Council Transportation Committee - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Council of Transportation Committee meeting of June 16th, 2006. The meeting will start at 6.06. This is a hybrid meeting allowing public comment from person to virtually. Instructions for addressing the committee may be found on your station. Roll call. The Assistant Public Works Director will take attendance via roll call. Council Member Kamei.

Here. Acting Chair McAllister.

Here. We have a quorum. Okay. Thank you, sir, for that sort of punctuality. Oral communication. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the committee on any matters not on agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for three minutes during the session. State law prohibits the committee from acting on non-agenda items. Do any member of the audience like to provide comment on a non-agenda item? Any member of the public like to, if so, please raise your hand. And we'll take anybody virtually, we'll zoom in. Please raise your hand. The staff will display the timer on the screen. And we will take. Yes, sir.

Yeah, members of the committee, my name is Gary Burke. member of VTAC from about 2005 to 2009. I'll specifically address the middle field proposal later. But in general, I'm seeing what I'm going to call tragedies waiting to happen because of a vagueness in the definition of segregated or separated bike lanes. My call to action, I've spoken or gotten involved because I'm pretty pleased in general with the state of bicycle pedestrian advocacy in town. But if any of you with maybe 60-something-year-old eyes come in El Camino before or after sunset, sunrise, you will be blinded by sunrise off of these paddles. This highlights the lethal nature using these paddles and in driving down through the density, the shortness between them is getting closer and closer. The basic tragedy waiting to happen Many places I'm noting that these paddles have already been hit by cars. The curbing, the strip up the asphalt, it's a solid dedicated strip. I was part of the safe mountain view group that took on upper Castro section of the reconfiguration. That is my idea of an ideal separated segregated bike lane. Because we just have rubber strips. There's full visibility in and out. And there's rubber. Bicycle hits that, they're reflected in. In the gap, they're safe. Car comes over, same thing. So this looseness in what's being called segregated and separated bike lanes itself, I'd like the Council Transportation Committee to address and define before any other action moves forward that implements what's being called generically a separated or segregated bike lane. That's my request to the committee. I'm remembering Councilman Callister from my first time. And these issues to have segregated and separated bike lanes back then, we were told were dreams. But look at what the dream has turned into. Great in concept, but now let's put them in practice so that, you know, I don't feel safe bicycling on El Camino or where these bollards are anymore. I live right near the middle field stretch, so that's my call to action. Thank you. I appreciate your consideration.

Anybody else in the audience would like to speak? Do we have any virtual people who would like to speak?

Yes, April Webster.

Okay, I Hey, April, you know this is a non-agenda item,

Yeah. Hi, April Webster. I am a member of the California Walk and Bike Technical Advisory Committee, vice chair of the Caltrans D4 Bicycle Advisory Committee, co-chair of the MTC Active Transportation Working Group, and a member of the VTA BPAC. I am speaking of my own accord tonight, but I just wanted to share my affiliations. I have been a strong supporter of ECR for several years. It's actually what got me involved in advocacy. And as part of my role on Caltrans, I have been pushing hard for those bike lanes that we see. Those bike lanes and the type of separation quick curb are actually very There are that kind of separation, stronger separation, and even stronger than that is what you need to see to have a real modality shift. It's the type of protection that people who tend to be interested in biking, but more risk averse and cautious, you know, some of us don't have a death wish. And so that more substantial protection is what a lot of people need to make that shift. And there's research that's been done by Jennifer Dill out of Portland Trek, group. that has shown that about 60% of people fall into that bucket. A lot of those are, you know, are people who are covered by all ages and abilities under NACDO's guidance. And, you know, you take that away and you have more insubstantial type, either paint or vertical paint, which are the standard flex posts. And it becomes a lot less safer. You know, think about... a 4000 pound car that's barreling at you is basically like a tank in some ways, and cars are getting a lot bigger now. When you have that coming at you and the way that people are now distracted, it doesn't feel safe and it isn't safe. And a lot of cities are doing a better job, Caltrans included, in terms of building better infrastructure. So I would like to give my full support on El Camino Real, and I hope to see that extended along the entire extent of it. And work is being done at the Caltrans level to make that happen. And yeah, I just want to say thanks. I'm glad that Mountain View got involved really early. We were... We actually made that happen. Our staff and both Don and Ria were very heavily involved in making sure that happened and worked with Caltrans in advance to make sure we got that, what we needed in place to make El Camino Real protected, have protected bike lanes. Thank you so much.

Thank you, April. Anybody else? Any more virtual speakers?

Bruce England.

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

Thank you, Bruce. Any more virtual speakers?

Yes, Cliff Chambers.

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

One of the things that really, excuse me. Yes. You're going to be addressing, you're sort of touching on the line of the ATP.

So this is for content items. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was, I apologize. I'll stop. That's okay.

Keep those thoughts though.

No, no, I'll do it when we go to the ATP. So I'm sorry. I thought they were talking about the ATP. I came in late. I'll stop and wait. Thank you.

okay any other people that would speak on non-agenda items no that's all okay we will now go to consent calendar we're on item four 4.1 approved minutes and oh 4.1 yes are there any corrections additions to the minutes

Thanks. Any public like to make a comment on our minutes?

Okay. And then we also have a consent item. We'll take them all and vote it all at one time. Okay. 4.2 Council Transportation Committee revised minutes schedule. Any comments? That's interesting because this committee in six months will be a new committee, so

That's why we can move.

Yeah. Okay. We've approved that. Is there anything else? Okay. We'll take a vote on the consent calendar.

I'll move consent items 4.1 and 4.2.

I'll second that.

Okay.

Do we need a roll call? Because we're virtual.

Thank you for that reminder. Council Member May?

Here. Oh, yes. All right.

Yes.

It passed.

We will now go to new business. We will take up the 5.1, the major topic of tonight, active transportation. Public draft. Okay, for review. Item one is an active transportation public draft for review. The staff presentation will be provided by that better transportation manager and allison boyer assistant public works tracy mcmullen project manager of the application plan and nelson night guard is available to answer questions after the presentation okay we have a presentation

Great. Good evening. Um, as

Acting Chair McAllister mentioned to Nelson Nygaard on the phone to help answer questions at the end of the presentation. But tonight we are here to discuss the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan, the draft plan, and staff is requesting CTC review and provide comments on the plan. So quickly a little bit of background. The agenda is we'll do a quick project update. um walk through what the mountain view active transportation plan components are and then we will go into what we heard um through our outreach process and then move into resolutions and next steps um quickly on the project update So this project has been split into three phases. We are currently here in phase three, which is reviewing the draft and moving into plan adoption. As I think it was previously mentioned, this project has been in the works since 2022, so we are happy to be moving forward to a planned adoption. This project has gone through multiple engagement rounds with various types of support throughout. We had multiple working groups, outreach, surveys, and we are happy with where we have landed and all of the community input we received through this last round.

And with that, I'm going to pass it over to Lauren. Great. Thank you. Good evening. Can we go to the next slide, please? And then the next slide. So I'm going to walk through first the components of the plan, give you an overview of it, and then I will at the tail end, I will summarize the themes that we received from the outreach and engagement. So the active transportation plan was developed using both data and community input. It proposes projects, policies, and programs to support remote biking in the city, and it also supports the city's sustainability and greening goals. It builds on multiple previous plans that were adopted by both the city as well as countywide, regional, and state agencies, including the prior bicycle and pedestrian plans that were adopted by the city. Caltrans Complete Streets Action Plan, the MTC Regional Active Transportation Plan, and other local plans such as AccessMD and the Vision Zero Action Plan and the Local Road Safety Plan. Go to the next slide, please. So the plan is divided into four sections, four chapters. The first chapter, the introduction, it introduces the plan. It describes the process that we used to develop it. summarizes the public and stakeholder engagement and outlines the vision and the guiding principles which were adopted by the council. Chapter two is essentially the existing conditions chapter. It describes travel patterns, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, safety data, and it also includes holistic maps of existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Chapter 3 presents the recommended policies and programs and identifies the high priority projects for moving forward in implementing the plan. And then finally, Chapter 4 describes how the projects can be implemented. It covers phasing options. It discusses ways to incorporate green infrastructure into roadway improvement projects. And it also summarizes funding opportunities. There are also several appendices associated with the plan, including appendices that list all of the recommended projects, not just the priority projects.

You can go to the next slide.

