April 1, 2025 Council Transportation Committee

Video

Agenda

Speaker Summary

(14 speakers)
SpeakerWordsTime
Chair John McAlister4,45131m
Transportation Planner Whyte4,05929m
Senior Transportation Engineer Chatradhi2,58220m
Member Alison Hicks2,82118m
Member Ellen Kamei2,80218m
Public Works Director Ng7674m
Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales6533m
Cliff Chambers5083m
Valerie Fenwick5733m
April Webster5423m
VTA Deputy Director Zahir Gulzada2661m
Unknown Speaker1581m
Transportation Manager Lo2491m
Senior Project Manager Gibson93<1m

Transcript

2. ROLL CALL

[00:00:00] Chair John McAlister: Evening, everyone. Welcome to the Council Transportation Committee meeting of April the 1st. The meeting starting at 6:01 p.m. This is a hybrid meeting allowing public comment, both in person and virtual. Instructions for addressing the committee virtually may be found on the posted agenda. Roll call, the public works director will take attendance by roll call. Hey,

[00:00:23] Public Works Director Ng: Chairman Gallister? Here. Mayor May, here, and committee member Hicks. Committee member. Three present, none exit.

4.2 Approve Meeting Minutes

[00:00:34] Chair John McAlister: The dialogue before. Okay. Oral communication will go on to 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 up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the committee from acting on non-agenda items. Would any member of the public on the line? Like to provide comment on non-agenda items. If so, please clip the raised hand button and zoom or approach the electrum. You will we will take in-person speakers first. Staff will display the timer on the street. Sing none in house, sing none on line, we look in. I have numbers, what, number three, world of communication? And now we will go into the minutes. Item 4.one improvement, meeting minutes. meetings for the October 29th, 2024 meeting and the March 4th, 25th meeting are presented for approval of night. With any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on the minutes. If so, please click the raised hand button and zoom or post electron. We will take in person speakers first. Each speaker will have 3 minutes. Okay. We will close public comment. We will now bring it back to the committee for deliberation action. Are there any corrections or comments on the minutes? I

[00:02:05] Member Alison Hicks: have a comment. I've never had a comment on minutes to be selected. So it's an outstanding movie. alert the media. So, I just, several residents have asked me, um, when we, we made some, they weren't motions, but, like, comments and encouragement to do things, uh, in our last CTC meeting. And people have asked me, like, what's the difference since I looked at them in the minutes, they were concerned that they would show up in the minutes, and they did show up in the minutes. So, um, the things that we said explore this and that. So they just want to know, you know, are you, particularly the road diet, which is just repainting. Is it really going to be explored? What does explore versus motion mean in your mind? So that's my question. So motion is for staff to actually do

[00:03:04] Public Works Director Ng: something, right? It's like directive off of a decision that the committee would be making. Um, I believe the action was for staff to explore, and staff took that as an action item. You know, we would take a look, and this is in regards to the Moffett Boulevard, um, complete streets project. And so, um, staff took that as an action item to explore it, you know, whether or not it would be feasible to actually incorporate looking at a road diet, given the constraints of the funding. Um, because we certainly don't want to lose any federal funding. And these kind of, you know, this kind of I'll call it economic and political times, right? And so, you know, we took that as as something that we would look seriously at, but we weren't directed to include that particular thing in the project. So if we can, we will. Um, If if it's not possible, particularly given the schedule constraints, um, that we won't be incorporated into the project. So

[00:04:07] Member Alison Hicks: the residents were just afraid that explorement dropped 8 minutes and forget about it. I was happy to see it. Um, and just wanted to bring that up because there had been concern. And with that, I would be happy to move both sets of minutes.

[00:04:24] Chair John McAlister: I'll second it. Okay, um, since I was not here, I will abstain from the, the October and then vote, yes, on the 2nd month. So, I guess we, um... Oh, they were like, oh. We did do it. 2 yes's on uh, 3 yes's on the, and it's uh, March the 4th. Oh, any public comments? Oh, you already had that. Okay. So, you guys do roll call vote on this?

[00:04:58] Public Works Director Ng: A raise hand vote? Would you like to take the actions the minute separately? Please. Okay. Uh, would you like to vote 1st on the, uh, October minutes? Do you have to call for him, Canada?

[00:05:16] Chair John McAlister: Well, we already did a motion was made. Do you need demand a motion to June 2nd or do they? Oh,

[00:05:23] Member Alison Hicks: I 2nd did. Okay,

[00:05:25] Chair John McAlister: no, I mean, it's a...

[00:05:27] Member Alison Hicks: She's 2nd it, but you want them separate now? Well, I think he wants to, yeah. Yeah,

5.1 US 101/Rengstorff/San Antonio Interchange Improvements

[00:05:31] Chair John McAlister: I'll just say, I'll take a note that I will abstain from the 29th in favor of March 4th. So, vote, I'll raise your hand. I guess is, yeah, something. No, we will. Bring the sign. Okay, so we will go now to key project updates. 5.one US 101 slash ringstore slash San Antonio interchange improvements. We do have a presentation from Dante, uh, try D from the BTA, and if she's available, we'll be glad to hear your update. I'm

[00:06:13] Senior Transportation Engineer Chatradhi: here. Thank you, everyone. Um, should I share my screen or uh, I share the presentation with anybody from the city, be sharing it on the screen.

[00:06:27] Unknown Speaker: I can share it. It's available. Yes, you can share. You should be able to as a comist..

[00:06:42] Chair John McAlister: Oh, 2nd. Um. She's bringing this up. Do you sort of put this project, okay, it's into context of why it's coming to us for my own personal knowledge. I believe that will be part of our presentation. Oh, right. Excellent. Are

[00:07:10] Unknown Speaker: you able to see math clean? Mhm. Um, we can see your internet explorer. See your Zoom screen. I

[00:07:23] Chair John McAlister: figured it again. How about now?

[00:07:38] Unknown Speaker: Not yet. There we go. Okay.

[00:07:49] Senior Transportation Engineer Chatradhi: Can you see my screen? Yes, 4 point. In the, um, present mode. How about now? Yep. Okay. Thank you everyone. Uh, I'm Shanti Chitrati, senior transportation engineer from VTA. I'm here with Zahir Gulzada, deputy director VTA Highway Program, and design consultant PM, Carl Gibson. Here is today's agenda. I will 1st go over the project's existing conditions as well as the proposed implements. Project is in the environmental phase and we have been actively engaging with the public. In November, we conducted a community open house in the Mountain View Community center. And presented at the Mountain View BPAC committee as well. Today we are here at the CTC to present the project. And lastly, we will conclude with an overview of the product schedule. So, um, this project is located along US 101 in the cities of Mountain View and Palo Alto, at the San Antonio and Drinkstore Interchanges. San Antonio is on the left, and the rain star interchange is on the right. These interchanges were built in the 1960s and are in the need for improvements. In uh, 2012, then the 101 uh, northbound Oxland project was built. Caltrans identified 3 deficiencies for the area. The 1st one is that the 2 interchanges are closely spaced with short weaving distance. And the 2nd one is the short southbound onram from Charleston to 101. And this creates a short waving distance between the southbound on and off-ranks at Ringsdorf. And the 3rd is uh, San Antonio is an incomplete interchange. There is basically no southbound on ramp from San Antonio to 101. So to fix these deficiencies, the project proposes to add the southbound on ramp at San Antonio, uh, and then eliminate the on ramp at Charleston, which is on standard and also creates a short waving distance. And for number one, uh, uh, the closely spaced interchanges, uh, we are adding a southbound ox lane. You know, that helps add to the storage. In addition to these improvements, project will implement complete streets by adding bicycle and pedestrian facilities, I will go over the details in the latest slides. And our project partners include Caltrans, cities of Mountain View and Palo Alto. And so far, funding is a project is funded by the 2016 measure B, and they received local match from Google. This is for the project initiation phase and the environmental phase is what we have been funded so far. So, um, there are a lot of development uh, in the pipeline for this area. For example, the North Beige or precise plan, and Google developments. Uh, the San Antonian drink store are 2 of the 3 main gateways to the city of Mountain View and Palo Alto, as well as to the North Bayshore area. So uh, the purpose of the project is to improve access, uh, basically for all modes in the area. And currently there are no bike lanes and limited pedestrian facilities at these interchanges. improve safety, uh, for bicycles and pedestrians and at short waving segments, improve mobility, and lastly, improve traffic operations to meet the growing demands with the development in the area. Project need, as I said, the project will accommodate all modes, improve safety, accessibility, and improve traffic operations. Going on to the details of the project, this slide just existing 101 drink store interchange. And just for orientation, the top of the slide is the San Francisco side, it's the north, and the south is the, or the bottom of the flight is the sanazi side. To the right is the bay and to the left is the ocean. Um, the yellow crossing arrows shows the short beef between the on, uh, from Charleston and off to Rengstorf. Uh, the in and out is here just for, you know, uh, landmark. Um, They are high stressed bike lanes right now, which means bikers ride along with bike load traffic. The existing ramps allow vehicles to move freely without having to stop. And that creates conflicts for bicycles and pedestrials, which makes it unsafe. And uh, there is sidewalk only on the south side and none on the north side. And finally, this structure is at non-standard vertical clearance, and currently at 15 feet, and the standard Caltran standard now is at 16.5 feet. This is the existing San Antonio Interchange. And they are free moving uh, vehicles here as well from the ramps. And there is sidewalk on the north side only, and no bicycle facilities at all. This interchange is also at non-standard vertical clearance. And one specific or main issue at this interchange is that uh, San Antonio is an incomplete interchange, uh, as there is no on-ram, uh, from an unknown San Antonio to Southbound 101. So these are the need for the project that the project proposals to improve. This is the project built alternative. They looked at various alternatives and identified the alternative that works best for the purpose and need, geometry, environmental as well as traffic operations. At the San Antonio interchange. The southbound ramp is added. Um, and at the ranks of interchange, the on-ramp from Charleston, when you're in and out is removed. Currently, uh, you know, the traffic, uh, from Palo Alto, basically this area, use local streets, and via the uh, rank start interchanged to the short wave, to get onto uh, one on account. With these improvements, uh, traffic from coming from Palo Alto could use the San Antonio on run. All rams, uh, uh, at both the interchanges are uh, squared, to make it safer for bikes and pedestrians, carpool lanes, are added, uh, where they are not there, existing, and more storage is added at the on rams. Basically, the ramps are widened. Both interchanges will have new bridges with higher vertical clearance. And then lastly, the Auckland is added between the, Uh, the off-ra, the on-ra from San Antonio and off-ra, a train stop. Basically, just uh, uh, as background ox lane is a lane that is added on the freeway between an on and off ramp. And I just want to clarify that. And both interchanges will have bike pet facilities, I will go over those details in the next slides. And uh, I received a comment from the public today, uh, from uh, Mountain View. Aruna has shared that with me just as a response to that. Post-COVID traffic data was collected for intersections and freeways as well as bicycles and pedestrians. Existing conditions, 2030 and 2015 with and without project are part of the analysis. Traffic operations report is in progress and will be available for public review along with the environmental documents. We are now looking at the improved rank of interchange, San Francisco on the top, San Jose, down and right is the bay. The on-ram from Charleston, uh, year is removed. All ramps are squared and wider for storage. And this interchange has a class 4 with 6 foot by lanes, uh, the green lines, and 8 foot and over at places, uh, sidewalks, the blue lines. And travel lanes here are narrow to 11 foot lanes as a traffic calming measure, which enhances safety. And this is the improved San Antonio Interchange with the new Southbond on-ramp from uh, those mamos. Sorry. One ram from uh, uh, San Antonio to 101. And square, a ram squared up, uh, and they're wider. As businesses and driveways are not as prevalent, uh, in the rankstorf interchange, as in the rankstorf interchange. At this interchange, uh, grades separated, bidirectional, multi-use class one bike path is proposed, and that's the green line. It starts from the Bayside. Um, goes along the north and goes under the uh, the ramps. And uh, the ramp, the class one is provided on both sides of San Antonio, you know, at this point, uh, uh, users can make a decision whether they want to go on, uh, um, whichever side they want to go. Here, they connect it to the sidewalk, existing sidewalk, and here, they go on to the front road. And a gap is left between the ramps so that it gets a natural light and it eliminates the tunnel effect. And there's also a shortcut stairway for people to use it. Um, and um, the bike path does not interact with vehicles, which makes it very safe. And these are pictures from uh, one on one triple dealer cruise, interchange improvements that was um, opened during summer of uh, 2024. And these are pictures from that interchange. It has a similar class one path. And on the right, their blue line. This indicates future imprements at San Antonio Bayshore intersection. Um, they show how the project connects to the future um, enhancements. This is a separate project and has not been approved yet. And the blue lines were added based on public engagement input. Now going on to the public engagement. We conducted an open house at the Mountain View Community Center on November 14th. It was very well attended with over 50 residents that shows how people are public are interested in this project. Um, and this is a summary of the community open house. Overall, the feedback was very positive. They appreciated the bike pad infrastructure improvements, and public head questions regarding San Antonio in Bayshore intersection, and this was shown on the slides how the bike pad improvements would connect to the existing and to the future improvements. They also expressed concern about the southbound left-hound lane at the San Antonio Southbound Nondra. We are looking into that in the traffic analysis that is in progress. Overall, the feedback was very positive. And um, We presented at the Mountain View BPAC meeting as well. Public has expressed, uh, the feedback at this meeting was also very positive, and uh, public has expressed to remove all right turns on red. Yes, there will be no free movements for traffic in Mountain View with the proposed project. And the project will also try to maintain all cross blocks wherever they are driveways and destinations. This is the project. Scheduled, we are in the environmental phase and targeting to complete it by the end of the year. We will do another community, uh, engagement meeting in fall when the environmental document is in circulation, And uh, we are looking for funding, and if funding is secured, Uh, for the future phases, project will start construction in 2028. There is a project webpage on the VTA website. And please check it out for details. If interested in getting any updates on the project, please sign up. That's my last slide. I can take uh we can take any questions. Well,

