Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee - Regular Meeting

Present. I think oh, Paul is meeting to order. Can we do the role?

Yes. Vice chair. Chair Barton.

Member Barton.

Member sorry. Sorry. Member Barton. Former chair. Member Honk?

You, honk.

And member Stone? Present. All present.

Great. That brings us to item three, which is for oral communications from the public. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the committee on any matter not on the agenda. For full forces of public comments in this meeting, we will be limiting ourselves to two minutes given the larger than normal number of public commenters we seem to be having. So for this, we'll be limited to two minutes and the state law committees committee from acting on nonagendized items. Do we have any members of public in the room who want to speak to nonagendized items? Do we have any members of public online who wanna speak to that? Great. That will close general public health. We will now move to the consent calendar.

Consent calendar has three items on it. If any member of the committee wants to hold any of the items, they can. Be aware that we have a lot on the agenda, so be careful about doing that. But, yes, are there any clarifying actually, does any member of the committee want to pull any item items from?

Yeah. I would like to pull item 4.3.

Allison, can you write this? Yeah. It's and those people who would happen to be here anyways or no?

It yeah. So I think if you would like to pull it and add it at the end of the agenda, we could do that.

Okay. And is that inclined to put it at the like, if if we're pulling it?

I just had a question about it.

It's just a clarifying question.

I don't think we

need to pull. Okay. Okay.

Yeah. Right.

Then clarifying questions on

any of the.

Yeah. I guess my question is, since the PDM three report has a recommendation and alternatives, my assumption would be moving it will be the same as supporting the staff recommendation.

Staff recommendation. That is correct.

Alright. Which is the Castro Street.

Okay.

That was my question. Okay.

Great. And we don't yeah. Nothing that was pointed.

Any It's the recommendation that's listed on the agenda, which is recommend to the city council to allocate the accumulated transportation develop so for the Castro Intersection project.

Thank you.

Alright. Are there any members of the some folks in the room who would like to speak on the consent calendar? Do we have anyone online who has raised their hand who would like to speak on consent? Okay. That we will move to committee comments and hopefully a motion on the consent calendar.

I move that for accept. Move on.

Vice chair Monte moved. One second.

May I second?

Member Stone seconds. With that, can we have a vote the consent count? All in favor? With that, we will move we have no unfinished business, so we'll move to item 6.1, the active transportation plan public track for review. I believe we have a staff presentation.

Alright. So good evening, again. We're here today to talk about the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan, and we have our public draft plan here for review tonight. So quickly for the agenda, we will go over a quick project update, review the Mountain View active transportation plan components, and then review the timeline and next steps. So quick project update.

The project can, contain three primary phases. The first phase was background and existing conditions. The second phase was scoring and prioritization. And the third phase, which we're currently in, was the development and recommendation of potential project concepts, programs, policies, and implementation of the of the considerations. These have all These every phase has gone to different community meetings as well as advisory boards through the process.

So our recommendation that we're asking the BPAC to make at this time is to review and provide feedback on the public draft of the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan and recommend the adoption of the plan to the Council Transportation Committee. So feedback received to tonight will pre be presented to the council transportation committee, and it will inform the update of the document into a final plan, which we will then be presenting to BPAC again for formal recommendation to city council on August 26. The plan will go to city council for review and approval in September 2026. And with that, I will pass it off to Tracy who is sorry. I should have started with introductions.

Tracy is, our consultant with Nelson Nygard, whose team has been leading our active transportation plan.

Great. Thank you very much, Allison. Thank you all for allowing me to be here today to and very happy to get to this point in the project. I have had the honor of presenting to you all before, so I do see some familiar faces. I know some of the feedback membership has changed. So I wanted to talk about the the structure of the Belton Butte active transportation and, review some of

the process we've gone through to get

to this point in time. Next slide, please. So I want to start by saying, this plan, was developed through a very data and community driven process. It is structured so that it outlines, projects, policies, and programs that the city can carry forward over the next several years. Doing a plan such as this, an active transportation plan, or a planning process like safety plan or PDM plan that is under development too is really important.

It's an opportunity for the city to document future planning efforts, future projects, and policies and programs so that they are documented and then they are eligible for things such as, getting grant funding going forward. The project or the plan outlines, taking into consideration the city's sustainability goals and greeting goals. It's also informed by several health and training efforts that have, gone on gone on through the city over the past many years. Obviously, there was a bicycle and a pedestrian, two different plans, that were done in the mid twenty tens that were form the foundation of this active transportation plan where we consider the two modes, all those act transportation modes together. We also looked at other local plans such as the local safety plan, access MV, the green street and sustainability plans that have been done throughout the city, as well as looking at regional and state level plans, that are being done by partner agencies, in the region such as VTA, MTC.

Caltrans also, recently completed District 4, their pedestrian and their buskill plan. And all of those plans, as well as some plans done by headquarters, meet street guidelines, were taken into consideration in the development of this plan. Next slide. To give you an idea of the overall structure of the active transportation plan, once you, go through the executive summary, chapter one outlines, introduces the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan and outlines the development process of the plan itself and what we've conducted over the past several years. It also outlines the public and engagement that took part throughout the planning process.

And lastly, this chapter, also, lists the vision statement that was developed as part of this planning process and the guiding principles that were part of this plan. Chapter two is where we go over the existing conditions. What is it like to walk, bike, and roll in Mountain View today? We look at the demographics and the travel patterns, that exist within the city of Mountain View, the infrastructure services and policies that may affect active transportation, and we end the chapter by looking at a holistic network vision for the future. Slide.

Chapter three is where we cover, the great things that are already happening here in Mountain View and the infrastructure you have in place and the programs and policies that help to support the active community you have, as well as making recommendations for projects, programs, and policies that can enhance the active transportation environment going forward. And chapter four is where we focus on implementation. How do you take these plans, projects, and policies that are recommendation or that are recommended and move them into action? We consider, sorry. Can you go back

one more? Two more. Oh, oh, that right there.

This is where we also talk a little bit about the funding that's needed to move, projects and policies forward as well as, some consideration of Green Street. Next slide. I mentioned the vision and guiding principles. These were developed early on in the project and, VPAT Peter brought to VPAT for your feedback. We you can read the vision that is stated there.

This also went to the active transportation policy advisory committee as well as internal staff and technical advisory committee review. And then our guiding principles for the plan overall, you'll see these repeated when we get to his scoring. Next. This is just a summary of the internal and external engagement activities that occurred throughout the plan planning process. We've been to BPAG several times, and we will be back one more time in August.

Presentations to CTC. I mentioned mentioned the technical advisory committee. That is an internal advisory committee made up of staff members across multiple departments within the City Of Mountain View that were involved throughout the planning process, as well as a public advisory committee with representatives from organizations, nonprofits, partner agencies that, interact within the City Of Mountain View or a part of represent the population of Mountain View. We also conducted several small group meetings to further, have inclusive engagement as well as conducted walking and bicycling tours and, implemented a community mapping survey to ask people about their lived experiences within the state of Mount View. We also conducted, pop ups and workshops and have presented to city council.

We'll close this planning process in September

with the presentation of city council.

In looking at existing conditions, as I mentioned, active transportation is a part of life in Mountain View already. You have one of the highest rates of walking and bicycling. When we look at commute data, certainly within the region and within the state and within the country. So you are an active community already. You also have a very active Safe Routes to School program within the city that helps to support that as well.

People want to be able to walk, bike, and roll safely throughout the community to access key destinations like schools, work, shopping, community resources like City Hall And Square and Capastra Street downtown, as well as getting to transit safely. There are this doesn't mean that there aren't opportunities for improvement, and that's what that plan the plan has outlined. The main takeaway from the existing conditions in talking with community members, one main takeaway is people wanna be active and they wanna be able to do it safely, and have it be a feasible and comfortable, part of their everyday, transportation options. As I mentioned, there is, opportunities for improvement. While the city has, in terms of a sidewalk network, about 96% of the sidewalk network is complete.

There are gaps within that sidewalk network. One of the other things that we focused on in this plan is looking at the quality of sidewalk network. So where there's opportunities also for improvement to the crossing crossing, opportunities. The same thing is true for the bicycle network. You have a decent bicycle network in place, but there are opportunities for, making that bicycle network more complete and connected as well as improving the the quality and the comfort level of the bicycle.

Mhmm. So as a result of that analysis of the gaps in presence and quality, there is we developed holistic active transportation. No. I don't know.

She does. Mhmm. Mhmm.

So as a result of looking at the gaps that exist within the active transportation network, holistic network maps were developed for both the pedestrian and the bicycle network, again, to inform the analysis of potential projects that are outlined in the plan. Next slide. You'll see in the plan itself, these are two maps that are present. Again, it's a little hard to see on the screen. I apologize for it being,

small.

But we have, again, look looking at the pedestrian network and the opportunities for improvement in terms of where there are facilities and then where are there opportunities for improvement facility and the same for the bicycle network. Next slide. In terms of the recommended improvements for the bicycle network, again, we built off of our planning work that had been done, access and being in the previous bicycle plan being two of the items we looked at. And we focused on the identification of the gaps in the network and rec made recommendations regarding appropriate facility type taking into consideration the roadway infrastructure, land use, traffic characteristics, and demographics. So we there are several recommendations for facilities, across the city, across the various types of classes, that California uses to, to classify bicycle facility types.