So the vision and the guiding principles I mentioned, that was adopted by State Council, but it was also brought to this committee as well as the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee for review and comment. I won't read the vision to you, but you can take a look at it. In support of and to implement the vision, we have those five guiding principles listed there on the slide. Mobility and connectivity refers to streets that are easy to use and well-connected for walking, biking, and rolling. Safety and comfort refers to trails, sidewalks, bikeways, intersections, and crosswalks that are safe, inviting, and easy to use. Access and equity refers to policies and programs that engage and protect vulnerable populations and increase mobility choices. Sustainability and biodiversity refers to green streets that improve access to nature and open spaces and promote sustainability in native habitats and stormwater management. And finally, action-oriented and forward-thinking refers to an implementable plan with clear standards that are updated and aligned with adopted policies. So we referred to these guiding principles in the vision throughout the development of the plan. You can go to the next slide. So quick summary of the external engagement activities. Internally, we convened a technical advisory committee to review and comment on the key deliverables. We also formed an external active transportation public advisory committee, the ADPAC, which consisted of community-based organizations and public agencies such as the County Public Health Department and BTA. They also reviewed and provided comments on key deliverables. We presented key deliverables to the BPAC and the FTC as well as the council. And in terms of engaging the general public, We used a variety of means, a variety of events, including multilingual focus groups, walking and biking tours, pop-ups at community events. We had an online map and survey, which received over 600 individual comments. And we also hosted public workshops for people to review planned deliverables. And you can see some of the pictures of some of the activities here. And go to the next slide. Okay. So I mentioned we received over 600 comments through these engagement activities. And really the key top line findings are that Mountain View is already a very active community. Residents want access to key destinations. They want to be able to walk and bike to more places and have safer walking and biking conditions. And the city system for walking and biking is already rather robust, but there are gaps that exist in the network. And so this plan used this input from the community as well as I mentioned the data to identify places to make improvements. So we can fill in gaps in the network for both pedestrian advice lists. We can improve the quality of the walking and biking infrastructure and generally increase connectivity across the city and enhance safety and comfort and look for opportunities to incorporate greening into these projects. We can go to the next slide. All right, I'm going to show the recommended improvements, the holistic maps that I mentioned earlier in the presentation. These are in chapter two of the plan. This map here is the bicycle, the holistic bicycle network. It includes both existing bikeways and proposed bikeways. And it was built off of prior planning work, including precise plans and other citywide efforts that identified particular bikeway types for different roadways. We reviewed this and identified gaps that could potentially be closed. and identified and recommended different types of bikeway facilities based on variables such as roadway width, the safety and operational characteristics of the roadway, land uses, and who was expected to use the roadway, for example, students or seniors. The table here describes how many recommended new or upgraded bikeways there are by bikeway type. And you can go to the next slide. So for the holistic pedestrian network, the plan includes two maps. The first map is the existing condition, so what pedestrian infrastructure already exists. The second map, the one I'm showing here, are the proposed improvements to the pedestrian infrastructure. Just like the bikeway, we built off prior planning work. In this case, we focused a lot on the local roadway safety plan, the Vision Zero plan, Again, we looked at the recommendations in precise plans and the previous pedestrian plan. We identified where there were gaps in the sidewalk network and where there were opportunities to provide crossing improvements, such as new frothings or reducing the . You can see here the summary of the pedestrian improvements that are included in the plan. It includes 30 individual locations. as well as several areas for deeper widening or providing big sidewalks. Moving to the next slide. So with that holistic map assessment, we ended up with 100 individual projects. We combined bicycle and pedestrian components along a corridor into an individual project. And then we used scoring criteria to support the guiding principles to score those individual projects. The document itself has the criteria that we used underneath the different guiding principles, and I can go into that in Q&A if you'd like. But essentially, we scored all 100 potential projects we came up with. We were looking for 20 because of ties. We came up with 23 projects that made the cut, and we developed cut sheets, which are included in the planning document, to show what could potentially be done along those corridors. We didn't include cut sheets for the projects that were already a precise plan or have already had work conducted on them because the designs had already been moved forward a bit, so we didn't want to redo what had already been done. Go to the next slide. Actually, go back just one. I just want to mention a point on this.

Sorry.

In that map, the lines are all linear corridors. Can you go back the other way to the map? Oh my gosh, I'm so sorry. I'll talk when she does that. I shouldn't have messed up the system. The lines, it's linear corridors, but I just want to make sure folks know that there are crossing improvements included along those corridors. So in the back, it may not pop out as having pedestrian improvements, but they are in those projects. Yeah. There you go, thank you. Okay, I'm done talking, you can move forward. Thank you. So the plan also includes several recommendations for new policies or new programs, or in some cases, expanded existing programs. I've listed some of these here. We've listed all of them on the slides. And again, if we can go into them in Q&A, if you have questions. Some of the ones I want to highlight as what we've seen pop up repeatedly in the community comments are looking at ways that we implement no right on bread, consideration of pedestrian connectivity via pet sales, updating the bike parking standards. You can go to the next slide. We've heard several comments on greening and tree canopy encouragement. social walks and rides, and maintenance of the active transportation facility.

So you go to the next slide.

So when we talk about implementation, and this is the final chapter of the plan, The plan presents an approach for these priority projects that looks at both a near-term lower cost way of implementing improvements and a longer-term higher cost way of implementing improvements. So there's resurfacing, which is the lower cost. This is something done during the seasonal routine maintenance of the roadway, but includes pavement markings, signage, there's opportunities to put in glass floor elements, but not the type of, you know, not curbs per se, generally not green infrastructure, and no curb line changes in those improvements. And you can see this illustrated in this example in number two, the resurfacing. The second way of implementing this design approach is reconstruction. So this is not something that you can do with the standard weaving, the maintenance. This takes a lot longer. But lead time, you're required to do feasibility studies and more design work. So this reconstruction does allow for demolition and rebuild of curb lines. It allows for curb line adjustments. the opportunity to provide street trees and other green structure. So for any given project, you can potentially go from existing to resurfacing and then to reconstruction. But for a project, if you were to get a grant opportunity and move it forward, you could actually skip from one to three. It's just a question of, do you have the money, the staff to pass? to do the work. These take quite some time. The implementation plan or the implementation chapter also has several pages describing Green Streets, the benefits and the challenges of implementing Green Street infrastructure into roadway changes. It talks about the benefits and the trade-offs. It has cost estimates for different types of materials and provides a basic information that would be helpful for both the city and the public to understand when developing and implementing green infrastructure. So we can go to the next slide. Finally, the implementation plan includes a section on funding. And we've listed here some of the funding opportunities that are available to the city. Several of these, most of these are competitive grant programs you have to apply for. Some of them are funding that the city receives by formula and has a list of more or less 44 of them. The plan also talks about the need to collaborate with different agencies when delivering improvements. Central Expressway and El Camino Real are owned by the County of Santa Clara and Caltrans respectively. And we received a huge number of comments and concerns on those roadways and intersections along those roadways. The challenge for us is that we don't know those roadways. And so in order to make improvements there, we need to collaborate very closely with those agencies. And we do that, and we are continuing to do that. Caltrain is another agency we need to and are currently collaborating with when we're talking about things that are larger than the ATP, for example, with brain separations. We can go to the next slide. So I just gave an overview of what's in the plan. We presented the plan that you have in your packet to members of the public. We made it available to the public on, I believe it was April 20th, and it was out for about a month. on Collaborate FV. During that time frame, we held a Vice Administrative Advisory Committee meeting where we presented the plan and received comments. We also had a public meeting where we had members of the public attend and provide comments and had a nice discussion about the plan. So the themes and the comments that I'm going to talk about in the next two slides are what we received from that very recent public engagement. And we received over 200 individual comments. And that doesn't represent the total number of people. It's fewer numbers of people because people had multiple comments. So one of the key themes was the VPAC wanted to make sure they could Oh, I'm so sorry. Thank you. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee requested that we bring the final plan after we've made changes back to them. And so we have scheduled a review by both the BFAC and this committee in August. So you will see the final plan before it goes to City Council in September. There was a desire to strengthen and add to the programs and policies section. There were some questions about policies that were in the Vision Zero and the Federal Roadway Safety Plan. And so we'll update the plan to make it clear that those two plans work together. There was a desire to provide more focus on pedestrian improvements in the active transportation And so we've identified some, we reviewed the plan. We believe that there are strong pedestrian requirements or improvements and recommendations in the plan, but they could be, the plan could be revised a bit to highlight those factors. There were some questions about inconsistencies, particularly on the touch sheets for the priority projects. And so the narrative and drawings are consistent. You can go to the next slide. And there was a desire for us to better highlight how the active transportation plan . And specifically, we'll add some language about how it can coordinate the biodiversity and urban forest plan and other . There was also a request to add performance metrics and outcomes and to report back on how well we are doing in implementing the plan. So we're going to be adding language policies to the program section to address that. And I did not include it in here. It was an oversight. There was a desire for us to add some digital practices to the plan, including an existing physicians report that we brought to the BCHAC. several years ago. So we are revising that, updating it. Well, not updating it, but revising it and are planning on . So with that, if you go to the next slide, please. In terms of the timeline for the last, the tail end of the plan, I mentioned the community engagement that we did in April and May. We are here in that sunflower colored line in June. After we receive the comments here from you and any members of the public, staff are going to use the rest of June and the month of July to revise and update the plan so that we can deliver a final plan to BPAC to the CTC, to the public, and to council for adoption in September. So we are, at the end of my presentation, we are here tonight to request that the CTC review and comment on the public draft of .

If I may, before the committee's deliberation, both the committee and the public. I just wanted to note that Chair Hicks is now present and all committee members.

Thank you.

So with that, the next question is, do any members of the committee have questions or questions?

So I've read them.

So I guess we could proceed in one of several ways.

Maybe McAllister, you could summarize a question or two.

Yeah, no, I'm not going to. Yeah, I can follow up on some of the questions. Okay, let's put this in context. Where I'm coming from. So this starts 2022. A lot's been going on. New terminology. Do focus on circumstances. lot of things. So I'm coming into it sort of, okay, what's going on? I'm still getting my footing up. So my perspective will be different than what these folks have had. So it's just trying to help me analyze it going forward. And my position on the council, what I plan, how it will affect the entire city of 85,000 and how we use our limited funds to projections and stuff like that. You know, I'm data-driven, and I always like to see that to justify your project. So, that being said, I'll follow up with a few of my questions. And some of these we can take off on. So, I had one particular question. The in no particular order. There was one street put on your list as Carroll. I've been walking Carroll for 65 years, almost on a basic basis. I grew up in that area when it was county. Has anybody actually walked down there? Because you're proposing two sidewalks on both sides. And one of my questions is, So I think we would need to go back into some of the project files to understand if one of the walk audits went from that area.

that addressed Carol. But one of the things I want to note is that at the master plan level like this, the recommendations are based on generally data that we have, say GIS, maps, information that we can evaluate at a citywide level. So looking at the width of roadways, looking at destinations, for example, Carol is a school, and I believe that is why the recommendation was put in for the sidewalks. And when the city moves forward with a project, they'll use the master plan, which is a starting point, needs to validate.

So there are going to be opportunities as a project moves forward for us to look at additions, the actual conditions on the ground.

And we may need to revise some of the recommendations, but this is our, Very good estimate of what we believe is possible, given the data sources, given the fact that we're doing it at a similar level. Thank you.

So one of those priorizations, I'm sorry, was you're going to wait until you get to that point. You're ready to do it. Visually walk these.

What would be your view?

General view that you plan to go over the top one through. just validate premise.

Yeah, as we bring them online as part of the CIP process and start funding individual projects, we could identify more of the exact scope of these.

Okay. I also asked the question about lending major roadways. I asked the question about public transit, again, being a big picture, our shuttle. And it was that you show the runs, but was it, maybe it wasn't the place to make the discussion, but I would think our goal is that somebody said, we'll get people out of their cars. I would think this would be an overriding consideration is that if we get our shuttle going, a lot of these projects won't accomplish, the shuttle will accomplish a lot of concerns. So that's why I didn't see anything saying, you know, if we do this, if we put more money into public transit, This will solve this problem. So. That was a question, but OK. If I give it to a comment, let me stop because I want to get into the comment.

