March 4, 2025 Council Transportation Committee

Video

Agenda

• 1. CALL TO ORDER: At 6:30 p.m., Chair McAlister called the meeting to order. (00:00:06)
• 2. ROLL CALL (00:00:06)
• 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC: There were no public speakers in-person or virtually. (00:00:53)
• 4. MINUTES APPROVAL (00:01:43)
• 4.1 Approve Meeting Minutes: There were no public speakers in-person or virtually. The motion to approve the October 29, 2024 Council Transportation Committee meeting minutes was deferred to the next meeting on April 1, 2025. (00:01:43)
• 5. NEW BUSINESS (00:03:37)
• 5.1 Moffett Boulevard Complete Streets, Project 24-03: Assistant Engineer Chen provided a presentation on the Moffett Boulevard Complete Streets, Project 24-03. (00:03:37)
• 5.2 Citywide Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Update: Transportation Planner Pacho provided a presentation on the Citywide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance. (01:23:34)
• 6. KEY PROJECT UPDATES (02:30:34)
• 6.1 Castro Street and Rengstorff Grade Separation Projects: Senior Civil Engineer Houghton provided a verbal update on the Castro Street and Rengstorff Grade Separation Projects. (02:30:34)
• 6.2 Active Transportation Plan: Assistant Public Works Director Boyer provided a verbal update on the Active Transportation Plan. There were no public speakers in-person or virtually. (02:40:25)
• 7. COMMITTEE/STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS, UPDATES, REQUESTS, AND COMMITTEE REPORTS (02:42:14)
• 7.1 Staff Comments: There were no staff comments. (02:42:14)
• 7.2 Committee Comments: Chair McAlister provided an update that he will attend a conference in Washington, D.C. to learn about collaborating with the federal government on projects/issues. There were no public speakers in-person or virtually. (02:42:42)
• 10. ADJOURNMENT: At 9:14 p.m., Chair McAlister adjourned the meeting. (02:43:36)

Transcript

2. ROLL CALL

[00:00:06] Chair John McAlister: We will call the council transportation committee to order. Today is March the 4th. 2025. It is now 6 o'clock. 6.30. I was open. Okay. 6.30? This is a hybrid meeting allowing public comment both in person and virtually. Corrections for addressing the committee virtually may be found on the posted agenda. What about all police? The public works director will take it, so I will call. Uh, Committee

[00:00:41] Public Works Director Ng: Chair McAllister?

[00:00:42] Chair John McAlister: Yeah.

[00:00:42] Public Works Director Ng: Committee member, Hicks.

[00:00:45] Member Alison Hicks: Yeah.

[00:00:46] Public Works Director Ng: And let the record show that, uh, the mayor, Kamei, is at some today.

3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC

[00:00:53] Chair John McAlister: This, uh, that we're now able to go into oral communication item number three, this portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the committee on any matter, not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for the 30 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the community from acting on non-agenda items, but any member of the public on the, on the line, like to provide comment on non-agenda items? If so, please click the raised hand, But in zoom or pro selector. We will take in-person speakers first. Staff will display the timer on the screen. Or touch me.

[00:01:35] Unknown Speaker: I'll show the screen, but no one has their hand raised. So I'm just... No, in person.

4.1 Approve Meeting Minutes

[00:01:43] Chair John McAlister: So anybody in the public would like to speak on any particular item not on legion? Seeing none? And we don't have any virtual speakers, so none we will close public comment. Well, we'll go to the consent calendar. This is 4.one approving minutes. Meeting minutes, the minutes for the October 29th, 2024 meeting are presented for approval tonight. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in persons like to provide comment on the minute? If so, please click the raise, handlet, and zoom, or post the electric. We will take in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have 3 minutes. Anybody would like to comment on the list? Seeing none would close that app. We will now take virtual speakers. Uh,

[00:02:39] Unknown Speaker: no, yes, please, share. Do we have people? Yes, there are attendees. Okay. Yes, that's great.

[00:02:45] Chair John McAlister: Uh, thank you. I will now bring the item back for committee to deliberation action. Are there any corrections or comments on the minutes? No,

[00:02:53] Member Alison Hicks: but I would like to make a motion to, um, set them up. So

[00:03:00] Chair John McAlister: I will 2nd it, but I'm going to abstain because I didn't really see any of the spent itself.

[00:03:08] Member Alison Hicks: I don't know. Do we need 2 votes for it?

[00:03:11] Public Works Director Ng: I think we do. Because we have one committee member accent.

[00:03:15] Member Alison Hicks: We do, so I think either you vote for it, or we bring it back next time. The next is your choice.

[00:03:20] Unknown Speaker: Could you project them? Because I can't see them.

[00:03:24] Member Alison Hicks: Your turn to comment on them is over. Okay. Excellent. So, that's your choice. Chair. You either vote for it, or we bring it back next? It doesn't matter. Yeah,

5.1 Moffett Boulevard Complete Streets, Project 24-03

[00:03:37] Chair John McAlister: well, let's just bring it back. Okay. We will do that. No, good. Okay, now we've run up, item, 5 new business, 5.one, Moffat, Boulevard, Flute Street, Friday, 24 over three. Item 5.one is the Moffat Boulevard, Fleet Street. Staff presentation will be selected by a system engineer. No. Mm hmm. Right.

[00:04:23] Assistant Engineer Chen: Good evening, so we'll get the presentation started. Good evening, committee members. My name is Nancy Chen. I an assistant engineer with the public works department, presenting on the Moffat Boulevard Complete Streets, and with me tonight, is Robert Gonzalez Principal Civil Engineering. So as we get started, here is the Ariel. Sorry, I think 142 far. The aerial photo shown here that illustrates a project area with the project location highlighted in green. The project location adds extra level of complexity due to project right away coordination. So here we see the, um, that we need health trans coordination throughout the corridor. From the SR 85 OnRad, all the way north towards clock road that's shown in purple. SF PUC's uplituct. Runs through the south end of the roadway by Middlefield Road, shown in the Dark Blue, and the Moffatt Airfield, and NASA, are to the north, shown in the orange. PG&E also has a substation located just northwest of the roadway by Lyom. And a tower easement running parallel with Stevens Creek Trail. And additionally, there's a Stevens Creek Trail crossing that's just east of SR 85 running parallel with the highway that's shown in the later boom here. A little bit of project background to look at the timeline that this project has taken so far. In 2015, city contracted with BKF engineers to conduct a bike wave feasibility study for the corridor as part of planning. In June 2022, a virtual community meeting was held to gather input on bikeway alternatives, and BPAC was also presented, the complete streets checklist for the OBAG 3 grant application for review with comments. At the beginning of 2023, the city was awarded $350000000 through the OBEG 3 federal grant. To secure the grant, council adopted a resolution to provide local support and committing matching funds and stating assurance to complete the project. And this past June, city council authorized professional services agreement with BKF for design services and provide construction support, and the design was kicked off this past fall. So as mentioned, this project is federal, is a federally funded project with one Bay Area grant funds. The scope of the project is dictated by the grant application. Project design must be approved by Caltran's local assistants to meet the grand scope. The city will start coordination with Caltrans local assistance in the coming months and estimating to construct the project in 2026 to meet the grant timeline requirements. City committed in the resolution to complete the project as described in the grant application within the funding deadline in order to receive the grant funding. Funds need to be obligated by January 2027, which means design and account rent approval must be obtained by then. In terms of the project scope, the elements include 1st and foremost, pavement rehabilitation of Moffitt Boulevard. And in conjunction with that, we will be installing class 4 bike lanes with vertical separation, class 2 bike lanes at the pinch points. Green conflict striping at driveways, bus stops at intersections where there's turning, turning conflict. There's a sidewalk gap closure on the east side of the roadway between Lyon Drive and Stevens Creek Trail. Media modifications will be made to accommodate the bike lanes, puppers, convert for owners. Currently along the roadway, there is a sidewalk gap on the east side between Stevens Creek Trail and Leon Drive, and that's shown in the upper left picture. There's pin pinch points. Well, noted in the bottom 2 pictures, SR 85 undercrossing and the US 101 overcrossing. Market Boulevard is also a designated truck route and bus route requiring minimum 11 foot travel lanes. There's also limited right of way along the project location, as we previously mentioned, in the project location slide, and that constrains the space that's available to us. Access MV has also identified the segment of Moffat to be a high level of stress for bicyclists and recommends bike and pet improvements along this corridor. So in order to accommodate the continuous bikeway along the corridor, removal of approximately 18 parking spaces is proposed on the east side of the roadway, adjacent to the Willow Park apartment complex. A parking study was conducted in August 2024 along the entire length of the project, and only one vehicle was observed throughout the study with adequate off street parking available. And we'll be bringing the parking remove item to counsel for consideration later this spring. So staff also evaluated, input provided by residents from the June 2022 community meeting, and the costs associated with preferences to identify an appropriate scope for the project design phase based on available budget and right away. What is pictured here are examples of the rural governments and not necessarily the exact item that we will be installing. Based on existing constrictions of right away, flexible post-delineators, which is on the left, or similar vertical separation is proposed along most of the polar door. Where space permits, rubber curb islands, similar to those installed on Lyon, along with vertical elements are proposed along the roadway. And that's an example of that on the right picture. Over the next light, I will be walking you through, segment by segment, the proposed improvements and cross sections along the board. We'll be starting from the south at Middlefield Road, and move north to Clark Road. And the city limits. And each slide will have an overview layout, a cross-section of the existing conditions and a cross-section of the proposed improvement. So here we are. This is the 1st segment of the proposed design. Please note that the cross sections are not showing vertical elements, but vertical vertical delineators or similar are proposed throughout the buffers, except where turning movements conflict. And travel lanes are maintained at a minimum of 11 feet throughout. But there is proposed lane with narrowing in order to accommodate the bike ways.

[00:10:39] Chair John McAlister: So, does the top one, the current, and the bottom one is proposed?

[00:10:44] Assistant Engineer Chen: Yes, so the top is the overview and then there's the current existing and then the proposed. And that'll be the structure for every slide. So here in segment A, we're at Middlefield Road on your left and heads towards SR 85 to your right. There are no existing bike facilities. So in order to make room for the bike lanes. Buffers and vertical delineators, center medium modifications are proposed along with lean width reductions. Green conflict striping will be added. Where driveways. Okay, sorry. We'll be added where driveways and bus stops are conflicting. The intersection of Middlefield Road will be completed in the middle field with a complete streets project, and that design will be coordinated as a project progresses. In segment B, we approach the SR 85 undercrossing, which is a pinch point. There is adequate space for bike lanes, buffers, and delineators in the existing shoulder in the southbound direction. However, in the northbound direction, median modifications are proposed, um, which will need Caltrans approval. Um in order to accommodate the bike facilities. A small segment of rubber crow separation is proposed in pink, where there's adequate width to provide extra separation between the vehicles and bicyclists. And our next segment, segment C from SR 85 under crossing to Lyon Drive. The sidewalk gap closure is shown in blue, connecting Leon Drive to Stevens Creek Trail. Vertically separated, buffered bike lanes will be added to the existing shoulder in the southbound direction. In the northbound direction, the existing buffer bike lanes will add new, vertical, flexible post, flexible post delineators are similar, and conflict striping has traffic approaches Leon Drive. And the next segment? As we approach the US 101 ramp, the bike lanes end as it approaches that intersection due to an existing median width. Media modifications will allow for bike lane to continue through the northbound direction approach. And rubber vertical separation is proposed where there's additional width in the roadway shown in pink to provide better separation between vehicles and bikes. Vertical delineators and buffers will also be added in the southbound direction. In segment E, we cross over US 101 at the pinch point. The vehicle travel lanes will be narrowed to accommodate 6 foot bike lanes on the Caltrans overpass bridge. However, due to the limited width, the roadway will not be able to accommodate buffers or vertical elements. An extended conflict striping area is also included adjacent to the right turn pocket onto the US 101 ramp shown on the right side of the slide, which is the north end of the segment. In segment F, the last segment as we approach Clark Road and city limits, there are existing bike lanes, and the project will add buffers with delineators, mostly maintaining the alignment to meet the intersection outside of city limits, which is shown in the red dotted line. And now I will be handing it off to principal civil engineer Gonzalez, and he will go over the February 26 BPAC meeting and their feedback and their next steps.

