2026 ATP Council Adoption & Amendments
What the coalition requested, how staff responded, and what City Council ultimately directed.
Mountain View City Council adopted the 2026 Active Transportation Plan on September 22, 2026. Before adoption, a coalition of local organizations and residents submitted specific amendments addressing design standards, greening, performance measures, walkability, traffic calming, bicycle facilities, and smaller-scale safety improvements. This page is the decision record for those requests — not a general public-feedback summary: it tracks each request through staff’s review and Council’s eventual action.
- Coalition
Request - Staff
Response - Council
Direction - Final ATP
Treatment
See also: the coalition’s earlier June 16 and August 31, 2026 recommendations and the ATP’s response to them, tracked on the Community Advocacy page.
1 · Coalition asked
A coalition of local organizations and residents submitted a letter requesting nine specific amendments to Table 7 (the ATP’s implementation table) and related standard-details/City Code updates, covering design standards, greening, performance measures, travel-lane widths, part-time bicycle lanes, walkability, traffic calming, and smaller-scale safety improvements. Each request is reproduced in the “Coalition request” column below.
Coalition letter & requested amendments Submitted ahead of the September 22, 2026 Council meeting. Link pending.2 · Staff responded
Primary sourceStaff response presented to Council
Staff’s September 22 presentation showing its recommended response to the coalition requests.
Coalition requests compared with staff’s response
This table reproduces staff’s September 22 presentation as HTML. The Staff response column describes staff’s recommendation as presented to Council — it is not a record of what Council ultimately decided (see “What Council ultimately directed” below).
| # | Coalition request | Staff response | What staff said |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1a |
Updated Design Standards to be Informed by Best Practices Update Table 7 per Attachment 1.1 |
Modified | Incorporate changes limited to the scope of CIP 27-27. Staff said the standards project had just begun and would go through advisory-body review through summer 2027. |
| 1b |
Greening/Tree Canopy Improvements Update Table 7 per Attachment 1.2 |
As requested* | Staff said this could be incorporated “easily.” No modification was identified on the slide, so it’s unclear whether this means all of Attachment 1.2. |
| 1c |
Develop KPIs and Performance Targets to Measure Active Transportation Progress Update Table 7 per Attachment 1.3 |
Modified / deferred | KPIs and targets “to be developed over the next year.” Staff did not specify which elements of Attachment 1.3 would be included. |
| 2a |
10-Foot Inner General-Purpose Travel Lanes Add to Table 7 per Attachment 1.4 |
Not included | Staff said lane widths should instead be evaluated through CIP 27-27 and opposed prescribing 10-foot lanes citywide before that analysis. |
| 2b |
Part-Time Bicycle Lane Elimination Add to Table 7 per Attachment 1.5 |
As requested* | Staff said the ordinance change required shouldn’t prevent including elimination as the City’s long-term goal. No modification appears on the slide. |
| 2c |
Walkability and Accessibility Add to Table 7 per Attachment 1.6 |
Not included | Staff cited resources and tradeoffs associated with establishing a new program. |
| 2d |
Traffic Calming Add to Table 7 per Attachment 1.7 |
Narrowed | Staff proposed to “consider including green infrastructure” in the existing NTMP program rather than adding the requested Traffic Calming program to Table 7. |
| 2e |
Smaller-Scale Safety Improvements Add to Table 7 per Attachment 1.8 |
Modified | Staff proposed to move existing language from Chapter 4 to Table 7. It’s unclear whether any additional provisions from Attachment 1.8 would be included. |
| 3 |
Standard Details and City Code Add and confirm all findings and recommended updates from the 2023 Existing Conditions and Needs Summary Report, per Attachment 2, in Appendix E Table 9 |
Not included | Staff said some of the consultant’s draft material didn’t accurately reflect City application of standards and/or referenced outdated standards; applicable portions would be relied upon moving forward. |
* Staff’s slide described these two requests as items to incorporate without identifying a specific modification. Whether that means the complete attached request (Attachment 1.2 / Attachment 1.5) is still unconfirmed.
3 · Council acted
What Council ultimately directed
Council’s final direction on each coalition request has not yet been added to this page. This section will be updated with the adopted motion once that record is available, and the comparison above will be extended to show Council Direction and Final ATP Treatment alongside the coalition request and staff response.
Sources