The focus of this active transportation was on bike and pedestrian. Transportation relapsed in a lot of different ways, which you know, transportation, we will be evaluating the shuttle moving forward. Shuttles are difficult when somebody wants to just get down the road to go to the library quickly, and by the time they wait for the shuttle, they could have gotten on their bike, gotten there, or maybe put a stroller onto the shuttle. It's not as easy as walking there. We want to make sure that people start walking.

wide transportation approach, but we will continue to expand the shuttle. The other question there was, I asked about the benchmark, the number of comments that were considered to a particular item, and I said, what is the high concentration? You mentioned that you used the heat map to identify locations at high concentration times. I was just trying to quantify it for me. It was considered

So we reached out to the consultant who had developed the map to understand the math behind developing that map. We received about approximately 600 comments, right? And the consultant took those 600 comments and basically broke it into equal groups of three. So higher areas would say have 200 comments, 200 comments. If that makes sense.

I don't know if we have the heat map. You put a heat map up there before, and then I was just wondering how.

Right, right. The heat map, so it's a relative rather than absolute number, if I can explain it. So the way the map is developed is you take the individual points where people had a question and a comment, and then you see how many points are in that area, and you blend it together into what you saw as the heat map. Lauren, this is Tracy. Do you want to comment? Because you were the, yeah, this is Tracy from, from Nelson Nygaard and they developed the maps.

Hi everyone. How are you? Uh, the, the heat map, as Lauren was discussing, that is presenting the, the challenging, the, in the sense of density of responses that any given area within the city, um, Bye. I'm sorry, I just had to brainstorm the word I was looking for. Received. That's it. Received. Any given area in the city received. That was during the existing conditions component of the project that we conducted this mapping activity. It also contained all comments that have come in through AskMV and as well as comments from walk audits, small group meetings, and all the engagement activities that we conducted. conducted are compiled in that map. So as a heat map works, the higher concentration of comments that came in in any given area is reflected in the heat map by a darker color. And if it's a lighter color, then it was a lower concentration of comments. We'd have to go back into the the map itself to look at the absolute number of comment for any one given area. But again, the map reflects the number of comments through the intensity of the color for any given area. And then what Lauren was referring to in terms of three relatively equal groups was referring to when a project was scored. When the projects were scored, the density of community comments in the area of the project was one of the scoring criteria. So if an area... had a high density, if a project area had a high density of community comments that put it into the third, like the highest category of community comments in a given area, then it received the highest score points for that particular category. So I think you had questions regarding the map and then also the scoring criteria.

I want to try to get a sense of how this plan would evolve. And was it 20 comments? Was it 100 comments? I would like to know how many comments became higher density or low density or so.

We can figure that out. But I guess the heat map is a translation of the number of comments relative to each other. And you're wanting the absolute for the area. We can get that for you.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And then there was on the California street clean street program. I asked if there was a midway progress report. deal set is post construction, so there is no midway report. It's just at the beginning that you'll have a report.

So I'll let either Ed or Robert jump in here, but because it is a pilot, we are taking pre-count numbers and post-count numbers with that data a determination will be made and we will see how that project changed the area and the use and make it and that will be reported out. My understanding is at the end of the summer early fall time frame as we finish collecting the data.

hey if one comes about the uh our question question that and i guess that also replied to a number of accidents and so forth following the evaluation of the infrastructure projects and then it was came about so i asked well this has this been done yet or is it before because it was supposed to say did it uh did it actually the project actually get the intended impact of the period of travel. So the caps, this is going to go forward. It says that's in post-construction. Is that going to be part of the policy then?

That is one of our recommendations.

And other questions sort of technical ones. We're getting the final review in August. We'll be back after this. What do you expect from us from CTC since it's a final project?

So we're taking all the comments that we see. We're going to incorporate them in the plan. We will bring the plan to both BPAC and CTC prior to going to Council. So we will be looking for recommendations from CTC that Council adopt the final act of transportation.

So that will include, but you'll just, we'll accept the document. You're not looking for any additional information or corrections or thoughts on that without me.

Not at that time unless there's some glaring issue.

Okay. And then my one question that I said I would ask on figure 14. State's distance between district crossings and I kind of understood how What do you mean from the process inside the streets?

No, it's the it's the length of a roadway between places where pedestrians are. So it's basically block way.

OK, so I see a lot of blue 500 feet. OK, I'm just looking at my neighborhood and I saw so I see a lot of blue. That means the distance between pedestrian crossings. Are these marked crossings?

No, it just means where you are legally allowed to cross. So it wouldn't be classified as a jaywalking, right? So at the corner of your block, you can cross at a legal... You can cross anywhere.

Okay.

So the idea is some of the bigger stretches, an example would be a rank store, right? Which we're working on right now as a project. There are some very long stretches where there is no way for a pedestrian to cross from one side of the street to the other. And so that's what that link is. It's identifying where those gaps are in our pedestrian network.

Okay, yeah, that makes sense, versus I'm looking at. Those are my questions for now, thank you.

I have zero questions. Council Member Knight, okay.

I don't organize myself.

Okay, so we received quite a few different letters. with a bunch of different comments. And so I just wanted to give staff opportunity. So for example, a letter that the committee received from, it was the school district having five items that they could highlight, comment on any of those, or would it be similar to, I guess, I'm trying to understand how we will incorporate the comments. So you shared with us DPAT, but we've also gotten other, let me, I can try that.

Yeah, so I'll just quickly say, the comments that we summarized were what we received during outreach. So it wasn't just BPAC comments. Those are comments we received from CollaborateMV, of BPAC, our outreach meeting. We also had our ATPAC. Sorry, more acronyms.

ATPAC and PAC are included. In these, yeah.

I will say the letter is newer than the list that we provided, but we will go back through those. We were trying to categorize the comments received into kind of thieves, and they seem to fall in these same groups, and I think that the letter from the school district is similar. It has obviously a focus more on the schools and getting the kids safely to school. Safe Routes to School is a program that we will continue to to support and we'll be bringing CPFAC and CTP later next fiscal year. But it was part of our scoring criteria. Those projects have risen to the top of our priority list and we'll incorporate those as we move through.

I think, you know, and I was just going back, I think the CTP The ATP does reference Safe Routes to School. Perhaps just, I'm trying to think about, I know we have our Safe Routes to School program. We also have the ATP we're trying to adopt. Does staff feel that it kind of peppered throughout the document is the best route? Or does staff think that writing like a little section that's a favorite school that puts like an emphasis i i just looked at that because i think when people think of the atp they might and what i not to comment too much but the atp is very readable yeah and so i wonder if there might be if stuff is open to like a call-out section on that absolutely since we got um

Yeah, we can do that. We also have education as part of our policy or policies and programs that we want to continue to promote, not just in the schools, but throughout the city. I will say our Safe Routes to School program has not been adopted by council. So we will be bringing that next year with or adoption. So with that, we're hoping there exists, but it's not adopted.

It was, yeah. Sorry, that's a question?

Yeah, so it's been identified as a program and a priority, but the plan was never adopted. So we will be bringing that to council. We're going to strengthen it and bring it to council as an adoption to ensure that it continues for funding as we move forward. It wasn't adopted in conjunction with our Vision Zero plan? No, they're separate. Vision Zero and local roads and safety are paired together. There are a lot of smaller transportation plans to help us try and wrap our arms around transportation citywide. I would put those three together in my mind. They have the same PMs. I thought we had adopted that. I had a

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

Yeah, I wouldn't say that it's one or the other, but what we have found is the vendors want to be able to provide both at the same time. So it's not one or the other, but they want to be able to do both. And right now there is the moratorium on the scooter share program. So we're in the process of updating that. We're hoping that with the update of or removal repealing of that, that will hopefully get both bikes and scooters back.

Okay. When talking about the guiding principle related to, sorry, slide 13, and I was trying to find it. How about HP? So when we're talking about access and equity, you have to find kind of the rubric. Rubric. So when we're talking about the guiding principle, what does access and equity mean through the lens of the 18?

So in the appendix, in Appendix A, if you want to take a look at it, access and equity is defined in Appendix A.

And there was one attachment to this all in one. Yeah. And I don't .

It would be page 79 in the PDF. So it uses three. Table one? Table one. Yeah. It uses three scoring criteria. So the first one is supporting lower income residents. And you can see under the metrics what it looks at. It's US Census data. And it's looking at household income. It also looks at filling a gap in an accessible sidewalk network, like Carol. So that's a yes, no, right? That's a yes, no. And the reason why that, I mean, that's under access, but it's also under equity because that's a gap. And then it also looks at whether it fills a gap in all ages and abilities. And so that would be the low stress network. you're at, so class four bikeways or class two bike lanes on low, long streets or bicycle roads, if you consider college disabilities, bikeways.

How do you feel that ATP, one of the things I was reflecting on is, I like the guiding principle. I think when it comes to the scoring criteria, I think It doesn't necessarily feel like there's a gap in safety when it comes to access and safety, particularly for some of the neighborhoods that may fall into the first scoring criteria when I'm talking about, of course, lower income residents. So they might be in a higher volume area where the safety is not as big. And so I just wasn't sure how we can incorporate that into the action. For example, we've been trying to make improvements on California, but I think the speed with which cars go may still feel like an impediment to, I forget the categorization, but you know, like there's the confident biker the less sorry just what concerned me yeah and i those folks might forward um or if they're sharing a level and i don't know how we can talk about how as we're doing the atp we're making people i just feel like that's a gap but i don't know if you feel that goes with the atp can address that in a different guiding principle or how we might address that We can circle back to it, but I just thought part of the HPP is to address mode shift, but it's also, I think, ideally a way for people to feel more confident or safe to do so. And I'm just trying to figure out, and to me, that's a bit of like for everyone to feel that, you know, some neighborhoods you may feel safer to do so than in others. I'm not sure how.

The scoring criteria also includes safety and comfort guiding principle. And that uses data that directly addresses crash history and other safety concerns of Like the second? Yeah, the second one. So if you think about food projects that are exactly the same with all the other scoring, except for the access and equity, particularly the lower income, with this scoring metric, the project that is in the lower income neighborhood will bump up if that makes sense. As we're looking at the project.

