June 16, 2026 Council Transportation Committee

Video

Agenda

Speaker Summary

(15 speakers)
SpeakerWordsTime
Chair Alison Hicks6,07143m
Committee Member John McAlister3,14924m
Assistant Public Works Director Boyer3,06822m
Senior Civil Engineer Houghton2,23117m
Committee Member Ellen Kamei1,93413m
Transportation Manager Ledbetter2,14513m
April Webster1,4829m
Barry Burr1,2248m
Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales1,0176m
Unknown Speaker9196m
Cliff Chambers5803m
Bruce England6723m
Daniel Hulse4733m
Nelson Nygaard Project Manager McMillan3402m
Assistant Public Works Director Arango3382m

Transcript

[00:00:00] Unknown Speaker: Yeah.

2. ROLL CALL

[00:00:03] Committee Member John McAlister: Good evening everyone. Welcome to the house of transportation. We, uh, June 16th, June 6th, meeting will start at 606. This is a hybrid meeting, allowing COVID comet, person or virtually, instructions for addressing completing virtually may be found on your postation. Roll call, the assistant public works director will take a tenant spiral roll call.

[00:00:28] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: Couple member for me.

[00:00:30] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: Here.

[00:00:31] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: Acting chair McAllister.

[00:00:33] Committee Member John McAlister: Here.

[00:00:34] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: Here. We have a quarrel. Okay.

3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC

[00:00:37] Committee Member John McAlister: Thank you, sir, for... Uh, oral communication. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons listening to address the committee on any matters not on agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for 30 minutes during this section. State law prohibits committee from acting on non-agenda items. Do any member of the audience likes to provide comment on a non-agenda item? Okay, hang on, just we'll get there. Any member of the public like to, uh, if so, please raise your hand there, or, and we'll take, and anybody virtually will zoom in. Please raise your hand, the staff will wait the timer on the screen. Then we will take. Yes, sir. Yeah,

[00:01:24] Barry Burr: members of the committee, my name is Barry Burr. Um, member of the tax from about 2005 to 9. Um, Specifically address the middle field proposal later. But in general, I'm seeing what I'm going to call tragedies waiting to happen. Because of a vagueness in the definition of segregated or separated bike lanes. My called action, I've spoken or got involved because I'm pretty pleased in general with state of bicycle pedestrian advocacy in town. If any of you with maybe 60 something year old eyes, um, come in El Camino. Before or after, you know, sunset, sunrise, you will be blinded, by sunrise off of these paddles. This highlights the, uh, lethal nature, using these paddles, and then driving down through, uh, only today's season. Yes. on bollage or paddles. The density, the shortness between them is getting closer and closer. The basic tragedy waiting to happen. Many places I'm building that these paddles have already been hit by cars. Um, the curbing, the strip up the asphalt, it's a solid dedicated strip. I was part of the safe, uh, Mountain View group that uh, took on the upper Castro section up the, the reconfiguration. That is my idea of an ideal separated segregated bike lane because we just have rubber strips. There's full visibility in and out. And there's road, bicycle hits that, they're reflected in. In the gap, they're safe. Car comes over, same thing. There are tires. So, this looseness in what's being called segregated and separated bike lanes itself, I'd like to cancel transportation committee to address, and define, before any other action moves forward that implements what's being called generically a separated or segregated bike. That's my request to the committee. I remembering Councilman McAllister for my 1st time zone. And these issues to have segregated and separated bike lanes back then, we were told we're dreams. But look at what their dream has turned into. Great in concept. But now let's put them in practice so that, you know, I don't feel safe bicycling on El Camino or where these ballards are anymore. I live right near the middle field stretch. So that's my call to action. Thank you. I appreciate your consideration.

[00:04:12] Committee Member John McAlister: Anybody else in the audience would like to see? Do we have any virtual people like to speak? Um,

[00:04:22] Chair Alison Hicks: yes, April Webster.

[00:04:24] Committee Member John McAlister: Okay, uh, hey, April, you know, this is a non-agenda item. Yep.

[00:04:28] April Webster: Um, hi, April Webster. I am a member of the California uh, walking bike technical advisory committee, um, vice chair of the Caltrans D for bicycle advisory committee, co-chair of the MTC Active Transportation Working Group, and a member of the VTA VPAC. I am speaking of my own accord tonight, but I just wanted to share my affiliations. I have been a strong supporter of ECR for several years. It's actually what got me involved in advocacy. And, um, And as part of my role on Caltrans, I have been pushing hard for those bike lanes that we see. Um, Those bike lanes and the type of separation quick curb are actually very. There, that kind of separation, stronger separation and even stronger than that, is what you need to see to have, um, a real modality shift. Um, it's the type of protection that people who tend to be interested in biking, but more risk averse and cautious. You know, some of us don't have a death wish. And so that more substantial protection is what a lot of people need to make that shift. And there's research that's been done by Jennifer Dill out of Portland Trek. Um, uh, group that has shown that about 60% of people fall into that bucket. A lot of those are, you know, are people who are covered by all ages and abilities knocked under Nacto's um, guidance. And, you know, you take that away and you have more insubstantial type either paint, or vertical paint, which are the standard flex posts. And it becomes a lot less safer. You know, think about a £4000 car that's barely not you. basically like a tank in some ways and cars are getting a lot bigger now. Um, When you have that coming at you. Um, and the way that people are now distracted, um, It doesn't feel safe and it isn't safe. Um, and a lot of cities are doing a better job. In Caltrans included in terms of building better infrastructure. So, um, I would like to give my full support, um, and on El Camino Real, and I hope to see that extended along the entire extent of it, and work has been done, is being done at the Caltrans level to make that happen. Um, yeah, I just want to say thanks. I'm glad that Mountain U got involved really early. We actually made that happen. Our staff and, um, uh, both Dawn and Rhea were, um, very heavily involved in making sure that happened and worked with Caltrans in advance to make sure we got that, what we needed in place to make, um, El Camino rail protected, uh, have protected bike lanes. Thank you so much.

[00:07:17] Committee Member John McAlister: Thank you, April. Anybody else? Any more virtual speaker? Bruce England? Bruce? Bruce?

[00:07:32] Bruce England: Hi, all. I'm happy to attend any of these meetings where we're talking about the active transportation plan. This has been a long time coming, and um, we're still keeping track of it, and um, hoping for the best when it becomes uh, part of the city, regulations and rules and guidelines. Just a few things. Echoing pretty much what April said, but also, um, Just a few things that she might not have said or weren't in the letter, which I support by the way. Um, I think that timing for when we bring our comments in, this isn't just for the ATP, but for a lot of the plans. We're often told early on that it's too early. Don't tell us your comments yet, and then later on, we make our comments and we're told it's too late. And being clear with the public about when you want to hear our comments, we'll make them every time. Believe me, if we're not told one way or the other, then we're just going to make our comments at every meeting and that might not always be useful. A second, I have 4 things to say. Second is, and I don't know if it's appropriate for the ATP, but I'm just going to bring it up, that we've got at least 2 paths, uh, bike pad paths in Mountain View that lead to abrupt curbs where they just cut off and you have to hop your bike or stroller or wheelchair, whatever, over a straight up curb to get down to any other thoroughfare like to a bike lane, let's say. Um, Those haven't been corrected yet, and I worry that, um, maybe we'll see more of those, and it's better just to head them off. That should be part of the project in any case, anytime there's a path, that's constructed, whether it's private or public. Uh, we shouldn't be leading to abrupt curbs like that. That's just be part of the project. Um, 3rd of four, one of the qualities of our walkways and bikeways is making them inviting to people. So having them be safe and all of that, as April mentioned, this is important. Um, but we also want to get more people out of their cars and enjoying walking and biking around, man. It is a great place to walk and bike if you feel that is comfortable and safe and inviting. So I like the word inviting for that reason. And last, I just want to emphasize the Nacto guidelines and standards that April mentioned. This is really important for us to move forward into the modern age of active transportation and transportation in general in Mountain View. And that's it for me. Thank you.

[00:09:55] Committee Member John McAlister: Thank you, Bruce. I need more virtual speakers. Yes, Cliff Chambers.

[00:10:09] Cliff Chambers: Thank you. Uh, Cleft Chambers, resident of Mountain View. Um, I'm also part of MVCSP in the letter. I just want to emphasize a couple of different points than what April and Bruce talked about. First off, I think, um, The Nacto standards that Bruce said is really important. I just want to emphasize that. Secondly, I'm really happy about the network of protected bike lanes, but one of the things in the extensive output that we that was held and and provided comments on bike rides and public forums, on surveys. There were a lot of opportunities for input. But for one of

[00:10:51] Committee Member John McAlister: the things really, excuse me? Yes. You're gonna be addressing, you're sort of touching on the line of the ATP. So this is for content item.

[00:11:00] Cliff Chambers: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was. I apologize. I'll stop.

[00:11:03] Committee Member John McAlister: No, that's okay. Keep those thoughts though.

[00:11:05] Cliff Chambers: I, no, no, I'll do it when we go to the ATP. So I'm sorry. I thought they were talking about the HGP. I came in late. I'll stop and wait.

4.2 2026 Council Transportation Committee Revised Meeting Schedule

[00:11:16] Committee Member John McAlister: Thank you Okay, any other? People that would speak on non-agenda items. No, that's not. We will now go to consent calendar. We're on item four, 4.one approved. minutes. And oh, 4.one. Are there any corrections, additions to the minutes? Thanks. Any public activate comment on our minutes? Okay. Uh, and then we also have a consent item for, we'll take them all, go to all at one time. That's okay. Well, one to a council, transportation committee, revised minute schedule. Any comments? It's interesting because it, there's come in. 6 months a little me. That's in the committee, so. That's not remember? Yeah. Okay, uh we've heard that. Is there whatever, yeah? Okay, we'll take a vote on it, sent down. Uh,

[00:12:31] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: I'll move, uh, consent items 4.1 and 4.2.

[00:12:36] Committee Member John McAlister: I'll 2nd that. Okay. Well, do we need roll call? because we're virtual. Thank you for that. Um, remember me?

[00:12:47] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: Here.

5.1 Active Transportation Plan-Public Draft for Review

[00:12:47] Committee Member John McAlister: Oh, yes. All right. Is there? Yes. Okay. It passed. We will now go to new business. We will take up the 5.one major topic of the night, transportation of the land. Public direct, public direct. Oh, fine. Okay, for a review. Um, Item one is an active transportation, public draft or review, the staff presentation will be provided by. Is this better? Transportation manager, Alison Boyer, assistant public works. Tracy McMullen, project manager of the activation plan and Nelson Night Guard is available to answer your questions after the presentation. Okay. We have a presentation.

[00:14:25] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: Great. Good evening. Acting chair McAllister mentioned the Nelson Nygard on the phone to help answer questions at the end of the presentation, but tonight we are here to discuss the mountain to active transportation plan. The draft plan and staff is requesting CTC review and pride comments on the plan. So quickly, a little bit of background, the agenda is we'll do a quick project update. Um, walk through what the Mount View active transportation plan components are. And then we will go into what we heard. Um, through our outreach process, and then move into resolutions and next steps. Um. Quickly on the project update. So this project has been split into 3 phases. Um, we are currently here in phase 3, which is reviewing the draft and moving into plan adoption. Um, as I think it was previously mentioned, this project has been in the work since 2022, so we are happy to be moving forward to plan adoption. Um, this project has gone through multiple engagement rentals with various support uh, types of support throughout. We had multiple working groups, outreach, surveys, and we are happy with where we have landed and all of the community, what we received through this last round. And with that, I'm going to pass. Oh,