So class one is our shared use path. That is, like, Stevens Creek or Tormente Trail. Class two bike lanes are where we focus that is a class two bike lane is paint on a roadway, maybe buffered, maybe not buffered. Class three bike route is assigned route, but doesn't have paint, to designate a bike lane. Whereas class three b, bicycle boulevards, is more of a low stress neighborhood street that, may or may not I apologize. I can't remember off the top of my head, whether Mountain View marks that, with a bicycle symbol. Like, we used to use, so

I cannot call at the moment.

I wouldn't use that or have used that in the past. Whereas class four separated bikeways is our protected bikeways where you have a horizontal or vertical separation allowing the bicycle traveler to be physically separated by vertical or horizontal separation from vehicular traffic on the roadway, but it is on street as opposed to a class one being off street. In terms of the pedestrian network, as I mentioned, the network within the city of Mountain View in terms of physical presence of sidewalks is rather complete, up to 96%. There are opportunities to there are some gaps that exist within the network, and so those recommend there are recommendations associated with filling those gaps. But we also, again, looked at the quality of the pedestrian network.

Are there opportunities to widen a sidewalk in some areas of city or to improve the crossing environment in some locations, either the distance between crossings, or the distance of a crossing? So same as with bicycle, the bicycle network, you see summary of the recommendations here on this table, with a significant amount of crossing improvements that are recommended. Next slide. Every single, gap within the holistic mapping process, was documented in a spreadsheet and was, considered or consolidated into a project possibility. All of those project possibilities, which were there over 100, were scored using these prioritization criteria.

The prioritization criteria are structured using our guiding principles. These have come to fight BPAC in the past, and they reflect the community's input, BPAC's input, the technical advisory community's input in terms of putting together a diverse set of scoring criteria that can capture the various, characteristic and quality of potential projects, also taking into consideration the variation between bicycle projects and pedestrian projects. Notably, I do wanna point out, community input was really important in this process. So we do under safety and comfort, there is a scoring criteria that looks at addresses community concerns, and that was a compilation of data from AskMV, the community mapping survey, and our, community engagement activities as a whole. So again, these prioritization criteria represent the scoring or the guiding principles or structure around the guiding principles minus the innovation, and action oriented principle, that's partly related to feasibility.

Feasibility is real you know, tied to action orientation in terms of the opportunity to leverage existing plan projects, level of interagency coordination, considerations of costs, things like that. So from that process, again, every single segment or, within the holistic network identification process was, combined into a project and was scored. What you have on the map here is, we considered the staff helped us identify priority projects that would move forward into touchy development. So that is what is listed on this slide here and the next. And those are what are listed in Chapter three of the active transportation plan.

Chapter three also outlines some policy recommendations for the city to consider in order to provide a foundation for active transportation, throughout the city. We recommend, consideration of a no right turn on red policy, consideration of leading pedestrian interval, continued implementation of the data daylighting law that was passed statewide, examination of, or evaluation of speed limits and speed zones within the city, Again, looking at what is possible for changes in speed posted speed limit, through California vehicle code and California law, as well as enforcement of school zone speed limits. So that is a sample of policy recommendations that are present in the plan. And then we also have some program recommendations as well. Things like road safety education, re upping bicycle friendly community designation, consideration of expansion of the very successful Safe Routes to School program that exists within the city, and then the importance of maintenance of outdoor transportation facilities and the evaluation of infrastructure projects, which is a requirement for if you receive discretionary funding like active transportation program through the state

of California.

But it is always good to know the benefits of your projects. Lastly, chapter four takes into, looks at implementation considerations again. Some of the projects, that are on the priority project list, we looked at both, looked at them in two different phases, a near term or, like, a quicker build, design implementation, such as what could be done when there is a resurfacing opportunity. If the street is already on the schedule for resurfacing, is there an opportunity to do active transportation improvements, take advantage of that schedule? And the and then we also looked at some longer term, implementation considerations that would involve reconstruction.

So resurfacing are things that can happen within the existing curb line, whereas reconstruction would involve some curb line adjustments, and this is where we might be able to implement some of the green street infrastructure that's best within the plan. Related to the green street, the chapter four also looks at what are the key benefits and trade offs when you're considering green street infrastructure. They are it is important, for active transportation, but there are also benefits related to environmental sustainability, storm water management, but those should be considered in relation to some of the costs associated with a more expensive infrastructure

development.

Lastly, what chapter four also looks at what are some various, various funding and collaboration considerations to take into account. All the roads within Mountain View aren't necessarily owned or or maintained by the city of Mountain View. For example, El Camino Real is a state highway, surface street state highway that is Caltrans. And we also have to take into consideration what the work our other partners are doing, such as CTA and Santa Clara County. So some of that info that's covered in chapter, four, those implementation considerations and the importance of funding and collaboration and commitment to move projects and policies and programs forward.

So Allison, pass it back

to you. So timeline and next steps. So we're going to be busy the next couple of months. We released the plan on April 20 to the public. It is currently up on Collaborate MV for public comment.

So I encourage those listening and those in the room to provide feedback there. On April 21, we held an AT PAC meeting where we reviewed the plan with our, community advisory team. We're here today on April 29 for our BPAC meeting looking for feedback from our BPAC. On May 4, we will be having a public meeting here in the same room, and we're hoping to have some feedback from the public in that workshop. On June 16, we will be taking this to the council transportation committee, and we will provide the feedback that we've heard to them at that time.

In July, we will be making our final revisions and updating the plan based on the community input received. In August, on August 26, we will be bringing the final plan including the comments received and the changes back to BPAC for a recommendation to counsel. And in the September, currently September 22, we will be bringing this plan to counsel for their, review and adoption. And with that, just a quick reminder of what we're looking for here today. We're looking for the BPAC to review and provide feedback on the public draft of the Mount Viejo Active Transportation Plan and recommend the adoption of the plan to the council transportation committee.

Thank you, Paul.

So for those who are not familiar, we will first be having the feedback to go through and ask some clarifying questions that they may have, then we'll go to public comment with the aforementioned, two minutes from speaker, and then we'll come back to feedback for, comments and discussion on the

item. And

for anyone who isn't aware, there are so significant number of written comments to feedback members asked in advance that are posted on. So some questions that you may have or interest may be there already. Are there any members to feedback?

You so in response to one of my earlier clarifying questions, you mentioned there was some rescoping or reviewing the original scoping, perhaps rescoping that happened along the way. Can you give a little description of what was the rescoping changed from the 2023 scope document that I have documented that one.

I'm not sure of how much the specifics, but, we

It's just a broad I know one thing to change because it's in my clarifying question. Is there anything else significant that

What is your specific oh, what what what are you

I I just wanna know, like because all I have is is the scoping document and the current plan stuff changed. I don't know what changed. So I'm asking what changed. That's my that's my So

I will say, generally speaking, the intent of the scope to deliver an active transportation plan is still intact. Right? We have delivered a plan that we've done, a extensive amount of community outreach. We have scoring criteria like, the main components of that scope. I will say there were things that have changed from the original scope, like the there was a change from, the council study session that, added the holistic existing maps.

We went back and did that. We also went back and changed scoring criteria for some of the outreach. So in doing some of that, to make sure we stayed on time and on budget, there were some things that were either combined into certain activities or looked at a little differently. So I don't know if there's more to that that you

No. That that's good.

Okay.

Just some other questions. In the old bicycle transportation plan, there's a plan for the Permanent Creek to keep going south all the way to the border. That's not current plan. Is that being purposefully dropped? Did we look into and decide it's not feasible?

I'm sorry. You're asking about the Stevens Creek We're

not taking a in the in the 2015 bicycle transportation plan. There's a plan to continue it all the way south past El Camino down to the border with Los Algos, which is not present in the current plan.

It was one of the scored projects.

Oh, was it?

Yes. Yeah. So it just might not have elevated it to So

this

map is the the top the priority projects. There is a map that shows everything, but there's also a map that shows priority projects. So it was scored, and it is in that appendices.

K. So I I mean, I'm looking at the holistic classical network right now, and I don't

see there's a Permanente Creek Trail extension between Van Road and Tier 6 Drive, so that is in the list of things. But I think that's distinct from what member Stone is asking about.

We can explore that Okay. Further as a comment as we move to final. Okay. We'll have to look into that.

I was just wondering. Or we talked about curb line adjustments a minute ago. So I I know it's hard to adjust the curb because you got, like, storm water and stuff under there. Is there a difference in cost between adjusting, like, the the curve at the edge of the road versus providing a hard curve buffer between, like, a class four bikeway and but those those are yeah. Is is is it cheaper Is one cheaper than the other because you're not affecting underwater drains? You just put a curve on the top of the road. I mean, I

You because roads have a slope to them, generally speaking, if you were to you know, roads going like this. Sorry for my visuals. But if a road has a a crown to it and we put something here, you're going to impact water flow, drainage. And if we are diverting water from where the original inlet is, it's still gonna have an impact. Now, linear foot of curve in one location versus another was not our cost estimates are not down to that specific level at this time because these are very these are very preliminary.

K. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean This is more master plan level.

Yeah. I I understand. It's just for me to think about cost because we were talking about that earlier. There's a couple other questions. Do we have an existing standard walking speed for intersection timing? Was that That

is part of the MUTCD. There is a a standard walking speed that is part of, pedestrian timing.

