Good evening, everyone.

Welcome to the Council of Transportation Committee.

This is a hybrid meeting allowing public comment in person or virtually.

Instructions for addressing the committee.

Virtually maybe found on your postation.

Roll call.

The assistant public works director will take attendance viral roll call.

Welcome, member for me.

Here acting chairmanister.

Here we have a quorum.

Okay.

Thank you, sir, for that so function.

Oral communication.

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

Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for three minutes.

During the section, state law prohibits committee from acting on non-agenda items.

Any member of the audience like to provide comment on a non-agenda item?

We'll get you.

Would any member of the public like to uh if so please raise your hand there?

Or and we'll take and anybody virtually will zoom in.

Please raise your hand.

The staff will sway the timer on the screen.

And we will take.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, members of the committee, um, my name is Barry Burr, um, member of VTAC from about 2005 to 9.

Um, I'll specifically address the middle field proposal later, but in general, I'm seeing what I'm gonna call tragedies waiting to happen because of a vagueness in the definition of segregated or separated bike lanes.

Um my call to action.

I haven't spoken or got involved because I'm pretty pleased in general with um state of bicycle pedestrian advocacy in town.

But if any of you with maybe 60 something year old eyes, um come in El Camino before or after you know, sunset, sunrise.

You will be blinded by sunrise off of these paddles.

This highlights the uh lethal nature using these paddles and in driving down through uh today.

Yes, okay, call them bollards or paddles, the density, the shortness between them is getting closer and closer.

The basic tragedy waiting to happen.

Many places I'm noting that these paddles have already been hit by cars.

Um, the curbing, the strip up the asphalt, it's a solid dedicated strip.

I was part of the safe uh mountain view group that uh took on upper castro section up to the school for reconfiguration.

That is my idea of an ideal separated segregated bike lane because we just have rubber strips, there's full visibility in and out, and there's rubber bicycle hits that they're reflected in in the gap, they're safe.

Car comes over, same thing.

Their tires, so this looseness in what's being called segregated and separated bike lanes itself.

I'd like the council transportation committee to address and define before any other action moves forward that implements what's being called generically a separated or segregated bike.

That's my request to the committee.

Thank you.

I remember councilman calister for my first time zone.

And these issues to have segregated and separated bike lanes back then.

We were told we're dreams, but look at what the dream is turned into.

Great in concept, but now let's put them in practice so that you know I don't feel safe bicycling on El Camino or where these bollards are anymore.

I live right near the middle field stretch, so that's my call to action.

Thank you, and appreciate your considerations.

Anybody else in the audience would like to speak?

Do we have any virtual people who would like to speak?

Um, April Webster.

Okay, hey, April, you know, this is a non agenda item.

Yeah, um hi, April Webster.

I am a member of the California uh walk and bike technical advisory committee, um, vice chair of the Caltrans D4 Bicycle Advisory Committee, co-chair of the MTC Active Transportation Working Group, and a member of the VTA B PAC.

I am speaking of my own accord tonight, but I just wanted to share my affiliations.

Um I have been a strong supporter of ECR for several years.

It's actually what got me involved in advocacy.

And as part of my role on Caltrans, I have been pushing hard for those bike lanes that we see.

Those bike lanes and the type of separation quick curb are actually very there are that kind of separation, stronger separation and even stronger than that, is what you need to see to have a real modality shift.

It's the type of protection that people who tend to be interested in biking, but more risk averse and cautious.

And so that more substantial protection is what a lot of people need to make that shift.

And there's research that's been done by Jennifer Dill out of Portland Trek group that has shown that about 60% of people fall into that bucket.

A lot of those are, you know, are people who are covered by all ages and abilities knacked under NACDO's um guidance.

And you know, you take that away and you have more insubstantial type uh either paint or vertical paint, which are the um the standard um flex posts.

And it becomes a lot less safer.

You know, think about a 4,000-pound car that's barreling at you.

It's basically like a tank in some ways, and cars are getting a lot bigger now.

Um, when you have that coming at you, and the way that people are now distracted, um, it doesn't feel safe and it isn't safe.

Um, and a lot of cities are doing a better job in Caltrans included, in terms of um building better infrastructure.

So um I would like to give my full support um and on El Camino Real, and I hope to see that extended along the entire extent of it, and work has been done, is being done at the Caltrans level to make that happen.

Um yeah, I just want to say thanks.

I'm glad that Mountain you got involved really early.

Um we were we actually made that happen.

Our staff and um uh both Don and Ria were um very heavily involved in making sure that happened and and worked with Caltrans in advance to make sure we got that what we needed in place to make um El Camino Rail a protected uh protected bike lanes.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Any more uh virtual speakers.

Yes, Bruce Inkling.

Bruce.

Hi all.

Um happy to attend any of these meetings where we're talking about the active transportation plan.

This has been a long time coming and um we're still keeping track of it and um hoping for the best when it becomes uh part of the city regulations and rules and guidelines of just a few things.

Echoing pretty much what April said, but also um just a few things that she might not have said or that weren't in the letter, which I support by the way.

Um I think that timing for when we bring our comments in, this isn't just for the ATP, but for a lot of the plans.

We're often told early on that it's too early.

Don't tell us your comments yet, and then later on we make our comments and we're told it's too late.

And being clear with the public about when you want to hear our comments, we'll make them every time, believe me.

If we're not told one way or the other, then we're just gonna make our comments at every meeting, and that might not always be useful.

Uh second, I have four things to say.

Second is, and I don't know if it's appropriate for the ATP, but I'm just gonna bring it up that we've got at least two paths, uh bike pad paths in Mountain View that lead to abrupt curbs where they just cut off and you have to pop your bike or stroller or wheelchair, whatever over a straight-up curb to get down to any other thoroughfare, like to a bike lane, let's say.

Um those haven't been corrected yet, and I worry that um maybe we'll see more of those, and it's better just to have them off.

That should be part of the project in any case.

Anytime there's a path uh that's constructed, whether it's private or public.

Uh we shouldn't be leading to abrupt curbs like that.

That should just be part of the project.

Um, third of four.

One of the qualities of our walkways and bikeways is making them inviting to people.

So having them be safe and all of that, as April mentioned, this is important.

Um, but we also want to get more people out of their cars and enjoying walking and biking around Mountain View.

It's a great place to walk and bike if you feel uh that it's comfortable and safe and inviting.

So I like the word inviting for that reason.

And lastly, just want to emphasize the NACTO uh guidelines and standards that April mentioned.

This is really important for us to move forward into the modern age of active transportation and transportation in general in Mountain View.

And that's it for me, thank you.

Thank you, Bruce.

Yes, Cliff Chambers.

Thank you.

Uh Clef Chambers, resident of the Mountain View.

Um, I'm also part of MVCSP in the letter.

I just want to emphasize a couple of different points than what Cape April and Bruce talked about.

First off, I think um the NACTO standards that Bruce said is really important.

I just want to emphasize that.

Secondly, I'm really happy about the network of protected bike lanes.

But one of the things in the extensive output that we that was held and and provided comments on bike rides and public forums on surveys, there were a lot of opportunities for input and but for one of the things really excuse me.

Yes, you're gonna be addressing, you're sort of touching on the line of the ATP, so this is for sent items so I'm sorry, I thought this was.

I apologize.

I'll stop.

No, that's okay.

Keep those thoughts though.

I no, no.

Uh I'll I'll do it when we go to the ATP.

So I'm sorry, I I thought they were talking about the ATP.

I came in late.

I'll stop and and wait.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other people that would speak on non-agenda items?

No, that's on.

Okay.

We will now go to consent calendar.

We're on item four, four point one approved minutes.

And oh, point one approved minutes.

Are there any corrections, additions to the minutes?

And then any public like to make comment on our minutes.

Okay.

Uh then we also have a consent item for we'll take them all voted all at one time.

That's okay.

One point two council of transportation committee revised minutes schedule.

Any comments?

That's interesting.

Cause it's this committee in six months a little meet.

That's what I'm doing.

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh we approved that.

Is there one in there?

Okay.

We'll take a vote on the sent phone.

Uh I'll move uh consent items 4.18.

I'll second that.

Okay.

Do we need roll call because we're virtual?

Thank you for that.

Reminder.

Um, remember me?

Here.

Oh, yeah.

All right.

Is there?

Yes.

Okay.

We will now go to new business.

We will take up the 5.1.

Maybe we need to talk about tonight.

Act transportation plan.

Public draft public draft.

Oh, okay, for a review.

Um, item one is an active transportation public draft for review.

The staff presentation will be provided by the transportation manager, Alison Boyer, Assistant Public Force.

Tracy McMullan, project manager of the taxation plan, and Nelson Nightgard is available to answer your questions after the presentation.

Okay, that's okay.

We have a presentation.

There we go.

Okay.

Great.

Good evening.

Um, as acting Chair McAllister mentioned with Nelson IGART on the phone to help answer questions at the end of the presentation.

But tonight we are here to discuss the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan, the draft plan, and staff is requesting CTC review and provide comments on the plan.

So quickly a little bit of background.

The agenda is we'll do a quick project update, walk through what the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan components are, and then we will go into what we heard through our outreach process and then move into resolutions and next steps.

Quickly on the project update.

So this project has been split into three phases.

We are currently here in phase three, which is reviewing the draft and moving into plan adoption.

As I think it was previously mentioned, this project has been in the work since 2022, so we are happy to be moving forward to a plan adoption.

This project has gone through multiple engagement rounds with various support uh types of support throughout.

We had multiple working groups, outreach surveys, and we are happy with where we've landed and all of the community that we received through this last round.

And with that, I'm gonna pass.

Oh, right.

Great, thank you.

Good evening.

Can we go to the next slide, please?

And then the next slide.

So I'm gonna walk through first the components of the plan, give you a brief overview of it, and then I will at the tail end, I will summarize the um themes that we received from the outreach and engagement.

So the active transportation plan uh was developed using both data and community input.

It proposes projects, policies, and programs to support promote water biking in the city, and it also supports the city's sustainability and training goals.

It builds on multiple previous plans that were adopted by both the city as well as uh countywide regional and state agencies, including the prior bicycle and pedestrian plans that were adopted by the city, uh Caltrans Complete Streets Action Plan, the MTC Regional Active Transportation Plan, and other local plans such as Access MV and the Vision Zero Action Plan and the local roadway safety plan.

Go to the next slide, please.

So the plan is divided into four sections, four chapters.

The first chapter, the introduction, it introduces the plan, it describes the process that we use to develop it, summarizes the public and stakeholder engagement, and outlines the vision and the guiding principles, which were adopted by the council.

Chapter two is essentially the existing conditions chapter.

It describes travel patterns, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, safety data, and it also includes holistic maps of existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

Chapter three presents the recommended policies and programs and identifies the high priority projects for moving forward in implementing the plan.

And then finally, chapter four describes how the projects can be implemented.

It covers phasing options, it discusses ways to incorporate green infrastructure into roadway improvement projects, and it also summarizes funding opportunities.

There are also several appendices associated with the plan, including appendices that list all of the recommended projects, not just the priority projects.

You can go to the next slide.

Okay.

So the vision and the guiding principles I mentioned that was adopted by the council, but it was also brought to this committee as well as the bicycle pedestrian advisory committee for review and comment.

I won't read the vision to you, but you can take a look at it.

In support of and to implement the vision, we have those five guiding principles listed there on the slide.

Mobility and connectivity refers to streets that are easy to use and well connected for walking, biking, and rolling.

Safety and comfort refers to trails, sidewalks, bikeways, intersections, and crosswalks that are safe, adviting, and easy to use.

Access and equity refers to policies and programs that engage and protect vulnerable populations and increase mobility choices.

Sustainability and biodiversity refers to green streets that improve access to nature and open spaces and promote sustainability and native habitats and stormwater management.

And finally, action oriented and forward thinking refers to an implementable plan with clear standards that are updated and aligned with adopted policies.

So we referred to these guiding principles in the vision throughout the development of the plan.

You can go to the next slide.

So, quick summary of the internal external engagement activities.

Internally, we convened a technical advisory committee to review and comment on the key deliverables.

We also formed an external active transportation public advisory committee, the ATPAC, which consisted of community-based organizations and public agencies such as the County Public Health Department and BTA.

They also reviewed and provided comments of key deliverables.

Then in terms of engaging the general public, we used a variety of means, a variety of events, including multilingual focus groups, walking and biking tours, pop-ups at community events.

We had an online map and survey, which received over 600 individual comments, and we also hosted public workshops for people to review plan deliverables to provide comments.

And you can see some of the pictures from the activities here.

Okay.

So I mentioned we received over 600 comments through these engagement activities.

And really, the key top line findings are that Mountain View is already a very active community.

Residents want access to key destinations.

They want to be able to walk and bike to more places and have safer walking and biking conditions.

And the city system for walking and biking is already rather robust, but there are gaps that exist in the network.

And so this plan used this input from the community as well as I mentioned the data to identify places to make improvements.

So we can fill in gaps in the network for both best advice lists.

We can improve the quality of the walking and biking infrastructure and generally increase connectivity across the city and enhance safety and comfort and look for opportunities to incorporate greening into these projects.