Exactly. And as we're looking at the ATP to be able to help inform the IP.

Correct. Also, I would add, it's not exactly the same, but there's also the supporting under mobility and connectivity. There's also school children. So if it's within a certain radius of the school, so it's not, it's kind of peppered throughout it.

So, but I just, you know, I think that's one of the themes that I was thinking about.

Yeah. Yeah. The other thing I do, I look here is how many maximum points do you have for each guiding principle? So for the access and equity guiding principle, the maximum of 27 points. And then for the safety and comfort, it's 13. So in this situation, safety and comfort, ways heavier than access to equity. But those are really that, and then mobility and connectivity, which is 22 points. Those are really the top we've been looking at.

And the scoring criteria went through BPAC's CDC Council. It's just been a little last year.

So this is very people with other scoring operations or projects. And I'm thinking, too, how does this document or the guiding principles are for current but also future as we're adopting project after project in relation to the housing element. And I'm also thinking about how the 10th school site is going forward and the infrastructure that we can create there. to make it up. We heard it.

Most questions.

And then lastly, we had a question about the funding and collaboration. So one of the things that this involves, coordination related to funding, but how might we be able to highlight coordination related to projects. But sometimes a user is on a city street that goes to a county that goes to, they're just thinking about the comments we've been receiving from residents about their user experience on certain areas. They are moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. How do we, is there a way that we can address that in the ATP or make that work? How do we share that with residents? I think sometimes the feedback comes our way, but the city isn't able to do anything because it's Cal State right of way, PA right of way. They're traversing over the county expressway onto the city street. I feel like that's a

So we looked at the projects together, right? You know, a person is going to travel across such and such from what we know. And what, where it would have been affected if they might not have scored so as high and how quickly we could deliver the project. So it doesn't mean we didn't consider these projects. It's just, it makes the project a little bit more difficult. We will continue to look at them. A lot of them are on our streets that are used more regularly. So it's part of the projects. The reality is we are in an area where we are crossing other jurisdictions. So we will continue to work and partner with agencies to deliver these projects. they ask is just that there's some patience and understanding that they're not at the feet of the projects that are solely in our jurisdiction. We do also have in there a scoring criteria gap completion. It's not quite the same thing, but it's where you have a route from Sunnyvale that drops you into not the same type of . An example would be what's happening along Evelyn. Sunnyvale's in the process of completing Evelyn. We're going to pick it up and try and complete it on our end. So we will continue to work with projects like that as well in this process.

Do you think that we could, in the ATC, could, like, the different jurisdictions, like, I know the different jurisdictions are called out, but could we put, like, as an appendix, like, the contact information for the different jurisdictions, like, for entities? I don't know. I'm just

I'm going to ask I'm going to ask why the benefit of putting the contact information in.

I think we highlighted and we touched upon it, but the city because of because our roadway is so shared, I think that residents often express comments and do not know where to turn. And if this is an active transportation plan, it may, I think it would be helpful for an independent to say like our collaborative partner. Oh, this is like their website. You're like, I have a question about, or whatever. Right. I, I, I won't like, you know, like wayfinding, but for like, right. But in a different way. And so I think one of the things we've been trying to do is in our education is make it easier for our residents to understand what the resources are, what the roots are, et cetera. You know, and part of it is what are the different partners they can understand some of the constraints we're under because.

Yeah. Okay. That helps. That helps to understand the background on that. I mean, it's just a question and staff would be open to it, but if not, that would be too. And then we can look into it. The reason why I asked the question is I didn't know if something like that would be a plan that's not going to be updated very frequently. Right. Because those things sometimes change. So maybe it's another mechanism.

There might be another way to share the information. And that's fine too. I'm just asking staff that I feel like recently there's just been a chick in comments that I've been receiving and so you know and i live in a neighborhood where i'm walking with similar realization so like you know i think there's different things people are experiencing and i and i want to have a more satisfactory i want residents to feel like they have a more satisfactory answer and i want to provide a vehicle for that so i'm just asking staff what you might think as we're talking about adopting that if there's room there somewhere else um look forward to what it has that yeah

Thank you.

Okay. Think of more while I'm asking. So my question is the good thing about going last. A lot of good questions have been asked. First, I'm going to circle back and ask in a slightly different way what Member Kamei said about how we incorporate these latest comments. Because I think people, we and the various people who send us letters, groups mostly, over the past day or two, have put a lot of thought and work into it. And I want to make sure that we have a river to capture that work and not just somewhere. And so at the same time, often we take straw holes for this kind of thing. And I think there may be two men. I'm asking for your suggestions. But I think we may come up with 30 different can you include this and can you include that. And it may not be best to do straw holes on all of those. I'm thinking that a possible rubric would be, I thought you had excellent categories. The categories, I forget how many there were, maybe five. And they were also haven't memorized the names of the categories but they were uh more on pedestrianism uh more on metrics more on including sustainability and there were several others perhaps we could put our our comments under those categories and you could consider them but not for example like member kame's latest um comment slash question, which I fully support of, you know, giving a little more information on our adjacent and regional agencies, transit aid, transportation agencies. You know, maybe that, it feels to me like you don't, like we don't have to vote on that and you say yes or no tonight, but if we put under some rubric, one of the titles, And then you go back and decide whether it's possible, impossible, or possible to do in a slightly different way than Member Kamei suggested. Is that? We're not voting right. But I want to make sure that the comments don't evaporate. So do you have any suggestions to make sure that is putting them under those categories helpful?

I think that's helpful if there are broader categories that you think we should also consider that we didn't include, I think that would also be very helpful.

Yeah, I think we've received a high volume of comments for these categories. So if there's something you think is missing, that would be really helpful for us to make sure that that gets included in the plan. And then, yes, if there's specific additional comments, yeah, please. And I have to think on the way to convey back to the public where there's been a draft. I think we've come up with some very clear ways how we plan on assuming the plans. I hope that they all see that. But I hear you in making sure that they understand that we received the comments and logging those appropriately. Yeah.

Yeah, I don't think I have to ask on any further. So, and then I have a question. I agreed with the people who commented on that the plan could be stronger in terms of pedestrianism. And related to that, in particular, there's an area that talks, I'm gonna come up this question from multiple angles. So I don't see, I see a, there's a table with a minimum of different lane widths and sidewalk widths. And it says that sidewalks will be at minimum, I imagine, but a minimum of five feet. And then it said sidewalks should be widened in certain places. my um experience with widening sidewalks is that one of the big triggers is building height and this relates to council member kane's comment on week in large part the um the atp is talking about conditions now but we expect conditions to change and then you also mentioned things that are have been specified in precise plans are not specified here but i'm still left wondering how we're addressing, because not all additional building height will be in size plan areas. So how we're addressing the need for, like, I'm a huge advocate for improved pedestrianism. I don't think every sidewalk needs to be more than five feet in the whole city. I even think unincorporated areas can have no sidewalks sometimes. So what Is there a mechanism anywhere in here for higher building and denser development to trigger wider silos?

because i didn't care and i i'm trying to understand your question just a little bit more clearly um by higher buildings you mean i'm sorry this is me being the engineer here are you talking where the building hits the sidewalk or are you talking that there's just more people in a building and so therefore more need for sidewalks where there's more people okay yes okay if we i just wanted to clarify the 100 foot warehouse in the middle of a single family neighborhood which i don't

want us to do but if we were it would not be more sidewalks right yeah okay we have got it story apartments um or you know i go to chicago they have 30 foot sidewalks because they have because it's next to a tall building.

Yeah, OK. Sorry, I just needed to understand that a little bit more. So yes, you're correct. If there's a precise plan, we're not trying to change a precise plan. The intent is when those projects come on board, we follow, or come online, we would follow that. As projects are identified in the CIP as becoming a project, the plan is that they'll go through transportation planning first. That will involve outreach. That will involve conversations with our CDD partners and others in the understanding what's going to happen and what we expect to happen based on zoning and just the conditions that we see. Housing element changes. whatnot before we kick this project off. The first thing we will be doing is validating that the assumptions made in the ATP are still correct. This is a plan that will probably be updated between every five to 10 years. Mountain View is going to change a lot in the next five to 10 years. And a project that isn't touched until year eight, the assumptions will likely have changed. And so the first thing we will do as we bring these projects on board is do that validation. Talk to the neighbors. Is it the street parking? Is it the sidewalks? And just identifying what the intent for build-out is in that area. Zoning has changed. Housing element affects that area. So where the five foot comes into play is that is the current recommended standard for the city as new projects are coming online. New developments in our right-of-way are being asked to put it five foot sidewalks. So we're not just going to create a project just wide in a sidewalk, five feet.

I think what I'm asking in addition to this is, is there anywhere, I didn't see anywhere in the ATP a recognition that as we densify, which we're doing a great deal of, and we're doing a great deal of through the housing element and through legislation from Sacramento, for example, SB 79. I see no reference anywhere to the fact that when you densify, when you add more people, you need wider sidewalks in the areas that you're densifying, unless everybody has an underground garage and a park. So I see not a sentence in here about that, but I read a lot. So maybe it is in there, and that's what I'm asking. Is it in there anyway? It's not.

Okay.

It is not in there. Yeah. Yeah. And I don't think, well, now I'm going, but I don't think we wait until the 20 foot building is built and then say, we do more than a foot side. Okay. So that was one question. And then my second question. So also in that same table of minimum lanes and sidewalks and so forth it said that the minimum roadway lane was 11 feet but i'm reading NACDO guidelines and also hearing that El Camino Real has narrower so why is our minimum when i'm hearing about nine ten ten and a half why is our active transportation plan arguing for a minimum

So 11 feet is what is needed for trash trucks, buses, emergency vehicles. So if there is only one lane provided and then there's a vertical barrier, they need that space to transit. I'm not going to say that that's an everywhere situation, but that is our starting point for most projects. If there are multiple lanes, like on El Camino, they do go down to 10 feet, but at least one of those lanes is an 11-foot lane. So if we have multiple lanes, we will definitely be shrinking the lane width, but 11 feet is what we used for our planning purposes. Again, because we don't have exact survey data everywhere, so we also didn't want to put in a 10-foot lane. Then we get out there, and now we have a 9-foot lane, and I can't get the trash truck through, or the VTA bus can't make it through. So it is our starting off point. It doesn't mean that we can't look at areas where 10 feet makes sense, but we're starting with 11 feet as our

So to me, if you say 11 feet, it doesn't even say 11 feet is the minimum for lanes that are going to have emergency vehicles. It reads that it's the minimum for all roadways. So maybe, I mean, I'm bleeding into comments, but perhaps there could be two lines, one for emergency vehicles and one for second, third, fourth lanes, which I hope you know.