Right. But then the city doesn't have any separate one, and there was no

I'm not aware. No. We don't have our own specific Okay. Signal timing for pedestrians.

You know, one more thing is that I noticed some of the newer multiuse paths don't connect with the roadway. They and, like like, we want to submit a field that just came in as part of a project and a strip. So you're on the multiuse plant. There's a pipeline here, but you can't get there from here because it's planting strip in the middle. That feels like there should be a policy about that. Is that looked into or during the process?

I think that would happen during the development phase. So that would be when that project comes into development. We would explore that. I I don't I

I didn't I know at least three different times this has happened, so I'm thinking this that was a question.

I'll Yeah.

Take my comment with the comment. Alright. That's all my questions. Right.

I assume some people have more questions. I know I do.

Yeah. In particular, on the, the class four bike lane. So it was said we had 20 miles, I believe, was the number. And I guess my question is, is that including El Camino? And since El Camino is not continuous, how are you counting it as a class four?

Are you

talking about the existing class four? I I think you have. Or or

table with recommendations.

It would probably be either. So I mean, it's complete.

But I guess I was I was just curious how non con like, El Camino is non continuous. It stops and diverts the bicycle traffic into the

traffic lanes. Yeah.

So I get to my eyes, it's like a circuit that's not complete. Wondering, is that counted? Because I wonder how we got the 20 miles otherwise.

And what was on the slide with the table was a recommendation for future projects, and it's it's a summary of, added miles, recommended additional miles. So that portion of El Camino that is complete and already in class four would not have been in that 20. It is recommended improvements for

20 more throughout the city.

And I guess it's applying El Camino a class four even with the gaps. Is that how we're defining class four gaps allowed? Or what what what defines class four? Class one?

I'm gonna introduce myself. I'm Lauren. I'm sorry. I did not realize I need to bring my own name tag. I'm Lauren Ledbetter. I was this is my third day at the city. I am the new transportation manager. Prior to this, I worked at, VTA as the bicycle and pedestrian program manager. I know member Kussmaul because he's on the

b baby pack, and so we overlapped a

little bit. And I'm familiar with the the Altamino Real class four bikeway. I know what you're talking about. It does have some large gaps at the bus stops, for example, and it has gaps as you're approaching the intersections in order to allow cars to move into the bike lane and then take a right hand turn.

Even before that, so, like, a shoreline up here. Okay. It it totally disappears Yeah.

As it were.

It's not a

So I think, you know, it's it's a in terms of the I think it would be a judgment call for how you would measure it. You could go down to the feet. I would say if it's a long stretch and the reason why you didn't have the drop and the protection is because there wasn't enough space to put the protection in the width. I would probably not consider that to be class four. But if the protection breaks in order to allow a bus to move over to the sidewalk and board and deboard the the customers or if the protection breaks because you need to have a space for the motorists to merge safely into the bike lane before they take a right turn.

I would still consider that part of the class four bikeway. So, but I don't know since my third day, I don't

know the answer.

To answer the question for what is included in the calculation, I will say, because this is a master plan and we are looking at everything at a very high level, we were not going block by block to the city. We are assuming that if there is a drop, it is it will be evaluated at the time the project comes online, but it's included generally speaking in our our accounts. We we assumed the whole stretch of the project would be getting the class four. And if space does not allow for that, we will we'll look at that as a on a project by project basis. But but we are making some assumptions as we we come up with our our master plan level decisions here.

Okay. Does that make sense?

Yeah. Because

it I mean, similar to Ringstorf, people tell us they don't use it because just like a light switch, it's almost a complete circuit, but until you turn it on, it doesn't really work. And a lot of people, they get scared off by that fifty, hundred yard gap.

It doesn't Our intent is to make it a complete circuit. That being said, there are areas where we will not have complete right away to do some of that, and there will be there might be some pinch points.

Additional questions?

Let's see. We talked about a little bit. We mentioned standards, but I guess it doesn't appear to me that the policy calls for MUTCD, for instance, for instance, in reference to walking speed. It doesn't the policy doesn't say that it shall be policy ATP doesn't say it'll be policy to the city to adopt any particular standards. Is that correct?

That is correct.

K. So, well, the U B

MUTCD might be common. We're not saying we'll always follow that one.

We follow anything that is state, local, state, and federal law or in our code as well as we, you know, practice best practices. But so

I guess policy doesn't say which best practice.

No. And I remember that this plan is intended to last, you know, five to ten years. And if I start giving specific plans with dates on them, I don't necessarily want to tie into that either because at some point those will become dated as well through the process of this document. So so we've said that, you know, local, state, federal guide standards and regulations is what we follow when projects come online. We'll make sure that they are all up to those.

I guess what I hear is law is not kind of the different standards of Caltrans standard.

Caltrans standards are best practice recommendations, and we do most of them have been adopted as the standards. I will say when they are guidance, then that's where I would say they are not formally adopted.

Yeah. I get I guess it would be good to have conflict clarity there.

There's no questions. Yeah.

Yep. So first, thanks for answering all questions. Was a lot on a quick turnaround. Appreciate it.

I have more questions. So

the first one is I think it was one of the question asked, but, you know, the the that Green Street seems to be tied to reconstructing the road or or street. Are are there any somewhat recent examples of of of reconstructed? Know plenty of. I know some new roads, but I I

the North Shore once,

Yeah. I need the North Bay Shore. I say we we're currently in a planning phase for Ringsdorf, so that would be a complete street project. So that would include greening.

That would be reconstructed as

opposed to That is a reconstruction instead of a resurface. We're about to kick off. Next, it was in the CIP that you guys just, looked at for Evelyn. Evelyn would be also constructing, and I we've got our, engineering

Yeah.

Rob Infrastructure.

Principle. That that was pretty not.

Yeah. Yeah. You. Good question. Robert Gonzalez. Civil infrastructure growth. So we have plans and

Shoreline Boulevard

active transportation and utilities improvements program. So the that

North Of 101

up near the computer history museum.

So that's a Mhmm. It's also included.

I don't know if we have any none are coming to mind other than that one. We are going through some design

work right now. Projects.

Yeah. So that that would be good to know. Range's. And there's that way we know when

we push for for risk.

And under this categorization, the middle field item we're about here would evolve that way, like, resurfacing or reconstruction?

That is correct. Alright.

Okay. So I think it's important. I I cite more. Let's see. Yeah. So I have comments on on very soft projects and some inconsistencies and so on. But

could could you clarify

so I I get how you do that all the universal projects. You solve them. You pick the top ones. But it looks like it was further weighted out based on interactions with or sometimes based on on the project being order already covered in a precise plan. So wasn't very clear. I don't know if you had some clarification on the the criteria that you use. So so that's for from the the list of top projects that you further limited based on, you know, what that has to do with Caltrans. So

everything was scored. So everything was scored. If it elevated to a top or a priority project, then it was eligible, I'll say, for a cut section or those cut sheets that you see in in a later appendices. We did not give projects that are either currently underway part or part of a precise plan their own cut sheets because they are already covered in another city document. So the idea was not to either potentially conflict have conflicting information that goes out there or change something that's previously been adopted by by a governing body. So that's that's why they're still they're still scored. They're still listed. They just did not receive stand alone cut sheets.

Right. And they they're still listed in the priority project list to emphasize that they scored high, which I think helps to reinforce the the planning processes that are already underway for those projects.

Probably have more to say that are clarifying this.

Because that's I will say one of the benefits of the cut sheets is that that helps us be more competitive when we go after grants. A lot of scoring criteria for grants include public commitment, public, outreach, and well at some sort of preliminary design. So having these cut sheets makes all of these projects that much more competitive as these grant opportunities come. Now, precise plans already have that in there, so they always already meet that criteria when we go forward for those grants.

Yeah. I just I think the whole purpose of this thing is to get people more engaged, right, about, you know, engaged to what we're going on with. I'm thinking I'm looking at this, and I'm thinking now. It with the the vision plan, the vision zero plan for the city is also similar. I was wondering, would there be some sort of, like, mention in this pamphlet also to put it together?

So they they do the intent is for them to, you know, work harmoniously together. One is not supposed to supersede the other. I think, and Lauren and I actually spoke about this earlier today. I'm hoping eventually the plans will align in the sense that they'll be updated at the same time. They will work together when we do outreach and and all of that. But, yes, the the plans do do work well together, and it should be should be looked at as a package.

Yeah. The last oh, I'm sorry. It's because I was I was also the project manager for the local roadside plan. That is a full road safety analysis. So it's not limited to just bicycle and pedestrian safety.

It also is vehicular safety. It's anybody traveling along the roadway or being a road user. So there is that difference between the two plans. And the projects that were identified there were specifically tied to safety concerns based on either crash history or the risk of safety based on risk based characteristics, again, for all road users, not just bicycle and pedestrian users. So that's an important distinction between them. Safety was a consideration in these projects and this this project overall and the scoring criteria, but it was one of multiple categories that were considered.

Okay. Well, I mean, the whole from the the original the original, that was, I think, 2023. It has done some tasks and task number five, get, you know, get people more engaged. And that's a whole function of this to get people more alert and more people more you know, to know what's going on and let Mountain View become the, like, the regional first to do this. And so I was thinking this would there be would it be better if it would be more, you know, engagement plans that's more more specific?