Thanks, Laura.

All right, I'm going to show the recommended improvements, the holistic maps that I mentioned earlier in the presentation.

These are in chapter two of the plan.

This map here is the bicycle, the holistic bicycle network.

It includes both existing bikeways and proposed bikeways.

And it was built off of prior planning work, including precise plans and other citywide efforts that identified particular bikeway types for different roadways.

We reviewed this and identified gaps that could potentially be closed, and identified, reviewed and recommended different types of bikeway facilities based on variables such as roadway width, the safety and operational characteristics of the roadway, land uses, and who was expected to use the roadway, for example, students or seniors.

The table here describes how many recommended new or upgraded bikeways there are by bike B type.

And we can go to the next slide.

So for the holistic pedestrian network, the plan includes two maps.

The first map is the existing condition.

So what pedestrian infrastructure already exists.

The second map, the one I'm showing here, are the proposed improvements to the pedestrian infrastructure.

Just like the bikeway, we built off prior planning work.

In this case, we focused a lot on the local roadway safety plan, the vision zero plan.

Again, we looked at the recommendations in precise plans and the previous pedestrian plan.

We identified where there were gaps in the sidewalk network and where there were opportunities to provide crossing improvements, such as new frothings or reducing the raw line difference.

You can see here the summary of the pedestrian improvements that are included in the plan.

It includes 30 individual locations, as well as several areas for widening.

We're providing these sidewalks.

So with that holistic map assessment, we ended up with a hundred individual projects.

We combined bicycle and pedestrian components along a corridor into an individual project.

And then we used scoring criteria to support the guiding principles to score those individual projects.

I can go into that in QA if you would like.

But essentially, we scored all hundred potential projects.

We were looking for 20 because of ties.

We came up with 23 projects that made the cut, and we developed cut sheets, which are included in the planning document to show what could potentially be done along those corridors.

We didn't include putt sheets for the projects that were already in a precise plan or have already had work conducted on them because the designs had already been moved forward a bit.

So we didn't want to review work that had already been done.

Actually, go back one, just one.

I just want to mention a point on this.

Sorry.

In that map, the lines are all linear corridors.

Can you go back the other way to the map?

Oh my gosh, I'm so sorry.

I'll talk to us.

I shouldn't, I shouldn't have messed up the system.

The lines, it's linear corridors, but I just want to make sure folks know that there are crossing improvements included along corridors.

So uh in the map it may not pop out as having pedestrian improvements, but there aren't in those projects.

Yeah.

There you go.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm done talking.

You can move forward.

Thank you.

So the plan also includes several recommendations for new policies or new programs, or in some cases, expanded existing programs.

I've listed some of these here.

We've listed all of them on the slides, and again, if we can go into them in QA if you have questions.

Some of the ones I want to I want to highlight as what we've seen pop up repeatedly in the community comments are looking at ways that we implement no right on red.

Consideration of pedestrian connectivity via Paseos, updating the bicep parking standards.

You can go to the next slide.

We've heard several comments on greening and tree canopy improvement, social blocks and rides, and maintenance of the active transportation facility.

So you go to the next slide.

So when we talk about implementation, and this is the final chapter of the plan, the plan presents an approach for these priority projects that looks at both a near-term lower cost way of implementing improvements and a longer term higher cost way of implementing improvements.

So there's the resurfacing, which is the lower cost.

This is something done during the seasonal routine maintenance of a roadway.

It could include pavement markings, signage, there's opportunities to put in class four elements, but not the type of you know, not uh curbs per se, generally not green infrastructure, and no curved line changes in those improvements.

And you can see this uh illustrated in this example in number two, the resurfacing.

The second way of implementing this design approach is reconstruction.

So this is not something that you can do with the standard paving, the maintenance.

This takes a lot longer, but lead time you're required to do feasibility studies and more design work.

So this reconstruction does allow for demolition and rebuild of herb lines, it allows for firm line adjustments, and the opportunity to provide street trees and other green structure.

So for any given project, you can potentially go from you know existing to resurfacing and then to reconstruction.

But for a project, if you were to get a grant opportunity and move it forward, you could actually skip from one to three.

It's just a question of do you have the money to staff the cost time to do the to do the work if these take quite some time.

The implementation plan or the implementation chapter also has uh several pages describing green streets, the benefits and the challenges of implementing green street infrastructure into roadway changes.

It talks about the benefits in the trade-offs, it has cost estimates for different types of materials, and um provides the basic information that'll be helpful for both the city and the public to understand when developing and implemented green infrastructure.

So you can go to the next slide.

Finally, the implementation plan includes section on funding, and uh we've listed here some of the funding opportunities that are available to the city.

Several of these, most of these are competitive grant programs we have apply for.

Some of them are funding that the city receives by formula and has a little bit more or less ready for in particular item.

The plan also talks about the need to collaborate with different agencies when delivering improvements.

Central Expressway and El Camino Real are owned by uh the County of Santa Clara and Caltrams respectively, and we received a huge number of comments and concerns on that those roadways and intersections along those roadways.

The challenge for us is that we don't own those roadways, and so in order to make improvements there, we need to collaborate very closely with those agencies, and we do do that, and we are continuing to do that.

Caltrain is another agency we need to and are currently collaborating with when we're talking about things that are larger than the ATP, for example, the Greens and Christians.

We can go to the next slide.

So I just gave an overview of what's in the plan.

We presented the plan that you have in your packet to members of the public.

Um we uh made it available to the public on I believe it was April 20th and it was out for about a month on Collaborate MV.

During that time frame, we held a bicep pedestrian advisory committee meeting where we presented the plan and received comments.

We also had a public meeting where we had members of the public attend and provide comments and had a nice discussion about the plan.

So the themes and the comments that I'm going to talk about in the next two slides are what we received from that very recent public engagement.

And we see received over 200 individual comments, and that um that doesn't represent the total number of people, it's fewer numbers of people because people uh had multiple comments.

So one of the key themes was the VPAC wanted to make sure they put oh I'm so sorry.

Thank you.

Uh the bicycle pedestrian advisory committee requested that we bring the final plan after we've made changes back to them.

And so we have scheduled uh review by both the VPAC and this committee in August.

So you will see the final plan before it goes to City Council in September.

There was a desire to strengthen and add to the programs and policies section.

There were some questions about um policies that were in the Vision Zero and the Roadway Safety Plan, and so we'll update the plan to make it clear that those two plans work together.

There was a desire to provide more focus on pedestrian improvements in the active transportation plan.

And so we've identified some.

We we reviewed the plan.

We believe that there's strong pedestrian requirement improvements and recommendations in the plan, but they could be the plan could be revised a bit to highlight those matters.

There was some questions about inconsistencies on particularly on the cut sheets for the priority projects, and so we're going to go in and show those the narrative and drawings are consistent.

You can go to the next slide.

And there was a desire for us to better highlight how the active transportation plan advanced.

And specifically, we'll add some language about how it can coordinate the biodiversity and urban forest plan and other sustainability-related policies.

There was also a request to add performance metrics and outcomes, and to uh report back on how well we are doing and implementing the plan.

So we're going to be adding language policies program section that's that.

And I did not include it in here.

It was an oversight.

There was uh desire for us to add some at this instance plan, including an existing decisions uh report that brought to the BPAC several years ago.

So we are revising that, updating it.

Well, not updating it, but revising it and are planning on the customer, so with that, if you go to the next slide, please.

In terms of the timeline, um, for the last the tail end of the plan, I mentioned the community engagement that we did in April, May.

We are here in that sunflower colored line in June.

After we receive the comments here from you and any members of the public staff are going to be using the month of the rest of June and the month of July to revise and update the plan so that we can deliver a final plan to BPAC to the CTC to the public and to council for adoption in September.

So we are the end of my presentation.

We are here tonight to request that the C to review and comment on the public draft of the transportation.

If I may be for uh the committees deliberately, we can get the committee and public.

Um I just wanted to note that uh Chair Hicks is not present and all committee members on the remote.

Okay, great.

And uh I'm gonna read what uh don't.

So with that.

Um the next question is do any members of the committee have questions on the book.

Last minute since we're not getting it, okay.

I didn't get a chance to reply.

Um, yes.

Okay, let's just download it.

So I don't have read them.

So I guess we could proceed in one of several ways.

Um, McAllister, you could uh summarize a question or two.

Yeah, no, I'm not gonna, yeah, I do follow up on some of the questions I didn't see.

Okay, let's put this in context.

We're not coming from, so um so this starts 2022.

Lots have been going on, uh new review terminology, new focus on certain a lot of things.

So I'm coming into it, sort of, well, okay, what's what's going on?

Still getting my putting up, so my perspective will be different than what these two folks have had together.

So it's it's so it's just trying to help me analyze it so going forward.

You know, my position on the council, what I will plan, how it will benefit the entire city of 85,000, and how we use our limited funds to projections and like that, uh you know I'm data driven, and I always like to see that to justify your project.

And type my so that being said, I'll follow up with a few of my questions.

Um, some of this we can take offline.

So I had a one particular well one question.

The uh no particular order, there was one street put on your list is Carol.

I've been walking Carol thing uh been watching it for over sixty five years almost on the basis.

I grew up in that area when it was challenged.

Has anybody actually walked out of that?

You're proposing two sidewalks on both sides.

And one of my questions is anybody about it.

This is a pretty fair.

Yeah, I can save the comments.

Well, I'll save that.

So I think we would we would need to go back into some of the the project files to understand if one of the lock audits went along that area.

Um trust Carol, but one of the things I want to note is that at the master plan level like this, the recommendations are based on generally data that we have, say, GIS, maps, information that we can evaluate at a city-wide level.

So looking at the length of roadways, looking at the destinations, for example, Carol is supposed to be school, and I believe that is why the recommendations put in for the sidewalks, and when the city moves forward with a project, they'll use the master plan representations as a starting point, needs to validate tenant.

So there are going to be opportunities as a project moves forward for us to look at additions the actual conditions on the ground, um, and we may need to revise some of the recommendations, but this is our very good estimate what needle beat was possible given the data sources given the fact that we're doing it at and seeing a lot of levels.

So one of those priorization.

Sorry, was you're gonna wait until you get to that point you're ready to do it.

Or what would be a review?

Yeah, you're ready prior to that.

General review that you plan to go over the top one for just validate.

That would be cool.

Yeah, as we bring them on in online as part of the CIP process and start funding individual projects, we would identify more uh the exact scope of fees.

Okay.

Also, asked the question about lending major roadways.

I asked the question about you know about public transit again, being big picture, our shuttle.

And it was that you show the runs, but was it maybe it wasn't the release to make the discussion, but I would think our goal is somebody said, people out of the cars.

I would think this would be an overriding consideration.

So if we get our shuttle going, a lot of these projects won't accomplish, right?

In the shuttle, it helps with a lot of concerns.

So that's why I didn't see anything saying, you know, if we do this, or if we put more money into public transit, this will solve this problem, so that was a question.

Okay.

If I get it to a comment, let me stop because I don't want to get into the comment.

Um, the focus of this active transportation was on bike and pedestrian.

Um transportation overlaps in a lot of different ways with you know, our TDM, we have the active transportation, we will be evaluating the shuttle moving forward.

Um shuttles are difficult when somebody wants to just get down the road to go to the library quickly, and by the time they wait for the shuttle they have gotten on their bike, gotten there, but they're or maybe like stroller onto the shuttle is not as easy as walking there.

Um, we want to make sure we're in a little bit of a more wide transportation approach, but we will continue to the shuttle.

Um the other question there was I asked about the benchmark number of comments that were considered to let a particular item, and I said what is the high concentration.

You mentioned that you use the heat map to identify locations of the high concentration size.

I was trying to quantify it for me.

It was considered a high friction comments.

Five, 10, 20, 30, 40.

So um we reached out to the consultant who had developed the map to understand the math behind developing that map.

Uh we received about approximately 600 components, right?

And the consultant took those 600 comments and basically broke it into equal groups of three.

So higher areas would say have um, you know, 200 comments, 200 comments, 2000.

If that makes sense.

I don't know if we have you put a heat map up there and support, and then I was just wondering how.

Right, right.

The heat map, so it's a relative rather than absolute number.

If I if I can explain it, so it's it's what the way the map is developed is you take the individual points where people had a question and a comment, and then you see how many points are in that area, and you blend it together into what you saw as the heat map.

Lauren, this is you Tracy, do you want to comment?

Because you were the yeah, this is Tracy from from Nelson Nygarden, they developed the maps.

Hi everyone, how are you?

Okay, uh the the heat map, as Lauren was discussing that is presenting the the challenging that in the sense the density of responses that any given area within the city, um, I'm sorry, I just had a brain forming the word I was looking for.

Receive.

That's it.

Received any given area uh in the city received that was during the existing conditions component of the project that we conducted this uh mapping activity.