[00:22:09] Chair John McAlister: thank you so much. That was, uh, That was very helpful for me. Yes. Do we go to, uh, staff, like, uh, mini, any questions? I

[00:22:18] Member Alison Hicks: had lots of questions, but they were answered during the presentation. Mayor? Yeah,

[00:22:24] Member Ellen Kamei: so, um, thanks, thanks so much for the update. Um, so I was just looking, so this came to our package with no attachment, and so I just scanned the QR code, so I could get more information, um, is, is there, uh, is that, is that the document that we should be looking at, or the night's purposes, aside from the slide deck? Is it just a verbal update? Yes,

[00:22:57] Senior Transportation Engineer Chatradhi: today is a verbal update and uh, um, just for information only. Okay. Um.

[00:23:06] Member Ellen Kamei: I think I think that that is helpful. I tried to take a bunch of notes. Um, Because I wasn't, so I see there's like related documents. So is this 10 1424 presentation? Is that what you've been presenting like at the community meeting? And at BPAC or, I mean, I can click on it right now. I don't, this looks quasi-similar to the deck we saw tonight. So is that, If the public asks us questions, Is that where we should point them to?

[00:23:42] Senior Transportation Engineer Chatradhi: Yes, it's very similar to what we presented at the be back and the community meeting, but just we added, uh, you know, uh, during the community meeting and the be back, whatever questions they came, uh, were asked. We tried to address those in the slides. So it's slightly updated, but mostly the same. Would

[00:24:03] Member Ellen Kamei: it be possible to to update the most recent slide deck off of the project page so that residents could see how you've been addressing some of their questions? It's a,

[00:24:19] Senior Transportation Engineer Chatradhi: Sure, uh, we will add it to the VTA web page. And um, so yeah, we can do that. So, I can, uh, do you want me to work with the city staff, to be updated to the Mountain View webpage?

[00:24:36] Chair John McAlister: That would be appreciated. Well, I'm

[00:24:39] Member Ellen Kamei: just looking at your webpage, the VT, the... Oh, sorry, go ahead.

[00:24:45] Transportation Manager Lo: I'm sorry. I don't know about, you know, transportation planner. Our, our project information directs to BTF web page, so that's one stop shop for, you know, all project information,

[00:24:56] Senior Transportation Engineer Chatradhi: so we would point to.

[00:24:58] Member Ellen Kamei: BTS web page and we can work the BTA on a meeting. Great. So that sounds great. So I'm on your VTA site because that last slice that scanned me, so I pulled up my phone and I scanned it. So I think if that there's a section here. with related documents. So I think the most updated deck would be really helpful. And then, um, just a quick question. So thank you so much for, you know, hosting the community meeting and coming to BPAC. If people want to um, provide more input, we should just provide that email address then. Sure,

[00:25:35] Senior Transportation Engineer Chatradhi: yeah, you can provide the email, the phone numbers. And we will be getting the community outreach group from BTA will receive any questions and they will direct them to us. And we will help respond. Okay. And then it went

[00:25:52] Member Ellen Kamei: a little. You went through part of the presentation, and you said that part of it will be funded by 2016 measure B with a local match from Google, what's the total amount?

[00:26:08] Senior Transportation Engineer Chatradhi: I didn't hear a number. Yeah, so the total amount of the project, uh, uh, right now is about 198 million. And uh, for the, The bid and the PAT project initiation development phase and the uh, the environmental phase was about, Um, 10000000 and, um, and we have received that 10000000 from mega B, and we have received the math from Google for that. And we are looking into funding for the design phase as well as for the construction phase. So we do not have uh, funding yet for the design phase and construction. For the design phase, we have partial funding for measure B, and we are looking into getting a local match for that until there is a measure B has a minimum of 10% match. And we are looking into getting that match. Um, so that whatever measure be funds are available can could be released and we can start off the design phase. I'm

[00:27:19] Member Ellen Kamei: sorry, so you said, You got, you have 10000000 for the 1st initial, uh, for the, I guess, the draft environmental document. Is that right? You have 10000000 for that and the... uh,

[00:27:31] Senior Transportation Engineer Chatradhi: 2000000 for, uh, for the initi- uh, project initiation document that was completed in 2010. And for the environmental phase, we have received a total, including match of about 8 million. So total is about 100 million. So um, I can, uh, uh, you know, I'm sorry, I don't have the exact numbers right now, but I can pull it out and uh, we have a meeting, uh, on this Friday, uh, with, with the city director, uh, public works director and I can present the numbers at that time as well. Okay,

[00:28:16] Member Ellen Kamei: I think it would just be helpful. We've been, we just talked about our CIP last week. We're talking about, you know, what else we're going to need to plan for. So it's just helpful if we could get that information. Um, okay, thank you. My questions. Okay.

[00:28:33] Senior Transportation Engineer Chatradhi: Zahir and call if you would like to add something. Uh,

[00:28:39] VTA Deputy Director Zahir Gulzada: I think you covered it all. Um, we are uh, just, uh, a little pitch in terms of, uh, for the match we are meeting with, uh, uh, city of Palo Alto as well as city of Mountain V staff to, um, get that match, uh, for the design page at the project. Um, so we can, once we are completed with the environmental case, we can move in into the design and and get the necessary funding from, measure beat, start that process. Okay, thank you. You

[00:29:14] Chair John McAlister: know, I was just, uh, recently had a packed meeting and we were talking about the funding. And so how sometimes you were getting partial funding for design, but then you have to reallocate it back to the draft environmental document. So of the product, uh, dates up there, which ones are fully funded? Is the draft from our environmental document fully funded? Yes. Is the complete. That's completely funded. Yes. And when was that 1st proposed? Um,

[00:29:52] Senior Transportation Engineer Chatradhi: could you repeat that question? What was this

[00:29:54] Chair John McAlister: project 1st proposed?

[00:29:57] Senior Transportation Engineer Chatradhi: So this project came, uh, in 2012 during the Northbound Ox Lane, that's when it, it was like growing and then, uh, because of the deficiencies, it was identified, uh, and in around 2015 and it got selected into the measure B, uh, project list and uh, was allocated funding in the 2016. And as you know, the measure B was had lawsuits and stalled for some time. And so in 2019 is when the project received funding, and then we kicked off with the pit face.

[00:30:34] Chair John McAlister: So in 20, you said 2020 or 2019? 2019? Yes. This is when the project started. That's correct. That's when you have funding for the draft environmental document. Right,

[00:30:48] Senior Transportation Engineer Chatradhi: yeah. So, uh, it has, it has 2 phases. The pit phase is what we begin. It's a Caltrans policy. So we started with that, which took about an year and then the environmental phase has begun. We started the environmental phase in 2021. Okay.

[00:31:06] Chair John McAlister: So I'll just wrap up my, it's more of a comment than a question. Is that, uh, from what I've seen with VTA right now in the funding, We, uh, We will have plenty of time for input on these projects because of the, the way the funding is coming about. So, these are, um, targets that we're shooting for for the dates, but realistically, with the funding and the shortcaps that we're having, it could continue on well past our timeline up there, correct? Uh,

[00:31:41] VTA Deputy Director Zahir Gulzada: let me ask, let me answer that question. So right now is we're, we're clearing the, the project in terms of the environment of peace. And then once we get into the design phase, there's not a lot of, unless we go back to them in the environmental phase, we can't make a lot of changes, significant changes, actually. Um, to the project. Um, so once the project is cleared environmentally, that's the project we're going to be designing. I just, I

[00:32:13] Chair John McAlister: know we were just, uh, real, as I say, we're reallocating funds for some other projects, and it is a, uh, frustrating situation with all the funding and trying to get things done, so.

[00:32:24] VTA Deputy Director Zahir Gulzada: And I will add the measure B right now is very underfunded. Um, so this project. Uh, well, it does have measure B funding, uh, available, uh, to it. It's listed under the hobby program in measure B. Um, we will need additional funding, whether that's uh, outside grant money, whether that's state money, whether that's federal money. The project will need additional money to move it forward. Um, to complete the design as well as uh, uh, the construction pieces. Yeah. And that's true for most of our measure B projects in the highway program.

[00:33:05] Member Alison Hicks: I actually do have a question. Go ahead. So, I was, I was happy to see the amount of community engagement and, you know, appreciation of it was, can you tell me what aspects people were most interested in? Was it expanded and differentiated roadways? Was it bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian infrastructure? Was there more for one or the other or all of the above? You characterize that for me?

[00:33:36] Senior Transportation Engineer Chatradhi: All of the above, I can say, they were, um, people of, uh, varied ages. And, um, so, I can say, uh, you know, um, you know, people who, are biking and, uh, you know, active, uh, taking uh, more, different modes of transportation going to work, they were very, uh, um, expressed, You know, um, happiness looking at this. Oh, I can bike this way, I can walk this way, now I can, uh, take my kids and, uh, you know, ride across the interchanges to reach the Bayland parks. And uh, I can go to my office, uh, walking, it looks, uh, you know, more safer now I, I'm not comfortable biking. So we had a lot of those. And then we also had, oh, I can now make my way to 101 faster, because there is San Antonio on ramp is added. And um, so it was very interesting. I think I can say that interest based on how what mode of transportation they would take. So in general, I would say all of the above. Okay, thank you.

[00:34:54] Chair John McAlister: Would the Shoreline Pedestrian Bridge affect what you do on Ringsdorf Road? If that error comes to fruition. Are you compared with the shoreline pedestrian bridge? So

[00:35:08] Senior Transportation Engineer Chatradhi: there are independent projects. I don't think that would have any effect or impact. Uh either of the projects. Okay.

6.1 Active Transportation Plan-Scoring Criteria and Holistic Network Maps

[00:35:19] Chair John McAlister: Well, thank you. Appreciate your time. And we look forward to another update. Thank you. Well, we will close. And we will close 5.one. Uh, before that. Again. I'm very, just realistically, we're looking at the dollars and it's, that time frame is not going to happen, but I would be interested. Do you have any update on the shoreline pedestrian bridge? How that's come along? Uh, not for tonight, but I can. Oh, okay. Uh, because, I mean, it is fairly close to the range store bridge, and that could modify it somewhat. Okay. We will now close that, move on to item 6 new business. 6.one, the active transportation plan, scoring criteria, holistic network maps. And I believe we have a staff presentation on this? It was the 2nd to get set up. We

[00:36:48] Unknown Speaker: need them to stop sharing more. Yes. Thank you.