Like, you know, we're here. I mean, that says here, like, police department, all that stuff and, you know, education. But and the original ones, it says on the task five, like, the tools and techniques and platforms and all these, you know, that's it just becomes more

what do

you call it?

It gets people when they read it, becomes more engaged in what's what's gonna do, what could do. And so it just touches them. Can I

ask a clarifying question? Are you referencing the Vision Zero as the 2023?

No. No. I'm changing. It's We've got

the 2023 scope down. Oh, got it. Okay. So this is the scope what they're gonna do as part of development. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. So so we did a bunch of outreach. We as as we went through in the PowerPoint, you know, we have a internal technical advisory committee that is made up of all of different city employees and different departments and divisions where who have reviewed and have input in all of this. We have an AT PAC, which is comprised of community members and local and regional partners that are part that also reviewed this.

We did multiple pop ups, bike rides, walk audits, as well. And then this has come multiple times to BPAC, CTC, and, counsel for buy in on the vision statement as well at the scoring criteria. So it has the out we have done a lot of outreach to make sure that we are hearing the community feedback, and we will continue to. We have a community meeting next week where we're hoping to to get, some feedback.

I will ask a few questions. I have my questions myself. Let's see.

Sorry to make sure I actually have this. Okay.

So on the, I asked a question prior to me about the costs in the table eight that we're sort of referencing the resurfacing costs. And those costs per the response are sort of for the whole resurfacing. Is it difficult to compare those to the cost of, say, if we were just doing the resurfacing without adding the active transportation elements?

You're asking, can we separate the cost of what would a resurfacing project cost? I I mean, assume you

can't fully separate the cost.

Yeah.

It's sort of the what is the marginal cost of adding the, after transportation improvements, improving the stockpile?

I don't have that information for you at the time. What we could do is maybe look at historically what a resurfacing project does. But but most of our resurfacing projects include things like striping, which would be included in Yeah. In a resurfacing project independent of active transportation improvements.

Yeah. Understood. Understood. It's not. Okay. Yeah. I was just trying to make sure. Just trying to get a feel for, like, are these costs That's that

are much this level of preliminary design, it it would be hard painful.

Okay. Alright. I

think my questions is up.

So if I have Yeah. Two more questions.

Yeah. So the first one is the follow-up also on the question I asked about the lifetime of the the plan and and, know, you how frequently what what cadence it would be for for

checking that data. And

don't know if you had in mind, you know, how how the plan would be updated or checking.

So we did. We received that question as well. And, so the lifetime of the plan is most likely it's ten years or so. Right? And we expect typically an active transportation plan that's updated every five years or so. So sometime within the ten year lifetime plan, we will most likely update. Yeah.

And and is it, like, big thing or or like a general plan?

Well, I wasn't involved in the update of this plan, but,

I mean, it could be it

could be a small update.

Yeah. Each community, I mean, handles it differently depending on the the scope or scale of the update, the changes that occurred within the community, the region, and in the period of time since the last plan, LARR, I think, are one of the main factors that dictate whether they it is a small update or a larger update.

My hope is that it is an update on what we have accomplished and the changes that have been made, so how much we've accomplished in that amount of time, and then maybe reevaluating what our current priority projects are as the community has changed, development has changed. So it would be looking more at those ideas and maybe evaluating if we need to adjust any policies or add any policy. So it would be an abridged version of what we just went through.

I would agree with that.

Yeah. Because it took about five years. And one final question. I noticed that it was mostly in the cut sheets that's there there are considerations for sometimes widening some sidewalks from five to six and the feeds. Sometimes to shrink them, I think, from 10 to eight or something like this. Could could you speak to the difference it makes for pedestrians between five and six feet or from six and eight or 10?

So I mean

graph of a metric system, so

Maybe the one.

Yeah. It's two two

I mean, what what had been standard way back I'm looking at Robert, the engineer. I mean, CYBOX used to be four foot. So now I think it's five foot standard, and it's a matter of comfort. And, also, what is the utility of the sidewalk at a certain location if it is meant to,

you know, It it felt like the use. The use too. Right? Your neighborhood sidewalk is going to be very different than what we're trying to accomplish on Castro with with a a more of a pedestrian, you know, promenade. So we allowable per code is still four. We, the city, go for five. But so that's our standard is we would we shoot for five. But,

again,

it it depends on the use. So if there's a huge pedestrian and what what we're trying to accomplish on the project. Again, all of these will be reevaluated as projects come online as part of the CIP.

Yeah. These are.

That,

I think this will give us two public comments. So we'll go to the first public comment. First, we'll do two minutes per speaker. I'm guessing we have members of public community who want to speak. I

just have one short comment. My name is Tracy Chew, another Tracy. I'm a Mountain View resident in the Shoreline West neighborhood. And I'm really impressed with the active CTP. It's very impressive to see the comprehensiveness of it, and I learned a lot.

I think that one suggestion I have is to it has a great vision that's very compelling, and it has a very rigorous, like, prioritization framework. But I think it would benefit from having some very specific measurable outcomes to assess whether or not all of these great projects that we're doing are really having the ultimate, impact on the community, whether it's, like, shifting mode or, you know, completing a net you know, more completeness of a network or increasing the safety. I think it would be really great to have something, like, more, explicit and, specific that's summarizing the the impact of this plan because it would really emphasize the importance of it to our. So

Oh, yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Isn't that I'm almost daily using my bicycle. You're not in use in several years years already, and I have a comment for the map for the bicycle map on slide 21 about few minutes ago. I'm wondering how well correlated is this map with the practical use of the public. For example, if if I I'm experienced by providers when I'm not looking because I don't need the map anymore, but members of the public are starting to theory to use spioseconds, for example. Should they use this map, or should they just go to Apple Maps or Google Maps on their own, which is already providing good recommendations,

I see.

For example, when writing for Central Mountain View, Central Los Altos, I get a good recommendation on the webs here, but I cannot find this connection on the Bicycle network.

Thank you. Okay. Ahead.

Hi. Good evening. I'm Salee Pamer, a resident in Mountain View, also a parent and a teacher.

I wanna thank you for all

the work that's gone into the ATP. I know it's not been a linear process. It's taken a while. But there's been a lot of, I think, really valuable intentional work that's gone into it. I do wanna point out, I feel like from my perspective, I see an urgency for providing safe transportation options for children every day.

Mental wellness for students is a priority in our city, but many children are trapped in their homes with their only option for socialization being through screens. For children to be both mentally and physically healthy, they need to be able to safely leave transport themselves around the city. Parents I talked to aren't worried about them getting kidnapped as they go out. They're worried their kids will be hit by cars. Given all this, I hope we complete this plan quickly and incorporate timelines into the plan for completing projects in a timely manner that reflects the urgency we feel in wanting to protect the lives of our kids.

I think, like many of the large plans that are coming before council right now, there are many strong ideas, but also several important implementation gaps that still need to be addressed before this moves forward. Right now, the ATP often identifies what we want, but not how the city will consistently and urgently deliver it. There should be a requirement of yearly progress reports. I liked the idea, just last night of a report card dashboard or report, that biodiversity the plan talked about. Maybe there should be something like that here so we can see the progress and see that we're getting the things we want to get done.

Many of the barriers to protected bikeways, safer crossings, green streets, shade, and all ages and abilities infrastructure are not conceptual. They're actually embedded in the standards, standard details, municipal codes, lane with assumptions, and project delivery practices. Thank you, Fried.

My name is Greg Colodonado. I live in the Slater neighborhood. I've lived in the Slater neighborhood for seventeen years, and I just wanna echo a comment made by a committee member, Barton. I rode my bike from my house down to California Street this morning and then back on El Camino to get a good look, paying attention to bike lanes. I've used them before, but I wasn't really coming to a feedback committee meeting that night. So I went, looked

at it, thought about it.

And I do agree that, the number of times that the bike lanes move around, start, stop, and do unexplainable things is something that I hope the, the committee and council and, all the relevant parties can continue to work on to make it so that when someone says, oh, you know what? I'm gonna get on my bike. I'm gonna go to Sunnyvale. I'm gonna go to Palo Alto today, that they can figure out how to use the bike lane because they're kind of, disjointed. And so other places I've biked, there's just, you know, one straight line, and the green keeps going. And so I encourage some sort of adding that in as possible. Thank you. Thank you.

Any further public speakers in the room? Right. Well, I guess I'm guessing we have public members of public online.

Hi.

Good evening. I don't know if you can can you hear me okay? Thanks.

Yes.

I'm going to

say thank you for all the work that's gone into this ATP. As someone else mentioned, I know it's not been linear, and there's some challenges. I think there are many strong ideas, but I also think there are several several important implementation gaps that still need to be addressed before this moves forward as a truly implementable plan. My main recommendations are adopt modern multimodular guidance like NACTO. Pier cities have done this for Complete Streets projects, and they're using 10 foot travel lanes while still accommodating garbage trucks, buses, delivery vehicles, emergency access.

I'd encourage staff to look at San Jose, which adopted it in 2018, the council, and a complete streets policy. Second, update the standard details and relevant city code city codes as recommended in the existing conditions analysis. Three, establish a stronger implementation for framework. Four, include a more operational complete streets implementation policy that clearly explains how the ATP will be implemented. I wanna point out the October 2023 existing conditions work that was presented to BPAC.