Uh it also contained all comments that have come in through um ask MB and uh as well as comments from walk audits small group meetings and all the engagement activities that we conducted are compiled in that map um so the as a heat map works the higher concentration of comments that um came in in any given area um is reflected in the heat map by uh a darker color and if it's a lighter color then it was a lower concentration of comments uh we'd have to go back into the um the map itself to look at the the absolute number of comments for any one given area um but again the the map reflects the um number of comments through the intensity of the color and for any given area and then what lauren was referring to in terms of three um relatively equal groups was referring to the um when a project was scored when the projects were scored um community the the density of community comments in the area of the project was one of the scoring uh criteria so if an area had a high density if a project area had a high density of community comments um that put it into the the third like the highest category of community comments in a given area then it received the highest uh school points for that particular category so I think you had comment you had questions um regarding the map and then also the scoring criteria comments I want to try to sense get a sense of how you got how this plan would evolve and was it 20 comments was a hundred comments I would like to know how many comments became higher density or low density so we can we can figure that out but I guess the the heat map is a translation of the number of comments relative to each other and you're wanting the absolute number per for the area we can get that for you yeah okay thank you um then there was uh no California Street clean stream program I asked if there was a midway progress report and you'll set it's post construction so there is no midway report with listed in the soccer report I mean so I'll let either either one uh Ed or or Robert jump in here but it because it is a pilot we are taking pre-count numbers and post uh count numbers with that data a determination will be made and we will see how that project uh change the area and the use and make it and that will be reported out an understanding is at the end of the summer early fall time frame as we finish collecting the data okay so use it we didn't want it and one thought about the uh question question that's and I guess that also replied to the number of accidents and so forth all the evaluation I infrastructure projects and it was so I asked will this has this been done yet or is it going to be forward because it was supposed to say did it uh did it actually the project actually get the intended impact of proof travel?

So it's gonna go forward so it says that's more important and post-construction.

Is that gonna be BAR policy then?

That is one of our requisitions.

Um other questions sort of technical.

Yeah, we're getting the final review in August.

What do you think about like from us from CTC since it's a final project?

So we're taking all the comments that we see.

We're going to incorporate them in the plan.

We will bring it the plan to both BPAC and CCTC prior to going to council.

So we will be looking for recommendations from the CTC that council adopt the final act of transportation plan.

So that will include, but you'll just we'll accept the document.

You're not looking for any additional information or directions or thoughts on that with that.

Not at that time, plus there's some glaring issue.

Okay.

And then my one question that I said I would ask Figure 14.

No, it's distance between district crossings and that kind of understood how do you mean from processing?

No, it's the it's the length of a roadway between places where pedestrians are losing with the cost.

So it's basically block length.

Okay, so I see a lot of blue 500 feet.

Okay, I'm just looking at my neighborhood.

So I see a lot of blue, but that means the distance between pedestrian crossings is these uh marked crossings.

No, it just means where you are legally allowed to cross, so it wouldn't be classified as a jaywalking, right?

So at the corner of your block, you can cross at a legal cross any okay.

So the idea is some of the bigger stretches, an example would be a regular, right?

Which we're working on right now as a project.

There are very some very long stretches where there is no way for a pedestrian to cross from one side of the street to the other.

And so that's what that's what that length is.

It's identifying where those gaps are in our pedestrian network.

Okay, no, that would yeah, that makes sense.

The first that's I'm looking at from sort of my questions for you.

That was your question.

Okay, council member, okay.

Um, I don't organize myself.

Okay, so um we received quite a few different letters with a bunch of different comments, and so I just wanted to give that opportunity.

Well, so for example, uh letter that uh the committee received from um US mid school district had like a five items that they had highlighted.

I don't know, comment on any of those, or would it be similar to I guess I'm trying to understand how we will incorporate the comments so you shared with us DPAC?

Um, but we've also gotten other coming.

I can try that.

Yeah, so I'll just quickly say the comments that we summarized were what we received during outreach.

So it wasn't just PPAC comments, those are comments we received from uh collaborate and v of APAC, our outreach meeting.

We also had our at pack, sorry, our acronyms at pack and pack are included in in these.

Yeah, I will say the letter is newer than then the list that we provided, but we will go back through those that we were trying to um categorize the comments received into kind of themes, and they're they seem to fall in the same proofings, and I think that the letter from the school district is similar.

Um we it has obviously a focus more on the schools and getting the kids safely to school.

Um safe routes to school is a program that we will continue to support and we'll be bringing P Pack and everything and uh CTP later next fiscal year.

Um, but it was part of our scoring criteria.

It those projects have um risen to the top of our priority list, and we'll incorporate those complaints as we move through the plane.

Yeah, I think you know the and I was just going back because I think the AT.

Well, I don't know if you comment, but the the ATP does reference safe routes to school, um perhaps just I'm trying to think about I know we have our safe roots to school program.

We also have the ATP we're trying to adopt.

Is the best route for staff think that providing like a little section that says to school that puts like kind of encompasses?

I I just looked at staff because I think when people think of the ATP, they might and what I that's the comment too much, but the ATP is very readable.

And so I wonder if there might be if staff is open to the call-out section on that.

Absolutely, since we got um yeah, and we we can do that.

We also have education as part of our policy or policies and programs that we want to continue to promote, not just in the schools but throughout the city.

Um I will say our safe resistance school program has not just been adopted by council.

So we will be bringing that next year with for adoption.

Um so with that uh we're hoping that exists, but it's not adopted.

It was, yeah, we're that's a question.

Yeah, so it's been identified as a program and a priority, but was the plan has was never adopted, so we will be bringing that to council.

We're we're going to strengthen it and bring it to council as an adoption to ensure that it continues separate funding as we move forward.

So it wasn't adopted as in conjunction with our vision zero code.

No, they're separate.

Vision zero and local roads and safety are paired together.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, all right.

Yeah, thanks.

Okay.

I know we're in that one, but I do have it.

Oh, yeah.

It's a there are a lot of smaller transportation plans to help us try and wrap our arms around transportation city.

I would put those three together in my mind.

They have the same PMs in that's usually.

Yeah, well, that's probably my and I thought we had adopted that.

Okay, yeah.

Um I had a uh question about um how the ATP can address the last what's the last mile issue that I think the city's been facing for a very long time.

So one of the things in here is about or one of the project questions, um, was uh related to our sharing programs.

So um I know that we our our bike share program is open for applications, but we haven't received any, but we have received the scooter share.

Is staff seeing that people are mode shifting from like five share to scooter share program?

Is that just like the current climate that that health address, the half half mile issue a little bit better?

Sorry, just kind of that broad.

Yeah, I wouldn't say that it's one or the other, but what we have found is the vendors want to be able to provide both at the same time, so um it's not one or the other, but they want to be both, and right now there is the moratorium on the scooter share program.

So we're in the process of updating that.

We're hoping that with the update of and or peeling of that, that will hopefully get both bikes and scooters back into the city.

Okay, um when talking about the dieting school um related to the five 13 and I was trying to buy the call about HP.

So when we're talking about access and equity, that's defined kind of the rubric of so when we're talking about the guiding principle, what does access and equity mean through the lab of the AT?

So I I it's in the appendix in appendix A.

If you want to take a look at it, um access and equity is defined uh or in appendix, it's the it's appendix A.

It's in that there was one attachment to this, it's all in one.

Yeah, yeah.

And I don't really think it would be page 79 in the PDF.

Okay, so it uses three table one table one, yeah, it uses three scoring criteria.

So the first one is supporting lower income residents, and you can see under the metrics what it looks at is US census data and it's looking at household income.

It also looks at filling a gap in an existing sidewalk network like apparel.

Yeah.

So that's a yes no.

Sorry about that's a yes no.

And the reason why that's I mean, that's under access, but it's also under equity because that's absolutely perfect to show that people use that with the devices.

And then it also looks at whether it fills a gap in all ages and abilities bicycle out there.

So that would be the low stress network here.

So class four bikeways for um class two bike lanes on low volume streets or bicycle.

You consider about all ages and abilities, bikeways.

How do you feel the ATP and I one of the things I was like reflecting on is um I like the guiding principle.

I think when it comes to the score uh scoring criteria, I think it doesn't necessarily feel like there's yeah, in the safety when it comes to access, particularly for some of the neighborhoods that may fall into score criteria, the first scoring criteria when I'm talking about the course lower income residents because they might be in um higher volume, like the safety, as big, and so I just wasn't sure how we can incorporate that into the accent that you don't forgive um, you know, we could try to make improvements on like California, for instance, but I think the speed with which cars go um may still feel like an impediment to I forget the categorization, but you know, like there's the confident biker, the less sorry, uh, concerned me.

Yeah, and I those folks might already um criteria one, and I don't know how we can talk about how as we're doing the ATP, we're making uh people I just feel like that's a gap, but I don't know if you feel that feels that the ATP can address that in a different guiding principle or how we might address that.

We can circle back to it, but I just thought part of the the ATP is uh address mode shift, but it's also I think ideally a way for people to feel more confident or safe to do so.

And I'm just trying to figure out, and to me, that's a bit of like a IP for everyone to feel that.

You know, some neighborhoods you may feel safer to do so than in others.

Um not sure how soft people.

This the scoring criteria also includes the safety and comfort uh guiding principle, and that uses data that directly addresses crash history and other safety concerns of like the second, yeah, the second the second one.

So if you think about two projects that are exactly the same with all the other scoring, except for the access and equity, particularly the lower income with this scoring metric, this the the project that is in the lower income neighborhood will bump up if that makes sense.

As we're looking at the project, exactly the same as as we're looking at the ATP to be able to help inform the IBM.

Correct.

Also, I would add it's not exactly the same, but there's also the supporting uh under mobility and connectivity, there's also supports the school children.

So if it's within a certain uh uh radius of the school, so it's not it's kind of peppered throughout it, so but I just you know I think that's one of the uh themes or that I was yeah thinking about.

Yeah.

The other thing I would I do I look here is how many maximum points do you have for each guiding principle?

So for the for the access and equity guiding principle, the maximum of 27 points, and then for the safety and comfort, it's a number of three.

So in this situation, safety and comfort weighs heavier than access and equity, but those are really that and then mobility and connectivity, which is 22 points, those are really this different top we've been looking at, and the score criteria went through BPACs, DC and Council.

Yeah, it's just analytical last year.

But yeah, this is very cool.

And I'm thinking too like how does this document or maybe or the guiding principles are for current but also future as we're adopting project after project in relation to the housing element, you know, and I'm also thinking about how the 10th school site is going forward and the infrastructure that we can create there to um make it a little bit.

No, I think I think we figured it.

Yes, most questions, yes, and then and then lastly, had a question about the funding and collaboration.

So um one of the things that what this is called is coordination related to funding, but how um might we be able to highlight like coordination related to projects?

So sometimes a user is on a city street that goes to county that goes to just thinking about the comments we did at the beginning of the residents about their user experience on certain um areas, they they uh are moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

How do we there are way that we can address that in the ATP or with that work?

How do we share that with residents?

So yeah, and I think sometimes the feedback comes our way, but the city isn't able to do anything because it's property right-of-way, yeah, right-of-way, um, they're traversing over the county expressway onto the city street.

Um, C C P, which I'll do, or address that, or how do we?

I feel like that's an like a so we looked at the projects together, right?

You know, a person is going to travel across such a specific name from what we know, and um what where it would have been affected if they might not have scored so as high and how quickly we could deliver the project.

So it doesn't mean we didn't consider these projects, it's just it it makes a project a little bit more particularly.

Um we will continue to look at them.

A lot of them are on our busier streets that are used more regularly, so um they're it's it's it's part of the projects.

The reality is we are in an area where we are crossing um other jurisdictions, so so we will continue to work and partner with agencies to deliver these projects.

If they ask is just that there's some patience and understanding that they're they're not as easy as the projects that are sold in your jurisdiction, um we do also have in there as the scoring criteria gap um completion.

It's not quite the same thing, but it's where you know you have a route from Sunny Vale that drops you into not the same title system being found.

Um an example would be what's happening happening along Evalin.

Um Sunny Bail's in the process of completing Evelyn, we're going to pick it up and try and complete it on our end.

So we will continue to work on projects like that as well through this process.