[00:16:04] Assistant Public Works Director Boyer: cool. Great. Thank you. Good evening. Can you go to next slide, please? And then the next slide. So I'm gonna walk through 1st the components of the plan, give you a brief overview of it, and then I will at the tail end. I will summarize the, um, themes that we received from the outreaching engagement. So the active transportation plan was developed using both data and community output. It proposes projects, policies, and programs to support, you know, biking in the city, and it also supports the city's sustainability and greening goals. It builds on multiple previous plans that were adopted by both the city as well as countywide, regional and state agencies, including the prior bicycle and pedestrian plans that were adopted by the city. Uh, Caltrans complete streets action plan, the MTC regional active transportation plan, and other local plans, such as Access MB and the Vision 0 action plan and the local road safety plan. Go to the next flight, please. So the plan is divided into 4 sections, 4 chapters. The 1st chapter, the introduction. It introduces the plan. It describes the process that we use to develop it. Summarizes the public, its stakeholder engagement, and outlines the vision and the guiding principles, which were adopted by the city council. Chapter 2 is essentially the existing conditions chapter. It describes travel patterns, bicycle, pedestrian, infrastructure, safety data, and it also includes holistic maps of existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Chapter 3 presents the recommended policies and programs and identifies the high priority projects for moving forward in implementing the plan. And then finally, chapter 4 describes how the projects can be implemented. It covers phasing options. It discusses ways to incorporate green infrastructure into roadway improvement projects, and it also summarizes funding opportunities. There are also several appendices, associated with the plan, including appendices that list all of the recommended projects, not just the priority projects. Do you want to make it out? You can go to the next slide. Okay. So, the vision and the guiding principles, I mentioned, um, that was adopted by state council, but it was also brought to this, uh, committee as, as well as the bicycle pedestrian advisory committee. for reviewing comment. I won't read the vision to you, but you can take a look at it. In support of and to implement the vision, we have those 5 guiding principles listed there on the slide. Mobility and connectivity refers to streets that are easy to use, well connected for walking, biking, and rolling. Safety and comfort refers to trails, sidewalks, bikeways, intersections, and crosswalks that are safe, inviting, and easy to use. Access and equity refers to policies and programs that engage and protect vulnerable populations and increased mobility choices. Sustainability and biodiversity refers to green streets that improve access to nature and open spaces. And promote sustainability and need habitats and storm management. And finally, action oriented forward thinking. refers to an implementable plan with clear standards that are updated and aligned with adopted policies. So we referred to these guiding principles in the vision throughout the development of the plan. You can go to the next slide. So quick summary of the internal external engagement activities. Internally, we convened a technical advisory committee to review and comment on the key deliverables. We also formed an external, active transportation, public advisory committee, the app pack, which consisted of community-based organizations, and public agencies such as the county public health department in BCA. They also reviewed and provided comments of key deliver. Uh, we presented the deliverable to the beat path and see as well as the council. Then in terms of engaging the general public. We used a variety of genes, anxiety of events, including, um, multilingual focus groups, walking and biking tours, pop-ups at community events. We had an online map and survey, which received over 600 individual comments. And we also hosted, um, public workshops for people to review, Glan, deliverable, stupid. And you can see some of the pictures, some of the activities here. And go to that slide. Okay. So I mentioned we received over 600 comments. Um, through these engagement activities. And really, the key top line bindings are that Mountain View is already a very active community. Residents want access to key destinations. They want to be able to walk and bike to more places and have safer walking and biking conditions. Um, and the city system for walking and biking is already rather robust, but there are gaps that exist in the network. And so this plan used this input from the community, as well as I mentioned, the data to identify places to make improvements, so we can fill in gaps in the network for both the best advice lists. We can improve the quality of the walking advice and infrastructure and generally increased connectivity across the city and enhance information and comfort, and look for opportunities to incorporate reading, including these projects. Even the next slide. Thanks, Laura. All right, I'm going to show the recommended improvements, the holistic maps that I mentioned earlier, the presentation. Uh, these are in chapter 2 of the plan. This map here is the bicycle, the holistic bicycle network. It includes both existing bikeways. And proposed bikeways. And it was built off the prior planning work, including precise plans and other citywide efforts that identified particular bike wave types for different roadways. We reviewed this and identified gaps that could potentially be closed. And identified, even recommended, different types of bikeway facilities, big fund variables, roadway with, the safety and operational characteristics of the roadway, land uses, and who was expected to use the roadway, for example, students or seniors. The table here describes how many recommended new or upgraded bikeways there are by bike bike type. You can go to the next slide. So for the holistic pedestrian network. The plan includes 2 maps, um, the 1st map is the existing condition. So what pedestrian infrastructure already exists. The 2nd map, the one I'm showing here, are the proposed improvements to pedestrian infrastructure. Just like the bike wave we built off prior planning work. In this case, we focused a lot on the local runway safety plan, the vision 0 plan. Again, we looked at the recommendations and precise plans and the previous pedestrian plan. We identified where there were gaps in the sidewalk network and where there were opportunities to provide crossing improvements. uh, such as new frothings or reducing the growling. You can see here the summary of the pedestrian improvements that are included in plan. I think it's 30 individual locations. As well as several areas for widening, we're providing big sidewalk. One of the night flags. So with that holistic map. Assessment, we ended up with a 100 individual projects. We combined bicycle pedestrian components along a corridor into an individual project. And then we used scoring criteria to support the guiding principles to score those individual projects. The document itself has the criteria and uh, under the, that we use underneath the, the different guiding principles and I can go into that in Q and A if you would like. Um, but essentially we scored all 100 potential projects. We came up with. We were looking for 20 because of ties. We came up with 23 projects that made the cut. And we developed cut sheets, which are included in the planning document, to show what could potentially be done along those corporators. We didn't include cut sheets for the projects that were already, uh, a precise plan or already had worked conducted on them because the designs had already been moved forward a bit, so we didn't want to review work that had already been done. You go to the next flight. Actually, go back one, just one. I just want to mention a point on this. Sorry. In that map. The, the lines are all linear corridors. Can you go back the other way to the map? Oh my gosh, I'm so sorry. I'll talk she does that. I shouldn't I shouldn't have messed up the the system. The lines, it's linear quarters, but I just want to, to make sure folks know that there are crossing improvements included a lot, 4 doors, so uh, in the map that may not pop out as having pedestrian improvements. projects. Yeah. There you go. Thank you. Okay, I'm done talking. You could move forward. Thank you. So the plan also includes several recommendations for new policies or new programs, or in some cases expanded existing programs. I've listed some of these here. We've listed all of them on the slides and again, if we can go into them in Q and A, if you have questions. Um, some of the ones I want to, I want to highlight as what we've seen pop up, uh, repeatedly in community comments are looking at ways that we implement no right on bread. Um, Consideration of pedestrian connectivity, via Paseos, updating the parking standards, can go to the next flight. We've heard several comments on greening and tree canopy improvement. Social blocks, rides and maintenance of the active transportation facility. So you go to the next slide. So, When we talk about implementation, and this is, um, the final chapter of the plan, the plan presents an approach for these priority projects that looks at both a near-term, lower cost way of implementing improvements and a longer-term, higher cost way of implementing improvements. So there's resurfacing, which is the lower cost. This is something done during the seasonal routine maintenance of a roadway. Could include pavement markings, signage. There's opportunities to put in, last 4 elements, but not the type of, you know, not perbs, per se, generally not green infrastructure. And no curb line changes, those improvements. And you can see this, uh, illustrated in this example in number 2 that resurfacing. The 2nd way of implementing this design approach is reconstruction. So this is not something that you can do with the, the standard behaving, the maintenance. This takes a lot longer, but lead time, you're required to do feasibility studies, and more design work. Good, um, so this reconstruction does allow for demolition and rebuild of term lines, it allows for per line adjustments. And the opportunity to provide street trees and other green structure. So for any given projects. You can potentially go from, you know, existing to resurfacing and then to reconstruction. But for a project, if you were to get a grant, opportunity, and move it forward, you could actually skip from one to three. It's just a question of, do you have the money, the staff to pass? Uh, to do the, to do the work, take quite some time. Uh, the implementation plan or the implementation chapter also has uh, several pages describing green streets, the, the benefits and the challenges of implementing green street infrastructure into roadway changes. Um, it talks about the benefits and the trade-offs. It has cost estimates for different types of materials. And, um, provides uh, basic information that'll be helpful for both the city and the public to understand when developing and implementing green infrastructure. So you can go to the next club. Finally, the implementation plan includes section on funding. And uh, we've listed here some of the funding opportunities that are available to the city. Several of these, most of these are competitive grant programs we'd have to apply for. Some of them are funding that the city receives by formula and has a little bit more or less free for people. The plan also talks about the need to collaborate with different agencies when delivering improvements. Central Expressway and El Camino Real are owned by, uh, the county of Santa Clara and Caltrans. And we received a huge number of comments and concerns on that those roadways and intersections along those roadways. The challenge for us is that we don't know those roadways. And so in order to make improvements there, we need to collaborate very close with those agencies and we do do that and we are decision to do that. Caltrain is another agency we need to and are currently collaborating with when we're talking about things. They're larger than the ATP, for example, the grades operations. We need to go to that. Fine. So I just gave an overview of what's in the plan. We presented the plan that you have in your pocket, 2 members of the public. Um, we, uh, made it available to the public on, I believe it was April 20th, and it was out for about a month, on collaborate MV. During that time frame, we held a pedestrian advisory committee meeting where we presented the plan and received comments. We also had a public meeting where we had members of the public attend and provide comments and had a nice discussion about the plan. So the themes and the comments that I'm going to talk about in the next 2 slides are what we received from that very recent public. And we received over 200 individual comments, and that, um, that doesn't represent the total number of people, fewer numbers of people, because people had multiple comments. So, one of the key themes was the VPAC wanted to make sure they could, oh, I'm so sorry. Thank you. Uh, the bicycle pedestrian advisory committee requested that we bring the final plan after we've made changes back to them. And so we have scheduled a review by both the BFA and this committee in August. So you will see the final plan before it goes to city council. There was a desire to strengthen and add to the programs and policies section. There were some questions about, um, policies that were in the digit 0 and the overly safety plan. And so we'll update the plan, the key to make it clear that those 2 plans work together. There was a desire to provide more focus on pedestrian improvements in the active transportation plan. And so we've identified some, we reviewed the plan. We believe that they're strong pedestrian require our improvements and recommendations in the plan, that they could be, the plan could be revised a bit to highlight those others. There were some questions about inconsistencies, particularly on the cutsheets for the priority

[00:33:50] Assistant Public Works Director Boyer: projects, and so they can go

[00:33:52] Unknown Speaker: in and make sure those are the narratives and. drawings are consistent. Can you go to the next slide? And there was a desire for us to better highlight how the active transportation plan. And, um, specifically, we'll add some language about how it can uh, coordinate the biodiversity and urban forest plan and other sustainability. There was also a request to add performance methods, and how it comes, and to, uh, report back on how well we are doing a different plan. So we're going to be adding languages, policies, program section that. And I did not include it in here. It was an oversight. There was, um, desire for us to add some difficult decisions to the plan, including an existing traditions, uh, report that we, Brought to the B pack several years ago, so we are revising that, updating it. Well, not updating, but revising it. And are planning on everything like that. So, With that, you go to

[00:35:08] Committee Member John McAlister: the net slide, please.

[00:35:11] Unknown Speaker: Terms of the timeline, um, for the last, the tail end of the plan, I mentioned the community engagement that we did in April, May, we are here in that sunflower colored line in June. After we received the comments here from you and any members of the public staff are going to produce the month of the rest of June and the month of July, to revise and update the plan so that we can deliver a final plan, to be packed, to the CTC, to the public, and to council for adoption. September. So, we are, the end of my presentation, we are here tonight to request that, let's see, review and comment on the public draft. If

[00:36:03] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: I may before, um, the committee's, um, deliberate, the committee in the public. Um, I just wanted to note that I'm sure Hicks is now present in all committee members. And, uh... So, with

[00:36:26] Chair Alison Hicks: that, um, the next question is, do any members of the committee have questions on? I

[00:36:37] Committee Member John McAlister: submit it's... I didn't get a chance to read that. Um, my questions. Yes. Let's step down. So, um, I've read them. So, I

[00:37:04] Chair Alison Hicks: guess we could proceed in one of several ways. Um, remember McAllister, you could, uh, summarize a question or 2 or?

[00:37:13] Committee Member John McAlister: No, I'm not going. Yeah, I follow up on some of the questions I did. Okay, let's put this in context. Where I'm coming from, so. Oh. So this starts 2022. What's been going on? Uh, new terminology, new focus on certain a lot of things. So, coming into it. sort of. Okay, what's what's going on? Still getting my footing. So my perspective will be different than what these folks have had. So, it's, it's, so it's just trying to help me analyze it so going forward. And my position on the council, what I look for, the entire city of 85000 and how we use our limited funds to projections of like that. You know, I'm data driven. And I always like to see that to justify your project. Uh, and type myself. That being said, I'll follow in love with a few of my questions. Uh, And I have some of this, we can take offline. So I had a one ticket. Well, one question. The uh. I don't know, take the order. There was one street put on your list of Carol. I've been watching Carol. I think I've been watching it for over 65 years. I grew up in that area, when it was town. Has anybody? Because you were proposing 2 sidewalks on both sides. And one of my questions is... That it's. Yeah. I can save it comments. Well, I'll save that. So, I

[00:39:28] Unknown Speaker: think we would, we would need to go back into some of the, the project files to understand if we wanted to walk on it, plant on that area. Um, get addressed with Carol. But one of the things I want to note is that at his master plan level like this, the recommendations are based on generally data that we have, say, GIS, maps, information that we can evaluate at a city wide level. So looking at the width of roadways, looking at the destinations, for example, parallelist school, and I believe that is why the recommendations put in for the sidewalks. And when the city moves forward with a project, they'll use the mask on our own. It's starting point. Needs to validate. Can it? So there are going to be opportunities as a project to explore. For us to work that addition to the actual conditions on the ground. Um, and We may need to revise some of the recommendations. But this is our very good estimate, what we believe is impossible, given the data sources, given the fact that we're doing it at a city level. So,

[00:40:45] Committee Member John McAlister: one of those prioritations. I'm sorry. Plus, you're gonna wait until you get to that point you're ready to do it. Usually walk the east side. review. Yeah, you're right. So the general view that you plan to go over the top point through. Just validate. That would be great.

[00:41:08] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: Yeah, as we bring them on it online as part of the CIP process and start funding individual projects, we could identify more, um, the exact scope about fees. Okay.

[00:41:20] Committee Member John McAlister: Also ask the question. Uh, lending major roadways. I asked the question about. You know, public transit, again, being big picture, our shuttle. And it was that. You show the runs, but was it, maybe it wasn't the place to make the discussion, but I would think, our goal is somebody said to get people out of the cars. I think this would be an overriding consideration is that if we get our show going. A lot of these projects. Well, accomplish, and settle, accomplish a lot of concerns. So that's why I didn't see anything same. You know, if we do this, you know, if we put more money into public transit. This will solve this problem. So. That was a question. Okay. If I get still coming, let me stop because I don't want to be interested coming. And

[00:42:21] Assistant Public Works Director Boyer: the focus of this active transportation was on bike and pedestrian. Uh, Transportation, relapse in a lot of different ways with, you know, our VLTDM, we have the active presentation, we will be evaluating the shuttle moving forward. Um, Shuttles are difficult when somebody wants to just sit down the road to go to the library quickly. By the time they wait for the shuttle, they could have gotten on their bike, got there, or maybe. But stroller onto the shuttle is not as easy as walking there. Um, We want to make sure. wide transportation approach, but we will get to do. Um, the

[00:43:14] Committee Member John McAlister: other question there was, I asked about the benchmark, number of comments that were considered delay. Particular item. And I said, what is the high concentration? You mentioned, that you use the heat map to identify location, that high concentration. I was trying to quantify it for me. Because it's considered, uh, I, uh, the friction comments. 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, So,

[00:43:40] Chair Alison Hicks: um, we reached out to the consultant who had developed the map to understand the math behind developing that map. Uh, we received about approximately 600 conference, right? And the consultant took those 600 comments and basically broke it into equal groups of three. So higher areas would say, have, um, you know, a few 100 comments to 100 comments too. If that makes sense. I don't know if we have.

[00:44:14] Committee Member John McAlister: You put a heat map up there. And I was just wondering how. Right, right. The

[00:44:18] Chair Alison Hicks: heat mountain, so it's a relative rather than an absolute number, if I can explain it. So it's it, what the way the math is developed is you take the individual points where people had a question and a comment. And then you see how many points are in that area, and you blend together into what you saw as the heat map. Lauren, this is you, Tracy, do you want to come in? Because you were the,

[00:44:42] Nelson Nygaard Project Manager McMillan: Yeah, this is Tracy from Nelson Dygart and they developed the maps. Hi everyone, how are you? Uh, the the heat map, as Lauren was discussing that is presenting the, the challenging the, in the sense, the density, of responses that any given area within the city. Um, But. I'm sorry, I just had a brain charge of the word I was looking for. Recede. That it. Received. Any given area, uh, in the city received. That was during the existing conditions component of the project that we conducted this uh, mapping activity. Uh, it also contained all comments that have come in through um, ASMV and uh, as well as comments from walk audits, small group meetings and all the engagement activities that we conducted are compiled in that map. Um, so, the, as a heat map works, the higher concentration of comments that, um, came in in any given area. Um, is reflected in the heat map by a darker color. And if it's a lighter color, then it was a lower concentration of comments. Uh, we'd have to go back into the, Um, the map itself to look at the, the absolute number of comment for any one given area. Um, but again, the map reflects the, um, number of comments through the intensity of the color for any given area. And then what Lauren was referring to in terms of 3, um, relatively equal groups was referring to the, um, when a project was scored, um, community, the density of community comments, in the area of the project was one of the scoring, uh, criteria. So if an area had a high density, if a project area had a high density of community comments. Um, that put it into the 3rd, like the highest category of community comments in a given area, then it received the highest uh, school point for that particular category. So I think you had comment, you had questions, um, regarding the map and then also the scoring criteria. on it. I

[00:47:29] Committee Member John McAlister: want to try to sense get a sense of how you got how this plan was all. And it was 20 comments, was it 100 comments? I would like to know how many comments became higher density or low density. So. We

[00:47:44] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: can, we can figure that out. But I guess the heat map is a translation of the number of comments relative to each other, and you're wanting the absolute... for the death seat of the area. We can forget that for you. Yeah, okay, thank you. Um. And

[00:47:59] Committee Member John McAlister: then, There was, um, Oh, no, California Street, Street program. I asked if there was a midway progress report, and you'll set it post construction. So, there is no midway. It's important, it's just a game that you'll have a report. So, I mean, so, let either,

[00:48:27] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: either one, uh, Ed or Robert, jump in here, but, because it is a pilot, we are taking pre count numbers and post, uh, count numbers with that data, a determination will be made and we will see how that, uh, change the area and the use and and make it. And that will be reported out. And understanding is at the end of the summer really fall, time frame is we finish collecting the data. Okay, so...