It included a substantial review of standards, the d standard details, and the city code. It explicitly stated that several existing standard details do not reflect, I say, quote, do not reflect current best practices, end quote, and that existing street cross cross sections, quote, do not reflect streets that support active transportation for all ages and abilities. I would like to see that added back into this report. It's very common to have an existing conditions in an ATP, at least as an appendix. And, also point out that the cross sections are using 11 foot travel lanes.

It's almost like putting the cart before the horse because we haven't actually done the standard details update, which is included as a CIP discussion item. And I think, you know, making these changes would make it stronger, especially for future grant opportunities. Thank you.

Jesse?

Hey. How are

you doing?

Deepak. So I wanted to just give some feedback.

One of

the things I think is really lacking from this plan is trying to mandate some proactive police monitoring and ticketing of cars that are parked illegally in the bike lanes or near bike lanes blocking sight lines. But there's lots of spots where you legally can't park on California for the purpose of preventing people from blocking the view of people in the bike lane, and they're just striped off. Some of them have bollards, but some are just painted stripes. And I've been almost hit by cars twice because there were things blocking cars from seeing me. So that's that's important.

And then, you know, when it comes to enforcing people parking the bike lanes, like, I I take California and commute there every day to work, and it's not uncommon to have two or three or four cars parked on my way to work. And at that point, that's, you know, like, half of my commute or more. I'm going out of the bike lane and going into the free lane, and then cars are honking at me. They're angry at me. It's kind of scary to have a giant car honking at you and, road raging.

And they don't know that I'm there because I don't have a choice because someone's blocking the bike lane. And there's not a whole lot of opportunity to zip in and out of the bike lane, which is, you know, a pro and a con of the protected bike lane. But once you're out, you oftentimes have to stay out for half a block or a full block. So the leading pedestrian interval was mentioned. I think that really should be expanded to leading bike and pedestrian interval.

That's just a really quick and easy fix, for bikes to cross the street more safely and more comfortably, encourage active transportation. And I let them know they're not gonna get hit by a car right turning. Overall, it's a really good plan, and, I thank you for your hard work. But, generally, I think we can we can do more.

You. Yep. You have two minutes.

Hi. I'm actually in a very noisy place, and I was wondering if I can cede my time to April because April had some points she was gonna make on behalf of a bunch of us, and I'm worried you won't really be able to hear me.

We can both hear you fine, Deb, and I'm not sure if we have a good process for CD time right now.

Okay. You okay. So you can hear me. What I wanted to echo what some of the things that April was saying and also some of the things that Jesse has said, and especially about enforcement, of utilization of bike lanes. So I have a kid who takes a only partially safe route to school.

And one of the things that, affects her safe commuting, crossing El Camino and then transiting to, Graham Middle School is pavement conditions in general. And I know that there is a separate paving plan, but the separate paving plan does not take into account the, experience of riding a bicycle through the city. And I'm wondering if there is some way to tie the active transportation plan to the paving plan in order to just increase the safety, especially along major routes to school, in areas that don't necessarily get downgraded for their pay pavement quality because it's fine for cars, but it's not fine for bikes, and especially kids on bikes. And I'm thinking in particular of the lane that runs parallel to El Camino that is a on the on the South that is a major transit venue for kids going to Graham Middle School. And I know that that one is rated poorly on the pavement plan, but it's not in the plan to be repaved.

So that's just an example of you know, there's a known there are known pavement issues that affect safety and safe routes to school for both biking and pedestrians, but it's still not on the capital improvement plan.

Thank you, Deb. Cliff, you'll have to

Hi. Cliff Chambers, resident of Mountain View. Thanks. I think this plan has got a lot of work. You get an absolute a for community engagement and stakeholder involvement since 2023.

I I think there's a lot of really good things in this plan, but I'd like to just point out a few things that I'd like you to address. First, during on the prioritized projects, we're we're really having a lot of expansion of protected bikeways, more comfort, safety. I really applaud this. But mostly on our materials. And there's community collector streets, are called bicycle boulevards, but they're really not bicycle boulevards.

We really need something like Bryant Street where bicycles really have a priority. Second, I walk a lot. And, the crossings issue, there was mention that there's 30 crossings by Tracy McMillan. There's none of those on the prioritized projects, so are none of those being, prioritized? They should be on the map to be shown.

Many of us lobbied really hard for mid block crossings for on California Street. We don't wanna have to do that project by project. There should be a better policy for mid block crossings, and they should be identified and prioritized. We also need, thinking about regionally connections, regionally to Palo Alto, Sunnyvale that needs to be included in in the plan. And there needs to be better integration, I think, with the biodiversity plan and, the parks plan to make this plan really shine.

Lots of great work. I really thank you for all your effort. And finally, I just I do think there needs to be a a modal aspiration, as somebody mentioned earlier.

Thank you, Cliff.

Steve, you have two minutes. Hey. This this is Steve Thompson. I live here in Mountain View. I wanted to bring up an issue and what I just wondered if there were any considerations for after action parking and safety checks.

The thing I'm noticing is that after the California Street, project, I live here on Esquela, and, basically, every night, there are multiple cars parked in the fire zones almost directly in front of fire hydrants on the street. I've sent in a couple of emails to both, Regency and also the city and just haven't seen any changes regarding that. And then, otherwise, I was wondering, are there any kind of engagement metrics in terms of how many people, from the public are involved, in in these projects? I'd like if that could be published at some point. That's all I have.

Yep. And we have Scott. You have two minutes, Scott.

Hi. I am a bicycle commuter who works in, Mountain View, and I wanted to see the earlier commenters comment about adopting NACTO and also, in particular, adopting 10 foot lane widths in this plan. 10 foot lane widths are the modern standard, and they are adequate for motorist needs, and they reduce the frequent reduce vehicle speeds, which improve safety for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists alike. And it's, yeah, it's, I think, something that is important to consider. Thank you.

Scott? Is that all? Alright. With that, we will move to committee comments. And, is it correct that we are not we do not necessarily need a specific motion on this item set, or do you need a recommendation? And would or would it be helpful even if you don't strictly keep one?

It would be helpful to have a recommendation to CTC that you are in support of the generally in support of the ATP. It will come back to you again for a formal BPAC recommendation to counsel, but it's not going to go back to CTC before it goes to counsel. That kind of so so it would be helpful to have a general recommendation that you, as a BPAC, are in support of the ATP so that CTC hears that and can recommend it to council?

Now or next time?

So the recommendation would just be to CTC, which is, again, the Council Transportation Committee, and we will come for a formal recommendation to city council after we have made incorporated the comments and changes we've heard with the community, when this closes on May 15.

Right. Yeah.

We go to CTC on June 16, and then we go into revision phase, and then we come back to you in

August with the final. So I think it would be helpful for CTC to hear if you were generally in support of the active transportation.

CTC will see the same drafts. Right?

They are going to see the same draft you have seen, and then as counsel, they will see the

fine. Correct.

Correct.

I still find that, this fine is really good, but it's still really missing a point there to to really reach out to the public or else, you know, other people are just not gonna know. Even just bikers know, but the pedestrians still not gonna really see it. Somehow, it has to be really reached to the kids to the, you know, to to to the parents so that they can actually read this and know how much it's doing. And so For

clarity, you're asking for engagement on the ATP draft itself.

Well, yes. Order. Okay. Let me finish this. So maybe because I know that the the police department is also doing this educational work, right, for in order to get the people engaged. So I'm wondering whether you know, because but in order for this to be a little bit, you know, more all these years, we haven't really seen much of, you know, the kids, you know, doing they're they're still having, you know, issues about riding bikes and all that stuff. Is it would it be, you know, would it be would you guys be willing to work with the police department, the DPAC, working with the DPAC committee so that, you know, maybe you'd maybe giving lectures with the school district and all that stuff?

So we have our Safe Routes to School program, so that would be in a different kind of bucket. You know, we are doing education with with the students. We have a pretty robust plan, and one of the updates you'll hear is that we're ready. We're going to be awarding a contract for renewing that. But, the active transportation plan, the goal of and the intent of this plan is to identify where there are gaps in the network for both bikes and pedestrian, identify projects and how we are going to close those gaps, and then recommend policies that city staff can then implement to help better the the, bike and pedestrian experience through Mountain View.

So the education side would be handled through our Safe Routes to School, for for the the younger public education. From an outreach perspective, it's on our Collaborate MV right now, so we're trying to get the city involved. But, you know, all of these plans we do post on our city website. We do do different blast through council connections, city hall connections. You know, we're we're trying to reach the the whole audience to make everyone who wants to

be aware aware. Mean, for example, Smart Commute. I never even heard about this before. Do people know about Smart Commute? This is like a raffle raffle system where peep if kids can ride bikes, they get points. Right? And this is also part of Mountain View. Right? About m b go. And then, you know, maybe this could this ATP I mean, I know the purpose, but if it's more, you know, it's more I mean, if it if it's more letting people know rather than just implementing a system with all these green roads and stripes and all that stuff, they don't know how to use it. Like, one of the commenters have said, then

you know? So we have our Vision Zero action plan, which has an outreach for for taking care of this. We have you know, that those are the owls that you see everywhere. That's part of our trying to educate the public through all this. I'm not really sure that the active transportation plan is the right place for that, but I do think there are plenty of city plans and programs out there to try and educate the public on on what we're doing. Every project we do, we do outreach to the community. You get a a postcard or you'll see the lawn signs. We trying to reach the community in as many ways as possible.

