Mountain View City Council
January 27, 2026

November 2025
Draft Final Report
ATTACHMENT 1

Final Report
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3

1.1. Purpose, Goals, and Objectives of the Study .............................................................................. 3

1.2. Purpose of this Report ................................................................................................................. 3

1.3. Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 4

2. Background Document Review .......................................................................................................... 6

2.1. Pedestrian Master Plan, 2014 ..................................................................................................... 6

2.2. Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2015 ............................................................................................... 6

2.3. Active Transportation Plan (ongoing) ........................................................................................... 6

2.4. Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Roads Safety Plan, 2024 .............................................................. 6

2.5. Plan Layout for Miramonte Avenue Improvements Project (Segment B) ...................................... 7

3. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 8

3.1. Bikeways ..................................................................................................................................... 9

3.2. Traffic Data ................................................................................................................................ 10 Turning Movement Counts ............................................................................................................. 11 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ........................................................................................................... 11 Auto Speeds .................................................................................................................................. 11 Collision Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 11

3.3. Parking Conditions .................................................................................................................... 12

4. Community Outreach Round 1 ......................................................................................................... 15

4.1. Events ....................................................................................................................................... 15

4.2. Online Survey ............................................................................................................................ 16

4.3. Key Findings ............................................................................................................................. 17

5. Study Recommendation ................................................................................................................... 20

5.1. Segment A: Resurfacing Concept .............................................................................................. 20 Traffic Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 21 Cost Estimate ............................................................................................................................... 21

6. Long-Term Reconstruction ............................................................................................................... 23

6.1. Segment A ................................................................................................................................. 23

6.2. Segment C ................................................................................................................................ 23

Final Report

7. Community Outreach Round 2 ......................................................................................................... 24

7.1. Events ....................................................................................................................................... 24

7.2. Online Survey ............................................................................................................................ 24

7.3. Key Findings ............................................................................................................................. 25

7.4. Committee Review .................................................................................................................... 26

7.5. Council Transportation Committee (CTC) .................................................................................. 27

8. Next Steps ....................................................................................................................................... 28 Appendix A: Data Collection Summary ....................................................................................................

Appendix B: Outreach Round 1 Summary ...............................................................................................

Appendix C: Study Recommendation – Segment A .................................................................................

Appendix D: Traffic Analysis Summary ....................................................................................................

Appendix E: Outreach Round 2 Summary ...............................................................................................

List of Tables
Table 1: Peak Hour Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes ............................................................................. 8 Table 2: Project Area Collisions from 2013-2023 (source: Transportation Injury Mapping System, (TIMS)) ................................................................................................................................................ 12 Table 3: Summary of Preliminary Cost Estimate .................................................................................. 22

List of Figures
Figure 1: Study Area .............................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2: Miramonte Avenue Improvements Project (Segment B) .......................................................... 7 Figure 3: Existing Bikeways ................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 4: Existing Parking Supply in Segment A .................................................................................. 13 Figure 5: Existing Parking Supply in Segment C .................................................................................. 14 Figure 6: Social Pinpoint Pin Breakdown ............................................................................................. 17 Figure 7: Density of Pedestrian Concern Pins ...................................................................................... 18 Figure 8: Density of Bicycle Concern Pins ........................................................................................... 18 Figure 9: Improvement Priorities for Round 1 Survey Respondents ..................................................... 19 Figure 10: Typical Cross-Section from El Camino Real to South of E. Park Drive ................................ 20 Figure 11: Typical Cross-Section from E. Park Drive to Trophy Drive ................................................... 21 Figure 12: Round 2 Outreach Question Survey Results for Question 8 ................................................ 26

Final Report
List of Images
Image 1: Various Photos Showing Bicyclists and Pedestrians Traveling Along Segment A .................... 8 Image 2: Various Photos Showing Bicyclists and Pedestrians Traveling Along Segment C .................... 9 Image 3: Photos from the Community Bike Ride .................................................................................. 15 Image 4: Photos from the Neighborhood Walk ..................................................................................... 16 Image 5: Photos from the Community Meeting .................................................................................... 16 Image 6: City Staff at the McKelvey Ball Park Pop-up .......................................................................... 24

Final Report
1 Executive Summary
The City of Mountain View (City) is dedicated to improving the safety and accessibility of its transportation network. As part of this effort, the City adopted the Vision Zero Policy in 2019, followed by the Vision Zero Action Plan and the Local Road Safety Plan in September 2024. In the Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan, the Miramonte Avenue corridor from El Camino Real to the southern City limit ranked among the top twenty projects, underscoring its priority for pedestrian and bicyclist improvements. To support the goals of these policies and plans, the Miramonte Complete Streets Study (Study) addresses needs along the corridor for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Miramonte Avenue is a significant corridor within the City that connects various community resources, including four schools – Saint Francis High School, Benjamin Bubb Elementary School, Graham Middle School, and St. Joseph School – and serves as a critical route for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.

The corridor is split into three segments for project planning and implementation purposes. From north to south, Segment A extends between El Camino Real and Castro Street/Marilyn Drive, Segment B extends between Castro Street/Marilyn Drive and Cuesta Drive, and Segment C extends from Cuesta Drive to the southern City limit.

The goal of the Study (Segments A and C) is to develop preliminary design concepts that enhance safety and accessibility, aligning with the City's Vision Zero and Safe Routes to School objectives. The Study process included background document review, data collection, extensive community outreach, design concept development, recommendations, and preliminary cost estimates. For this Study, there were two rounds of public engagement including online surveys and community events to gather valuable feedback to inform the design process.