[00:37:10] Transportation Planner Whyte: Picky chair. My name is Brandon White. I'm a transportation planner for the state of an Apple City, and I'm happy to see you today about the active transportation plan, holistic network and scoring criteria. I often think it's helpful to start with the end in mind. So the staff recommendation for today. is a recommendation. Or is that to proceed with the development of the active transportation plan, including maps, and scoring criteria as presented. What we're gonna do here today is 1st talk a bit about our background. Um, on the project. Then the holistic networks, then the scoring criteria, and then the next steps, and the overall act active transportation plan or ATP process. First for our background. So what is an active transportation plan, an active transportation plan? combines bicycle and pedestrian plans, and will result in bicycle and pedestrian policies and projects. So here's a few resources on other active transportation plans. But in short, per direction from the council, uh, in 2021 to bring together the pestry master plan and the bicycle transportation plan for 2014 and 2015, into one plan. They will act as a comprehensive resource for staff. So that we have one source to utilize going forward with pedestrian products. There's a quick book at our timeline. So this is where we've been, where we are, or going, where we've been. We've completed existing ignition analysis. We have an approved council approved vision statement. Policy work is been underway, it is currently underway. What we're talking about here tonight is in purple, the holistic network. und scoring criteria. Those who feed into a prioritized project list. And then with policies and the prioritized project list. We'll generate a draft plan for you guys to review, and of course, in a final place, full staff to use. For this entire process, we have community. And committee outreach. It is a statement. Vision statement. Now he leads the region with an active transportation plan that defines a series of connected, low stress, and green corridors to invite at transportation. Orders include shade, wildlife habitat, and public open space. The plan enables the city to intentionally support a culture of walking and biking, man's biodiversity, and reduce climate change impacts. And this has been to the council and improved. Next regarding the existing conditions analysis. The existing condition analysis has been to our technical advisory committee or tech, our active transportation plan advisory committee, or APAC. Our bicycle pedestrian advisory committee, APAC. They have all reviewed, they draft his distinct conditions analysis. From October of 2023. I'm very easy some of the maps generated from that process. Through that process we had an engagement. Uh, where we had 655 online responses to our map based. Um, Survey. We had 2 bicycle tours across the city. 3 walking tours at splendid parts of the city. And then, in order to ensure that we had outreach that matched our demographic profiles. They extended community engagement and focused it where people were, where people were that would bring us up to match our art demographics or get better. So we went to the community services agency. Twice. Day worker center, senior center, teen center, and also met with Cafe Cito. Additionally, we looked to the past. during the ATP and before the ATP. Our asking the feedback is recorded. And was utilized in the existing condition analysis to indicate where, uh, citizens residents had requests for improvements. This was all reviewed. By the tech, the app pack, and the. This is a quick glimpse of what all of that process generated. So here we have challenging spots for walking, biking, rolling, mountain view. And then here we have the same, but from a long line perspective, so across the street. So where are we talking about tonight is the holistic network and scoring criteria? We're in the middle of the active transportation. Potential of the networks. The map development process, the pedestrian map, is goal is to support a culture of walking. We're looking for walkable sidewalks and all public improved streets, trails, street trees, landscape corridors for by shade, and storm water, benefits, and biodiversity benefits. This is all, of course, based off of community input that I mentioned earlier. Are you looking similarly for a low stress bicycle network? We're looking at a core, low stress facilities, strip facilities at support, VTAs, bicycles, super highway corridors, trails and public open space, enhanced facilities based on safe rest of school, and of course have that backing for the community input. Now let me show you the maps. Starting 1st with our. Starting 1st with our pedestrian map. The Dashed red lines on the map. Sorry, my computer's a little overwhelmed here. 1st with the red lines on the map. The dashwood lines are where there are sidewalk gaps. The blue lines, which are everywhere on the map. so much so that you might not recognize that they're there, are our existing sidewalk. Mountain View, we have 96% of our streets have existing cycle. The dark green. Are our trails, last one facilities shared, bicycle, class one facility shared with pedestrians. The yellow are potential trails. Places that we could consider a trail in the planning process. And then dashed, Dark green are trails that are already approved via a precise plan process. And then finally, they have black lines on the map. Black lines of the map represent unimproved streets. We have heard from the public and the BPAC, uh, about the unimproved streets, and what should be noted is that 25% of the, uh, unimproved streets have 25% of our missing sidewalks are on unimproved streets. Some of those unimproved streets, do have sidewalking. You can see here there's some dash, there's some blue under the black here on top of the black. But for the most part, most of the unacred streets. Um, do not have sidewalk. This is, uh, an area that, the, the plan will direct review for the unaccursed streets policy. Now, let me bring up the bicycle plan. Bicycle man? Is there a holistic bicycle network? Green and solid are existing. Off street bike ways. If they're dashed. And their potential, off street, hikeways. On street bikeways are in purple. They're dashed, they are also potential. And then, you may notice, like gray. Bicycle super highway. This is the VTAs network. Along the edges of the city mountain view. Of course, for the VTA, it goes through the city of Mountain View, but in the city of Mountain View, we have completed all of the VTAs, bicycle superhighways, with the exception of the Stevens Creek Trail extension, which you will see here, which is under design right now. as a potential, uh, off street facility. And this is the Helstick. Bikeway. I'll let us speak about the scoring criteria. Can you remember all the scoring criteria have been provided for your review? Here I will have a summary of the changes made, given the direction from council. The council directed, for staff, to, Consider and address feasibility and implementation as part of the scoring criteria. In order to do that, we provide a 10% feasibility and implementation, and thusly lower each of the existing foreign criteria by 10%. No other changes to the scoring criteria that were presented to uh, the council were made. So we do now have new feasibility and implementation. This is also in your memo, so let me be brief, but I'm happy, of course, answering questions on this. We have 5 different categories, order magnitude, interagency coordination, practical timeline to complete the project, opportunity to leverage existing project, and then alignment with local, regional Federal funding sources. And in short, The harder it is to do something in one of those categories, the lower the points. The easier it is to do something, the higher the points. input. It's just go to BPAC on the 11th of March. And the comments are summaries as such. There was a request to ensure that the sales, which are like trails. There's multi-use paths shared by pedestrians and bicycles, but aren't private property. There was a request to ensure that sales do not have obstructions, such as gates and fences. And that access easements are provided and maintained. There was a concern from the member, from a member, that the scoring criteria tested. was desire to not delay the process further. By testing scoring criteria. There was a request to present a map of pedestrian crossings. And that is something that staff intends to do later in this process. There was a desire to review the unimproved streets policy. That is something that staff is suggesting that the ATP direct to have happened. Not that the ATP does it, but it will direct that for further study. There were 3 oceans. The 1st motion. Was to include Los Altos high school. And Los Alto school districts. Serving Mountain View students in the network map, this past, unanimously 5 to 0. This change was made in the maps that were presented to you today. There was a recommendation to CTC, or staff, proceed with the development of the ATP, including maps, and scoring criteria, as presented with information and discussion, on intersections and crossings. This failed for a lack of second. This is something staff intends to bring back later through this process. And the final motion was a recommendation to the CTC. This is staff motion. For staff to proceed with the development of the ATP, including maps and scoring criteria as presented in this past 3 to 2. Next steps. Quarter 2 of this year, finalize the network and scoring criteria. So allows us to move on in the process. Order 3 of this year. Project prioritization and public average. Order 2 next year, a draft plan. And finally, our staff recommendation. Then, of course, questions. Recommend for staff to proceed with the development of the after transportation plan includes maps and scoring criteria as presented. Thank you very much, I've had this in flip. Committee

[00:50:37] Chair John McAlister: member, is there any questions? You usually have quite a few from your concerned constituents.

[00:50:43] Member Alison Hicks: Yes. So, um, Just a few informational questions from the staff report. Um, So, 1st thank you. That was all very interesting to me, I'm very well laid out. Um, one thing it says, I'm sorry, I didn't write the page down, but maybe remember writing it up. It says, for network level, feasibility, as part of the holistic network vision step, the project team will evaluate whether there's sufficient space, support each corridor's, proposed network facilities. Um, so what, do you know what the assumed lane widths will be for, to see whether, I assume that's what we're talking about, or whether there's room for whatever it is, wider sidewalks, bike lanes.

[00:51:38] Transportation Planner Whyte: That is a component that goes into the overall evaluation of What we have to do is evaluate how much roadway space is set aside for cars and then remainder can be set aside for bicycles. So that is a component that goes into the evaluation of all the of the possible classes you could select. Um, that our general default is 11 feet. Okay,

[00:52:07] Member Alison Hicks: because I'm hearing people throw around different widths, you know, uh, different dimensions, 11,5 , 11, 10.5 , depending on, do you look at those different ones depending on the conditions? Is

[00:52:20] Transportation Planner Whyte: the same thing? Well, definitely depending on conditions and, um, a major portion of the next step in the process.

[00:52:28] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, so I'll hear about that later. Just, I do hear a lot of, from people about that, and I was just concerned that there might be a default when, you know, the different roads in the map are very different conditions. Exactly.

[00:52:43] Transportation Planner Whyte: The context sensitivity is important and the next step of the process. Okay, good. Um, So

[00:52:49] Member Alison Hicks: that was one. Um, then I just have some, um, Some terms that I'm not fully familiar with, although I can make guesses, but I might guess why. So, what are improved roads versus unimproved roads?

[00:53:06] Transportation Planner Whyte: An improved roads are roads listed in the city's unimproved streets policy. Literally, that is the definition. Okay, now... What kind of characters? It's great. They generally have a county road. Uh, so no sidewalks, uh, drainage might be less robust. You know, who's the best person? And I'm so glad is here to answer that question.

[00:53:32] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: They mostly are neighborhoods that were unincorporated that became incorporated. Robert go a little bit. Yeah, but that's the, that's

[00:53:40] Member Alison Hicks: the... If I call certain roads, like rural roads. Yes. Yeah,

[00:53:47] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: sorry, Robert Gonzalez, uh, principal civil engineer. So you're all correct. These are these are rows that were incorporated into the city. They were previously, uh, constructed by the county to a different standard. So sometimes it could be lighting, sometimes it could be drainage, sometimes there's sidewalks on one side, but not two. So there's there's a, uh, a list of potential emphasis. So, So

[00:54:12] Member Alison Hicks: then my, I would love to hear what the unimproved road policy is in a summary, if it's like a $200.

[00:54:20] Transportation Planner Whyte: Yeah, if the transportation manager, though, would like to answer it, by with me. Hello,

[00:54:26] Transportation Manager Lo: are you a huge parrot load transportation manager? So the brief summary of the unimproved streets policy is that the neighborhood would need to form like an assessment district in order to pay for the curbs, the guttering, the stormwater. infrastructure underneath. And the city, um, When we do repaving, we're just basically repaving as is. So, um, Sometimes

[00:54:58] Member Alison Hicks: I have problems because the, is this a question or a comment, but I'm just hope, in terms of, you know, we don't have all the money in the world, you've probably heard. And um, sometimes when things are done to a standard, we're not, in my opinion, we're not necessarily doing the highest priority thing, we're just standardizing everything. And I'm just not sure, like when you said, These unimproved roads are deficits, have deficits. This is my question, I guess. I'm not clear that they all, maybe they do, because I haven't looked at all of them. But I'm not sure I would see them as deficits. I'm kind of a proponent of, um, I guess in Europe, they sometimes call them wooners, like shared streets. And to have to turn, spend a tremendous amount of money and assessment districts and maybe some local match on, you know, a street that would be better treated as a lunar for slow shared street. I just don't, I don't think it's where people want their money spent and I would hate to force people to make everything into a standard street. So are we going to force people to make it into a standard street? The ATP will will

[00:56:16] Transportation Planner Whyte: suggest to counsel as a policy recommendation, to have a study, of the unimproved streets policy. It will not be making any changes to the unimproved streets policy. Okay,

[00:56:31] Member Alison Hicks: good. where I live in the center of town. It makes sense to have sidewalks and planting strips and everything, but some other places I've seen where hardly anyone drives. I think it does. So okay, good. I'm very glad to hear that Um, and what are multi-use facilities? Those are trails. That's statistic. where people can walk or buy. Yes, that's what you're saying. Yes, ma'am, ride their horses. Not horses. No horses. No horses. I think I'm scooted. Scoopy? Okay. Within reason. Okay. That's what a multi-use. And what is an off street bike way? A

[00:57:16] Transportation Planner Whyte: multi-use trail or, uh, it's a trail. I

[00:57:19] Member Alison Hicks: thought that was a multi-use facility. What's the difference between an off street bike way? and a multi-use facility. There's not. There's no difference. Oh,

[00:57:29] Transportation Planner Whyte: street facility. I suppose you could prohibit pedestrians from an off street facility. From an off street, you could

[00:57:36] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: separate the pedestrians from the bikes if you wanted. You can put a planter strip in between or some other sort of alleviation between. bike and rolling it pedestrians.

