Community advocacy & plan history

What community organizations asked the City to change in the Active Transportation Plan, what changed in response, and what happens next. This page tracks the full pipeline: community recommendation → City response / ATP changes → CTC recommendation → Council action → final outcome.

  1. April 2026 Draft
  2. June 16 CTC
  3. August 2026 ATP
  4. August 31 CTC
  5. September 22 City Council
June 16, 2026 → August 2026 ATP

June 16 recommendations → August ATP

Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning (MVCSP) submitted 13 recommendations on the April 2026 draft ATP. The table below compares each recommendation with the corresponding language that appeared in the August 2026 ATP.

Both columns reproduce source language as supplied, without summarizing or rewriting. Where ATP language is blank, the City’s August 2026 language did not include a clear corresponding passage.

# June 16 Recommendation August 2026 ATP Language What Was Added / Changed Status
1 Complete Streets / Green Streets Implementation Policy Table 7Table 7 — Greening / Tree Canopy Improvements: “Incorporate greenery and street trees into larger infrastructural improvements along roadways. These can have the dual benefit of serving environmental and planning goals and elements of a safer street design.” pp. 49–50: Expanded discussion connects the ATP and BUFP and identifies BUFP Actions 1, 10 and 17. Green Streets/BUFP integration was substantially strengthened. The requested standalone implementation policy, Green Streets checklist, multimodal project-delivery requirements, and documented deviation/exception process were not added. Partial
2 Adopt NACTO Bikeway Guidance as City Default Reference p. 48, design standards discussion: Identifies Caltrans, FHWA, AASHTO, U.S. Access Board, NACTO and ITE among the guidance/standards used by the City and emphasizes reviewing and updating standards to remain consistent with best practices. NACTO was explicitly incorporated into the ATP’s design-guidance framework. It was not established as the City’s formal default bikeway reference, and the requested deviation/justification requirement was not added. Partial
3 Update City Standard Details + Related Construction Specifications Table 7Table 7 — Updated Design Standards to be Informed by Best Practices: [I want to pull the exact Table 7 description before inserting this rather than reconstruct it from the surrounding ATP text.] p. 48: ATP also explains that the City uses Caltrans, FHWA, AASHTO, U.S. Access Board, NACTO and ITE guidance and should review/update its standards to remain consistent with best practices. The ATP commits to updating standards, but does not carry forward the June letter’s detailed scope for Standard Details/specifications, protected-bikeway transitions, loading, transit, construction access, development frontages and bicycle-boulevard treatments. Partial
4 Quick-Build Policy No Quick Build policy/program with dedicated funding and delegated authority was added. Not added
5 Traffic Calming Policy No comparable modernization of the City’s traffic-calming/Neighborhood Traffic Management Program was added. Not added
6 Bicycle Boulevard / Neighborhood Greenway Recommendation No specific implementation recommendation for a true low-stress bicycle boulevard/greenway or corresponding treatment criteria was added. Not added
7 Community Engagement Process for Transportation Projects The requested standardized transportation-project engagement process—from pre-concept through later design review, with documentation of how input affected decisions—was not added. Not added
8 Complete Streets / Green Streets Review Process for Resurfacing + Capital Projects Table 7Table 7 — Greening / Tree Canopy Improvements: “Incorporate greenery and street trees into larger infrastructural improvements along roadways. These can have the dual benefit of serving environmental and planning goals and elements of a safer street design.” pp. 49–50: Expanded BUFP/ATP discussion addresses integration of green features into active transportation improvements. Green Streets integration was strengthened, but the requested systematic review process for resurfacing, reconstruction, development frontage, utility and capital projects—with written justification for omissions—was not added. Partial
9 Bike Lane Operations Policy No policy direction eliminating part-time bicycle lanes or identifying Middlefield Road for conversion to full-time bicycle facilities was added. Not added
10 Annual Reporting + Performance Metrics Process Table 7Table 7 — Develop Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to Measure Active Transportation Progress: “KPIs can be developed by city staff to measure and report annual overall progress towards the ATP Guiding Principles.” New KPI action added. This directly addresses the June request for annual ATP-wide measurement/reporting. The ATP does not specify the requested indicators, including aspirational mode-split goals, network completion, protected-bikeway mileage, APS upgrades, sidewalk gaps, school access, etc. Substantially incorporated; specifics missing
11 Staff Training + Professional Development Program Table 7Table 7 — Staff Continuing Education: “Staff continuing education on the Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan, defensive driving in City vehicles, Safe Systems Approach, and safety countermeasures will raise city staff proficiency in promoting and enforcing Safe Road interventions.” This language already existed in the April ATP and was retained. The June request to broaden training into bicycle/pedestrian design and professional development was not incorporated. June expansion not added
12 Regional Connectivity / Interjurisdictional Coordination Process The requested formal process for early coordination and reporting involving Caltrans, County facilities, Caltrain, neighboring cities, ECR and Central Expressway was not added. Not added
13 Final Plan Documentation + Accountability Table 7Table 7 — Upgrade Pedestrian Signals to Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS): “Accessible Pedestrian Signal provide information about when to cross the street in a non-visual format such as auditory tones, messages and/or vibrations.” APS is explicitly included, but the June request was more specific: a path to APS at all signalized intersections supported by an APS inventory, plus clearer technical-document links, project-status distinctions and prioritization of the Appendix C crossing improvements. Partial
August 31, 2026