Could I ask a clarifying question? Are you referring to Table 2, the basis of design that is on the screen? Oh, thank you. Yeah, it's a little hard to see that. So that's in Appendix B, which talks about the cut sheet development. Right. So just so everyone knows, this was the basis of design that we used when we were developing concept plans for the priority projects. So that table just describes these are the parameters we were looking at when we were estimating what we thought would fit in each of these corridors. So it's not for everything, but it's for those cut sheets.

Examples. Okay, since I'm asking questions, I'm not going to go into great detail on how it confused me. Okay, so... And I generally go straight, by the way, it feels bad to start with questions, because it's always the parts that you love. So also, now, I know what your answer should be to me on this is that I voted for it. But also, in scoring priority projects, there's a category of safety and comfort. And to me, for me, one of the largest elements of safety and comfort, and this actually links to Council Member Komet's question on equity, because it's also what you find most in the lower income areas of Mountain View and public facilities as well, is a lack of shade, to the point that you just feel like you can't walk anywhere. Yet that, I mean, I would say that's almost the number one thing that stops me and people who refuse to walk places is, you know, a lack of shame. So I was a little confused about why that didn't, it appears somewhere else. It appears under, I think, biodiversity. I think under biodiversity. But I actually think I actually think this is a problem that runs through all of our plants. We talk about biodiversity for animals, which I'm all for, ahead of needs of people. And I really think that in terms of trees, we're doing it mostly so that people in low-income areas can walk. I mean, I have to say, the place people refuse to walk with me most is when I go to visit my friends who live in an affordable house in development. I know peaceful people because they're not any strangers on large stretches. So that was a, I get it. That's a question. Why is, why is shade not a part of comfort? And you can tell me, cause I voted for it that way.

I don't know that I have a great answer for you. I'm going to be really honest. I think that greening has just always by default gone into sustainability. I'm not saying that that's the right answer. I do think that you're correct that a mind should change when we're talking about active transportation. It's probably necessary, but it for this one L under sustainability? Oh, I like that answer really a lot. You know, I think we've always just thought of greening as how we make something more sustainable or it's part of our greenhouse gas or something of that nature. And I think we just need to understand there needs to be a shift in kind of the approach as we develop these projects.

Okay, that's a fabulous answer because I really think we need to think a bit of how it's useful or not useful at all. And then getting towards my last question, can you tell me, this may relate to Member McAllister's question on how, when you're gonna walk the streets and know, because on some of them, the conditions really change block to block or even within one block. So the one I'm thinking of that I'm really familiar with, but I think that many of the streets are probably in this condition, is Latham. I used to, when I had children in grade school, I would take them down the downtown to Castro School all along Latham. If I read the ATP right, it says that that's going to be... The sidewalks are going to be widened. But in much of that, not all, because it really changes. Even mid-block, it changes. If we widen the sidewalks, first, I don't think the sidewalks need to be widened there because I have never experienced walking to school. I've never experienced, or we scooted out of school. I never experienced any problems with conflicts with anyone or difficulty using it. But secondly, if you went in the sidewalk, you're going to either take away somebody's front yard, which I don't think is going to happen. It belongs to them. Or you're going to take out the planting strip and the trees, which I also don't think is going to happen. Or you're going to take out the parking, which is also probably not going to happen because there's not a lot of parking there and there's cars all over the place. So I don't understand how and where that street is going to be widened. or not street, sorry, where that sidewalk, it's one of the main places that says there's going to be sidewalk widening all along the way. But honestly, I don't see it. I don't see it.

So I'm looking at the cross section for Latham, which I'm assuming is where this comment is coming from. One, where it is coming from, it doesn't mean needs to happen this way. And we would evaluate it as we go through because widening a sidewalk is not a cheap endeavor. But Latham currently has a 12-foot lane and an 8-foot parking strip. And so the end result would be an 11-foot lane and an 8-foot parking strip. So you end up with one foot on each side. So they have given it to the sidewalk. from the lanes. The idea is in narrowing the road, you're slowing the traffic down. We can explore other ways to use that two-foot buffer as we look at it. Does that make sense?

It does, except when you're actually there, you would be taking out all their trees and removing their planting. On a piece of paper, it sounds good, but in reality, I think Yeah. Yeah.

And so that would happen as part of our, our validation.

So, okay. Yeah. So I'm going to have a little, that's the street. I'm super, there's also, there are other places along there. One is like a civic block next to Eagle curve with, with beautiful groups. I don't think we're going to take them out and buy the sidewalk. And there's very few people. So there's no, I don't,

I don't think we would take away our greening to add a foot of sidewalk. That is, if we're prioritizing our, as we're moving through this, one foot of sidewalk width is not going to go for moving stores or trees or any of that.

We are not going to replace impervious area with purpose area.

engineering way of thinking. And there's no reason to broaden that sidewalk.

No. So I believe, okay, so I will not go into details on that. And let's see if I've had any more. I guess my last question is that maybe, maybe you kind of answered this. how or when do we go from the resurfacing improvements to the reconstruction improvements? Because the reconstruction improvements were really good, and added canopy made sidewalks and bike lanes useful. I believe with extreme heat, they weren't pretty much at all in some ways. So those are great, but are they so, like, how do we ever get there? Are they really pipe dreams? Are we going to end up in the resurfacing area where everything has bollards everywhere and we never get any trees? How do you see that?

So right now, the quickest way for us to do reconstruction project is getting either grants or funding from other partners. An example would be the ring store project that we just kicked off recently in transportation. That includes Caltrans money that helped us do the design and planning for that. Another example would be our Evelyn's portion, which we just recently got a measure B Yeah, it's a VTA measure planning group. So what is really nice about these cut sheets is it shows that we have public engagement. It shows that we have a plan. And it helps us as we go for these funding grant applications that are competitive. Those are two big scoring areas. And so we will continue to go after a lot of those to help accelerate the process along those projects. In the interim, Robert will have his annual paving projects. And the goal is to continually make things better as we're going through this process.

I'll add to it. That's a simple works director Boyer's answer here. Robert Gonzalez, principal civil engineer at the Civil Infrastructure Group. So along with looking for opportunities on the grant side, I'll just explain a little bit about the pavement maintenance side to see what opportunities that provides as well. So when a street segment is first placed, it's at 100% of the ceiling. And the goal here from a city perspective is to maintain the condition of that for as long as possible before you get to a state of deterioration where it's failing and trigger a reconstruction. So in between the time where it's newly constructed and the time where it's failing, from a pavement management perspective, you want that as long as possible. You want to preserve that. We are doing overlays and preservative treatments all along the way. five years, 10 years, as the need arises, you're doing the crack sealing, snakes on the ground, you're doing a slurry seal, you're doing a cape seal, you're doing all kinds of these maintenance efforts such that you delay that. So that's the... On my side of the coin, I want to delay that so I can preserve that infrastructure at the end. But at the very end of that, yes, there will be a point where the PCI gets to a point where I cannot do any more maintenance to that road without reconstructing it. And that would trigger these cross-sections as you see them. So if we're going to do a reconstruction, then we would be pulling this out and say, well, what opportunities do we have to deliver So there's obviously two conditions here that we're talking against. One is maintaining the condition of the pavement, and then the other one is if we have an opportunity such as a grant, we would look at those areas of the city that really benefit.

Yeah, and I just wanted to add that You're hearing multiple avenues how we can get there. We may, you know, as Director Boyer mentioned, we may get there by just skipping ahead, going from existing right to construction if we find a grant or there is a priority to really identify a corridor. Because we do this on a corridor basis. It's not a lot by lot. It really needs to be identified as a block by block effort. So these are usually longer stretches.

Did you say corridor or block by block?

We do this on a corridor basis. And a corridor could be, we're looking at this one corridor, but we're going to implement a block that we can't do it by parcel basis. We can't just do a little incremental. So there's that. When resurfacing happens and we are implementing some temporary improvements, sort of this resurfacing effort, we are already implementing a component of what the reconstruction is going to look like. And so the vehicle lanes, which may already be accommodated, and then it could be later that we come back and we're doing the reconstruction effort for those elements outside the vehicle lanes to put in the upper protected headwinds next to the bike lanes at that time. So it could be a phased approach. We've done the resurfacing. Now let's come back and redo the portions of the bike lanes and the protected headwinds.

Okay.

I should move on. Did any members come up with additional questions? Okay. If not, I believe we are now... the public comment portion of this agenda item. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or approach the lectern. We will take in-person speakers first and each speaker will have three minutes. Any speakers in person? Okay.

Yeah, I'm Barry Burr. I'm 325 Walker Drive. I've been in town over 30 years about now. Some of you know I'm a former member of the Big Pat. My view of the Big Pat actually got things done. It's still, let's say, a mouthpiece for well-funded lobbyists, designers, infrastructure salesmen, and so on. That's my view of where things are now and how. So with regards to this, this will be played out over the next many years. It is my intention to give myself feedback so I can be part of what I'll hopefully be a level-headed, moderate you. I will really get things done to its benefit and satisfaction. Now, you weren't here, Alison, so. before a council person. I stated that frequently we're seeing protected bike lanes being mentioned, except that's a big hole because what is a protected bike lane? And as I requested to the others, I request that you as chair especially bring in initiative to the committee to define what a protected bike lane is, should or shouldn't be, versus the widely divergent view of protected bike lane 10 and 20 years ago versus what's being built in town. So that itself is a loose hole which needs to be better defined. Now, and also, I feel that the best resource in Mountain View for consulting bicycle and pedestrian safety is the Mountain View Police. The bicycle patrol, I've had conversations with them. They don't seem to have been consulted But their views on particular pieces of infrastructure in town, I think, you know, picture, you know, fully office, fully equipped Mountain View police officer on a really nice mountain bike with their mountain bike, but fully equipped cop on a mountain bike around town. Their view of safety is unique. And I would urge greater engagement and involvement. that the Mountain View Police, Bicycle Patrol, and Traffic Patrol be engaged and consulted on all of this. Because just in reading what you posted, which is very detailed, I'm not seeing anywhere listing Mountain View Police Department and their Bicycle Patrol having input or being consulted on this.