[00:49:01] Committee Member John McAlister: And... Hey, one comes about. The, uh, Or question. Question that. And I guess I'd also reply to number of accidents and so forth. Oh, the evaluation of infrastructure projects. And it was, came with that. So, I asked, well, this, has this been done yet or is it going to work? Because it was supposed to say, did it, uh, Did it, actually, the project actually get the intended impact of the travel meeting? So, caps, there's, there's gonna go aboard, like it. So, it says, ask some other points, and post construction. Is that gonna be part policy then? That is one of our recommendations. And other questions, sir, technical. Yeah, we're getting the final review in August. The Packers. What do you... Spectral estimate, CTC. Since it's a final project. So, we're

[00:50:19] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: taking all the comments that we see. We're going to incorporate them in the plan. We will bring it the plan to both BPAC CCC prior to going to council. So we will be looking for recommendations on CTC that can also adopt the final. Active transportation.

[00:50:34] Committee Member John McAlister: So that will include, but you'll just, we'll accept the document. You're not looking for any additional information, or corrections, or thoughts on that without. Not

[00:50:44] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: at that time, unless there's some glaring issue. Uh,

[00:50:49] Committee Member John McAlister: and then my one question that I said, I would ask, figure 14. Thank you. Thanks, District Crossing. Understood how. What do you mean, from the process? It's from outside the street, so. No,

[00:51:13] Chair Alison Hicks: it's the, it's the blank of a roadway between places where pedestrians are really. So it's basically blockland. Okay,

[00:51:21] Committee Member John McAlister: so I see a lot of blue, 500 feet. Okay, I'm just looking at my neighborhood and I said, so I see a lot of blue. Then it's a distance between pedestrian crossing system. Are these, uh, marked processings? No,

[00:51:36] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: it just means where you are legally allowed to cross, so it wouldn't be classified as jaywalking, right? So at the corner of your block, you can cross at a legal. Okay. So the idea is some of the bigger stretches, an example would be a rank store, right? Which we're working on right now as a project. There are some very long stretches where there is no way for a pedestrian to cross from one side of the street to the other. And so that's, that's what that link is. It's identifying where those gaps are in our pedestrian network. Okay,

[00:52:06] Committee Member John McAlister: no, that yeah, that makes sense. Of course, I'm looking at it. Those are the my questions for me. I was 0 questions. Council

[00:52:15] Chair Alison Hicks: number tonight. Okay. Um. And organize myself. Okay. So, um, we received quite a few different letters with a bunch of different comments. And so I just wanted to give that opportunity. So, for example, a letter that, um, the committee received from, um, not,

[00:52:41] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: it was middle school district, have, like,

[00:52:42] Chair Alison Hicks: 5 items, they could highlight, I don't know, sound like, Comment

[00:52:46] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: on any of those, or would it be similar to, I guess I'm

[00:52:50] Chair Alison Hicks: trying to understand how we will corporate the comets. So you shared with us, Steve Cat. Um. But we've also gotten, uh, they're coming, I can try that. Yeah,

[00:53:02] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: so I'll just what I say. The comments that we summarized were what we received during outreach. So it wasn't just PPAC comments. Those are comments we received from, uh, collaborating V of APAC, our outreach meeting. We also had our app pack. So our acronyms at pack and pack are included in these. Yeah. I will say the letter is newer than this list that we provided, but we will go back through those that we were trying to, um, categorize the comments received in 2 kind of thieves, and they're, they, they seem to fall in these same provings, and I think that the letter from the school district is similar. Um, We, it has obviously a focus more on the schools and getting the kids safely to school. safe rounds to school is a program that we will continue to support and we'll be bringing to PPAC and everything and CTC later. Fiscal year. Um, but, It was part of our scoring criteria, it, those projects have, um, risen to the, the top of our priority list and will incorporate those complaints, as we lose. I think, you know, the, and

[00:54:16] Chair Alison Hicks: I was just going back because I think the 18th, well, I don't know, but the, the ATP does reference safe routes to school. Um, Perhaps, just, I'm trying to think about, I know we have our safe routes to school program. We also have the ATP we're trying to adopt. The staff feel that it kind of peppered throughout the document is the best round, or just I think that providing like a little section, that's a safer school that puts like kind of encompasses. I just looked at stuff because I think when people think of the ATP, they might, and what I, that's the comment too much, but the ATP is very readable. And

[00:55:04] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: so I wonder if there might be if stuff is open to like a callout section on that. Absolutely. Since we got. Yeah, and we can do that. We also have education as part of our policy or policies and programs that we want to continue to promote, not just in the schools, but throughout the city. Um, I will say our safe house to school program has not been adopted by council. So we will be bringing that next year with for adoption. Um, So with that, uh, we're hoping to exist, but it's not adopted. It was, yeah, we sorry. question? Yeah, so I've been identified as a program. And a priority, but was the plan has was never adopted. So we will be bringing that to council. We're going to strengthen it and bring it to council as an adoption to ensure that it would continue to separate funding as we move forward. So it wasn't adopted as in conjunction with our vision 0 plan. No, they're separate. Vision 0 and local roads and safety are paired together. Okay. Yeah, all right. Yeah. Thanks. Okay. Sorry, fishing. I've never heard of that, but I do have... Oh, yeah. Yeah. There are a lot of smaller transportation plans to help us try and wrap our arms around transportation city. I would put those 3 together in my mind. They have the same PMs. usually. Yeah, well that's probably why. I thought we had adopted that. Okay. Um, I had a, uh,

[00:56:34] Chair Alison Hicks: question about, um, how the ATP can address the, last, was the last mile issue that I think the city's been facing for a very long time. So one of the things in here is about or one of how the question. Um, was, uh, related to our sharing programs. So, um, I know that we, our bike share program, is open for applications, but we haven't received any, but we have received a scooter share, is staff seeing that people are, mode shifting from like 5 share to scooter share programs. Is that just like the current climate? Does that health address, the half mile issue a little bit better? Sorry, just kind of that broad. Yeah, I

[00:57:25] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: wouldn't say that it's one or the other, but what we have found is the vendors want to be able to provide both at the same time. So, um, It's not one or the other, but they want to do both. And right now, there is the moratorium on the scooter share program. So we're in the process of updating that. We're hoping that with the update of an. Repealing of that that will hopefully get both bikes and scooters back. Um. When talking

[00:57:59] Chair Alison Hicks: about the dining physical, um, related to, sorry, the 513 and I was trying to find. All about HP. So when we're talking about access and equity, stuff to find kind of the rubric, I see. Um, So when we're talking about the guiding principle, What does access and equity move through the lab of the 18th? So I, it's in the appendix in appendix A, if you want to take a look at it. Um, access and equity is defined, uh, key or independence and see if it's appendix. It's

[00:58:43] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: in this, there was one attachment to this, all in one. Yeah. And I don't actually,

[00:58:48] Chair Alison Hicks: it would be page 79 in the media. So it uses 3 table one, table one. Yeah, it uses 3 scoring criteria, so the 1st one is supporting lower income consonants. And you can see under the metrics what it looks at. It's US census data and it's looking at household income. It also looks at filling a gap and it makes a sidewalk network by Carol. So that's a yes no, right? That's a yes no. And the reason why that's, I mean, that's under access, but it's also under equity because that's absolutely perpetition of the devices. And then it also looks at whether it fills a gap in all HSN abilities bicycle. And so that would be the lowest bus network. Yeah, so class more bike waves or, um, class 2 bike lanes on low off streets or bicycle. All ages abilities by ways. How do you feel? ATP? Like, one of the things I was like reflecting on is, um, I like the guiding principle. I think when it comes to the school, uh, scoring criteria, I think it doesn't necessarily feel like there's, yeah, safety, when it comes to access, in fact, particular for some of the neighborhoods that may fall into foreign, the 1st scoring criteria, when I'm talking about, of course, or income residents. So they might be in, um, higher volume, like, European, where the safety, you know, as famous. And so I just wasn't sure how we can incorporate that into the accent that I can go for, um, You know, we've been trying to make improvements on, like, California, brewing store, but I think the speed switch cars go, um, they still feel like an impediment to, I forget the categorization, but you know, like, there's the confident biker, the less company. Sorry, I'm interested but concerned, maybe. Yeah, and I, those folks might always... Um, Or in the area, whoa, and I don't know how we can talk about how we're doing the ATP, we're making people. I just feel like that's a, yeah, but I don't know if you feel that feels like that ATP can address that in a different dining principle or how we might address that. We can circle back to it, but I just thought part of the, the ATP is, uh, address mode shift, but it's also, I think, ideally away from, I feel more confident or safe to do so, and I'm just trying to figure out, and to me, that's a bit of, like, activity for everyone to feel that, you know, some neighborhoods you may feel safer to do so than in others. Um, I'm not sure how. So, Go on. The scoring criteria also includes the safety and comfort. uh, guiding principle, and that, that uses data that directly addresses crash history and other safety concerns. Um, like the 2nd. Yeah, the 2nd the 2nd one. So if you think about few projects that are exactly the same with all the other scoring, except for the access and equity, particularly lower income, with the scoring metric, the, the, the project that is in the lower income neighborhood will. Okay, if that makes sense, as we're looking, if the projects are exactly the same. And as we're looking at, at ATP to be able to inform, CIP. Correct.

[01:02:57] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: Also, I would add, it's not exactly the same, but there's also the supporting under mobility and connectivity. There's also school children, so if it's within a certain, uh, uh, radius of the school. So it's not. It's kind of peppered throughout. It's so weird, but I just, you know, I think that's one of the

[01:03:18] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: themes that I was thinking about. Yeah. The other thing I would, I do, look here is how many maximum points do you have for each guiding principle. So for the, for the access and equity guiding towards people, the maximum of 27 points. And then for the safety and comfort, it's a. So in this situation, safety and comfort, ways heavier can access equity, but those are really that and then mobility activity, which is 22 points. Those are really the top we've been looking at. And

[01:03:58] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: the scoring criteria went through BPAC CTC council. Yeah. It's just... Yeah, last year.

[01:04:07] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: Yeah, it's very actual compared to that between him and forward with other, as we were scoring operations, board projects. And I'm thinking too, like, how does this document or make, or the guiding principles are current, but also future, as we're adopting project after project in relation to the housing element, you know, and I'm also thinking about how the 10th school site is going forward and the infrastructure that we can create there to, um, Make it up. Mhm. I figured

[01:04:48] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: it. Yes,

[01:04:49] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: most questions. Yes.

[01:04:50] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: And then,

[01:04:51] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: and then lastly, others. Exactly had a question about the funding and collaboration. So, um, one of the things that, what this is about, coordination related to funding, but how, um, might we be able to highlight, like, coordination related to projects? But sometimes a user is on a city street that goes county that goes to. I was thinking about the comments we did that, even reasonable for relatives about their user experience on certain, um, areas. They are moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. How do we? There a way. And we can address that in the ATP or make that work. How do we share that with residents? So, yeah, because I think sometimes the feedback comes our way, but they're able to do anything because it's okay right away, yeah, right away, um, they're traversing over the county expressway onto the city street. Um, And must have ATP, even my job. soccer address that or how do we, because I feel like that's a, like that. So

[01:06:03] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: we looked at the projects together, right? You know, a person is going to travel and process this. From helping me now and. Um. What? Where it would have been affected if they might have scored so as high and how quickly we could deliver the project. So it doesn't mean we didn't consider these projects. It's just. It it makes a project a little. Uh, We will continue to look at them, a lot of them are on our, our business streets that are used more regularly. So, uh, they're, It's, it's part of the projects. The reality is, we are in an area where we are crossing, um, other jurisdictions. So we will continue to work and partner with agencies to deliver these projects. They ask is just that there's some patience and understanding that they're not as easy as the projects that are solely for jurisdiction. Um, we do also have in their the scoring criteria gap. Um, completion. It's not quite the same thing, but it's where, you know, you have a route from Sunnyvale that drops you into not the same title. Uh, an example would be what's happening, happening along Evelyn. Sunnyvale's in the process of completing Evelyn. We're going to pick it up and try and complete it on our end. So we will continue to work with projects like that as well through this process. We think that we

[01:07:33] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: could in the, like, the different, like, I know the different jurisdictions are called out, but could be called, like, as an appendix, like, contact information for the different jurisdiction, like, different entities for the, like, I don't know. I just. I'm gonna ask. I'm gonna ask the, why, the benefit of putting a contact information? Well, I think in, because

[01:08:02] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: I think we highlighted it and we touch upon it, but the

[01:08:05] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: city. Because of, Because our roadway is so shared, I think that residents often express comments and do not know where to turn. And if this is an active transportation plan, it made, I think it would be helpful for an appendency to say like our collaborative partner. Oh, this is like their website. You know, we're like, have a question about, or whatever, right? I, I, I, almost like, you know, like, way finding, but for like, right? But in a different type of way finding. And so I think one of the things we've been trying to do is in our education is make it easier for our residents to understand what the resources are, what the roots are, et cetera, you know, and part of it is, what are the different partners. They can understand some of the constraints we're under because, um, Yeah. Okay, that helps. That helps to understand the background like that. Um, I mean, it's just a question. Is that what you add to it, but if not, that would be. Um, and then, um, We can look into it. The reason why I asked the question is I didn't know if something like that would be a plan that's not going to be updated very frequently, right? Because those things sometimes change. So maybe it's another mechanism. There might be another way to share the information. And that's fine too. I'm just asking staff because I feel like recently. There's just been a chick in comments that I've been receiving. And so, you know, and I live in a neighborhood where I'm walking through some real station, but like, you know, I think there's different things people are experiencing and I, and I want to have a more satisfactory. I want residents to feel like they have a more satisfactory cancer and I want to provide a vehicle for that. So I'm just asking them, what you might think, as we're talking about adopting them. If there's a room there, somewhere else. Um, before what it has that. Yeah. Those are my questions. Thank you. Okay. Okay

[01:10:22] Chair Alison Hicks: Think of more while I'm asking. Um, So, my question's the good thing about going last is a lot of good questions have been asked. First, I'm going to circle back and ask in a slightly different way what member Kamai said about how we incorporate these latest comments. Um, because I think people, we and the various people who send us letters, groups, mostly, um, over the past day or 2, uh, have put a lot of thought and work into it, and I want to make sure that it, that we have a rip to capture that work and not just have it all flipped away somewhere. And so, um, at the same time, often we take strong holes for this kind of thing, and I think there may be 2 men, I, I'm asking for your suggestions, but I think, you know, we may come up with 30 different. Can you include this and can you include that and it may not be best to stroke hold on all of those? Um, I'm thinking that a possible rubric would be, I thought you had excellent categories. Um, you know, when you, the categories, I forget how many there were, maybe five. Um, and they were... The names of the category, that's specific. But they were, uh, more on pedestrianism, uh, more on metrics, more on including sustainability, and there were several others. Perhaps we could put our, our comments under those categories and you could consider them, but not, for example, like member Kume's latest, um, comments slash question, which I fully supportive. Uh, you know, giving a little more information on our adjacent and regional agencies, transportation agencies. Um, you know, maybe that, it feels to me like you don't, like we don't have to vote on that and you say yes or no tonight, but it could be put under some rubric, one of the titles. And then you go back and side, whether it's possible, impossible or possible to do in a slightly different way, that member may suggest it. Is that? What? We're not voting right. But I want to make sure that the comments don't evaporate. So do you have any suggestions to make sure that is putting them under those categories? Is that helpful? Do

[01:12:56] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: you have another? I think that's helpful if there are broader categories that you think you should all... I think that would also be very difficult. Okay.