August 31 recommendations

MVCSP and Bike Walk MVLA submitted 7 additional recommendations on the August 2026 ATP.

# August 31 Ask What the Letter Asked For
1 Develop a program for delivering small-scale safety projects (“Quick Builds”) Establish a clear mechanism to identify, prioritize, fund, and deliver lower-cost safety improvements without waiting for major capital projects.
2 Modernize the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Streamline the resident-initiated process; add a proactive, data-driven citywide approach rather than relying only on requests; modernize the toolbox with green/planted, neighborhood-oriented traffic calming and Slow Streets/shared streets.
3 Add a Pedestrian Program Create a coordinated program focused on making walking safe, comfortable, useful, and appealing. Include trees/shade, crossings, everyday destinations, transit connections, comfortable neighborhood streets/public spaces and public restrooms; coordinate with land use, Safe Routes, transit, urban forestry, biodiversity and Green Complete Streets; prioritize based on pedestrian need rather than sidewalk widening by default.
4 Add a standalone Complete Streets Implementation Policy + project-development process Establish a consistent process defining applicable standards, project scoping, meaningful multimodal alternatives, use of LOS/VMT, evaluation of safety/accessibility/AT/transit/trees/shade/biodiversity/GSI/climate resilience, incorporation of community input, and documentation of benefits, trade-offs and deviations.
5 Strengthen “Updated Design Standards to be Informed by Best Practices” Explicitly carry the October 2023 Code Review findings into the standards update. This included four sub-asks: (a) street, sidewalk, intersection, driveway and bicycle-detection standards, including A-1–A-9 and E-11; (b) bicycle-parking standards; (c) street-tree and street-lighting standards; and (d) Chapter 27 Article V/§27.54 and the Policy on Unimproved Streets.
6 Strengthen Staff Continuing Education Expand beyond the existing safety focus to include pedestrian/bicycle design, multimodal analysis, survey design, engagement, statistical analysis, landscape architecture, urban forestry, GSI, Green Complete Streets, and urban heat.
7 Add a Community Engagement + Project Evaluation Program Establish standards for engagement objectives and methods, equitable/representative participation, survey/statistical best practices, transparent reporting, and consistent before/after evaluation, multimodal performance measures, data collection and public reporting, with lessons fed into future projects.

Tracking each recommendation

This page will track each August 31 recommendation through the same pipeline, once each stage is available:

  1. CTC Recommendation
  2. Staff Response
  3. Final ATP
  4. Council Action

← Back to Active Transportation Plan