[00:14:11] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: Assistant engineer, Chen, uh, noted, we went to be a, we went to be packing on February 26th. We provided them with this information. $3500000 grant. We went through this before, but I just wanted to make sure we're emphasizing this was a competitive grand. Um, we presented, um, the best scope we thought was, um, deliverable under, you know, very specific grand conditions. So we knew what the, what the, allotment was for the local agencies. We wanted to be competitive. So we developed that scope with that in mind. We also shared with BPAC the overview of the scope. And we went over the next steps. The scope does include payment, the pavement in this project, as well as the class 4 bike improvements and the pedestrian improvements. So the next step would be tonight with the CDC, and then we'd like to move forward to final design. This project we see as really the 1st step. in delivering these really important corridor improvements. Um, I won't, I won't read the whole slide, but we gave this, uh, we presented this to BPAC, and they deliberated and they came back with 2 motions for, uh, for consideration. Motion one was for BPAC to request that the city evaluate a potential road diet for this segment. Um, and then motion 2 was for BPAC to recommend specific design elements. without substantial cost increases. Um, so a portion of the top one also mentioned specifically noting the BPAC does not wish to substantially delay the project or endangered the grant funding. I wanted to make sure that they were clear about that. Some of the recommended improvements that they are identifying moving right turn lanes, um, to the left of the bike lane in certain locations, adding an additional curb cut from the Stevens Creek Trail northbound, onto Moffatt Boulevard northbound. Evaluating new crosswalk, southbound of state Route 85 on ramp, narrowing the left turn lanes, consistent with Nacto. Adding crossing improvements, including ADA compliant curb cuts, advanced stop bars, and approved laying. Oh, and approved lighting specifically under SR 85. Um, so the BPAC meeting really was a project update, and this was a lot of information for them, for us to provide to them, and they gave us a lot of feedback as well. So the initial staff evaluation. Staff has done this evaluation. There are some items that we can include without substantially impacting the scope, the budget, and the grant funding. So specifically elements, such as adjusting the bike lane configuration at right turns, eliminate conflicts, adding curb cuts at Stevens Creek Trail, northbound from Stevens Creek onto northbound Moffat, and including advanced stop bars and ADA curb branch. However, changing the project, including other scope elements, has been evaluated by staff, and we see these as a much substantially higher risk. risk to the schedule, risk to the budget, and very importantly, risk to the to the grant funding. So the climate for federal grants has changed substantially, since we applied for the grant, since we were granted the grant, just over the past few months, the project scope changes will initiate a new review of grant applications. So Caltrans is the administrator at the state level, locally, a metropolitan transportation commission, is our liaison, they would be, that would open up additional scrutiny by MTC and by Caltrans. Um, so we see this as a substantial high risk of losing the 3.5 million dollar federal grant, opening that door again. Staff is very concerned that the project may be deferred or completely eliminated. And the project scope I mentioned before, does include pavement. So the pavement conditions will continue to degrade, um, the longer it takes, the more it will, uh, slip into that, uh, For the degradation, degradation phase. Um, so based on this information, we're sharing with you now, we want to, we want to move project forward into final design and deliver the project. And this one. I thought there was a staff recommendation. Yeah, I did. Okay. There we go. All right, so we, we review the design concept for Moffat qualified complete streets, and we would recommend that you direct staff to advance the project into final design. This would include the elements that we cover on a previous slide that would, that we could add to those, such as the curb cuts, that would not, that would not impact cost, schedule, or budget, those are minor improvements that are at the purview of the local agency, and wouldn't have to go back if you were. So in terms of next steps, we can proceed with final design, our consultant would then go and initiate discussions with Caltrans from the design coordination phase. Caltrans will be wearing 2 hats during this project because so much of the project is within Caltrans Corridor. They will be looking at this for, uh, through their design eyes, through their design manual. In addition to that, the next phase will begin the environmental clearance project, grant funding requirements, that also requires Caltrans coordination. So we'll be beginning that process after this. We anticipate completing final design by the end of 2025. Um, the 2nd to last box, their account trans, grant review process. That is a hard stop on design, that puts the project into Caltranscants for their review. So that is a technical review, as well as an administrative review to make sure that we are meeting our grant requirements, way back at the beginning of the slide. There was a commitment slide about what the local agencies, the city was committing to in terms of signing, agreeing to this grant. Those elements there are checked off the boxes at that phase when Caltrans is going through the grant review. And then we would hope to start construction in 2026, which is consistent with the grant timeline. So, of course... Thank you. Committee. Do

[00:21:09] Chair John McAlister: you have any questions for me? First.

[00:21:12] Member Alison Hicks: Yes, I do. Good course. Um, so, you said, um, Mr. Gonzalez, you said at, uh, some point that this is the 1st step. What is the second step? So

[00:21:24] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: the second step is to be determined. Really, we've got some internal processes, such as the active transportation plan, that are really designed for community feedback, elements of what it is practical and peaceful for this, for this location. So this was the 1st step. It was scoped based out of the 2015 study and by community feedback and by BPAC feedback. And those next steps would be an evaluation of multiple projects, the ATP is a citywide evaluation, um, and so that would be essentially beginning with, like, a needs assessment, evaluation of what's feasible, that's its own kind of process. And the next step would come out of that process. So

[00:22:06] Member Alison Hicks: I'll tell you, I'm asking because I've gotten a lot of community feedback on this particular item, and so I'm wondering how much we could do on this one and how much we might be able to do in the future itself. Like you're saying, we may be able to do some things in the future. Well,

[00:22:22] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: the best part, the ATPs dictate priorities and scope for these future projects. So, like in 2015, there was a study for the roadway. And out of that study came multiple projects, probably identify projects that were higher at priority and lower priority. So that dictated to staff where we should be implementing our resources that helps create the projects in the CIP. So this would be the same process from ATP, is all of those projects would be evaluated. Although those projects would be presented to the community and to BPAC into this body. And they could be prioritized at that point. So depending on the priority, the remainder of these benefits would be weighed against improvements on Rangsdor for improvements on local streets. Might

[00:23:07] Assistant Engineer Chen: be a little more specific. So, if the future desire and is what comes out of the ATP is to do a road diet and implement class 4 bike lanes, right, right now, what we're doing is, um, doing what we can within the confines of the schedule and the grant money that we've received, also within the right away limitations that we have. But again, if that planning document, the ATP, um, goes through its full process, and it says we should do something along this roadway. We have that in our, you know, in our minds that what we're doing right now could be a 1st step, like an interim improvement, right? We still making things better. Um, and eventually we'll get to whatever shakes out of the ATP. So, similar questions. Have you been doing? Um,

[00:23:57] Member Alison Hicks: I'm gonna ask this question and then add a caveat. Have you been doing traffic counts on this road, and my caveat is, traffic seems to be in a lot of flux in terms of certainly during COVID, there was likely, much less. And then we've also, um, we're changing, when and whether you can, uh, cross the train tracks, which impacts Moffatt. Um, so some of the changes are long term, some, I don't know how much, you know, the work from home, or partially from home, return to office, or new construction in that, you know, in the area that this road leads to, in some ways, traffic counts. Count this year, it might be different next year. But have you been doing traffic counts? So,

[00:24:49] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: the project was scoped in the 2021, 2022 timeframe? Um, so, at the time, we were basing the, the, the elements and the improvements based on traffic at that time. So it was the same thing. It was in flux at that point as well. I'm not aware of, of traffic counts going on right now, but that would be, that would be different. Like, that wouldn't necessarily change the scope at this point. The scope was defined back when we applied for the for the grand. Um, Will

[00:25:24] Member Alison Hicks: this be somewhat consistent with, in terms of the bike lane and sidewalk, with what we're doing on Moffatt, um, on the other side of middle field, between middle field and the train tracks, what's the, how similar will it be? I know that people in them, living uh, within the Moffatt precise plan area and working and so forth, interested in that area really wanted to be very, uh, cater very much to active transportation and making that comfortable. And so, so far, making it up, you know, a pleasant place to bike and walk. How different will this be from that portion of Puppet? So

[00:26:04] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: staff is working very closely with the planning department and with the staff involved in the Moffatt precise plant. We were involved in the kickoff. We provided them all the information that we've seen today, in terms of what the scope is. This project will be considered part of their existing conditions, as they developed that, I see, uh, assistant public works sector, Arango. Yeah. I,

[00:26:28] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: um, at a Ringo, Simple Works director, used for the question. Um, as, um, uh, Principal Engineer Gonzalez mentioned, um, we are coordinating with the community development department on the Moffat Boulevard Precise Plan, as that is just initiating. Um, we don't know what the Moffat Boulevard corridor is gonna look like between uh, Central Expressway and Middlefield. As we were developing that. Um, We'll have more information later, as we'll share with council and community development, we'll share with council proposed street configurations and what the core elements may look like. Um, but again, this is something that um, is a 1st step to improving the, this component of MOVID. And we can come back, um, at a later date, again, based on what the ATP says and what council, um, priorities are, um, we're coming to you at the end of this month to start talk about the CIP. Um, there's going to be a lot of balancing between projects and identifying priorities, um, because there is a lack of funding and unrestricted funds, as well. There's not enough funding to maintain our existing PCI throughout the city. So we're really trying to balance many things here, and this is an effort to really do payment maintenance. Improve the bike lanes. And then we can come back one more information regarding the Moffat precise plan, what that looks like and how this can integrate with that. So

[00:27:55] Member Alison Hicks: there may be a striking difference in the beginning. There

[00:27:58] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: may be, yes. Again, it's, um, too hard to determine now what the, uh, Moffett quarter is gonna look like between Central Express my middle field. But once we have that information, then we can have next step is, okay, how do we integrate the 2 segments? Um, and

[00:28:14] Member Alison Hicks: then tell me, when you measure the PCI, you know, to me, the bike lines, What we call bike lanes used to be parking spaces and betters for the street. So often, to me, I don't know a lot about measuring the PCI, but the pavement looks much worse than the bike lane than often, not always, sometimes such topples in the car lanes. But often, it looks much worse in the bike lanes. Are there different measures, or do you pave it differently? If you've decided to make a bike lane, like, often there's a seam in the gutter, that's hard to bike on, like, do you close that seam? How does... How does the paving work on the lanes and the carway?

[00:29:01] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: Starting with the evaluation. The evaluation is done manually by somebody who is trained to do this. So recognizing that that closest to the curb is off in the bike lane or off in a parking lane. They are trained to treat that as part of the pavement section. So their job is to find a representative location within the paving section. and essentially measure out every defect in that location. So, if it's the street segment is from the 100 block to 200 block of Castro, they pick a representative sample within that area, and they measure out every single event, whether that's alligator cracking or cracking or road-based deformations, whatnot. And then they score that from 100 to to zero. So whatever that amount is, that represents that segment from 100 to 200 block. And they do that for every single segment of the, of the city. They do not, unless we, unless we actively, or communicate it with, they will not just, distinguish between closest to the curb or furthest from it, or they're just looking for a representative location. So it could be that other areas of that segment are much worse. Some of those areas could be much better. That's kind of how the evaluation works. And from there, to our job as engineers to go out and verify that and select segments for improvements. Um, and then, um, prioritize those segments. So a section like this, we could identify Moffatt as, let's say, uh, uh, the highest 3rd in terms of priorities. And then we would be working with transportation and our other groups to identify other things that we could deliver along with that. And that's, that's really how we came up with a grant application in the 1st place was we saw that it was a good opportunity to deliver a pavement improvements as well as transportation improvements. She

[00:30:59] Assistant Engineer Chen: had a question about scenes. Do you want to get into that? Or I can address that? Sure. Yeah, so you got a question about scenes and paving unraveling basically at the scenes, right? So, um, generally what happens at the beginning of a project is there's a kickoff meeting, preconstruction meeting between staff and the contractor, and the contractor will lay out a plan for how they propose to do a column passes of asphalt along a roadway. And generally, what they try to do is they try to make it such that the seams, where they're abutting a couple of different passes together, fall along a striping line, right? And so that's generally, um, Not within the wheel path of a car, the wheel path area of a car is generally where you'll start seeing the pavement start to unravel and deteriorate just because of the wear and tear it's getting under the wheels of a car. by keeping it under a striping line. It's kind of hidden, and it's sort of out of the way of generally where cars are traveling. And what about where bikes are traveling. Generally, what they try to do is a one pass between the gutter and the first travel lane, inclusive of the bike lane. And

[00:32:13] Member Alison Hicks: so this is, let me see if I read it right. It's at 35% design chain design. Is that RS? Okay. So, yeah, I'm trying to get a sense of how much you could change at 35%. Um, Let's see. And has there been, um, any talk of reducing the speed limit?

[00:32:42] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: Um, not at this point. That would be a discussion that we would be having with traffic after the improvements are delivered. So one of the slides, several of the slides showed lane narrowing. So that's an example of something that could be adjusted at this section of design, but narrowing the lanes naturally reduces overall speeds. And then you can go back and you can do a speed service. Okay. Um, and if... Uh,

[00:33:10] Member Alison Hicks: if you're narrowing lanes, or making that sort of change, is it true that it doesn't add expense, much expense, because it's just paint, that's being changed, or?

[00:33:23] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: In the absence of the pavement improvements? Yeah,

[00:33:27] Member Alison Hicks: if you're making a design change. Oh, in the design. Yes, that's correct. Or 11 feet to, you know, more or whatever. Yes. More for one lane, less for another lane. It's just repainting, so it's not really... You're not paying for any... It's not like adding a curb or adding a medium with trees or something. So

[00:33:47] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: if I understand the question correctly, is it is it the type of design change we can make at this point without affecting the design cost? Are you asking about? Yeah. So that's exactly right. So for a good example of that would be the size of a buffer, if there was a 6 foot bike lane with a 5 foot buffer, a very natural comet back would be like, let's reduce the buffer and give the cyclist a little bit more room with the bike lane. Okay. Okay,

[00:34:15] Member Alison Hicks: those are my questions.

[00:34:16] Chair John McAlister: Thank you.

[00:34:18] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: You got me thinking about some stuff. Oh, I, uh, Edorango again. Um, I wanted just to add on to, um, the responses we heard from staff regarding change of lanes. We talked about bike buffers, bike lanes, but also the travel lanes. Currently, the travel lanes are at least 12 feet, and then some sections are 14 feet, and you saw the cross sections from when it was, from the presentation and in the memo. We're reducing down to 11 feet, we're really fine that 11 feet is the sweet spot. Once you get to 11 feet and below, it doesn't really accommodate the variety of traffic that we're expecting along. Sometimes truck traffic, the large delivery trucks. It could be trash trucks, um, which are up to 12 feet wide when you include the side of mirrors. And we want to be sure that we're accommodating those vehicles, such that they're not infringing on the adjacently. So when we look at lane widths, we find that 11 feet really is a sweet spot for this. Thank you. Okay, it's good question. So,

[00:35:25] Chair John McAlister: I am, uh, rather confused. All the timelines that I heard. So you got a grand? Um, and there's a deadline to get that used. Is that grant just for completion or just getting to a certain stage? What stage do you need to get completed or a timeline on that one?

[00:35:48] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: Yeah, thank you for that clarifying question. Um, Or the OBEG 3 grants, the city competed for it and won for the construction phase. So other cities will compete and and and get grants for the design phase, we didn't do that. So the design phase is locally funded. So we have the time we need to deliver the design phase. However, when you get the construction grand, that puts you in a, um, a, kind of a clock to get started on the construction fix. So there's a, there's a, there's a clock that begins where the grant funding becomes available for obligation, and that's in, at that's in 2026.

[00:36:29] Chair John McAlister: Okay, so that's independent of the design. If we don't do anything, The clock starts on 26 until you set up. Then you mentioned something about, um, That's 3.5. Is there a cost just to get us to the

[00:36:44] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: construction phase? Yes, we are actively in design. So we have, we're under contract with, okay, uh, PKF engineers.

[00:36:54] Chair John McAlister: Okay. And are you within budget?

[00:36:58] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[00:36:58] Chair John McAlister: And was this, so I also heard that 2015. So this project was 1st brought up in 2015. And now we're 10 years later that I Did you miss something? Yeah. I heard you say 2015. That's why I was just curious.

[00:37:16] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: That's correct. So 2015 was a planning study. Okay. And the planning study is one that identifies and prioritizes different types of projects. So, yes.

