let's hear the data.

How do you come up with that data?

They say that people will get to El Camino.

It's very, I would not ride on it, it's not a road.

So I'm always conscious of the amount when I hear input, and I asked the example of 1700 people.

Uh postcards were sent out, and we got 28 back.

You know, to me that's uh there's not a big demand, or there's a lot of notes, not that much interest.

So you always have to put in the back of your mind.

Yes, the people that are here that speak, they are want to be heard, they need to be safe, and I support Aqua I I appreciate their passion, but I don't see that they are the all end of people saying this we gotta do something.

So that was more of a broader context of what I was saying, and uh I appreciate staff looking at something and realizing maybe I would be one, but yes, this is a regional quarters put in there.

We still have to be considerate about people moving out because if we don't have these regional quarters, word to the young gentleman, persons came in where they're gonna go.

They're gonna go on side streets, and no doubt about they're gonna hit any way they can get there, and ways is gonna figure it out, and so we still need those major quarters to get people from Palo Alto to Sunnyvale, Los Altos, Los Apostles Hills to 101.

And they need to be able to keep moving.

We need to be able to have that service so that it helps our residents, I'll reach it.

So I support the recommendation, but those are things that I think we need to be aware of and considering.

Okay, thank you very much.

So my comments are I I agree with both my committee members.

People will continue to use cars, hopefully electric ones.

Yes, it's getting expensive.

Um, but uh although I think this is an area where uh people are gonna use use bikes more, and particularly, I particularly agreed with the speaker uh who talked about electric bikes, e-bikes, and kind of the change of nature.

I think that this is a corridor where those particularly might be used.

I think it's a little different than El Camino because Al Camino has this is kind of a lovely corridor in terms of it's not all the way there, but it has a lot of trees, it has the median.

I mean, I know El Camino has been too, but um it this has fewer lands than El Camino, and I feel like once uh you know, our whatever that was an unprecise plan, I was recused from is formally named North was Eastwood, was an unprecise plan.

When that gets further built out, I feel like you know, there's a large portion of this that's residential.

I feel like the use will change, and I I like that you're slowly moving, you know, a half foot here, a foot there into buffer lane, or whatever you call it buffer lane, but a buffer between the bikers and pedestrians and the cars.

So to me, the critical things for right now are you know, like BPAC said, um, moving up the um parking removal and possibly even putting in bollards.

I'm not a huge fan of bollards, but and I would like I really liked hearing from neighbors and what they envision.

I'm thinking this is a paving project, but we have our active transportation project, and I'm hoping we'll quickly make that a safer bike route, you know, with the constraints of staff, you know, as soon as we can, and migrate as much of the lane as we can.

I mean, I would say maybe do one, maybe you could consider one 10-foot car lane, migrate as much as we can into the buffer.

Um, and maybe at some point in the future, um, you know, because I'm I at some point in the future, maybe that buffer can become the green buffer, which I've seen in other places and wheels and photographs.

Um, this I drive to my mom's creek is is actually pretty similar to this, and it has a somewhat narrow green buffer for the bike lines.

Um, okay, so uh I also um let's see if so I would like to hear in the future from neighbors what they feel about the plastic bollards.

Um, many people feel they're not that safe and not that nice in front of residential places.

We get them in temporarily, what do people want?

You know, how do people feel about them?

And, you know, what kind of priority and where should you know a curb or green strip be?

Um, but that I think is more for the future.

I think that also I've heard a lot, and I agree with uh member Kamei about doing anything we can to um reduce the speeds, whether it be uh, and what is the speed supposed to be there?

I just looked it up and I just drove there and didn't see it.

35 right.

It's supposed to be 35.

Yeah, so when I went to planning school, we would talk about how streets read, which just means like when you're driving down the street.

Does it kind of say to you, do you kind of get the impression this is kind of like a freeway and I should be going 40 or 50?

And honestly, that is the feeling I get when I'm there.

So I want to give people the feeling that they should be going slower.

Um so eventually probably small green barriers is what I would want.

But I think that's more a thing for the ATV.

Then in addition, so I'm agreeing with previous members, you know, uh NBAC, which is advance the parking removal, given staff constraints, do anything we can to slow down uh speeds, and this is maybe more for the ATP, but look at possible green infrastructure and um and uh you know, maybe over time we will be able to have a road diet because everybody will be on e-bikes and on the mass transition, area.

Um, and then my last thing is that we did get a group letter from really a lot of people put a lot of work into it, and uh it has four or five requests, many of them about process, and we've kind of been bringing it up during this meeting.

Um, but some of it is about timing.

Um, and also uh as member committee said uh a complete green street screening checklist, and as Mr.

Gonzalez said, that's you know, maybe changing over time, so maybe so they're making some requests around that, and we just had the biodiversity plan, so sort of highlighting that.

