Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee - Regular Meeting

This is the August 18th BPAC meeting, and the webinar started. And I'm pulling this meeting to order. Karen, can you do the roll call? Are you doing the roll call?

I don't know how this works. Okay.

I'm sorry. All right. I'm going to do it off the internet. Okay.

Present.

Okay. Peggy Huang? Here. Okay. Gary Barton?

Present.

Isaac Stone? Absent. James Guzman?

Present. I did want one clarification before I move on. Did we get the Zoom link posted in the meeting agenda that was posted on the portal this time? I was looking for it earlier in the conference.

No, we have two city clerks.

With that, we will move on to item three, 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. Speakers, for all items today, we will be limiting speakers to two minutes rather than three, given that we expect a long meeting tonight. And state law prohibits the committee from acting on non-adjusted items.

I'll give the agenda here.

I have So if you're here to speak on the rainstorm completion study or the active transportation plan, those will be later. But anyone in the room who wants to try to comment on anything not on the agenda related to the business city. All right, you come up, and if you're on Zoom, you raise your hand. Can you go to the lecture? And if you state your name, that is helpful for us.

Sure. Hi, my name is Caroline Florence. I'm actually a resident of Los Altos, but I'm very interested in seeing BPAC and Mountain View help connect San Antonio Road. It's a cohesive bike corridor. I work at Harris Booth and Los Alamos High School. About half of our kids come from Mountain View. It's sort of the MPLA district. And this is really tough going. And our high school is very close to San Antonio Road. And it would be really wonderful to get more kids biking, more kids biking, less traffic. And that's what we'd really love to see. The two cities and also Palo Alto, the tri-city area, working together. I'll turn it over to you.

Thank you. Is there anyone online wanting to make public comment on non-engineered design? No? All right. With that, we'll move on to item four, the consent calendar. Public comment on consent calendar. Is there any public comment on the consent calendar in the room? Is there any public comment on the consent calendar online? A motion would be in order. I move that we approve the minutes. Any second? I'm good with the application. Second. And all in favor?

I abstain and still pass.

You can abstain and still pass, yeah. All opposed? Abstentions? All right. That passes. 301 with member Barton abstaining. And that was, I lost track of who seconded, who seconded? Barton. Okay, that brings us to item 6.1, the Brainstorm Complete Streets Study, Project 2539. And we will begin with a staff presentation, then we'll have committee clarifying questions, then we'll have public comments, then we will have... Oh, yes, we have a...

Member Bonte will need to refuse himself, so we will let you know when... Did I cue it up? All right. Thank you very much, everyone. I will just hand it over to Priyoti Ahmed. She is the senior transportation planner who has been managing the project. She will be giving a presentation, which is about 15, 20 minutes. And I ask that you try to hold questions while she's giving her presentation, and then we can

All right, thank you, everybody, everyone. I'm Piyoti Hamid, a Junior Transmission Planner, and we are here with an informational item on Ringstorff Complete Street Study. Karen, I think you have the raw presentation. I can send it to you again. Or I can also project it from my...

We got through the first item much faster than we thought we were. Are you plugged into that? I'm plugged into it.

Did I need to plug anything in? What's going on? Share?

Thank you so much. Thank you. It was right here.

So let me know if I should use another one.

Is it plugged in?

Is plugged in secure? Yes.

Let's see.

I'm not in the Zoom meeting. Do I need to be in the Zoom meeting?

You could be if you wanted to share it while you're asleep.

Yes, yes, yes.

Okay, I think we can go back to what we did. That works. Well, take two.

Here, Priyati Ahmed, Manifestation Planner, with an informational item on a Ringstrip Complete Streets study. Ringstrip is Um, Wingstorm Complete Street Study is a planning study. Uh, the study is funded by Caltrans Planning Grant and for, to meet our grant deadline, the study needs to be completed by June 30th, 2027. And tonight we are here to receive feedback from EPAC on Wingstorm Avenue corridor priorities and the three draft concept alternatives. So for the project schedule, we started the project in 2025. and we completed the existing conditions and background review as well as outreach round one. We now have draft alternatives that we are here to get your feedback. We are here tonight at BPAC. We will be going to CTC later this month to seek their direction and throughout this month until September 11th, we'll be doing public outreach on these corridor priorities and draft alternatives. Based on all of your feedback, we will be developing preferred alternative and the cost estimate. And later and early next year, we'll be back at BPAC with our preferred alternative and cost estimates. We'll also, we'll be going to CTC and we'll be holding public outreach early next year. And we'll be going to CTC, going to city council with the draft and final plan later next year. For project goals, background, and ongoing new projects, the project goal is to explore ways to enhance safety, incorporate new streets, elements, improve multi-mobile access for people walking, biking, and using transit and driving along Wingstop Avenue, and to identify a preferred alternative and develop preliminary concept drawings and cost estimates. For study background, we have Brainstorm Avenue was identified in Vision Zero Action Plan and Low Purpose Safety Plan in 2024. This corridor is also in multiple Safe Routes to School, including Los Altos, Montelova, and Castro Mistrials. There are two ongoing projects on this corridor. First one is Rangstrop Avenue grade separation, which will include, which will lower the Rangstrop Avenue and Central Expressway intersection, add a bicycle and pedestrian bridge, and add buffered bike lane across Rangstrop Avenue and wide crosswalk and pedestrian revenue. This study does not include this intersection since this project is ongoing and will have big capital improvements on this intersection. The second project is Rangstorf and Junction improvement, which will include installing a new pedestrian hybrid beacon, also known as PHB at Rangstorf and Junction. For existing conditions, we collected data on traffic volume, traffic count, speed, traffic collision, parking counts, transit ridership, and we also did field observation. So Ringstroth Avenue is 35 miles per hour with four lanes, with four travel lanes, on-street parking, on-street bike lane, also known as Class Q, with diverse land use with long crossing between intersections and has multiple transit routes. For the next couple of slides, I'll go through the existing conditions, but to orient you, on the left-hand side is the start of the corridor of Brainstorm and El Camino, and it will go all the way up to Leggport. So this particular figure is showing the last five years of collisions. There were 72 total crashes, 21 involving pedestrian and bicyclist. And the top collision locations include Central Expressway. For bike and ped include Middlefield, Rock Street, and another high collision location is Old Middlefield Way. For intersection activity and operations, so this graph has been updated since what you have on your existing conditions. This includes updated signal timing and phasing, but what it's really showing is the traffic congestion along Rainstorm. Level of service A being no traffic and E and F being congested. So along here, you can see California and Central Expressway have traffic congestion and with moderate traffic on Montecito, West Middlefield, Old Middlefield, and near Leghorn during different commute period. or average daily traffic, which looks at number of cars along this corridor for 24 hours. And the highest average daily traffic is between Colony and Wyandotte Street being about 16,000. Oh, my clicker is... Not clipping. Oh, there we go. We looked at this particular intersection, particular area for average daily traffic between commute and non-commute time. So AM, as you can see, it peaks traffic. And PM, it really peaks about 1600. And then it steeply declines starting 6 PM. Okay. And we also looked at speed along this corridor, and we found that there were about four to six miles exceeded speed limit between Montecito and Jane. So the two findings put together, which really shows that during commute time, there is a lot of traffic, and during non-commute time, there's speeding along this corridor. We also collected on-street parking utilization, which means where people park at all times during when we surveyed. So there are 253 on-street parking, about 40% of the corridor allows parking, south part of the corridor does not allow as much as parking, but it's truly more on the north part. and the parking is along San Luis and Junction and between Old Middlefield and Wyandotte Street. There are also transit along this corridor, including PTA, Mountain View Community Shuttle, and MBGO. So to summarize, Range Europe has diverse land use with community center, parks, residential, commercial, school, with limited right-of-way, meaning constrained in space. It also includes multiple severe collisions for drivers, bikers, and pedestrians. It's also multimodal with bike lane transit stops and a major vehicle access from El Camino to 101. with heavy traffic volume during commute hours and speeding during non-commute hours. We have done outreach round one, where we solicited feedback for existing travel experiences along raindrops and water, some of the potential improvement community would like to see. We have done that through online survey. We have conducted walk and bike tour. We have done school pop-up, and we have notified through yard signs, postcards, emails, and social media posts. The survey findings include, so we received 1,000 responses, and surveyors could choose multiple options in the survey. And what we found is that RingStorm people use for multiple purposes, commute and errands being our top two. And RingStorm is also multimodal, where a traveler mostly travels through driving, but they're also walking and biking along the way. and 80% reported that they do not park on a ring store. These are the folks that have taken the survey. And asking which of the following challenges do you experience on a ring store? Traffic congestion being number one, followed by speeding, difficulty crossing the street, and conflict with drivers, with cyclists and pedestrians. And which of these safety improvements would be the most meaningful on a ring store Surveyors responded with safer intersection crossing, protected or improved lanes, slow down drivers, greenery, improved sidewalk, better street lighting, and new mid-block crossing. We've also hosted a walk-in bike tour in February where 15 members attended. During this event, staff walked and vied with community members along Ringstrop Avenue and identified desired improvements, including consistent bike lane width, safer crossing at Central Expressway, additional mid-block crossing between Central Expressway and Montecito, and better enforcement of vehicles blocking bike lanes. So overall, with outreach, with the survey and the community walk-in bike tour, what we learned is there's a need for improved safety at intersection and crossing, provide safer and more comfortable bike facilities, reduce speeding at greenery and landscaping, maintain reasonable vehicle circulation, and consider parking needs. Rengstorf has limited right of way, requiring trade-offs among these priorities. So now to draft concept alternatives. So tonight we have three concepts to discuss. Alternative A is improved intersection, B improved bike facility, and C improved pedestrian facility and greening. Each alternative maintains existing number of travel lanes while emphasizing different corridor priorities. Concepts that were considered but not advanced. So these were, we initially analyzed it, but did not make it to concept alternative phase. So first one is road diet, which will reduce travel lanes north of Central Expressway. Ringstorf is a major vehicle of access to El Camino and 101 ramps. And in our survey, 64% responders identified traffic congestion being as their top concern. At existing condition, a report found that traffic congestion is at California and Central and moderate traffic congestion in Montecito, West Middlefield, and Old Middlefield. Our initial analysis showed that road diet would worsen this level of traffic, especially at Old Middlefield, which will make traffic from LOS level of service from D to an F and Montecito Avenue from LOS level of service from D to an E in A and P hour. So based on these reasonings, we did not move forward with a road diet option. Second one that we considered but not advanced is a two-way cycle track. It creates complexity on driveways and intersections And it could only be accommodated one side of the street, which would require bicyclists to cross a rainstorm to access the two-way cycle track. It would also require greater approval and coordination from Caltrans County, Caltrain, and CPUC. So diving a little bit deep. into specific alternatives. So the first alternative is alternative A, which will be improving intersections and block crossing. The cross sections for them existing and alternatives does not change. So they will all remain the same. But at mid-block crossing, we are... So we identified three mid-block crossing, one at Wyandotte, one at Junction that we're already working at, and one at Waldrop School, near Waldrop School. And this could be RFP and other measures as the study progresses. And at intersections, we... The improvements could include enhanced crosswalk, curb extensions, ADA compliance ramp, green bike markings, and protected intersection elements where feasible. Draft concept B, this one is for improved bicyclists. So from existing to alternative B, the south part of central expressway does not change. In north of central expressway, you will see the parking lane is allocated, that space is allocated for bike lane to create a three feet buffer on the left-hand side and then an eight feet strip planting strip. It could be a parenting strip. Along the corridor, it could also have parking. So looking at a little bit more deeper, so as you can see in this map where we are retaining parking near the heritage map, it could be a parking protected by glades such as in Castro or California. And along near chain where we are removing parking and protecting protected parking on the other side, it could include a buffer bike lane to accommodate the driveways and the space constraint that we have. And then in areas where we will be removing parking to allocate space for protected bike lane with landscaping. For Alternative C, this is an improved pedestrian facility and greening and with buffered bike lanes. So for Alternative C, all the sidewalks will be consistent width of six feet. That is true for north and south. On the north part, we also are able to put a two-feet buffer between bike lane and travel lane. To show you a little bit deeper, We can consider putting tree bulb out where you have parking and the bulb out and a sidewalk. We can also have wider sidewalk with trees and in areas we can also include buffer fine glades. The comparison among this alternative includes all alternative will have intersection improvement and the mid block crossing. Alternative B will include enhanced separated bike lane, where alternative C will have increased buffer. Alternative C will have a wider sidewalk with a consistent sidewalk being six feet. Alternative B will have additional greenery, but C will have enhanced greenery with tree wells, landscaping, and bioretention. For on-street parking impact, alternative B will remove 60% of the parking, and alternative C will remove 48% of the parking. An alternative will have some measure of speed reduction because we will have curb extension, which will reduce turning movements. We'll also have protected bike lanes. We'll also are putting greenery. So we are making this corridor comfortable with all these three alternatives. Now to outreach round two. We are currently soliciting feedback on corridor priorities and draft alternatives. I have a QR code. You can go to the survey here. It's also posted in our website. Survey will be open till September 11th. We are here tonight to hear your feedback. We have a community meeting scheduled on August 24th at the community center starting at 5.30. We'll be going to CTC on August 31st. first with these findings and to next steps and discussion questions. So we are here. Based on your feedback, CTC and community outreach findings will be developing preferred alternative and cost estimate. Early next year, we'll be back with reviewing the preferred alternative and cost estimates. And we are planning to bring the draft and final report to city council between April and May next year to meet our grant deadline. And tonight, we have the discussion question of what improvement should be prioritized along the corridor. Here are the options. The second one is what outcome do you think will best serve the community and provide feedback on the concept alternatives A, B, and C? And with that, thank you.

All right. With that, we will move to clarifying questions from the committee, which will then be followed by public comment. Questions?

Do there are questions?

9%.

Yeah, I'll start with one and maybe later. So the average daily traffic volume was $16, 600 vehicles in 2026, I presume. Is there projections on how the unfast, which will reduce travel times, increase that as 20% increase, reduce travel times, or what would be the estimated increase in traffic volume?

Sorry, I think I missed in the middle of your question. So the average ADT is approximately 16,000. And what would the question be?

The planned rate separation at Ringstorf will decrease travel times by removing the lights. So decreased time means it will be a more attractive alternative. which would likely increase traffic volume. Do we have an estimate of what that would be? Is that 20%, 10%, 30% above the $16,657? I don't know the answer.