[00:57:46] Transportation Planner Whyte: Nearly 95%. She's 2nd not the 5%, which she's right to say. 95% of the time it is a trail. And it's the same thing. Okay. Thanks. Um,

[00:57:56] Member Alison Hicks: and then, uh, Okay. Um. How are we looking at, when I look at the map, how are we looking at neighborhood streets? There are all these streets that don't show up as, um, You know, they don't show up as, whatever you call them, you know, with streets with bike paths. I don't have mine in front of me. Maybe even put out one of the bike. They don't show up as streets with bike mats, bike paths. Um, Yeah, the bicycle, and they don't show up on the pedestrian network either. But Those are the streets that when I go places I walk or bike on. because I don't like the big streets. And a lot of people I talk to, you know, I'm not, again, I'm I'm for the bike pets on El Camino and on California, and I know people who are very enthusiastic about them. But I also know people who come to me and say, why are you doing this? I will never buy. bike on the small streets, the ones that don't show up. I will never go on El Camino or California. So I'm wondering, how, and I think, I actually think there's different peop, when I talk to people who do a lot of work on bike pads. I think there's different groups of people. You know, there's some people who will never go to a baseball game and some people who will never go to the theater. And when you talk to them, that doesn't mean in our city we should not have any theaters or any baseball diamonds. That means we should have both. But I don't see how we're considering many of those streets that show up in white as if they're not really on the bike math or, or where a lot of people, it's the only place a lot of people will bike. So what? What are we thinking about that in the ATB? So, The, what

[01:00:06] Transportation Planner Whyte: I think you're describing is what Caltrans would label as a class 3 bicycle boulevard. Yes, in the picture,

[01:00:14] Member Alison Hicks: in the staff. Yeah. But on the map, it kind of to me says, I'm not, I'm invisible and I'm not there and nobody's thinking about it.

[01:00:21] Transportation Planner Whyte: No, I mean, that, you're welcome to your opinion, but the, the map has class 3 facilities on it. It has them, for instance, uh, we have right here. This is, um, I turn on this every day. This is, uh, I'm so sorry, mercy. And a bike lane would be very large and probably more than is necessary for mercy. Now, they aren't at a stage of development right now, where I want to officially give you an answer on what the class is going to be, but I will tell you that it's very quite likely that this little example here, uh, of, of mercy and, for instance, Montecito or this quiet little street that I don't remember the name of. Those are fitting the description that you're talking about. Now, you do see white space, you see roads that are... Yeah, a lot of other streets and extra that

[01:01:17] Member Alison Hicks: are like. So what's the difference between the dash purple and the streets that are very similar in New York? Yes.

[01:01:23] Transportation Planner Whyte: We are using a distance of quarter mile and half mile distance. We're trying to set a quarter mile distance between every single bike way. So, um, because.

[01:01:34] Member Alison Hicks: But what's the difference? Like mercy versus the why I forget the next street down. I shouldn't because I live so near there, but, um, the next street, down hope or whatever it is. Um, What's the difference in how it will, after you finish the dashed purple thing, whatever you're doing there, how will those streets look different to me, why would I choose one over the other?

[01:01:58] Transportation Planner Whyte: So absolutely. So on a street that's gonna, we're considering for a classroom facility that is dashed for people on this map, we would bring in infrastructure improvements to slow traffic speed down. Okay. As a minimum. potentially more, but that's where especially with bicycle versus gets very context sensitive. Generally, in Mountain View. And I would anticipate this would be the case for all the classries, there would be speed humps. And then by definition, we would have uh, large bicycle boulevard pavement markings. We do have some of those already in Mount View on, uh, on, uh, Dale and Continental. Uh, Palo Alto has those everywhere. And then there'd be a way finding system at work. and there'd be labels, possibly changing the street science, to say bicycle Boulevard at the top that is a standard that other communities have used. These very specific things are things that would be discussed not only later in this process, but on actual project level. But the major difference between a white street and a class street, dash purple on this map, is, uh, letting people know where it is and an actual effort to slow traffic speeds down. And we can talk more later about that.

[01:03:20] Member Alison Hicks: Yes. Okay, we will.

[01:03:22] Transportation Manager Lo: But maybe I can add one more thing. Um, so according to the California vehicle code, bicyclists are permitted to ride on all the streets except for the freeways. And so we would expect bicyclists to ride throughout all of those white roads as well as the other ones. Um, But we can't afford to turn everything into like a class 3 like that would, so we're trying to focus and and the quarter mile is kind of the, the rubric that we used for trying to figure out where it is, as well as looking at the um, suggested routes to school throughout the city. And connected states. And

[01:03:58] Member Alison Hicks: then my merit, like my... streets familiar with, have, um, different street green, like my street has a circle with plantings in a roundabout.

[01:04:14] Chair John McAlister: Many traffic circle.

[01:04:15] Member Alison Hicks: Yeah, like a mini traffic circle, but it does, and then I, I'm from Berkeley. They use lots of different planted barriers, that slow traffic that I like better than speed hops, but people can, I imagine, talk about those things later. Yes, man. Okay,

[01:04:31] Transportation Planner Whyte: yes. And is that that club an additional statement. And mercy is a great example. Um, that's there to connect to a trailhead. So sometimes we'll even increase the density if it connects to something very important, like a trailhead or just is it safe for us to school, safe route to school that we know is used quite often. So you'll see density that is greater, uh, like the perfect example, is Colony Street, uh, rock, and, um, old middlefield, well, old middlefield would not be class 3, but the density is much greater right there because we have a school and we have a trailhead and then we have lots of people riding on old field now, believe it.

[01:05:17] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, so this, uh, So this leads to what I think is my last question, which is, um, how do we define, like, all these things with the scores, have, um, 2 words, uh, it's like sustainability and biodiversity, um, I don't have it in front of me, but one is, um, I, Safety and comfort, I think, are the 2 that go are combined. And. I'm, So, I'm wondering how comfort is defined, and I'm just hoping, I'm thinking, I'm hoping it's not defined, as, um, I'm more comfortable when I'm safe, because that's the same thing, we might as well take comfort out. I mean, I am more comfortable when I'm safe. But, I'm thinking of it. When I'm, I'm thinking of safety as the basic thing we're looking for, and comfort as, the things that convince people to bike or walk when they otherwise wouldn't. And these would be things like shade. I walk a lot. And I can't get people to walk with me sometimes, and the reason they never say they won't walk with me because they feel unsafe. Like, yes. But, um, they say it's too hot. They say it's a, this is usually Evelyn and El Camino, which I walk on sometimes to get places. Um, they say it's too hot, or it's too bleak. Um, It's mostly things like that, um, So, For me, comfort is about those things, and mostly, frankly, they want it, or they say they're too many autofumes. So mostly it's like, uh, a green buffer or trees that they, that would convince them to walk. But that's under sustainability and biodiversity. So I don't know what, I'm not sure whether comfort is in the right place or how are you thinking about that? To

[01:07:37] Transportation Planner Whyte: indirectly and then I will directly answer your question, to indirectly answer your question. We fully understand the things that you're saying about what makes it comfortable to walk on a street. And it's a, it's a whole host of things, many of which are in other categories of the scoring criteria. Um, and will be considered as the plan is developed. That, um, the facts that you bring up, are definitely front of mind in this planning process, directly speaking, safety and comfort are defined by the 4 categories and literally what they're written down in there. So some of what you're talking about. is a comfort concern, but is actually part of sustainability and biodiversity. from a scoring perspective. So

[01:08:26] Member Alison Hicks: which of these? So to me, reducing pedestrian crossing distances. is about is about connectivity. Um, Uh, and uh, improving pedestrian network density. Those are about connecting to places I want to go better, so I don't have to walk all the way up El Camino Cross and come all the way back town and then go to the address store. Um, I, I just don't see in that definition how these things are about comfort. They seem to be about safety and connectivity. One

[01:09:06] Transportation Planner Whyte: thing I should, should also say, the address is community concerns, many of the community concerns revolve around comfort, and that is a major component of the safety and comfort. So

[01:09:17] Member Alison Hicks: I would say safety and community concerns, but I don't think, I think, I mean, I would just change maybe safety and community concerns and sustainability and comfort because I, that's where I think. I think most people would say they'd be comfortable if it's cooler. and comfortable if they weren't breathing, breathing in the curfumes. Um. So I would change the wording on those maybe. Um, question. Anyway, yeah, that's, I think, that's the end of my questions. Thank you. Mayor? Okay, so,

[01:09:57] Member Ellen Kamei: uh, thanks so much to stop. I think, um, from, like, last time talking about ATP to where we are now, I'm just, like, really impressed with everything we're seeing. so thank you so much. Um, so I was writing a couple of different notes to myself. So, um, when I'm looking at attachment to for the holistic bicycle network. I should be in, um, just like looking at this, I was trying to read the sound report. So, the holistic, the holistic bicycle network, is incorporated into this, is our safe routes to school, and our Virginia 0 actually planned built into this, right? And so, okay. Thank you. So this is what exists now or some of the things I know that we were talking about doing. Um, for like safer school. I know that some people had had feedback. Is that already incorporated into it worse than tonight? Yes. Okay, awesome. Thank you. For the scoring criteria. Um, I, I'm comfortable with the principles, but I think what I'm trying to understand is, Being able to connect the dots with the ATP vision statement. And so, you know, and I think that's maybe where you were coming from where health member Hicks was coming from. So, hmm, I think the criteria, like the, that's listed. It's fine. I think maybe further refining the alignment between the vision with the principal statement might help in what you were talking about. I don't know. I think some of the feedback that we got in public comment was, um, was like related to assurance on how we're going to be using the scoring criteria. I think it came up in. B pack and somewhere else that you. I sure you're all familiar with that. So, um, I don't know if there's a different, how we might, and the, I realize those are 2 different questions, but just kind of, as we're talking about squaring right here, those are the things that are coming into my head, like, how do we align the vision statement and kind of the, the language there with the principles? That's, I guess, the 1st question. And then the 2nd question is, as we're talking about criteria and how it's going to be applied citywide, how do we tackle that? at issue where, you know, example, X might support greater than example, B, but residents may feel that what should sports carry? Right. So

[01:13:00] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: I'll answer the 2nd question 1st because honestly, that's the easier one. Um, so, we, the scoring criteria is meant to be unbiased, right? So we're not prioritizing a project that we've heard about for years or that the idea is that if it has these metrics, it will spray higher. That being said, if there are priority projects, we can list them as a priority project, even if they're not. This is one metric for us to develop projects that then get CIP funding. Right? So if there's a grant that comes up, something that's lower on the list might move up because it fits the grant really well. If there's a priority that something, it's on a safe route to school, even though that is a criteria, but, but that, that becomes more of a priority because we've heard about it in, say, for us to school, vision 0, and now it's in the mid to high, in, in, the, um, ATP scoring, that that would be a priority. So we can prioritize projects after we see the scoring criteria. It doesn't mean that just because one's here, we're not going to do it or one's here, we are going to reverse that, but you get where I'm going with it.