Do you think that we could in the ATP could like the different like I know the different jurisdictions are called out, but could we put like as an impending like the contact information for different jurisdictions, like different entities for the I don't know, I'm just I'm gonna ask I'm gonna ask the why the benefit of putting a contact information I because I think we highlighted it and we touch upon it but the city has a because our roadway is so shared I think that residents often express comments and do not know where to turn and if this is an active transportation plan it may I think it would be helpful for an appendicity to say like our collaborative partner oh CA this is like their website here or like have a question about whatever right I I almost like you know like wayfinding but for like a different area finding and so I think one of the things we've been trying to do is in our education is make it easier for our residents to understand what the resources are what the routes are etc you know and part of it is what are the different partners they can understand some of the constraints we're under because yeah okay that helps that helps to understand the background behind that um I mean it's just a question and staff would be good to it but if not after you do um and then um we we can look into it I but the reason why I asked the question is I didn't know if something like that would be a plan that's not we updated very frequently right because those things sometimes change so maybe it's another mechanism there might be another way to share the information and that's fine too I'm just asking staff because I feel like recently there's just been a tick in comments that I've been receiving and so you know and I live in a neighborhood where I'm walking with similar but like you know I think there's different things people are experiencing and I and I want to have a more satisfactor I want residents to feel like they have a more satisfactory answer and I want to provide a vehicle for that so I'm just asking staff what you might think as we're talking about adopting the if there's room there somewhere else um look forward to what it has that sample yeah those are my questions thank you okay if you think of more while I'm asking we can all kind of um so my question's the good thing about going last a lot of good questions have been asked first I'm gonna circle back and ask in a slightly different way what member Kamei said about how we incorporate these latest comments um because I think people we and the various people who send us letters groups mostly um over the past day or two uh have put a lot of thought and work into it and I want to make sure that it that we have a rubric to capture that work and not just have it all away somewhere and so um at the same time often we take straw polls for this kind of thing and I think there may be two men I I'm asking for your suggestions but I think you know we may come up with 30 different can you include this and can you include that's and it may not be best to do straw both on all of those um I'm thinking that a possible rubric would be I thought you had excellent categories um you know when you the categories I forget how many there were maybe five um and they were also haven't memorized the names of the category that she puts it right here but they were uh more on pedestrianism uh more on metrics more on including sustainability and there were several others perhaps we could put our our comments under those categories and you could consider them but not for example like member Kamei's latest um commentslash question which I fully supportive uh you know giving a little more information on our adjacent and regional agencies transit aid transportation agencies um you know maybe that it feels to me like you don't like we don't have to vote on that and you say yes or no tonight but it could be put under some rubric one of the titles and then you go back and decide whether it's possible impossible or possible to do in a slightly different way than member commit suggested.

Is that no we're not voting right but I want to make sure that the comments don't evaporate.

So do you have any suggestions to make sure that is putting them under those categories a helpful or do you have another I think that's helpful if there are broader categories that you think we should also consider additional categories.

I think that would also be very difficult.

Okay, yeah I think we've received I we receive a high volume of comments for these categories.

So if there is something you think is the thing that would be really helpful for us to make sure that that gets included in the plan.

Uh and then yes if there's specific additional comments yeah these um and I have to think on the way to convey back to public where they're gonna draft I think I think we've come up with some you know very clear ways how we plan on the plancy then we see that but I I hear you and making sure that they understand we receive the comments and um logging those appropriately.

Yeah yeah I don't okay I don't think I have to ask on any further.

So and then I have a question um I agreed with the the people who commented on uh that the plan could be stronger in terms of pedestrianism um and uh related to that um in particular there's an area that talks I'm gonna come up this question from multiple angles so I don't see I see a there's a table with a minimum of different lane widths and sidewalk widths and it says that sidewalks would be a minimum I'm at but a minimum of five feet um I and then it said sidewalks should be widened in certain places my um experience with widening sidewalks is that one of the big triggers is building height and this relates to council member can I's comment on we in large part the um the ATP is talking about conditions now but we expect conditions to change and then you also mentioned things that are have been specified in precise plans are not specified here but I'm still left wondering how we're addressing um because not all additional building height will be in this plan areas so how we're addressing the need for like I'm a huge I'm a huge advocate for improved pedestrianism I don't think every sidewalk needs to be more than five feet in a whole city I I even think unincorporated areas can have no sidewalks sometimes so what is there a mechanism anywhere in here for higher building and denser development to trigger wider sidewalks because I didn't catch I I'm trying to understand your question just a little bit more clearly um by higher buildings you mean I'm sorry this is me being the engineer here are you talking where the building hits the sidewalk or are you talking that there's just more people in a building and so therefore you more need for sidewalks.

Yes where there's more people okay yes if we I just want to clarify that 200 foot warehouse in the middle of a single family neighborhood which I don't want us to do but if we were it would not be more the sidewalks right yeah okay we have got it no multi story apartments um they are watching changes or you know, I go to Chicago, they have 30 foot sidewalks because they have because it's next to a tall building.

Yeah, okay.

Sorry, just needed to to understand there a little bit more.

Um, so yes, you're correct.

If there's a precise plan, we're not trying to change a precise plan.

The intent is when those projects come on board, we follow or come online, we would follow that.

As projects um are identified in the CIP as becoming a project, the plan is that they'll go through transportation planning first.

That will involve outreach, that will involve conversations with our CDD partners and others in the understanding what's going to happen and what we expect to happen based on zoning and just the conditions that we see.

Um housing element changes, whatnot, before we kick this project off.

The first thing we will be doing is validating that the assumptions made in the ATP are still correct.

This is a plan that will probably be updated between every five to 10 years.

Mountain View is going to change a lot in the next five to 10 years.

And a project that isn't touched until year eight, the assumptions will likely have changed.

And so the first thing we will do as we bring these projects on board is do that validation.

Talk to the neighbors, is you know, is it the street parking?

Is it the sidewalks, and just identifying what the intent for build out is in that area?

Zoning has changed, housing element affects that area.

So where the five foot comes into play is that is the current um recommended standard for the city as new projects are coming online, um, new developments in our right-of-way are being asked to put in five foot sidewalks.

So we're not just going to create a project just wide a sidewalk, five feet.

I think what I'm asking in addition to this is there anywhere I didn't see anywhere in the ATP a recognition that as we densify, which we're doing a great deal of, and we're doing a great deal of through the housing element and through legislation from Sacramento, for example, SB 79.

I see no reference anywhere to the fact that when you densify, when you add more people, you need wider sidewalks than the areas that you're densifying, unless everybody has an underground garage and a pump.

Um so I see not a sentence in here about that, but I I read a lot.

So maybe it is in there, and that's what I'm asking.

Is it in there anyway?

In any way, it's not okay.

It is not in there in that in that in that, yeah, yeah.

And I don't think, well, now I'm going to, but I don't think we wait until the 20-foot building is built MSF and then say we do more than a five-foot sidewalk.

Okay.

So that was one question.

Um, and then my second question.

So also in that same table of minimum lanes and sidewalks and so forth, it said that the minimum roadway lane was 11 feet, but I'm reading NACTO guidelines and also hearing that El Camino Real has narrower.

So why is our minimum when I'm hearing about nine, 10, 10 and a half, why is our active transportation plan arguing for a minimum of that?

So 11 feet is what is needed for trash trucks, buses, emergency vehicles.

So if there is only one lane provided, and then there's a vertical barrier, they need that space to transit.

I'm not going to say that that's an everywhere situation, but that is our starting point for most for most projects.

If there are multiple lanes, like on El Cavino, they do go down to 10 feet, but at least one of those lanes is an 11-foot lane.

So if we have multiple lanes, we will definitely um shrinking the lane width, but 11 feet, what we used for our planning purposes, again, because we don't have exact survey data everywhere.

So we also didn't want to put in a 10-foot lane, then we get out there and now we have a nine-foot lane, and I can't get the trash truck through, or the VTA bus can't make it through.

So it is our our starting off point.

It doesn't mean that we can't look at areas where 10 feet makes sense, but we're starting with 11 feet as our so to me the if you say 11 feet, it doesn't even say 11 feet is the minimum for lanes that are going to have emergency vehicles.

It says that it it reads that it's the minimum for all roadways.

So maybe, I mean, I'm bleeding into comments, but perhaps we could there could be two lines one for emergency vehicles and one for second second third floor fifth lanes which I hope yeah could I ask the clarifying question are you referring to table to the basis of design that is on the screen.

Oh bank on the screen I think it's a little hard to see that so that's in appendix B which talks about the cut sheet development right but just so everyone knows this was the basis of design that we used when we were developing concept plans for the priority projects.

So that the table just describes these are the parameters we were looking at when we were estimating what we thought to fit in each of these corridors.

So it's not for everything but it's for those cut sheets examples.

Okay since I'm asking questions I'm not gonna go into great detail on how it confused me.

Um okay so and I generally thought I'd street by the way it feels bad to start with questions because it's always the parts that you logically missed out of now that hundreds of pages.

So also now I know what your answer should be to me on this what is that I voted for it so but also in scoring uh priority projects there's a category of safety and comfort and to me the for me one of the largest elements of safety and comfort and this actually links to council member's question on equity because it's also what you find most in the lower income areas of Mount View and probably cities as well is a lack of shape to the point that you just feel like you can't walk anywhere um yeah that I mean I would say that's almost the number one thing that stops me and people who refuse to walk uh places um you know a lack of shape so I was a little confused about why that didn't it appears somewhere else it appears under I think bio I think under bio but I I actually think I actually think this is a problem that runs through all of our plans we talk about biodiversity for animals which I'm all for ahead of needs of people and I really think that in terms of trees we're doing it mostly so that people in low income areas can walk most I mean I have to say the place people refuse to walk with me most is when I go to visit my friends who live in an affordable house development and nobody's walking because they can have any street on large stretches.

So that was a I guess that's a question why is why is shade not a part of comfort and you can tell me because I voted for it that way I don't know that I have a great answer for you I'm gonna be really honest um I think that greening has just always by default gone into sustainability.

That you're correct that a mind should change when we're talking about active transportation is probably necessary but it for this one it fell under sustainability.

Oh I like that answer really a lot.

You know I think we've always always just thought of greening is how we make something more sustainable or it's part of our greenhouse gas or something of that nature and I think we just need to understand there needs to be a shift in kind of the approach as we develop these projects.

Okay, that's that's fabulous answer because I really think we need to think of it as how it's useful or not useful at all.

Um and then this getting towards my last questions.

Uh can you tell me this may relate to uh member McAllister's question on how uh when you're gonna walk the streets and know because on some of them the conditions really change block to block or even within one block.

Um so the one I'm thinking of that I'm really familiar with, but I think it re- I think that many of the streets are probably in this condition is um latham.

I used to when I had children in grade school, which was quite some kind of I would take them down um the downtown to Castro's school, all of along Latham.

If I read the ATP right, it says that that's going to be um the sidewalks are gonna be widened, but in many of much of that, not all, because it really changes even mid-block it changes.

If we widen the sidewalks, first I don't think sidewalks need to be widened there, because I have never experienced walking to school, I've never experienced or rescued out of school.

I never experienced any problems with conflicts with anyone, or difficulty using it.

But secondly, if you widen the sidewalk, you're gonna either take away somebody's front yard, which I don't think is going to happen, it's alone still, or you're gonna take out the planting strip and the trees, which I also don't think is gonna happen, or you're gonna take out the parking, which is also probably not gonna happen because there's not a lot of parking there and there's cars all over the place.

So I don't understand how and where that street is going to be wide.

I not street, sorry, where that sidewalk it's one of the main places that it says there's going to be sidewalk widening all along the way, but honestly, I don't see it.

I don't see it.

Um so I'm looking at the cross section for lathem, which I'm assuming is where this common is coming from.

Um, one where it is coming from, it doesn't mean it needs to happen this way, and we would evaluate it as we go through because widening a sidewalk is not a cheap endeavor.

Um, but Latham currently has a 12-foot lane and an eight foot parking strip.

And so the end result would be an 11 foot lane and an eight-foot parking strip.

So you at you end up with one foot on each side, so they have given it to the sidewalk.

From the lanes, the idea is in narrowing the road or slowing the traffic down.

We can explore other ways to use that two-foot buffer, uh, as we look at it.

And does that make sense?

It does, except when you're actually there, uh, you would be taking out all their trees and removing their planning.

Yeah, I so I don't know.

I mean, yeah.

On a piece of paper, it sounds good, but in reality, I think we would need to look at yeah.

Yeah, and so that would happen as part of our our validation.

Okay, so okay, yeah, so I'm thinking that's probably what that's the street I'm super.

There's also, there are other places along there, one is like a civic block next to Eagle Curve with with beautiful trees.

I don't think we're gonna take them out and buy the sidewalk.

And there's very few people ever on this.

So there's no.

Yeah, so I don't I don't think we would take away our greening.

Right to add a foot of the sidewalk.

That is it if we're prioritizing our our um as we're moving through that with one one foot of sidewalk width is not going to go for including uh historic or trees or any of trees.

We are not gonna replace impervious area with purpose area, yeah.

If it's the engineering way of saying, I have no reason to widen that sidewalk.

No, so I believe okay, so I will not go into comments on that.

Um let's see if I had any more.

Um I guess my last question is that maybe you kind of answered this.

How or when do we go from the resurfacing improvements to the reconstruction improvements?

Um, because the reconstruction improvements were really good.

And added canopy and made sidewalks and bike lanes useful.

On some are great, but are they so like how do we ever get there?

Are they really type dreams?

Are they so are we gonna end up in the in the resurfacing area where everything has bollards everywhere and we never get any trees or how do you see that?

So right now the quickest way for us to do reconstruction projects is getting either grants or funding from other partners.

An example would be the rank star for great uh the rainstorm project that we just kicked off recently in transportation that includes um Caltrans money that helped us do the design and planning for that.

Um another example would be our Evelyn's portion, which we just recently got a measure B.

It's a VTA measure.

So what is really nice about these cut sheets is it shows that we have public engagement, it shows that we have a plan, and it helps us as we go for these funding um grant applications that are competitive.

Those are too big of two big scoring areas, and so we will continue to go after a lot of those to help um accelerate though the process is still long, those projects.