Thank you. I see no more in-person commenters. Are there any virtual comment. Bruce England.

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

Thank you. So more virtual commenters. April Webster.

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

Thank you. Are there more virtual speakers? Yes, Cliff Chambers. Okay, Cliff Chambers.

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

Thank you. Are there more virtual comments?

Yes. Daniel Halsey? Daniel?

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

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

Thank you. Are there more virtual commentators? No, that's all. Okay, so last call for public comments, and I will now bring it back for committee member comments. Are you going to start us off?

I'd like to hear you.

Okay. All right. Yes, I want to echo the thanks to Scott. It's been quite the journey, figuratively and literally, to get to this point. And I'm just really grateful that we're here, that we have that interview for us tonight. One of the things I just wanted to highlight was, I think some of the speakers mentioned robust community engagement has been really critical, I think, between the pop-ups, working with our multilingual outreach program to kind of going to these bespoke different groups to get the input. We've gotten a lot of collaborative feedback unique Mountain View-esque insight, which was really fun to read. I think overall, this document was, I would say, like the most readable document I've read the city put together in my seven and a half years, which is wonderful because I think it truly highlights kind of where we were, where we're going, and our vision. The appendices are very helpful in terms of just kind of reaffirming what the document says, being able to go back. One of the other things that stood out to me as I was reading was how this plan will talk to the other plans that the city is pursuing or has. I think that's really critical, and thank you for highlighting for me the issue with our Safe Routes to School plan that needs to be adopted. I think if there are and I can't remember in my reading, you referenced the different plans, but I don't think that they were all out, was there a page on that, where they were all out, sorry.

In the plan itself?

Yeah, but I, yeah, but if we're doing it, we might as well, I think the,

sorry if i can just so they're called out plans taken to use to make this new one but the other plans that people work with is not so we can yeah i think i think so yeah especially the puzzle pieces how they work together is is great um i thought it was i don't know i i enjoyed how it was broken up like

How do we get around? What are we doing? The demographics, the different data points and resources was helpful. I do think one of the things that I hope we can find a way to address is some of the, I think I see two things before us. One is kind of if people haven't input as they're continuing to be users of our streets and roads transit, how they can provide that kind of continual feedback in a way that might be helpful. You know, feel like right now residents have to put it into app mountain view but there has to be like a better repository for feedback on i liked this treatment but maybe not this and so folks don't need to come to cdb to tell us which one they do or don't like um and then i think the other is how we can um have like uh incorporate our long-term planning the city is changing and growing at such a rapid pace. It's great to adopt the ATP for now, but just thinking about the ATP for the future, you know, as I was mentioning, finding out that LASD is going forward with that tensile state, and they're kind of moving at a pace that feels, to me, faster than they had before, right? Although they think that they're at that same. We need to be planning for that in addition to the different planning areas that we have within the housing element. And I think over the next five to 10 years, we're just going to see an increase in residents. And so how does the infrastructure we're creating or the plan with the ATP going to be able to help accommodate that? That's the only thing that I was thinking about. But all in the right direction. I also appreciated like the rolling aspect of it, right? Like kind of anything with field and that can be, you know, a scooter, a bike, a stroller, a wheelchair, right? And how we're thinking of all ages, all abilities, all backgrounds really speaks to the city's community for all spirit. So thank you again. Thanks, Jen. Thank you.

So Member McAllister, are you ready now?

I hope so, Vanessa.

So first, this is one of the report. And I've seen that throughout the city since my time here, that it's thorough, it's comprehensive. I always look for funding. So if you're going to implement it, are you going to pay for it? And so I think there was one report that was aspirational. I see some parts of that in here, but I appreciate the time that was put into it. And it answers a lot of questions. It's good. It's a good report. It's one of the best reports I've ever seen on this one. And again, I haven't been through it, so it helps me get along. So I appreciate the time for it. It does touch on areas that I find important. Now, I'm not necessarily, I appreciate, I voted for white things in the past. I understand they are helpful But I also want to put things in context from my perspective that there are many plans over the last month that I've seen that I got it. You know, we've got a decarbonization plan. We've got the ATP plan. We've got the biodiversity plan. We've got a bunch of plans. They're all going to be competing. And they need to get them out of the aspirational implementation plan. And this one, you have a group. community that's very passionate on bicycles, very outspoken on bicycles, and very supportive of bicycles. But I'm looking at the city as a support. I look at, again, I like shuttle service. I like that we are not all bicyclists. In fact, I asked the first question, was there any bicyclists in the city of Mountain View? And, uh, You guys are working on that. So I got to see how it integrates with everybody, the traffic coming through. So I'm putting this in my context is how I look at it. And going back, I asked one of the questions, do you look at the road? So let's go as Carol. Now, I would like to have seen, and as you go through here, maybe it would be good to actually look at the streets. I said, Carol, I've been walking on that for 65 years as an accountant. It is right going to a school. So there are no sidewalks in my part of town. That's very important. But if you go to Carroll and you walk down the very end, you will see a sign that has been respected by community members since 2006 that says, please do not travel down Carroll. Park your cars. People do that. No one drives down Carroll. They all stop at a sleeper. And it's parked there and they all walk through it. So if somebody took the time to look at that and said, do we need sidewalks? One, I saw you had to do an improvement district. I'm sure that would have been interesting. But by looking at the street and seeing it, you would have said, we don't need to do this. I am fiscally more conservative by other people on the council, wherever. And when I see something like that, I go, We don't need to put a sidewalk in because there's no need to put a sidewalk in. And that aspect of you're doing a lot, and it seems going forward that to look at it, you need to do it so that we can really get the projects done, not wanting it. You came up with 23 projects. I really like that. I like you saying, okay, we got limited funds. We know it. This is where the demand is. And that's why I always ask you, don't meet the demand that meets this project. And so I support things that will show that we people really need to do something to do it. Instead of, we don't need cars in the city of Mountain. And I hear that sometimes from other, from your advocates, or we don't need cars, you know, let's get rid of the cars. That's not going to happen. And so we got to ask, I asked early on, the blending of this with the roads. And if I looked at all your there would be basically class three bike lanes throughout the whole city. So I'm just asking that there is a little more data that's acknowledged in here because there's a couple of things that you go, like when I asked about the history and the response was the projects team did not consider history of the roadway or the original intended use. But we have a lot of people privately. And so I think that needs to be in consideration, not put in there. And I appreciate the honest answer, but instead, can reduce future use in the city's goal regarding sustainability. Well, we're not going to get there, but there's a mechanism. There's an environment out there that they're all integrated. And you have the task of integrating it with other things. So that's when I say, you've done a great work. How are you going to benefit the rest of the limits of the city? That's why I asked it, yeah. The school district, you know, I've been asking the school district since 2012, put in buses and they say we can't afford it. So they won't even talk to me. The superintendent, I bring it up when he was over at Los Altos. Oh no, I won't talk. There's a simple solution that if they did those, then all the things that they were worried about would be solved. Or if we used our shuttle service, to transport kids in the morning. That would solve a lot of the issues of safety. So I'm looking at integrating all the other things to make things happen. So that's it. I just, please consider that there's a small group advocating, really want it. They have the right to, but there's other people out in the city that say, I need to get from point A to point B, or I'm going from here and I don't want to bike to ride, I want to drive. Those cycles, e-cycles, there was a small part in there about, you know, that's going to be big. That's going to come out before you get going on anything else because there's a lot of concerns about e-bikes. And you haven't addressed how you're going to come back to CTC with a policy on, I recall, e-bikes and how they're going to be integrated into bike lanes and how they're going to be regulated. So that could be an interesting concept. But, yeah. No, for those people that are adamant about bike lanes, I think this is an excellent report.

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

So those are highlights of some of the comments I have.

So the committee members have additional thoughts. OK. OK. If there are no additional thoughts, we're just taking feedback. So I will move on to the next item, which is 5.2, State Route 237 and Middlefield Road change improvements. This project 65. The staff presentation will be provided by Joy Houghton, Senior Civil Engineer and Robert Gonzalez, Principal Civil Engineer.

This project. Go around.

She's already plugged in, so I'm just going to go.

Oh, yes.

Try to steal it, Mike.

Sorry about that. You need to update the photos. We like the little ones.

On your screen.

Well, you got to start explaining each one. My two kids.

And so let me try. My youngest one just turned nine. The other one will be 11 soon.

Okay.

Active participants in the city's summer program.

Thank you so much.

Can we take a break for five minutes?

Yes, let's take a break. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so sorry to those of you who are listening virtually or listening online. We are now back to 5.2, which is State Route 237 and Middlefield Road interchange improvements, Project 1965. And we're ready for the staff presentations.

Good evening, Chair and committee members. My name is Joy Howell, Senior Civil Engineer. I'm joined here by Robert Gonzalez, Principal Civil Engineer. And we're here to present updates and staff recommendation on the State Route 237 and Middle Eastern Interchange Project.

Thank you.