Assuming more members think you

may have comments on this. Yeah. Members don't? Well, I actually had prepared some slides. Did you get those? Yes. But before, I wanna speak to a couple of things that the members of the public said. One is it's my understanding that that it's legal for bikes to use the lead pedestrian interval. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. So that is something we can actually people about. When you see the little walking there, you can also get your bike out there

and get hit by a.

And the other kind of question, someone mentioned the mid block crossing policy. I know the ATP had distance between pedestrian crossings, and I thought we already had some kind of policy that if there was a certain distance, people wanted to see the flow of these gaps. Am I remembering wrong?

I don't know that we have a policy for it. Yeah.

I don't think it's a policy, but there is information.

There's best practices. Yeah.

Okay. Maybe we should have a formal policy.

Just to clarify on that, the some

of the some of the

projects for improved processes are new. Correct?

Correct. That is correct. Yes. Correct.

So they all exist in that prioritized list even if they're yeah. Don't know if

they have all the policies.

Yeah. But every project doesn't inform that policy. So some of the you know, we don't have a policy. Some of them are 500 feet. Some of

them are 800 feet.

Staff gets to interpret, and I think that's the point of the policy

is some of the interpretation.

And I think for all the projects, those that were developed with cut sheets or those that were further down the list, it they have to be evaluated and further in terms of conditions that exist. So

Sorry for interrupting. No. I I just, for some reason, thought we already had some kind of formal standard we use to evaluate.

We evaluated everything as adding, we evaluate at every 500 feet to make see if it make where it makes sense, but that's our starting point.

So so the current starting point is to look at it.

Yeah. That's that's correct.

I I know I heard a number from someone now wanting to. Okay. Alright. Do you wanna bring up my slides so I can go into that? So as part of preparing for this meeting, I also did a review of some of the other neighboring cities' recent agro transportation plans.

And I I am specifically I think the plan's good. Let me start there. I really think we did a lot of good work here, but I feel like our policies and the policy section is not as big as I would like it to be. There's not as many policies there, policy recommendations. The Palo Alto active transportation plan has 10 pages in 71 specific policy recommendations.

We are not anywhere near that. So here's some examples of specific policy recommendations from the Palo Alto by transportation plan that I liked and I am sharing with you so you I don't have to read it all out. But, like, these are recommending very specific. You know, we've got, you know, Caltrans, GIV 95. We got the Federal Highway, State Systems Roadway Design Hierarchy referenced in 1.6.

They've got the AV 43, again, the federal highway, safe systems approach. These are these are a lot more specific and detailed than what we have in the current active transportation plan. Can we go to the next slide? Alright. His bikeway and the repayment program.

Like, one of the problems we were just discussing, reconstruction doesn't happen very often. Repaving happens all the time. Getting some kind of funding program funding and and and policy about making sure that when we do repaving, there's funds there to do the little bit extra that that gets us good quality, active transportation infrastructure. Like, as a matter of course, I would like to see something like that pedestrian improvements. Yeah.

Okay. It's fourteen and sixteen about the same. One's for bikes, one's for pedestrians. We've got NATDO guidelines specifically called out by program. Go to the next slide. This is from Sunnyvale. This is, again, talking about specifically NACTO and BTA bicycle technical guidelines, specifically calling out that we are going to use these guidelines. I would like to see some language like that. Prioritize transportation over parking and deciding in the future use of street space. I would like a policy like that.

This one here, clarify sidewalk with stance. This is maybe not necessarily for sidewalk standards, but, like, clarify our standards specifically for specific road types. In the general plan, we have kind of some vague guidelines of this road type. Here's our priority list of pedestrian vehicle bicycle. That's nice, but, like, if you look at student 94, Caltrans says for this kind of road, they have some more detail, like, if it's suburban arterial, bike lane should be between these feet standard, minimum that much, travel lane should be this much, etcetera.

I think developing a policy like that for Mountain View specific measurements for a specific street type. We already have a street type network. Right? We've already decided these streets are these kinds. We can map those to specific numbers so that we don't have to debate how wide are the lanes on every single project all the time. Alright. Here we go. East Palo Alto, adopt NACDA. Like, just do it. It's item 6.5.

Like, they can do what we can do. As the primary design guide, it's not saying you have to just use, but we're using that as our primary source. We will look at them first. It already, like, performs, which shouldn't be. You don't have to worry about. You know, it's it's building on top of it. And we can we can have something like NACTO. I like NACTO. That's what I'm gonna push for as our. Other ones exist.

But, when we're doing BiasWeek, we know what we're using. We can tell whoever we're, like, hiring to do the do the design to look at that. Yeah. Sorry. And finally, this is for from the standard details we talked about. Standard details was in the original scope of work. And, again, in

some of

the policies, this is our our safety triangle. This conflicts with best practices and should be reviewed. I want specifically to review a 22 and a 23 from standard details to make sure that conform with current best practices and the, hold on, the safety safe systems. The safe systems was specifically referencing the act of transportation plan. I don't think this come this performance with safe systems, and I think it should be reviewed.

I'm not an engineer, so I'm I'm not gonna say for sure. I'm telling you my impression and my what I would like to see. Okay. So I think I have one more. Yes. So this is from DIP 95 showing Caltrans standard lane widths for arterial with transit having less than 11. So I think the 11 foot lane standard should also be. That's the that that's my slides. I think I had some other things I wanted to say. Standard details. I mean, what

You have one more slide. No. No.

That's for the next. Oh. Okay. And Oh, yes. The other thing was adopt VMT rather than level of service as our standard for traffic analysis. This is consistent with the general plan. Language in the general plan talks about using something rather than level of service. This is consistent with a multimodal improvement plan. Council adopted this as an alternative to using level of service. So okay.

That's everything.

K. So, yeah, I I have several comments. Thank you, or member Stone, for kinda emphasizing some of the same points, but let me go through and organize them quickly. So I I like where there is policy. So things like the scoring criteria.

Whether I agree with the scoring criteria or not, it's important to make them visible and to work consistently with that kind of policy. So I'm disappointed that it didn't reference the as a policy. I didn't get to the level, but I think looking at other cities' best practices of policies and being clear on policies to adopt, whether it's design and construction standards like the 94 specifically or NAATCO standards. I think we need to have policies to adapt. Little things like curb lifts.

I've seen two people get concussions because a driveway curb lift was there and a little water in it. They tried to hit at a bad angle and slid out where there's no reason to have a water and a quarter inch or two inch curb lift. So those kinds of standard details should be stated so that there's not interpretation by a contractor or staff member. It's clear where we're gonna go. So policy should lead to metrics.

We've we've heard from several people talking about you need to measure. So whether it's traffic counts, pedestrian counts, bicycle counts, average speeds, things in addition to just collision rates and injury rates. I think our metrics that we should have identified and reported periodically. If we're gonna do a traffic count on the street every five years, we should be consistent out there and other metrics with signs of programs. Finally, I think the you know, things like the policy we talked about process. So I know, like, at the McElvie Park, we said there's a 500 foot standard, but we said, oh, we're not doing it.

We're gonna be at 800 feet or whatever.

So I I'd like to see us be consistent about having the policy and. As little deviation as possible. It's too easy to ignore stuff or forget stuff otherwise. A couple specifics. You know, the the rideshare and delivery services are not mentioned. We heard a lot

of people talk about parking in

the bike lanes that do exist. I think having a mention of rideshare delivery services and how to handle those for designs going forward, whether it's in street construction or whether it is in commercial residential development, those should be clearly identified. I like that we talk about the sales. I'd like, again, a policy a little more clear about how to identify and get those in precise plans. So I think there's a lot of good stuff, but I have reservations, particularly in the areas areas of policy and metrics and then spelling out some of the pro So safe routes to school should be enhanced.

That's pretty vague. So those are three areas that and I'll follow-up with some of the collapse service details. But in the lines of looking for best practices, I think put in a prior comment about city of Ventura bike parking, for instance. I've seen too many racks that the city is rated for some parking. Like at Costco, you can get half or less of what specified steam and Trader Joe's and many other establishments. So those are my general comments.

So I'm gonna try not to repeat what this means. So first, I think it's nice to finally get there because it's been kind of a long and healthy process to say the least. But I think one thing I would say that this is the first time, but I this is only my second time looking at the ATPs since I joined Deepak a ago. And I you know, I I won't regret, though, is that we didn't get the chance as feedback to review the the list of projects nor the the this set of policies. And and I think it's probably why you're hearing a lot of feedback on that.

That's something that and I I understand the circumstances. So I'm not complaining that it's we we maybe we have more comments. We we we break through that process. I had two somewhat cosmetic things. I don't think that's I think so. One of them, I think you you clarified in the questions is, like, to to make sure that previous feedback models would be listed as acknowledged because they probably have more of that. So they they should get credits.

We will denote them. Yeah.

The second one is and it's a bit my pet peeve, is that on on most of the maps that I see, we make a point of putting public schools. Okay. But we never put the public schools in Los Altos. That's a lot of Mountain View kids at that. And it's a bit personal for me because my son has gone to public schools living in Mountain View, but all the time in Los Santos school districts or in Los Santos. So went to Admiral, he got He's nowhere on that path. And these are very important things, especially to correlate with, you know, accidents. So

I apologize for that one.

No. No.

But it's I should've Yeah. Yeah.