[01:13:07] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: Yeah, I think we've received, I, we receive a high volume of comments for these categories. So if there's something you think is saying that would be really helpful for us to make sure that that gets included in the plan. Uh, And then, yes, if there's specific additional comments, yeah, to these, um, And I have to think on the way to convey back to public where they're going to draft. I think, I think we've come up with some, you know, very clear ways how we plan on consuming the land cycle that sees that, but I hear you and making sure that they understand that we received the comments and, um, blogging those appropriately. Yeah, yeah, I don't know. Okay, yeah,

[01:13:55] Chair Alison Hicks: good. I don't think I have to ask on any further. Um. So, and then I have a question. Um, I agreed with the the people who commented on, uh, that the plan could be stronger in terms of pedestrianism. Um, and uh, related to that. Um, In particular, there's an area that talks, I'm going to come up this question from multiple animals. So, I don't see, I see a, there's a table with a minimum of different language and sidewalk width, and it says that sidewalks would be minimum. But a minimum of 5 feet. Um, I, and then it said sidewalk should be widened in certain places. My, um, experienced widening sidewalks is that one of the big triggers is building height. And this relates to a council member, can I comment on, We, in large part, the, um, the ATPs in about conditions now, but we expect conditions to change. And then you also mentioned, Things that have been specified in precise plans are not specified here. But I'm still left wondering how we're addressing, um, because not all additional building height will be in, um, size plan areas. So, how we're addressing the need for, like, I'm a huge, I a huge advocate for improved pedestrianism. I don't think every sidewalk needs to be more than 5 feet in the whole city. I even think unincorporated areas can have no sidewalks sometimes. So, what? Is there a mechanism anywhere in here for higher building and denser development to trigger wider sites? Because

[01:15:55] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: I didn't catch. I'm trying to understand your question just a little bit more clearly. By higher buildings, you mean. I'm sorry, this is me being the engineer here. Are you talking where the building hits the sidewalk or are you talking that there's just more people in a building and so therefore more need for sidewalks where there's more people. Okay, yes. Okay, if we, I just wanted to clarify that. 100

[01:16:16] Chair Alison Hicks: foot warehouse in the middle of a single family neighborhood, which I don't want us to do, but if we were, it would not need more sidewalks. Right. But yeah, okay. We have got it. No, my story apartments. Um, they are what, because the changes or, you know, go to Chicago, they have 30 foot sidewalks because they have, because it's next to a tall bill. Yeah,

[01:16:40] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: okay. Sorry, I just needed to understand they're a little bit more. So, yes, you're correct. If there's a precise plan, we're not trying to change a precise plan. The intent is when those projects come on board, we follow or come online, we would follow them. As projects, um, are identified in the CIP of becoming a project, the plan is that they'll go through transportation planning first, that will involve outreach, that will involve conversations with our CDD partners, um, and others in the, Understanding what's going to happen and what we expect to happen based on zoning and just the conditions that we see, um, housing element changes, whatnot. Before we kick this project off, the 1st thing we will be doing is validating that the assumption's and the ATP are still correct. This is a plan that will probably be updated between every 5 to 10 years. Mountain View is going to change a lot in the next 5 to 10 years. And a project that isn't touched until you're eight. The assumptions will likely have changed. And so the 1st thing we will do as we bring these projects on board is do that validation. Talk to the neighbors as, you know, is it the street parking? Is it the sidewalks and just identifying what the intent for buildout is in that area and if zoning has changed, housing element affects that area. So, um, where the 5 foot comes into play, as that is the current, um, recommended standard for the city, as new projects are coming online. Um, new developments in our right away are being asked to put it 5 foot side blocks. So, We're not just going to create a project just wide a sidewalk. 5 feet

[01:18:18] Chair Alison Hicks: I think what I'm asking an addition to this is, is there, anywhere, I didn't see anywhere in the ATP of recognition that as we densify, which we're doing a great deal of, and we're doing a great deal of through the housing element and through legislation, from Sacramento, for example, SB 79. I see no reference anywhere to the fact that when you densify, when you add more people. You need wider sidewalks in the areas that you're densified. Unless everybody has an underground garage and a car. Um, So, I see not a sound in here about that, but I, I read a lot. So, maybe it is in there and that's what I'm asking. Is it in there anyway anyway? It's not. Okay, it is not in there in that. And that, and that's. Yeah. Yeah. And I don't think, well, now I'm going, but I don't think we wait until. The 20 foot building is built MSF, and then say, we do more than a preference anymore. Okay. So that was one question. Um, and then. Uh, my 2nd question. So also in that same table of minimum lanes and sidewalks and so forth. It said that the minimum roadway lane was 11 feet. But I'm reading Nacto guidelines and also hearing that El Camino Royale has narrower. So why is our minimum, when I'm hearing about 910, 10.5 . Why is our active transportation plan arguing for a minimum level? So 11 feet

[01:20:02] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: is what is needed for trash trucks. Buses. Emergency vehicles. So if there is only one lane provided, and then there's a vertical barrier, they need that space to transit. I'm not going to say that that's an everywhere situation, but that is our starting point for most projects. If there are multiple lanes like on El Camino, um, they do go down to 10 feet, but at least one of those lanes is on the 11th lane. So if we have multiple lanes, we will definitely at, um, Shrinking the lane width. But 11 feet, what we used for our planning purposes, again, because we don't have exact survey data everywhere, so we also didn't want to put in a 10 foot lane, then we get out there and now we have a 9 foot lane and I can't get the trash truck through or the BT bus can't make it through. So, um, it is our starting off point. It doesn't mean that we can't look at areas where tech feet make sense, but we're starting with 11 feet as our.

[01:21:05] Chair Alison Hicks: So to me, the, if you say 11 feet. It doesn't even say 11 feet is the minimum for lands that are going to have emergency vehicles. It says that it reads that it's the minimum for all roadways. So, maybe, I mean, I'm bleeding into comments, but perhaps we could, there could be 2 lines, one for emergency vehicles and one for. Second, 2nd, 3rd flight, which I hope. Can

[01:21:34] Unknown Speaker: I ask a clarifying question? Are you referring to table 2 the basis of design that is? Oh, thank you. Yeah, it's a little hard to see that. So that's in Appendix B, which talks about the pet sheet development. Right. So just so everyone knows, this was the basis of design that we used when we were developing concept plans for the priority project. So that the table just describes these are the parameters we were looking at when we were estimating what we thought would fit in each of these corridors. So it's not for everything, but it's for

[01:22:10] Chair Alison Hicks: those cut sheets. Examples. Okay, since I'm asking questions, I'm not going to go into it. Great detail on how it confuses me. Uh, okay, so, and I generally thought I was great, by the way, it feels bad to start with questions because it's always the parts that you love to believe this out of, you know, that 100s of days. Um, So. Also, now, I know what your answer should be to me on this, is that I voted for it, so, um, but also, uh, in scoring, uh, priority projects, there's a category of safety and comfort. And, To me, the, For me, one of the largest elements of safety and comfort, and this actually links to council member commits question on equity, because it's also what you find most in the lower income areas of mountain human propheticities as well, is a lack of shape, to the point that you just feel like you can't walk anywhere. Um, yeah, that, I mean, I would say that's almost the number one thing that stops me and people who refuse to walk. Uh, places, uh, is, um, you know, a lack of shade. So I was a little confused about why that didn't, it appears somewhere else. It appears under, I think, biodograph. I think under biography. But I actually think, I actually think this is a problem that runs through all of our plants. We talk about biodiversity for animals, which I'm all for. Uh, head of means of people. And I really think that in terms of trees, we're doing it mostly. So the people in low income areas, the law courses. I mean, I have to say, the place people refuse to walk with me most is when I go to visit my friends who live in an affordable house of development. I know, because there's not any strangers. on large scratches. So, that was a, I guess. That's a question. Why is, Why is shade not a part of the comfort? You can tell me because I voted for it that way. I

[01:24:41] Assistant Public Works Director Boyer: don't know that I have a great answer for you. I'm gonna be really honest. I think that greening has just always, by default, gone into sustainability. Um, I'm not saying that that's the right answer. Um, I do think. That you're correct that it, that a mind should change when we're talking about active transportation is probably necessary, but it, for this one, it, uh, under sustainability. Oh, I like that answer really a lot. Um, you know, I think we've always always just thought of greening is how we make something more sustainable or it's part of our greenhouse gas or something of that nature, and I think we just need to understand that there needs to be a shifted kind of the approach as

[01:25:28] Chair Alison Hicks: we develop these projects. Okay, that's that's fabulous answer because I really think we need to think a bit of how it's useful or not useful at all. Um, and then, this is, Getting towards my last question. Uh, Can you tell me, this may relate to, uh, a member McAllister's question on how, uh, when you're gonna walk the streets and know, because on some of them, the conditions really change block, or even within one block. Um, So the one I'm thinking of that I'm really familiar with, but I think it, I think that many of the streets are probably in this condition, is um, Latham. I used to when I had children in grade school, which was. I would take them down, um, the downtown to Castro school all along Latham. If I read the ATP right, it says that that's going to be, um, the sidewalks are going to be wife. But in many, in much of that, not all, because it really changes. Even mid blocket changes. If we lighten the sidewalks, 1st I don't think sidewalks need to be wide there because because I have never experienced walking to school, I've never experienced that or we scooted out of school. I never experienced any problems with complex with anyone or difficulty using it. But secondly, if you won the sidewalk, you're going to either take away somebody's front yard, which I don't think is going to happen. Or you're going to take out the planning strip on the trees, which I also don't think is going to happen. Or you're going to take out the parking, which is also probably not, not going to happen because there's not a lot of parking there and there's cars all over the place. So I don't understand how and where that street is going to be wide. Or not streams. sorry. Wear that sidewalk. It's one of the main places that it says there's going to be sidewalk widening all along the way, but honestly, I don't see it. I don't see. Um, So,

[01:27:44] Assistant Public Works Director Boyer: I'm looking at the cross section for Latham, which I'm assuming is where this combination is coming from. Um, where it is coming from, it doesn't mean it needs to happen this way and we would evaluate it as we go through because widening a sidewalk is not a cheap endeavor. Um, but Latham currently has a 12 foot lane and an 8 foot parking strip. And so the end result would be an 11 foot lane and an 8 foot. Parking strips. So you, you end up with one foot on each side, so they have given it to the sidewalk. From the lanes. The idea is in narrowing the road you're slowing the traffic down. We can explore other ways to use that 2 foot buff. Um, as we look at it. And does that make sense?

[01:28:36] Chair Alison Hicks: It does, except when you're actually there. Uh, you would be taking out all their trees and removing their planet. Yeah, so I don't know. I mean, yeah, piece of paper, it sounds good, but in reality, I think... Yeah. Yeah.

[01:28:55] Assistant Public Works Director Boyer: And so that would happen as part of our validation.

[01:28:58] Chair Alison Hicks: So, okay. Yeah, so I'm... That was the street. I super. There's also, There are other places along there. One is like a civic block next to Eagle Curve, with beautiful breeze. I don't think we're going to take them out and buy the sidewalk and there's very few people. So there's no need for it. Yes, I don't, I

[01:29:20] Assistant Public Works Director Boyer: don't think we would take away our greeting. Right. To Adam, a foot. That is, if we're prioritizing our, our, uh, as we're moving through this, uh, with one, one photo sidewalk with is not going to go, sort of, with a big, uh, stored, or trees, or, any, a tree canopy, or, in general. We are not going to replace impervious area with perfect area. Yes, is these engineering

[01:29:49] Chair Alison Hicks: way of saying. There's

[01:29:50] Assistant Public Works Director Boyer: no reason to widen that sidewalk. No. So, so, I

[01:29:55] Chair Alison Hicks: believe, okay, so I will not go into grown ups on that. Um, and let's see, I had any more. Um, I guess my last question is that maybe. Maybe you kind of answered this. How or when do we go from the resurfacing improvements? To the reconstruction improvements? Um, because the reconstruction improvements were really good and added canopy made, sidewalks and bike lanes. Uh, usable, which, I believe, with, you know, extreme heat, they want, pretty much at all. Um, and some. So those are great, but are they so like, how do we ever get there? Are they really type dreams? Are they, are we going to end up in the, in the resurfacing area where everything has follered everywhere and we never get any trees or how do you see that? So

[01:30:57] Assistant Public Works Director Boyer: right now, the quickest way for us to do, reconstruction project is getting either grants or funding from other partners. An example would be the rank store from great, uh, the rain store project that we just kicked off recently in transportation, that includes, um, Caltrans money that helped us do the design and planning for that. Another example would be our Evelyn portion, which we just recently got a. The measure B. BK? It's a VT measure. Planning for it. So, so, what is really nice about these cut sheets is it shows that we have public engagement. It shows that we have a plan and it helps us as we go for these funding grant applications that are competitive. Those are too big of 2 big scoring areas. And so we will continue to go after a lot of those to help. Um. Excelerate, though the process is so long, those projects. Um, in the interim. Robert will have his annual paving projects and the goal is to, to make, to continually make things better as we're going through this process. I'll add to. That's

[01:32:18] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: the simple words, director, boy, boy. Answer it. Robert Gonzalez, principal civil engineer, civil infrastructure group. So along with looking for opportunities on the grant side. I'll just explain a little bit about the pavement maintenance side to see what opportunities that provides as well. Um, so when a when a street segment is 1st placed, it's at 100% museum. And the, the goal here, from a, from a city perspective, is to maintain the condition of that for as long as possible before you get to a state of deterioration where it's failing, kind of trigger or reconstruction. So in between the time where it's newly construct, and the time where it's failing, from a pavement management perspective. You want that as long as possible. You want to preserve that. We are doing overlays and preservative treatments all along the way, 5 years, 10 years as the need arises. You're doing the cracked ceiling, snakes on the ground, you're doing a slurry seal, you're doing a cape seal. You're doing all kinds of these maintenance efforts, such that you delay that. So, that's the, the, on my side of the coin. I want to delay that so I can preserve that infrastructure at the end, but at the very end of that, yes, there will be a point where the PCI gets to a point where I cannot do any more maintenance to that road without reconstructing it and that would that would trigger these cross seconds as you see them. If we're going to do a reconstruction, then we would be pulling this out and say, well, what opportunities do we have to deliver these, these impressions? So there's a search. There's obviously 2 conditions here that are. We're talking against one is maintaining the condition of pavement, and then the other one is if we have an opportunity, such as a brand. We would look at those areas of the specific, like really bad, of course. Yeah, and um, and

[01:34:16] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: a Rango is so much better. I just wanted to add that, um, You're hearing multiple avenues how we can get there? We may, you know, as Dr. Porter mentioned, we may get there by just skipping ahead. Or from existing right to construction, if we find a grant, or there's a priority to really identify a board. Because we do this on a corridor basis. It's not a lot by lot. Uh, it really needs to be identified as or block my block efforts. So these are usually longer stretches. Would

[01:34:44] Chair Alison Hicks: you say corridor or block back on?