[00:37:30] Unknown Speaker: Yes, that's okay. It was the earlier version of the ATP at that time. Okay. Um, so

[00:37:37] Chair John McAlister: yeah, like, okay. At 23, you got 3.5. So, where, what is the budget right now? So when was this design and implementation and applying for a grant? What was that budget, uh, money appropriated or determined? Um, so

[00:37:58] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: I don't have the exact dates in front of me. I can come back with those precise states, but I can give you an overview right now.

[00:38:06] Chair John McAlister: But I'm trying to, like, bigger picture. I'm trying to figure out how the money is being appropriated. And is it going to be there? Are we going to have enough money or is the initial budget was one amount? And then now it's this, and that goes back to what you were saying earlier about the ATP plan, and I'm just trying to figure out overall, and this is all, or so, I apologize.

[00:38:26] Chair John McAlister: Oh, that's okay.

[00:38:27] Chair John McAlister: We're not totally getting all these pieces in, then, yeah. So, one thing I'm always concerned about is we get a budget in 2020, a time of what to do it. Now we got to start reshuffling the money again, reappropriating money just to get to this point to get to 26. And then we're not even sure that this project will meet the level of, uh, of, with the ATP plan. Is that? Okay. So help me give me a little background on the ATP plan that it's going to determine the projectory of this program. But we don't have an ATP program yet. So how can we determine the projectory, stop me if this, let me, let me start. Let me start with an overview with

[00:39:19] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: how we identify and identify candidates for good, for good grants, and how we how we program those into CIP. So the CIP is built out of strategic plans, out of council priorities, out of regulatory priorities, it all goes in there. I'll prioritize every 2 years. When an OBEG grant opportunity shows up, we could be anywhere in that process. So our 1st thing to do is to look through the CIP for good projects that are already funded and identified in the CIP as priorities. We did all of this work already to strategically develop a CIP every 2 years. So we take that as a 1st step. We look at the criteria for OBEG. We look at what is already funded, at least for design. In the CIP, and we identify, identify good candidates that way. That way we know, we're competitive with requirements. And we also know that we have local funding matched already as we go into this, into the project. We're not asking for council to identify funding at that beginning phase for design or for the magic funds for construction. So at that point, we've done kind of the homework. All of those projects that are good candidates already went through a feasibility study. So there's money in the CIP for what you're doing right now. There's money that was appropriated for the CAP for design, and there's money for, at least, at least appropriated.

[00:40:47] Chair John McAlister: Correct. Does that mean it's available?

[00:40:50] Chair John McAlister: Yes.

[00:40:51] Chair John McAlister: Okay, because sometimes one word means that, yeah, it's there, but, okay. So you, you got the budgeted. Oh, okay. Anyway, could tell me now. So, you got the 2015, I was mayor in 2015. And so I'm trying to think back of what was decided back in 2015. is still appropriate in 2020, 25, and when, uh, Allison mentioned the, uh, traffic count. Of this, yeah, the reserve, I'm asking myself how they're gonna, do they really applicable? Um. Okay, I'll go spinning and I'll just,

[00:41:35] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: if I can go with it. If you wouldn't mind, just, let me answer that. one of the piece of your questions regarding the $3.5 million. The $3500000 was the grant fund component. As part of the grant application, The city was required to come to the table of managing funds. We did. We came to the table with, uh, offering $1.5 million of matching funds for total project budget, approximately $5 million. Um, any cost escalations for additional scope elements, um, or cost rise is borne by the city. The grant is for $3.5 million, and not to exceed. Anything beyond that, the city needs to provide a magic grant. So we identify the $1.5 million. We appropriate that to the CIP, which means it's actually sitting in the CIP for this project, and we're spending a component of it, for design, as a physical... So I hope that kind of gives you some more clarity there.

[00:42:30] Unknown Speaker: Can I add some context as well?

[00:42:32] Chair John McAlister: always add context. Is that all right?

[00:42:34] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, so in 2015, the bikeway feasibility study that was produced. That said in 2015. This is how we in Mount View want our bicycle network to look like, right? We have certain streets that are arterial streets. They don't have bike lanes. We want bike lanes on these streets, you know, this is how we anticipate a bicyclist to be able to get around town. That was our planning document, right? That sets the foundation for us to actually be able to go out and get grants. Or as we repay streets, We look, take opportunities and say, oh, look, we can we can do something easy here with some striping, right? That's our planning document. Um, it is fully our intent to bring in this project within the available budget. So that means the local match that we have, as well as the grant monies that we have. So the consultant is aware of this number, right? They've been fully aware all along, from concept, and they'll be aware, we'll make sure they continue to be aware throughout design, that this is our limit, and that's our, it's our intent. The nice thing about this particular project is you can see, you know, there's sort of layers upon how we do this, right? The 1st layer is repaid and put down some striping. The 2nd layer is put in some vertical elements. If there are abilities, um, on the staff side. If it looks like there's some crazy escalation in paint or whatever, right? Coming up that we can make some adjustments to still deliver the intent of the project, which is majority class 4 bike planes on the facility, class 2 at pinch points, but still deliver the intent of that project at the end of the day. And again, we don't want to meet, or we don't not, said that wrong. We don't want to jeopardize, um, free, grant money that's coming into the city. Um, and we don't want to delay this project until the ATP is done because that project is not scheduled to be completed until early of 26. So that would set us a full year behind, um, on design and then we would be in jeopardy of loss of those free grant thoughts. So

[00:44:45] Chair John McAlister: yeah, one of my questions, because it sounded like you mentioned that this process was gonna have to wait for the ATP to prioritize it. You're saying, we're gonna move ahead without having to worry about the 18.

[00:44:59] Unknown Speaker: We are taking your recommendation tonight, um, to the council as a whole body, to proceed with final design, creation of plan specs and estimates, um, with the intent to go out to construction, um, bidding. Um, if the ATP comes up with a different, uh, uh, a different vision for what this corridor should look like, um, at least what we're implementing right now is sort of a 1st incremental step. We can come to that other vision. sometime in the future. But it will have bike lakes. It's a good thing.

[00:45:35] Chair John McAlister: So in 2015, they identified certain aspects of this. has it, how often has it been or updated the vision of anticipation of what this is going to be? Because I know when we are back in 2015 and so forth. We were looking at a bus lane going up shoreline, which was then, therefore, eliminating the exit onto SR 85. So does this have anything to do? So, with that expecting more traffic to come this way, if the bus lane is, uh, continued on. By the way, is it paused or is it the one on the, you know, directional bus lineup showline?

[00:46:19] Chair John McAlister: The future unfunded phase.

[00:46:21] Chair John McAlister: Correct.

[00:46:22] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: The center run fund phase, along with the closure of the SR 85, um, is is is unfunded at this point. So we'll deliver the other parts of the portions of the project. To go back to your your your original part of the 1st part of the question. So, The project was scoped in 22. The, the study, the study was done at 15 to identify the corridor as a priority. The scoping was done in 22 just as we were developing the grant application. Okay.

[00:46:53] Chair John McAlister: So was it studied with the anticipation that an 85 exit was eliminated, that the traffic would increase on the street? Um,

[00:47:02] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: we're not proposing a road diet, so that it was never considered a restriction. And I think the important thing that we were anticipating was expanding the left turn pocket onto the onto the on-ramp in this location, which could still be done. Yeah, it's like, okay. That's, uh, I'll

[00:47:26] Chair John McAlister: always. Yeah, that's fine. Thank you. So does any members of the, would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person would like to comment on this item? If so, please click the raised hand, button zoom or post electron. We will take in-person speakers first, each be who will have 3 minutes. I, I'm full

[00:47:52] Public Speaker: ector. Um, so I live over in, uh, Morgan Wheel, and I, uh, work at Moffat, and so I, I ride this road pretty much every day, and I, I walk and drive it pretty regularly, um, Because of the return to work thing, they was the heaviest traffic I've ever seen. So I was sort of getting to, uh, your question. I just did, these are just sort of some sort of random points as, you know, as we were discussing here. Um, The, uh, Eve, there's a, there's a funny peeved path that's off to the side, so there's the sidewalk between Lyon and 101. I don't know if that's like, legitimate, it goes like 80% of the way between long, long, and then it just sort of stops in the middle of no place. And I don't know, that's probably not something you can incorporate at this phase because of your funding in straits, but like just something. But, uh, could be incorporated at some point. It's a little bit removed from the road, so it might be a bike path or sidewalk or something. Um, Going over 101, you talk about seams, the, there's this sminch, the asphalt, as you go north, where you have like one foot of cement, and then you get asphalt, and it's, yeah, there's a lip, and it's sort of unpleasant to ride on. Uh, probably the play site. Most fear riding is when I, going, the other direction, southbound, or the 85, uh, and the cars are coming from behind you and want to turn in front of you to, uh, And the other thing, you're talking about the different barriers you can have. And so you did a little, um, reconstruction there on Lyon. Um, and they have those little plastic sticks up, you know, I don't know what you're called. But those things are just always knocked over. Which doesn't make me feel great because I'm, it's just knocking over. But, um, but yeah, so I, I don't know that that's, uh, a great enough earlier there. So those are, those are just thoughts that I have as, as you guys are discussing this. Thank you.

[00:50:21] Chair John McAlister: Next please.

[00:50:23] Daniel Hulse: Hi, uh, so my name's Daniel Holz. Uh, I work at NASA Ames Research Center. I'm not here to represent them. Uh, in the official way, uh, but just as a person who uses, uh, this bike, um, infrastructure regularly since about 2019. Uh, I'm really glad that this is actually getting looked at from a bike perspective, and I very much, like, the, uh, you know, the protected elements, the amount of space that you're giving, the, uh, cyclists and all of that. I think there's some really good intent there. Um, however, there is one problem of the existing bike lane, uh, that stays in this design that is going to drive me crazy over the next, However long until it gets repaved again. if it doesn't get fixed. And that is that, uh, if you are going into the center, You cross. Uh, you you have cars crossing over the bike lane in order to turn onto the highway, at which point they're going to go really, really fast. And so this is just an incredibly dangerous situation. Uh and it's unavoidable. There are a lot of other like, unsafe things that you can avoid. You can't avoid that. Um, and it's exacerbated by the fact that you've got a light on both sides, where you have to stop, and then, like, ride up a hill, which is the overpass, and then you get to the top of the overpass, and all of a sudden you're going fast, and it's pushing you straight into this intersection, at a higher rate of speed, then you probably want to go, and that light is gonna, like, turn off. It's gonna turn red, like, immediately. This happens all the time, right? Uh, and you've got these cars at that intersection that are merging over you. So what I would really, if there is one thing that you fix about this and you can fix, I would like you to address the deal, and there are many different ways of doing this, of the cars having to go into a, like, turn lane over the bikes. If there's a way to get the bikes over to the side, That's great. If you do my idea and have a cycle track on one side where you can go both ways and totally skip. I think that's a great idea too. Uh, but please fix that because, you know, I don't think you're gonna immediately change this when you have an active transportation plan is gonna be 20 more years till we repave again. And I would like you to fix this. Thanks.

[00:53:28] Chair John McAlister: Thank you. Oh, hey, do we have anything? Virtually, we'd like to speak with us.

[00:53:41] Unknown Speaker: Bruce England?

[00:53:43] Bruce England: Thank you. Sorry, everybody. Bruce England, Wisman Station Drive. Um, There's been a lot of discussion among community members about the nature of this project that I want to comment on. And I also want to say that at the BPAC meeting last week, even though the bulk of what they commented on wasn't in the staff report that you looked at. They really spent a lot of time considering the different elements that might be considered for this project, including drawing from public comment. So they did talk about doing a potential road diet in there, so that can be a reduction in the number of lanes. It can be the lane width, including 10 feet for the interlane, not 11 feet. Um, But what we see regularly in Moundview, unfortunately, is still a focus on making life okay for vehicle drivers, and less so for people who are walking and biking, and yet we're moving in a direction where we have an active transportation plan being developed. And um, We want to have a healthier community than we might have today. And the way to do that is to emphasize the act of transportation elements. So it certainly it was disappointing to see the way this project played out, where it really looks like the focus was primarily on making life better for vehicle drivers over active transportation. I will say, though, that it's great to see this project. It just, um, the request through BPAC to ask the questions about whether the funding or the grants would be compromised. Uh due to some changes, you know, particular changes. Um, it's reasonable for those questions to be asked. It doesn't mean that people are kind of putting the kabosh on the project. They saying we should really have solid answers to these questions from those who are providing the grant money and other funding. That's it for me. Thank you.

[00:55:33] Chair John McAlister: Thank you, Bruce. We appreciate your questions to us. Hopefully, we got them answered for you. Uh, I will now anyone else would like to speak virtually. Yes, came of evidence?

[00:55:52] Chair John McAlister: Caleb?

[00:55:54] Caleb Adams: Hi, can you hear me?

[00:55:56] Chair John McAlister: Yes.

[00:55:57] Caleb Adams: Sorry, sometimes these things take a second. for us to get audio. Uh, yes, I've been, uh, working in Mountain View for about 4 years now, uh, 5 years actually, live in Mountain View for 4 years. Uh, and I bike into NASA every day from just around the downtown area, from the Caltrain station and the downtown area. And this path you've identified is the only way to obviously do that. No one's gonna go 25 minutes out of their way to go to that gate, which, by the way, with the return to office orders. Uh, is the primary gate the only gate to go through. So people are going to do that, and I've seen many, many coworkers, so I go in all the time. That's just by the nature of my work, but I've seen many coworkers now coming in and biking in, including today. And one of them was like, oh, I'll follow you along this route. And I said, it kind of sucks. It's not great. And, you know, there's a few points along this that I've had really close calls with over the last 4 years, 5 years biking through. One is under the bridge where I didn't necessarily see that you had a protected lane there. I've had somebody cut me off at exiting highway speed and and stop in front of me and then be on their phone without noticing that I was going under the bridge as a cyclist. That's an incredibly dangerous situation if we don't have a protected bike lane under that bridge. Um, the 2nd area is going over the other bridge that, uh, someone already mentioned, You spend all this time biking up to the top and then you start coasting down. And I'll tell you what I do, I actually barely move going down that bridge because that light is on such a hair trigger, that if it's green and I go and I'm at the top of the bridge, I'll have too much speed going through the next intersection, to stop before a car hits me. So I actually approach it slowly, knowing that it's about to turn red, and then stop when the light's green, which is also still dangerous because I'm a bicyclist in the middle of a road, waiting for the light to turn red, but I just know it's going to turn red because I've been doing this for years. So that's incredibly dangerous. Um, and I warned my coworker about that this morning. Um, it's funny you say you identified that one car. Uh where those 18 spots were. I know exactly that blue SUV I bike by like every day. Um, if that person has a problem with this. I will literally drop off a 6 pack of beer there every week for them. Just to let us do this. Uh, and I also just want to say, like, look, uh, I'm gonna ask a guy, I understand that changing the scope of stuff for can risk your federal funding for this. Uh, if, if it comes to it, you know, just get it done. This will improve people's lives. Uh, we probably won't have another chance for something like this for 4 more years, 5 more years, if you risk that federal funding. So I really support that. That's all I gotta say. Thanks for your time.