[01:14:15] Member Ellen Kamei: And I think council gets the discretion to reviews yet. Two, right? So I think there's like two. There's multiple layers with which things... is a starting point. It gives us a list of

[01:14:25] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: projects and it gives us a good idea of Almost best bang for your butt kind of a situation, right? These are priorities based on information we have available today. And if things change. You know, the ideas that this plan will help dictate the CIP for the next 5 to 10 years of projects that we can incorporate. And so as things change is, funding change, sources change, as hopefully bike and ped levels increase that some of the schools, some of those metrics change, you have to reevaluate. This is going to be a living document. So I hope that answers that part. It does. As far as the vision statement. Well, I think, yeah. I,

[01:15:08] Member Ellen Kamei: I just, just in listening to the, Discussion and the questions that council member X had. I was just, Counsel has approved that vision statement. I think it works well, but as we talk about principles, maybe that's where, just an overhearing. So I don't, I don't know. Maybe, maybe that's a comment, but that was a, it's a question that came up for me. And just, I think being able to connect, um, so that things feel like metric driven versus, you know, a principle, I think something that you're, the nuance there is like, access in equity may feel subjective, you know, even though we have the criteria there. So how to, But what it's not, because we have the scoring methods with the criteria, you know, so that's how I guess I would think about it. Is that what staff is thinking? The

[01:16:01] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: goal is to takes the subjective out of it. So that's the that's the goal. I guess I'm trying to. I want to make sure I'm understanding the question. Is the concern that the ideals that are set in this vision statement aren't necessarily reflected with the strength, that you think they should get, like, um, maybe we have a whole sentence on shade, habitat, and public open spaces, but that category, I guess, where the, what, what, 9%. Are you thinking that that should be a higher? I just percentage? Is that what? I'm

[01:16:37] Member Ellen Kamei: trying to I don't know. I don't know that I would say it needs that to be a higher percentage, but I think that it's emphasized quite a bit in the vision, and then in principle, it's only 9%. So, Not that we want to go back to, you can approve to cancel vision plan. But I'm not, I'm not, but I'm just, I'm just, I'm asked. Well, I'm just curious, and perhaps that's where, So when you, okay, well, I mean, that could be a greater discussion. I don't know. Maybe it's, it's, So

[01:17:11] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: you're saying maybe this a lot that needs to be adjusted with points to match the vision statement or the vision statement needs to be modified to match the 4th criteria. I

[01:17:22] Member Ellen Kamei: think since the vision statement is already adopted, we should change the scores. I'll let you guys. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But I think that's something that I'm that I'm hearing and an apologies that it went into. Thinking about that versus a question. Um, so when we're talking about the ATP, are we talking anything about, so we talk about facilities as like, the actual sidewalks or, you know, trails or infrastructure. One of the things that I've been receiving a feedback on is just like the availability of bike parking to utilize. So, did I miss that I miss it in New York? Oh, okay. I'm excited for the question. Oh, okay, good. I was like, because I tried really hard to make sure I didn't miss it. So how would that be something we could include in the ATP or is that something separate? Because I do think having access to that, you know, aside from just, you know, the, when you were talking about more outdoor experience, we can encourage people via facilities in terms of like parking and access. And I think too, Are we also, can we also think about bike parking for e-bikes, because I got a lot of feedback on key bikes, and that the current view parking is not the correct sizing for e-bikes. I don't know about that. It's just important to not get them stolen. Whatever. Oh, no, it's like, you've actually really heavy. And people, especially because usually those that are using them are, they need the assistance for them. Yes, they thank you. That's great. It's too heavy for them to put onto the, and it doesn't align in mountains. I

[01:19:09] Transportation Planner Whyte: have a meeting on Thursday and I read through our policy language literally 4 o'clock today for bike parking. And so it's up, one of our policy things that is underway. Okay. You'll definitely see it and have opportunities to make comment and French week. Okay. Great. And I think part

[01:19:29] Member Ellen Kamei: of that too might be, um, areas

[01:19:34] Public Works Director Ng: for people to take, like, respite from walking to as well, right?

[01:19:38] Member Ellen Kamei: Um, they might need to take a couple stops on the way. So, um, I'd be interested to know, like, how much infrastructure we have related to, like, other city benches, or there not, other opportunities. I don't know. Um, for folks as they're trying to get around, um, could we count both of those? I think I think those are questions. Even thought. So,

[01:20:06] Chair John McAlister: um, committee members, I'm coming in late into this process. considering started in 21. So, I bring a different perspective. Uh, the timeline and some of the definitions and statements in here that will not necessarily, uh, have the depth that you 2 have, uh, acquired over the years. So, I do want to rely on your judgment, but I may be strong on some other issues that I don't feel comfortable with. So, that being said, um, I'll go to your the statement. The VTA, the ATA vision tape. I, These are, sorry, I should go with my questions first, not my comments. Uh, but my question is, to you guys, just because counsel adopted it and whenever. Can it be uh, redefined? Question is, Mountain View leads the region with bicycle and bike, uh, corridors that are low stress and brain porters and butt, so some changes in that. So, I will get back to that on pennants, I should have followed my own rules.

[01:21:24] Member Alison Hicks: Your question is, can you're asking us, can you make changes to the vision spectrum? Yes. Um,

[01:21:32] Chair John McAlister: I... We can propose everything. Imagine

[01:21:35] Member Alison Hicks: we can. not sure I want to, but I imagine we can't. Um, so

[01:21:41] Chair John McAlister: I will go to some of my questions on here. When I saw this, the word holistic, I took the meaning to be, the ideal. routes. But when I look at your maps, it's hard for me to say, well, is there a main route? Is, and then all your conditions about with, and uh, practicability of, Funding all that. So it sounds like, Well, my idea of a holistic is here's the ideal program. And yet, you're presenting a program that has been defined by all these parameters. Is that a, do you understand the, and I'm concerned about, if you didn't have all your parameters that you put in there, with these maps looks, these maps look different. If the

[01:22:31] Transportation Planner Whyte: parameters being quarter mile, provision of bikeways.

[01:22:37] Chair John McAlister: Whatever provisions you have in there. If you had, this is our goal. We want to achieve. The holistic because I am embarrassing, um, ballistic is way above there, I'm looking down. And forget all the small minutiae. Would your math change? If we did that approach. It's,

[01:23:00] Transportation Planner Whyte: when we use the word holistic, our intention is more to be comprehensive and wide-ranging and inclusive. But to answer your question, uh, we have to work with the city we have now. And so, if I, which I may fail to understand your question, and so I'm sorry. So we are using some of the parameters, road with, we aren't going to purchase. We've given ourselves a parameter to not purchase right away. We're not in condemn right away in order to widen a road to produce better bike wipes or similarly for a sidewalk. So we're working within the current parameters of the city to produce something that is inclusive, to all the modes and the goals and provision statement. And uh, and is a comprehensive network that it goes across the city. Uh, that, that, that is our goal with the holistic nemograms.

[01:23:59] Chair John McAlister: Because some of your parameters are, well, is it not winding up? Or is it, uh, there's menacing some sidewalks? And so there's costs associated with it. When I look at holistic view, I'm saying, here's what we want, we'll fill in the blanks as we get closer to our ideal what we want. We aren't doing that. Yeah. So

[01:24:20] Public Works Director Ng: if I if I were to look at this map, the bike map or the chest map, and I turned all of the lines, you know, couple and green, if I turn them all black, right? And I just looked at it, how it relates to the city, I would say this is a pretty good map for getting us around the city, right? We get to all of our major destinations, we get to our schools, we get to our shopping centers. Um, you know, we, we, basically, I'll use the word penetrate, right? Penetrate all areas of the city. So from that aspect, I think we have a pretty good holistic vision of how we want this to build out. Um, and then so then we just get into, well, what's a solid line versus a dash line, right? And all the dash lines are what we need to build. And so this is going to be our guidebook for as we're repaving projects. What can we quickly and simply include in a repaving project to achieve that? Um, what are projects at our standalone where we might need to go after dedicated funding for something that's a little bit different? So I actually think this is a pretty good top-down view of where we want to be in 10 or 20 years or whatever timeframe week it takes to build this out. No,

[01:25:28] Member Alison Hicks: it's almost time. You can tell me now. Hmm? Can I answer your question? go ahead.

[01:25:35] Chair John McAlister: That's what I'm orderlying on your experience being here.

[01:25:39] Member Alison Hicks: When I Google the definition of holistic, It says it means interconnected. Like, in the interconnected network, which is what, it doesn't say just one main best street. So I feel like that's what I'm seeing here. And I feel like that's what the maps that people have been working on show and interconnected networks, some of which is there and some of which is work.

[01:26:04] Member Ellen Kamei: And I think when this came back to council, I may, that we asked, you know, take the different plans we're working on. Take vision 0, take safety schools, take all these things, and show us what it looks like if they were all like layered together, and then what are the missing pieces? So that's where I was so excited because this, it's actually really great to see, we're almost there in a lot of places and we just have a couple areas where we need to work on in particular. But like, for example, like looking at the holistic bicycle network, Looking at moffet, right? Looking at that dash line, the work that council stunt and prioritize that as in the, like, creating a precise plan, We'll be able to connect people and have them safely get across central and get to count, right? So that's where I think we were thinking about this, like. So

[01:27:03] Chair John McAlister: I had some comments on this map. That it's, even though the colors you can't see, you know, people are looking at, they say, they don't see any network. real network in this map. Um, Serge, who made one of the comments, he voted no, because he didn't see the networking here. And I, maybe the map is when you blow it up and you can see the lines, but that doesn't look like a network to me. For walking. for walking. I mean, it's just, again, you guys have more detail, you can see the trees. I'm looking at the forest right now and I don't see them.

[01:27:37] Member Alison Hicks: Well, the sidewalks are, I think the problem with this map is that the sidewalks are really light blue. And if we made them darker, then there'd be a lot almost everywhere. Yes.

[01:27:48] Member Ellen Kamei: So I, yeah. And I think... Everything is outlined in that balloon.

[01:27:54] Chair John McAlister: It would be nice if we were able to emphasize the network. better in this one. Oh

[01:28:01] Member Ellen Kamei: yeah, the sidewalks could be a darker blue, if that's I mean, the whole thing will be outlined, but which may be could be helpful.

[01:28:11] Member Alison Hicks: We definitely take a comment to change the color. Keep them right in the color. Yeah, the color's fine. It's just they're so skinny. they look like they're not there. They're too skinny. Because in reality, they are small.

[01:28:23] Chair John McAlister: Because, again, my perception is, again, and I, I don't see the things that we're talking about. So hopefully that will be, we're talking. Another question I had is, this has been going on for quite a long time. And I keep seeing the words, uh, additional round of community and committee, uh, an engagement. I saw that at least 6 times through the report. Is there a way to move this process along a little quicker than it is since 2021? I think it's when I 1st started this project. Yes, and it's all this. Yes. Yes,

[01:29:02] Transportation Planner Whyte: and this is a discussion that leadership in myself had last week. And we have ways planned out, uh, pending the results of this meeting to get things, um, to stay on the schedule you saw, if not advanced. Sweetwired a little bit. Uh, yeah, good. I mean,

[01:29:24] Chair John McAlister: But when I came, no, that's a comment. Okay. So we're just gonna comments? No, let me ask my question. I gotta follow up my own rules. Otherwise. I'm

[01:29:34] Member Ellen Kamei: not hearing any questions. I

[01:29:35] Chair John McAlister: know, I'm just, okay. Um, It's

[01:29:39] Member Alison Hicks: hard, because that's the reason you're asking. Yeah, that is a good comment.