Um in the interim, Robert will have his annual paving project, and the goal is to make to continually make things better as we're going through this process.

I'll add to this as a public works director, boy's answer here.

Robert Gonzalez, principal civil engineer in the civil infrastructure group.

So along with looking for opportunities on the grant side, I'll just explain a little bit about the pavement maintenance side to see what opportunities that provides as well.

Um so when a when a when a street segment is first placed, it's at 100% PCM.

And the goal here from a from a city perspective is to maintain the condition of that for as long as possible before you get to a state of deterioration where it's failing, kind of trigger a reconstruction.

So in between the time where it's newly constructed and the time where it's failing, from a pavement management perspective, you want that as long as possible.

You want to preserve that.

We are doing overlays and preservative treatments all along the way five years, 10 years as the need arises.

You're doing the crack sealing, the snakes on the ground, you're doing a slurry seal, you're doing cape scale, you're doing all kinds of these maintenance efforts such that you delay that.

So that's the on my side of the coin.

I I want to delay that so I can reverse preserve that infrastructure at the end.

But at the very end of that, yes, there will be a point where the PCI gets to a point where I cannot do any more maintenance to that road without reconstructing it.

And that would that would trigger these processes as you see them.

So if we're going to do a reconstruction, then we would be pulling this out and see what operated opportunities we have to deliver these impressions.

So there's a third.

There's obviously two conditions here that we're talking against.

One is maintaining the condition of pavement, and then the other one is if we have an opportunity such as a grant, we would look at those interviews.

Yeah, and um, right, I just wanted to add that um you're hearing multiple avenues how we could get there.

Um we may, you know, as Director Boyer mentioned, we may get there by just skipping ahead, going from existing right to construction if we find a grant, or there's a priority to really identify board planning.

Because we do this on a corridor basis.

It's not a lot by lot, uh, it really needs to be identified as block by block efforts.

So these are the longer stretches.

Would you say corridor or block by block?

No, we do this on a corridor basis.

And uh a quarter could be, we're looking at this one quarter, but we're gonna implement a block that uh we can't do it by parcel basis.

We can't just do a little incremental.

Um, so there's that element.

Um when resurfacing happens and we are implementing some temporary improvements, sort of this resurfacing effort, um, we are already implementing a component of what the reconstruction is going to look like.

And so the vehicle lanes, which may already be accommodated, and then it could be later that we come back and we're doing the reconstruction effort for those elements outside the vehicle lanes to put in the uh the upper uh protected uh next to the bike lanes and uh at that time, so it could be a phase process.

We've done the resurfacing, now let's come back and redo the portions of the bike lanes and the protected.

Okay, that's one minute more about.

Uh, did uh any members come up with additional questions while we were?

Okay.

Uh, if not, believe we are now uh to the public comment uh portion of this this agenda item.

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

If so, please click the raise hand button and zoom or approach the lectern.

Uh we will take in-person speakers first, and each speaker will have three minutes.

Are there any speakers in person?

Um, very burr on 325 walker drive.

I've been in town over 30 years about now.

Some of you know a former member of the Big Back.

My view to be back actually got things done instead of let's say a mouthpiece for well-funded lobbyists, uh designers and infrastructure salesmen and so on.

That's my view of where things are now.

So, with regards to this, this will play it out over the next many years.

It is my intention to get myself back up feedback so I can be part of what I'll hopefully be a level-headed, moderate view.

I will really get things done with its benefit and satisfaction.

Now, you aren't here, Alison, so before now.

Um, I stated that uh frequently we're seeing protected bike lanes being mentioned, except that's a big hole because what is a protected bike lane?

And as a request to the others, I request that you as chair specially bring in initiative to the committee to define what a protected bike lane is, should or shouldn't be, versus the widely divergent view of protected bike lane 10 or 20 years ago versus what's being built in town.

So that itself is a loose hole which needs to be better defined.

Okay, now and also I feel that the best resource in Mountain View for consulting bicycle and pedestrian safety is the Mountain View Police.

The bicycle patrol, I've had conversations with them.

They don't seem to have been consulted, but their views on particular pieces of infrastructure in town.

I think you know, picture, you know, fully office fully equipped Mountain View police officer on a really nice mountain bike with their mountain bike, but fully equipped cop on a mountain bike around town.

Their view of safety is unique.

And I would urge greater engagement and involvement that the Mountain View Police bicycle patrol and traffic patrol be engaged and consulted on all of this, because it just in reading what you posted, which is very detailed.

I'm not seeing anywhere listing Mountain View Police Department and their bicycle patrol having input or being consulted on this.

Thank you.

Yeah, so I assume no more in-person commenters.

Are there any virtual comments?

Bruce England.

Hi, all again, Bruce England.

Uh, you know, I made comments earlier, and I uh didn't catch that you were not already in the ATP section.

I hope that you can just take those comments from there.

You know, whatever notes were taken and apply to this, so I don't need to repeat them.

If you want me to, let me know.

Um, but I do have one additional comment.

I didn't use my all my time earlier, so I have an additional uh comment, which is that an important detail to me is that all of our parks and open space areas covered in the parks and recreation strategic plan should be tied together in such a way that anybody who's walking and biking through mountain view, uh, whether it's a longer or shorter route, can stop at those locations and get water, use restrooms and things like that, the amenities that are needed to support a strong active transportation network.

So I'm not sure that was really covered as well as it should have been in the parks plan, and if needed to have it covered in the ATP plan and tied together with the parks rec plan.

That would be great.

That was my additional comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So more virtual commenters.

April Webster.

Thank you.

Um, I want to start by thanking staff for bringing back the ATP to the BPAC and CTC in August.

Um, I also want to say I support the overall direction of the ATP, but I'd like to see some key gaps addressed, especially around implementation equity, pedestrian safety, community engagement, and climate resilience.

First, um, adopt the complete streets and green streets implementation policy.

Mountain View already has complete streets language in the general plan, but it's broad, and that's not enough.

Um, without implementation triggers, updated standards, delivery requirements, accountability, um, complete streets can remain discretionary rather than the default way of building our streets.

Second, adopt NACTO's urban bikeway design guide, not the general guide as a city's default.

Um, state of the art has moved beyond paint-only bike lanes and the minimal paint and post separation, especially on high-speed or higher volume streets.

To make biking feel safe for families, older adults, um, new riders, people who are interested but can but concerned we need stronger protection.

NACTO's um guidance says that in quotes motor vehicle lanes should be narrowed to support the widest feasible bike lanes, and that again in quote, general purpose travel lanes can be 10 feet at posted speeds of 35 million miles per hour or less while still supporting transit and truck use.

Moreover, in constrained transit and bikeway context, um that also says safety benefits, um, the protected bike lanes can outweigh the slight risk of clipped bus mirror.

Um, NACTO is built by cities for cities, it's recognized by FHWA and it's updated more frequently than local standards, so adopting it would help mountain view stay current with modern urban bikeway design.

Third, update the city standard details because those engineering templates determine what actually gets built.

If those don't change, the plan won't fully translate into implementation.

In addition, I'd like counsel to direct staff to add several supporting policies identified in the MVCSB letter, including a quick build program of policy, a traffic plumbing policy that prioritizes multi-benefit treatments like roundabouts, curb extensions, and landscape ballboats, and a bicycle boulevard and slow streets program to create a lower stress neighborhood network.

I'd also like the city to use pavement resurfacing as an implementation trigger for low-cost safety improvements.

These include um paint-only changes like lane narrowing, lane reduction, buffers, daylighting, and interim curb extensions.

Consistent with committee member McAllister's focus on efficient, cost-effective project delivery, piggybacking on plan surface resurfacing work is one way to make meaningful safety improvements when the streets are already being touched.

This is what Caltrans does through their shop project.

Finally, the plan should bring back more of the pedestrian and equity context.

And shade and heat resilience should also be treated as active transportation and climate infrastructure and first class infrastructure.

And without canopy and shade, streets can become effectively unusable during the hottest part of the days, especially for people walking and biking.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Are there more virtual speakers?

Yes.

Cliff Chambers.

Cliff Chambers.

Thank you.

Cliff Chambers, resident of Mountain View and member of the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning.

First, I got to give incredible kudos to staff and the consultants for an excellent outreach process.

I've been involved with a lot of plans, and I think this gets an absolute gold star.

April has set forth a lot of the policy recommendations that we'd like to see.

I'd like to talk about a couple of other areas.

First, I think during the public process, we we talked a lot about protected bikeways, and I'm really happy with the broad network of protected bikeways.

But we also talked about just bicycling and walking and neighborhood streets, and there was a lot of discussion about having a bicycle boulevard that's more like Bryant Street where bicycles have uh a priorities and uh it gets incredible use.

And uh council member McAllister really talked about a numbers.

The generation of trips on bicycles for that very low cost uh improvement in Palo Alto has been great.

It's really disappointing that in the last bicycle plan we had at Montesino Bicycle Boulevard that would go along that track.

It really didn't go forward.

It could have been Montecito to Stirling to downtown uh Mountain View and then the other side towards Renxdorf and Jane towards Antonio Caltrain Station.

I'd really like to see that really uh evaluated more and included in the plan if at all possible.

The other point is I I do walk a lot, and I have really found that there is an absence in many key intersections of accessible pedestrian signals, particularly for low vision people like myself to get across the street.

The crossings is really important, and I I'm glad that it's the theme for more pedestrian um improvements in the final plan.

But I'd like to see that included.

I'd also, I think you know, the placement of trees where there's really gaps, because I really agree with council member Hicks.

When there's more trees, you're gonna walk that path, and I think the canopy placement and recommendations in the plan would be really important.

And then my final point is on the policy that was talked about on the middle field road about the temporary uh bike lanes on middle field road.

It's a safety hazard.

I live right adjacent to uh Middlefield Road and I've seen a lot of near misses that needs to be treated sooner than later so that we don't have an unfortunate accident in our city.

Again, thank you for this excellent plan, and I appreciate the time.

Thank you.

Are there more virtual comments?

Yes, Daniel Halsey.

Daniel.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so uh I just have a couple comments.

I I really like the direction that the city has gone with the active transportation plan.

I think that uh, you know, it's it's a really good vision for what the future of the city should look like and where we can go.

And I I really appreciate all of the uh really the the strategy for how do we start protecting our uh cyclists out there?

Um, keeping in mind, of course, that uh good protected bike infrastructure is safer for all road users, including motorists and pedestrians.

Um, so I think uh, you know, commenting in support.

There, there there are a few things that uh I really uh I think want to call out there there was a uh feedback session uh just just among some of us um a few months ago that I think was really productive and I I really appreciate every uh every opportunity where the city is able to engage directly with uh road users like like cyclists and I I would almost like to see this a little bit more formalized in our process uh where we can push a little bit early into the project conceptualization process, just a little bit, just not a huge year long process, but just the right a little little bit amount of you know what what is a cyclist actually gonna want to see here.

Um so wanted to call that out.

Um I think it in terms of projects, we have a lot of really good ones identified here.

Uh one thing that kind of pops out at me as something that is not really addressed very well is the downtown Castro pedestrian mall where we have kind of a blockage almost where we have a place that is in theory a very good cycling facility where we are not allowed to ride, and then we have a lot of very bad places where you don't want to ride, but where it is legal.

Um, and so I I think we we need to figure out a solution to that somehow.

Um, and uh, you know, there's a lot of other projects that that I'd like to see um in here, you know, just focusing on how how do we solve details, you know, uh after we've gone through and done corridor work, we've created a whole strategy, you know, and there's just some problem that people identify a year later, like how do we go uh ahead and sort of fix that that problem for those those users and be agile um to that.

Um so that that's really uh that's really my comment.

Thank you so much uh to City Staff for putting to get this all together and uh that's my comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there more virtual commentators?

No, that's all.

Okay.

So last call for public comments, and I will now bring it back for committee member comments.

Are you gonna start us off?

I'd love to hear you.

I think that's all right.

Um yes, I want to echo the things that um it's been quite the journey, figuratively and literally to get to this point.

Um, and I'm um just really grateful uh that we're here about uh we have an ATP before us tonight.

Uh one of the things I just wanted to highlight was I think some of the speakers mentioned uh robust community engagement has been really critical, I think, between the pop-ups working with our site legal um outreach program to kind of go into these bespoke different groups um to get the input.

We've gotten a lot of collaborative uh unique mountain view esque insight, which is was really fun to read.

I think overall this document was I would say like the most readable document I've read the city put together in my seven and a half years, just which is wonderful because I think um it truly highlights kind of where we were, where we're going and our vision.

Um the appendices are very helpful in terms of just kind of reaffirming what the document says, being able to go back.

Um one of the other things that stood out to me as I was reading was um how this plan will talk to the other plans that the city is pursuing or has.

I think that's really critical, and thank you for highlighting for me the issue with our favorite school um plan that is uh needs to be adopted.

I think um if there are and I can't remember in my reading, you reference the different plans, but I don't think that they were out or Mr.