We can find out.

Yeah. We'd have to talk to that project team to see if they've done that. I'm not aware of it, but we can get information.

I mean, just improved travel time means it becomes a better alternative with full traffic light off San Antonio,

shorelines are up.

Yeah, my question here is, this whole thing is about the safety of bikers and pedestrians the most. And I'm looking at this about the statistics about the surveys being done 1000 being 1000 of them 90% drivers. Now, when people are biking, I was thinking, you know, people biking, I would think that their opinions or their survey, their input would be more, you know, more accurate in terms of what's more safe. And so when it's only 34%, and we don't know if whether driving is a priority, walking is a priority, I'm thinking this, with this actual statistic, actual... a statement that this is an accurate or I thought it's going to fulfill its goal of being, you know, the same.

Yeah, so the survey, let's see if I can get there. So Yes, the survey we have, survey responders have drive on a 90%, but this particular question, people can choose multiple options. So one thing we noticed about RingStorm that even though they primarily drive, they do buy like 40% you know, it doesn't add up to 100, it's greater than 100 because some people that are driving are also walking or biking or taking transit. And in our survey, we do see when it comes to safety improvements, protected and improved bike lane being the 25%, you know, almost half that folks have identified what that would mean as a meaningful change. As we were developing our concepts, we were, you know, this is a challenging corridor being priority for many different modes. So each of the alternatives are speaking to a specific priority. So the first one is really keeping existing traveling and parking intact while improving intersection and mid-block level safety and access along the corridor. Alternative two being really the bicycle specific, where we are converting some of the on-street parking to provide greater protection and separation for bicyclists. And alternative three is for the pedestrian. There is multiple transit routes. There are multiple schools. We saw kids walking along Rainstorm at various site visits we did. So that one is widening your sidewalk and putting more greenery. That's something I also heard is focusing for that specific need. So that's how we crafted it tonight to kind of give the menu of the options, looking at different priorities. Go ahead.

So just to clarify, the survey asked what do you do now? And the current condition is not conducive to biking by any means. So that's what you're doing now. I didn't ask what people would like to do. I asked what do you do now? And if you would like to bike, you may not because of the current conditions.

I would say with the survey, and you may have mentioned this, if you go back one slide. I think the key takeaway here from the slide on the right is that people are very multibodal on the corridor. So of the thousand people who responded, 90% of them drove, almost half of them walked, and 34% of them bike on rink store. So that's of all the people.

So it's definitely very multifodal. Would it be more biased if, you know, because if all those 90%, I mean, are they, is there, they're probably priorities, right? Probably, right? Because, I mean, most people who bike have some sort of a disability, or some sort of a, I don't know, But 90%, if it's more of a survey, it would be more helpful if you let them know that when they're taking this survey, are they mentally catering to other people? The biker is more mental, thinking what's safe. I was thinking when you're driving, for example, you're driving on the streets, and then if that's your priority to drive so that it's less congested, because you want to drive faster. But when you're less congested, you will drive faster. But when a biker comes along and, you know, that's making a left or right turn and that just, you know, that focus, what's more important, you know, and when you take that survey, it might be sort of miscalculated. But I don't know.

So in our current survey, we do include a question that looks at So the questions we have for discussions are kind of the main three questions. So the first question is asking exactly that. What is the priority for your corridor? And it does include protected bike lane as well as maintaining vehicle travel time as well as lower vehicle speed. And then it will also include that. What outcome do you want to serve for the community? You know, not just to do it with your own choices, but for the greater of the community, what will be some of these priorities? And then, you know, we do want to get some specific feedback on the alternative. That's why we have.

I have a question to myself. Um, So first, I realized I forgot to ask this in advance. I know there's a placeholder in the CIP for El Camino and Cross Street intersection improvements. One of those will presumably be allocated to Reinstorf. Does that fit in with this study in any particular way that's worth noting?

Like their protected intersection that we are going to roll out.

That was my understanding. We included like five placeholder projects for like, we will improve intersection.

No, I think. I don't think was identified as one of them, but we can double check that.

Okay. That is good to know. I forgot about that. Castro and El Monte and Esquivel.

And Calderon and Phyllis.

Okay.

We can double check.

Okay, thank you. I noticed, I think, on an alternative, there were some gaps in the protected bike lanes north of Central Expressway. Since the typical cross-section is showing protected bikeways the whole way, can you speak to a bit of what's causing those gaps?

Yeah, so alternative B is really trying to find a balance with protected bikeway at least on one side of the street while keeping some parking along the corridor. And, you know, for example, so where I have the light blue in right in front of Montecito, there is a driveway, there's a transit stop and the intersection of Montecito. So it kind of didn't give enough space to put a protected bike lane. That's why it goes through as a class two and then it picks up as a buffer and then a protected bike lane. So it's constrained areas where we have either driveways or need to access curb for a particular reason, or if you are recading.

I guess the thing to articulate there, and that's maybe just with the other response, is that where these proposed unprotected bike lanes, it's typically that, or sorry, there's a few spots where it's proposed unprotected bike lanes, but if it's not next to parking, then it is because if it's not because there's parking to the right of the bike lane then it's unprotected basically there's so many driveways and bus stops in the such that even if we try to add protection it'd be so intermittent that it'd be functionally unprotected is that a fair description okay or the site distance isn't there or there's another operational issue okay um i think i was seeing on this side yes there is no protected bike lane in front of rainstorm park

Yeah.

Can you speak to why that is? I don't think that, another reason I just started really applying this is I don't think you're allowed to park there right now. There's no driveways there. There's, it's, yeah, no cross streets. So I don't think there's a bus stop right there. I think the bus stop is near the driveways.

So, yeah, and I have my consultant, Vanessa, here as well. So she can jump in for that specific location. But south of Central, the most space could stray. So it doesn't, a lot of it, it doesn't have any parking. And we are retaining the track. So it doesn't have any parking. So it's not like we can take parking. We cannot allocate that. And there's already existing, we are maintaining the two travel lanes. And we are maintaining the existing width of the bike lane. So given that there isn't kind of any other space to take to make that a buffer or...

And just to clarify, given that Rainsdorf Park is city land, if we were to try to get an extra couple feet in the right of way, is that something we could technically do, but would presumably be more complicated and require rearranging the curve, which would also be much more expensive? Correct. But it would technically be feasible.

Well, I... I will look to Lauren and Allison to see if it's technically feasible, but we, at this point, for this alternative, we didn't look taking any right-of-way. We were just looking at the purchase right-of-way.

I don't believe staff would go to City Council making that recommendation. Okay.

I just, rate and surf park in particular is popping up in my mind since there.

There's additional issues with taking land away from students, too. You trigger additional environmental disdain.

Okay.

So, I don't see this problem.

So I realized after I submitted this as well that I hadn't asked about this, but do we have any sense of how much of the existing sidewalks are constrained by holes or wolf-grown vegetation straining the width rather than here with the sidewalk being an issue?

I don't think we have that level of detail.

I'm sorry. Oh, and I believe you mentioned the road diet having only been studied north of Central Expressway. Was there a reason it wasn't studied south of Central Expressway?

Our existing condition already showed California and Central Expressway are completely congested. So based on sort of looking at the existing condition, we didn't do even an initial analysis. We just looked at the north where traffic is currently moderate. Okay.

Valley, Santa Clara Valley Transit, how we get our PCI funding.

Oh, right. Okay. Yeah. So they're CMP intersections. Yes.

All right. That's all I had to ask for clarifying questions.

So the view, the example given here with the protected vegetation, there wasn't any mention that I saw the bioswales, blood swales, what is the type of that vegetation protection? Is it a swale? Is it elevated planter boxes? Or a view of what that might be?

We have not gotten that level of detail on it yet. We did talk about having like raised curve with vegetation. At this point, we're really focused on getting what a cross section of these particular areas would look like and what type of, you know, as part of the concepts. what type of layout we are seeking feedback on. So that particular, so as we get closer to our preferred alternative and we know this is the layout we want, we can come back with specific type of greenery along. But this one, we did reserve spaces like where I'm having that point to show we can do, we have safe area.

I was so much worried about the type of plants more. Is it gonna serve a purpose? handling more extreme storms, flooding, and toxic runoff.

If we don't have more clarifying questions, then we'll go to public comment, and then we'll make comments and such. So people in the room first. We don't have a great way of queuing, so come up in some order. This will be two minutes of PCN, and please wait until we have the time frame.

I thought I would answer a lot of the questions both of you just said. The reason that you have a less amount of bicycles on the streets is because they are using alternative routes. They're going to Independent Street from Charleston down through Mauna Loma, they hit Central, they come across the tracks. If they're going Northern, they hit Sierra Vista. They go up to Clittigan High School and they cross at Rock for the Permanente Creek Short Country Bikes. I'm Debra Tavaloff, Ring Store Neighborhood Watch Captain for North Ring Store for 31 years. I have a monitor up that's been since March. We have another one at Wyandotte and we have another one at University on South. We have zero to six bicyclists on both sides of the street in North Ring Store per day. We do not have bicyclists on North Wing Street. South Wing Street, there's bicyclists because there is three points of interest, La Faisa, restaurant, the Ringstorff Park, and Five Guys. Our pedestrians and foot traffic on North Ringstorff, they are not taking a leisurely stroll on a four-lane street to use the sidewalk. They are going from home to the beautiful parks that are one block off of Ringstorff. We need no greenery. We need no trees planted. We need to keep our street parking, our elderly, our disability, all of our utilities for sewer, water clean-out, are one inch off where the sidewalk meets the residences. Our sidewalks are beautifully maintained. They're large enough. We have no traffic jams. Nobody's bumping anybody. We don't need new, wider sidewalks. We do not want alternative C. It's a nightmare. South Ringstorf is a total different animal than north. You need to go visit. Have you been down there? I challenge you to. Take a look. South Ringstork is maxed out. I feel for them. They're Hispanic families and a lot of apartment complexes. South Ringstork is 3.5 miles, 3.5 blocks. North is 10 blocks, and we have no points of interest.

Thank you, Deborah. Thank you. I assume we have more people.

Are we going in order?

Not for anybody.

Okay. Good evening. My name is Christine and I've lived in the Castro neighborhood of Ringstorf for 24 years. I am a parent of the neighborhood. I have two kids who went to Los Altos High School. I currently work at Los Altos High School and I bike and I drive every day. I think it's imperative that we not only think about like safety and pedestrian safety. It's imperative we think about our commuters who are traveling to the high school, our young students who should be able to go to the high school safely and their parents to be able to allow them to travel. I go there every day. Every day, unless it's raining, I am biking to school. It is very dangerous. And I think that should be one of the top priorities of this apartment to think about our youth who should have the safest corridor to get to school safely. The passage over to El Camino is a different issue. I don't know if this is the right place, but we have not thought about our youth getting to Los Altos High School as much as we should. And that is a big concern to me. The... There's nothing else to be said. I believe the issue is simple. I believe that the transportation engineers can absolutely come with a genius way to make everyone happy. And science is amazing. Data is amazing. Numbers are amazing. I don't believe that anyone should have anything to fear if everyone's concern and safety is taken into consideration.

Thank you, Christy.

Hello, so my name is Lois Kellerman and I've lived on Montecito for 37 years. And now I am a senior, even though I might not look it. I ride my bicycle every single day on Montecito. and on Ranksdorf and I have been doing it. I used to ride my bike to work when I was working every single day for 37 years and even before I moved here. I agree that I don't think we need any wider sidewalks. I think the sidewalks are fine. And I don't think we need any more greenery, even though trees are lovely. To me as a bicyclist, if you put in trees, this is something for me to hit at night when I'm trying to bicycle, right? And I'm a little worried about your crossings, how that's going to be for drivers so that they don't hit the people that are making those crossings in the middle of the street. I mean, is it so terrible for them to cross at the corner? And why do you, I don't exactly understand. And I don't exactly understand what you are, protected bike lane is either. But to me, of course, I also drive. And when I filled out the survey, I also said, I think it's very important to maintain the two lanes of traffic because there's a lot of traffic. Personally, I bike a lot and I don't really feel in danger on a rainstorm, I have to say. But I do sometimes go onto the sidewalk at some point, because people do drive into the bike lane. So I would like it, especially if they're going to make a right turn, I would like it if you would paint those bike lanes that are existing green so that people will know that they're bike lanes. Thank you very much for listening.

Thank you. Ellen Whitaker, I'm a model of a restaurant. 33 years. I ride on Ringstorf regularly, across Montecito, both middle fields. I go out on Ringstorf. Anyway, I don't see any problem with them. I see that the Mountain View doesn't keep the stripes up. Well, the striping on the streets, I think that... Separation at the arriving at intersections on the right-hand lane for protection for the bicyclists, 30 or 40 feet up. And basically, you don't get to turn right. As a vehicle driver, you don't get to turn right at a light unless you're the front car. I mean, just protect the bicyclists at the lights. By the way, you said it's four to six miles an hour over the speed limit. Boy, wonderful. That's great. You know, it's amazing. I hope that safety, you address safety as number one. And that doesn't, a tree isn't safety. You know, the sidewalks are fine. I mean, I cross. Anyway. Okay. I think that, unfortunately, between the railroad tracks and El Camino, Having that thrown in with the rest of Ringsdorf was not so great because it's a totally different environment for riding a bicycle. And I don't know how this is all going to meld in the grade change in California Avenue, which the improvements for the street have already gone in for the bicyclists, and how they are going to match up because... Right now, all the cities are just experimenting with bicycle lanes, and it's a hodgepodge. You have to understand all the new rules. Every time you turn a corner, it's a different set of rules. And if you just would please solve the safety thing for bicyclists and cars, you'd have a lot of winners. Thank you.

Thank you. Tracy Chu. I'm a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood. I actually would bike on Brimstorf more, I think. I felt safer. A lot of it's the crossing, but just overall, I feel it's a very hostile environment to bicycles and pedestrians. So I had a couple of comments on the, first of all, thank you for all your clarifying questions. I had some of the same Um, on the, um, I, I'm generally supportive of better bicycle infrastructure, better, um, uh, pedestrian infrastructure and just moving over streets. Um, but, but I think the second option, if, if that's sort of the best we can do in terms of the, uh, the protected bike lanes, I think it's very disjoint. And, um, I don't know if that would encourage me fully, like, unless there was a more cohesive, uh, you know, sort of treatment across the street. I don't know if I would bike down to, uh, like a field or something like that. It was at this point. I actually do really like the idea of the plantings I think that the report didn't talk about the benefits to the community beyond the actual people standing on the sidewalk, you know, to our community, to the, even the, you know, the pollution in the Bay and, you know, all those things. I think that the report, if it, if it could help, you know, sort of draw those points, it would be great. And I do think that even option C, if the plantings can be trees, even, that could just make it a much more comfortable place to bike, encouraging place to bike, if we weren't able to do protected bike lanes. So I think that's something that might encourage me to use the order more for bicycling. And yeah, I'm really looking forward to this option. Thank you much for all of this. We've been anticipating it for a long time. So thanks very much.