And it it's kind of throughout. So, hopefully, it's just

Yeah. I think it's probably a layer that we

Yes.

So with that said, so I'm struggling with the the the list of projects by reading the documents. And, again, part of it is because that never came to be back, so so we didn't get clarification and provide feedback of things like this. What what I noticed is that there is some inconsistencies, you know, from the documents. So so it it's not very clear.

You know,

there is a list of projects on sections, but then the map shows the different set of things. Like, for example, in the executive summary, there is not that supposed to show all of the projects, but it shows only the type once, not not the industry at once. So that makes it you know, and and, you know, I'm I'm the one who typically skips the executive summary, but I'm sure people are higher up with the only thing we read. And so you you probably wanted to have this kind of spread away. And then In case Could you use some explanations in kind of how how that list was arrived.

I think you you provided some in, you know, in the questions, but it it would be nice to have kind of a narrative, you know, to better explain how it was there. And and, you know, I have some reservations about putting some projects because they they deal with CAT grants because that's a reality that's been around forever. And this is why, you know, very much

we

you know, and we've talked about this in middle of it and said we still have those type of gap. What about things? So that's a complex problem dealing with a, but it's one that we hope the plan for ten years, you know, should should should address head on. And

so I'm not

really on board with cutting projects just because it's cat runs. It's more complicated, but it's something we we need to do there. And then on the projects

yeah. And, yeah,

again, it is most of the maps don't really show the, you know, the intersections where there are some projects

to improve that.

It's kind of

maybe it's difficult to show, but it's it gives the impression that it's most of the projects either, you know, pipelines or, you know, at a corridor level or that kind of sidewalk widening or things like this. But, you know, the the crossings are, in my mind, the the most important part for pedestrians because it's if if you look at the,

you know, the

the the injury maps as well as the feedback that where it's not safe, that's at intersections. And and that's pretty much the life of every once. Yeah. So that's about the this. And then on the policy, I wanted to

recall, you know, most of the comments they are saying

that it it was a bit underworking, and and maybe it's because we didn't have a dialogue between feedback and and you. There are two policies that I'd I'd like to recommend adding. But the first one is I mean, they they have two that actually exist in. So one is that there is an alternate, you know, a homeowner or a landowner is supposed to kind of level the sidewalk when a drive through drive driveway is no longer needed. And that has some benefits to workability.

You have less risk to turn your angle or things like this. And you can go throughout Mountain View. I mean, I I see some white on my streets and and, know, and that's a house that was, you know, like, forty, fifty years ago. So but it looks like nobody, you know, impulse that. I think that's it may be challenging to do it after the facts, but I don't know if there is there is something in the books to do this.

I think it should be nice to do this. The second one is to kind of as a way to address with the sideboard gaps, there is also in the books some some some when whenever there is a significant remodel or rebuild of the house, the the homeowner is supposed to provide the sidewalk and kind of provide an improvement. I know I didn't build my house, but, you know, that was kind of a you wish kind of redevelopment, and the developer had to provide a side of that. And doesn't seem to be, you know, implemented very much. Yeah.

And and I think there are some legal issues there, but it's you know, think the city should really leverage this as as a way to.

I think

it's I just wanted to clarify a couple of things. I know I reminded about one question from the public earlier. First off, on the projects that fell off, like, Caltrans right away, were those in the set of projects that didn't get prioritized but did not get cut sheets created?

Yes. If they were in, like, the top scoring projects, they are on the list of priority.

If they did get scored. Correct.

And they So they are listed. Again, like, they are listed as a priority project, which emphasizes the importance of the project.

But even in our a 100 projects, they were

scored. Okay.

So, yeah, just wanted to clarify that. Secondly, Antas, on the you mentioned, like, the black the the bicycle map are since there is also a map of pedestrian projects with the pedestrian projects highlighted, was the not having them both on the same map confused, or was do you see other

There are certain places like there's only one of the maps. So that's just nice. Okay. So for for instance

I I

understand. Okay.

Okay. I I I can't invent proper history and since, you know I don't think it shows anywhere near those sections.

It did, but it was confusing to me as well,

I think. Or Yeah.

I I we we we've we've got your comments. Yes.

Yeah. Yeah. I I just wanna make sure I understood these things. And there's also question or, I guess, a comment from member public about connections to other cities. Could someone, I guess, comment on how that connections to other cities would have played into the scoring of the projects, if at all?

I'm I'm not really sure what

you're asking.

For instance, there's well, things that commonly come up is Palo Alto has a, sort of bike boulevard that connects into roughly where, well, I guess, ultimately goes to California Street, but, that's or through, like, Del Medio. Was the existence of that connection relevant in, the project prioritization? Similarly, was the exist I know Sunnyvale has plans to improve development pipeline along Evelyn. Is the existence of that project pertinent in the, prioritization here?

Yes. It was would be considered almost like a gap. I'm looking at Tracy for confirmation, but Evelyn would be an example. We've got one we've got some on one side and some on the other. It would be identified as a gap, and that gap was part of our scoring criteria. So it would have gotten points per se to make it a a a score higher project. The specific one you mentioned on Palo Alto, I'm not a 100% sure, but the idea is that if there is a bike lane that ends, that would be identified as a gap in in connection.

Okay. Thanks. Yeah.

I'll have

I have more detailed list of comments, but I wanted to so just to understand what is sort of productive to or what we think will be. I think I will have I have similar concerns about some of the the policies there or or lack of policies in the ATP. I also want to see the ATP be done. Is for some of these things that we're talking about with policies, is it realistic to say include in the ATP? We will fall and this is actually true if I think the policies are in there right now are basically a the plan is to go and implement this policy, but the ATP itself is not implementing this policy.

Mhmm. That's correct. Okay. If we

if BPAC wanted to recommend that the city do something like, East Palo Alto or San Jose and, adopt NACTO as the default design guidelines, then it would raise the question of whether or not we should or should not adopt those guidelines. If that it would not be a huge lift to include the direction that we plan to adopt those guidelines in the ATP, and then the the actual resolution city council would have to pass at some point to adopt those guidelines would be in the future.

Yes. More or less. I will say we have heard multiple times in our different meetings now that there is a desire to have some sort of standards or guidance included as a policy. So you will see something between now and the final that addresses that concern.

Okay. Yeah. I I yeah. I'll I'll look at that. It's, and I'll also mention, the existing conditions report. Like, for instance, the side triangles, the h policy a 22, they're called out in that draft existing conditions report. I I think it would be great if that if some of that information from that existing draft existing conditions report could make it through to an appendix here even in the cases where I I don't know if all of those make sense to recommend as, updated policies, but I think it'd be great to not lose that information.

So we are going to be updating our city standards. That is the CIP that we adopt will be put forth for council adoption in June, for for a CIP project to update the city standards.

So

those will all be evaluated. Those will come to BPAC when they are, updated so you guys will have a chance to look at those. Alright. Did you say It's in the works.

It's in

the CIP or it will be in the CIP?

It is in the staff recommended CIP that council will be voting to adopt in June.

Okay.

It is in the CIP that you just recommended to council. How's that?

Yeah. That's good. Okay. There's a lot of reviews. Alright. Okay.

In terms of my comments then, I I like a lot of stuff in ATP. I like I generally plan the prioritized list of projects, I think, came out it matches roughly my expectations. Like, I don't I don't know if I were to go through and try to mark every single project in the city. I produce exactly the same list, but I don't expect to. I would have my own biases.

So I that I think it it the set of streets out there that appear instead of crossings that appear, all that, I think, roughly makes sense to me. I didn't think it'd be nice to have, as part of public record, the detailed scoring breakdowns. I don't want people to be going and litigating, oh, this this this project should have had this I mine, I'm scored this way. That's not interesting to me. It is sometime there's a lot of times when we approve scoring criteria, then sort of goes into the void as far as we're concerned as the pack.

And then we get scores back, and we don't know, well, should we have suggested this scoring criteria work differently? So being able to have that feedback and review things should be helpful, but it's I like having separate resurfacing and reconstruction projects. I think that's something we did not have in prior plans. I do wonder if we should have a almost lower threshold than resurfacing as well for some things. I saw in one of the responses to, feedback questions, there's a reference of, like, yeah, sort of the resurfacing corresponds roughly to quick build projects.

I expect that to be true with majority of the projects. I would be interested in whether there's any even smaller projects we can be doing that, I I just I'm not I think the closest to some example details of that would be there are times when without, like, resurfacing intersection or this but, yeah, without resurfacing an inter an intersection, I've seen plastic you some sort of plastic usually put down to create more of a hole out. And small things like that, I could see being useful. I'm not so I don't I don't want to preclude that. The okay.

I think it'd be good to be I think it's alluded to, but I think it could be very clear in the ATP about that the cut sheets are not, like, finalized. I know it's said that they could be just that's something that can probably be repeated more times rather than fewer. I but I do think that, like, that those cut sheets are actually rather important in my mind. Like, those will be the starting point for any discussions. That'll be the starting point for Zoom.

We have work there's any grant filings. And so I do want to make sure we have those reasonable. And that's I know that's why I made had some questions on I was questions about a couple of the items. Like, I don't there's a reference in the Wizman Road 12. We may need to widen the bridge, and it's still not clear to from reading the response, it's still not clear to me why that would be necessary, for the goals of the city.