To start with a little bit of background, Middlefield Road between Logue Avenue and eastbound 237 off ramp is very challenging due to the number and close proximity of signalized intersections in a relatively short stretch of road. This results in a high collision rate and challenging environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. The intent of the project is to reduce collision conflicts and improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility and connectivity. This project has been in the works for close to two decades, starting in 2005 when the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, or BTA, solicited city support regarding highway projects in the Valley Transportation Plan, or BTP, 2023, which includes the State Route 237 and Middlefield Road interchange. In 2006, the city and VTA entered into a co-op agreement to fund a project study report, which included the State Route 237 and the field road standard change. In 2012, this project study report was completed and was approved by Caltrans in 2013. Up until this date, the project was theoretical without available funding for the subsequent phases. In 2018, City Council accepted $11 million in community benefit funds from a development project at 700 Middlefield Road. The project entered the development phase when funding became available starting in 2019 when City Council approved the capital project, the State Route 237 and Middlefield Road Interchange Improvements Project and appropriated $5.5 million of the community benefit funds received from the first phase of the development project. and authorized execution of a funding agreement with BCA for project management services for the project approval and environmental document and final design phases of the project. In 2020, the project was initiated and preliminary alternatives were developed. And since project initiation in late 2020, the project team has been in coordination with Caltrans, since the project impacts the right-of-way and operations to gain approval prior to starting the final return. This is at the stage, Middlefield Road is a four-lane roadway with four signalized intersections approximately 300 feet apart in the project area between Logue Avenue and the eastbound 237 off-ramp, which contributes to a high rate of broadside collisions. In particular, the collision rate at the westbound 237 Middlefield Road-Frontage Road intersection exceeds the statewide average for intersections of this type. The 237 Middlefield Road intersection operates the threshold interchange since they only have an eastbound off-ramp and a westbound on-ramp compared to a full interchange with on and off-ramps in both directions. And with the other interchange, movements happening at the Maud Avenue Partial Interchange. There are continuous bike lanes, class two bike lanes, and four to six foot wide sidewalks on both sides of Middlefield Road within the project limit. And east of Middlefield Road, sidewalks and class two bike lanes do exist along the north and south sides of the westbound and eastbound frontage roads, respectively. The project area is significantly constrained for bicyclists and pedestrians, with Caltrain Corridor acting as a north-south barrier, while 237 acts as an east-west area. In 2012, Traffic Operations Analysis was prepared to support the 2013 project study report. The analysis identified two locations at eastbound and westbound 237 experiencing collision rates higher than the statewide average. Collision. I'm just trying to get to the statistics. So Middlefield Road is actually left right on the page and then the 237.

So that's 237 southbound?

Westbound. East Middlefield is left to right on the page.

They're left to right.

And then the frontage roads at the top.

And then the on-ramp is westbound on-ramp. The 237 is correct.

Yes, so the north side.

Because I look at 237 going north side, and it'll feel going east-west.

So if you actually can go back one slide, I think that'll help orient. Yeah. I've got an arrow.

One more.

It highlights the location. Highlight right here. I'm sorry. I want to go back one more slide.

It's not. Oh, there.

There it is. It's the location. That's the west. Okay, so they're coming from. Okay.

And the next slide, we turn it on. Yeah, that's why it was confusing. The middle field is going left to right in the next slide, and then that frontage road on Graham is going up and down. That's the initial slide.

different orientation. We turned it 90 degrees to the left. So the collision data showed that approximately 75% of collisions in the study area occurred at the Middlefield Road and the 237 ramps, specifically the southbound traffic on Middlefield, which includes three types of conflicting movements. Southbound through and westbound 237 ramp through movements. Southbound through and westbound 237 left turning traffic movements. And southbound through and northbound left turning traffic movements. As the project began in 2020, the project intersections were also analyzed for key performance metrics, including level of service, or LOS, instead of vehicle miles traveled. The level of service measures the quality of traffic flow and the driver's experience on the road and at intersections based on the speed and number of cars using the road. The LOS of a road is designated by a letter grade of A for free flow and to F for most congested conditions. On Middlefield Road, all intersections within the project area currently operate at the level services C or better during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours, and this is according to the analysis conducted for the Middlefield Road by Traffic Operations Study completed in 2025. An LOSC indicates there's stable flow and operations is and operates with a very average delay, which is within the city's threshold of acceptable LOS. Project objectives and goals include reducing the frequency and severity of collisions along middle field road within the project limits, improving pedestrian and bicycle accommodations and access, enhancing accessibility and connectivity to transit, strengthening connections to local roadways and planned development in the area, and optimizing the use of existing right-of-ways. In 2020, the project team completed the preliminary investigative phase of the project to support the development and analysis of six concept alternatives, including two from the original project study report that will meet the project purpose The project team developed six alternatives, which I will be sharing on the next few slides. And staff is presenting the project to the CTC first as we are seeking policy level direction on the approach of selecting the preferred alternative based on available funding for the project. The alternatives were scored based on categories, including bike and ped improvements, safety, environmental, traffic operations, Right-of-way and geometrics, the criteria's categories were weighed based on their alignment with the project purpose and need, and were ranked in the following four. Starting with the lowest ranking alternatives, Alternative 5C, Alternative 5B, and Alternative 2. These alternatives include new points of access to the State Route 237, which was not supported by Caltrans as the highway safety analysis predicted higher crash frequencies at the mainline connections. Caltrans had known new mainline connections to WP. Alternative 1 ranked the highest but was not approved by Caltrans as it also introduces a new point of access to State Route 237. With Alternative 1 eliminated by Caltrans, the project team refined the second and third highest ranking alternatives Alternatives 3 and 4 for Caltrans review. In 2023, Caltrans expressed support for advancing these two alternatives for further consideration. In 2024, the project team developed preliminary design concepts for alternatives 3 and 4 to further evaluate their feasibility. Due to the right-of-way acquisition requirements associated with alternative 4, Alternative 3 was subsequently refined to include improvements along Frontage Road, including traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds approaching Middlefield Road. The additions of improvements along the westbound Frontage Road increased the project costs from the previous cost estimate in 2020 but are still within the project budget. The conceptual design for the refined and the staff-recommended alternative three includes the following proposed improvements. Installation of traffic calming features along the westbound frontage road, including race medians, pavement markings, radar feedback signs, landscaping, and narrow travel. Also includes construction of class 4 bikeways and widened sidewalks along the westbound frontage road between Middlefield Road and Maud Avenue. Installation of class 4 bikeways and 6-foot wide sidewalks on Middlefield Road. And protected intersection improvements at Ferguson, westbound 237 on-ramp, and eastbound 237 off-ramp intersections. In addition, alternative three also includes technology improvements at intersections, including signal interconnect and signal timing optimization, and modified traffic signal operations with separate bicycle and pedestrian signal phases. With the completion of the final draft of the biodiversity and urban forest plan, the project team will look for opportunities for inclusion of landscaping and green stormwater infrastructure as we progress in the project and continue to be defined. The project is currently in the project approval and environmental document phase, which is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2026. This phase will be followed by the final design phase expected to, sorry, expected to begin in 2027 and conclude in summer 2028, which will be followed by a two-year construction period. The project cost estimate for the staff-recommended alternative is $24.8 million, as summarized on the screen. The project is fully funded through the final design utilizing the TA Measure B Highway Program Fund. This, combined with the city fund, is efficient to support construction of the project. As our next step, staff will provide the BPAC with an informational update on June 24, 2026, including a summary of feedback received and policy-level direction received from the CTC. Following evaluation of CTC feedback, staff will forward a recommendation to City Council for approval of the design concept in fall 2026. This brings us to the staff recommendation for the CTC to receive an update and recommend that the City Council approve the staff-recommended design concept for the State Route 237 and Middlefield Road Interchange Improvements Project. And this concludes our presentation. I'd be happy to answer questions.

Thank you. Thank you. Do committee members have questions? Alistair, are you raising your hand? Yeah.

Why are you rushing us through? I remember screwing this project together for a So, okay, the question that you kept referencing to collisions, how many collisions? And you said exceedingly collisions total. So how many collisions were there? I'm sorry. You kept referring to this was a high collision area. So how many collisions were there?

Absolutely.

And while Joy looks for that, I can add that through part of the traffic analysis, there were identified 87 near-miss events. So that was a good chance to try to look at the analysis.

Was there a particular spot that, or was it just the events or the near-misses? Yeah, was it all just the one-channel area?

Well, so... From the project area, it goes from Loeb and it covers those three intersections. The 237 westbound middle field intersection. So that intersection there where 87%... I think the report said 87% work within it. Just that.

Okay, because I saw something when you mentioned Ferguson ago. So, okay. And so... That was the only choice. I was just curious how many there were.

So when we approach the project, it needs to be looked at as a complex, as a set of intersections, because that's how Caltrans looks at it. So we know that if it were a city project and a city intersection, we might just be looking at one intersection, but these all work together. It's really a system we need to be looking at. So the project footprint grows a little bit, but 87% issues really, really, and our solutions are really focused on that intersection.

87% is a tough number. But I do remember when we were working on it, too. Yes. You were out.

I was not, but I know that intersection. I tried through there.

That was also a tough intersection. Okay, now I'll just take a lot of my questions.

Council Member, can I do questions? Yeah, I mean, I think, so... So I guess just trying to find a way. So Caltrans is the option for basically Caltrans just to agree with the funding.

Option for alternative four, that was not, it was an alternative one that Caltrans did not support. And we are recommending alternative three because that's within our reach to be able to support through construction. If we go with alternative four, it does require right away and we just don't have the funds to be able to move that forward to construction at this time.

What, aside from the funding issue, and I was like, I was trying to understand how my do we feel that going with option three will be able to withstand the amount of change that's going to be coming to that area? So for example, council a few months ago adopted a 600 plus unit apartment complex go on the corner middle field. And when I think about the frontage and the alignment with first drive, And what may or may not happen in the Middlefield Park area, as well as the project we adopted at Ellison Middlefield. We're just going to see a really high increase, I think, in bicycle pedestrians, more so than we do now. And I live in that area, so I see it firsthand. But so I'm just, you know, I'm comfortable with the staff recommendation, but I'm curious if staff feels like in

Sure.

A decade going to be needing to go for something like option four, sorry, alternative four, just because of the high volume. And I think even at the agency, we've discussed how it's very difficult to narrow middle field because of the high volume that middle field has. So I just... It's difficult to future-proof a project, but just seeing where we're going and knowing the cost, the increase of cost if we don't tackle with the, you know, 2026 pricing. So I'm just curious if we feel like Alternative 3 is just going to be the band-aid for the future.

Senior engineer mentioned a traffic operations analysis that was done. There was one done in 2012. There was another one done in 2025. And the one that was done in 2025, several analyses were performed on that. So existing conditions was one baseline. But the other evaluation that was done was incorporating all of the planned, known planned developments in the area. So we kind of loaded up those known future conditions, including the one on low. at front and out low. So we know the traffic volumes, because that will now be a four leg intersection at low with the new development coming in as the fourth leg. So I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that all of those traffic counts were accounted for in this analysis. So it didn't look like there was substantial degradation. from that developer, from the known developers that were loaded to them. Am I saying that correctly?