Page on the um where they were all down sorry um in the plan itself yeah but I um need not all yeah but I but if if we're doing it we must we might as well I think that's that they're sorry if I can just so they're called out plans we take into use to make this new one but the other plans that we do work with is not so we can yeah I think I think so I mean yeah especially the puzzle pieces how they work together is is great.

But it was I don't know I I enjoyed how it was broken up like how do we get around what are we doing um the demographics um the different like data points and resources um was was helpful I do think um one of the things that I hope we can find a way to address it you know some of the I I think I I see two things before us one is kind of if people have input as they're continuing to be users of our streets and and roads um transit how they can provide that kind of continual feedback in a way that might be helpful um you know I feel like right now residents have to put it into app mountain view but there has to be like a better repository for feedback on I liked this treatment but maybe not this and so folks don't use it that's the DC to tell us which one they do or don't like um and then I think the other is how we can have like uh incorporate our our long term planning the city is changing and growing at such a rapid pace it's great to adopt the ATP for now but just thinking about the ATP for the future you know as I was mentioning finding out that LASD is going to be the authors district is going forward with that 10 school study and they're kind of moving at a pace that feels like to me faster than they had before right all that they think they they said that they're that same um we need to be planning for that um in addition to the different planning areas that we've got within the housing element and I think over the next you know five to ten years we're just going to see an increase in residence.

And so how does the infrastructure work creating or the ATP is going to be able to help accommodate that that's the only thing that I was but all in the right direction I also appreciated like the rolling aspect of it right because it's like kind of anything with field and that can be you know a scooter a bike a stroller a wheelchair right um and how we're thinking of all ages all abilities backgrounds um really speaks to the city's community for all spirit so thank you again thanks Chair so member McAllister are you ready now?

Clear by now first this is one of the report I've seen that throughout the city since my time here that it's thorough it's comprehensive.

I've always looked for funding if you're gonna implement it are you gonna pay for it.

And so we I think there was one report that was aspirational I see some parts of that in here but I appreciate the time that's put into it and it answers a lot of questions, and uh it's good.

It's a good report.

It's one of the best reports I've ever seen on this one.

And again, I haven've been through, so it helps me feel ongoing so I appreciate the time for it.

It does touch on areas that I find important.

Now, I'm not necessarily I appreciate I voted for black things in the past, I understand they are helpful, but I also want to put things in context from my perspective that there are many plans over the last month that I've seen that I gotta, you know, we got decarbonization plan, we got the ATP plan, we got biodiversity plan.

Uh we have a bunch of plans, and they're all gonna be competing, and they need to get them out of the aspirational implementation plan, and this one uh you have a group of a community that's very passionate on bicycles and very outspoken bicycles and very supportive of license, but I'm looking at the city as a full, I look at again.

I like shuttle service, I like that we are not all bicyclists.

In fact, I asked the first question, was 20 bicycles in the city of Mount View, and uh guys are working on that.

Um, so I gotta see how it integrates with everybody with traffic coming through.

So, putting this in my context is how I look at it, and going back to I asked one of the questions do you look at the roads?

So let's go to Carol.

Now, I would like to have seen, but as you go through here, maybe it would be good to actually look at the streets because I said to Carol, I've been walking on that for 65 years as an accounting, it is right going to a school, so there are no sidewalks in my part of town, which is very important.

But if you go to Carroll, you walk down to the very end, you will see a sign that has been respected by community members since oh 2006 that says, please do not travel down Carroll, park your cars.

People do that, no one drives down Carol, they all stop at sleeper and and park there and they all walk through.

So if somebody took the time to look at that and said, Do we need sidewalks?

One, I saw you had to do an improvement district, and I'm sure that would have been interesting.

But by looking at the street and seeing it, you would have said we don't need to do this.

I am fiscally more conservative by other people on the council wherever, and when I see something like that, I go, we don't need to put a sidewalk in because there's no need to put a sidewalk in, and that aspect of you're doing a lot, and it seems going forward that to look at it.

Do we need to do it so that we can really get the projects done that want to get that?

You came up with 23 projects.

I really like that.

I like you're saying okay, we got limited funds, we know it.

This is where the demand is, and that's why I always ask you show me the demand that needs this project.

Um, and so I support things that we'll show that we people really need to do something and do it instead of we don't need cars in the city mountain, and I hear that sometimes from other from the your advocates or we don't need car, you know, let's get rid of the cars.

That's not gonna happen, and so we gotta ask.

I asked early on the blending of this with the roads, and if I looked at all your things, there would be basically uh class free bike lanes throughout the whole city.

So I'm just asking them there is a little more data to that's acknowledged in here because you there's a couple things that you go, like when I asked about the history, and the response was the project's team did not consider history of the roadway or original intended use, but we have a lot of people driving now, and so I think that needs to be in consideration, not put in there, and I appreciate the honest answer.

But instead, can read future use in the city school regarding sustainability.

Well, we're not gonna get there, but it's it's a there's a mechanism that they're an environment out there that they're all integrated, and you have the task of integrating it with other things.

So that's when I say you've done a great work.

Now, how are you gonna get the rest of rest in the events in the city going forward?

That's why I said um the school district you know I've been asking the school districts since 2012 put in buses and they say we can't afford it.

So they won't even talk to the superintendent I bring it up when he was over at Plus Alpha no no I don't want to there's a simple solution that if they did those then all the things that they were worried about would be solved or if we used our shuttle service to transport kids in the board that would solve a lot of the issues of safety so I'm looking at integrating all the other things to make things happen so that's it I just please consider that there's a small group advocating really want it they have the right to but there's other people out there in the city that say I need to get the point A to point B or I'm going for where and I don't want to bike or I don't want to drive those cycles e-cycles there was a small part in there about you know that's going to be big I'm sure that's going to come out before you get going on anything else because there's a lot of concerns about you haven't addressed how you go oh you're gonna come back to see CTC with a policy on I recall uh e bikes and how they're going to be integrating the bike lanes and how they're gonna be regulated so that could be interesting concept too but uh no I for those people that are adamant about bike lanes I think this is an excellent report comments jump that's it okay so I'll make my comments you committee members can circle back and add comments of course if thought of any since then um first often what other committee members have said that this was an excellent really readable report I think it it uh puts us um you know many steps ahead of where we where we were before um at least on paper and uh and I I guess the history of it from what I if I remember right is there was a separate pedestrian and bike plan and we're putting them together I do agree with I agree with at least 90% of what the our my committee members have said if maybe a hundred um I uh I do agree with what uh member McAllister said that even though we're putting together what uh we need for bikers and pedestrians it does have to it that makes it kind of lack a little bit of the connections with the many other ways that we use our streets um so I think that comment was well taken and maybe we can in the future combine this with a mass transit plan and you know uh other street use plans that will be more our multimodal for example um that said um I so I guess my opening comment myself is that I believe we're in the midst of or we're on the verge of a bit of a revolution in transportation between um so that so that uh even though I like this plan very much I think when we finish it it'll seem immediately if not already FD.

Um for example there's a lot of talk of uh cutting our carbon footprint through more active transportation but EVs in and of themselves are not not perfect but there's something we didn't have really when we started this.

So we have to kind of put those into the calculus um so but between uh virtual commuting which is really change and hybrid work which is really changing when people use the streets um micromobility AVs, automatic vehicles that may change mass transit a lot.

I think depending on our public how we as policy makers address them, they could either make uh our streets more overused with ABs just cycling around all the time, or um they could really uh help out with that first and last mile and and strengthen mass transit.

Um, and then the whole delivery box and drowns and extreme heat.

I just drove up through the Central Valley, so I've experienced it firsthand yesterday.

Um, and extreme storms and flooding in the winter.

I think the way we use our streets is really going to change.

Oh, plus density.

Uh, you know, our various plans say that by 2050 we'll have between 100,000 and 150,000 people.

You can believe that or not believe it, but we are taking you know steps to densify.

So those will all massively change the use of our streets.

So my first request is that in the same way we looked at our um Council Sustainability Committee documents that this plan be a living document.

I think that we're gonna have to um continually refresh it and like uh council member Kamei said, give our residents ways to uh help refresh it continually and be open to that.

I think it can't be a closed document.

Um, and I on I would also like to include since much of it is uh related to sustainability, I would like to include our uh sustainability staff in that.

If you know, I don't know how much you interface with them, but I think they're part of our technical advisory committee, that and more.

Um so um and also uh as we do in the sustainability program, uh, do more pilots, and I would like pilots that are more than just green painting bollards and plastic wear on the street, you know, uh maybe uh things that are block by block or done in small pieces, um, but I would like to be open to pilots.

Um in addition to that, uh I'm gonna highlight mostly things that various uh various groups and and individual have said that uh that I thought were very important.

Um and I could go on for hours because there was a lot of good commentary, but narrowing it down, one is that I I feel that bike boulevards and slow shared neighborhood streets could be emphasized more than they are the um our school district MVWSD uh and um various individual commenters brought that up uh in various capacities.

I think they're one of the least expensive things we can do uh is to highlight slow shared streets.

I think their models out there in other cities, um, and that we could get a lot of that done, and that a lot of people enjoy those more than the, you know, the green painting strip with the bollocks next to it.

Um so that's one, and uh yeah, there's a lot of reference to that in the MVWSD letter, so in various ways.

Um another thing is that has been mentioned several times, and this was a subcategory.

Uh one of the categories that you said that uh people members of the public made a lot of comments on, is um kind of honing the metrics that are used.

I've read that use is safety, in other words, a sidewalk or pedestrian route or bike lane that a lot of people are using makes those people in and of itself safer rather than one that that you know just a stray person here and there uses.

So I would like us to observe what's working well, and where do we see very few people, and maybe in terms of using our resources wisely, put more resources into the kinds of be they pedestrian improvements or bike improvements that seem to be more popular.

Um and I do agree with some of council member McAllister's comments on that, that we really want to see the infrastructure that we that we put in well used.

Um I agree with the there was a category about more focus on pedestrians.

I've even heard some people tonight refer to this as a bike plan, and um it really has to be in terms of getting people out of their cars in cities that connect uh pedestrians with transit, there's a much bigger reduction in car use than in cities that don't.

So I really want us to recognize pedestrians more, give them more, and not think of pedestrians as kind of the poor invisible siblings of bikers.

Um because I uh so some of the things I think we need to think more in terms of walk score.

People walk more when there are things to walk to, and that could be mass transit, it could be increased use of shuttle, but it could also be neighborhood serving businesses, making sure that we're not losing all of those.

Um, it could be um, uh it could be wider sidewalks where we're putting in denser buildings and the and vehicles like cantilevered buildings and so forth that allow us to do that and our objective design standards.

Um, so just I think there are a number of things we could do to really think about pedestrians as having different needs than bikers, um, although not always.

Um let's see uh we had uh someone emailed us on the subject of delivery bots, and I think that's a really important and underappreciated topic.

Um I was just down in the UCLA area in a place where they have sidewalks that are probably four times the width of the ones we have in Old Mountain View, and they have delivery bots that are um way bigger than the ones we used to have on the sidewalk.

It's okay because their sidewalks are so wide and there are very few delivery uh bots, but they move along in jerky ways and stop in the middle of the sidewalk constantly.

And if the sidewalk weren't 15 to 20 feet wide, you wouldn't be able to walk down the sidewalk.

And the report that we were given the last time we talked about delivery bots on the CTC, there was uh sort of the prediction there was going to be multifold, there were going to be many more of them, many times what we now have.

One or two delivery bots going down a narrow sidewalk is not doesn't stop up traffic, but um, you know, dozens and dozens of them, not able to go uh move along very efficiently.

Um they're motor vehicles and they're very heavy too.

And we have two companies in town that are doing delivery bots that if I if I remember correctly purely work on the streets, which is probably where delivery bots, where large vehicles go on, basically.

I think large vehicles go on the street.

Um, so uh let's see.

And then I guess the last thing I'll bring up is cost trade-offs.

Um, you know, I I really liked your catch sheets.

I like the eventual place we would get to.

Um, and I'm hoping we can find ways, ways to get there.

I'm thinking uh as member McAllister said, if you walk a lot of these streets, I think we'll find that some of the suggestions are really appropriate and would really enhance the street, and in other places, maybe like Carol that you mentioned and Latham that I mentioned, in other places we may not need to do them at all, which would save us a lot of money.

Um so that may be a good next step to have some eyes on the street and see um which ones would really work and and which ones wouldn't.

And the other is to combine it with our sustainability work.

A lot of these things have multiple benefits.

So if you see them as just an part of the active transportation plan, you might say it's too expensive, but if you see it as part of our sustainability plan or our community for all and equity or you know, any number of other things, or making density work, um, then it may be worth the cost.

So I think that, you know, there were and I guess the last thing I'll say is we got a tremendous number of really good comments from the community, and I'm hoping that all the letters we got with it from the various groups, um uh like the Mount View Coalition for Sustainable Planning and uh MBWSD, the school district, and various individuals that you'll put those under the categories because I'm not gonna be so we have all of these.

So are there oh, and I'll just highlight one thing that one of them said.

Uh somebody commented to me that we really need to make a distinction between um objective design standards, which are for both the private portion of developments and the um I can see wrong and the standard details for roadways, which are for public spaces and that we need both and that you're probably clear on it, but that the rest of us all have to be kind of more clear on the distinction.