[01:34:46] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: No, we do this on a corridor basis. And a quarter could be, we're looking at this one quarter, but we're going to implement a block, but, We can't do it by parcel basis. We can't just do a little incremental. Um, So there's that, when resurfacing happens and we are implementing some temporary improvements or this resurfacing effort, um, we are already implementing a opponent of what the reconstruction is going to look like. And so the vehicle lanes, which may already be accommodated. And then it could be later that we come back and we're doing the reconstruction effort for those elements outside the vehicle ends, to put in the, uh, upper, uh, protected end winds next to the bike. I need to go landscaping at that time. So it could be a phase approach. We've done the resurface saying, now let's come back and redo the portions that bike lanes and the protected lanes. Okay. We should move on. Uh, did, uh,

[01:35:57] Chair Alison Hicks: any members come up with additional questions? Okay. Uh, if not, I believe we are now, uh, to the public common, uh, portion of this, this agenda item, uh, with any member of the public joining us virtually or in person, like provide comment on this item, if so, please click the raised hand button and zoom, or approach the lectern. Uh, we will take in person speakers 1st and each speaker will have 3 minutes. Any speakers in person? Yeah.

[01:36:39] Barry Burr: Berryborough, 325 Walker Drive, been down 30 years about now. Something you know, if I remember, the big fact. Mind you, to be back, actually got things done. Let's say a mouthpiece for well funded, lobbyists, uh, designers, and... infrastructure salesman and so on. That's my view of where things are now. So with regards to this, this will be played out over the next many years. It is my intention to get myself back on feedback so I can be part of what I'll, hopefully be a level-headed, moderate you. I will really get things done, benefit and satisfaction. Now, You weren't here, Allison, so before account counselor person. I stated that frequently we're seeing, protected, bike lanes, Being mentioned, except that's a big hole because what is a protected bike range. And as I requested to the others, I request that you as chair, especially, bring in initiative to the committee to define what a protected bike lane is, should or shouldn't be, versus the widely divergent view, protected bike lane 10 or 20 years ago versus what's being built in town. So that itself is a loose hole which needs to be better defined. Now, and also, I feel that the best resource in Mountain View, for consulting bicycle and pedestrian safety is the Mountain View police. The bicycle patrol, I've had conversations with them. They don't seem to have been consultants. But there are views on particular pieces of infrastructure in town. I think, you know, picture, you know. Fully office, fully equipped Mountain View police officer, on a really nice mountain bike with their mountain bike, but fully equipped cop on a mountain bike around town, their view of safety is unique. And I would urge greater engagement and involvement that the Mountain View police, bicycle patrol and traffic patrol be engaged and consulted on all of this. Because just in reading what you posted, just very detailed. I'm not seeing anywhere listing Mountain View Police Department and their bicycle patrol, having input or being consulted on it. Thank you.

[01:39:21] Chair Alison Hicks: Right, and no more in-person commenters. Are there any virtual common? Bruce England? All

[01:39:33] Bruce England: again, Bruce England. Uh, you know, I made comments earlier and I uh, didn't catch that you were not already in the ATP section. I hope that you can just take those comments from there, you know, whatever notes were taken and apply to this, so I don't need to repeat them. If you want me to let me know. Um, but I do have one additional comment. I didn't use my all my time earlier, so I have an additional comment, which is that an important detail to me is that all of our parks, an open space areas covered in the parks and recreation, strategic plan, should be tied together in such a way that anybody who's walking and biking through mountain view. Uh, whether it's a longer or a shorter route, can stop at those locations and get water, use restrooms and things like that, the amenities that are needed to support a strong act of transportation network. So, not sure that was really covered as well as it should have been in the parks plan. And if needed, have it covered in the ATP plan and tied together with a parks rec plan, that would be great. That was my additional comment. Thank you. Thank you. So,

[01:40:39] Chair Alison Hicks: your virtual commenters. April Webster. Thank

[01:40:49] April Webster: you. Now, I want to start by thanking staff for bringing back the ATP to the BPack and CTC in August. Um, I also want to say I support the overall direction of the ATP, but I'd like to see some key gaps addressed, especially around implementation equity, pedestrian safety, community engagement and climate resilience. First, um, adopt a complete streets and Green Street's implementation policy. Mountain View already has complete streets language in the general plan, but it's broad, and that's not enough. Without implementation triggers, updated standards, delivery requirements, accountability, complete streets can remain discretionary rather than the default way of building our streets. Second, adopt Nacto's urban bikeway design guide, not the general guide as a city's default. State of the art has moved beyond paint only bike lanes, and the minimal paint and post separation, especially on high speed or higher volume streets. To make biking feel safe for families, older adults, um, new riders, people who are interested, but concerned, we need stronger protection, Nactose, um, guidance says that, and quotes, motor vehicle lanes should be narrowed to support the widest feasible bike lanes, and that, getting quote, general purpose travel lanes can be 10 feet at posted speeds of 35 um, Miles per hour or less while still supporting transit and truck use. Moreover, it constrained transit and bike weight context. That also says safety benefits. The protected bike lanes can outweight the slight risk of clipped bus mirror. Um, Nako is built by cities for cities. It's recognized by FHWA, and it's updated more frequently than local standards. So adopting it would help Mountain View state current with modern urban bikeway design. Third, Update the city's standard details because those engineering templates to determine what actually gets built. If those don't change, the plan won't fully translate into implementation. In addition, I'd like counsel to direct staff to add several supporting policies identified in the MVCSP letter, including a quick build program, a policy, a traffic calming policy that prioritizes multi-benefit treatments like roundabouts, curb extensions, and landscape bulbouts, and a bicycle boulevard and slow streets program to create a lower stress neighborhood network. I'd also like the city to use pavement resurfacing as an implementation trigger for low cost safety improvements. These include paint only changes like lane narrowing, lane reduction, buffers, daylighting, and interim curb extensions. Consistent with committee member McAllister's focus on efficient cost-effective project delivery, piggybacking on planned surface resurfacing work is one way to make meaningful safety improvements when the streets are already being touched. This is what Caltrans does through their shop project. Finally, um, the plan should bring back more of the pedestrian and equity context. And shade and heat resilience should also be treated as active transportation and climate infrastructure and 1st class infrastructure. Without canopy and shade streets can become effectively unusable during the hottest part of the days, especially for people walking and biking. Thank you so much. Thank

[01:44:01] Chair Alison Hicks: you. Are there more virtual speakers? Yes, Cliff Chambers. Cliff Chambers? Thank

[01:44:13] Cliff Chambers: you. Cliff Chambers, resident of Mountain View and member of the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. First, I got to give incredible kudos to staff and the consultants for an excellent outreach process. I've been involved with a lot of plans, and I think this gets an absolute gold star. April has set forth a lot of the policy recommendations that we'd like to see. I'd like to talk about a couple of other areas. First, I think during the public process, we talked a lot about protected bike ways, and I'm really happy with the broad network of protected bike ways, but we also talked about just bicycling and walking in neighborhood streets, and there was a lot of discussion about having a bicycle boulevard that's more like Bryant Street, where bicycles have uh, a priorities, and uh, It gets incredible use. And, uh, council member McAllister really talked about a numbers. The generation of trips on bicycles for that very low cost improvement in Palo Alto has been great. It's really disappointing that in the last bicycle plan. We had Montecito Bicycle Boulevard that would go along that track. It really didn't go forward. It could have been Montecito, to Sterling, to downtown, uh, Mountain View, and then the other side towards Renksdorf and Jane, George. Antonio Caltrain station. I'd really like to see that, really, uh, evaluated more and included in the plan of it all possible. The other point is, I do walk a lot, and I have really found that there is an absence in many key intersections of accessible pedestrian signals, particularly for low vision people like myself to get across the street. The crossings is really important. And I'm glad that it's the theme for more pedestrian, um, improvements in the final plan, but I'd like to see that included. I'd also, I think, you know, the placement of trees where there's really gaps, because I really agree with council member hicks. When there's more trees, you're going to walk that path, and I think the canopy placement and recommendations and the plan. Would be really important. And then my final point is on the policy that was talked about on the middle field road about the temporary, uh, bike lanes on middle field road. It's a safety hazard. I live right adjacent to Middlefield Road. I've seen a lot of near misses. That needs to be treated sooner than later so that we don't have an unfortunate accident in our city. Again, thank you for this excellent plan and I appreciate the time. Thank you.

[01:47:12] Chair Alison Hicks: Are there more virtual comments? Yes,

[01:47:18] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: Daniel Helsey. Daniel.

[01:47:24] Daniel Hulse: Hello, can you hear me?

[01:47:25] Chair Alison Hicks: Yes, we can.

[01:47:27] Daniel Hulse: Okay, thank you. Okay, so, uh, I just have a couple comments. I really like the direction that the city has gone with the active transportation plan. I think that, uh, you know, it's, it's a really good vision for what the future of the city should look like and where, where we can go. And I really appreciate all of the, uh, really the, the strategy for how do we start protecting our, uh, cyclists out there. Um, Keeping in mind, of course, that uh, good protected bike infrastructure is safer for all road users, including motorists and pedestrians. Um, so I think, uh, you know, commenting and support, there, there are a few things that, uh, I really, I think, want to call out, there, there was a, uh, feedback session, uh, just, just among some of us, um, a few months ago that I think was really productive, and I, I really appreciate, uh, every opportunity, where the city is able to engage directly with, uh, road users like, like cyclists, and I, I, would almost like to see this a little bit more formalized in, in our process, uh, where we can push a little bit early into the project conceptualization process, just a little bit, just not a huge year long process, just, just the right little, little bit amount of, you know, what, what is the cyclist actually gonna want to see here? Um, so, wanted to call that out. Um, I think in terms of projects, we have a lot of really good ones identified here. Uh, one thing that kind of pops out at me is something that is not really addressed very well is the downtown Castro pedestrian mall, where we have kind of a blockage almost, where we have a place that is in theory a very good cycling facility where we are not allowed to ride, and then we have a lot of very bad places where you don't want to ride, but where it is legal. Um, and so I think we need to figure out a solution to that somehow. Um, And, uh, you know, there's a lot of other projects that, that I'd like to see, um, in here, you know, just focusing on how, how do we solve details? You know, after we've gone through and done corridor work, We've created a whole strategy, you know, and there's just some problem that people identify a year later. Like, how do we go, uh, ahead and sort of fix that, that problem for those, those users and be agile, um, to that? Um, So that that's really, uh, that's really my comment. Thank you so much, uh, to city staff for putting together this all together. And uh, that's my comment. Thank you. Thank

[01:50:33] Chair Alison Hicks: you. Are there more virtual? Commentators? No, that's all. Okay. So last call for public comments, and I will now bring it back for committee member comments. Are you gonna start us up? Oh,

[01:50:53] Committee Member John McAlister: I'd like to hear you.

[01:51:08] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: All right. Yes, I want to echo the things this app. Um, It's been quite the journey, figuratively and literally, to get to this point. Um, and I'm, um, just really grateful, uh, that we're here about, we have, uh, we have 19 people cars tonight. Uh, one of the things I just wanted to highlight was, I think some of the speakers mentioned, uh, robust community engagement has been really critical, I think, between the pop-ups, working with our multileagal, um, outreach program. to kind of going to these these spoke different groups, um, to get the input. We've gotten a lot of collaborative, uh, unique Mouth Mountain View S insight, which is was really fun to read. I think overall this document was, I would say, like the most readable document I've read the city put together in my 7.5 years, just, which is wonderful because I think, um, literally highlights, kind of where we were, where we're going, and our vision, of the appendices are very helpful in terms of just kind of reaffirming what the document says, being able to go back. Um. One of the other things that stood out to me that I was reading was, um, how this plan will talk to the other plans that the city is pursuing or has. I think that's really critical, and thank you for highlighting for me the issue with our safe fruits to school. Um, plan that is uh, needs to be adopted. I think, um, if there are, and I can't remember in my reading. You reference the different plans, but I don't think that they were, you know, where was her page on the, um, where they were out. Sorry. Um, In the plan itself. Yeah. But I, um, say not all. Yeah, but I, but if, if we're doing it, we

[01:53:18] Transportation Manager Ledbetter: might, we might provide as well, I think that, that's that, sorry, if I can just, so they're called out plans we've taken to use to make this new one, but the other plans that we will work with is not, so we can. Yeah, I think I think so.