[01:29:43] Chair John McAlister: Yeah, well, I'll comment on, uh... So, um, there was a question about that you were doing your scoring as somebody mentioned a cul-de-sac and they asked you, well, a cul-de-sac might be missing straight, how would that be scored for something that doesn't? And the question was that you weren't able to answer their question. based on your criteria. Have your scoring criteria to go along with some of that. There is some redundancy in this. Uh, there, uh, did you come up on this, are you own? Did you find this from some other area? Did you? Try to make it all encompassing or did you try to? Yeah, did you try to make it all encompassing or try to make it pinpoints to to differentiate the different projects or

[01:30:34] Transportation Planner Whyte: roads? Just a point of order. Staff wasn't able to answer that question. Because we're live in a meeting and it's a very specific question. So, that's why we weren't able to answer that question. Um, Regard to your questions about, uh, the scoring criteria. They are starting the development process for this is a starting point where our consultant gives us other, like, a lot, um, 10, 5 times the amount of scoring criteria you guys see from other communities that were used. Oh my gosh. Yeah. And then I sift through that. And then I give that to my manager, transpitch planner. Well, she sifts through that. Then we bring that to our technical advisory committee. Prior, we have the vision statement. So the technical advisor committee has an idea what they want to do for the vision state. So now we are working with a vision statement. Then we try to match after those 1st 2 filters, criteria to the vision state. We do that with our attack. Then we bring that to our active transportation plan working group, which are local nonprofits or community agencies that aren't part of the city of Mountain View, ETAs, great example, or community services agencies, another good example. They're both on the AT, the app pack. We do the same process there. And we've narrowed it down for these, I forget if there's 10 or so. Um, and then we never got some points. The next process. I think with the scoring criteria, we brought it to council. And then, and counsel, um, gave us no changes, except to what there was a lot of discussion. But no changes except to add feasibility and implementation. And for that, we just took, uh, because we just won a 10%. And we're bringing that for you guys as this, you know, as a starting point. And so that's the process that brought us to here. Uh,

[01:32:42] Chair John McAlister: you have a consultant. You got all these subnets. I believe in community input, but, at some point, to move the project going forward a little quicker. Why do you need a, uh, uh, I could see, well. Explain the function of each of the tact, and the other committee, the ATPAC. Um, And is there quite a bit of overlap from what they say compared to the BPAC and you're consultant? The

[01:33:16] Transportation Planner Whyte: function of the tack is there are many different divisions with different goals inside of the city of Mountain View. And we want to make sure they're all heard and that, um, the, that the active transportation plan works for them, and that there isn't a conflict, or if there is a conflict that we can try to work through and try, find a compromise or a common ground, that lets the settlement forward. That's the tech, but the act of transportation plan, or advisory committee, their representatives of basically the general public. And many of members of the public that don't come to the BPackney, that don't come to our community outreach events. And so, they are representing, you know, folks that need CSA services and and and the Dayworker Center. And so, we're getting that input there. Is there some overlap from the folks that come to the EPAC meetings that there is? Silicon Valley bicycle coalition is part of the active transportation plan. And many of their members go to the BPAC. Um, So, it does give us a sense of what the public's concerns are before we go to the public, which saves us time, because if we, if we did something that we didn't know the public would like, or, or that they would have a problem with. then. We don't have to hear about for that from the public because we've already got it right. Um, That's, that's the process we have. Could you give me an

[01:34:49] Chair John McAlister: exent? I mean, this is hard on you guys, but I'm just trying to get, I'm new. I'm trying to understand. What does the tax example say, well, we want to do this, but the taxes, no, this isn't, this is counter to what we're trying to achieve. Oh, let

[01:35:08] Transportation Planner Whyte: me give you an example that's similar to that, the 1st that comes to my mind, is staff had a lot of, um, is this completed sidewalk gap, or bike bike gap. And we were just giving dichotomous points. And they brought their expertise to say that there's a lot of times where we can improve that gap. But we can't fix it. Because the gap is too big. We still want our projects to get points for that. And we had not considered that and they, it was an easy change for us to make. And so that's where you see partial points uh, on, on the, on the sheet. I will, since

[01:35:45] Chair John McAlister: I'm sort of going broad on this. If I ask you a question and you want to think about it, you can write me a response. So you have an out. Okay? I just want you to feel, don't feel pressured. I'd rather have you say, I don't know, I'll get back to you. Then that's one of my off the wall questions. Um, At least you know they're, well. Okay, the, um, other question I had, well, questions. So why, if you're a holistic and you're doing, again, okay, my term, illistic. You're building this route. Do you have to come? Do you, I noticed that everything has to be a complete streak. Because there are situations where you're gonna go, go, this is a good route. This is well within, but it's not going to meet complete streets, and therefore we don't consider it.

[01:36:38] Transportation Planner Whyte: The city has a complete streets policy. So we are going to consider every street to the extent that we can to provide a bike way. It or a pedestrian facility. Um, Bikeways are generally the ones that have this conflict. If there was difficult decisions to be made about what gets used for road, what part of the road gets used, what? This is an example of where the attack is an unbelievably great partner in this process. We can lay out, hey, this is what we would have to do if it was going to provide this level of bike facility. This might, this will affect traffic in a certain way. How do we as a city feel about that? And, and, and if we aren't able to come to our current common ground, eventually this comes through, and there is, um, decisions made, maybe even by this group, on what direction to go. Um, Our job is to consider and discuss the public's input, best practices and the city. But as a transportation planner. I don't know every single aspect of the city and that's why the tech is so important. Um, and and then also, I'm not an elected official, and that's why you guys are so. We don't know. I'll

[01:37:54] Chair John McAlister: scrap my myself. Um, okay, you have, this says the giraffe holistic pedestrian network. Displayed attachment includes the complete network of existing and potential pedestrian links. If someone looked at it, again, going back to your map. Could someone see the complete network of existing and potential pedestrian links and value?

[01:38:18] Transportation Planner Whyte: I believe so, but your criticism is fair, that the blue is hard to see, uh, for observation, observation fair. Um, so, uh, I believe that, with the existing 96% sidewalk and the four, which is in red, um, you would have the links. Now, we have received the comment from the BPAC to talk about the crossings. And we take that seriously, and that is something with, even though the BPAC did not approve that motion. It is something that we will do.

[01:38:56] Chair John McAlister: It's different, okay. Um, Your, uh, the director answered some of my questions for me. I had a question about divine, long-term, help me understand that a little bit better. Um, There was, okay, the. As proposed. So it says the draft feasibility and humanization, uh, is proposed to include an order of magnitude costs as well as other factors, impacting feasibility and implementation. Um, So you are looking at costs at this phase then. No, we will be looking at costs

[01:39:36] Transportation Planner Whyte: in the next phase. And then, um, Uh,

[01:39:43] Chair John McAlister: uh, this is okay, don't take. So when you guys get feedback from individuals, sometimes do you look at that as, okay, this is one, are you looking at a trend of feedback, the same item, or do you just say, well, one person mentioned this that, okay, well, that's something we gotta look into. But we certainly

[01:40:05] Transportation Planner Whyte: we look at every trend, trends are extremely important, and then, uh, we consider every single comment, seriously, um, whether we act on it or not, it really depends on that comment. Um. What is the city's high injury network? The city's high injury network was defined in the vision 0 local road safety plan. Um, and I, you know, I can give you examples, but I don't have every street bet price.

[01:40:34] Chair John McAlister: Okay. Well, I don't need it. I'm just, what's the criteria? Uh, criterion? High injury.

[01:40:42] Senior Project Manager Gibson: I cannot, I can respond to that. So the city's high injury network was based on the history of fatal and severe injury collisions. And so the top of the list is El Camino and then Ranked off, Shoreline, Ellis. And actually, there's 2 ways of defining it. One is the length and then one is by, uh, so Ellis cut, enters the list, if you consider on a per mile basis, and so does El Monty. Um, it's probably all the streets that you would assume would be on the entry network.

[01:41:15] Chair John McAlister: I have another question, but it's not pretty. Um. Okay. The rest is going to be on me to try to figure things out. So I will then open it to. Public input. We would 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 electrum, we will take in persons. Okay, well, we won't take any virtual person. Uh, you have 3 minutes to ask that question. Oh, yes,

[01:41:54] Unknown Speaker: I'll uh, pull up the timer. and then Bruce after the timer starts. Bruce England.

[01:42:02] Chair John McAlister: That is Bruce England. Thank you. Hello, Bruce. Bruce. Are you there? Do we have someone else when we can bring up? Oh, yes, Valerie Fenwick. Valerie. Please, come on. Oh,

[01:42:39] Unknown Speaker: we can go back to Bruce. Sorry. Okay, do you have Bruce now?

[01:42:42] Chair John McAlister: Is there a technical...

[01:42:45] Unknown Speaker: I had to allow them.

[01:42:48] Chair John McAlister: Sometimes that's what you're controlled. Okay. Bruce, your comments, please. And could you reset the clock? Thank you.

[01:42:58] Unknown Speaker: Bruce, you're showing us muted. Bruce,

[01:43:07] Chair John McAlister: you're, uh, consider it muted. Can we go to Valerie and get Bruce another opportunity? Valerie? Hey

[01:43:24] Valerie Fenwick: there. hopefully you can hear me? Yes. We can hear you, Melody. Fantastic. Could you please reset the timer? Thank you so much. I'm Valerie Fennick, a former member of the BPAC and ATPAC, and I just wanted to add a little, um, extra noise into the system, I guess. I wanted to say having sat on both, um, of those committees, the input was very, very different and eye-opening. And I would say, just as an example, there's a difference about being invited to the table to have a discussion, uh, than being able to provide public comment at another meeting where you, it's not a discussion. So we got a lot of different input at the AT pack. Um, then we would get a traditional B pack meeting. So I did find those being sitting on both of those committees. I was the DPAC representative for 18 packs. Um, very informative and a lot of really great different input. I would say when you look at this criteria. Biased, but not on the current committees. Um, it's not perfect, but it gives us a framework to look at things and to attempt to remove bias. I would caution, um, the esteemed members of over analyzing something that I will tell you, we have done a lot of analysis already. Staff has and these various committees as well. I think it's pretty good. Perfect. No but it gives us a really great starting point. Also, just um, for council member Hicks. I know, I hear that's a lot people say, I would never want to ride an El Camino, as an example of why not to improve El Camino, and I would just like to offer a counter example that, I would never ride on El Camino real. Before the improvement, and I will ride on El Camino now is these bike lanes are actually appearing as cars are disappearing from parking on the street, so there's not risk of door, better visibility, better daylight. I 1000% also agree with. Adding more greenery. I do a lot of walking and being hot and exposed. Yeah, it does really stink and uh, takes away from the enjoyment of that. Whether it's in comfort, Or safety, or uh, biodiversity, planning and improvement. What I love about this plan is it brings everything together, and it has us look at things more holistically, if we're going to keep on that word. And I really do believe that's true. Is it perfect? Is it exactly um, could we spend another 4 months working on words? I think we could. But I really think this is a really good plan, and I'm, and this is also bringing together past input from the pedestrian master plan, and uh, um, the bicycle master plan, and it's bringing everything into one place, which is going to help the city make decisions with all of the input, and progress, not perfection. Uh, we can do better in a lot of these roads, and also for those uh, places with no sidewalks, that is terrible for children, really terrible. Um, I understand not everything needs a bike lane, but, uh, sidewalks wherever we can have them. I was a scared kid as a youth without sidewalks. So thank you so much. Valerie,

[01:46:33] Chair John McAlister: have you applied to another committee?

[01:46:35] Valerie Fenwick: I have not just to the pack committee. Okay,

[01:46:39] Chair John McAlister: I'm hoping for you. So,

[01:46:41] Valerie Fenwick: and interviews are coming up, so fingers crossed. Thank you. Okay,

[01:46:46] Chair John McAlister: next person, please. Bruce England? Bruce. We can hear you when you speak. Okay, of course. You have anybody else in the queue? Yes,

[01:47:10] Unknown Speaker: April Webster? Okay,

[01:47:13] Chair John McAlister: okay, fine, go to April, and we'll pay for another chance, please. April? April,

[01:47:21] Unknown Speaker: you're also muted. Thank you. I'm meeting? Yes,

[01:47:26] Chair John McAlister: April, we can hear you. Thank you.