[00:59:00] Chair John McAlister: Thank you.

[00:59:08] Unknown Speaker: April Webster.

[00:59:16] April Webster: Thank you. We have a rare opportunity to shape the future of Moffatt right now to build safer street that prioritizes people over cars and truly serves our community. And right now, we're at the beginning of stage of the design. Um, and it is a critical point where public input can and should still drive meaningful change. It is a key moment in a complete treats project when community feedback plays a vital role in shaping that final design. We do not need to wait for the ATP to be done. This is not an empty C requirement. And so far the only feedback we've gathered was prior to the project being awarded the obey grant. A public outreach meeting for Moffatt is Overdue, and we need to, and we look forward to one soon, just as Caltrans did for ECR. Um, we have a full, we, and we also have time. We have a full 2 years in fact, to refine the design, not one. I'm fortunate to have worked with MTC for the past 2 years as the co-chair of their active transportation working group. And I work directly with the MTC Complete Street policy lead. And I reached out to the MTC Obag 3 grant manager, Thomas Arndt this past week about the deadlines. And he said, I quote, The obligation deadline for OBag 3 funds is January 2027. Which means that the city should start construction by early 2027, not 2026. City staff decide to pursue a trap account or anything else as part of the trap project development. Um, but have concerns about meeting the grad deadline, they can follow up with MTC staff directly to discuss the timeline. The OBAG 3 deadline should not prevent the city from reevaluating and modifying the project design to address public input. Um, uh, a road diet has been put on the table, but if it's infeasible, we really should at least follow modern design standards. Even Caltrans is upgrading ECR with bike lanes that follow um, 2024 DIB um, 94 standards. They have 10.5 inner lanes. And then for the outer lanes. It 11 feet. They don't you don't need the inner lanes, even on a busy commercial street like ECR. You only need the outer lane for buses, garbage trucks, and large trucks. This is from BTA. This is from Caltrans. We do not need 11 on the inner. And, um, and we also should address the unsafe speed on, which is 40 miles per hour on ECR. We should do that now. Even, sorry, on Moffat. ECR is even lower at 35 miles per hour, and AB 43, which was passed in 2021 allows reduction without having to meet the 85th percentile rule. So we should definitely drop it. And, um, right now, our priorities seem a little bit off that we're doing pavement and then thinking about bike planes. This funding is for complete streets project, not repaving, not just repaving. And we're recipient recipients of the coveted O bag 3 funding. It is our responsibility to ensure that we create infrastructure that is complete as possible. Thank you so much for the opportunity.

[01:02:22] Chair John McAlister: Thank you, April.

[01:02:28] Unknown Speaker: Celia Paymer?

[01:02:32] Chair John McAlister: How do we have my cue? Uh, one more after Celia.

[01:02:38] Silja Paymer: Hi, um, yeah, I'm Celia Pammer, 15 year resident of Mountain View. Um, and I agree with everything that April just said, um, 2nd it. I have to say, I'm really disappointed with sort of the lack of community input on this project. Um, there was a single meeting. Um, people who know me know, I will laugh often when people complain about lack of community input because a lot, our staff does a really great job of doing community input, but somehow, seems like this project kind of slipped through the cracks and we haven't had a lot of chance to give input. Um, In fact, the only meeting was in the summer when a lot of people were out of town. And so I hope that we do do that. I think there is interest in a road diet, and it should be fully considered. Um, That street has very low traffic levels. Um, even before COVID. I used to always take that route back when I drove, um, up from San Jose as my commute. And I always took that route because there was very little traffic there. So, um, I don't think it's just low because of COVID. always been low along that route. Um, and I hope we we really put people 1st and really make it a complete streets project. I said at the BPAC meeting, I'm really shocked that this design met complete streets standards and expectations for a grant, because to me, it looks like paint. Even plastic bullards, they're not protection. And I'm sort of curious because I heard in passing that these were called, um, class 4 bike lanes, but with the number of conflicts, I'm pretty sure they can't be called that. Um, a class 4 bike lane has to have. I don't know the exact standard, but a certain amount of, um, like protection from conflicts. Um, and so, I'd be curious to see if they actually met those standards. Um, So yeah, I would like to see this diet design be people 1st instead of car first. Um, and hopefully we can um, upgrade it and make it even better. Thank you. Thank you.

[01:04:43] Unknown Speaker: There are more hips sandwiches. Okay.

[01:04:55] Valerie Fenwick: Fenwick. Oops.

[01:04:57] Valerie Fenwick: Hi there, Valerie Fennick, over 20 year resident of Mountain View over in Rex Manor. I will admit that I'm mostly only ride this part of Moffat for connecting the Stevens Creek Trail, and that would usually be exiting, just the way that it's configured. But I do bite there a lot. I also drive there, like one of the other speaker said, just because it is so low traffic, if it's how I want to get to highway 85 or 101. I will actually come all the way over from, I live west of Shoreline, and I will come all the way over there to, um, kind of just be away from the traffic and the craziness. So, uh, I really appreciate considerations here. I don't want to do anything that could risk funding, but if there are potential opportunities for a road diet, um, or, um, any other additional, like curb cuts or, um, bike lane improvements or particular lighting improvements for any, under the bridges. Um, I think as much as we, I think Big Pack gave really great and specific, actionable feedback that seemed like it would be doable with within the scope. I understand why we do this as part of a repaving project because a lot of the, uh, well, the pavement there is really bad. I drive on it. It's really bad. So I understand. If we're going to be repaving anyway, to get bike improvements out of it and pet improvements is really important. So any of the side, there's a one sidewalk gap that is being addressed as part of this project, there is one that is not and anything that can be done to get those complete sidewalks because those of you who walk, no, it's a lot longer to go out of your way across the street, um, down to another intersection it is to do on your bike or with a car. So, really, really, uh, don't want to delay anything here, but if it is possible to reconsider any of those great recommendations from the BPAC or, um, uh, main reductions, road diet, or anything else that we can consider here would be greatly appreciated. I'm looking really forward to having actual bike lanes. Um, through more of this corridor, so thank you.

[01:07:02] Chair John McAlister: Thank you, Valerie. Hope to see you on the performing arts committee. Thank you, Scott.

[01:07:14] Unknown Speaker: May I read Dato? Oh,

[01:07:18] Mary Dateo: good evening. Um, I'm glad that this, uh, route's going to be improved, be made safer. I just want to echo, um, Well, I want to repeat, I guess, uh, request, um, that I made at the BPAC meeting. Um, And I'm bringing it up, not just for this project, um, possibly, it's not going to fit within the budget, the timeline, but, um, when it's possible, um, When it's impossible to have, um, a buffer between the, the, uh, cars and the bikes, I'd like to see, um, more consideration given to raised bike lanes, because raising in the bike lane doesn't take any width away from the road, but it separates the cy from the, um, from the cars. I think that's pretty important. So in the places where we have pinch points here, um, I guess I wonder if that's an opportunity. I also want to suggest, um, agree with what was said earlier about having the, uh, middle lanes, uh, not necessarily have to be 11 feet wide. That would give a little bit more space to the cyclist also. Thank you. And I'm just, again, I'm making the comment about the Rays Lane, not just for this project, but I, I think, we need to be start thinking about future projects in the, in the same way to see if that's an option. Thank you.

[01:08:41] Chair John McAlister: Thank you Mary.

[01:08:46] Unknown Speaker: And that is all for the raised hands.

[01:08:48] Chair John McAlister: Oh, great. So we have one in person.

[01:08:50] Unknown Speaker: Sure. That's the person. And hop on the end of the cube. Yes.

[01:08:55] Eli Hiss: Eli Hish, Fairhaven Court. I just want to echo what a couple other community members have said about supporting the move away from car centric infrastructure, whether that's through a road diet. I'm really making sure that this is a place that people hand bike and want to bike. Um, because many of us use it every day. Thank you very much. Appreciate what you do, and if you have to get it done, get it done however you can. Thank you.

[01:09:23] Chair John McAlister: Thank you for coming out tonight. Okay. Thank you all? I will now bring this item back for the committee comments.

[01:09:37] Member Alison Hicks: Um, so, with all this community input, I'm wondering whether, I'm wondering, I want to get this moving forward, but I'm wondering, uh, which things that we've heard from the community, we could incorporate, which is, as BPAC, uh, made sort of a list of items. Um, in particular, some of the things that I've heard. Well, I'll start off by saying I would love to have raised bike lanes. I'm thinking that probably wouldn't fit into the budget, but I'm glad it was drawn up. Um, because I think, uh, just as Ms. Dadio said, they are a good way of, um, making people safer, um, feel more comfortable biking without, um, needing a lot of, uh, horizontal room for that. Um, she needing money for it. But, um, but I would like to have that as part of a, you know, the language that we use, and the thoughts that we have when we do these things. Um, so I'm wondering, here's some of the things I'm wondering about, and I'm wondering if you can tell me which ones are, um, you know, possible and not possible in the, the, uh, short term. One would be, uh, making the inner lane 10.5 feet instead of 11 to give a little more room to the, uh, sidewalker and or bikes to, uh, particularly the bike lane because, you know, they're bicycling next to fast traffic. So that's one question. Um, another is, um, fixing the difficult, uh, interchanges that, uh, people brought up, it would, um, making that one lane a little narrower. I don't know that that would help. There was a cycle track was brought up, that sounds like more of a major change, but if that, wrong. Um, or any other ideas you might have to make those interchanges safer. Um, so, uh, Road diet for inner, fixing the interchanges in any way. Um, somebody brought a community member brought up to me quick curves instead of plastic bowlers. I don't know if that's possible. So that's a 3rd 3rd one. And then somebody says something about making a left turn pocket deeper. I don't know if that's important or, um, possible. And I guess the last one is, um, The last one is, would it be possible to have a community meeting at this point or, So those are so those are my 5 things. Thank. that I'd like to know, you know, in response to what the, uh, what the community has brought up.

[01:12:34] Chair John McAlister: Are you asking Steph to get back to you or wait till we get to Kels. Um,

[01:12:39] Member Alison Hicks: I'd like to know if any of those, like, of the 5 things, if any of them are easy to do and could be added, kind of in the way BPAC made their list, and then staff honed it down to it. Shorter list. Oh,

[01:12:52] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: my God. That's right. Um, so we're happy to look at the interlane, but, um, unless I see some conflict with pinch points or obedience or something like that, I think that's it. an easy one to add to the, give, uh, direction to our son and staff. Um, The quick curves, we, the, the examples that we gave in the slides were, um, were typical examples, like reflexible posts, but there are a lot of variety of, um, vertical elements that we can incorporate. We're using, we're delivering multiple different types of vertical elements on California. So we could easily look at other options for this one. So the community feedback was heard very clearly that flexible posts, once they're knocked down, that there's no protection there. It's a visual element as much as a physical barrier, so we can make those more refust. Okay. Yeah. Some of these, um, would require evaluation, which makes it much more challenging to incorporate and incorporate it to the budget. So, for example, the 101 interchange, that's a Caltrans facility. We need we would need to work with them on any proposed changes there. One of the proposed changes was moving the bike lane to the other side of the right turn lane, that is also an uncomfortable position for cyclists to be in. Maybe this is maybe this is something that needs to be taken back to our, um, consultants and discuss further, discuss with transportation, discuss with traffic. Um, so we we get uh, staff's involvement in some of that discussion.

[01:14:41] Member Alison Hicks: Uh, I guess the last one, is it worth having a community meeting to talk about more robust, solid type things or fixing the interchange? Yes. Ed

[01:14:51] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: Orango again. I was going through your list. Um, you noted 5 items. I caught a 61 in between there. I think you might have skipped over. I just want to clarify the cycle track, I should mention it.

[01:15:03] Member Alison Hicks: Well, that was a way of, I think, a way of dealing with the interchange, if I understood. Right, maybe I did find you something.

[01:15:10] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: Yeah, a cycle track component as part of this project would be a major scope change. Yeah, that's nice. So it's... more on the infeasible side than it is on the people's side for us to do that. And then, um, uh, you mentioned, sorry, for school engineer, Gonzalez mentioned, the interchange, um, left turn pocket deeper. I'm not sure if staff. Maybe

[01:15:36] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: you can clarify. So I mentioned that. I don't know if you got a public comment on that. When I mentioned it, that is a more car centric. mitigation based on the development of the bus lane project. If the bus lane project is on hold. We wouldn't necessarily need that for increased left turn traffic onto 85. So that, that doesn't, doesn't really fit into the bike centric theme here, but that was what I was, that was my intent was to at least acknowledge that that was at one point, a project element for the shoot for the bus lane project. We didn't include that in the scope here.

[01:16:12] Member Alison Hicks: I know it's a problem I've had as I drive around that I feel like I'm blocking traffic because I can't get into the pocket, so I'm not in the lane I should be, and I'm blocking other people, and it's backing up traffic. And it is a kind of thing. Better. Okay? Um,

[01:16:29] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: and then you had a question about the community meeting. Yes. Did you want to have to try?

[01:16:33] Member Alison Hicks: Would that be worth it to talk about more robust, um, bollards and so forth, or do you feel like we've got to the end of what we can do with, with this? Oh,

[01:16:43] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: based on what we heard today, I see value in a community. So,

[01:16:48] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: I think I just want to clarify, um, Staff presented the project to, uh, be back last week, as you heard. We're here tonight for CTC. We're getting a lot of community feedback. Actually, I want to take the approach that this is a part of the community input process. We've gotten a lot of good feedback. Right now. Yeah. And we've evaluated, did an initial evaluation just based on feedback. All the comments you're hearing from the public tonight were echoed at the BPAC. Uh, and we wanted to take an additional pass at what our evaluation is of this and what is feasible, um, that won't, uh, uh, cause project delays, budget concerns, and then, and jeopardizing the crime company. And so, the three elements were that we looked at. Can you speak to those? Oh, budget. Sorry, the 3 elements that we evaluated it. We can't evaluate, which already were spoken to is...