[01:53:34] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: Yeah, especially the puzzle pieces, how they work together. is great. Um, thought it was. I don't know. I enjoyed how it was broken up, like, how do we get around? What are we doing? Um, the demographics, um, the different like data points and resources. Um, was helpful. I do think, um, one of the things that I hope we can find a way to address it, you know, some of the, I, I think I, I see 2 things before us. One is kind of, if people have input that they're continuing to be users of our streets and at roads, um, transit how they can provide that kind of individual feedback in a way that might be helpful. Um, Uh, you know. I feel like right now residents have to put it into app mountain view, but there has to be like a better repository for feedback on I liked this treatment, but maybe not this. And so, folks don't need to tell them, which one they do or don't like. Um, and then I think the other is how we can, um, have, like, uh, incorporate our our long-term planning, a city is changing and growing at such a rapid pace. It's great to adopt the ATP for now, but just thinking about the ATP for the future, you know, as I was mentioning, finding out that LASD is going up, of Los Angeles district is going forward with that tensible state, and they're kind of moving at a pace that feels, to me, faster than they had before, right? All that they think they they said that they're at that same. Um, We need to be. planning for that, um, in addition to the different planning areas I would have within the housing element and I think over the next, you know, 5 to 10 years. We're just going to see an increase in residence. And so how does the infrastructure work creating or that's what the ATP is going to be able to call accommodate that. That's the only thing that I'm. But all in the right direction. I also appreciated like the rolling aspect of it, right? Because like kind of anything with field and that could be, you know, a scooter, a bike, a stroller, a wheelchair, right? Um, and how we're thinking of all ages, all abilities, all backgrounds, um, really speaks to the city, community for all spirits. So thank you again. Thanks, sir. You.

[01:56:23] Chair Alison Hicks: So, remember McAllister, are you ready now? Hope they're right up.

[01:56:29] Committee Member John McAlister: So, uh, first. Uh, this is where I'm at. Yeah, 34. I've seen that city since my time here that, it's thorough. It's comprehensive. I always look for funding. So if you're gonna implement it. Are you gonna pay for it? And so, we, I think there was one report that was aspirational. I see some parts of that in here, but I appreciate the time that is put into it. And it answers a lot of questions. And, uh. It's good. It's a good report. It's one of the best reports I've ever seen this one. And again, I haven't been through it, so it helps me feel that I'm going. So I appreciate the time for it. It does touch on areas that I find important. Now, I'm not necessarily, I appreciate. I voted for 5 things in the past. I understand they are helpful. But I also want to put things in context from my perspective. that there are many plans over the last month that I've seen that I got, you know, we've got decarbonization plan. We got ATP plan. We've got my eldorized plan. Uh, we got a bunch of plans. They're all gonna be competing. And they need to. And they get them out of the aspirational implementation plan. And this one, uh, you have a group, uh, community that's very passionate. On bicycles, very outspoken bicycles and very supportive of bicycles. But I'm looking at the city is so full. I look at, again, I like shuttle service. I like that we are not all bicyclists. I asked the 1st question less, 20 bicycle, city of Mountain View. And, uh, you guys are working on that. So I got to see how it integrates with everybody, the traffic comes through. So, but in this in my context, is how I love it. And going back, I asked one of the questions, do you look at the road? So let's go to Carol. Now, I would like to have seen. But as you go through here, maybe, it would be good to actually look at the streets. Because I said, Carol, I've been walking on that for 65 years as an accountant. It is, right? Going to a school. So, there are no sidewalks in that my part of town. That's what we are important. But if you go to Carol and you walk down the Mary end, you will see a sign that has been respected by community members since, oh, 2006 that says, please do not travel down Carol. Part of cars, people do that. Nolan drives down Carol. They all stop as sleeper, and and park there, and they all walk through. So if somebody took the time to look at that, said, do we need sidewalks? One, I saw you had to do an improvement district. I'm sure that would have been interesting. But by looking at the street and seeing it. You would have saying, We don't need to do this. I am fiscally more conservative. By other people on the council wherever. And when I see something like that, I go, We don't need to put a sidewalk in because there's no need to put a sidewalk in. And that aspect of, You're doing a lot. And it seems going forward that, to look at it, do we need to do it so that we can really get the projects that want to get that. You came up with 23 projects. I really like that. I like you saying, okay, we got limit funds. We know it. This is where the demand is. And that's why I always ask you, tell me the demand, that means this project. Um, so, yeah, I just part think said, we'll show that we people really need to do something and do it instead of, we don't need cars in the city mountain, and I hear that sometimes from other, from the, your advocates are, we don't need, you know, let's get rid of the cars. That's not gonna happen. And so we gotta ask, I asked early on, the blending of this with the roads. And if I looked at all your things, there would be, basically, uh, last 3 bike lanes throughout the whole city. So I'm just asking them, there is a little more. Yeah, it's our data to, that's acknowledged in here, because you, there's a couple things that you go. Like when I asked about the history, and the response was, the projects team did not consider history of the roadway or original intended use. But we have a lot of people driving. And so, I think that needs to be in consideration, and I, put in there, and I appreciate the honest answer that they, instead, in the future is in the city's goal regarding sustainability. Well, we're not going to get there, but it's, it's, there's a mechanism there to get there. environment out there that they're all integrated. And you have the task of integrating it with other things. So that's when I say, you've done a great work. Now, are you going to kind of rest of them in the city? Going forward. That's why I said, yes. Um, the school district. You know, I've been asking the school district since 2012, put in buses, and they say we can't afford it. So, uh, They won't even talk to the superintendent. I bring it up when he was over at Los Altos. No, no, I don't want to talk. There's a simple solution. That if they did those, then all the things that they were worried about would be solved. Or if we used our shuttle service to transport kids in the morning. That would solve a lot of the issues of safety. So, I'm looking at integrating all the other things to make things happen. So. That's it. Please consider that. There's a small group, advocating. Really want it. They have the right to, but there's other people out in the, in the city that say, I need to get point A to point B, or I'm going from there, and I don't want to buy the ride. I want to drive. Uh, those cycles. e-cycles. There was a small part in there, but. You know, that's gonna be big. Actually, that's gonna come out before you get going on anything else because there's a lot of concerns about likes. And you haven't addressed how you go. Oh, you're going to come back to see CTC with a policy, I recall. Yeah, he likes and how they're going to be integrating the bike lanes and how they're going to be regulating. So that could be an interesting concept too. But, yeah. No, I, for those people that are adamant about bike lanes. I think this is an excellent report. And a comments jump. That's it. Okay.

[02:03:43] Chair Alison Hicks: So, I will make my comments. Committee members can circle back into comments, of course, if thought of any since then. Um, 1st I'll 2nd what other committee members have said that this was an excellent, really readable report. I think it, um, puts us, um, you know, many steps ahead of where we, where we were before. Um, at least on paper. And, uh, and I, I guess the history of it, from what I, if I remember right, as there was a separate pedestrian and bike plan and we're putting them together, I do agree with, I agree with, at least 90% of what my committee members have said, if maybe a 100. Um, I, uh, I do agree with what, uh, remember McAllister said that, even though we're putting together what, uh, we need for bikers and pedestrians, it does have to, it, that makes it kind of lack a little bit of the connections with many other ways that we use our streets. Um, So I think that comment was well taken and maybe we can, in the future, combine this with a mass transit plan and, you know, uh, other street use plans. Our multimodal, for example. Um, that said, um, I, so, I guess my opening comment myself is that I believe we're in the midst of, or we're on the verge of a bit of a revolution and transportation between, um, So that, so that, uh, even though I like this plan very much, I think when we finish it, it'll seem immediately, if not already, update. Um. For example, there's a lot of talk of uh, cutting our carbon footprint through more active transportation, but EVs in and of themselves are not, not perfect, but there's something we didn't have really when we started this. So we have to kind of put those into the calculus. Um, so, but between uh, virtual commuting, which is really chain and hybrid work, which is really changing when people use the streets, um, micromobility, AVs, automatic vehicles that may change mass transit a lot, I think, depending on our public, how we as policymakers address them, they could either make, uh, our streets more overused with AVs just cycling around all the time. Or, um, they could really uh, help out with that 1st and last mile and and strengthen mass transit. Um, and then the whole delivery box and drowns and extreme heat. I just drove up through the central valley. So I've experienced it firsthand yesterday. Um, and extreme storms and flooding in the winter. I think the way we use our streets is really going to change. Oh, plus density, uh, you know, our various plans say that by 2050 will have between 100,000 and 150,000 people. You can believe that or not believe it, but we are taking, you know, steps to densify. So those will all massively change the use of our streets. So my 1st request is that in the same way we looked at our, um, constant sustainability committee documents, that this plan be a living document. I think that we're going to have to, um, continually refresh it and like, uh, council member may said, give our residents ways to uh, help refresh it continually and be open to that. I think it can't be a closed document. Um. So, and I, on, I would also like to include, since much of it is, uh, related to sustainability, I would like to include our, uh, sustainability stack in that if, you know, I don't know how much you interface with them, but I think they're part of our technical advisory committee. That and more. So, um, And also, uh, as we do in the sustainability program, uh, do more pilots, and I would like pilots that are more than just green paint ballards, and, and plastic wear on the street, you know, uh, maybe, uh, things that are block by block or done in small pieces. Um, but I would like to be open to pilots. Um, And addiction to that, uh, I'm going to highlight mostly things that various, uh, uh, various groups and adult owners, uh, have said that, uh, that I thought were very important. Um, and I could go on for hours because there was a lot of good commentary, but narrowing it down. One is that I, I feel that white boulevards and slow shared neighborhood streets could be emphasized more than they are. The, um, our school district, MVWSD, uh, and, um, various individual commenters brought that up, uh, in various capacities. I think they're one of the least expensive things we can do. Uh, is to highlight slow shared streets. I think they're models out there in other cities. Um, and that we could get a lot of that done and that a lot of people enjoy those more than the, you know, the green paintings strip with the ballers next to it. Um, so that's one and uh, yeah, there's a lot of reference to that in the MVWSD letter. So in various ways. Um, Another thing is that has been mentioned several times that this was a subcategory. Uh, one of the categories that you said that, uh, people, members of the public made a lot of comments on is, um, kind of honing the metrics that are used. I've read that use is safety, in other words, a sidewalk or a pedestrian root or bike lane that a lot of people are using makes those people in and of itself safer rather than one that, you know, just a stray person here and there uses. So, I would like us to observe what's working well. And where do we see very few people and maybe in terms of using our resources wisely, put more resources into the kinds of, be they pedestrian improvements or by improvements that seem to be more popular. Um, Uh, and I do agree with some of the council member McAllister's comments on that, that we really want to see the infrastructure that we that we put in well used. Um, I agree with the, there was a category about more focus on pedestrials. I've even heard some people deny, refer to this as a bike plan, and, um, it really, it really has to be in terms of getting people out of their cars. In cities that connect, uh, pedestrians with transit. There's a much bigger reduction in parties than in cities sit down. So I really want us to. Recognize pedestrians more, give them more, and not think of pedestrians as kind of the poor invisible siblings of bikers. Um, because uh, uh, so some of the things, I think we need to play more in terms of walk score. People walk more when there are things to walk to, and that could be mass transit. It could be increased use of shuttle, but it could also be neighborhood serving businesses, making sure that we're not losing all of those. Um, It could be, um, I, it could be wider sidewalks where we're putting in denser buildings and the, and vehicles like cantilever buildings and so forth that allow us to do that in our objective design standards. Um, so just I think there are a number of things that we could do to really think about pedestrians as having different names than bikers. Um, although not always. Um, let's see. Uh, we had uh, Someone emailed us on the subject of delivery bots. And I think that's a really important and underappreciated topic. Um, I was just down in the UCLA area, in a place where they have sidewalks, that are probably 4 times the width of the ones we have in old mountain view, and they have delivery bots that are, um, way bigger than the ones we used to have on the sidewalk. It's okay, because their sidewalks are so wide and there are very few delivery. Uh, box, but they move along in jerky ways and stop in the middle of the sidewalk constantly. And if the sidewalk weren't 15 to 20 feet wide, you wouldn't be able to walk down the sidewalk. And the report that we were given the last time we talked about delivery bots on the CTC. There was, uh, sort of the prediction there was going to be a multifold. There were going to be many more of them. Many times what we now have. One or 2 delivery bus, going down a narrow sidewalk is not, doesn't stop up traffic. But, um, you know, dozens and dozens of them, not able to go, move along very efficiently. Um, they're motor vehicles. And they're very heavy too. And we have 2 companies in town that are doing delivery bots that, if I, if I remember correctly, purely work on the streets, which is probably where delivery bots, where large vehicles go, basically. I think large vehicles will walk on the street. Um, So, uh, let's see. And then I, I guess the last thing I'll bring up is cost trade-offs. Um, you know, I I really liked your pet sheets. I like the eventual place we would get to. Um, and I'm hoping we can find was, Ways to get there, I'm thinking, uh, as remember McAllister said, if you walk a lot of these streets, I think we'll find that some of the suggestions are really impro- appropriate would really enhance the street, and in other places, maybe like Carol that you mentioned in Latham that I mentioned, in other places, we may not need to do them at all, which would save us a lot of money. Um, So that may be a good next step to have some eyes on the street and see. Um, which ones would really work and which ones wouldn't. And the other is to combine it with our sustainability work. A lot of these things have multiple benefits. So if you see them as just part of the active transportation plan, you might say it's too expensive. But if you see it as part of our sustainability plan or our community for all and equity or, you know, any number of other things or making density work. Um, then it may be worth the cost. So, I think that, you know, there were, and I guess the last thing I'll say is we got a tremendous number of really good comments from the community, and I'm hoping that all the letters we got, with it from the various roots, um, uh, like the Mountain View coalition for sustainable planning, and uh, MVWSD, the school district, and various individuals that you'll put those under the proper categories, because I'm not gonna repeat. We have all. So are there, Oh, and I'll just highlight one thing that one of them said. Uh, somebody commented to me that we really need to make a distinction between, um, objectives, the line standards, which are the private portion developments, and the, um, I can say, the, and the standard details for roadways, which are for public spaces, and that we need both, and that you're probably clear on it, but that the rest of us all have become more clear on the distinction. Um, oh, and somebody else has said, it's very important that we, uh, use the Nacto's book on, uh, pedestrian guidelines, bike and pedestrian guidelines, not actors, general guidelines, which are not autolori, but, um, so those are, those

[02:16:44] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: are highlights, so. So

5.2 State Route 237 and Middlefield Road Interchange Improvements, Project 19-65

[02:16:49] Chair Alison Hicks: the committee members have additional thoughts? Okay. Okay. If there are no additional thoughts? I will, um, we're just taking feedback, so I will move on to the next item. 5.2. Uh, state route 257 and Middlefield Road, think a change improvement. This project. 1965. Uh, the staff presentation will be provided by Joy Houghton, senior civil engineer, and Robert Gonzalez, principal. I

[02:18:06] Unknown Speaker: don't believe there's projects.

[02:18:12] Committee Member John McAlister: Oh, sorry. I'll go around.

[02:18:18] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: She's already plugged in, so I'm just gonna go back.

[02:18:43] Committee Member John McAlister: Oh, yeah, sweet. You can try to steal my... Sorry about that. What? It's not something. Oh,

[02:19:02] Chair Alison Hicks: you need to update.

[02:19:04] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: We like the little ones. I like the photo. On your screen. Well,

[02:19:19] Committee Member John McAlister: you gotta start explaining each one. I

[02:19:24] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: have 2 kids and so let me try. My youngest one just turned out. The other one will be 11 soon.