Um, and somebody also said it's very important that we uh use the NACDO's book on uh pedestrian guidelines, bike and pedestrian guidelines, not NACO's general guidelines, which are more auto worry.

Um so those were those are highlights of some of the comments I found.

So did committee members have additional thoughts?

Okay, okay.

If there are no additional thoughts, I will um we're just taking feedback, so I will move on to the next item, which is 5.2, uh state route 237 and middlefield road, think of change improvements, just project 65.

Uh the staff presentation will be by Billy Counton, senior civil engineer and Robert Gonzalez, principal civil engineer.

Okay.

Maybe there's logic.

Oh sorry.

I'll go around the mirror.

She's already plugged in, so I'm just gonna go back.

I can close it to me.

You're gonna try to steal my sort of thing.

Are you gonna be processed?

Sorry about that.

Well, it's not a well, uh, you need to update the photos.

We like the little ones.

We like the photo.

Is that well you gotta start explaining each one, which shouldn't be.

The other one will be 11 soon.

Okay, that's the idea.

Active participants in the case.

So I's summer summer programs.

Oh, this is a little bit more.

Let's take a break.

How do we give us a hug Okay, so sorry to those of you who are uh listening virtually or listening online.

Um, we are now back uh to five five point two, which is state route two thirty-seven and middle field road interchange improvements, project nineteen sixty-five, uh, and we're ready for the staff presentation.

Thank you, Chair and Committee members.

My name is Joey Helen Senior Civil Engineer.

I'm joined here by Robert Gonzalez, Principal Civil Engineer.

Um, and we're here to present updates and staff recommendation on this date route two thirty-seven and middle field interchange project.

To start with a little bit of background, Middlefield Road between Loge Avenue and the Eastbound 237 off-rap is very challenging due to the number and close proximity of signalized intersections in a relatively short um stretch of road.

This results in a high collision rate and challenging environment for streams and bicyclists.

The intent of the project is to reduce collision conflicts and improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility and connectivity.

Starting in two thousand five, when the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority or BTA delicited city support regarding highway projects in the Valley Transportation Plan or VTP 2023, which includes the State Route 237 and Middlefield Road Interchange.

Up until the date, the project was theoretical without available funding for the subsequent phase.

Since the project impacts the right-of-way and operations begin approval prior to starting the final.

In particular, the collision rate at the westbound 237 middle field road frontage road intersection exceeds the statewide average for intersections of this type.

The 237 middle field road intersection operates the partial interchange since it only has an eastbound off-ramp and a westbound on-ramp compared to a full interchange with on and off ramps in both directions.

And with the other interchange movements happening at the Mod Avenue partial interchange.

There are continuous bike lanes, class two bike lanes, and four to six foot wide sidewalks on both sides of Middlefield Road within the project limits and east of Middlefield Road sidewalks and class two bike lanes do exist along the north and south sides of the westbound and eastbound frontage roads, respectively.

The project area is significantly constrained for bicyclists and pedestrian, with Caltrain Corridor acting as a north-south barrier, while 237 acts as an east-west area.

In 2012, traffic operations analysis was prepared to support the 2013 project study report.

The analysis identified two locations that eastbound and westbound 237 experiencing collision rates higher than the statewide average.

So middlefield road is actually left right on the page, and then the 237.

East middle field is left to right on the page.

And then the frontage roads at the top and then the on-ramp.

Westbound on the 237 is correct.

Yes, so the north side.

So I look at the north or the north side.

Yeah.

Middlefield going east to west.

So if you actually can go back one slide, I think that'll help for you.

Yeah.

Uh come back and arrow a little more.

But yeah, electronics.

Okay.

Highlights the location.

Highlight right here.

I'm sorry.

I want to go back one more slide.

It's not there.

There it is.

It's just location.

That's the West.

Okay.

So they're coming from.

Okay.

In the next slide, we we turn it on.

Turn it.

Yeah, that's why it was confusing.

Um, that middle field is going left to right in the next slide, and then that practice road on ramp is going to down.

That's the answer.

Different orientation.

We turned it 90 degrees to the left.

Go ahead and advance.

So keep you awake.

Okay.

Um, oh, folks.

Um, so the collision data showed that approximately 75% of collisions in the study area occurred at the middlefield road and the 237 ramps, specifically the southbound traffic on middlefield, which includes three types of conflicting movements.

Southbound through and westbound 237 ramp through movements, southbound through and westbound 237 left turning traffic movements, and southbound through and northbound left turning traffic movements.

As the project began in 2020, the project intersections were also analyzed for key performance metrics, including level of service or LOS instead of vehicle miles traveled.

The level of service measures the quality of traffic flow and the driver's experience on the road, and intersections based on the speed and number of cars using the road.

The LOS of a road is designated by a letter grade of A for free flow and to F for most congested conditions on Middlefield Road.

All intersections within the project area currently operate at the level service of C or better during both AM and PM peak hours, and this is according to the analysis conducted for the middlefield road traffic operation study completed in 2025.

An LOS C indicates their stable flow and operations is operates with a very average delay, which is within the city's threshold of acceptable LOS.

Project objectives and goals include reducing the frequency and severity of collisions along Middlefield Road within the project limits, improving pedestrian and bicycle accommodations and access, enhancing accessibility and connectivity to transit, strengthening connections to local roadways and planned developments in the area, and optimizing the use of existing right-of-way.

In 2020, the project team completed the preliminary investigative phase of the project to support the development and analysis of six concept alternatives, including two from the original project study report that will meet the project purpose and need.

The project team developed six alternatives, which I will be sharing on the next few slides.

And staff is presenting the project to the CTC first as we are seeking policy level direction on the approach of selecting the preferred alternative based on available funding for the project.

The alternatives were scored based on categories, including bike and pet improvements, safety, environmental traffic operations, right-of-way and geometrics.

The criteria categories were weighed based on their alignment with the project purpose and need, and were ranked in the following four.

Starting with the lowest ranking alternatives, alternative 5C, alternative 5B, and Alternative 2.

These alternatives include new points of access to the state route 237, which was not supported by Caltrans of the Highway Safety Analysis, predicted higher crash frequencies at the mainline connections.

Caltransit known to new mainline connections to the review.

Alternative one ranked the highest, but was not approved by Caltrans as it also introduces a new point of access to State Route 237.

With alternative one eliminated by Caltrans, the project team refined the second and third highest ranking alternatives, alternatives three and four for Caltrans review.

In 2023, Caltrans Express support for advancing these two alternatives for further consideration.

In 2024, the project team developed preliminary design concepts for alternatives three and four to further evaluate their feasibility.

Due to the right-of-way acquisition requirements associated with alternative four.

Alternative three was subsequently refined to include improvements along frontage road, including traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds approaching middle field route.

The additions of the additions of improvements along the westbound frontage road increase the project costs from the previous cost estimate in 2020, but are still within the project budget.

The conceptual design for the refined and the staff recommended alternative three includes the following proposed improvements.

Installation of traffic calming features along the westbound frontage road, including race medians, speatment markings, radar feedback signs, landscaping and narrow travel.

Also includes construction of class four bikeways and widened sidewalks along the westbound frontage road between Middlefield Road and Maud Avenue.

Installation of Class 4 bikeways and six-foot wide sidewalks on Middlefield Road.

And protected intersection improvements at Ferguson, Westbound 237 ramp on ramp and the eastbound 237 off-rap intersection.

In addition, alternative three also includes technology improvements at intersections, including signal interconnect and signal timing optimization and modified traffic signal operations with separate bicycle and pedestrian signal phase.

With the completion of the final draft of the biodiversity and urban forest plan, the project team will look for opportunities for inclusion of landscaping and green stormwater infrastructure as we progress in the project and continue to include the final.

The project is currently in the project approval and environmental document phase, which is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2026.

This phase will be followed by the final design phase expected to expected to begin in 2027 and complete in summer 2028, which will be followed by a two-year construction period.

The project cost estimate for the staff recommended um alternative is 24.8 million as summarized on the screen.

The project is fully funded through the final design utilizing TA measure B highway program fund.

This combined with the city fund is efficient to for construction of the project.

As our next steps, staff will provide the BPAC with an informational update on June 24, 2026, including a summary of feedback receipt and policy level directions from the CT.

Evaluation of CTC feedback, staff will forward the recommendation to city council for approval of the design concept in fall 2026.

This brings us to the staff recommendation for the CTC to receive an update and recommend that the city council approve the staff recommended design concept for the state route 237 and middle field road interchange improvements project.

And this concludes our presentation.

Happy to answer questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Could you committee members have a question?

Are you losing your hand?

Yeah.

Why are you rushing us through?

I can remember if it's proven this project needed for.

So okay, the question that you kept referencing to collisions, how many collisions?

And you said it exceeded the collisions total.

So how many collisions were there?

I'm sorry.

I came referring to this was a collision area.

So how many collisions were there?

Uh well, Joe looks for that.

Okay, I can add the through part of the traffic analysis.

There were identified as 87 near miss events.

So that was like the sense of the child's travel analysis.

Was there a particular spot?

Or was it just the poisons?

But then you're misses.

Yeah, was it all just the one channel area?

Well, so for the project area, it goes from low and it covers three of the those three intersections.

The 237 westbound middle field intersection.

So that intersection there were 87%.

I think the report said 87% should work within it.

Okay, because I saw something when you mentioned like Ferguson ago.

So okay.

And so that was the only thing.

I was just curious how many there were.

So when we approach the project, it needs to be looked at as a complex, um, as a set of intersections, because that's how Caltrans looks at it.

So we know that if it were a city project and a city intersection, we might just be looking at one intersection, but these all work together, it's really a system we need to be looking at.

So project footprint grows a little bit, um, but eighty-seven percent issues really are really good.

And our solutions are really focused on that on that conversation.

Um 87%.

But I do remember when we were working from one and two.

Yes, you were I was not, but I know that intersection and drive through there.

That was also okay.

No, that'll just be a lot more questions.

Council member Canada, do you have questions?

Yeah, I mean, I think so.

Um so I guess just trying to find a way.

So Altran is the the option four basically Altras just didn't agree with the funding.

Yeah, option for alternative four.

Um it's that was not, it wasn't alternative one that trans did not support.

Uh we and we narrowed are recommending alternative three because that's within our reach to be able to support through construction.

If we go with alternative four, it does require um right away, and we just don't have the funds to be able to move that forward to construction at this time.

What aside from the funding issue, and I was like, I was trying to understand uh how my do we feel that going with option three will be able to withstand the amount of change that's gonna be coming to that area.

So for example, council a few months ago adopted a 600 plus unit apartment complex, well on the corner of middle field, um, and when I think about the frontage and the alignment with Ferguson Drive and what may or may not happen in the middle field park area as well as the project we adopted at LS and middle field.

We're just gonna see a really high increase, I think in bicycle pedestrians, more so than we do now, and I live in that area, so I see it firsthand.

But so I'm just you know, I'm comfortable with the staff recommendation, but I'm curious if staff feels like in a decade, we're gonna be needing to go for something like uh what option four or sorry, alternative four just because of the high volume, and that's and I think even at the C we've discussed how it's it very difficult to narrow middle field because of the high volume that middle field has.

So I just it's difficult to future proof of project, but just seeing where we're going and knowing the cost of the increase of cost if we don't tackle with the you know 2026 pricing.

So I'm just curious, if we feel like alternative three is just gonna be the band aid and alternative one, the future basically, it can be kind of where we've all.

So senior engineer have mentioned uh traffic operations analysis that was done.

Um there was one done in 2012, there was another one done done in 2025, and the one was that was done in 2025, several analyses were performed on that.

So existing conditions was one baseline, but the other about the work valuation that was done was incorporating all of the planned uh known planned developments in the area that would affect middle fields.

So we kind of loaded up that um those known future conditions, including the one on um low, that front and all low.

So we know the traffic volumes because that will now be a four leg intersection at low with the the new development coming in as the fourth one.

Uh so I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that all of those all those traffic counts were accounted for in this analysis.

So it didn't look like there was substantial degradation from that, from that development from from the known from the known developments that were loaded to that.

Am I saying that correctly?

Um I believe so, but there's also no difference in capacity between alternatives three and alternative four.

Alternative, there you go, the project carpet and need.

Thank you for helping with that up from where I was trying to go.

Okay, well, great.

That was that was the first, that was half of my question.

I can now ask a smaller question.

Okay.

So yeah, again, with the development around there, particularly I don't remember the the Prometheus project, I don't remember the name the names of all the projects, but um how so how does that interface with how does this interface with the like you talked about wide sidewalks with the uh with the improvements near the streetscape that the developer with the Prometheus, the developer was going to do which one is that?

Yeah, this is the uh the middle field for the element, front of both streets.

Yeah, so we would expect the project status here is that we are in the preliminary phase of the project.

So we are at the project selection phase.

From here, we move into design.

So we are really um I'm sad to say it was uh council McAllister, but we are not at near the finished line.

We are we are we will be kicking off the design for this project if council approves it, we can move forward.

VTA is possible.