[01:17:49] Member Alison Hicks: Narrowing the one lane. Right.

[01:17:51] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: evaluate that. Looking

[01:17:53] Member Alison Hicks: at more robust, um... Something more robust than the plastic book. Yeah, vertical elements. And Leaving,

[01:18:02] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: yeah. Bite weave. The bike weave. Um, and then, as part of B-Pack, we also, I noted, there was elements, um, from the B-Pack feedback city Dodge. that spoke to, I'm going off memory here. the, um, adding, uh, curb ramps as part of the project. They brought up the weaving as well. Advanced stop bar, they'd like to see advanced stop bars in front, at the intersection locations to stop cars, ahead of the crosswalks. Um, adding

[01:18:34] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: curb ramps at the Stevens Creek, northbound exit as at the intersection with Moffatt, to make it easier for cyclists to, um, weave right into bike lane, rather than having to exit to directly into traffic, and then also adjusting the bike lane configuration at right turns, in particular at the Lyon intersection, that was identified as a, as a kind of a scary intersection as a cyclist, a lot of stress. Um, and that is a free turn movement for cars going on the right direction. So looking at that configuration, if that could be made more safe for...

[01:19:10] Member Alison Hicks: Yeah, so I was assuming that. So I would, if I were to make a motion, and if I were to hope for, um, uh, council member McAllister's support, I would say, I would support all the, um, changes that, that you evaluate, that BPAC, uh, suggested, and that you, uh, said were, were feasible. And I would add, uh, making the interlane, uh, 10 and a half instead of 11 feet, to give more, or safety to bicyclists, active transportation, looking at, um, more robust, vertical elements, and seeing if there's any way to, um, improve the, I mean, maybe you're calling it the bike wave, but the 101 interchange. Those would be the 3 things I did. Add. We

[01:20:01] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: only want to be sure that we provide some flexibility, that we can evaluate those elements. Yeah,

[01:20:06] Member Alison Hicks: totally. We really

[01:20:07] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: make sure that, um, they make sense. Yeah, those are the 3 out of a debt total value. Oh, okay. My

[01:20:18] Chair John McAlister: comments are gonna be much less and much more confused. Um, So, I'm getting back on my horse here, trying to figure out everything, but I have, uh, I'm all in favor of moving this project forward. I do hear, so I do see some hurdles that will have to be worked out, the timing, the integration, the funding, and so forth, the, just the internal mechanism, and how you're going to get to this project. I'm also concerned a little bit that, We don't know exactly what we're going to do on Shoreline, if that will have an effect on this, because it would have a major effect, if traffic is closed off and you're going to get a lot more cars going through there. So that even though we're gonna have bike lanes, we still probably have increased traffic. So back to Council member Hicks thing was their traffic count. I mean, account of actually how many people are using this street? Uh, that could be a priority. I mean, we have a lot of streets that need to be looked at over, you know, coming up. CIP that you mentioned, and we can put a lot of time into this, and then all of a sudden say it doesn't reach where we want it to be. But that's to be termined. I've learned early on and by a short time back. I've learned to trust what I've heard tonight, and I trust staff to incorporate as much as possible, that's reasonable, and that's financially viable. I'm also very concerned about timelines being extended too long. I think based on what the assistant, uh, public works director said and smile things, uh, public input will be continually come in. I don't know if we need another meeting. We've had three. This might be the 4th meeting. It's going forward, but they are still going to be taking public input, correct? Okay, I see that as a yes. Um, and so, that's what I liked. So I will entertain emotion to move forward with this. Exactly, what is that you're looking for on this one? To proceed with it. Do I need the reader or we

[01:22:26] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: just want someone to do it? Oh, so we reviewed the design concept, the Macapo of our complete streets, direct staff to advance the project into final design, incorporating the proposed elements.

[01:22:39] Member Alison Hicks: From the VPAC made and that you evaluated and then the 3 that I made as well. Yeah,

[01:22:46] Chair John McAlister: you want me to read those out loud? They were just one. If, if Staff Henry has them, that's fine. Yeah, we've got them. Okay. Because they're only gonna be evaluated. Okay, okay. Okay. I make the motion, you 2nd or you 2nd it. Okay. We need a roll call, voter this, or can we just... Oh, we got script. I don't know. Let's do a roll call just. Yeah. Get ready to vote? Yeah, take a breath. Chair McAllister? Yes. And

[01:23:21] Unknown Speaker: community member Hicks, each best. Hey, um, two. 4 yes? Uh, member, Kame, absent. Oh, this is you.

5.2 Citywide Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Update

[01:23:34] Chair John McAlister: That's good. I guess... Okay, we will now close 5.one and move on to 5.2. A citywide transportation demand management ordinance update. Item up 2 is the citywide transportation demand. Management coordinates update, the staff, presentation will be easy, provided by then. Actual, oh, wait, that's a transportation planner, we, uh... And low and our transportation man. So now is this a, is there any action or is this? This is, this does have an action. Okay.. That's

[01:24:33] Unknown Speaker: just a 2nd pull up the...

[01:24:52] Transportation Planner Pacho: Good evening, CBC members. I've been a transportation planner in the public works department. Um, Tonight, we're also joined by Dana Pincholi, the city's principal center, and... very low transportation manager. We're also here representing city staff in the project. And joining us virtually, we have, um, Julia Wean, associate at Steer Group, and Ellie McCarvel, senior consultant, also with Steer. Um, so Steph is here tonight to update CTC members on its progress to develop a citywide TDM ordinance, which city council identified as a strategic priority in, um, fiscal years 2023 to 2025. For context, the basis for TDM and Mountain View was first established in the 2030 general plan that in turn gave rise to the specific TDM provisions that are required in the city's precise plans and sustainability action plans. Um, the TDM ordinance also seeks to align with existing policies used for development review, such as the city's MTA handbook and VMT screening analysis that are important for understanding transportation impacts related to sequa and setting required ship reductions under greenhouse gas emissions reduction program or GGRB. Currently, TDM requirements have been imposed in absence of a citywide TDM ornaments. This has resulted in a piecemeal approach and varying levels of trip production targets, as seen on the bottom left legend. Um, the TDM strategies are part of these existing projects have also been non-standardized, which the team ordinance takes to address by improving the TDM planning process and selection of measures. Reviewing the project's work plan, staff is in the current project phase, focus on developing the ordinance framework, senior in blue. We previously brought the project Vision and Jules to CTC in Q1 of 2024, where members had voiced their support for the project's objectives. Particularly CTC members had voiced their support, um, to focus on building and flexibility into the TDM strategies to reflect hybrid work, and ensure TDM requirements stay with the development. Members were also interested in using metrics to count overall trips versus just peak hour trips as a way to address greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and reduce overall VMT. Next steps, after tonight, will include finalizing the framework elements and late spring. And staff will then begin work on drafting ordinance language for cancel adoption and key form of 2025. And to set the stage a bit, staff is breaking the following recommendation to CDC, which is for members to review and recommend the proposed framework for the transportation command management ordinance to the city council. As we'll soon discuss, the framework elements will include the average daily trip reduction targets, the tedium toolkit of strategies, and provisions for monitoring and enforcement. Over the course of the project, staff is engaged key stakeholders and advisory bodies to gain a broad understanding of current practice with TDM, as well as how requirements can be furthest your mind and made more effective under the ordinance. For example, key insights were gathered from the downtown Business Association and the TMA, including a host of one-on-one interviews with developers, employers, property managers, and community members. Also, at January's community workshop, staff heard from members of the public who voiced support for on-demand services like microtransit and potential cash incentives to increase active transportation, like by commuting to workplaces in lieu of driving. Collectively, the input gathered thus far has been used to guide the direction of the project, including its vision and goals for the TDM framework. To remind everyone, staff presented the project vision to CDC Q1 of 2024, where the TV ordinance will seek to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips for new development and increase to use some multimodal transportation alternatives that are sustainable, equitable, effective and respond to changing demands. The goals of the project is outlined at the bottom. Um, we're informed by existing conditions analysis and stakeholder input. Most notably, the project vision helped to guide development of the TDM framework. The various framric elements can be distilled into 3 key policy areas see here, including applicability at the top. And this touches on who will be required to comply. And what criteria use the screen projects subject to the ordinance. Secondly, requirements, as seen in the 2nd row, uh, this section concerns what key metrics projects will be subject to for compliance purposes, as well as how they will be, how they will demonstrate their intent to comply by submitting a TDM planning. And thirdly, at the bottom, we have monitoring and enforcement. This addresses how staff and key stakeholders will effectively monitor the ongoing effectiveness of TV performance, as well as consider enforcement mechanisms to support compliance. At a high level, the TDM framework seeks to operationalized TDM requirements across the project's lifespan. From the entitlement phase when a project is sponsored by a developer to the post-occupancy phase, when the city later certifies new buildings are ready for occupancy. Moving from left to right. Initial projects will be analyzed based on trip generation assumptions and estimated net new average daily trips. This would be done using the city's VMT analysis, transportation impact studies and multimodal analysis handbook. It proposed projects generate upwards of 200 average jelly trips that would be required to reduce vehicle trips by adopting a TDM plan. And following when your post-occupancy, property owners will be required to submit an annual team report that will attest their compliance with ADT targets or face potential penalties assessed by the city. So starting at the very beginning, we'll 1st discuss project applicability. The cheating coordinates, what's adopted, will apply to new projects, seeking entitlements by discretionary approval by city council. Projects will be reviewed on the basis of expected trip generation assumptions and potential to generate over 200 plus net new average daily trips. Set project review is consistent with the city's VMT policy and multimodal handbook. Additionally, on the right, the current regulatory environment is such that state and regional laws require employers for more than 50 employees to provide tedium resources, which typically include commuter benefits and parking cash on incentives. It's intended the city-wide TDM ordinance will support these employers in meeting such state and regional teating requirements. Additionally, it's important to note that all team requirements under the ordinance will fall to the landowner and run the land as may be triggered by a change of ownership or in case of sale. For those existing projects, um, landowners or properties that were entitled prior to adoption of the team ordinance may participate in the team program on a voluntary basis. And for question two, this addresses what land use categories will be subject to the ordinance. This may include multifamily residential and non-residential projects anticipate anticipated to generate over 200 net new average daily trips for AT. For typical non-residential projects seeking entitlements. This may include office, medical, retail, restaurants, industrial, and manufacturing. Furthermore, a mixed use residential project may be exempted from the ordinance if its proposed retail space is less than 50,000 square feet. And this is to be consistent with the city's VNT screening process. Staff, um, with project consultants have used standard trip generation rates to estimate average daily trip volumes based on various criteria. For guidance, the project team used the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manual by ITE. And this is the most commonly referenced and utilized practical guidance for predicting vehicle trip rates. For example, a small project, small office project, rather, of 30,000 square feet will typically fall within 200 to 499 average daily trips. Um, and for medium-sized projects, um, roughly for office of 45,000 square feet. What type of get fall within the 500 to 90982 range? And for large office projects over 90,000 square feet, this would fall in the 1000 plus ADT. And these trip generation assumptions by project size are consistent with the cities, existing MT, handbook, and BMT policy, used for assessing transportation impacts. And question for what TDM performance metrics will apply? Average daily trips are ADT, as metric, standardizes the city's approach to reduce single occupancy vehicle transforming development. Furthermore, ADT is comprehensive in its methodology to gather vehicle trip data beyond peak times. And reflect evolving travel patterns, post-COVID. It also aligns with the city's SP 743 policy of reducing total VNT and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Projects will be required to implement TDM strategies that reduced ADT to the following levels. 30% ATT for small for small projects relative to ITE generation rates. 40% ATT reduction for medium-sized projects, and 50% ATC reduction for large projects. Such specials were informed by the city's existing precise plans, as well as case studies of similar TV programs in San Francisco, Savateo County, Redwood City, and San Jose. Prior to entitlement, prospective applicants, we require a submitted TDM plan for city review. Specifics of the TDM plan will then be included in the conditions of approval preceding adoption by council. In this proposed framework, tedium plans would be comprised of 3 types of strategies. Starting from the left, mandatory strategies will provide a supportive structure necessary to implement TDM. And this may involve submitting, um, required annual recording. Um, and uh, providing city contact or providing the city contact details uh, with the sites project manager. Um, whereas, Uh, whereas core strategies in the middle, um, offer an array of flexible, proven trip reduction strategies that applicants may select from to develop the project's TDM plan. Some examples, of course, strategies are transportation subsidies and bamboo incentives. And lastly, auxiliary measures there on the right. Um, when paired with core strategies are complementary and more effective at reducing trips. Some examples of auxiliary strategies are wavebinding improvements and transportation related marketing events. And um, this chart gives a sense of the range of strategies across project sizes. And then as an important programming, the attachment to this report includes a detailed list of TDM strategies and their estimated levels of chip production. And now moving into the monitoring elements of the framework, this slide illustrates the various reporting activities that projects would be responsible for, which are organized based on project size. As you'll note, the burden of monitoring activities is less for smaller projects, and this is meant to reflect feedback that staff has received. Um, given that smaller projects typically have your resources to comply with ongoing monitoring requirements. And to support compliance efforts, staff is proposed pathways to enforcement on account of projects failing to either provide the required annual teeting reports, and or they require or and or meeting the required ATT targets. Note, small projects will not be assessed a penalty for not achieving its 30% ADT reduction target. And this is meant to reflect the proportion of impact size of penalty. And the proposed penalty structure does reflect existing practices, um, which have been imposed on projects already entitled. Furthermore, the penalties will apply based on project size and will be in proportion with the level of non-compliance with the ADT target. And an important note, they're on the bottom. Staff is currently working on developing an alternative methodology, to calculate a penalty based on the number of trips in excess of the ADT target. So staff will further develop this approach and coordination with stakeholders. And for next steps, following tonight's CDC meeting and input gathered, staff will present the recommended TDM framework and a council study session in June. And upon finalizing the TDM framework, Staff was set about drafting ordinance language for council adoption, which is tentatively scheduled for end of 2025. So this adds my formal presentation and moves us into CTC consideration of staff's recommendation, which is to review and recommend the proposed framework to the city council, and we welcome our members feedback insurance. Thank you.