Hi, I'm Grace. I'm from the Jamel neighborhood, so I'm a little farther away from Ringstorff. but so glad to hear what other community members are concerned about. I actually want to pivot to the California Street Project. I'm just wondering if there's been any data that you've collected there about bike safety, because if you're ever on Nextdoor, people hate that project. They find it so hard to drive down that street. There's more traffic. I try to avoid California now, but, you know, it just packs me out of daily life. what I find does impact me is that since the community center has opened, there's so little parking there. So when there are large events happening, I have to now drive down into like the area and try to find parking. So I feel like if we take any parking away from the people who already have parking on Rangstorf right now, it's going to drastically reduce the quality of their life. Um, because they're going to have to hold around for parking, having lived in San Francisco, I know that it's a major pain. Um, and, uh, so, but I, I understand like the need for bike safety. I also don't feel like I would want to be riding down, um, Rexdorf. I think one of you would ask like, who did you reach out to like a bike league, a bicycle community? specifically because they're the people after the California thing. They're just like, I'm not going to drive down that street. It's so not safe. Though I've heard other people who live on Brainstorm say they feel safer because it's slowed down traffic. So if the goal was that, that has worked. But for everybody else, it's a major disruption. And I think from what another person had said, Every block seems like a different instruction. So if you do roll this out, you'll be having more clarity at how one is supposed to use the street. Thank you, Chris.

Anyone else in the back?

I biked along Ringthorpe a couple times or a few times and it's very dangerous right now. I've nearly been squeeze between moving cars and the parked cars and doors opening also. That's a fear of mine. So I would say that we need some sort of physical protection between cars and the bikes. Otherwise, cars will go into the bike lane, possibly hit. I think the safest type of bike lane are protected ones. And just like on El Camino and California, those are good. are continuous, they're protected. Even buffered bike lanes are not as great. Cars will still park in them a lot of the time. They'll use a parking spot. But yeah, between the three options, I think option B is the best. But I would still try to look at making the bike lane fully protected the whole the whole way of the road. Thank you. Thank you.

Can you please share your name?

Jacob.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Elaine Horn again. And again, I want to tell you that I do work with students who get to Los Altos High School. And talking to some of them, they're like, we'd love to have at least some paint on the bike lane. It's a very difficult route. And it's a suggested route to school. I'd love to see it be a safe school. And of course, if you have more bikers, fewer drivers. If you have fewer drivers, there's going to be less traffic that's going to hold up people. And also, there'll be people who cannot drive, who cannot, for whatever reason, cannot bike. That's more parking for them when they get to wherever they need to be because they're biking more accessible. And with this higher density housing, we need to be thinking about how much higher, this is going to be more car traffic unless we make the bike lanes more inviting. And I can't say that I'm in love with all of B and C alternatives. So I'd love to see more continuous protected bike lanes and also better infrastructure for pedestrians as well, including people in wheelchairs, which is often overlooked.

Hi, I'm Celia Pamer. So I'm a mom and I also bike to Los Altos High School. Um, and I'll say like, you know, I know some people have responded already, but the reason I actually put, I don't bike on Rangstorf, even though that's my main mode of transportation, cause I avoided it all house, not because I'm not biking. Um, and so hopefully we can make it safer. Um, and, um, one thing I'm concerned about and what was brought up and what we saw is In front of the park is almost one of the worst place for the bike lane shrinking down to an almost comically small size that doesn't even fit your handlebars. So I really hope we do address that area. We can't leave it as it is in any of the plans. So I hope we look at maybe can we reduce some of the lane widths to find space or some other options. I was also curious, I didn't see in any of these plans the fact that So Presanto is going to be closing when we build the underpass anyway. Why aren't we looking at how that can fit into this plan, similar to how Castro Street, the traffic over the train tracks was closed, even though we haven't built that underpass? So I think we should look at closing that to reduce the conflicts because that is one of the worst spots as well, at least to car traffic. And I think that also leads to a lot of the congestion because those two routes have to merge. Whereas if it was already all on Rangstorf, it would probably actually make it smoother and less traffic. And yeah, I do hope we kind of use option B as a starting off point, but I don't think it's quite there for making it a place that people will want to bike and walk and change their mode of transport. Thank you.

Thank you. Is that all for the room? Do we have people with their hands raised on Zoom?

You have two minutes.

All right. Is this for me or Bruce? Yeah. Bruce England, Wisman Station Drive. Thanks to all who have been working on this over time, including transportation staff and this committee. I bike along Rengsdorf and Feeder Streets at least twice a week between Crescento and Heritage Park. I actually choose Crescento specifically because I don't feel biking past the community center is safe. It's currently set up. I am interested in seeing other adjacent projects consider their impacts, such as the feed-in from Grisanto, which goes from two right-turn lanes for vehicles with no shoulder space for cyclists, the Rengsdorf grade separation project, and the Escuela-El Monte project, too. Such interfaces beyond the project boundaries are important as well and should be considered. I'm also concerned that we're seeing LOS measurements here rather than VMT and no consideration for narrowing travel lanes. Lastly, I agree with Tracy Chu that more cohesiveness across the plan would be welcome and that attention to the natural details is essential, such as keeping tree planning options active and alive for future planning purposes. Thanks.

Thank you, Bruce.

Hello? Lotta Adamek, resident of Old Mountain View. I participated in a few of the walks and the bikes that staff . So thanks very much for that. I just wanted to say I found the survey a bit confusing. I don't know if there's anything that can be done. The one that's running right now because it wasn't clear to me what changes would be done south of Central. And I know that was like, you know, still is being an issue that is raised for kids who are biking to Los Altos. And so I think in the future for communicating with the public, it would be really nice to know whether the incomplete bike lanes will be fixed and how much buffering there will be and what the specific safety improvements there are. Without that, it was hard to choose between the different options. I also was confused because the existing conditions map showed that the bike lanes extended to Central Expressway. But basically, if you're a bike, there is no bike lane close to Central Expressway. You're forced to merge into through traffic, not even like right turn traffic. You're like in the through traffic. And this is why I very rarely bike on Rengstorf. Now, I understand that there's the rate separation project, but also that it has maybe a 40 to 60 million dollar gap. And so if that is not going to be happening in the near future, I would love for this project to maybe address the central intersection in the interim because bicyclists need a way to make that crossing of the train tracks safely now. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Valerie Fenwick. I am a resident of the Rex Manor neighborhood for more than 20 years. And I got a little confused with the survey because I live more than a block, depending on how blocks to find in our neighborhood, but from Bringsdorf. But Bringsdorf is like my jam. I drive on it. I walk on it. I rarely ride my bike on it because of the cars and the speed of traffic. I also drive on Central Expressway on a very regular basis, both east and west from Rengstorf. And I also, because of the level crossing, tried to avoid doing Rengstorf over the train tracks if possible. But I also have driven on California, walked on California, and ridden my bike on California Avenue since the update. So I love it. I know some people are very loud on Nextdoor, and that's not of my concern. I'm sad that we can't improve for both walking and bike on this route, particularly to access the Old Heritage Park, which I know we have to leave some parking there, so I kind of understand that. Right now, the sidewalks, I heard somebody say they're fine. They're not. There's curb cuts. Throughout some of the curb cuts do not have associated driveways and they also have a lot of pinch points. It was a point of contention when we were putting up the narrow street, the no parking signs for oversized vehicles because they are put in the sidewalk and the city thought that was great. because it was following standard operating procedure. I was on BPAC at the time. But there's a lot of pinch points. It's really hard for somebody with mobility issues on the sidewalk. So I prioritized the sidewalk and greenery. It would make it a lot more pleasant to walk there. And I see lots of walkers, lots of bicyclists there. Somebody said zero to six. That's not accurate. I drive up and down Rangstorf several times a week and ride and walk. Thank you.

Thank you, Valerie.

April, you have to.

Thank you. I want to ask a basic question, and that is how well do these alternatives actually deliver on the commitments that got this project funded? I took a look at SB1, the Caltrans SB1 grant, and it calls for enhanced safety. Actually, what we agreed to in the application was enhanced safety, green, complete streets, multimodal access and equity. and what i heard a lot tonight in the presentation was more about operational and design constraints i heard a lot about los congestion etc and a lot less about starting with the actual safety and all ages and abilities goals and then from there creatively designing around those constraints to meet those goals i also want to ask who is this project primarily primarily being designed for is it people driving walking bicycling or taking transit and when those needs were in conflict whose takes precedence because i mean based on what has been presented it definitely sees seems to be those driving the road diet was rejected partly over los not at vmt a two-way cycle track over driveway and intersection conflicts. I'd like to know where the safety and AA benefits weighed against all those impacts and where other protected configurations evaluated. Could we be a bit more creative? I also want to flag the survey interpretation. It says 64% identified their top concern as traffic congestion. But that was as a safety challenge. And identifying congestion as a problem is not the same as asking the city to preserve vehicle capacity. They could just reasonably have meant reduce sit congestion through modality shift. And then I also want to add that I was on the bike tour and I was in the bicycle group. And my recollection is that protected bike lanes were a significant priority, not consistent bike lane widths. Thank you so much. Thank you.

With that, we will move out of public comment for this item and we will move into committee comments on this item. And my understanding is on this, we are not strictly required to make a motion, but could we pull up the questions or prompts that you had for inputs to remind us of what types of things are useful?

No, no, no, no.

the last time the thing in front of you might be an older person so if you want to look at slice okay So we have one improvement should be prioritized in this four-door, and the second slide was loading. The second slide was what happens to people that are in the community with things like parking availability versus pedestrian safety and such, and provide feedback on the proposed content. I'm guessing people have feedback. Oh, I was just reviewing what was the discussion questions from staff were, but comments on the project.

Okay, I'll start with a couple. So my background is I've been a Jamila resident for a year, in a couple weeks. And I worked on North Bay Shore or east of 101 for 35 years. So I bicycle commuted down Ringstorff because there is no alternative. It crosses the train tracks and crosses 101 from where I live. The last 13 years working North Bay Shore, I bike commuted every day. So those commutes over 13 years were 6,500 trips by myself on rink starved bike bicycle. So it is not fun. It is... Very dangerous if you're not a defensive writer. I feel fortunate I've had a lot of training, but most people don't. I certainly see more than six writers a day mentioned there. The high schoolers in particular are often in dozens on a given morning and afternoon. So it's a heavily traveled street for cyclists. It is a necessary route connecting El Camino to 101 and to the North Bay Shore employers, such as Google, Intuit, and all those up in Palo Alto, Venmo Park, et cetera. And also if you try to cross the Dumbarton Bridge by bicycle, that's the way you would go. It is a very difficult street. So the traffic volumes are only expected to grow as employment gets denser. And residential development, residences get that. If they're not developed, there's more people. We also know there's the Builders' Roomie Project, 17 stories going in on Brink's door. And there are likely to be other future developments on parcels that are quite up.

There are destinations at both ends.

Los Altos High School was talked about by people that work there. as well as all the students.

Costco wanted just In-N-Out, just for example, for COVID-19.

So it's a very busy quarter. It is constrained. The idea of a road diet and doing less than the current two lanes in each direction is probably not feasible. a shape or form. The right of way is very narrow. But here's some of the comments that I think we should focus on given that traffic volumes are going to grow. And I think actually that in many areas of Mountain View parking will be the constraint on traffic because already People in some neighborhoods don't want to drive because they don't want to lose their parking space. So they're walking more just because of their parking space. So car storage or free car storage on the street is an issue in Mountain View. I don't know how soon neighborhood permits and paid parking will come to all streets in Mountain View, but it's probably the resource that is tightest and will constrain traffic at some point. The questions and concerns, the bulb outs and their effect on biking is mentioned as are they going to be something you can run into? Do they extend in the bike lane? How are they constructed and painted? As many pointed out, the bike lanes and painting on Rank Star was not maintained. So that's one concern. And I also would like to see if we do landscaping and head fill usage. Climate resiliency for flooding swales or toxic runoff would be, in my mind, something we need to do as part of the landscape. I'd like to see city traffic counts in terms of bicycles. We don't have anything anecdotal at this point, and I've never seen counters owned by the city. Google did some counts for the 101 over crossings. for their own purposes, but I don't believe that . So concerns, there was a 13 foot travel lane in one of the layout. I assume the gentleman would be sarcastic that with 14% of the vehicles, excuse me, the speed being already 14% over the limit, it needs to be, something needs to be done with the travel lanes is a concern speed. There was a comment about early closure. Presconto is a way to alleviate some of the delays. If it's going to be closed with the underpass, there's no reason perhaps it shouldn't be closed earlier to take out that light signal, which adds considerable delays to the traffic going north and south. So that may be an alternative until the gap of tens of millions of dollars is found for an overpassing. So I think that should be considered. I'm not sure why Ringstorf, given it's a high-injury corridor, given the number of bike collisions, the bike lanes are not more regularly painted. And I think the number of issues point out, one, there are no bike lanes across Central. Once the county added an additional turn lane on Central Thrustway, the bike lanes have been there. people that don't anticipate that and don't know how to merge in are in a strong hazard point that contribute to a lot of those conditions. So I would favor, I think we're going to have to get more multimodal. The sidewalks need cleaning up, whether it's old telecom boxes or unused driveway cuts that make it difficult to navigate to the level with the wheelchair. There are certainly improvements that can be made, but I would endorse most of Alternative B just because I think that's going to get more and more use as some of the development occurs, in particular the relocation to the old Coles property, a major school site, will attract a lot of traffic on Ringstorf and Showers, California, and potentially El Camino as well.

So anything else?

Yeah, I think the high school students generally don't take the survey. They are a considerable portion of the people use it for bike. Yes, I would agree that there's more biking traffic between the park and El Camino, that they're on the other side of safety concerns. But there are definite definitions that

employees and consumers or residents do use for the Norsec and the Frankston.