Um I think we talked about the rest of the items there.

So those are all of my comments, and thank you for all of your work.

Thank you.

Any did that trigger any final comments for anyone?

I think uh when does it come to council?

So we'll take this to council when we have file um PSNA class and specifications.

So we won't see this until the fall or later.

Uh the last slide we showed.

Yeah, we'll be you'll be coming at some comment.

Is that all right?

We'll invite you back as as a special guest.

Uh we still need to go through the Caltrans process.

So they need to provide the design input um where there's processings with uh 85 and 37, and then also the um the opag 3 grant process has its own set of a set of uh checklists that we can set through.

That takes six months, right?

Then well, I would I think what could be helpful is just being able to share with um the community if they're staff bought on a green and complete street screening checklist for future projects and then um the quick build program.

I think that that will continue to come up, and so I would just ask if staff could maybe have some thought on it, you know put that on the agenda some report.

No, no, like I think as these projects come forward, but we're we're gonna probably that might be a continued discussion.

Yes, um, or maybe as part of the ATP, I don't know.

I I think it's just worth maybe pulling that thread a little bit and just where that might fit into all the other things that we're working on.

Would we leave it into ATP?

Um right now we have to keep it regional uh or in the size or scope, I don't know.

I just no, I like what you said that you know there's uh, you know, a few ideas and requests in the letter and so just um having some sort of response probably be appreciated.

Um, I think we're especially we I think I listed four or five complete street projects that the thing is looking at.

So as those conversations continue on too and we evaluate those, it just might be helpful for like as part of the conversation.

That's just yeah, no, I like that you brought that up again.

I think the community put a lot of work into that letter, and we brought it up in various ways tonight, but I think it will continue to come up.

So if you can take it as a um you know, guideline, set of guidelines for future projects because whether you do or not, I think it's gonna continue to come up.

So, member McCallister, you look sad.

No, I just have a lot of work.

I gotta get our easy guy, but I would be on green and I'll think green stripes, you're talking.

I know, education green, so I gotta change that.

But I thought this El Camino 10 years ago was considered gonna be a great model.

You look at El Camino now, it's a little hard to envision what they thought 10 years ago.

Another thing is what the objective is we used to have five bike shops and not, I don't think we have any now, right?

So just something to think about when the repair cafe that comes.

Yeah, yeah.

That's my thing.

Yeah, I know.

That's why I thought it would be but they come and they go around, or our bike rodeos brings the mobile bike.

But that's still inaugural.

Maybe that's when you consider the popularity, it's it's not the same.

No, I agree with you, and that's part of our previous, you know, maybe somebody should put a bike shop in the ground.

Well then uh we're looking at the e-bikes at our last meeting, and if e-black start using your protected bike lines, there's where you may have potential.

So, let's hear that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so I keep those are the final comments, and we will close this item.

And move on now to uh item number six, which is committee staff announcements updates, requests and committee report.

So first we have 6.1 is staff comments, um and uh Jennifer Hing from public director, we're five possible actually no staff comments.

Okay.

Um so now we move to staff to six point two, which is committee comments.

Do any committee members have comments or reports to share?

No, I thought you brought the photographs.

I just wanted to show you guys this.

We don't need to take uh staff together.

I just want you if there's someone you look at them and you see something that resonates with you, then we'll bring it back when there's uh somebody's gonna I just don't want to skip all the way to okay.

I have some action to so I have some I have some slides on this underway.

I like you sharing photos and I will be sharing mine at the next meeting.

Well, I think no pictures were and they will be pictures of uh the place I drive by that I think middlefield would photos are just examples, it's not just what you think your initial thought and this I guess maybe we can look at it and so now we're at the part of the agenda where members of the public joining us virtually or in person can provide comments on the staff and uh staff and council uh comments that we didn't have.

Um as a member of public, I'm very curious about the photographs.

Yeah, here you I will share like I've got talked about with I share my photographs with the remaining members of the public who are here if the remaining we were discussed, even though all things weren't they weren't discussed, well it's got not discussing, yes, so that the well it's a commitment where we're still doing committee reports or is it?

Yes.

Uh would you have uh new reports?

Also, no I just yes, well yeah, this is the part where the public gets to weigh in and and so we're weighing in that you did discuss pictures that you want to get here.

Unfortunately, only share in person I I said, okay.

Member McAllister mentioned these photographs, so they I think they are part of public records.

Yes, right.

And I guess I my question or comment is what's interesting about these pictures.

Just design.

Yeah, how things are evolved.

That's all.

Okay.

So these are pictures of recent um recent publishing projects.

Okay.

So are there any virtual speakers?

Okay, so um we will now move to item number seven, which is a journal.

Thank you so much for joining us.

Our next council transportation committee meeting will be on June 16th, 2026, and the meeting is adjourned at 8:47 p.m.

Thank you.