I believe so, but there's also no difference in capacity between Alternatives 3 and Alternatives 4. Alternatives 3 would be for project purpose and need. It's just that Alternatives 3 would give us the most bang for our buck.

Thank you for helping with that. That's where I was trying to go.

Okay, well, great. That was half of my question. I can now ask a smaller question.

Okay.

So, yeah, again, with the development around there, particularly, I don't remember the Prometheus project. I don't remember the names of all the projects. So how does that interface with... How does this interface with the... Like you talked about wide sidewalks. With the... with the improvements near the streetscape that the developer was going to do?

Which one is that?

This is the middle field Ferguson development, front of both streets, the west corner of the project area.

So we would expect the project status here is that we are in the preliminary phase of the project. So we are at the project selection phase. From here, we move into design. So we are really, I'm sad to say this, Councilman McAllister, but we are not at nearly the finish line. We will be kicking off the design for this project if Council approves it. We can move from VTAs So we would expect that the development is going to be an existing condition. I think that that's going to advance forward sooner. So we would be, as we go into design, we would be providing that information as a background condition for the designers. They would see the improvements that we're showing here. We could actually have the developer deliver some of those so they would be in place, such as the sidewalk and the ballroom. that front, that development.

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

Waiters right there. Yeah.

Go ahead. For the existing pedestrian infrastructure in this area, it's four to six, and we want to make that, we want to make six foot kind of the minimum in this area, at least within the project area on Middlefield Road. And then also widen the existing sidewalk and include the bike lane on the north side of the westbound frontage road.

Yeah, I mean that Sounds appropriate to me.

We do want to improve the pedestrian facility and not just maintain the existing. Are you going to be able to add tree canopy? That is something that we will be exploring as we progress in the final design.

Okay. I'm getting more of a picture of how the sequence of events. Thank you.

Can I have the principal engineer speak to the midfield project?

Yes. So both projects are programming class for protected bike lanes. So that gives some separation between vehicle traffic and bike traffic. So if you are traveling down the field after both these projects are complete, you will have a much more comfortable ride going, say, from shoreline all the way down to parts of sunny. So all the way down through this, through this.

And then this included some lane narrowing.

I think if I remember, we are considering lane reduction or lane with reduction on westbound frontage road. We plan to be consistent with the lanes that lane was proposed as part of the middle field complete streets, which is currently 11 feet wide and frontage is wider. It's wider and we propose to make them 11 feet as well. The challenge here is that most of the middle field road within the project area, as well as the frontage road, those are all operated by Caltrans. So Caltrans would have to approve the final dimension proposed for delay.

And Council Member McAllister, you had an additional question?

Yeah. Okay. I'm trying to, what problem, okay, you're, what's the problem you're trying to resolve? The number of crashes? And if it's the number of crashes, is Cal trying to be paying for all this?

So the issue is with the signalized, the three signalized or four signalized intersections within close proximity does result in a higher collision rate, higher than statewide average. And to answer your question earlier, it is in the memo, it just wasn't in the table format. But between 2005 and 2010, there were 26 total collisions between just at the intersections of the on and off ramps on Middlefield. And then between 2011 and 2015, that went up to 31. Between 2016 and 2020, that went up to 44. The city saw an opportunity when we received the community benefit funds. Those funds usually typically get used on improvements within the area. And this was kind of the bigger project that we could tackle, of course, with coordination and collaboration with Caltrans.

So, and it also adds your question related to like, why isn't Caltrans delivering these resources? I'm very proud to say that Mountain View is more proactive in delivering transportation improvements on a faster scale, more efficient than Caltrans. While Caltrans does do this, they have an enormous network to maintain. Respectively, I understand that. We have a smaller network to maintain, and we're very proactive in applying these pet and bite improvements throughout the city. So we saw an opportunity here, as we do with other projects that we're doing within Mountain View, such as the recently completed El Camino Real White Plains, the El Monte Intersection improvements that we've been doing, the El Camino Real Castro protected intersection improvements. So there's a lot of projects that we are implementing because it's a priority for our community, and we can deliver that.

Oh, the initial thing with the community benefits was to get the bike lanes and that also, that was our main goal at the time. Okay, that's what I thought. And so Caltrans said, well, while you're at it, do this for us.

Makes sense. The original objective also was to reduce the collision. That was from the 2012-2013 project study report that was completed, also in coordination with Caltrans and VTA. Having the interchange included in that project study report means that Caltrans commits staff to work with us and VTA to deliver this project without costs to the city for the project.

So what actually is changing on the intersection?

There are some protected intersection treatments that's proposed at the Ferguson on and off ramps. So that would help reduce the vehicle speed as well as make the turning movements more predictable at the intersections, which then could result in a lower potential collision or lower conflicting movements in the area. Because now we're combining improvements along Middlefield Road and Frontage Road really to target the intersection that has the most conflict.

Thank you. I'd also add that the frontage road, Senior Engineer Houghton pointed out a couple of medians that we're proposing along that frontage road. This is new, so they're not there today. And that's also an effort to reduce speeds, create an element that would narrow the lane, and another element that could help visual indicator that this is a little different. I need to slow down to be able to navigate this.

I'm going with your record. I'm just curious. I'm all for what you're doing. Sure. Then I was just curious of what exactly is occurring.

Yeah, the report also outlines installation of reflective backlights, installation of near-sight signal heads, modified traffic signal operations to provide a bike and pet signal phases, so dedicated phases for bikes and pets. All of these support the two biggest factors, the collision factors for speeding and red light. All of these kind of fall in line as modifications that you could do, really kind of low-cost modifications to change driver behavior.

Were any collisions included in bicyclists? Or was it just car companies? These are peaceful collisions. Because I know mod is always... Now, that's confusing to me. When you turn on a green light, is it your lane or somebody else's? But that's... Okay.

Last call for questions. We will move on to public comment. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item?

Yes. It's Barry Burr from 25 Walker Drive. This really the issue of Middlefield Road risks of this undefined approval of a class 4 bike lane right in my backyard, a place I bike and drive through sometimes commute to work or elsewhere. I really kind of woke up a sleeping dog. Some of you remember me from 15, 20 years ago on the BPAC or my most recent civic engagement was on the police citizen cohort group. two or three years ago. But relevant to here was that this middle field and 237 interchange was a major topic that the police traffic officers that spoke with us had brought up that they had been working on light timing. This was a known high collision area. And that when they got done with a lot of the light timing and adjustments, they felt that they already had dialed back from a lot of the additional collisions. The primary cause of majority of the collisions, as far as coming down the ramp off of 237, I'll call it southbound, the Thurgemont Venus, where they're coming down in the 60s, 70s, or 80s miles per hour, within a quarter mile or less needing to slow down sometimes to a stop. Well, a few rumble strips across or box dots, that's a standard way of slowing cars down in transition. I'm not seeing that mentioned or hearing that brought up, But if you can amend in to have a few rows of box dots and rumble strips coming down that ramp, I venture a guess that closing speeds by the time they get to the light could be 10 to 20 miles an hour slower just from all the traffic needing to go over that. So that's when rumble strips. Now, with the class four bike lane proposals being so vague, Caltrans, and I think BTA2, has a wide range of options in how to design them, how to implement them. They show many pictures from many areas around the state, which widely range in what's done, including the reflectivity or not using reflectivity. One example I'd offer is Yerba Buena down in San Jose, where there's no filler. It's just round holes, somewhat vertical, round, green tubes. Cars and bicycles all see each other really well coming in and out. Now, precedent for the city to hold back on not moving forward until the class four definition is further defined goes back to 2006, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, the six years it took me, along with VTA and the BPAC's involvement, to get the striping bike lane ingress and egress on the overpass from Shoreline over 101. Eventually, Caltrans and VTA approved the Safeway, and they refined it. And then they moved forward with the next city striking contract. I'm just about out of time. That's pretty much what I have here. You can contact me personally privately in the email if you have any questions.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any virtual speakers?

Yes, April Webster.

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

Thank you. Are there more speakers? No, that's all. Okay. Thank you very much. So we will now bring this back to the committee for comments and action. Are there any comments before we?

Yes.

I apologize. I didn't read the staff report. I didn't know. I was concentrating so much on this.

I go, that's the whole meeting. And so I apologize.

I did not.

That's why I asked someone quickly. I apologize for not reading so much.

I'll trust the staff on this. We're going to get it done.

Okay. Well, I will make my comment. Do you have any comments?

I'm just excited that we're here 20 years later. this area really improvement. So thank you for your persistence and often creativity in terms of all the different alternatives you looked at. And then I think what council member or committee member of the house are like is that, you know, it would be fully funded. And we could get that.

No, but I added, you know, I just, you guys ever gone through Carson City? You go through Carson City, they do a lot of freeways have Is there any art that can be incorporated in the underpass?

Actually, I have to second that. That would be a, this is such a barrier in this neighborhood. This is not for now, but everything, so my comment is just, you know, what the public speaker said, anything since we're at such an initial phase and there's such a barrier in this area and it's gonna develop so much and it has been a place where people just drove to the office and then drove away and stayed inside their offices. And we're trying to transform it into something else. Anything you can do along those lines or what the public speaker said about coordinating with BTA research, just anything you can do to turn it into more of a real neighborhood where people can be outside

Even downtown San Jose, that's the best water pass park. It's just like the trains. Yeah, the trains. They have like a train going through part of it. I know we have an element of budget for that. So, hey, this could be.

It's out of our public art budget. It could be a public.

Well, let's call it. Okay.

So, I'm not going to say no.

Okay.

We will look into it.

Later. It's all for later.

Okay.

Okay, are we ready to take them out? I'm hearing no more comments.

I think we're ready. So we'll meet with Member Callister and Secretary of the Bank.

Maybe Member May. Yeah.

Yes. Chair Hicks? Yes. We should pass this 3-0.

Okay. We are now on item number six, which is committee staff announcements, updates, requests, and committee reports. 6.1 is committee comments. Do any of the committee members have comments or reports? I'm in trouble.

I'm in trouble.

Okay, so now, would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comments on this item? If so, please. Are there any comments? In that case, Thank you. We're now on item number seven, which is adjournment. Our next CTC meeting will be August 31st, 2026, and we will adjourn at 9.20 p.m. Thank you.