And and that would potentially increase the any potential projects by law. On this on this topic of standards, I I my inclination is we should have we should encourage Citi to adopt some specific standards. I I don't want to walk us into too much to five years from now, there may be better standards. If we can adopt good standards now in the next two years, and that's what the ATP recommends, but the ATP doesn't lock us into, oh, yeah. Ten five, ten years from now, we'll still be following these same standards. I think that would be helpful. But I am sympathetic to the I don't want us to write down something here that

There will be some sort of recommendation Okay. Between draft and final of

of,

guidance and and standards that we will follow as projects kick off in addition to the city standards that will be underway.

K. I'll call on the specific ones since I asked about the comments and the questions. It's just the this is a one that I don't think is gonna be covered by any of the existing work. I'm not sure I expect it to be done soon, but would be nice sometime in the fullness of time to review some of the city fire code. There was a project for that part of Castro right there that was going to be extremely expensive to do a protected bike lane on because the fire code currently has specific requirements around lane width that doesn't I I think it's basically just outdated with respect to having protected bike lanes.

And it felt like there was a way that we could put that that project in a way that improved safety without being detrimental to fire truck access. I don't know if that's something we'll be able to accomplish anytime soon, but

it it'd be nice to have that eventually. I Okay. Would that be included in the code review that you are saying is recommended in the CIP going for June? Is that part of the code? Yeah. Okay.

That's just the standard details, I assume. Right?

That's just standard details. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

The the the standard details are not part

of the city code. Correct?

They're just a city policy document.

That's right. I'm being told that is correct.

Okay. Mention oh, it'd be good to have, as a couple of members of public alluded to, it would be nice to have some sort of progress dashboard report that was regularly updated, not every week, but a progress report for the ATPs that we know we have a sense of it accomplishing the things we thought were gonna accomplish. And as a small one, there's a Mountain View ATP website linked on

the city website. That's Yep. Saw that. We will take care of that.

Thank you. Alright. So to get us to what use yeah. Just one more thing.

Very quick. Just very quick. Has the chance that Malcolm have ever been sued by anybody who has any accidents based on all these new, new features that the city hasn't had?

That is a very broad state. Like, the protected bike lanes, the

the new improvements or new projects

On California? Is that the question? Or anywhere else? You know?

Some old ones. So, like, there were a couple

of lawsuits on Castro when they redid the street lift lift. There were couple collisions. And, you know, it's

a ground out of the lift, but

that was and it's still not a standard not to have a police bike.

Yeah. We can look into that and get back to you. But from a parking protected bike lane, Those those are a little newer in the city, and, I'd have to if you're if that is the specific question, I'd have to look into that and get

back to you. So the policies might, you know, might affect it. We might have to be you know, a little more careful. Right. You don't adopt it policy than other people. So you didn't follow this. The

Okay. Got

one? Yeah. One comment I have for that too. So that that was also in the guiding questions, but the the the costs that are, you know, very ballpark there. They they they seem to include both the self resurfacing are prescribing at work.

Payments. I think it would be very useful to kind of break down that cost as as as well as you can do. I understand it's complicated. And the reason for this is that one, it's gonna go to city council of things. So you're gonna look at that price tag, and they're gonna say, well, we're be spending so much money here again for for bikes at pedestrian where the amount of money for bikes and pedestrians is only a fraction of us. That's something we we can read almost every day on next level or or or things like this. People are complaining that you must Yeah. Tens of millions of data to to put backlines on our, and it's not accurate. I think that's the resurfacing was

What I can Awesome. Say we can look into is maybe give you historically what we think or projects that have been completed to date, what those differences would be. Yeah. I'm a little dubious to put them on our proposed projects, but we can give you historically how much of a percentage add that is just for a data point.

I I think that would be very helpful. In fact, if you

could get this for entering those funds. Or even Yeah.

I think we can find we can we can get that and get

you some And make sure that's somewhat referenced in the APP because, again, you know, some people may have to stick a shock and Yeah. Unrealistic claim it all or. So that's Okay.

Just try to move us to the actual recommendation. I think there's a variety of minor recommendations just to sound like Stafford, but I think the broad thing would be something along the lines of he recommends the ATT with basic with more with asking there to be more specific policy recommendations for improving the how the city designs and implements, street safety projects, including, but not limited to, the adoption of standards.

I would I would also call adoption of standards lane widths lower than 11 foot.

Can I

ask you to look at it a different way? What are the changes that if we're not incorporated, would you then not recommend this to counsel?

Why are we looking at it that way?

Because if you're recommending CTC adopted for councils, what are the changes that the city doesn't make them? Now all your comments are going to be received. I'm going to take those comments. Like I said, you will see some recommendation of some adoption of But if we are asking CTC to recommend this to council, what is it that needs to be in there for them to do that? Okay.

Well, we already recommended the standard details with different motions. I'm happy to know that happened. I I would say I would really like something that says it's well, playing with less than 11 where possible.

Right? Well

If we're we're say we're hearing that the standards for the city is all lane I

will say as a starting point, the answer is yes for different reasons. Anywhere that has truck traffic

Yes.

Fire trucks, trash trucks, buses, community shuttle require 11 foot lanes.

Yeah. So I I I think the DIP 94 Caltrans takes it into account. It gives you 11 foot lanes for buses, trucks, 10 and a half lanes for vehicles.

Right. But I'm hearing that it's 11 foot everywhere in the city, which is inconsistent with did not

So what you the cross section that you you showed up there is two lanes. So if there is more than one lane, then yes.

But that's not what I got as an answer to my clarifying question for the next item. So either my answer was wrong or our standard is 11 feet.

Our standard is 11 feet.

So would you accept the recommendation for adoption of DIP 94 that gives some standards?

I don't wanna specifically say DIP 94. It could be DIP 94. It could be inactive. It could be something else. I just want to have something there that says, I don't want it to be 11 feet. It shouldn't be all lanes. I I showed you nine four allows 10 and a half foot lanes. NACTO recommends 10 foot lanes. I don't wanna say what one we should we should adopt, but I wanna personally, this is important to me. I feel like we should have in the ATP a recommendation because it's been shown that narrower lanes are safer in an urban environment. We should have a recommendation that we explore narrower narrower. Like, just it can be just that. Like yeah. I

I would like to see it not just explore. I would require a narrow at what point in line with standards adopted elsewhere.

Can I let me let me try to provide us a, a motion for that? That a bunch of the specific feedback was heard in Vulcan

Okay.

On

this. BPAC recommends that the ATP, provided that it includes policy recommendations that will result in, at a minimum, revisiting lane widths on multilane arterial roads such that the city yeah. Reusing lane lifts on multilane arterial roads to improve street safety.

Or That

feels overly specific in

my mind.

But What I would say is that you as a and I'm putting words in your mouth now, that as a body, you are looking for the standards to be relaxed. Other guidance such as NACTO and DIV 94 as projects come online. Is that and we will continue like I said, there will be something in there on what the standards are. And I when CIP standards are updated, that will all be evaluated then as well. You know, every projects are looked at on a case by case basis.

So we will explore that. Right now, 11 foot is our starting point and where we are comfortable.

Yeah. It it

feels don't know. It feels awkward to me to include this specific wing with it. We could.

Well, I mean, let's let's say we like it, but we want to make sure that it includes looking at more standards such as an active or 94. It is always gonna include that and in particular language. Leave it at.

I think we've said that we're including a policy where or we're we're hearing that all of the comments that have come in related to that, and we'll include a statement regarding guidance, looking at best practice guidance. NAPTO is guidance. D m e 94 is guidance.

Right. So I guess I understand that those are guidance, and I would like to see something a little more concrete than guidance. But I'm not saying that needs to be in the active transportation plan. I'm saying, and I would like to go to council or go to CDC something specific about looking into a modern standard.

We I will we will definitely relay your comments as a body that that was something we heard from you.

Yeah.

It's not going to be something that, you know, is not covered when we report out of what we've heard on the ATP. So we will have a whole slide on comments of what we heard from the public, what we heard at our AT PAC, what we heard from BPAC, and we will provide that feedback to CTC. And we will also let them know how we plan on addressing it as we move from draft to final.

I guess I I'm hearing more than just lameless. I mean, you're putting

out don't wanna include well, I'm I'm inclined to be willing to trust the comments we've heard in that, but we don't need to include everything that would be on the list. In fact, I'm not sure language would be my first priority. It would probably be a good canary whole line type of thing, but I'm not sure it'd be my first priority. So I am my inclination is to keep a motion to be recommended with provided with the significant recommendation that it include the ATP include the plan to adopt modern and progressive safety or street design standards along the lines of NACTO or NINIVO?

Let's see. When I when I heard Stone's comments was he was pointing to, like, Palo Alto. He said they have ages and significant number

of

policies in their ATP. And I I heard from myself and the other members plus the public that we seem to be policy like. That's the that reservation I have in making a recommendation. So it's not just, you know, a standard option, but there is policies and metrics for two key areas that I heard in addition to having policies reference standards.

So I'm hearing kind of two different things. I'm hearing a request to include some sort of policy to adopt more progressive standards as part of the ATP. That is what I heard from you, member Stone. And then I have also heard that you are hoping to see a more robust policy section generally. I will remind you that the Vision Zero action plan and our local safety plan does have their own policy section, and none of this is meant to supersede, to exceed, or exclude those policies.

But we also didn't add them back in here. So so there is a more comprehensive list of policies on that site too.