[02:19:35] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: Active

[02:19:36] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: participants in the city is summer summer program. Oh.

[02:20:42] Committee Member John McAlister: Yes, can we take a break? take a break for 5 minutes and then Yes,

[02:20:46] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: let's take a break.

[02:20:48] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you. Showing chocolate baggage work. I just want to make sure you need one. Reverse. Okay, so, sorry, to those of you who are listening virtually, for listening online. Um, we are now back. Uh, to 5.2, which is State Route 237 and Middlefield Road, Interchange Improvements, Project 1965. Uh, and we're ready for the staff presentation. Good

[02:30:14] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: evening, chair and committee numbers, my name's Joyhouse, senior civil engineer. I'm joined here by Robert Gonzalez, principal Google Engineer. Um, and we're here to present updates and staff recommendation on the state route 237 and that'll be the interchange project. To start with a little bit of background, middle field road. between Oak Avenue and eastbound 237 off wrap, is very challenging due to the number and close proximity of signalized. Intersections in a relatively short, um, stretch of rope. This results in a high collision rate and challenging environment for exchange and bicycles. The intent of the project is to reduce collision conflicts and improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility and productivity. This project has been in the works for close to 2 decades starting in 2005 when the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority or BPA, solicited city support regarding highway projects in the valley transportation plan or BTP 2023, which includes the state route 237 and middle field road interchange. In 2006, the VMVT entered into a co-op agreement to fund a project study report, which included the state route 237 and route field road standard change. In 2012, this project study report was completed and was approved by Caltrans in 2013. Up until the date the project was theoretical without available funding for the subsequent phase. In 2018, city council accepted 11000000 in community benefit funds from a development project at 700 middle field growth. The project entered the development phase when funding became available starting in 2019 when city council approved the capital project, the State Route 237 and Middlefield Road Interchange Improvements project. And appropriated 5500000 of the community benefit funds received from the 1st phase of the development project. And authorized execution of a funding agreement with VTA. For project management services for the project approval and environmental document, and final design. Phases of the project. In 2020, the project was initiated and preliminary alternatives were developed. And since project initiation in late 2020, the project team has been in coordination with Caltrans, since the project impacts the right away and operations, the end of the goal prior to starting a final return. Middlefield road is a 4 lane roadway with 4 signalized intersection, approximately 300 feet apart, in the project area between Oak Avenue and the eastbound 237 off ramp, which contributes to a high rate of broadside collisions. In particular, the collision rate. At the westbound 237 Middlefield Road, frontage road intersection exceeds the statewide average for intersections of this type. The 237 middle field intersection operates the professional interchange, since they only have an eastbound off ramp and a westbound, um, on ramp compared to a full interchange with on and off ramps in both directions. Um, and with the other interchange movements happening at the mod avenue partial interchange. There are continuous bike lanes, class to bike lanes, and 4 to 6 foot wide sidewalks on both sides of middle field road. Within the project limit. And east of Middlefield Road, sidewalks and classes do bike planes do exist along the north and south side of the westbound and eastbound frontage roads, respectively. The project area is significantly strained for bicyclists and pedestrian. With Caltrain order acting as a north-south barrier. Well, 237 access. In 2012, traffic operations analysis was prepared to support the 2013 project study report. The analysis identified 2 locations that eastbound and westbound 237 experiencing collision rates higher than the statewide average collision. Have you guys just trying to get to the logistics? So Middlefield Road is actually left, right on the page, and then the 237. So that's

[02:35:30] Committee Member John McAlister: 237 southbound.

[02:35:35] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: Um, westbound. East Middlefield is left to right on the page.

[02:35:40] Committee Member John McAlister: There, left or right. And

[02:35:41] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: then the frontage road is at the top, and then the on brand is... Was

[02:35:48] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: that on brush? 237, correct? Yes, so the north side. Because I look at the North side. Yeah.

[02:35:57] Committee Member John McAlister: Middlefield going east, west. So, If

[02:36:01] Unknown Speaker: you actually can go back one slide, I think that'll help point it. Yeah. Yeah, I've had an arrow, but... Yeah, highlights the location.

[02:36:13] Committee Member John McAlister: I'm sorry. Want to go back one more slide? It's not, but there. There it is. Okay, so location. That's, that's the west, okay, so they're counting from. Okay. And

[02:36:36] Unknown Speaker: the next slide, we, we, we turn it on. Yeah, that's why it was confusing. Um, that the middle field is going left to right and the next slide and then that apprentice road on ramp is going up and down. That's the infant slide. The

[02:36:50] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: front orientation. We turned it 90 degrees to the left. challenging. Go

[02:36:56] Committee Member John McAlister: ahead in advance. Keep awake. Okay.

[02:37:02] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: Um, the. Oh, thanks. Um, so the collision data showed approximately 75% of collisions in the study area occurred at the Middlefield Road, and the 237 ramps, specifically just outbound traffic on Middlefield, um, which includes 3 types of conflicting movies. Southbound through and westbound, 237 route through movements. Southbound through and westbound 237 left turning traffic movements. And southbound through and northbound, left turning traffic moving. As the project began in 2020, the project intersections were also analyzed for key performance metrics, including level of service or LOS instead of people, miles travel. The level of service measures the quality of traffic flow and the driver's experience on the road, and intersections, based on the speed and number of cars using the room. The LOS of a road is designated by a letter grade F A for free flow. And To F for most congested conditions, on middle field road, all intersections within the project area, currently operate at the level services, fee or better during both AM and PM peak hours. And this is according to the analysis conducting or the mental field group. Diet, traffic operation study completed in 2025. And the OSC indicates there's stable flow and operations is, Um, and operates with a very average delay, which is within the city threshold of acceptable OOS. Project objectives and goals include reducing the frequency and severity of collisions along middle field growth within the project limits. Improving pedestrian and bicycle accommodations and access, enhancing accessibility and connectivity to traffic. Strengthening connections to local roadways and plan development in the area, and optimizing the use of existing right away. In 2020, the project team completed the preliminary investigative phase of the project is the development and analysis of 6 on theft alternatives, including 2 from the original project study report that will meet the project purpose in. The project team develops 6 alternatives, which I will be sharing on the next few slides. And staff is presenting the project to the CTC 1st as we are speaking policy level direction on the approach of selecting the preferred alternative based on available funding for the project. The alternatives were scored, um, based on categories, including biking pet improvements, safety, environmental traffic operations, right away and geometrics, the criteria. Um, categories were weighed based on their alignment with the project purpose and need, and were ranked in the following order. Starting with the lowest ranking alternatives, alternative 5 C, alternative 5 B, and alternative 2. These alternatives include new points of access to the route 237, which was not supported by Caltrans as the highway safety analysis, um, predicted higher crash frequencies at the main life connection. Caltransit don't, you made my connections to. Alternative, one rank the highest, but was not approved by Caltrans, it also introduces a new point of access to state route 237. With alternative one eliminated by Caltrans, the project team refined. The 2nd and 3rd highest ranking alternatives, alternatives, 3 and 4 for Cal Transfer P. in 2023 Caltrans Express support for advancing these 2 alternatives for further consideration. In 2024, the project team, um, develop preliminary design concepts for alternatives 3 and 4 to further evaluate their feasibility. Due to the right away acquisition requirements associated with alternative form. Alternative 3 was subsequently refined, including improvements along frontage road, including traffic bombing measures to reduce vehicle speeds approaching middle field group. The editions of, um, the additions of improvements along the westbound frontage road increase the project cost, from the previous cost estimate, in 2020, but are still within the project budget. The conceptual design for the refined and the staff recommended alternative 3 includes the following proposed improvements. Installation of traffic calming features along the westbound frontage road, including race medians, pavement markings, radar feedback signs, landscaping, and narrow travel. Also includes construction of class 4 bikeways and white sidewalks along the westbound frontage road between Middlefield Road and Maud Avenue. Installation of class 4 bikeways and 6 foot wide sidewalks on Middlefield Road. And protected intersection improvements at Ferguson, Westbound 237, um, ramp, von ramp, and the eastbound 237 off route. In addition, alternative 3 also includes technology improvements at intersections, including signal interconnect and signal timing optimization, and modify traffic signal operations with separate bicycle and pedestrian signal fees. With the completion of the final draft of the biodiversity and urban forest plan. The project team will look for opportunities for inclusion of landscaping and green storm water infrastructure as we progress. In the project and continues to include the final. The project is currently in the project approval and environmental document phase, which is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2026. This phase will be followed by the final design phase expected to. Expected to begin in 2027 and conclude in summer 2028. Which will be followed by a 2 year construction period. The project cost estimate for the staff recommended, um, Alternative is 24.800000 as summarized on the screen. The project is fully funded through the final design utilizing ETA measure B. Highway um program fund. This combined with the city fund is efficient to support construction of the project. As our next step, that will provide the BPAC with an informational update on June 24, 2026, including a summary of the back receipt and policy level direction receipt from the CT. Oh, evaluation of the CTC feedback, Apple for the recommendation to city council for approval of the design concept and fall 25. This brings us to the theft recommendation for the CTC to receive an update and recommend that the city council approved the recommended design concept. For the State Route 237 and Middlefield Road, interchange improvements project. And this concludes our presentation. Be happy to answer questions. Thank you. Thank you. So

[02:44:51] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: do committee members have a question?

[02:44:57] Chair Alison Hicks: Oh, sir. Are you breaking your hand? Yeah. Why

[02:45:00] Committee Member John McAlister: are you rushing us through? But if I remember, it's proving this private uniform. So, yeah, okay, the question that you kept referencing too, collisions. So many collisions. And you said it exceeded the collision, total. So how many collisions were there? I'm sorry I kept referring to this was a high collision area. So how many pollutions are there? Uh.

[02:45:38] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: Well, join us for that. Yeah, but through part of the traffic analysis, there were identifying us. 87 near miss events. So that was, like, a test for the child, try to, analysis. Was

[02:45:53] Committee Member John McAlister: there a particular spot that, or was it just, uh, or then your missus? Yeah, was it all just the one gentle area? Well,

[02:46:01] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: so from the project area, it goes from load, and it covers 3 those 3 intersections. The 237 westbound, middle field intersection. So that intersection there were 87 or so. I think the report said 87%. Just that. Yeah. Okay,

[02:46:22] Committee Member John McAlister: because I saw something when you mentioned like Ferguson ago. So okay. And so... Oh, that was the only time I was curious how many there were and. So when we approached the project, it

[02:46:36] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: needs to be looked at as a complex, um, as a set of intersections, because that's how Cal Trans looks at it. So we know that if it were a city project and city intersection, we might just be looking at one intersection, but these all work together. It's really a system we need to build. So, project football grows a little bit. But 87%. Issues really are really, and our solutions are really focused on that, on that conversation. 87 percentages of 10. But

[02:47:11] Committee Member John McAlister: I do remember when we were working on it too. Yes. You were right. I was not, but I

[02:47:16] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: know that intersection. I drive through there.

[02:47:18] Committee Member John McAlister: That was awesome. Okay, no.

[02:47:25] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: Can I, do you have questions? Yeah, I mean, I think so, uh, So, I guess just, Trying to find a way. So, Altran is the, the, the option for basic culture, it's just a, the funding.

[02:47:43] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: Option for alternative for, um, it's, that was not, it was an alternative one that Caltrans did not support. Uh, we, and we narrated our recommending alternative 3 because that's within our reach um, to be able to support through construction if we go with alternative 4 because require um, right away and we just don't have the funds to be able to move that forward to construction at this time.

[02:48:11] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: What, aside from the fun issue. And I was like, I was trying to understand, uh, how my, Do we feel that going with option 3 will be able to withstand the amount of change that's going to be coming to that area? So, for example, council a few months ago, adopted a 600 plus unit apartment complex, low on the corner, middle field. And, when, I think about the frontage, and the alignment with Fergus Drive, and what may or may not happen, in the middlefield park area, as well as the project we adopted at Ellison Middlefield. We're just gonna see a really high increase, I think, in bicycle industries, more so than we do now. And I live in that area, so I can I see it firsthand, but so I'm just, you know, I'm comfortable with the staff recommendation, but I'm curious if staff feels like. In a decade, gonna be needing to go for something like a, an option for, or sorry, alternative for, just because of the high volume. And that's, and I think even at TC, we've discussed how it's, it, very difficult to narrow middle field because of the high volume, the middle field has. So, I just, It's difficult to future proof of project, but just seeing where we're going and knowing the cost of the increase of cost if we don't tackle with the, you know, 2026 pricing. So, I'm just curious, I think we feel like alternative 3 is just going to be the Band-Aid and. alternative for the future.

[02:50:11] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: So, senior here have mentioned a trap operations analysis that was done. There was a one done in 2012. There was another one done in 2025. And the one list that was done in 2025. Several analyses were performed on that. So existing conditions was one baseline. But the other about the work valuation that was done. was incorporating all of the plant, known planted development in the area that affected medical fields. So we kind of loaded up that, uh, those known future conditions, including the one, uh, low. That front and over. So we know the traffic volumes because that will now be a 4 leg intersection at low with the new development coming in as the 4th one. So I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that all of those, all of those traffic counts were counterthorn in this analysis. So it didn't look like there was substantial degradation. Um, from that development, from, from the known, from the known developments that were loaded to them. Am I saying that correctly? Um,

[02:51:18] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: I believe so, but there's also no difference in capacity between alternatives of 3 and alternatives of both alternatives. There you go. Project carpet the need. It's just that alternative free would give us the post bank for our book. Thank you.

[02:51:38] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: I was trying to go. Okay,

[02:51:41] Chair Alison Hicks: well, great. That was that was the 1st that was half of my question. Now I ask a smaller cost. Okay. So, yeah, again, with the development around there, particularly, I don't remember the Prometheus project. I don't remember the name, the names of all the projects, but, um, how, so, how does that interface with, how does this interface with the, like you talked about wide sidewalks, with the, uh, with the improvements near the streetscape that the developer, with the, the developer was going to do? Which

[02:52:19] Unknown Speaker: one is that? Okay, this is the, uh, the middle field, Ferguson development, front of both streets. Or the west corner of the... Yeah,

[02:52:32] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: so we would expect. The project status here is that we are in the preliminary phase of the project. So we are at the project selection phase. From here we move into design. So we are really, um, I'm sad to say this, like, Kelsey McAllister, but we are not nearly finished like. We are, we are, we will be kicking off the design for this project if council approves it. We can move on VTAs. Um, so we would expect that the development is going to be an existing condition. I think that that's going to advance forward sooner. Um, so we would be, as we go into design, we would be providing that that information as a background condition for the designers. They would see the improvements that we're showing here. We could actually have the developer deliver some of those, so they would be in place, such as the sidewalk. Well, that front that development. Okay,

[02:53:23] Chair Alison Hicks: so let me see if I understand the city because it seems like a complicated sequence of events to make. Because there's so many movies. projects at the same time. So, Tonight we'll point to a particular option and I'll go on to council, and then you'll go through design, which will include interfacing with the developer. And I imagine whoever you expect them to go forward quicker than this particular project, but if it doesn't, they'll be contact to make sure you're not like. And ripping them out. Okay, that sounds good. Um, and then also, like the, uh, picture, so my question was going to be about traffic volume and traffic in the area, but you kind of asked that. So now I'm narrowing it down just to the sidewalk, it seems like this is an area we want to make it much more in addition to much safer for for cars and bikers. We also want more people be walking and it is a barrier of that area right now. So, how does this connect to the rest of the middle field improvement project that we talked about? And then also individual developments? Like, can we expect between those 2 things and then this project to see dramatic improvements? It'll make everybody really want to walk a bike through this area and drive their electric cars. Yeah. Wait,

[02:54:56] Committee Member John McAlister: here's right. Yeah.