[01:39:01] Chair John McAlister: Something over Hicks, any questions?

[01:39:03] Member Alison Hicks: I do have questions, and I have to apologize. I'll say, I think I was here during, I was on this committee. Was it the sustainability committee? Was this too many, when... Wait.

[01:39:16] Transportation Planner Pacho: Right, we brought the draft vision and goes to CDC in early 2024.

[01:39:21] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, so it was this committee, not the sustainability committee. It seems like it applies to both. Um, so, um, you know, I both, uh, love this concept, and I'm also kind of confused by it. So I'm gonna ask some background questions. I guess my big question is, do we find that these, um, strategies, I mean, you say there are less, didn't look at the list of strategies and impact. Do they really have the, do they generally, you know, in the projects in Mountain View or ones you've benchmarked with in other cities? Do they really have the 30, 40 and 50% impact?

[01:40:02] Principal Planner Pancholi: Yes, they can. They can. If they're implemented. Uh, in a way that is thoughtful.

[01:40:10] Member Alison Hicks: I see. Do you know anything like what percentage of them do or, or maybe another way of asking it is, when you say thoughtfully, what are the thoughtful ways in the thoughtless ways?

[01:40:23] Principal Planner Pancholi: So the thoughtful ways of implementing it are, when companies embrace it as part of their core mission. Or, um, something that is meaningful to the company. So for example, genetic, um, embraced their, um, their TDM strategies and it was part of, um, on the regulatory side, it was, there was a trip cap on the freeway on reps, but on their side, they were able to reduce the cost of parking supply. And so the company, you know, and also provide, um, commuter benefits that they found to be meaningful to their, um, employees. And so they,

[01:41:04] Member Alison Hicks: can you tell me how that works? How do you reduce your parking supply? That's something you have to do when you're building the project. So as they moved forward and so you don't need it. Yeah,

[01:41:14] Principal Planner Pancholi: so as they move forward and we're planning development for growth.

[01:41:18] Member Alison Hicks: I see development progress.

[01:41:19] Principal Planner Pancholi: They were able to provide less parking because they demonstrated that they had reduced their trip generation on, you know, per square foot or whatever. So, um, yeah, and so having kind of that intern, and I think the Google, uh, into it, they provide very thoughtful, um, GDM in Mountain View, uh, Stanford, obviously, um, in Palo Alto. So there's a lot of companies that have. So those

[01:41:43] Member Alison Hicks: are the 2 I always hear about. But I wonder about the, you know, about other companies. I got those.

[01:41:48] Principal Planner Pancholi: I'm sure that there are other ones that.

[01:41:50] Transportation Planner Pacho: I would say the test bed we could look at or the TMA members have been widely successful and that's who we've imposed team requirements on consistently. since we've approved their entitlements. And so we have seen, from the annual team reporting that they submit on the annual basis, the levels of backingness that they've been able to achieve, and the mode shift, from getting people out of cars to using more sustainable mode of traffic. And in North Bay sure, where we have more stringent teening requirements. been really successful. So, Google, for example, they run a private commuter shuttle, and historically pre-COVID, about 35% of their employees would take the private shuttle system, and then a mix would take it, take a sentence for active transportation per bike commuting, and then also use a number of attendants for Vampool and carpool. So collectively, when they stack those, um, measures, they do achieve a significant, um, chip reduction and non-SOV mode chair. And so this would be inheaded with the ordinance to kind of standardize a lot of these requirements for the trip reduction, um, side of things for setting the targets, but also making wider knowledge available for the levels of effectiveness for these tedium strategies, because there are a number of them and in coordination tend to complement others when they're implemented in a thoughtful, meaningful way.

[01:43:11] Principal Planner Pancholi: And another thing I can say is that, in contrast to VTA, that plans for the whole region, these companies know the exact origins and destinations, of their commuters, of their affiliates. So whether that's their contract workers, their employees, their students or whoever those affiliates are. And so they're able to really target um, their strategies and put uh, a van pool exactly where they know that there's a, this is the larger companies, you said, not the smaller. Well, companies have that information for their employees. So even smaller companies can pinpoint things that they would have as many people. But they have that information as opposed to like public agencies where we are basing it on more general information for the region. And

[01:43:59] Member Alison Hicks: what about apartments or residential? They don't have that kind of information. Do you have to?

[01:44:05] Principal Planner Pancholi: They may not have as much information on the destination side. Right, yeah. So do you have different goals for them?

[01:44:12] Transportation Planner Pacho: Residential projects, the TD measures might look differently. So depending on the annual reporting that they submit, it might be that a number of occupants don't own cars at all. So in that case, providing transit subsidies would probably make more sense, or providing on-site car share, where, um, you know, cars could be rented out, um, on a daily basis or weekly basis, providing those kind of options to supplement partnership would probably be more of a meaningful option for those. So the idea is to provide like a robust list of TDM strategies for all types of developments, kind of pick and choose that makes a match based on, um, the variety of occupants, um, that we'll finally.

[01:44:51] Principal Planner Pancholi: There are good examples of residential in mountain view as well. So I'm thinking, for example, Madeira apartments near, um, the transit center. They have carpool on site, they have, um, they have a range of different strategies. I'm not sure what they all are now. I knew them a few years ago, but they might have changed. Um, but they had demonstrated lower levels of uh, vehicle trip generation and parking.

[01:45:15] Member Alison Hicks: Thank you for updating on that. I have more questions, but because I'd heard of the success of Google and the shuttles, but other, you know, I'm not as familiar with other, um, and Stanford. other places. Um, and I'm interested also on mixed use. You said it would possibly be exempt. I could think of reasons why. I mean, you want, like, certain uses will generate a lot of the supercritics. You know, a lot of people driving and leaving throughout the day, but can you explain more to me that expand on that a little more so I understand how mixed use would be treated? Right.

[01:45:53] Transportation Planner Pacho: So, uh, residential project that has a mixed use component of, say, uh, like a shell site, a 50,000 square feet that's for retail. The idea is that those are mutually supported uses, and that a number of those trips would be internalized within the project site itself. So it wouldn't generate beyond an excess. If you were to expand the size of that use, it potentially could, because it could attract more regional travel behavior. And in that case, beyond 50,000 square feet, teenager cartons would be imposed on that use as well. But less than that 50,000 square feet. It would just be the residential portion, um, that would need to, uh, provide a TDM plan. Based on its ADT check.

[01:46:37] Member Alison Hicks: Seems like to some degree it would be an incentive for sometimes they don't want to include the mixed use component, and that also reduces trips within the whole neighborhood. you know, the drugstore or whatever on the ground floor. People who live nearby, not in that apartment, might be able to walk, okay, or bike. Um, So, there were the pack had a bunch of questions. Um, let's see. Uh, They, That I didn't fully understand. Um, they requested the ordinance support and incorporate VTA efforts currently underway to establish an equitable BMT program mitigation program for Santa Clara County. What is that?

[01:47:28] Transportation Planner Pacho: So this is a current effort that's being developed by VTA, and it's to establish, as we mentioned, equitable VMT mitigation program. So, they've done an extensive engagement process to understand, in areas of high need, what types of trip reduction strategies would be most helpful for them. And from there. So

[01:47:52] Member Alison Hicks: they might be different strategies in those places.

[01:47:54] Transportation Planner Pacho: Um, right. And I think the ones that they were able to hone in on were vampire incentives, uh, subsidies to purchase e-bikes and transit improvements. Now, the option would be for enough, um, of jurisdictions to opt in to participate, that developers in any of, and within Santa Clara County would be able to mitigate their VMT and opt into VTA's program, and pay into either using a VMT bank, or a VMT exchange that specifics haven't been really fully fleshed out yet. It's still kind of in its conceptual phase. So, I think the comment for B was to opt into the system once it becomes, um, once it goes online, essentially, as of right now, it's, it hasn't been fully pledged yet. But we are participating in talks and negotiations and we'll bring it to council once, um, once we're ready to, uh, have that study session and fully flesh out with those implications would be as of right now. Okay,

[01:49:02] Member Alison Hicks: we don't have to include it in our motion here. You're already doing it. Right, okay. Okay. Um, so that's fascinating. Um, And they also, some members expressed interest in information on cost implications of implementing, implementing these strategies. And a concern that they might burden new development. When they express that interest, What did you tell them? Oh,

[01:49:27] Transportation Manager Lo: I can't remember what I told them. But what I would like to tell you is that I think it's important to think about, um, Where we're starting from. Because currently we, we routinely impose conditions of approval on development, that include TDM requirements for sizable developments. Um, But there's a bit of a lack of consistency, and our goal is to make it more consistent so that they can basically Fill out a checklist rather than having to provide a full report. We expect that this will be less costly than our current practice. So I think that this is a cost reduction measure for developments moving forward, that it's more consistent. It's more simple. We hope that it could be just submitted online and not so individualized. The

[01:50:21] Transportation Planner Pacho: goal is to really reduce the transaction cost, because typically projects, Don't actually know where to begin with TDM. And most often the cases they have to hire outside consultants to develop a TDM plan. And hopefully with the team, Toket, they'll just be able to turn to that and understand, okay, this is what my impact is. This is the reduction measures that are needed. Um, and kind of reduce the burden on on outside kind of expertise that might be needed. So this is an important guide to kind of shore up what we already impose and make it much more transparent and inconsistent. So in doing that, we hope to reduce the transaction costs. and also kind of increase the role of the TMA, and stepping in to support the monitoring and reporting aspect so that kind of when projects are ready to occupy. They also don't need to hire consultants to produce the reporting and whatnot, the ideas, they could rely on the TAA to kind of, uh, standardize all of that and use somewhat of a platform. So you can put all of that data because right now it's just me kind of doing a lot of data entry. So it's not, it's not a sophisticated system at all. That's okay. And

[01:51:31] Transportation Manager Lo: they maybe have to provide economies of scale as well.

[01:51:36] Member Alison Hicks: Won't you all, that sounds great. And would you also be able to inform them as, you know, this as multiple developers do this, how much they might be able to cut their parking? Is that information that this could generate over time? And

[01:51:54] Transportation Planner Pacho: so parking has been a point of interest in a lot of our engagement and understanding, um, how this could be addressed on a site level. And there are parking measures that include in the TDM Tolkit, which are things like unbuthered parking, shared parking, and parking cash out. So these have been known to reduce, uh, check, generation. But beyond that, there's kind of a larger conversation that needs to happen at the city level, aesthetic parking policy, which is how do we manage parking, curb level in the right of way. And how do we manage potential effects of overflow parking, if not enough parking is provided at the site level. So, you know, coming into play are issues of, you know, um, price parking or residential permit programs, things like that of nature. So I believe larger conversations are happening at the city level. But, um, You

[01:52:54] Member Alison Hicks: know, maybe the way I should have asked the question is, can you give us, at the city, more information as you see projects roll out? Like if they do measures, X, Y, Z, they really need less parking. So maybe it's me who needs that information, not just not the developers. Yeah. Yeah,

[01:53:12] Principal Planner Pancholi: we, Diana Pancholi, principal planner, with the city's planning division, we regularly see that in development projects when we are assessing what kind of parking proposal is coming and what kind of TDM measures that they're proposing for considerable, like, sizable projects. So that is something that staff can, you know, point out when you're presenting the products to you. Bring it for cancel consideration. Potential

[01:53:37] Transportation Planner Pacho: provisions here that could also include in the framework that, for size over projects over a certain size, that we require some kind of parking study within the 1st year of occupancy to understand how parking's being utilized, whether or not parking's been provided, whether the team measures are effectively reducing demand for parking and whatnot. So that's kind of what level we have and we're discussing, but um, we need to kind of further develop in the framework. And

[01:54:05] Principal Planner Pancholi: occasionally we do look at, uh, we talk to some of our established developers in the city to kind of see how their existing projects are doing. For me, these sopranos and others. And they provide as good information. And I'll see what they're

[01:54:20] Member Alison Hicks: about working together. Good. And do you see what the, uh, so we've been contacted by Weimo and they're gonna start doing, uh, AV ride hailing, and of course, we have, uh, Lift an Uber already. Um, do you see that impacting, um, impacting this at all? Maybe it's no different than having lived an Uber available, but if it's much cheaper, then maybe, um, I know already my family, for instance, we have two to four adults, depending on which kids are home. Um, but one small car, and we take, because we can take Lincoln and Uber a lot. So, do you expect, um, AVs to change, you know, reduce the need for parking or change what you're looking at here very much? That's

[01:55:09] Transportation Planner Pacho: an excellent point. And I'll just refer to some things that have been discussed by Jeffrey Tomlin, who managed SFMTA, and he kind of looked at AVs as the promise of the technology to replace car ownership, kind of in the way that Uber and Lyft were kind of pitched. But what we, there's also concerns, too, that are being hedged, which is AVs are kind of being used for personal convenience at the cost of system efficiency. So, yeah. It's 80s are something that we're watching and it does hold promise and reducing the need for trips, our car ownership per se, but we see them still generating trips in it of themselves, and the goal of the ordinance is to reduce vehicle trips, and to the extent that it's not increasing the efficiency of those trips, is something that we worry about.

[01:56:01] Transportation Manager Lo: I think, um, in terms of the relevance for the TDM ordinance, one thing that this conversation highlights is, um, that when we're taking the trip counts. We've referred to them as driveway counts. And so assuming they're coming through a driveway and parking, but I think that we want to, when we actually write the language for the ordinance, we want to make that a little bit more expansive. So if somebody is pulling up in, you know, an AV and getting dropped off and then leaving, that's 2 trips, one in, one out, regardless of where they stop. So I think that we do want to capture that in the in the counts. It may, you know, I think we use the term driveway accounts as convenience, but we do want to be more expansive in the, in the legal. Yeah,

[01:56:46] Member Alison Hicks: I see that they might reduce the need for parking at apartments or the need for parking at an office, but not the number of trips that are being taken. And if you're doing driveway counts. That's where it impacts it because nobody's going in the driveway and parking, but you have the same. So that's that is what my question is in terms of how will it change it? Yeah. And I think that's also true for, I mean, what's going on in my neighborhood. I live a couple bucks for you. So there's a big one. A big office was put in, hear me? The cooking garage is empty, or almost empty. But our streets are all parked up, 'cause a lot of apartments, nice street, and walk in the sun, and park in a parking garage. But if you were doing driveway counts, It would look like very few people are taking their cars to the office when really many of them are. So what do you do about that the accuracy of driveway counts, or do you... So... So, right. So

[01:57:43] Transportation Planner Pacho: driver accounts provide a lot of good data, but it's often corroborated with commute surveys. So we also require sites to, um, regularly survey occupants and employees understand what their commuting habits are. So to the extent that AVs are included as an option for how they get to work that's kind of captured and the results, so you can see among the spread of employees that are commuting in what the distribution is across each mode. So that is hopefully uses a kind of a way to assess the validity of the driveway counts if it actually matches and whether different methodologies need to be considered to shore up the driveway counts and if there needs to be field observations for really understanding how people are coming in and using the curb.