And the current thing, part of the reason nobody bikes is because the current situation of the bike lane leaves you about three or four feet outside of parking. So nobody in their right mind would ride in that space as a door open. So you basically are in the traffic If you're a slow rider, that would be extremely intimidating. And even though you're allowed to be there when it's unsafe to use the bike lane, there's a power park in it. Most people don't. So I think improving the width of the bike lane, a lot of it counts the gutter pan and the stormwater rates, which are very practical to try to ride in because they're not maintained smooth.

I

I think alternative B is the one we need to look at. In my mind, it's got to be some hybrid approach of all three, probably.

OK. Yes. I'm also a biker. I can't drive, but I'm sort of a disability. But I think the most important thing is protecting the bikers. I'm looking at the three. like I said earlier, you know, as long as, as long as, as long as the, the it's, this is going to be a little bit better. Parking is important. Don't want to take that away from parking, from those people. But in terms of, in terms of safety, I think, you know, driving is, I mean, I'm sorry, but biking is to protect how, okay, let me go this way, sorry. When this model is made, I'm thinking, I just thought about how like, okay, there's no, this biking, What is it? What is it? I said it already. The purpose here is to protect the bikes, right? I mean, the bikers and the drivers not having accidents. And so having these alternatives definitely is good. But then we don't have to know why. What's from perspective of when you're driving, we're biking down that street. Cars coming down. The car is coming down, and the car is going down this way, trying to make a left turn into the center, the ring store center, and the bike is going this way, okay? And so, fine, you're protecting the bike. You're protecting the bike on this side. I'm making clear this is, okay, the bike is going straight here, and the bike is, the car is trying to make a left lane to the community center, The most important thing here really is not about the, it is, it's important how it's layered, the structure of the road. But the most important thing is that the biker, okay, biker itself, in my opinion, the biker itself and the driver really needs to know the safety of each person. Okay, so it's very important, like the city has that kind of program and every alternative, if you can sort of explain why each section would be catered to whether that car, whether that car's coming in, is that person looking to the left? I don't know what I'm talking about. Okay. Every time I drive down, I'll hit a car, maybe hit when you're not making a left turn. And so there's a cross path. And then if that car is unable to really see me and you have all these incidences, all these protections, if the person, I don't know if I'm going to say this correctly right now, but okay. are you asking my question here at this point both alternative C and alternative B they're not bad either of them are not bad because they protect the pedestrians and the bikers and if each section can be explained why you know it's important for them to protect the bike and protect the pedestrian in which fashion it works I think somebody talked about this over there and so it'll give a more specific reason why this actually this the the motive of that alteration would be functional. And that's the reason why I was thinking, you know, why do you guys have only drivers and not the bikers? Because the drivers, they're protected. They're not, they're always protected, but the bikers, if they don't see a car coming into, into making a left turn into the rainstorm, the center, right? And then, then what's the whole point? I mean, you're protecting the street to the biker, but you're not protecting, I mean, you're protecting the driver, but you're not protecting the bikes. And so not only does the city have to really work on about the giving the specific needs, each specific needs of the biker and the pedestrian, more specific alignment, more definitive knowledge of why they're being protected. City also somehow needs to work with Palo Alto and Los Altos and other communities so that the most important here is the DMV. it's not just really the infrastructure of this map. I was thinking if we can get some to the city council, to the city council too, or maybe you can, is this how the city council to really make this project a lot more appropriate with the DMV because this is a possibility.

Are you looking for education encouragement or education programs like safety education programs?

Well, I'm thinking I'm dealing a little bit because I'm dealing more with what's in the bigger picture here too.

My recommendation would be something like that would be better as a separate and not tied into a specific infrastructure improvement.

Okay.

Well, at this point, but there are, there are elements that can be put into an infrastructure project that can help reduce speeding and improve safety. And, you know, so that can be put in specifically, but talking to like tying it into a DMV effort to maybe do better driver training or all that would be, that would, that would have to be, it would make more sense to have it.

I guess mine is, yeah, it's, it's, I'm thinking about something else there, but both alternative A and alternative C, It's very, you know, as long as you can sort of explain whether each of the drivers, I mean, the drivers, bikers are able to, you know, fulfill their safety based on their needs, rather than just the drivers, then that'll be okay.

Okay. First off, there are a couple things I realized had come up in public comment. I wanted to make sure we clarified. Firstly, there's a question about, it's a cross street, so it's slightly relevant. California Street sort of review of that pilot project, that's going to be upcoming in a not too distant feedback meeting, correct?

It is. It's Yes.

The second question was, there is a comment about improvements to Central and Rainstorm prior to the grade separation going. And is the expectation that if this project got implemented for the Rainstorm grade separation, that it would make improvements to that intersection?

We're designing it to be independent of that. Or I should say, the brief answer is no. And we went back and forth about that, but what we determined is that it would be better to leave that particular intersection to the rank store grades up. It's going to change so much. And that the great step is, yes, there's a funding gap, but it is marching along. And so in the scheme of things, it's further along those objectives.

And does that default expectation apply to the sort of Crisanto or rank store section of that? intersection i don't think we can answer that question right now we haven't talked about about doing i can comment on it um you can comment on it we do and the uh i wanted to there were a couple notes about green paint and the role it plays and i know from my experience the way the that we and that various standards expect green paint to use don't always align with what people's expectations around green paint are can one of you comment on The role, the, the nominal role of green paint is the.

Alison Boyer, assistant public works director. When green paint was rolled out, say in the area, the intent of green paint is to be placed in conflict zones, to alert both the drivers and the bikers that they are, there's the potential for them to share a path. So you see it typically at crossings of. Or right turn areas, right, where you would be moving in a vehicle over to the right into a bike lane. So it's what we would classify as a conflict zone. So it's where a vehicular, yeah, a vehicle and a bike might share the same space.

And where there's a dash between this, there's a specific expectation there may be vehicles in that space.

Correct.

Okay. And the last one was there is a, well, I'll sort of talk about this in a moment, but there is a comment about level of service in BMT. Can someone elaborate on how the city is using those metrics in assessing projects?

So we did intersection counts at this particular corridor and the purpose of the travel, purpose of that LOS analysis and we are moving away from it as we do our other review of projects. The purpose here was to kind of really see where and how the traffic congestion was along the corridor. Because going into the project, we knew there's a traffic congestion on the south and there's traffic congestion on the north. What the analysis revealed that as existing, the south rainstorm, south of central, is already at capacity. And then at north, you know, it would get worse if we reduce the travel lane. That was kind of It's one data point of the whole picture of existing condition that also includes collision, speed, the ADT. And I think ADT actually reveals something more interesting, which is Ringstorff is very commute heavy. So in commute times, we really see these peaks where traffic, where it's blocked, but it is non-commute time where we see this speeding happens and, you know, speeding is related to fatal and severe collisions that, you know, that we want to reduce and eliminate out of Vision Zero. So it's one part of our data point in the whole analysis because it is a big vehicle throughput. We can't ignore that. And we kind of took that findings as we, you know, drafted our own.

And I'll add on, because you also asked about VMT, vehicle miles traveled. So I would assume that the analysis you would want to see is, if this project is put in place, if you put in protected bike lanes, how many driving miles will be reduced based on that? To get to that from just looking at a project that is, what is it, three miles long? Oh my gosh, it's not, sorry. 1.7 miles long. It is very, very difficult to make those leaps. We do know from before and after surveys that when you put in a protected bikeway, you do see an increase of bikes, people riding bikes. If you want to determine if that change actually translates to them not driving their cars, you need to actually go a step further and you need to understand, are they just shifting bikes? another route to that route? Or are they actually leaving their cars behind? And to be able to go from a project that's a mile, you know, whether a mile long, to make that case for any particular infrastructure, I don't even, it's very, very difficult, and you'll have to make a lot of assumptions. The better way to do a VMT analysis, where it's more mature, is when you look at land uses. And so you can say this land use provide will increase the number of trips because we're expecting the number of people to come in. If you're going to do a VMT analysis, it tends to work better if you're doing these larger scale network-wide analyses. I haven't seen it done for an individual project and particularly for looking at different alternatives within a project. Does that make sense? It's just too many leaks. It's too tiny of a...

Yes, although I will note that some of the history of how accurate traffic projections, study projections are, mean that... I know I apply a bit of skepticism to future projections on exact traffic volumes and the such because of history showing that we aren't always going to do that. We in the Bay are very gentle since not specifically the city of Mountain View. Yeah. uh question can i ask a question i'm afraid not we're a bit past the public comment period so it um the uh for the projects one of the comments i will make is that as i think some of the public commenters expressed the Intersections are probably the most important part of this. And I think that's reflected in the approach that was taken here. And so if we were to, I don't know if this ends up helping or not. And I'd be curious for your thoughts. if the project staging ends up making sense, I could see a world where we did some intersection improvements before we did any other improvements. If we're potentially awaiting grant funding. So for instance, there was the note that some of the aspects of alternative C, especially if we were trying to do a more substantial sidewalk reconstruction would be much more expensive. And so the... Yeah. And so it might be interesting to do that first. Yeah, I don't know if that's feasible. That doesn't defer to some of the decision-making points, potentially. Although maybe it does. I don't know.

I think... I always like to have an idea of where we're going. So I wouldn't want to stop the progress of the design just because we're gonna try and face something. I would rather like to take this through the end and then if, the decision comes that we want to look at it in a more phased approach. We could explore that during the design, but from a planning perspective, I like to look at it a little bit more holistically, so we don't do anything that excludes us in the future.

I'm going to hit a few, I guess, sundry comments, and then I'll try to make the points address the bigger questions. On sidewalk width, I am worried about the existing sidewalks in that because of the volume of curb cuts and falls and flutter, I think a four-foot sidewalk, while not optimal, if it's actually a clear, smooth four feet the whole way... is not bad um it's not clear to me that that is actually the current experience to what one of the public officers said um a long rainstorm and so it may be the case that the answer for improving the sidewalks is to put effort into making the sidewalks less cluttered and right now i i don't have a great answer how much of that is having to just do reconstruction because there's breaks in the sidewalks or there's too many curb cuts coming in how much of that is obnoxious numbers of utilities, and I know utility relocation is a pain, but that may be an answer that can provide a very meaningful improvement to pedestrians and people who use wheelchairs or strollers or bullet carts without requiring right-of-way space. It does feel like there could be maybe more accounting for the rainstorm rate separation in this. I think that's particularly true to my mind in the traffic study. It just feel odd doing that traffic study without the impact of that undercrossing, especially if we're talking about a very long-term project and long-term view. I'm concerned about people parking in the bike lanes. I'm concerned about right-turn conflicts in bike lanes. If we do protect intersections, I'm less concerned about right-turn conflicts. But I'm not sure we still have problems on a lot of our bike lanes with people parking in them if they're not parking. I hope we do know where I turn on red at Protected Intersections. That makes Protected Intersections work much better. Oh, a benefit of reducing speedings, the traffic noise goes down. I've heard about that. At Protected Intersections, one complaint I've heard, and I've experienced a bit myself at the California Street Intersections, is there not always being a clear, straight path. And so if you aren't paying close enough attention on your bike, you have a potential to run into some of the plastic burps. I know there's various ways to design and protect intersections. I wanted to mention that as a thing to consider. I like greenery. My first priority on this corridor is safety. There's ways that greenery help with safety. I'll mention that I was biking this morning for the first time on Enterprise Way in Sunnyvale, which is two lanes in each direction. seems pretty high speed, and apparently they have speed tables along it, which I've not typically seen on four-lane roads, but an option to reduce speeding. And then I guess my high-level comments are, firstly, I do want us to be taking a long view of where we want this to be. It's not... We should be expecting longer modal shift. We will, to Member Barton's point, we will have more identity development in the area more. I would expect there to be more desire to take trips longer. And right now, the way that's going to happen is either more public transit or more bicycle capacity, realistically. So I wouldn't be taking that seriously. I'm not a huge fan of alternatives BMC because of the sort of lack of continuity in the protection of the bike lanes. I do not like having bike lanes that are between cars and 45-ish mile an hour traffic. that's not a safe situation. I think the research shows that's not ideal for safety at all. So anything we can do to avoid that situation is desirable. I will say that it is also the case that we know that crossings are the most important. So if we can get one thing done, it's, to my mind, making the protected intersections better. Make sure we're reducing the traffic speed. And traffic speeds are the other big thing. Oh, I actually kind of like the idea of seeing if it, I know it's a yet more paperwork, but closing Crisanto early is an interesting idea in my mind. It seems like that would also fit naturally with if we, to make it a more, some sort of more aggressive, um, plan that simultaneously cut off that intersection would presumably improve congestion and then that might give us a reason justification to do more substantial safety improvements um I know that's probably wasn't really even awesome looks like you're about to say something or you're just I remember we talked about it on the bike audit I just don't remember I know, honestly, it would make biking to the pool and community center much nicer from the other direction, because then there'd be fewer people getting out to Rainsdorf. Yeah, so that'd be an interesting possibility. Oh, and on the issue with the Rainsdorf Park, it would I know. If there were some option that were widening a path in the park that happened to be the sidewalk and then we had a raised bike lane, a raised bike path through the park that happened to be parallel to the street, that would be nice. I don't know if that would reduce the paperwork or not. Or just make it more obnoxious. But if we could... Some solution that improved the safety for that section would be nice. Um... Yeah, I could probably ramble on, but I want to make sure we get to the solution here.

Yeah, you know, earlier it wasn't very clear. I'm actually glad I touched a lot of things I'm saying here about I don't like DNA and DNC at all. I think it's a lot of things, probably it's, you know, it's not really addressing a lot of the issue, but why, you know, why it's, why it would be safe? You know, I mean, why would the, you know, How did you guys, should I ask you these questions about how did you guys come up with the, you know, putting the middle, you know, the island in the middle rather than on the side or just for safety reasons? Because, I mean, being in the middle, how would it help like a bicyclist, you know, make sure that when the other car coming on this side. I mean, what's the objective, I think, besides being greener, you know?

So, are you asking the bike lanes to be, or... Are you asking about the medians or the bike lanes?

These alternative leads, the T's, and the... So, for alternative B... With the button, the vegetative buffer, right? Yeah, I mean, the vegetated, the one in the middle, these are the mediums.

The 14-foot planting strip on the alternative C. Yeah, so you're talking about these ones?

