Dear Mayor Inks and City Council members:

The Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning, a group of Mountain View residents that is not affiliated with any other organization, would like to comment on Question 4, one of the issues that Staff is asking Council's opinion on.

This concerns a letter that Michael Grehl of Merlone Geier Partners wrote to Peter Gilli on October 23, suggesting that Staff might want to consider processing the requested entitlements for Phase II as a P District rather than as an amendment to the San Antonio Center Precise Plan.

The staff report for this item, pages 26‐27, states that

"The primary difference between the two approaches is the potential scope of the P(9) Precise Plan Amendment could include discussion of land in the shopping center outside of MGP's control. Staff has expected the P(9) Precise Plan Amendment would only consider the MGP Phase II property, but the P District approach makes this more formal and clear."

We have been wondering about the motivation for Mr. Grehl's letter, since requests like this are not usually for the sole purpose of accommodating Staff. Before Council comments on Question 4, we hope that they will verify that in a P District scenario, the following would still occur:

1. Application of mandates for this development related to the in‐progress new San Antonio Precise Plan (SAPP), covering the entire San Antonio Change Area. Staff and Council have previously indicated that the new SAPP standards will be required.

2. Resolution of any problems that the proposed project will cause for people living, working, doing business, or travelling in the entire area, not just on the land that MGP controls; and especially those problems related to contiguous properties. Staff has said that this geographic "scope" issue is the most significant difference between the two types of zoning. What are the likely specific impacts on life in Mountain View if a P District process is selected?

We would also like to commend Staff highly for the excellent suggestions in this report for improving design of the project. We hope to see, among other things, additional mobility improvements (including full mode separation for everyone walking, biking, or driving within the project), and other design changes that will make it a more pleasant place to be in.

December 2012: The San Antonio Area Visioning Survey is now closed. You can have a look at the results here.

The meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 3rd. See Calendar for more details.
5. STUDY SESSION 
5.1 405 SAN ANTONIO ROAD 
Study session to discuss a mixed -use development consisting of 100,000 
square feet of commercial, retail, and restaurant; 53,000 square foot cinema; 
377,000 square feet of office; and a 165 -room hotel at 405 San Antonio Road. 
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS —None. 
7. NEW BUSINESS —None.
AGENDA 

The Mountain View City Council accepted (1/22) the Visioning Report covering online and workshop public input into planning decisions to be made for this area. But the majority did not favor proceeding immediately to review a proposal for Phase II redevelopment of the northwest portion of the San Antonio Shopping Center, though Council had previously said this could happen soon after the Visioning Report was complete.  There were five votes for a motion to start with a study session (apparently in March) to work on groundrules/community benefits for the entire area--open space, connectivity, etc.--before looking at any more specific proposals. Public input had generally urged them to "look at the big picture first".

The September monthly meeting is cancelled but we'll be back on the second Thursday in October! 

Things have been somewhat quiet after the approval of the General Plan, but the city is going to hit the ground running with implementation. 

The North Bayshore Precise Plan will begin to pick up again in the fall along with the inception of the San Antonio Precise Plan and the El Camino Real Precise Plan. Check out the city council packet for their 9/11 meeting for more details on the emerging schedule. 

Coming down the line, there's going to be lots to do! Stay tuned. 

Tomorrow night, May 10th, MVCSP will be holding its monthly meeting at Vox Design Group's office at 421 Castro Street in Mountain View. We will be discussing the following items:

• What advocacy steps to take in advance of the May 16th EPC meeting and the May 19th community meeting on the General Plan.
• How should we handle Council's decision to not allow mixed use development at North Bayshore? (Google staff may be in attendance to share their plans on the matter.)
• Preliminary plans for the San Antonio area have been released. How do they look? We may be joined by a San Antonio Shopping Center property owner who can offer his perspective and hear our thoughts.
• Update on Bus Rapid Transit.
• Report back on recent events we've hosted; workshops and Grand Boulevard Initiative.
  
• Sharing the first draft of the MV Guide to Citizens' Involvement
• Update on drivethrus

Please join us! Feel free to bring snack. :)

Please send any letters of support to BPAC chair, Bruce England. Here's what BPAC is asking the CTC to do:

Comments for City of Mountain View Council Transportation Committee Meeting
May 18, 2011

The new 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (a publication of the Transportation Research Board (TRB)) now contains a tool to measure bicycle, pedestrian and transit Level of Service in addition to motor vehicles.

The City of Mountain View Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) held a special meeting on May 9th to discuss adding bike lanes on San Antonio Road as part of the Center project, and here is a synopsis of what came out of that meeting:

·         We unanimously (with the possible exception Lauren Angelo, who was unable to attend) feel very strongly that bike lanes *must* be included as part of (or along with) the San Antonio Center project plans.

·         For our part (in what we feedback re this issue to the City through the CTC), we feel that the "why" should be emphasized over the "how" (which we chose to leave, as much as possible, open to interpretation by traffic and project planners (the more options they have, the more likely we'll achieve the goal of seeing the lanes added.

The whys include:

·         Even though the existing bike plan doesn't call out the need for bike lanes at that locations, no San Antonio project was in the works at the time, so any omission can be considered merely an oversight. Meanwhile, current thinking and trends now tend in the direction of placing bike lanes in any appropriate and necessary locations.

·         Even though the existing general plan doesn't emphasize multi-modal transit accommodation, the draft mobility section for the updated general plan does, and the "Complete Streets" direction now mandated by the State is called out specifically.

·         The draft Pedestrian Master Plan should include (and is expected to include) the need to separate bike traffic from pedestrian traffic as much as possible.

·         Bike lanes on San Antonio extend bike routes south of El Camino into Los Altos, and create a bike-transit "hub" enabling ease of travel between Mountain View, Los Altos, and Palo Alto bike routes.

·         Mixing two-direction, multi-modal traffic on sidewalks, especially when planter strips are included (thus making it far more difficult for bicyclists to yield to pedestrians as needed) sets up dangerous situations that shouldn't be acceptable in current planning.

·         The nearest north/south bike routes are at Charleston and Rengstorff, neither of which are very near to San Antonio.

·         The Environmental Sustainability Task Force final report recommended prioritizing bike and pedestrian modes of travel (see in particular page 120 in the attached final report segment).

The hows include: Narrowing the median space, narrowing the traffic lanes, eliminating planter strips, and narrowing the sidewalks to allow for (estimated) six-foot bike lanes (noting that bike lane width is dictated, at least in part, by the posted speed limit for vehicular traffic).

Also:

·         We would like to see the bike-lane solution extend between Miller and California, but we do not want a lack of a solution there to compromise setting the proper precedent by completing work between Miller and El Camino.

·         We would like to see infrastructure within the center also provide bike-friendly amenities (including, for example, bike parking structures), which can also enhance the center's aesthetics. We noted that bike riders entering the center are not necessarily going to the center, but might be passing through to other end points, such as Showers and California, the Greenway bike route, transit hubs, etc.