[01:58:30] Transportation Manager Lo: And that was a situation that you were asked actually earlier about places where there was less thoughtful TDM. So there was a, there was an example in a neighboring city where a developer had, um, submitted a TDM driveway count, which looked great, but they had told all of their employees that they didn't have a parking permit that week. And so suddenly the neighborhood was full of people parked on the street and so the city actually in that city. The city staff actually went out and did account of like basically a cordon count around the area that fed into that development and based on that. So it wasn't strictly driveway, but it was clear that these people were going to that development that they hadn't cut. S open use. Yes, they were, it was smart. Okay,

[01:59:22] Member Alison Hicks: so that was the accuracy, and I guess backing it up with the survey works. And now I'm going to ask my evil questions. Um, so, what about, um, art? So, the purpose of, of TDM programs is, um, to, you know, make better use of the roadway and also cut, uh, use of fossil fuels. What about incentivizing, um, electric vehicles and compact vehicles. Um, to, because compact vehicles use the road much less and electric vehicles reduce fossil fuels, but I don't see TM, uh, you know, I don't see them addressing those in any way. So, do you have any concept? Right. So, There

[02:00:20] Transportation Planner Pacho: are twin purposes, which is the sustainability bend, which is we want to reduce transportation related grants gas emissions. They typically compose around 60% of our inventories and our community generated. So we understand that bit, but also through our requirements through SB 743 to reduce BMT. We also need to understand reducing VFT is another portion. So sometimes those are opposites, where EVs are still generating trips nonetheless because they are vehicles. Typically, EVs are part of the strategy, but they are the entire strategy. Oh,

[02:00:56] Member Alison Hicks: so they are part of the team. They

[02:00:58] Transportation Manager Lo: could be. So sometimes companies will offer preferential parking for certain types of vehicles. Typically, it's like fan pools and then car pools. It might be EVs and could be compact vehicles potentially, I guess. I actually haven't seen compact vehicles in that referential parking, but that is a strategy. I

[02:01:16] Member Alison Hicks: mean, because, I mean, huge vehicles, single people in huge vehicles. And, you know, in terms of road erosion, and anyway, so, um, yeah, I think it's, uh, also a matter of equity that I would encourage you, uh, easy EV charging, because a lot of the, a lot of the lower income people I know, uh, particularly, if they work in Mountain View, they live in San Jose or something, they're very unlikely. They may not be served by a van pool, and they may not be able, you know, they may have kids that they're dropping off at childcare and multiple trips, and they're not gonna take mass transit, but they also can't charge EVs, because they live in an apartment that doesn't have EV charging. So charging at work would be the only way they could, they're gonna drive, and charging work is the only place they could charge. So I think that might make... I am. Um, so what do you think? That's my last one. Um,

[02:02:22] Transportation Planner Pacho: no, that's a great point. And if the ownership is cost prohibitive, and especially without the tax incentives that might be going away, even more so out of reach for people. So, really understanding on an equity basis, how can we meet those needs is an important piece of that. And so that's the whole kind of piece of the puzzle is that the tedium list of strategies is robust enough to incorporate, um, equity components and are off. Yeah, but I would

[02:02:49] Transportation Manager Lo: be selling their Tesla for cheap. But I would also add that um, the city also has an EV, EV action plan. So that's kind of going in parallel. That also is a council strategic priority, I think. So, yeah.

[02:03:05] Transportation Planner Pacho: I also mentioned that adoption, e-bikes is higher than adoption of electric vehicles. And so to the extent that the city already in its efforts can subsidize.

[02:03:17] Unknown Speaker: In the city, it is? In

[02:03:19] Transportation Planner Pacho: the, oh, sorry, this is, generally speaking, um, uh, I think in the US, but I can follow up with a specific situation, but, um, would you say the city's made strides in subsidizing e-bike ownership with its, uh, the program that's operated by sustainability program? Uh, we hope to support that.

[02:03:39] Member Alison Hicks: Those are all my questions, thank you.

[02:03:40] Chair John McAlister: Thank you. Um, I remember, man, I hate to say I'm an old man, so I came back. A lot of the TDMs started when Google started building, and we were involved with those, and they were having traffic counts at very sentries, and then if they got to a certain point, we had to shut down and do different things. Um, reading through this, I don't, it's sort of a very interesting. It's very similar to what we started out back then when all these companies were coming through. So I want to start off with one question. You're looking at developments and so forth. So anybody that's existing is exempt from TDM. Well,

[02:04:21] Transportation Planner Pacho: currently we do impose TDM on projects we've already entitled, but there are varying requirements as far as the TDM strategies that we've set and the various TDM measures that they've adopted. So, um, the ordinance wouldn't apply to them, but they could participate on a voluntary basis. Okay. I think Diana has additional commentary.

[02:04:43] Principal Planner Pancholi: Yeah, right now, in the absence of a TDM ordinance, um, the uncertain projects which are voluntarily offered, and that's why the condition of approval for the entitlement will show a TDM condition, or there are projects which are under certain precise plans, which have a TDM requirement, and those particular, you know, projects coming under those precise plan will have a TDM condition. So those are some of the projects which have existing TDM conditions requirement. So

[02:05:12] Chair John McAlister: anything in North Bayshire is under the TDM there. Yeah. Nice Wizman. Yes. Um, is there anything that we can do with schools? Because they do a lot of traffic coming and going. So, They're not a developer? There's not that. Is there, are we working in unison with them to try to reduce traffic?

[02:05:34] Transportation Manager Lo: Yes, I can speak to that. So the city, the city has, um, a safe fruits to school program, where we work on both education and helping the students to have safe practices and be aware and also for the parents. And it also includes encouragement activities. So encouraging mode shift. This is active at all of the public schools. We've offered it to all of the private schools, but the uptake on the private schools is, uh, hasn't, it's exactly happened yet. So um, Yeah, so but there are strategies also for schools and if they were to come in as a development project, they would also be subject to the TDM requirements.

[02:06:17] Transportation Planner Pacho: I'd also add too, that since we've expanded the service for the community shuttle, we've seen an uptick of ridership from our schools, particularly Crittenden and Gramp. And demand has actually exceeded capacity and we've had to, unfortunately, bump a number of students, um, It's fairly cost prohibitive to run a sweeper service following the usual service. So we've reached out to the school district to try to engage them to see if they might be able to, you know, contribute funds. That's an ongoing conversation, but That's one piece of it. But as far as, in the development process, we know that St. Francis recently expanded, and they've had to submit a tedium plan that would help reduce the excess trips generated by that, um, the net new trips being generated. So, That's on a condition of the certificate of occupancy that they recently received. So we'll be following up with them, you know, when you're post-occupancy at that extension. Um,

[02:07:16] Chair John McAlister: let's see, we had up on this, clarifying regarding monitoring, tenants, turnover, and lack of efficient tools of, okay, so this is on page four. Let me say if I could 3rd route. You see it's the 1st paragraph. And while the city has successfully established TDM requirements at the outset of new development, ongoing monitoring, reporting have proven challenging due to lack of enforcement mechanism. Turn a turnover and lack of efficient tools for staff are accurately tracking. What are we doing to, uh, See, it will track better.

[02:07:53] Transportation Planner Pacho: I'm developing this ordinance is when strategy. There has been a number of staff turnover for our projects, which we lose a chain of custody of information. We don't necessarily have the information to follow up with sites. Um, Right now, we're trying to develop kind of a dashboard where we input all of the sites with teating requirements. We set when their annual tating reporting is due on an annual basis to follow up with them. Um, right now it's somewhat ad hoc. It's based on various states of when they receive the certificates of occupancy. So it's not standardized. The idea with this ordinance is that we'd be able to create an online digital platform, that benefits, um, front users as well as end users, that regularly automatically tracks when that reporting is due. They submit that reporting, and it determines on our side whether or not they're in compliance. Because right now it's, it's ad hoc. We don't have a very streamlined measure for tracking and monitoring. Yeah.

[02:08:59] Chair John McAlister: There was a, I was following up on a comment from a, a TDM community workshop that says, support for bus speed improvement such as transit signal priority. So, that's an investment of part of the city. Is that something that is being considered? Transit signal priority progresses?

[02:09:23] Transportation Manager Lo: This is something that we've been thinking about. Um, The MTC is currently working on a transit priority policy and we're tracking that we need, we're trying to figure out how to incorporate it into what we're doing in transportation. So

[02:09:41] Chair John McAlister: yeah, what takes money. Now, did you, uh, I'm reading this vision, page 5, based on the following vision was established for the ordinance, is that the current vision that we're going with? current vision, yes. So the 1st line, could you help me understand to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips for development? Just there, and then it's, what is? Single trips for development. And it says increased use of multiple transportation alternatives. But what does it say when you say to reduce single accuracy vehicle trips for development?

[02:10:20] Transportation Manager Lo: Safe for development projects that come through the city. We're trying to reduce the single, keep it for equal trips. Good, yeah. Sweet. Okay.

[02:10:32] Chair John McAlister: Um, The other question I have. Good. So people that are 50 or more. Existing projects that have been entitled prior to the ordinance adoption will not be subject to the provisions under the ordinance. And I think you mentioned something that they were voluntary. So, was there any credit or recognition if they voluntary to do something for us? Anyway, are you going?

[02:11:06] Transportation Planner Pacho: It voluntarily participate, I think it would benefit those sites on the benefits we previously discussed, which are the reduction in transaction costs and improves efficiency for delivering TDM. They were to perhaps join the TMA, dispensing those services. So, it's more so, I would say, on the benefits for cost implication and efficiency as opposed to credits.

[02:11:31] Chair John McAlister: When was the last time the institution of transportation engineers, trip generation manual been updated? I'm not sure.

[02:11:41] Transportation Planner Pacho: They updated it regularly. They're on the 11th edition.

[02:11:57] Public Works Director Ng: I want to say it's every few years on a regular basis, but not every single type. Um, yes. Um, What's the words I went to? Not every single type of land use is updated wholesale throughout the book. Or just add more information.

[02:12:13] Chair John McAlister: I think 2021. Thank you, dad. Oh, you met around? So, the last time I, we, this came up. It was like five, 6 years and I'm going. Again, that's what I was asking. So it's good to see that it's being more updated on that way. Uh So, also, again, uh, one thing, uh, my general questioning is compliance. A checklist format for the TDM will provide applicants with the flexibility and consistency to reasonably comply with the requirements of this sort. So are we looking for a reasonable compliance? Is that a way, is that measurable?

[02:12:54] Transportation Planner Pacho: Reasonable compliance? I think at a baseline level would be submitting the annual TDM report that attests to them implementing the TDM. plan that they, um, that was codified in the conditions of approval. So that's a reasonable expectation is the reporting that's submitted.

[02:13:14] Chair John McAlister: Well, like, hey, and then... Um. Yeah, that's compliance. Uh, if a project fails to comply with requirements, the reporting time periods will be extended upon compliance until the compliance is achieved. Who monitors that?

[02:13:38] Transportation Planner Pacho: I mean, it'd be, at the moment, it'd be me. So, yeah, um, It's an elegant system, but, um, He needs to find himself. Thankfully, we're bringing on an intern to help me with monitoring, uh, which would definitely be, uh, be helpful.

[02:13:57] Chair John McAlister: Yeah, again. On the 1st year, I can see projects will demonstrate compliance by providing the annual TM report as part of ongoing monitoring requirements. What is the percentage of complaints? This plan, I would say, it's about 50%. Okay, there's, uh, penalties will be tried to buy projects, sizes, follow a small projects, no penalties, media projects, some money, large projects. How much money has been collected? Zero. Zero.

[02:14:37] Public Works Director Ng: But do we have a penalty right now? Yes. Yes. Okay.

[02:14:43] Chair John McAlister: Uh, maintain the tea team, uh, require ordinance goal to promote efficient use of roadway capacity while reducing traffic congestion. How do we How do you define roadway test?

[02:14:57] Transportation Planner Pacho: I would say most only be in North Bay Shore, where we have trip count policy? We've set sensitive sensitivity requirements at the gateways during the peak period directionally. So really understanding how that's performing over time, with the information of the TDF ordinance would be a point of interest.

[02:15:18] Chair John McAlister: Okay. Thank you. My questions, we will move to any member of the public joining us virtually, or in person, like to provide comment on this item. If so, please click the raised hand button and zoom or approach the electro. We will take in person. Bakers for us, each speaker will have 3 minutes. Anybody public comment? Anybody here?

[02:15:46] Public Speaker: Oh, I'll go for it again. Um, go actor again. 25 year resident. Um This has all been super interesting to me. This is all into me. I was here for the 1st thing and thought it'd stay, then I like this concept. I, um, I'm a little nervous and there was a lot of talk here about, like, how you actually measure stuff because, you know, you can do, like, the driveway counts or then you get the problem and people, people are going to gamify, you know, or game out anything, you try and do it. I do think you have to do that. I also, like, 2 years ago, my wife and I, we had a car that wouldn't pass smog, and we couldn't agree on what else we were going to get. So I started biking and I was like, I don't really need a car. Uh, after, right, so. And one thing, it sort of changed my perspective on a lot of the car bike things. So I used to sort of think of EVs as being like, oh, wait, big step above cars or something in terms of environmental and increasingly, I think of them as for a small step above cars, because they still, buys into that whole, like you have to drive lifestyle thing where, um, and you, you, When you're biking around, you're looking at all this space, and there's just like all these cars and parking lots and all this with, I mean, cars are horrible land use, uh, thing. They're, uh, they, you know, Partly also just stuff. Um, reading up on various social things, they're, they are part of the reason that you get segregation, and you get separations of stuff here, just that, uh, people can, so, you know, I'm, You know, I do like these better than cars, but I, I, I, don't generally, that they're that big of an advantage. Oh, another thing about them is that, um, it turns out some very large percentage of everybody's into microplastics now that they've sort of discovered that we have lots of them, but, like, a lot of them are for car tires and EVs actually generate more of those than than regular cars. It's heavy.