So these ones are already existing. So this is the median you see while you drive to, it's that. So that's just that, it's the median for the roads. Bikers are not allowed to cross at the median. They have to go to the intersection to cross. And the intersection does not have this vegetative median. It drops.

Several years ago, the trees in the median went down. No, the median is there, but there's no vegetation in portions of it.

So we're not looking for emotion. Feedback. I've taken lots of notes. What I heard in my notes.

That will help.

And I'm not going to read through all of them. I've heard them. But in terms of like the final member Barton. I'm going to oversimplify.

I will let you go.

Knowing the oversimplified takeaway will be helpful.

Yeah, I am oversimplifying. I heard a desire to do the protected intersections and look at pedestrian safety at the crossings and intersections is a priority. I also heard that a continuous protected bikeway is a priority and to keep the continuity of that We will also look at if there are spot treatments where we can make sure that the obstacles in the sidewalks can be remedied as part of this project without significant utility relocation. And then where cleaning is available, we'll export that to kind of bring them all together. That was a very oversimplified, but am I missing

And Crisanto, it can be coupled from Pratha. I heard support for alternative B from Member Barton, and then not really excited about A and B from the other two members. Sorry, B and C.

I think if I were to pick a single alternative, it would probably be B. I think there is a part of me that would question if the money we would spend on B beyond A would be better spent on other street safety projects in the city. That would depend on the amount of money it was and what the exact treatments ended up being. Um, it's a very high traffic corridor. Um, and so that makes me want to spend effort improving it. Um, but I could, I could see a world where it's like alternative getting to get the intersections and for not willing to do the, get the, I think the, like, I think what you described is very much so it's my, uh, feedback. If we aren't able to get those extra improvements, maybe it's, um, better spent in places where we can get safety improvements for the dog.

Um, and a focus on where the high schoolers are using the bike lanes.

Yeah, I think B is the best one you've laid out. I can't say I'm thrilled with B, however. I would agree with James that the vision of someday there will be hopefully a safe biking corridor the length of Ringsdorf. We should work toward that. It's not going to happen immediately for sure. It probably won't happen entirely in this project. There are key, I mean, I can tell you two parking spaces that you should remove where bike lane is two feet wide as a result of allowing parking where it shouldn't have been allowed. And 18 inches of sidewalk in front of the park at the corner of Cristano. I don't think you can fit a wheelchair through there. So there are a lot of spot treatments that start to get up high value in it. High Injury Network, the crossing at Junction and San Ramon, I rode by one morning and saw shoes in the street because something got hit. That meets all, you know, Phyllis and Almonte and a lot of our fatalities were crossing more than four lanes with 35 miles an hour with nothing in the middle and no bulldogs. That clearly is item number one as far as predicting where the next fatality would be in my eyes. There's a lot of spot treatments where you gain a lot of value. The goal is, Ringstar is a very important corridor. How fast we get there. There's a lot of compromises they have.

And if we get some masks out, too much of a cost penalty from what you're saying, if I were stuck with what's in front of us.

Yeah, and to answer your question from before, that's why I'm saying I'd like to continue. planning process because we can look at phasing it later, but if we just stop now, we cut it off.

We don't know the cost eventually. It's the difference between A and B together. That was helpful. And again, we heard from a lot of community members tonight. Thank you. On Monday, we have the survey that's coming in. So there's going to be lots of different perspectives. You can see that there's a lot of pressure on the board or just across the board.

Particularly on the 17-story tower, this builder's remedy, if there's not an Uber and DoorDash and UPS pullover stall, you're going to have all traffic on that location. I mean, the one hint is change the address. Don't allow them to have a Ringster address. All the automated drivers go to the side street. If Uber says it's 1,000 Ringster, all the Uber drivers stop on Ringster. Say it's 980 Leghorn, they all pull over and stop on Leghorn. So that's just paper address. Follow some traffic laws.

And now I'll just add to the record, I probably would have more personally, more seriously considered some road diet options, perhaps alongside the Versanto stuff, but I don't know if that's, that seems to be on the scope of what the alternatives are being used right now. So I'm going to spend time eating that of course. With that. Sorry.

Okay. So that my global question here, the reason why you guys decided not to take that partnership not to have any more parking, because to wind up the streets and to make everything a little bit more protected for pedestrians and for that thing. But if the parking, I mean, if the parking can stay, that's great. But I'm thinking, what's the point of taking the parking out? Because if the car is going to be, still going to be, like you said, if there's going to be those, you know, FedEx people, they're still going to take over the street, no matter if there's whether there's going to be parking there or not. As long as there's a biking lane that you perceive that there's, you know, the biking is still going to cross through, these Uber is not going to care. I know we drive, I bike there all the time. They, you know, they care less about me biking on, you know, than them being parking. So the point of having a car parking, taking the spot out, it's not, is it for the, Is it to protect the pedestrian, I mean, protect the bikers in terms of being walking them? Or is it just also because for them opening the door so that the car doesn't hit the bike, doesn't hit the car door?

So we do want to design the bike lane wide enough with... So for alternative B and C, we removed some parking. We did not remove all parking. So there are parking along Ring Store and it will be parking protected like what we have for Castro and California where there's parking and the bike lane. And in those scenario, we need to have the parking lane and the bike lane wide enough for that dooring doesn't happen. So that's one way we are addressing that. And the areas where we are taking the parking completely, it will have bollards. So a car actually cannot go in the bike lane, such as Uber or Lyft or DoorDash. They won't be able to block it because there are actual physical barriers, whether it's vegetation or bollards that will prohibit that. parking is allowed, so we can look into loading or curb spaces that are timed, so you'll be allowed for a certain time of the day, at night, and at death's spot.

So we can look into those specific areas along the corridor, and we have done that for Mirabal today.

Yeah, I was thinking about that, you know, having a certain amount of time, yeah.

Because we heard that loading was a

We are running a bit behind our original schedule.

We will reconvene at 7.57 p.m. reconvene here is the ranks on monday um it's just like so the water japan jelly and oh that's right for the i'm not sure i'm going to be able to go but i will structure all right thank you all thank you all right uh okay we can reconvene so we can uh finish the meeting in a very timely manner oh dude um And we're back on live and everything. Okay. That brings us to item 6.2, the active transportation plan final.

So Allison and I will give this presentation. Allison will start, and then I will jump in, and then Allison will close it up. It is very similar to the presentation that you've heard in June. So I think, especially given that we have a limited audience, we'll probably move through some of the slides quickly. Thank you.

So quickly, Alison Boyer, Assistant Public Works Director, and Lauren Ledbetter is the Transportation Manager. Next slide. So quick overview. I'll start by walking us through the project background and how the plan was developed. Then Lauren will talk about the outreach we've done for the project before moving into the components of the plan. She'll then walk through what comments we've received of the draft plan and how we have addressed them in the client. And then finally, I'll walk through the next steps and implementation of the ETA. So quick project background and plan development. On November 10th, 2020, Council directed staff to integrate and update the Pedestrian Master Plan adopted by Council in January of 2014 and the Bicycle Transportation Plan, which was adopted by Council in November of 2015. The goal of the new Active Transportation Plan was to evaluate projects with competing uses within the public right-of-way with a more holistic approach. On May 24, 2022, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement with Nelson-Nygard Engineering for the development of a Mountain View Active Transportation Plan, MVATP, which we have as Project 2136. The MVATP is a long-range plan that sets a vision for the future of walking, bicycling, and rolling in Mountain View. It is a long-range vision of a plan which sets the foundation to guide staff and projects moving forward. It is a data and community-driven plan that outlines project policies and programs for the city to undertake to promote walking, bicycling, and rolling in Mountain View. The plan considers the city sustainability goals through inclusion of green streets infrastructure. It also builds on multiple previous plans related to local, regional and state levels, including the Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan, the Mountain View Pedestrian Master Plan, Caltrans Complete Streets Action Plan, the MTC Regional Active Transportation Plan, The Mountain View Multimodal Improvement Plan, Vision Zero Action Plan, and Local Roads and Safety Plan, as well as the newly adopted Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan and the Biodiversity and Urban Forestry Plan. This plan ties into the other plans, but it is not a singular everything plan. Next slide. The plan was developed through a multi-year process that included technical analysis, extensive community engagement, and interdepartmental collaboration. Community input was collected throughout. As the plan progressed, DAF provided updates and requested feedback from various stakeholders and committees. We released a public review draft plan in April and solicited feedback from the public, BPAC, and CTC. Final plan, which was edited in response to these comments, is now ready for review and recommendation to Council and for adoption.

Okay, I'll take it over from here. Just a quick summary of the stakeholder and the public engagement for the plan. We work with four stakeholder groups throughout the development of the plan. The top two were established specifically for guiding the plan. This is the Technical Advisory Committee, which is an internal group consisting of city staff from various departments, including Public Works, Community Services, Fire, Community Development Department, and the City Manager's Office. We convene the Active Transportation Public Advisory Committee, ADPAC, And that was comprised of representatives from 12 community-based organizations, nonprofit entities, advisory bodies, and PTA. And then, of course, the other two committees that we work with are yourself and the CTC. In terms of engagement with the general public, we had touch points throughout the plan development. We used a multilingual approach with materials in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Russian, and we provided translation and interpretation services for key events. The techniques that we used to reach out to the community included small group multilingual meetings, a map, a multilingual community map at which we received 655 responses, walking and bicycling tours. Three years, we looked through three years of historic requests from the city's AskMV platform, which as you know, allows people to submit comments to the city. We held pop-ups, we posted the final plan on CollaborateMV for comments, and of course, we got a couple more shots. General themes of what we heard across the outreach, strong support for the trails and protected bikeway. The city has a good network and a good system. We've heard consistently that the major streets are both barriers to walking and biking, but also places where people need and want to walk and bike along, and there's a need for safer crossings, intersection improvements, slower speeds. And I think particularly for Mountain View, the city is a very active city and people are walking and biking, not just for exercise, but also for everything, transportation to school, jobs. So the overview of the plan, the broad structure of the plan is the same as what you saw earlier with the public review draft, it's four chapters. The introduction provides, introduces it, describes development process, and that's where you can find a summary of stakeholder investment. Chapter two, this is essentially the existing conditions part of the plan. It's an overview of the community, demographics, travel patterns, infrastructure, services and policies, and also it provides the holistic network maps within the plan. So those are maps that show all the planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as . Chapter three is the recommendations. It includes positive actions that have been taking place in Mountain View and has recommendations for projects, programs, and policies. Chapter four is the implementation chapter. It talks about project facing, cost, benefits of green streets, funding, and the importance of collaboration. We have five appendices in the plan. Project prioritization, that was provided in the prior version of the plan. It outlined the process and the criteria we used to prioritize the projects. We have touch sheets of the project. We have recommended improvements as an appendix with a table. We've added two new appendices. We've added the Vision Zero Action Plan Local Roadway Safety Plan, the non-infrastructure policies and programs, just to be sort of complete within this plan. And then we also added the existing conditions report, which was a request from community members of BPAC to add that existing conditions report that was presented to BPAC in October, 2023 to the plan itself. I'll note with that existing conditions report, we did not update the data. So the plan's vision was brought to the BPAC, the CTC and council, and it reflects the input of those bodies I will not read the vision here. You can see it. One thing I do want to note is this is the vision that was approved by those different bodies. We have it supporting the guiding principles here, mobility and connectivity, safety and comfort, access and equity, sustainability and biodiversity, action-oriented and forward thinking. I mentioned before, Mountain View is an active community. We did note that there was a lot of support for active transportation. We can make it more feasible and safer and more desirable for everyday travel. As you know, the network is really robust, but there are gaps in the network. And so this plan seeks to look for opportunities to improve those gaps and expand and improve the system. The recommended improvements here, this map is in the plan. This is the holistic bicycle network with the priority corridors are outlined in the dark double lines you could see there. Within the plan, we provide a recommended bikeway type based on variables such as roadway width, traffic characteristics, land uses, and expected roadway users. And you can see the recommendation here in terms of the length of projects right here. The length has not changed since the last draft plan. In terms of the pedestrian network, We modified this map a little bit to make it clear that we included more. We did include pedestrian improvements in here. We highlighted the intersections in the little icon, the blue walking man. Again, these are the recommended improvements here for pedestrians. It includes sidewalk widening. It includes class one pathways. I want to note that we highlighted the widened sidewalk portion with a note that it may consist of spot widening, recognizing that widening an entire sidewalk for many, many miles may be very, very expensive or difficult to do and have conflicts with utilities or trees. So we have a note there just for future purposes. In terms of the priority projects, you can see here So we use the guiding principles you know to prioritize the projects. We took the holistic network maps, grouped pedestrian and bicycle projects together into quarter-long projects, and then we analyzed about 100 projects, scoring them against these guiding principles. Underneath the guiding principles, there's specific criteria that we use to score them. And then based on the weighting and the scoring, we came up with a list of what to identify 20 priority projects. So we ended up ultimately with 17 or 16 cut sheets and additional projects that did not have cut sheets because there was already planning efforts underway for them. One thing I want to note here in this map that we've added, not as a new priority project, but we've just added it to the map because it wasn't showing on the map, is all of Rangstorf. So Rangstorf was shown in the back in the table as a priority project. It did not have a cut sheet because of the feasibility study that was moving forward, but we noted it wasn't on the map. And so we added it to the map, but that's not a new recommendation. It's just making it clearer in the plan that it was in there. So in terms of the program and policy recommendations, we have a long list of recommended programs and policies, and we did add additional programs and policies based on feedback that we received during the outreach in April. So programs and recommendations, three types of things, continuation of existing efforts, such as consideration of pedestrian development and continuing with our safety education campaigns. Expanding existing efforts, such as the Safe Routes to School program, potentially expanding it to Safe Routes to Parks and Transit and evaluation of infrastructure projects. And then new efforts that we haven't done before, for example, updating design standards to be informed by best practices. We highlighted that in the plan. And we added an item to develop and report on performance metrics for ATP implementation. This is not a complete list of the project or policies and programs that's included in the Chapter 3 of the plan. In terms of implementation, I know you've seen this before. We're really taking a sort of a near-term and longer-term approach to implementation. We have the surfacing recommendations, which is essentially through routine maintenance. It typically consists of striping and signage potential class four bikeway elements, does not include curb line changes. So we have options for that for our priority projects. And then we also have the reconstruction options, which are of course longer term, which could include a demolition and rebuild, curb line adjustments. This is where you could most likely put in more landscaping, bioswales, and that sort of thing. We do cost estimates for just the resurfacing. And that is just a factor of the fact that at this point, we can't to determine what would be included in a reconstruction project. So we could ballpark it, but we can't complete it all. But it's easier to estimate for the resurfacing. We also have some materials and cost information about green infrastructure in this chapter. Chapter also includes funding and collaboration summary. It's not a complete list of all the funding sources, but it's a list of some of the major funding sources that the city could compete for to help implement this plan. And also, I know there's also items on here that are not a competitive program, but funding that we just get every year. It's an allocation, for example, the TDA3 funding, the Transportation Development Act Article 3 funding. We also expanded in the plan the discussion of the coordination that's necessary with Caltrans, BCA, and Santa Clara County and other agencies, including neighboring cities, in order to implement this plan. And we highlighted some of the Collaborations have already happened. Okay. That's all the review. I'm going to talk about how we address public comment. As you know, the public review period was this past April and May, and we presented, oh, actually, we presented to BPAC in April, not in June. We had the public workshop in May. We followed up with that with a CTC presentation in June. And then after that CTC meeting, that's when we began really processing the comments and bringing them to the plan. In terms of how it changed the plan, this is the high level. You can see we added more policy program context, strengthened the pedestrian focus, improved consistency. There was some inconsistencies in the bed sheets and the narrative. Highlighted some items with sustainability and biodiversity. And we added a... We added a commitment to develop performance metrics and annual reporting to the plan. And I can go specifically through these. I want to also note that in the attachment of the packet, you have a little bit more detail on how we address the comments. It tells you the location of where some of these changes were made. First item, additional round of review by the BPAC and CTC. So we're here tonight. We're going to CTC in two weeks. Strengthen the programs and policies section by referencing adopted local plans. One of the comments that we've heard fairly frequently, there are comments about specific programs and policies that were already in the Vision Zero Action Plan or that you wanted to see in this plan. And that's why we added the appendix. We didn't have it in the plan, but we added an appendix. and reference the Vision Zero plan. But it's already in an adopted plan. In the plan itself, in the program and policy section, they call out a handful of specific policies that we heard a lot of interest in and fleshed them out a little bit more. One of them I mentioned is the design standards update, which we put in. In terms of more focus on the pedestrian improvements, I mentioned the map updates that we made. We also updated the narrative and strengthened some of the language about pedestrians. I mentioned the consistency, so the cut sheets are now internally consistent. There was a request to better highlight how we interface with additional plans and also support sustainability so we added some additional language in the green street section um and added some more information on sustainability biodiversity in the narrative plan and then we also i mentioned you know there was a request for us to be able to measure performance of the plan how well is the city doing in implementation so we did add a new policy and to develop that um and the idea is we are planning on reporting back to you.