Um so we would expect that the development is going to be an existing condition.

I think that that's gonna advance forward sooner.

Um so we would be as we go into design, we would be providing that back that information as a background condition for the designers.

They would see the improvements that we're showing here.

We could actually have the developer um deliver some of those so they would be in place, such as the sidewalk, uh that front that developed okay.

So let me see if I understand the sequence.

It seems like a complicated sequence of events to make uh because there's so many moving projects at the same time.

So tonight we'll point to a particular option and it'll go on to council, and then you'll go through design, which will include interfacing with the developer, and I imagine whoever you expect them to go forward quicker than this particular project, but if it doesn't, there'll be contact to make sure you're not like scanner ripping them out, okay.

That sounds good.

Um, and then also like the uh the picture.

So my question was going to be about traffic volume and traffic in the area, but you kind of asked that.

So now I'm narrowing it down just to the sidewalk.

It seems like this is an area we want to make it much more in addition to much safer for cars and and bikers.

We also want more people to be walking, and it is a barrier that area right now.

So how does this connect to the rest of the middle field improvement project that we talked about?

And then also individual developments, like can we expect between those two things and then this project to see dramatic improvements that'll make everybody really want to walk a bike through this area and drive their electric cars?

Yeah.

Waiters right there.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um for the existing pedestrian infrastructure in this area, it's uh four to six, and we want to make that, we want to make six foot kind of the minimum in this area, at least within the project area on middle field road.

Um, and then also widening the existing sidewalk um and include a bike lane on the north side of uh the West Bow frontage road.

Yeah, I mean that sounds appropriate.

We do want to improve the pedestrian facility to do and not just maintain the existing.

Are you gonna be able to add tree canopy?

That is something that we will be exploring as we progress in the possible final design.

Okay, I'm getting more of a picture of how the sequence of defense.

Thank you.

And uh can I have um principal engineer?

It's all speak to the midfield project.

Yes.

Um, so both to your question about the point.

Yes, yeah.

So both projects are programming class four protected bike lines.

So that gives some separation between vehicle traffic and bike traffic.

So as if if you are traveling down the field after both these projects are complete, you will have a much more comfortable ride going, say, from um shoreline all the way down to parts of Sunny, so all the way down to Perdora through this through this.

And then this included some lane narrowing.

Uh I think if I remember we are considering lane reduction or lane with production on westbound frontage road, um, we plan to be consistent with the lanes that lane with post as part of the middle field complete streets, which is currently 11 um feet wide.

And front is just wider, it's wider, and we propose to make them 11 feet as well.

The challenge here is that most of the middle field road within the project area as well as the frontage road, those are all operated by Caltrans.

So Caltrans would have to approve um the final dimension uh proposed for delaying.

And Councilmember McCallister, you had an additional question.

Yeah, okay.

I'm trying to what problem, okay.

You're what's the problem trying to result?

Number of crashes, and if it's the number of crashes, shouldn't Caltran be paying problems?

So the issue is with the signal line, the three signalized or four signalized intersections within close proximity does result in a higher collision rate, higher than statewide average.

And to answer your question earlier, it is in the memo, it just wasn't in the table format.

Um, but between 2005 and 2010, there were 26 total collisions between um just at the intersections of the on and off ramps on Metalfield, and then between 2011 and 2015, that went up to 31.

Um, between 2016 and 2020, that went up to 44.

Um, the city saw an opportunity when we received the community benefit funds.

Um, those funds usually typically get um used on improvements within the area, and this was kind of the bigger project that we fully tackle um, of course, with coordination and collaboration with Caltrans.

So, and it also adds your question related to like why isn't Caltrans delivering these projects.

So I'm I'm very proud to say that Mountain U is more proactive in delivering uh transportation improvements on a um faster scale, more efficient than Caltrans.

While Calvinist does do this, um they have a enormous network to maintain, you know, respectively, I understand that.

Um we have a smaller network to maintain, and we're very proactive in applying these pet and bike improvements throughout the city.

So we saw an opportunity here as we did we do with other projects we're doing within Mountain View, such as um the recently completed real left lanes, the El Monte, intersection um improvements, meaning the uh El Camino Real Castro protected intersection improvements.

So there's a lot of projects that we are implementing because it's a priority for our community.

Um, and we can deliver faster than the initial thing with the community benefits was to get the bike lanes and that also that was our main goal at the time to do those bike lines.

Okay, that's what I thought.

And so Caltrans said, Well, while you're at it, do this for us.

Makes sense.

The original objective also was to reduce the collision because that was known from the 2012 2013 project study report that was completed, also in coordination with Caltrans and BTA.

Having the interchange um included in that project study report means that Caltrans commits staff to work with us and VTA to deliver this project without costs to the city board project.

So, what actually is changing on the intersection?

There are some protected uh intersection treatments that is that's proposed at the further thing on and off ramps.

Um so that would help reduce the vehicle speed as well as make the turning movement more predictable at the intersections, which then could result in a lower uh potential collision or lower conflicting movement in the area because now we're combining improvements along middle field road and frontage road really to target the intersection that has the most conflict.

I'd also add that um the frontage road uh uh senior engineer how pointed out a couple of medians that we're proposing along that fringe road.

Um this is new, so they're not there today, and that's an also in an effort to reduce speeds, create an element that would narrow the lane, um, and another element that could help visual indicator that this is a little different.

Um, I need to slow down to be able to navigate this.

Okay, I'm going with your record based.

I'm just curious, so I'm well for what you do.

Sure, the the then I was just curious of what exactly is occurring.

Yeah, the report also outlines installation of reflective backlights, installation and uh near size signal heads, modified traffic signal operations to provide a bike and pet signal signal phases, so dedicated phases for bikes and pads.

All of these support the two biggest factors, the collision factor for speeding and red light road.

So all of these kind of fall in line as modifications that you could do really kind of uh low-cost modifications to change driver behavior.

Were any collisions included in bicyclists?

Or is it just car cover?

These are vehicle collisions, okay.

So I know models.

Now that's confusing to me.

When you turn on a green light, is it your lane or something else?

But that's that's not sorry.

Okay.

Last call for questions.

Okay, we will move on to public comment.

Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item?

Yes, it's very burr from 25 walking route.

This really the issue of middle field road risks of this undefined uh approval of a class for bike lane right in my backyard, a place like bike and drive through sometimes to do to work or elsewhere, really kind of woke up a sleeping dog.

Some of you remember me from 15 to 20 years ago on the BPAC or my most recent civic engagement was on the police city group uh two or three years, three years ago.

But relevant to here was that this middle middle field and 237 interchange was major topic that the police traffic officers that spoke with us have brought up that they had been working on light timing, and this was a known high collision area, and that when they got done with a lot of the light timing and adjustments, they felt that they already had dialed back from a lot of the additional collisions.

The primary cause of majority of the collisions as far as coming down the ramp off of 237, I'll call it southbound or forgivenal fetus, where they're coming down in the 60s, 70s or 80s miles per hour within a quarter mile or less, needing to slow down sometimes to a stop.

Well, a few rumble strips across or bots dots, that's a standard way of slowing cars down in transition.

I'm not seeing that mentioned or hearing that brought up, but if you can amend in to have a few rows of bots dots and rumble strips coming down that ramp, I'd venture a guess that uh closing speeds by the time they get to the light could be 10 to 20 miles an hour slower just from all the traffic need to go over that.

Okay, so that's when rumble strips.

Now they're with the class four bike lane um proposals being so vague.

Caltrans, and I think VTA2 has a wide range of options, how to design them, how to implement them.

They show many pictures from many areas around the state, which widely range in what's done, including the reflectivity or lack or not using reflective.

Um example I'd offer is your bagwana down in San Jose, where there's no filler, it's just round holes, somewhat vertical round green tubes.

Cars and bicycles all see each other really well coming in and out now.

Precedent for the city to hold back on not moving forward until the class four definition is further defined, goes back to 2006, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.

The six years it took me along with VTA and the BPAX involvement to get the striping bike lane ingress and egress on the overpass through shoreline over 101.

Eventually, Caltrans and VTA approved safe way, and they refined it, and then they move forward with the next city striping contract.

I'm just about out of time.

That's pretty much what I have here.

Um, you can contact me personally, privately in the email if you want to questions.

Okay, very much.

Are there any virtual speeches?

Yes.

April Webster.

Hi, um April Webster.

I'm vice chair of the D4 Caltrans uh back, and also on the um California Walk Bike Technical Advisory Committee.

So I see a lot of this projects and what Caltrans is doing.

I'm speaking to my own on my own capacity.

Um, interchanges, like intersections are among the most dangerous and high stress locations for people walking and biking.

They combine high speeds, turning and merging movements, long crossings, driver expectations shaped by freeway conditions, etc.

They also separate communities for people in cars.

It can feel like a connection for people walking, biking or taking transit, it feels like a wall, or like a place you have to survive passing through.

It's especially important here on 237 because it's a Caltrain corridor, the middle field light rail station is right there.

Um, Wisman Station, LinkedIn, is right at this nearby employer, other nearby employers.

Um, they all shape how people move or can't move through this area.

I would like to ask staff to evaluate this design from the perspective of an interested but concerned bicyclist, including children, family, older adults, people who don't feel confident riding next to freeway ramps, which probably a lot of us riding alongside something like this, um, even like a highway on-wrap by not sure any of you have done it.

I have it takes nerves as steel.

If the design only works for these confident adult cyclists, then it's not going to be an all-ages and ability facility.

Um, I would like staff to clarify whether the proposed bikeway has been evaluated against Caltrans District 4 current bicycle best practices that just came out in the past couple years.

They have information in there for interchange crossings, um, etc.

I would also like um, you know, all the parties to think about future proofiness um and trips that people want to make over the next several days um decades.

That means evaluating it um the most protective form of class four facility feasible, including raised um or sidewalk level bikeways are appropriate.

San Jose, um King Road Complete Streets project is doing this.

Um, they just presented at the VTA B Pack for an object for funding.

It was an excellent project.

Um, I would highly recommend you look at that.

Um, I don't think flex posts or modular curved delinear treatments will be sufficient here, especially this kind of environment.

Um, they could be interim, but they're not great.

Um, finally, VTA is beginning an interchange research right now, um, funded by Caltrans.

They're still in the data and background phase.

Um, but because this project is in PA and DED before it enters into PSE final design, I think this is the time to keep that design window open and coordinate with VTA's research and also Cal Trans Best District War Best Practices.

This is being presented tomorrow morning at the BPAC at 10 to 12.

I encourage you, it's open to the public.

I encourage you to attend.

I'm happy to share details about that meeting.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Are there more speakers?

No, that's all.

Okay, thank you very much.

So we will now uh bring this back to the committee for comments and action.

I'll make questions right now.

Okay.

Are there any comments before we go?

Yes.

What are your comments?

I apologize.

I didn't read the staff report.

I didn't know I I was concentrating so much on this, I go, that's the whole meeting.

And so I apologize.

I did not, that's why I asked someone quickly.

I apologize for the reason so much.

I'll trust the staff request because we're going to get it done.

Okay, well, I will I will make my comment.

Do you have any comments?

I'm just excited that we're here 20 years later.

This area really needs improvement.

So thank you for that for your persistence and all the creativity in terms of all the different alternatives you looked at.

And then I think what council member or committee member of House are like is that you know it would be fully fun, and we could get that.

No, but I added, you know, I just you guys ever gone through Carson City.

You go through Carson City, they do a lot of freeways have certainly are it can be incorporated in the underpass.

I think.

Actually, actually, I have to second that.

That would be a this is such a barrier in this neighborhood.

This is not for now, but but anything.

So my comment is just oh, you know what the public speakers said, anything since we're at such an initial phase, and this is such a barrier in this area, and it's going to develop so much, and it has been a place where people just drove to the office and then drove away and just stayed inside their offices.

And we're trying to transform it into something else.

You know, anything you can do along those lines, or what the public speaker said about coordinating with VTA research, just anything you can do to turn it into more of a real neighborhood where people can be outside.

Even downtown, I suggested part.

It's just like the train.

Yeah, the train, like a train going through carbon.

I know we have an unlimited budget for that.

Yeah, you know, so hey, this could be.

Okay, but no, that's so I'm not gonna say no.

Okay.

We will look into later.

So for later.

Okay, I'll put some pictures from cards.

They have up and say on the second, yeah.

They have to find out.

Okay, are we ready to take the vote?

I'm hearing no more comments.

I think we're ready.

Um, so we'll um meet member counsel and second for me.

Um, member May.

Yes.

Uh, the council.

Yes, yes.

Okay.

Oh, okay.

We are now on item number six, which is committee staff announcements updates, requests, and committee reports.

Uh 6.1 is committee comments.

Do any of the committee members have comments or reports?

I can trouble okay, and go to me.

Um, okay, so now uh would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comments on this item?

If so, please.

Oh, there have been out items.

So, um, are there any public comments?

No, no, lack of comments.

Um in that case.

Uh thank you.

We're now on item number seven, which is adjournment.

Our next uh CTC meeting will be August 31st, uh 2026, and we will adjourn at 9 20 p.m.

Thank you.