[02:55:00] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: Uh, for, for the existing pedestrian infrastructure in this area, it's uh, 4 to 6 and we want to make that, we want to make 6 foot kind of the, the minimum in this area, at least within the project area, on middle field road. Um, and then also widen the existing sidewalk. Um, and include a biking on the north side of the west side frontage road. Yeah,

[02:55:27] Chair Alison Hicks: I mean that sounds appropriate to me. We do

[02:55:30] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: want to improve the pedestrian facility. and not just maintain the existence. Are you going to be able to add tree canopy? That is something that we will be exploring as we progress

[02:55:42] Chair Alison Hicks: in a final design. Okay. I'm getting more of a picture of how... Thank you.

[02:55:50] Unknown Speaker: Can I have, um, 1st of all, engineer, I could always speak to the midfield question. Yes,

[02:55:55] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: um, so both your

[02:55:56] Unknown Speaker: question about that? Yes. Yeah.

[02:55:58] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: So both projects are programming class 4 protected. Bike lanes. So that gives some separation between vehicle traffic and bike traffic. So as if you are traveling down the field, after both these projects are complete, you will have a much more comfortable ride going, say, from, uh, shoreline all the way down to. Parts of Sunny. So all the way down to. Through this, through this.

[02:56:31] Chair Alison Hicks: And then this included some lane narrowing. Uh, I think,

[02:56:37] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: if I remember reading R, considering lane, reduction, or lane, with production on Westbound Frontage Road, um, we, from to trans, to be consistent with the lane, the lane was proposed as part of the middle field complete streets, which is currently 11, um, feet wide, and frontage is wide. It's wider and we propose to make up 11th as well. The challenge here is that most of the middle field road within the project area as well as the frontage road. Those are all operated by Caltrans. So how trans would have to approve. Um, the final dimensions, proposed for delay. And

[02:57:21] Chair Alison Hicks: council member McAllister, you had an additional question. Yeah. Okay. I'm trying to, what

[02:57:29] Committee Member John McAlister: problem? Okay, you're... What's the problem? Number of crashes? And if it's the number of crashes. Cal trying to be came from? So

[02:57:42] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: the issue is with the signalized, the 3 signalized, or 4 signalized intersections within close proximity does result in a higher collision rate higher than statewide average. And to answer your question earlier, It is in the memo, it just wasn't in the table format. Um. But between 2005 and 2010 there were 26. Total collisions between, um, just at the intersections of the on and off ramps on metal field. And then between 2011 and 2015 that went up to 31, Um, between 2016 and 2020, that went up to 44. Um, the cities saw an opportunity when we received the community benefit funds, um, those funds usually typically get, um, used on improvements within the America, and this was kind of the bigger project that we fully tackle, um, Of course, with coordination and collaboration, with cow trans. So,

[02:58:43] Unknown Speaker: and it also adds, uh, your question related to, like, why isn't Caltrans? So, um, I, I'm, I'm very proud to say that Mountain U is more proactive in delivery, uh, transportation improvements on a, um, faster scale, more efficient in Caltrans. Well, Catherine does do this. They have a enormous network to maintain. You know, respectively, I understand that. We have a smaller network to maintain, and we're very proactive in flying these pet bioconference throughout the city. So we saw an opportunity here as we did, we do with other projects that we're doing within mountain views, such as, they recently completed all the reality wipelines, the Elmonte, intersection, improvements, El Camino real, Castro protected intersection improvements. So there's a lot of projects that we are implementing because it's a priority for our community, um, and we can deliver. Faster than.

[02:59:48] Committee Member John McAlister: Oh, the initial thing with the community benefits was to get the bike lanes. And that also, that was our main goal at the time. To, those bike, like. Okay, that's what I thought. And so, Cal Chant said, well, while you're at it, do this for us. Makes sense.

[03:00:07] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: The original objective also was to reduce the collision because that was known from the 2012 2013 project study report that was completed, also in coordination with Caltrans at BTA. Having the interchange, um, included in that project study report, means that Caltrans. Commit staff to work with us and VTA to deliver this project without costs to the city board project.

[03:00:37] Committee Member John McAlister: So what actually is changing on the, the intersection. There

[03:00:45] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: are some protected, uh, intersection treatments that is that's proposed at the Ferguson, the on and off ramps. Um, so that would help reduce the vehicle speed as well as make the turning loop as more predictable at the intersections, which then could result in lower, uh, potential collision or lower conflicting movements. In the area, because now we're combining improvements along Middlefield Road and frontage road really to target the intersection that has the most conflict. I'd

[03:01:24] Unknown Speaker: also add that, um, the frontage road, um, but, uh, senior engineer how pointed out a couple of medians, that we were proposing along that French road. Oh, this is new. So they're not there today, and that's, and also in an effort to reduce speeds, create an element that would narrow the lane, uh, in another element that could help visual indicator that this is a little different. I need to slow down to be able to navigate this. Okay.

[03:01:50] Committee Member John McAlister: I'm going with your recommendation. I'm just curious. I'm all for what you're doing. Sure, the, the, I was just curious of what, what, exactly, some current. Yeah,

[03:02:01] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: the report also outlines, insulation of reflective backlights, installation of near side signal heads, modified traffic signal operations, to provide a bike and pet signal, signal phases. So dedicated phases for bikes and pads. All of these support the 2 biggest factors, the collision factors for speeding, and red light. All of these kind of fall in line as modifications that you could do. Really kind of, uh, low cost modifications to change direct behavior. Were

[03:02:33] Committee Member John McAlister: any collections included bicyclists? Or is it just card company? These are people, delicious. Okay. So I know mod is all those. Now that's confusing to me. When you turn on a green light, is it your lane or somebody else's, but that's, sorry, but. Okay. Last

[03:02:52] Chair Alison Hicks: call for questions? Okay, we will move on to public comment. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item?

[03:03:03] Barry Burr: Yes, it's. Barry Burr, which 25 will up the drive. This really, the issue of Middlefield Road, risks of this undefined approval of a class for bike lane. Right, in my backyard, a place I can drive through, sometimes commute to work or elsewhere, really kind of woke up a sleeping dog. Some of you remember me from 15, 20 years ago, on the B-pack or. My most recent civic engagement was on the Miami police citizen, co work group, uh, 2 or 3 years, 3 years ago. But relevant to here was that this middle, middle field, I'm 237 interchange, was the major topic that the police traffic officers, that spoke of us, had brought up that they had been working on life timing, but this was a known life collision area. And that when they got done with a lot of the life timing and adjustments, they felt that they already had dialed back from a lot of the additional collisions. The primary cause of majority of the collisions is cars coming down the ramp off of 237. I'll call it southbound, refer to Milpetus, where they're coming down in the 60, 70s or 80s miles per hour, within a quarter mile west, needing to slow down, sometimes do a stop. Well, a few rumble strips across or pots dots. That's a standard way of slowing cars down in transition. I'm not seeing that mentioned or hearing that brought up. But if you can amend into have a few rows of bots dots and rumble strips coming down that ramp. I venture a guess that, uh, closing speeds by the time they get to the light could be 10 to 20 miles an hour slower, just from all the traps you need to go over that. He said, that's when normal strips. Now they're, with the class 4 bike lane. Um, proposals being so vague. Caltrans, and I think VTA 2 has a wide range of options, how to design them, how to implement them. They show many pictures for many areas around the states, which widely range in what's done, including the reflectivity or lack, or not using reflectivity. Um, One example I'd offer is Yerba Buena down in San Jose, where there's no filler. It's just round holes, somewhat vertical round green tubes, cars and bicycles all see each other really well coming in and out. Now, president for the city to hold back on not moving forward until the class 4 definition is further defined. goes back to 26, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. The 6 years it took me. Along with VTA, and the VPACs involvement, to get the striping, bike lane, ingress, and heat breasts, on the overpass from shoreline over one on one. Eventually, Caltrans and VTA approved Safeway, and they refined it. And then they moved forward with the next city striping contract. I'm just about out of time. That's pretty much what I have here. You can contact me personally, privately in the email, if you would.

[03:06:26] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you very much. Are there any virtual speech? Yes, April Webster. Hi,

[03:06:38] April Webster: um, April Webster, I'm vice chair of the D4 Caltrans back and also on the um, California walk biked uh, technical advisory committee, so I see a lot of this projects and what Caltrans is doing. I'm speaking of my own on my own capacity. Um, interchanges. I like intersections are among the most dangerous and high stressed locations for people walking and biking. They combine high speeds, turning and merging movements, long crossings, driver expectations shaped by freeway conditions, et cetera. They also separate communities for people in cars. It can feel like a connection for people walking biking, taking transit. It feels like a wall. Um, or like a place you have to survive passing through. It's especially important here on 237 because it's a Caltrain corridor. The middle field light rail station is right there, um, was in station, LinkedIn, um, is right at this nearby employer, other nearby employers. They all shape how people move or can't move through this area. I would like to ask staff to evaluate this design from the perspective of an interested, but concerned bicyclist, including children, family, older adults, people who don't feel confident riding next to freeway ramps, which probably a lot of us, um, riding alongside something like this, um, even like a highway on wrap. I am not sure if any of you have done it. I have it takes nerves as steel. If the design only works for these confident adult cyclists that it's not going to be in all ages an ability facility. Um, I would like staff to clarify whether the proposed bike way, um, has been evaluated against Caltrans district for current bicycle best practices. It just came out in the past couple years. They have information in there for interchange crossings. Um, et cetera. I would also like, um, you know, all the parties to think about future proofiness, um, and trips that people want to make over the next several day, um, decades. That means evaluating it, um, the most protective form of class 4 facility feasible, including raised, um, Or sidewalk level bike ways are appropriate. San Jose, King Road, complete streets project is doing this. Um, they just presented at the VTA BPAC, um, for an obake for, um, funding. It was an excellent project. I would highly recommend you a look at that. Um, I don't think flex posts or modular curb delineary treatments will be sufficient here, especially this kind of environment. Um, they can be interim, but they're not great. Finally, VTA is beginning an interchange research. Right now, um, funded by Caltrans. They're still in the data and background phase. Um, but because this project is in PA and D-ED before it enters into PS and E final design. I think this is a time to keep that design window open and coordinate with BTA's research. And also Kell Trans Best District for Best Practices. Um, this is being presented tomorrow morning at the BPAC. At 10 to 12. I encourage you. It open to the public. I encourage you to attend. I'm happy to share details about that meeting. Thanks. Thank

[03:09:42] Chair Alison Hicks: you Are there more speakers? No, that's all. Okay, thank you very much. So we will now bring this back to the committee for comments and action. I'll

[03:10:02] Committee Member John McAlister: make questions right now. Are

[03:10:07] Chair Alison Hicks: there any comments before we? Yes. Okay for your comments.

[03:10:11] Committee Member John McAlister: I apologize. I didn't read the staff report. I didn't know I was concentrating so much on this. I go, that's the whole meeting. And so I apologize. I did not. That's why I asked someone. I apologize. So much, I'll trust instead. We're going to get it done. Okay,

[03:10:33] Chair Alison Hicks: well, I will, I will make my comment. Do you have any comments? I'm just excited that we're

[03:10:38] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: here 20 years later. This area really improvement, but thank you for that for your persistence and off of creativity in terms of all the different alternatives you looked at. And then, I think what council member, our committee member of the house, or like, is that, you know, it would be fully funded. And we could get that. No,

[03:11:00] Committee Member John McAlister: but I added, you know, I just, you guys ever gone through Carson City? If you go through Carson City, they do a lot of, The freeways have, Certain

[03:11:10] Chair Alison Hicks: AR that can be incorporated in the underpass, I think. Actually, actually, I have to 2nd that. That would be it. This is such a barrier in this neighborhood because this is not for now. But,

[03:11:22] Committee Member John McAlister: but everything, so my comment is just, you know, what the public speaker said, anything, since we're such an initial phase and this is such a barrier in this area and it's going to develop so much and it has been a place where people just drove to the office and then drove away and stayed inside their opposites, and we're trying to transform it into something else. You know, anything you can do along those lines or what the public speaker said about coordinating with BTA research, just anything you can do to turn it into more of a real neighborhood where people can be outside. Even

[03:11:57] Committee Member John McAlister: downtown San Jose, they're

[03:12:02] Chair Alison Hicks: past smart. It's just like, the trains, yeah, the trains, they have like a train going through part of it. I know we have an unlimited budget for that. Yeah, you know, said, hey, this could be... It's out of our public art, Patrick. It could be a public, well, it's called... Okay. No, that's. So

[03:12:22] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: I'm not gonna say no. Okay,

[03:12:24] Committee Member John McAlister: we will look into it. Later.

[03:12:27] Chair Alison Hicks: all for later. Okay, some pictures from cars.

[03:12:32] Committee Member John McAlister: They

[03:12:32] Chair Alison Hicks: have a potatoes, actually. Yeah,

[03:12:34] Committee Member Ellen Kamei: they have to follow. Okay, are we British to take them out? And

[03:12:41] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: are you no more comments? I think we ready? Um, so we'll, um, Me, me, McAllister, and 2nd effective here for me. Um, Maybe number, May. Yes. Yes. Sure Hicks. Yes. She passes 30.

6.1 Committee Comments

[03:13:05] Chair Alison Hicks: Now on item number six, which is committee staff announcements, updates, requests, and committee reports. Uh, 6.one is committee comments. Do any of the committee members have comments? Taking that. I in trouble.

[03:13:26] Committee Member John McAlister: Okay. Okay.

7. ADJOURNMENT

[03:13:28] Chair Alison Hicks: Um, okay, so now, uh, would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comments on this item? If so, please. Oh, there have been out. So, um, are there any public comments? No, no, my lack of confidence. Um. In that case, Uh, Thank you. Now on item number 7, which is adjournment. Our next, uh, CTC meeting will be August 31st, uh, 2026, and we will adjourn at 9.20 p.m. Thank you.