I will hand it over to Allison. So as Lauren mentioned, we took the summer to incorporate the comments we received and finalized the MVATP. The final plan is with you tonight, and then we'll be going to CTC on August 31st, and the final ATP is scheduled to go to Council for adoption on September 22nd. Once adopted, staff will move into the implementation. This will include developing reporting metrics to measure the success of the plan and begin collecting data. The first report on the ATP implementation progress will be presented to BPAC in the fall of 2027. Priority projects and programs will be added to the CIP budget based on opportunities, council priorities, and funding and resource availability. Implementation has been started somewhat by projects and policies that are already underway. That includes the California Street Pilot Project, Middlefield Complete Streets, Miramonte Avenue, the Ringstorf Avenue Complete Street Study, the Mountain View Design Standard Updates, as well as the Evelyn Avenue Complete Street Study. This plan might take a couple of decades to complete, but we do anticipate some sort of ATP update and then at around the. Update of the sorry update. Back to be happy in a year, yes. No, we a redo of the plan with new scoring criteria and the like as as the city develops in the next 10 years. Sorry. then the recommendation is to adopt the final mountain view active transportation plan or recommend the adoption to council that's it we will be looking for emotional we are looking for emotion um okay you members have clarifying questions on the final draft of the atp

So I had one on the map that shows now the intersection, so things like this. You had it.

That one. That one?

Well, I think you had one that showed both the corridors. This one is...

This one is... Okay, this one is for bicyclists. And this one is for pedestrians.

You have one that shows both the intersections and the... Oh!

This one's a priority map?

Yeah, I think so. I guess so, yeah, it shows things. And it is there. What's the reason why I don't see here intersection. So, friends, though, and it can you know as a shower. There's Why that was recused, I know.

Right. We can look back and see. Yeah, they're not showing. I'm looking along Rangstorff. We don't have it highlighted on here.

Are you asking specifically about the El Camino Real-Rangstorff intersection or all the intersections along Rangstorff?

No, the one for El Camino Real-Rangstorff as well as El Camino Real-Rangstorff. Are those eight jurisdictions?

Actually, they are half. Yeah, that is...

Yeah, they're in their mom view. I don't think there's been any discussion about updates other than the comments when Caltrans asked for that.

Sorry, Lauren, did you have an actual answer?

We will, I guess, I'm just, I'm interpreting the question as why are they not shown as a dot? And I will, we can go back and verify.

I suspect it is, I suspect, but we should verify that it's

based on the jurisdiction and the .

And then I had another one that's more . Yeah, so there is in the ATP on table six, it shows pretty much the, you know, it describes a bit more in details some identified projects in terms of recommendations. What drove the recommendations? Because a lot of them are still, you know, not even on paper, designed. So in other words, for instance, there is recommendations sometimes to have the protected install section. For instance, I think of Shoreline, Miramonte, and Camino. What drove that recommendation, I guess? Who made that recommendation?

So some of it comes from feedback we received from their Ask MB questions, what was in the original bike and pedestrian plan, or bike plan and pedestrian plans, what we heard as part of the community feedback of pain points, I'll say, and then the recommendations were coming from our designers, and then were discussed about internally within Public Works and with our other departments on what we think we could look for. Does that answer your question?

And the recommendations are being done, or is it like, at this time, this is what we're thinking?

At this time, this is the best... This is our recommendation. Any project from this plan will... go through validation when they become funded projects as part of the CIP. So this is more of the master plan level, looking at it a little more holistically of where can we make sure we have a network through and all of that. And then, so any, when they become a CIP project, the first step will be the study and the validation, more specific outreach to the community in that area and making sure that our assumptions at this time are still reflective, are still the correct assumptions in, you know, three years, five years, whenever it's become projects.

I had

one quick one the that cfp project 2727 corrupting of that course does that cfp project correspond to that updated design standards to inform my best practices policy and that would include the city standard details okay thank you and a a broad question now though that's not necessarily given the time you don't have to be too long about it any particular lessons learned that either of you would apply to the adp understanding that Both of you came in about two-thirds of the way through the ATP process. Process? Yeah, the process of producing the ATP.

Faster? Sorry. I would have liked it faster. Oh, sorry. I think... it was hard because you were taking a lot of information and trying to put it in one place. I am hopeful that moving forward, when we look at this and I said 10 years, the reality is we would have to start this process before that, uh, we have a better jumping off point. So I'm hopeful that with all this data, it'll be a faster process. Um, we will likely be seeing a lot of change in the city in the next several years, different development and all of that. And, um, I think making sure that our scoring criteria reflects where the city is at the time will be important.

I came in at the very tail end. I think the end was really, really, really big in scope. There was a lot that it was being asked to do. And I think if I had started it from the beginning, I probably would have tried to narrow the scope from the very beginning and made it a plan that would 18 months to two years. So it's perfectly reasonable to try and do a city plan, bike and ped plan for a city like the size of Mountain View as involved in Mountain View. It could be fast, but in two years, start to finish. But I'm not necessarily going to put that out there.

This one has more than just that in it, right? The plans and the policies that had a huge existing conditions. I think it was trying to do a lot.

Okay. I was realizing we were towards the end of the process and it might be worth asking that question. So thank you. Let us move to public comment for the active transportation plan. Does anyone in the room want to comment on the active transportation plan?

I wanted to say thank you so much for including a lot of the things we did bring up in public comment. We really appreciate that. I noticed, as you said, the sort of like, whatever we're going to call it, scorecard or rubric or whatever to track progress. I appreciate that we're adding something to have some accountability and make sure this plan doesn't just become a paperweight. And I did have one small question, just I noticed it here. So but I was wondering how it captures plans for projects that were already supposed to be completed, but got delayed. For instance, I know vegan Cuesta was supposed to be in that package of intersections that was done and it got delayed due to funding reasons that originally was funded, but then this went up and it got pushed out. And I'm sure there's others in there. If I noticed that one, that was just the one I noticed right now on the screen. So maybe just double checking things that are already wanted and being waited for are captured. Thank you.

Do we have any public comments online? We have one. Not yet. Okay.

Hi, Lot Adamic. I wanted to comment, since the plan is supposed to be forward thinking, one thing that we can anticipate is having delivery bots both on sidewalks and in the bike lanes. The plan currently just mentions delivery bots once. saying well it's part of a sentence but it says that the bots share space with pedestrians in sidewalks which i think should be a question not a statement i felt that when the pilot was run previously the city did was not interested in understanding the impacts on the desirability and safety of walking with the bots present walking is rather different than driving when we're driving we're behaving like robots we're driving at constant speeds we're making turns where we're supposed to make turns, etc. And so it's easy for robots to imitate driving, but walking is a much more delicate dance. People often go around each other. They'll even cross the street to give each other room. The bots did no such thing. And so what I would ask is that the plan have a specific um plan for how impacts on walking and biking will be measured if say 10 or 20 percent of people say that they're less likely to walk or bike because uh they're annoyed with bots that are clogging the facilities that the city so dearly paid for i think the city should have a plan to know this thanks thank you do you have any additional online thoughts

We've got one more, April. Hi, thank you. Like the other member of the public said, I want to start by thanking staff for just how much stronger this version is, and I really appreciate all the efforts they went to to bring in extra things like folding in the existing conditions and the much clearer integration of green complete streets, which has been a priority for the SVC local team, MVCSP, and green spaces Mountain View since 2021. I also appreciate the additions to the recommended policies and programs, including the greening and tree canopy improvements. I would like to request that that description explicitly includes shade equity and heat safety. Those aren't folded in yet and I think that's really important as we continue to be bombarded with, you know, warming, et cetera, and urban heat islands effect. I'd also like to ask staff, I know this is brought up before, but to also add in a quick build policy program and also an update to modernize the traffic calming program so that it reflects current safe systems, practices, and all ages and abilities goals. I also appreciate the new recommendations on updating design standards. However, I would ask that there's more specificity in there to include the standard details and call that out specifically. And then as well as the municipal code, And to add something about Green Streets design standards, to make that a little bit clearer, I know that's always been a challenge for cities. Emeryville has a great example of what to do there. And then also looking at the city code, which Article 5 dates back to 1962, and it's a very car-centric code, and that might need to be addressed so we can open up room for more modern buildings. design. And then finally, an implementation oriented Complete Streets policy right now in the general plan, it's very high level. San Jose has a great example for this. Thank you so much.

I want to I want to know we received two public comments that were written into their on their own portal.

Thank you. And I know this verbally, member stone arrived during the station. That moves us to many comments. Actually, was there anything I wanted to pull out? I was trying to see if there were any questions. Oh, the I guess, was there any particular response or notes on the thing about pre-existing projects that had been delayed? I'm not personally familiar with the Beacon West project, but...

Unfortunately, with our tenure, we will have to go back and look at that one, but we'll make sure that... Too many comments.

All right, so first, thanks for almost having it the finish line. We alluded to this a bit earlier, but it's been a bit of a journey for everyone, actually. And the community. Sure, it would be an interesting post-mortem to do once that gets up. Things like this. I appreciate the changes that were made from the last time. In particular, you know, having a clearer view of what pedestrian improvements would be. But I look forward to following this, but I'm not quite there yet. So I'd like to suggest a number of changes. I tried to make them pedi-surgical to go more towards having a better balance between bike and pedestrians, but I think it's fair. And there is one that may be a bit more meaty, but I'd like to see it there. So let me go through that. So the first one is on page 12. That's the introduction chapter. And I think I've raised it in the question. So the image, unfortunately, shows no walking or no pedestrian sign. which I don't think is really the message we want to have for BTP, right? Yeah. So I'm sure there are other pictures in Mountain.

And then it's piggybacking

public comments we had received, but written on page 64, there's a section that says that's around managing and enforcing the transportation system for all users.

I think you're using the PDF page numbers.

Yeah, why not?

Okay.

I didn't print it.

But does it say the number at the top or you just wrote it?

From the PDF, so let me see. I believe it's page 51.

Thank you.

Sorry about this.

No, it's okay. The policies and programs. Okay, yes. Yes, yes, this one.

All right, so on this one, I would propose to strike delivery bots from that paragraph, because as the public comments we received, it makes it sound like it's a fact of life, and it's not. Right now, there are no delivery bots in Mountain View. I don't think there's a current pilot, and I suspect that to get some back would require some robust community discussions. that would avoid this. And then in that same paragraph, and this is maybe a bit more than just a quick edit, there is a sentence, the city will continue to enforce the travel spaces available to all road users. And I think, to me, it's not just about enforcement. It's also about policies and standards that would actually reduce the existing sidewalk encroachments on resources. And for instance, if we wanted to have delivery bots again, we would need a clear policy for that. But also, you know, I would like to open the door to a policy to kind of reduce the size of the placements of very large utility boxes that kind of clutter the sidewalks. You know, there are a lot of, you know, hindrances on sidewalks, maybe reducing the number of signs, removing the signs that are useless, because they just clutter things. So there is more than just enforcement, perhaps. And then final. Yeah, so that's on table six, which I didn't write. I can find that. Yeah. And the table is entitled NVATP identified priority projects with extant mileage and recommendations. So There's something I added too. So some of the recommendations are for protected intersections. And I would suggest kind of removing protected intersections and using something more generic. Because to me, it kind of makes it sound like we have decided what the best treatment would be for that intersection. And there are two in particular that we are thinking we need far more than just a protected intersection. The first one is a shower in California. There is a school that's being built at the corner. And I can guarantee you that we need more than just a protected intersection. First of all, we have to paint things orange or yellow, things like this. The other one is one that I take every time I walk to be back, and that's a Miramonte and El Tenor Real. And I can assure you that there is more than just a protected intersection for bed streamers. So my suggestion would be to remove protected insertion with enhanced insertions, which may or not so that it covers, you know, all options in a way, versus making it sound like it's speaking once. And then, yeah, and so I guess one more of this one on table seven, which in PDF is at page 60.