[02:18:27] Chair John McAlister: Anyways, those are 2 comments. Thank you. We will take any virtual speaker.

[02:18:36] Unknown Speaker: Larry Datio. Um,

[02:18:40] Mary Dateo: good evening. Um, I'm hoping I can have a coherent train of thought here. Um, I do agree. Um, I especially agree that capturing accurate, uh, vehicle miles traveled for Uber and Lyft and for automated vehicles is incredibly important, um, from what I can tell, uh, based on Google AI just now, um, Uber and Lyft, um, are increasing vehicle miles traveled, which is, uh, not the direction we want to go. Um, so, um, I, these are so convenient. I think they're gonna be with us, but, but, um, we really, TDM is just ever more important because we, we don't want to increase the vehicle miles traveled, and similar to the comet the other speaker just made, um, for purposes of TDM. Um, I I, I'm a huge proponent of EVs. I love my EV. I don't understand why anybody would drive anything other than an EV. Um, almost, but, um, I don't think they should be given a pass or, Given encouragement. I'm talking about the cars relative to gas vehicles. Again, when we're thinking about vehicle miles traveled, um, because, Um, we're adding 11,000 plus units, or we will, if we're going to meet our, uh, what's been mandated, um, if it's still 2.5 people, 2.4 people per housing unit, that's almost a 3rd of our population, um, an increase of a 3rd, uh, a 3rd, again, of we have today. And there's just not space on the roads. Um, we don't want to keep adding car lanes of traffic and, and so, All this stuff is going to put pressure on us to add more space for cars when really we need to go the opposite direction. So, just whatever we can do to really, really improve our TDM. I'm excited to see the standards that are being set And just, um, really important that that, that we count Uber and and lift and, um, equals properly. Thank you.

[02:21:03] Chair John McAlister: Thank you, Mary. Someone else. That's all. Okay. Uh, thank you. I will bring the item back to for committee comments and action.

[02:21:19] Member Alison Hicks: So, I'm just, I'm ready to move this forward as proposed a staff proposal.

[02:21:24] Chair John McAlister: Okay. Uh, my comments. I support TDMs. I think they're great. But if you can't, uh, verify it, you're spending a lot of time, and Staff time's important to me, and when we say, yes, I mean, we started, again, back when I would, Stugel was coming along, we were having a tough time, at least with them, they had a choke point so we could count it, but putting this stuff out here. And this is a lot of effort on the staff. I appreciate all the stamps, and then I looked at your, your own checklist that somebody could say, boom, boom, boom. And if we don't have staff to make sure that they're in compliance, We're not gonna get our goal set. So, I'm looking at this as, well, how are we gonna make sure that this thing is staffed and there's credibility and what we're doing as a small business person or a business person. And I've been on the council. I don't like laws put out there that aren't enforced. And it just takes away from all the good effort and intentions that we're trying to do. So, let's move forward with this, but once it gets to council, and I would like to see some ways, you're very proficient young man, but you do have limits, and for everything that you see here. I really don't see people doing what they're supposed to do.

[02:22:47] Chair John McAlister: And we need to do that. Otherwise, it's, it's, Again, wasted might that we do. And we had, this is a very big thing for us to do greenhouse gases. So, um, I'm all for moving forward, but I gotta see enforcement in this one.

[02:23:04] Member Alison Hicks: So is that emotion job? Uh, I'll make the motion. This is the motion test. Okay. Two, uh, but I'll recommend that.

[02:23:16] Chair John McAlister: Uh, I recommend that the...

[02:23:19] Member Alison Hicks: Oh, I didn't mean to cross it out. Sorry.

[02:23:25] Chair John McAlister: CTC recommends the proposed framework for the transit, transit, demand management, ordinance to city council go forward. And I would like to put in there that there's safeguards to make sure that things are enforced in a compliance. And then, you know, I'll leave that up to you, but maybe you could put a gold in there, that's good. It's, you're not gonna catch everybody, but you try to put a gold in there that, let's see if we can attain it. Because that's good for us. It's good for the residents. It's good for them. But somebody's watching them. You're a second.

[02:24:07] Member Alison Hicks: Yep, a 2nd number. Okay.

[02:24:09] Public Works Director Ng: We're gonna vote by voice. Oh, boy. Um, any member Hades? Yes. And a chair, yes. Yes. Okay. Well, passes to 0 with member, uh, come A F.

[02:24:25] Chair John McAlister: You know, we've been sitting here for 2.5 hours. Can you take a 5 minute break or she'll plow through this? How much week?

[02:24:33] Public Works Director Ng: Yeah, that would take us to, uh, 6 minutes. will take us to 9 o'clock. Okay, 6 minute break. Thank you. Thank you.

6.1 Castro Street and Rengstorff Grade Separation Projects

[02:30:34] Chair John McAlister: Okay, we were going to now item 6 key project updates. Gonna do 6.one Castro Street and Ringsdorf grade separation projects. Item 6.1 is a staff presentation for an update on the Castro Street and links to our grade separation projects. The staff presentation will be provided by Joy Huntton, Chaney, our civil engineer, Robert Gonzalez, principal civil engineer will be available to answer questions. Please help me with names. As I'm in time. Thank you. Yep. Good

[02:31:10] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: evening, committee member and chair. My name's Joy Houghton, senior civil engineer and public works, and I am here, joined by Robert Tonight, principal civil engineer, and we are here to provide updates on the city's 2 great public projects. Castro Street, and Ring Surf. As a refresher, staff presented information on the 2 grade separation projects, um, to city council, including status, benefits, and cost in January of 2024, due to the limited funding sources and a very significant funding shortfall for the Caster Street project. Staff recommended to city council to prioritize Springstorf Avenue. Um, council supported this recommendation given the following. There is an interim solution for Castro Street. Brainstorf is more challenging for pedestrians and bicycles compared to Castro. And prioritizing brainstorf means that the city would focus our funding resources, including our share of the city, the measure B funds towards Reinsdorf, which then helps reduce the funding shortfall for the project. As ring surf has need by clearance, There are federal grant opportunities that rank surf can pursue, and the project would be more competitive with a reduced funding shortfall. What does prioritization need for the 2 projects? For rain store, if it means completing final design and right away acquisition, considering value engineering options to further reduce the funding shortfall, and constructing the great separation project. For Castro. It means staff would explore implementing interim improvements, which I'll share on the next slide, constructing the city utility relocation project to prepare the city utilities for the future under crossings. Completing the final design of the undercross things and obtaining NEPA clearance to be eligible for federal funding, which has been suspended since October 2024, and constructing the undercross things when funding becomes available. What's Nipa? It's the National Environmental Protection Act, which is our equipment, the federal level equivalent of sequa. I'm required for any federal ladies. With an unknown timeline for construction of the Castro undercrossing, city council supported proceeding with interim improvements to the Castro Street Moffat Boulevard Central Expressway intersection. The improvements will permanently close the railroad crossing 2 vehicles, while retaining the existing at grade whale crossing for bikes and pets, and also convert the Evelyn Avenue at Castro for westbound traffic only with bike accommodations. The improvements will reduce vehicle conflicts for bikes and pets, and allow the elimination of the railroad, um, single preemption for Central Expressway, which helps reduce the bike and pet wait times to cross the expressway. On to the new updates and next steps for Castro, um, since the last updates to the CTC in October 2024, Caltrain is executing a design contract with HNTB, uh, the design consultant for the Castro interim improvements. And staff will be returning to city council in fall 2025 with updates on the 2 great separation projects, including Castro. On to brainstorm updates, since the October 2024 update, the city has received updated project costs based on the 35% design, which I'll share updates on, the next flight, and that we are continuing our effort on value engineering to evaluate alternatives to reduce the costs, which um, will include producing scope and um, evaluating the project schedule. In January 2025, staff receive announcement of results of the FRA Christie and RCE grant programs, and the city's project applications for unsuccessful in both programs, staff has requested meetings with the FRA to gain better understanding of how we can improve our application in the next round to improve our competitiveness. And staff will be providing updates to city council involved 2025, and as council to authorize, um, for Reddorf Avenue to proceed with design. And then, um, as to ring store of great separation updates, as mentioned, city received updated project costs on the 35% design. Um, from a construction manager, general contractor, and also a 3rd party estimator, and as a refresher, when the project was presented to city council in January of 2024. The project cost was 325, leaving us with a shortfall of 31 million. At the time, we thought that we could close the gap with value engineering and pursuing grant opportunities. Um, the latest project cost is at 53 or $453 million, leaving us with a shortfall of 159, though. Um, since receiving these updated costs. The project team has been tasked with value engineering and evaluating cost reduction options, to bring the project costs down, and we will be sharing frequent updates with the CTC, and also will be providing updates to city council in fall. In the fall. And that concludes my updates for tonight. Thank you. Thank you.

[02:37:15] Chair John McAlister: So, with the ring store. Again, I was here, and it was like $120 million. Dreams. We were fighting with other cities. I was also on ETA, we were, we had, we were getting our money because we were the ones shovel ready to go. Right. And that was nice. Um, So, our, the costs, do we try to get the design going or do we go for the imminent domain to get the property? Is there a, what, is there a sequence that we're trying to do that we really can't do anything until we get the property or do we just go?

[02:37:56] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: So the city has a multi-prong approach here. There's there's a balancing act here. Um, we want to demonstrate progress to our uh, potential federal uh, partnerships. So we do want to show progress either in design or in property acquisition. Um, there's also a balancing act using eminent domain as a tool. We have, um, legal constraints and policy constraints. We want to be able to move into project construction. During a certain time frame if we were going to use that as a tool. So we haven't decided on that, we would, uh, bring that back as a policy decision to this body or to counsel if we were to go in that direction, like, if they're clear, our recommendation, but at this point, Once the value engineering is done, and we have a better idea of how much project costs, we can kind of control and move down. We'll have a better idea of what, uh, federal strategy with approach.

[02:38:53] Assistant Public Works Director Boyer: If I can just add, you know, we've already started property acquisition for several pieces. At this point, we're about 35% design. We're gonna be completing 35%, I'll say, with the value engineering. Our next milestone then would be 65% design, and at 65%, that's really when we're going to kick the rest of the right away acquisition into high gear. So to speak, right? Because then we're really trying to sequence the timing of getting that right away with the timing of construction. Um, At that point, we will know more if there are some properties that we have not been successful with just simple negotiations, and we would have to go to an alternate strategy, such as a minute domain. We're not there yet. Oh, okay. I

[02:39:44] Member Alison Hicks: have just an update. I got it. What's the utility? I didn't understand what that was in the, in the 1st part of the update. Castro? Castro? What is? Oh, for cash?

[02:39:56] Unknown Speaker: For exhibiting? Um...

[02:39:59] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: There are a lot of utilities at Castro and Central Expressway, and in order for the undercross seems to be eventually be constructed in place, we had a separate city, CIP that would then relocate some of those utilities, water, sewer. And it's in construction. It's in construction. Okay, thank

6.2 Active Transportation Plan

[02:40:25] Chair John McAlister: you, yeah. Appreciate your updates. I'm gonna be at the hard road to get my maps. Okay, we will go on to 6.2 active transportation plan. Well, I get 2 weeks. There it is. And, uh, I am, she was a fact presentation for an update on the active transportation plan. Staff presentation will be by Alison Boyer, assistant public works director. Oh, that was funny. I am. They're all excellent. Sorry. Hello? Um,

[02:41:08] Assistant Public Works Director Boyer: I do not have staff presentation, but I do have an update. Our APT is going to BPAC next week on Tuesday, March 11th. So that will be on an update on the ballistic

[02:41:21] Member Alison Hicks: network maps as well as the, um, an update on the scoring criteria that was previously presented. And

[02:41:29] Assistant Public Works Director Boyer: then we will be bringing it to CTC on April 1st. So you will be seeing that here in the next month. And

[02:41:36] Member Alison Hicks: there was a meeting that was sometime this week that was diverged. Um, we were going to show the updated maps,

[02:41:44] Assistant Public Works Director Boyer: but we are going, the ideas that those will be shown to be packed a week later, rather than trying to do the community outreach, get that in a report, get that to be packed, then get that to you. It could

[02:41:56] Member Alison Hicks: be kind of combined to the public outreach with the Pack meaning. Oh, so they're not going to be too separate. They're not here. I used to put 2 separate meetings at this time. There's

[02:42:05] Assistant Public Works Director Boyer: no new information to share. So it was kind of more of a status of the maps. Okay, um. I

7.1 Staff Comments

[02:42:14] Chair John McAlister: guess I could, you know, maybe look at the director later on to answer some questions, Mark, about this. Just about believe. Well, I get out. I mean, we would like to... Okay. Seven, uh, well, thank you very much. I appreciate you spending the time with us, just to say, thank you for that. It was nice of you. Um, we need staff announcements to update requests for committee reports. No,

[02:42:40] Unknown Speaker: it was time. Thank you. Uh,

7.2 Committee Comments

[02:42:42] Chair John McAlister: I sort of have a report, but I don't know. So I am on BTA. Uh, I didn't been watching the Amazon VTA before. I've been looking at the great crossing and they were talking about the money. You guys are probably on top of. So that's interesting. I'm going to Washington, DC next this week. I'm also on their transportation board, uh, and I'm going to be taking classes on how to work well with federals. So, between myself and 15 Gilmore. Maybe we can figure out how to channel some money our way. So that I'll be hopefully bringing some information back for you guys. Uh, and that takes care of, Stout and point one. Oh, I'm sorry, I went to 7.2 is committee comments. Do you have any comments?

[02:43:34] Member Alison Hicks: I do not have any comments.

10. ADJOURNMENT

[02:43:36] Chair John McAlister: Okay. Would any of the public like to say any closing comments? Okay, I'll close that. Again, thank you for, uh, For the coming in today, the staff to me, transportation is one of the highest rules that we can do because it gives quality of life, reduced congestion, reduces greenhouse gases. And everything you do is, uh, is really appreciated. So, Thank you. And I'll get to the last page. Thank you so much for joining us. Our next council transportation committee meeting will be on April 1st. This meeting is adjourned at 914. Thank you.

• ← Previous
• Next →