[01:47:28] April Webster: Um, I'm also like Valerie member of the ATP Tech, and I want to, um, agree with her that we spend a lot of time and we pulled in a lot of experts from our community, and the plan is moving towards a more holistic one that really reflects how people actually move through our city. And I think this shift is meaningful. As Valerie said it's not perfect, but it's pretty damn good. I also want to commend staff on the outreach efforts, especially to include those who don't typically participate in the planning process. That kind engagement is crucial to making sure our streets serve a wider portion of our city not just the typical middle-aged male bike communitors. And our cities are streets. Our cities and streets are at their core a product. We want people to use them. Apple doesn't build its products for just one market sector. And this is why we should design our streets for more than just one group. We need to think about our streets as a product that serves everyone in our diverse city. And design and comfort of our streets should reflect that broader vision. And I think we're doing that, doing a pretty good job of that. I do want to focus on the safety and comfort section, and what Alison had to say. As this is where the human experience of our streets should truly come through. I'm really happy to see it there. However, I would strongly urge that as we move forward in this, that we define it a bit more broadly and provide clear examples that capture its full range. I've used grading matrices like this to evaluate projects for MTC's active transportation project funding in a few rounds, and it's really important to get it right to ensure the policy translates into what skinny and prioritized. Um, I also just want to iterate a bit more on comfort. It's not just about avoiding discomfort. It's about creating streets that people actually want to be on, that invite connection, offer relief from the heat, make people want to linger, shop on our streets, in our businesses, interact and enjoy their surroundings. And right now, too many of our streets are designed just to move people through quickly in cars. Um, but what if our streets were places worth staying in? We're competing with the comfort of built-in AC, stereo systems and pretty cushy seats in cars. Let's build our streets in a similar manner that are comfortable and invite people out of their cars and use. And finally, I want to emphasize an important next step in this, and that's translating this plan. And our policies in general into real world action, real world action. Our standard details, which guide construction are key. And they ensure consistency, safety, quality, et cetera, in our streets, and without aligning these details with the values that we're talking about right now. We risk, um, creating goals without actually achieving while achieving the same old outcomes. So I would really like us to start thinking about moving this in and moving beyond planning for the one% in our city and having full diversity. Thank you so much. Thank you. Joey,

[01:50:33] Chair John McAlister: try Bruce again, or is there anybody else in the queue? Uh,

[01:50:36] Unknown Speaker: Bruce will be the last one and yes, we can try him again. Okay. Rose England? Not sure. No But, Folks,

[01:50:57] Chair John McAlister: may I go, did we eat a little bit? Uh, call. That's okay. I'll know where you see. Otherwise, we will close the virtual comments, I mean, questions go. Okay. Okay. Unfortunately, we are unable to connect with Bruce. On

[01:51:31] Unknown Speaker: a new hand came on Cliff Chambers? Lift

[01:51:34] Chair John McAlister: chambers. Okay. What? Mr. Chambers, can you hear us?

[01:51:45] Cliff Chambers: Uh, my comments are pretty much in line with the questions that the council members uh, came up with in previous testimony. I do feel it's really important to emphasize a few points, and I'm really happy that staff had listened to the feedback at, um, BPAC about the importance of crossings. They didn't say when they would look at that, but when you really look at a pedestrian network, there's really several important things. Certainly the trails are really important. Certainly being able to walk in neighborhoods that are comfortable as part of a network. And closing the sidewalk gaps are all really important, but crossings are particularly important, an intersection. We have some really scary intersections where pedestrian crossings are not good. We have a lot of mid block crossing gaps that have not been identified. We did that in the California complete streets and they went had to go back and add those crossings. There's many any areas around the, uh, the city that have those kinds of mid-block crossings. They're not really incorporated in the criteria. So I think crossings need a lot more attention. The other thing is, is that we have a network of pedestrian signals, but there's, I, I have been walking a lot lately, and the lack of access, accessible pedestrian signals for, uh, people with low vision is just not there. You're not hearing the chirps, you're not hearing the walk, walk, walk, and about half of the intersections that I encounter. And I think shade and comfort is really part of comfort, and I think one of the enhancements to the map would be an overlay of where we have gaps and tree canopy to provide shade to that network. That is a very important part of the pedestrian network. And I think, We, we, we really need to, uh, look at this holistically, and incorporate those other elements. I'm really not going to have time to talk a lot about the holistic, uh, bike network, but I just want to add that I think, um, when you talk about bicycle boulevards or the, the, like, the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard, where, uh, bicycles have priority over cars. There's nothing in here that really speaks to that, and it's not only a matter of walking, to be pleasant, but where bicycles really have priority, and we really need to set that aside. And it was part of the last bicycle uh, plan on Montecito as an example, and although it's a dash on the line, it's really not clear that that's what's going to be uh, put forward. So, uh, I think if we can add some of the things that have been discussed in the criteria to be closer to the, to the vision. I think there's some more work that needs to be done, and I would at least add some more consideration of crossings, at least in the, uh, criteria. And I think what was suggested at BPAC was having some examples. I mean, Cliff,

[01:55:08] Chair John McAlister: sorry. Thank you for your Four times in the year up. And each, yeah, you're going, okay, he's...

[01:55:21] Unknown Speaker: I love just him when you call him. Okay,

[01:55:24] Chair John McAlister: so, okay. So I will. Being as fair as possible, we will close virtual, uh, the speakers now and bring it back to the committee or deliberation and action. Um, gotta get to the right page. Bring it to committee for comments. So, council member, yes, you got a few comments.

[01:55:48] Member Alison Hicks: So, oh, seeing what everybody... Yeah, seeing what everybody has said, I mean, I generally this is coming together really well. Um, and, uh, you know, I don't, there have been a lot of input, community staff, et cetera, et cetera. And I don't want to, you know, I don't want to tweak a lot. I think, um, picking up on, uh, What? So I guess my biggest thing is, I wanted, I don't think I have to make emotion about this book, please tell me if I do. I think this is a, I see this as a living document, and although we're trying to do scoring that is unbiased and will, you know, bring up the projects that will be the best for various reasons, connectivity, equity, feasibility, et cetera. I think there's the possibility that after we do it for a while, some community members will say, It's always happening that the projects we think should be done most are not, and we'll have to re-look at it. Um, so, I don't think I, I, how, I guess that brought up a question for me. How often are we, how are we going to re-look at it and tweak it? You know, I would hate to be married to it forever and then everybody be, say there are a few things that need changing and be unhappy. So how are we going to make it, like you said, a living document?

[01:57:17] Unknown Speaker: I

[01:57:17] Transportation Manager Lo: don't have a exact answer for you, but we do plan on addressing that in the draft, um, okay. Uh, ATP about TDM and all of them combined. In the draft, ATP, and we'll list how we're going to reevaluate and what frequency and probably also to report out in

[01:57:34] Member Alison Hicks: what the mechanism should be. That will come later. Okay. Then I won't. Unless other council members have a proposal for it right now. I won't, I just want to say that's super important. Yes. And then another, I, I do have a concern that, and this is similar to the aligning with the vision statement. The vision statement says a lot about, um, what some of the community members said about making our streets into places we want to be, the difference between driving and walking, when you drive, you go really fast and it doesn't really, like the, uh, comment or said, you have your air conditioning, your music, your cushy seats. You don't really care how bad everything is out there. When you're walking or biking, it's particularly walking, it's different. So I want to make sure that we're aligning, the vision statement really reflects that, and I want to make sure that our scoring criteria really aligns with that. I don't know if we need tweaks now, or later, I'll let other people address that, but I do want to make sure we're aligning the vision statement. And then, uh, one of the residents also brought up uh, gaps in the tree canopy. Now, I have a feeling that will, um, overlap with an equity issue, I think, in some of our lowering our neighborhoods, there's less of a tree canon, particularly on the streets, so that you're sort of not attracted to walking by. Do you, do you, um, anticipate doing a tree canopy, some, a map? That, um, reflects that in any way?

[01:59:20] Transportation Planner Whyte: We, our sustainability, um, biodiversity plan, I believe, is looking at tree canopy, and that is not something that ATP is, is not perverse code.

[01:59:31] Unknown Speaker: Oh, although we did have it as part of the existing conditions. So I fed into that.

[01:59:40] Member Alison Hicks: So we, I mean, I think it's pretty important. We'll get a, you think we'll get a math through biodiversity or you don't have urban forestry. There's a map that

[01:59:50] Transportation Planner Whyte: we have an existing conditions report. to say, this is how the city looks. We aren't doing anything at the ATB too. Change that. What we're doing, the ATP is, we're creating space for then the biodiversity. Um, plan to come in and fill in that space on the roadway and how they fill that in. Depends on that planning process and whether it's trees or any horse, sorry, there's a horse comment before. Any host of possible planting or biodiversity strategy pollinators, things like that.

[02:00:31] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, can that come to us at some point just to look in the context of the ATP or we'll

[02:00:38] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: have to have that conversation with that group. That's not it. Yes. Um... Um,

[02:00:46] Member Alison Hicks: yeah, so those are my, if other council members want to take those further. My main concerns that be a living document that we review and make sure it really is turning out the way a couple years down the road, the road. Um, that it is what we want. And then also if there's anything to align it with the vision statement. Those are the 2 things that are outstanding to me.

[02:01:10] Chair John McAlister: The year before you begin. Um, what is your ask? You have your vote, reason. What is your ass?

[02:01:19] Public Works Director Ng: So, we're asking you to recommend for staff, us, to proceed with the development of the ATPD, um, following that those bubbles that we said, you know, here's our path forward and here's how we get to the end. But specifically for tonight, including the maps and the scloring criteria that we've posed to you. He wanted to make a motion, I think, to have us, you know, make some tweets to the vision statements. You're certainly welcome to do so.

[02:01:50] Chair John McAlister: I just wanted to see that, I didn't see that. Sorry for that. Now, I see it. Thank you. Okay, Mayor, your comments are your thoughts? Yeah. Okay. So,

[02:02:01] Member Ellen Kamei: um, yeah, I think thanks, thanks again. I think, um, We, I'll be supporting moving forward with the ATP and including the maps that we're seeing and the spring criteria is presented. They think that we are on the right track. Um, there's just, uh, I think we discussed a couple, you know, tweaks and all, and I'll go over that. I think that one of the things that, um, I didn't bring up as a question, but something I've been thinking about is how the ATP can address the last mile issue that we tend to have for folks when they, um, in terms of accessing transit. So, that, and then just like re-looking at the maps and seeing that a lot of it is dotted lines and it's not anything, you know, solidly connecting, whether, whether pedestrian or, um, by, um, and really how we might shore up, some of, uh, some of those networks because I think that, um, you know, appreciate the conversation about, the comfortability about people. being able to get outside. from the groups that you're talking about, a lot of people are using both networks to get to work or to school. And, uh, I'd love for both of our holistic maps. So like kind of address and include that. So I think, you know, the connections here. Um, you know, the dotted, the dotted yellow that we're seeing for the pedestrian on, in terms of being able to connect. Um, certain access to transit, um, And then on the, the bicycle. There's some solid sum hatch, just, I think, making sure that we talk about that, and that's elevated in the conversation, because I think that part of the feedback, though, maybe not just via council emails, is just, what the strike, like how that affected people being able to get to work and to school. I think was quite, quite great. Um, and I lived at solarial stops. So just like how silent it was, right? It's just, a lot of my neighbors are using that families are using that. So, I just want to make sure that the ATP, well, it includes all the different, you know, savers to school, vision 0, we're also addressing last month. Yeah. And we do have a, um, one of those core criteria does it just last month. But I think I just want to elevate that, I guess, conversation. Because I think that that's just as important as, to me, that that's just as important as other elements that we're talking about, right? Because people need to people to get through varsity. Um, and then appreciate that staff has been level of app, the crossing and intersections. I think one of the things, um, that I've been thinking a lot about is how certain obsidian infrastructure interfaces with, um, with these routes and, you know, in particular, we've been receiving increasing feedback. And I think it came up at BPAC, um, on, or no, sorry, it was on the VTA, um, comet that I saw at, like, no turn on red. I think finding ways to address that as we're going forward, you know, in potential projects. Um, and getting rid of slip planes. I'm just going to talk about that till they're all gone. What? Slippings? Yeah, because that's where I always almost get. And when I'm running. So I just want to be able to, and I know other people do too. Um, But I think those are the things that I'm thinking about. Um, I think when it comes to the, um, principles. Um, I'm interested to see what colleagues will, will say. I think that, like, the criteria is fine. We, but, and we included feasibility and implementation, but I am thinking a lot about, like, the callouts for the principal names in talking about the vision, right? So, but that's. But, um, they scan to stop. I know it's been, you know, they lived and excited at least to keep going forward. Yeah, um,

[02:06:23] Chair John McAlister: I'm choked up. So, uh, let me give you an observation comment about, uh, Streets that are paid or on sidewalks. I live on those shoes. I've lived on those streets for over 60 years. I was in the county for the city incorporates. So I know Franklin Avenue, the sleeper, all those streets. And, uh, The thought of us incorporating is a far fit. Um, We've had other opportunities and people do not want to change. They like the rural streets. I would, uh, give you a heads up that if you spend time trying to do that. Uh, I don't think you'll get, uh, your money's worth out of doing that. We have sleeper, which is a major route. I would, well, to half school or Amaya. People are right into all the time. All kinds of traffic on it. I walk it every single day with Yoki. And my wife. And, uh, we're all compatible with it. Kids are coming down, uh, Martin's, that are going to the high school, that are going, um, through Yorkshire, doing the cuts through there. So everybody's doing a lot of biking there, and should try to put in sidewalks. In fact, somebody was required to put it in the sidewalk. But there was, um, they fought it. Because there was a, uh, something doing with Google said that they couldn't do it. So, that is a bit of history, and therefore, you see, we have new development in there and sidewalks aren't going in. If you wanted people to go, didn't go to UNS, that has sidewalks. So that's something about, this is my section of town right here. And um, I know it very well. So we do have, we don't have sidewalks, but we would have storm trains. So that means fits. Um, I want to go back to the vision statement. So when I just read, Mountview leads the region with an active transportation plan that defines a series of connected, low stress and green streets that invite active transportation. I think there's a, you know, the word act of transportation is used a couple of times, and I don't think it really projects what you're trying to do, and that's why... Okay, fine. Well, you got it. Right here. On, uh, there's pages, page four.