Yeah, we have it.

So, so, So there is a rule that says updated design standards to be informed by best practices, which is a new thing, and I think it's great. I would suggest removing of all ages and abilities. And it's not because I'm against the concept, but if you look at NACTO, of all ages and abilities, it's specific to the back network. And I wouldn't want to preclude or hints that we'll be looking only at bike recommendations for NACTO. There are a lot of NACTO standards for crosswalks, pedestrian-scale lighting, and so on that I think we should be leveraging. And I think it's a bit unfortunate that NACTO uses this term because it's unfortunately very specific in NACTO to just bikes. It doesn't get used to anything else. So those are pretty surgical in a way. The last one is one that I ask, I guess, in the current questions. I'd like to suggest adding Rensdorf El Camino as well as showers El Camino Real in the list of questions. priority products. I understand that the ADP is not a guarantee that everything will be built, but it's at least in the priority for the next 10 years. And I don't find it acceptable that we would not see this intersection as a priority, I think, for the next 10 years. We're starting the Rengsdorf complete spread You know, I don't think it's reasonable to have, you know, perfect bike lanes, perfect sidewalks to end up at an intersection that's pretty horrible right now for, for bikes and pedestrians. And I understand the challenges, you know, with having to work with saltos. I live next to a saltos and I can give you lots of horror stories, but you know, it has to be a priority.

And those two were specifically ECR and Rexdorf and ECR and Mitch. Correct. I got shoreline showers.

They tie to corridors that we do this, but we stop at ECR.

Okay. During the walk, I saw multiple comments about the lack of crosswalk.

You can also see the heat map of injuries and hours of concerts, just about any intersection of concerts. zero on those because these are corridors that are accident here. So if I can get these changes, move to green light. I'm pretty adamant about ranks of ECR. I don't want the city not to look at this.

I've written them all down. I don't want to go in and wordsmith right now I think most of them seem like we could accommodate I'm cognizant delivery bot one I think we can respond to the public comment and respond to your comment and still reference delivery bots in the narrative and change that I don't think any of these seem, it's really challenging.

I'd like to get general consensus from the board.

I want to, before going into much on those, I want to get a sense of are other people expecting to fall out with their specific changes beyond what I've never thought to happen? I just want to know how much we're going to have to be talking about.

Maybe slightly, but not completely explicitly, I guess.

Can I ask, are, as Member Bonte just mentioned, are they changes that you would not approve the plan for if they were not made?

I guess it's

So that's my question. You know, we are asking, yeah, we're asking for a recommendation. There are five of you. Am I going to get a recommendation that this should be moved to council, or am I going to be taking an ATP plan to CTC that has not been funded by CTC?

Well, okay. There aren't other specific things people want to call out. Don't know if we're in order with that emotion, but whatever. I guess I'll, just to respond specifically, we should let people make comments. But I think I'm fine with a lot of the specific things. I'm guessing, it would be nice to have an answer on it, but I'm guessing the Alcaminon showers and rain sort of thing is a jurisdictional issue. I can't Right now, I don't have my notes in front of me. I thought the cities divide the we were not able to, we were not the ones that approved the changes that I recall for the bike lanes along the whole section. So, and, um,

I'm not denying there are issues. This is just a plan. Yes.

Did I make it awkward to try to include in that specific priority list? I wouldn't mind. I don't know if there's language in there about coordinating with neighboring jurisdictions.

There is language. There is language in there. I would... I mean...

It did not...

Yes and no. It makes it a more complicated project that will take longer. That didn't mean it wasn't, it just was part of the scoring criteria. You asked what would we look at the next time? These are all lessons learned. Again, resources and what council's funding and all of that are part of this. If we are doing a project along Rainscourt and El Camino, that we can touch that intersection, we will have the conversations. We're not just going to say, wasn't on here, we're not going to do it because that's not best practices. That being said, it's not going to be a project we would probably sponsor as a priority over something else that is completely under our control.

That makes sense.

I think there's value in having a note or a I don't know if the right place for it is in the priority map or a note, but when Caltrans makes improvements along El Camino, for example, right now they're doing a multimodal plan along El Camino, it's helpful to be able to point to a plan that the city's adopted where we identify a location on their right of way that is an issue that we want to address. And so I think that's the main point of why I think it would be Like Allison said, it's probably unlikely that we would move independently to do an improvement at that location unless it's part of a larger project that we were leaving. It would have to be a collaboration. But I think it's helpful to have some mention of it in the plan at that point. And we can talk about it. We also list it, if I remember correctly. We have a list at the top. Corridors and intersections that are the biggest issues. And I believe it's in that APAL. So it's in the plan in that way.

Like I said, it definitely came up all the time.

Yeah, it's just moving it to a priority project moves it, takes it out of, it was scored, it was part of a process. Again, it doesn't mean that when the project is a project, we wouldn't include it, but. Yeah, well,

Let me offer a comment. Let me offer a comment to generalize. So, you know, for me, I guess the ATP, I prioritize process and policy. And those lead to projects and how you handle them. So you know, we didn't have scoring criteria when I first joined BPAC, which I didn't really understand. Um, so that's, you know, a step forward, whether I agree with it or not, it's, it's a huge step forward. So, uh, that itself, I think is an accomplishment. What, uh, You know, the type of thing I, you know, would like to see more of, you know, is policies and processes. So the policy on those two intersections is they do not have crosswalks on both sides of the intersection. And the Los Altos intersection is due, so I would assume Los Altos is favorable to having crosswalks on both sides of the intersection. I'm guessing Caltrans or the city didn't like the additional phasing of the interruption. But that policy is there should be more crosswalks on both sides of intersections. That should lead to this project when streets are done. And it does lead to injuries because you see people say, hey, I'm not going to cross two extra light cycles. I'm going across regardless and feeding my way when I don't have any right of way. So I think the more we can identify the process and policies that we'd like to address as we go through projects, things like that would come up and naturally be obvious things to address. Actually, I want to ask

want to make sure people have the chance to say their piece about stuff maybe beyond the specific lines that are being discussed so can we go through and have people if you had comments about the in general that you just wanted to make that hopefully brief um so that we don't go over it i don't i don't want to miss an important point that someone wanted to make that was post topics are discussing some of the specifics here. So.

That's my general. Okay. That's your general. Processes and policies. Okay. Okay.

I think this is good because as the time comes, you know, he said just now, when the time comes or the facts come, you really have to work with it. So if it's give too much detail, then too much kind of specifics. And I mean, you have standard, which is, that's the basic point, which is what you're talking about. It's really good, but it's a, you know, it just really needs to work with the circumstances and the facts of the long term. That's why there's feedback in meetings and all the CTC meetings.

I just have one about the policies. So when I was reading the MTA handbook, it's as a line referring to unacceptable effects of reducing physical dimension of transportation facility below the minimum design standard per complete street design standards. And that's all capitalized, which seems to indicate that whoever wrote this book thinks the city has complete street design standards, which does not seem to be the case. So either we should clarify, this is the MTA handbook, this is what you're doing a development you're supposed to use to do your transportation analysis. That doesn't, as it is, have meaning. So either the city should develop a complete streets design standard of its own or update that particular line of reference to a specific standard. Yeah, so that's just under the, I think that would fit under the new design standards update. So I just want to make sure that's noted down. It would be good to be clear what the city means when it says complete streets. Sorry for being late, by the way.

I appreciate the response to us now. I think, yeah. And there are a lot of changes that were not theoretically substantive in that, like, We were including the existing conditions report, which already had been produced, but I think it makes the report better. There are things like the maps of all the pedestrian improvements that technically those projects were all already in the ATP, but presenting the data differently does help. So I do appreciate those changes, and I do appreciate the fact that there were some substantive changes that were calling out more in terms of policies that we could go for. Yeah, I... And I also want to say that going forward, I expect us to not treat this as a ultra-rigid guideline, but I do want us to be... We chose scoring criteria. We got it with prioritized projects. I want us to try to follow that. I don't... We produced it. We should use that information and try to actually get on the plan. If we need to deviate, we can. We just should have a reason to do so. We're getting to... Oh, there's one other I think this actually came up at the last meeting as well, and a public commenter mentioned it. I think there's still no mention of any sort of QuickVail-related policy changes in this. Would that fit under any existing policies or programs?

Yeah, there's so many.

Yeah. We didn't call it quick build, though.

What would it fall under, then?

That's what I'm trying to...

I'm fine with not using buzzwords.

Maybe it wasn't in a policy. I do... I know this plan very well by now, and...

I don't...

It may have been in the implementation chapter. What are you specifically...

I guess the thing that I would want to make sure... It'd be nice to have at least mentioned in the plan is that there are projects that looking for ways to get projects done faster so that we can get safety improvements with that. If potentially even faster than like the resurfacing changes, basically the, how can we, if there's safety improvements we can make that don't require even waiting for surfacing, where does that get? Yeah. Um, And if the intention is that it's meant to be captured in the draft, but that it's just not queer or something, or there's a tweak that can be made to make that queer, then perhaps it's comfortable.

In a way, you're looking for something that is... Yeah, I do recall the comment. I think what you were looking at is... almost like spot improvements or... Yeah, I mean, there's different ways you could capture it.

Like, yeah, if you... Right now, I'm not clear on where in this plan it would fall if we said, oh, we want to add some plastic curves to make this corner have a smaller turn radius. And right now, I'm not actually sure where that would fall under this plan. And not that we can't do things that aren't in the plan, but... And it's fine if there's not a specific, here's a list of all the things you're going to do.

I wonder. Yeah, I remember that comment. We'll have to go back and see. It just got lost.

Can I ask a related question? Because I've noticed sometimes these kind of temporary pullbacks happen without any meetings or public discussion.

It just happens.

And there's a particular intersection where they had one and then somebody did some road work and it didn't come back afterwards. So I guess, quick improvements definitely don't need to go through the whole process. I'm happy for them to just happen, but it would be good for them to be tracked and checked and prioritized before they expand.

yeah i guess that's where the policy should say okay it's in line with the policy do a quick build and remove brad um it's already kind of recommended as it were i would almost even refer to the ap atp when um developing project lists okay we're working to get us to to closure here um it could be dangerous because i mean if

If everything's so clearly specific, it could be a lot of liability in the future. If something doesn't go through exactly as the plan it should be going through, I think that should be considered too.

I'm not sure it's specific enough that I'm worried about that, but they can write it down and consider it. Giddiness too much. I'll save it for myself. I'm not sure anything I've Mitch and Racine Barnop is something that would preclude me from recommending the plan I would that's something there aren't things I would like um but I'm not sure they for me at least that they would preclude me from recommending it at um since I think overall it is a good plan um I don't know if everyone is on that same page. It sounds like Mirafonte might have had stronger feelings about... Well, I made some suggestions, so it goes our way. I wouldn't mind if we made the most long-winded mindset. We recommend the ATP trap and encourage these updates. Is that reasonable phrasing, or do you want a cleaner motion, or...

So the next step, I've taken the notes on the recommendations. Allison and I are going to go back. We're going to have a conversation about what we are particularly specific line items that you've asked for. It helps that they're so specific. I've tried to.

Yeah, I appreciate it.

And we'll determine if we think we can do them or not. We're going to summarize what we heard here and bring it to CTC.

Yeah, I think the only one that I am unsure of how to accomplish is prioritizing those intersections along El Plino, because they are currently not identified as a priority, which was based on scoring criteria. Now we can identify them. They are identified as problem areas, and I don't have an issue that...

But does the Ring Store project include the intersection?

No, because we talked about that. I have some questions on this and where this goes, and... the paragraph was called. It was. Frank's dog and things. That's a good thing. To me, it's... I don't know how you can... We need to go back and look at the

I have a reason why we might need a motion or a straw for on some of them. I am not as strongly in agreement, at least on the striking that all ages an ability, nor am I sure about the adjusting the language on the protected intersections point, because I actually like being slightly more specific on things so that we don't do it wrong. And the all ages ability as we use it isn't saying just likes. So...

And we'll also need to look at the language in the, I believe our vision statement says all users support.

I think we could add words to the all ages and ability to clarify that we meet pedestrian and bikes when we use it instead of striking it basically pedestrian.

Sorry, can I try to summarize what I think? Yeah. And then we can see if we can include a notion of what I think the overall feedback is. Since I realize I can adjust my site disagreements to maybe not disagreements. Yeah, for the title page on page zero, or whatever it is for the introduction, don't have a sign. I think that's no walking sign. Just that. Adjust the references to the rebots to be clear about the actual current status.

Reference something. Just to be clear, the current status is there or not. There's 25 of them.

To me, you take them out and Yeah, to reflect the current steps. In that same text box, reference that management of road space, travel spaces can include updated policies, not just enforcement. When referring to protected intersections in table 6, see if there's language to make it so that that can include elements that are not just in protected intersections. for Table 7, make sure the language is not specific to bikes about updating design standards for users of all ages and abilities. And then the thing that I was bringing up of have some sort of reference to sort of quick build-esque process improvements so small safety improvements can be done as part of implementation. Can I...

I'm going to try... Is that the... Wait, wait, wait.

I'm trying to type it down. Give me a second.

Sorry. And Serge, did that sound like that captured the things you were listing?

Yeah, on the protected intersection, I'm with you, but I don't think we should be all seeing one versus another. So I'm What I'm proposing is to track it and put something more generic that doesn't privilege one versus another. Because I don't think we're quite there yet. And I can tell you on the two intersections that we're listed as just protected.

That's not the case. I mean, that's... I think maybe it's for me. I also find protected intersection a very generic term already, so... But it's not, so...

It is very specific to buying supplements.

It's not?

I understand what you're saying. It's a protected energy. It does make improvements to pedestrians as well. It can improve depending on how it's designed. you're talking about maybe the improvement shouldn't be a protected intersection, but it should be enhanced crosswalks or curb extensions for pedestrians or some other feature. And I think we need to, I think I would want to go back and look at how that specific item was identified. I think expanding it to say protected intersection or enhanced or

So the defined term is a road design that uses physical barriers like raised curves and corner islands to safely separate people walking and biking from motor vehicular traffic.

That'd be fine. If we said protected and enhanced, that'd be fine.

That's what I was going to put in the...

Okay, fine. So...

The conceptual plans we had seen for Castro and Camino as well as I think Calderon and Camino, they were pretty much protecting intersections. They were not doing anything for the distribution. That's what I don't want to see.

A little. Okay.

I think I'm fine with that. I like having some slightly specific things in there. Allison, did you get that list of things written out?

Yes. So this is what I have. The motion is to recommend the NV ATP for adoption by City Council with the following modifications. Update the photo in the whatever exact I wrote intro section. Reflect the current city BOT environment. Use language that references all ages and ability applying to both pedestrians and bicyclists. Update the intersections to read protected and enhanced. And add a statement in the implementation about quick implementation of smaller safety impact projects or smaller projects I don't want to say safety, smaller safety impact, but smaller safety projects with large impact.

And I think the last one was we had some discussion somewhere about projects specifically or about the rainstorm and showers intersections. Even if I can, I actually would not want to try to pull them into the priority list personally because of what that specifically means in the context.

I think so. It means we don't touch it. Yeah. Yeah. But I guess that's not necessarily, not necessarily.

I think it's important to have it somewhere in the plan. And we can point to that plan when we're asked. Which it is. It shows that it is an area of...

If you feel like it's already captured in the plan, we can leave that motion as it's not.

What I would recommend we could do or verify that it is at least in there is that we will not exclude intersections owned by other jurisdictions when projects begin just because they are owned by other jurisdictions.

Right, right. But I guess what I'd like to see, generalize the concept of third disaster is that, and I was looking for table seven, you know, we've got some very specifics that say, you know, right turn on red or this, but we don't have a general one that says we should design intersections with pedestrians at mind. And that would say, where's the pedestrian mind on the south side of showers or the east side of the showers with no crosswalk. Whereas the pedestrian line on the east side of Ringstorff, no crosswalk. That would elevate kind of the need to fix those.

I will say adding a policy at this point is a little more difficult because I will need to go back with my other peers and other departments and make sure that that is

It also feels like that's sort of part of what I'm making by saying that the updated design standards includes pedestrian design standards, right?

Well, and we're saying, you know... Well, that's the question.

If it's covered by design standards, there should always be crosswalks on both sides of an intersection.

So... One of my... Okay, so here's my suggestion for the specific request of ECR and showers and ECR ranks doors. We can go back and look at the prioritization table and see if they did actually rank high and they just were, I don't know if they were, we'll take a look at that, right? It could have been that we didn't show them as a point because they were in a different jurisdiction. We do have a few places in the plan where we talk about the need to coordinate with other jurisdictions. And I think we can, very easily add in an additional sentence where we specifically, we could even specifically call out those, we'd say, intersections along priority corridors, including, and we can list them specifically, possibly even, you know, including some of them on Central Expressway. And that way, they may not necessarily be on the map, but they would be listed in the plan under the coordination with other jurisdictions.

What's the hold up on including them on the map? I mean, I understood the map as just being like a kind of a table of index.

The priority map, all the projects on there, they were scored and they ranked high in the top 20. So I would not want to add something that hadn't been scored up there.

If you look at the corridors that were scored high, like showers and rain stuff. Right.

That's why I think they probably were.

All the intersections out there are including big blocks, including Model 1, I think.

So not every intersection . But there are several intersections that did not have dots that were . So I believe those were scored in some way separately. I don't know.

I don't know if I'm seeing the right thing here. But if you were to write something right now, and this actual reality doesn't come, you know, as planned, then this is a public thing. Am I saying, am I falling behind? Because if you write something that's... Well, no, I'm, you know... Maybe I'm wrong.

I don't feel comfortable responding to a legal question. I... I believe we could find a way to specifically call out locations in the plan, and if possible, adding them to the plan. So I would recommend you can . The suggestion is you can include it in the motion, and we will work a way of doing that.

OK. Let's then say that that motion is recommended to be with that list of improvements, including reference the El Camino Real and Showers and Rainsdorf intersections in the .x.

And... You can add them as a blue dot.

It shows that it's a priority, but not a priority project. It's identified as a priority intersection.

Sorry.

You guys can workshop how to highlight it, I think.

I feel comfortable that we can figure out how to.

What I want to avoid is not looking at this for 10 years.

We need it in there, because what's going to happen six years from now or whatever Someone will look at the plan. They won't have been familiar with this conversation. They won't see it anywhere in the plan. They'll do like a control F to find, and they won't find it. And they'll think, oh, it must not be a priority. We don't know why. It must not be an issue.

That's my concern.

It also helps with the grant. You can say it's pulled out of the thing, which sounds like what you were going for with the sentences.

Grants and coordination with other jurisdictions. Yeah.

And that's the same reason I want to make sure the quick build stuff is referenced.

Yeah, I want to figure out a way not to say quick build.

I'm fine with it not being the specific terminology.

Smaller construction scale. So I have it right now as add a statement about implementing it. Sorry, add a statement in implementation about implementing smaller construction scale safety impact projects. For El Camino Real, Rangstorp, and El Camino Real showers, add them as intersections to be included in projects and future planning.

Yeah.

So I won't use the word priority since priority is a defined term. I just will add it. We added projects and future planning.

Okay. I realize just to make sure I read it again. Yes, can you read again and I will be? I'll be making the motion. OK, read it back so we have.

OK, so I have recommend the Mount the Mountain View active transportation plan MV ATP or adoption by City Council with the following modifications. Update the photo on. Page whatever. Yeah, bro.

On entry on the introduction title page.

Should they replace? Okay. Reflect current city delivery bot environment. Use language that references all ages and ability applying to both pedestrians and bicyclists. Update the intersections to read protected and enhanced. Add a statement in the implementation section about implementing of smaller construction scale safety improvements and for ECR rainstorm and ECR showers as intersections to be included in projects and future planning.

To the point that Lauren made, with somebody looking at this in five years, we know that these are important things. If you put it on the map, it's going to be clear if it's in some...

It will have been identified. They will not necessarily... We have to double check. They might not be in those top 20 priorities because they were not part of the scored top priorities, which was based on the scoring criteria as adopted by BPAC, CTC, and Council. So I'm not...

The selection of a project was not done by any character. Anyone, right?

We did review the project with Starluckers. So, yeah. Okay. Sorry. I want to make sure we're moving on. I've made the motion that Allison and I have read. Does anyone want to second that motion?

I'll second.

Member Barton seconds. Do we want to discuss the motion any further before we vote on it?

I'm concerned still with Rengstorf and Schauer's intersections. There is a lot of history on how things came out that we don't know. Nobody knows of things like this, but I want to make sure of it. What do you want to see happen? I'd like to see them put on the map. Because that's the easiest way to show that they matter.

They matter, but will anything change?

I'm not a realist for things like this.

If they're on the map and they make a project, will they understand what change you want to see?

I don't want to be pessimistic, but we have... I'm very surprised that all of them would be done in 10 years.

I just want to make sure we're moving on because it is past 9 p.m. at this point. And I think the concern has been heard. And by concluding the motion, I think we're making that clear that that is a priority to make sure that's emphasized.

But I guess the concern is that even if they have a project, we'll have accomplished what Surge has in mind.

I think every project in the ADP right now is very conceptual.

And will become a project that will come with a study to that kind of upper value.

I'm less concerned about the thing being done right than being done wrong. Yeah.

So I think including the circuit at all will help with making sure that it's done and comes before the BPAC in the future. With that, I'm going to move us to motion. All in favor of the motion.

I am, but I'll be honest with you. I will look at the final product and, you know, make some comments to the council.

Member Huang, are you... I don't think it's necessary.

Are you opposed or are you abstaining? You're opposed? Okay. So that gives us the motion passing 4-1 with Member Huang.

And can I understand your reason for opposing because you would have just done straight up approve or?

No, maybe I'm not getting it correctly, but I think this, if it had to be so specific, I think things could change and anything changes. I mean, you know, this is what you wanted to plan. It's already there, right? All the plans that you guys wanted is already there, but you're using changing the words of the original plans. so that in order to be more specific, in order to be so that could cause a little bit more of a danger, wouldn't it?

So I guess what I'm asking is you, what would you, You wouldn't have made the modification. Would you have adopted it as is? Well, see, I know my, you know, my... I won't get it. At this point, then, I'm not going to get it. Okay, one abstain, and that's fine if you would... Is it abstain or opposed?

Opposed, I'm sorry.

Well, abstain is fine. I mean, you know, I don't want to... No pressure. Yeah, sorry. That was on me being just using the wrong word.

I want to make sure we have the right thing. What does this really take?

I'll just say abstain.

Abstain. Okay, so pass is 4-0-1. Okay. With that, we have passed after, or recommended for approval with modifications after five and however many years, the ATP. We will now move to item seven.

Wait, wait, wait. Wait, this is about passing the entire thing, right? Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I got it wrong. I'm sorry. It is passed.

It's trying to be a little bit more too. I mean, well, it's passing it with these changes. It was some very specific recommendations alongside the old one. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay.

Okay. That's why Allison wanted to clarify.

Yeah, I was trying to figure out what I see.

And I'm just tired personally, so I may not have clarified as conveniently as well. Okay. Item 7.1, staff comments. I'm guessing we have a brief staff update.

Yes, it's very brief. You know, I actually have my talking points on here. I have them. No, I don't. I'll just wing it. Can you go to the next slide, please? Yes, we've kicked off a school program. We did attend Ice Creek Socials back-to-school events recently at the elementary schools listed above. We definitely have more to follow. We're going to be doing the first bike rodeo at Theracoff on the 25th. Very exciting. And as you know, I think we have a new same consultant, but we've re-upped their contract. So we have another several years with the same consultant. One of the new things we're going to be doing is e-bike education with high school students and adopting a school plan. I want to give a quick update on the transportation planning section. We are, not we, but the Public Works Department is currently recruiting for the Chief Transportation Officer position. That will be the position that's about me in the division. The recruitment is in process. The transportation section, which is the section that I manage, we will be posting a job opening for two positions very soon in the next year. weeks maybe less for two positions and entry level potentially a higher a little bit higher than entry level and all things go well we anticipate we'll have full staffing by the end of the year which will be really exciting on a preview on the tentative agenda list you had asked about the cast the um California post-study. I don't know if it's actually going to go in September. We need to double check with the staff. I think they're still taking data, so it may be delayed, but it is on the tentative agenda list. We moved the Safe Routes to School final report from this meeting to the next meeting, and after this meeting, it was a good idea. So we'll bring that. And in November... This is all subject to change, collision data review, and potentially an update on the micro-mobility. Because I messed up. This is probably the October meeting. We do have an October. All right. It's been a long week. It's been a very busy week.

So...

Yeah, we are having an October meeting. I apologize.

And I will say, I think California 1 will likely move to October. It's going to CTC in November. They need a little more time for collection of data, so it's likely shifting to the October meeting.

It's coming.

It's in process.

All right.

Is that all from the staff?

That's the staff.

And I guess one question on the conditions. So there's no There's no more part-time positions in the transportation department.

That is correct.

Okay.

We're moving to the full-time.

Okay. Any public comments on item 7.1? No. Any committee comments on item 7.1? Okay, this is item 7.2. The committee comments, I have a hopefully free VTA BPAC update. We had a single VTA BPAC meeting since the last Mountain DBPAC meeting that was on, that was last week on Wednesday. Yes, on that Wednesday, the VTA CEO did to her, I don't know if she comes once a year or something, or once every two years to give an update to BPAC, mentioned lots of ridership from the FIFA events, the VTA headquarters in December or so will be moving, and they have a new logo that has a green T in it for reasons that were not entirely clear to me. The We had an update on the TOCA Program Manager Fund, which had one project from Mountain View listed on it as an alternate project, so it doesn't have funding, but if other projects fall apart, we could get funding. That was interesting because that program apparently was undersubscribed initially, so they started just taking projects as they came in, rather than by any means.

And we came in last, and we didn't get the money. Yes. So, sorry. Next time we'll be a little more ready.

Yes. Mentioned that because I thought people might find it interesting. What was the project? I actually don't know the details of this joke.

We used a project we already have. We already have. already a project underway. It's just VIP.

I believe this is between on Stairland Road, I believe. We've heard one between Central Avenue and Shoreline, sort of up to that Safeway.

Was it like that?

Yeah, something like that. So it extends off of the Paseo that comes off of Moffitt.

It's an existing project. It wasn't a new project. And this The idea was we could use this as match funding and then the match funding have on that project or if there were cost overruns with the bidding. So it's not having the TFCA funding, it's not going to be detrimental to the project.

But if we'd gotten in it, maybe we would have saved some other funds. Then we saw several items which took a bit to get through, which were various big highway interchange projects or approximations thereof that had complete streets checklists they had to fill. They were highway expansion projects functionally outbilled. Fortunately, that so meant they were all funded by dedicated highway funding sources pretty much. So they are doing improvements along with highway funding money, even if I'm not a fan of overall projects. Next slide, I guess. I'll quickly call out some of those projects since they're very interesting. One is in South San Jose, where they're doing a new bike pedal overpass and restructuring, expanding a bridge, I believe, or at least substantially adjusting the bridge to have protected bike lanes. There are some comments about it not having... I'll say unprotected intersections, but other than that, it was by contractually kind of reasonable. Next one. The... There's a road down in Unincorporated County, I believe, near Gilroy that is going to be entirely new and is supposed to relieve congestion or something. Very rural. They're going to add a dual-direction Class 1 bike path along the side of the road. It doesn't connect to all that much right now, but maybe in the future it would connect to something interesting. There's some discussion of the intersection treatments because right now some intersections high speed traffic. And then we had, there's Calaveras Boulevard between, I believe, 880 and 680 El Pitas, which is being widened from two lanes in each direction, three lanes in each direction on the bridge, that bridge, which is a I personally have dubious opinions about the merits of that, but they are also adding in what look like some pretty nice bicycle facilities and protected intersections on that. And this is the only crossing of the BART and Union Pacific Railroad tracks over like a two and a half mile launch segment in Milpitas. So it is nice to have that happening. And I didn't get actually the overall cost figures for this project, so I didn't put it on top of the slide. Yeah.

Yes, I'm sure it's a lot. It's all night. Yeah.

So that's all. Any committee clarifying questions? Or any other committee, general committee comments that need to be made as far as 7.2? Any public comment on item 7.2? No? No? Okay. That moves us to out of 7.2. Next meeting will be on Wednesday, September 30th at 6.30 p.m. And then we have further meetings later in the year. And then we can adjourn at 9.30.