[02:08:57] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you very much. Sorry. So, uh, read

[02:08:59] Chair John McAlister: it. I mean, read it to yourself and say, does that, I don't think it represents what you're trying to do. And bike lanes, and walkability is in. And that's why I said leads the region. The fact leads the region. Um, It could be a moot point if you're not willing to change it, but I'm going to bring it up again somewhere along the line that leads to region. What does that mean leads to region? Uh, so, And then there defines a series of connectors. What I would like to see that this Mountain View leads the region with bicycle and pedestrian corridors that offer low stress and green, that are low stress, green quarters that invite active transportation. I think that will give you a better, we're getting to the core. What are we trying to achieve? Bicycle and a pedestrian pass. Where this, you have to go down to, it goes, the quarters include shade wildlife, reno opens. That are specifics, the plan enables the city to intentionally, and the word intentionally. You know, word smoothing here. Well, what does that when people say intentionally support a coach? This plan enables the city to implement or, you know, or achieve a goal. And the plan is a goal, and I don't see any of that where we're going to achieve this goal by supporting a walking and biking enhancement and so forth. So, um, I would want to see if there's a, someone you want to discuss it and we tweak it a little bit. That's a concern of mine. Uh, I'd like to see that. Another one question I should have. Where do cars come into this plant? Are they totally ignored? Do we? Okay, so I see everybody focus there. But, We are a city of commuters, we are city of bikes. Our goal is to get there. But I see there's 3 things, you need car transportation, bike, and bike pits. Have we identified major car routes? You know, auto routes, that, if they're, that's gonna be there, where's the parallel route? And I'm thinking of El Camino. I would not, I don't support, uh, bicycle ends on El Camino, because there's too many, uh, for whatever reason. And I have not seen anybody ride on that road. But that's a major commute. Do we have parallel routes that California's major route? Do we have a parallel strip of land that could go along to make it a main highway so that, yes, we have all these white streets that you call class 3s versus, let's, do we dedicate certain areas of the city, that this is what we want biking? This is where we're going to have separated bike lanes, cars, like in front of Graham. I can't think of any other area where you have the cars and there's a dedicated bike lane in the city. Are you guys familiar with any? The thing, if I'm defining it quickly. Okay, but not, but everything else. So if we want to get to that safe, comfortable. When you have the bike lane where you got cars, the bike lane separated on the sidewalk. That has car. Who's, uh, Who's the young lady that was doing over? I was in Austin, Texas, and I was there, and I saw where they had the bike lane separated.

[02:12:21] Member Alison Hicks: Are you saying that are there, are you asking? I'm not clear what you're asking. Are you asking, are there some streets that are so dedicated to cars that, if we put bike lanes there, they need to have a good separation from the cars? Is that what you're saying?

[02:12:36] Chair John McAlister: Well, no, I'm saying, if we have a dedicated cars? I mean, cars are going to be going down California. Cars are going to go down Shoreline. Cars are going to go down ring stores. Cars are going to go out San Antonio. That's a major crossing you get across. But are there parallel routes along with it? But you, I think you, to look at it, you have to look at where the cars are gonna be and need to go. Because we want to keep moving there. But then are the other bike lanes or other areas that are roads that we can say, this is more geared for your bike or, you know, uh, signage that says, this is your bike, the peninsula. is your bike highway. Because like Castro Street right there in front of Graham, they do have the cars, then they have the dedicated bike lane. And then they have sidewalk.

[02:13:19] Member Ellen Kamei: I think that from what I recall, stop. They've looked at, I would call them just, like, all the, like, alternative routes, alternative arteries, but, you know, I think part of it is the capacity issue of being able to create the infrastructure so that because a lot of those streets you're talking about, that could be off are narrow. So it's like when we looked at Latham for a potential route, and it ended up being too narrow and it was more unsafe there. So, I think staff has evaluated, right? So you're getting to the point. yeah I think that we just, I mean, I made a motion to support the staff recommendation, so I don't know where you are also. I would say. Okay. Yeah. Well, I didn't hear the most. I sorry. Oh, okay. I mean, I remember, I remember saying it that same. Stop it. I said I'm going to support maybe. I'm willing to support it. No statement, but yeah. You have to...

[02:14:23] Chair John McAlister: Okay, so, um, Let me finish my comments and then you can make your motion. Yeah, yeah, sorry. I thought I did it. My mind I did. Because this is, so these are, again, my thoughts, I haven't been here. You guys been involved? It's something new. You say you're too late to get here. But, um, But that was concerned about cars, because I always, we always concentrate on the bikes, but there's still, the, uh, The monster in the room is the cars. So you gotta work with that. Um, Okay, I will finish up because I can't add any more to it. I made my comments. I'm concerned about the statement. I'm concerned about the, the map should show a more defined, uh, here our main routes, that this needs to be clear, so that all people can look at and go, yes, and here's potential projects. So, I will entertain emotion. From this, from counsel, from a committee to adopt. I want to put that back down. Yes, sir. Recommend to proceed with the Velma, the active transportation plan, including maps and scoring criteria present. Is that your motion? It's not mine, it's yours. I know. Okay. Is that your mind? You want to hear a second? Okay,

[02:15:43] Member Ellen Kamei: and I think they'll be, you know, more opportunity to be apparent everyone else. I wouldn't want to, like, tweak anything, because we already voted on the vision statement, but I'd be open to hearing if people had anything else to say, like, because, you know, it'll go into CDC to fame household. Yes,

[02:15:59] Chair John McAlister: child, all right. Okay. Uh, do you do roll calls here, or do we just say raise your hand? Or do you have a question? I

[02:16:07] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: just want to make a comment that we will not be taking this specific topic to counsel. This milestone. This milestone is just go A to CTC. The draft will go to the draft and the policy. Yes, you will. Council will see this again. It's just not this specific milestone of the criteria. Will

[02:16:26] Chair John McAlister: there be another milestone in front of this committee before it goes to council? Yes. Okay. I paid the...

[02:16:34] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: the project priorities

[02:16:37] Member Ellen Kamei: will come back to you before they go to the council. Oh, number five, right? Oh, my God, I'm just gonna study sish. We're figuring that out. This is on page

[02:16:52] Chair John McAlister: four. there's the revised timeline. Why is that?

[02:16:55] Member Ellen Kamei: I see. Yeah. I mean, I think either, either way, it sounds like there's an opportunity for feedback. I think it's a way to share, share the topic, bring up, you know, some of the concerns you have, and then, like, the top, the full group.

[02:17:09] Chair John McAlister: I know it's short notice and I'm...

[02:17:12] Member Ellen Kamei: No, no, no. I mean, I just, no, I

[02:17:15] Member Ellen Kamei: think it's, no, I think it's, it's valid, so I'm just saying that I would just want to hear what some people have to say too, but that I hear your concerns and, well, seeing what others you thought to see.

[02:17:24] Member Alison Hicks: Yeah, you didn't say anything that I found offensive. You didn't take out any of the good words. It was minor stuff that

[02:17:32] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: maybe made it flow. I agree with the

[02:17:34] Member Alison Hicks: mayor that, um, since the whole council did it, we should probably bring it back to the whole council. But I didn't find anything useful. You can

[02:17:43] Chair John McAlister: also do a recommendation to counsel. You do put say. We recommend...

[02:17:48] Member Alison Hicks: Why don't you Wordsmith it a little more. Hey,

7.1 Staff Comments

[02:17:50] Chair John McAlister: I have my... Okay, we have a motion on the floor. We have a second. Do we need? I mean, I would... Okay, all in favor, raise your hand. All opposed. Okay. That takes care of that. Then we will go, that will close item 6.one, and the reason I voted against it because of my concern. So, um, The plan is a great idea, but I still think it needs to be tightened up and redundancy taken down and look at ways you can expedite it, but still getting input. But I still think all those people that have given you then, but I don't think you need to check in every time that you, oh, we tweak to treat. Sorry, I'm dating that's the... But I think you guys have a basis for information to go forward. And hopefully you can do that. Okay, seven. Committee, staff announcements, update requests, and committee, inter reports. Staff comments. Most have comments for tonight. Uh, it's L, I, Merrimani. At Castro. No, uh, or Castro crosses over to Maryland, on the North side of Marymont. They were slurring or repaving the northbound lane. What? Is the benefit. I know it needs it, but marijuana, it's attracting to have a complete construction. I'm looking up word, yes or no, I'm not. So the, the, the,

[02:19:30] Public Works Director Ng: the chunk. I'll call it the segment of your mom, sorry, it's late. The segment of Mir Monte, um, south of El Camino until it reaches hands, I think. Um, is uh, scheduled next for paving. We're starting design, this fall. So it would probably go into construction like next summer.

[02:19:53] Chair John McAlister: So my question is, I saw them quite a bit of it. What is the thought process behind paving at the time that we're gonna be tearing up? Was the road? I won't have my own. What was the thought process of paving that and how much cost would might have been associated with that? I'd

[02:20:13] Public Works Director Ng: have to find out the specifics. I don't know if it was, um, just temporary sort of, um, keep the road together because it's been falling apart type of stuff, or if it was maybe, um, like an excavation permit where, you know, like a, a private 3rd party tore it up the street and and they had to repay this part of their, um, you know, whatever construction they did. So I'd have to look into that for you. But I can I can send you an email.

[02:20:37] Chair John McAlister: And our 3rd request is there was speed strips or accounting strips on sleeper, Franklin, Levin, et cetera. They are gone now. Do we know what those they were counting for and what they were trying to achieve with us the information? Yes. I didn't get back on any of that.

[02:20:57] Public Works Director Ng: I knew it one time. Um, I'll dig it up. Oh, it's been a long time.

7.2 Committee Comments

[02:21:03] Chair John McAlister: Okay, 7.2. Do any of the committee members. have comments or reports to share with the committee. I

[02:21:11] Member Ellen Kamei: just had a question. So for the item that we saw this, uh, earlier today from GTA. So would they, um, Will we be able to, like, attach at a later time to the CTC agenda of, like, a link or PowerPoint or something? Because like right now when you go to the Legis Star, there's nothing linked there. And so just for those, maybe in the minutes, they can, um, let the website leak. Yeah, just some, I don't know, something because they just, just in case people see it and they're interested, there's no... or attachment. So I wonder if we can, like, yeah, it helps. And then will we just be updated, I guess, at a later date on...

[02:21:54] Public Works Director Ng: Only their next big milestone, which is likely going to be environmental clearance. Because then once that's done, the next step would be design. And so they're really just seeking funding to start that. Okay. Thank you. years.

[02:22:09] Chair John McAlister: I have a question. Do we need to do this part? This doesn't make sense on this part, but I'm just reading your strips. Public

[02:22:18] Public Works Director Ng: comment. Oh, I don't think so. Yeah, because we talked about our, um, open items and business items. Okay. Okay.

8. ADJOURNMENT

[02:22:27] Chair John McAlister: I just don't want to get in trouble with me. What do you or the city attorney? Okay, then I will go. Thank you so much for joining us. They're gone. Our next council transportation committee will be, is this correct, June, sir? Okay, this meeting is adjourned at 823. Thank you all.