Data collection revealed that the weekday average daily traffic (ADT) in both Segments A and C is below 10,000, indicating that a road diet could be explored for implementation. Spot speed surveys observed that 28% of vehicles exceeded posted speed limits, underlining the need for traffic calming measures. Parking utilization did not exceed 27% in Segment A and 8% in Segment C during any time of day, suggesting that some on-street parking can be removed with minimal effect on residents.

Community feedback highlighted the desire for improvements.

This Study is funded by a Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) 2016 Measure B Planning Grant to recommend bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements along Segments A and C. These improvements will be integrated with Segment B, which is planned for repaving in 2026. The Segment B project will also include safety and access enhancements, such as a two-way cycle track on the east side of the roadway, between Hans Avenue and Castro Street.

A preferred resurfacing alternative was developed for Segment A, proposing to reduce travel lanes and remove on-street parking at certain locations to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. The preferred resurfacing alternative aligns with the current repaving project scope, which is limited to maintenance activities (paving and striping) and does not include significant curb modifications. The resurfacing

Final Report
2 concept includes a new Class IV bikeway, enhanced pedestrian crossings, and other striping changes that can be implemented as part of the repaving project on Segment A through Mountain View’s Capital Improvement Program (25-39), scheduled for 2026. This alternative has a preliminary cost estimate, including 30% contingency and administration, design, and permitting costs, of just over $4.5 million..

The Study also developed long-term alternatives for Segments A and C. These include road diets, the addition of landscape-separated bike lanes, and improvements at critical intersections.

This Study recommendation is supported by a comprehensive technical analysis and planning level design concepts that address existing issues and incorporate community input to identify a path forward towards implementing improvements that enhance safety and accessibility along Miramonte Avenue.

Final Report
3 1. Introduction
The City of Mountain View (City) is dedicated to improving the safety and accessibility of its transportation network. In the Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan, the Miramonte Avenue corridor from El Camino Real to the southern City limit ranked among the top twenty projects, underscoring its priority for pedestrian and bicyclist improvements. To support the goals of these policies and plans, the Miramonte Complete Streets Study (Study) addresses needs for pedestrian and bicyclist improvements along the corridor.

Miramonte Avenue is a major arterial and a significant corridor within the City, connecting various community resources, including four schools: Saint Francis High School, Benjamin Bubb Elementary School, Graham Middle School, and St. Joseph School. It serves as a critical route for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. Additionally, Miramonte Avenue connects Foothill Expressway to El Camino Real, which provides access to Downtown Mountain View. The corridor is split into three segments for project planning and implementation purposes. From north to south, Segment A extends between El Camino Real and Castro Street/Marilyn Drive, Segment B extends between Castro Street/Marilyn Drive and Cuesta Drive, and Segment C extends from Cuesta Drive to the southern City limit.

This Study is funded by a Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) 2016 Measure B Planning Grant to recommend bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements along Segments A and C. These improvements will be integrated with Segment B, which is planned for repaving in 2026. The Segment B project will also include safety and access enhancements, such as a two-way cycle track on the east side of the roadway, between Hans Avenue and Castro Street.

1.1. Purpose, Goals, and Objectives of the Study
The goal of the Study is to develop preliminary design concepts that enhance safety and accessibility, aligning with the City's Vision Zero and Safe Routes to School objectives. The Study assesses the feasibility of providing a road diet, pedestrian crossing improvements, and protected bikeways along Segments A and C to create a safer, more user-friendly Miramonte Avenue.

The Study process included data collection, such as traffic counts, pedestrian and bicycle counts, spot speed surveys, collision data, and parking utilization data, all of which were combined with extensive community outreach. Two rounds of public engagement, through surveys and community events, gathered valuable feedback to inform the design concepts.

1.2. Purpose of this Report
This report is the final deliverable for the Study and summarizes the work done to date. This report summarizes the Study, including:

Final Report
4 • Existing conditions along Miramonte Avenue based on background information and data collection
• Key findings from feedback collected from the community through two rounds of public outreach • A preferred resurfacing alternative for Segment A, including traffic analysis and a cost estimate • Long-term alternatives for Segments A and C

1.3. Study Area
The Study area is along Miramonte Avenue in the City. The Study area is shown in Figure 1 and is focused on two segments of Miramonte Avenue:
• Segment A: El Camino Real to Castro Street/Marilyn Drive • Segment C: Cuesta Drive to the southern City limit near Alegre Avenue Pavement improvements, which include safety and access enhancements, will be implemented in the section of Miramonte Avenue between Cuesta Drive and Castro Street/Marilyn Drive (Segment B) in 2026.

As scoped for the Study, two concept alternatives were developed for each of Segments A and C. The City plans to repave Segment A in late 2026, following the completion of Segment B. Therefore, after the initial development of draft long-term alternatives, the Study pivoted to include a resurfacing alternative for Segment A that could be implemented in conjunction with that repaving effort. The focus of the Study and design effort is to identify a community-supported resurfacing concept for pedestrian and bicycle facilities, primarily using striping and signage, that can be implemented with the repaving project.

Final Report
5 Figure 1: Study Area

Final Report
6 2. Background Document Review

2.1. Pedestrian Master Plan, 2014
The Pedestrian Master Plan (PMP) is a City-wide policy document that provides pedestrian-related policies, guidelines, and tools for future improvements that will enhance pedestrian safety, connectivity, and walkability. The PMP addresses mobility goals set forth in the City's 2030 General Plan. The PMP characterizes Miramonte Avenue as a predominantly single-family residential area with neighborhood and regional commercial shopping centers. Based on analysis of the existing pedestrian network, the PMP identifies Miramonte Avenue as a possible candidate for a road diet feasibility study with the goal of converting travel lanes into space for new and improved pedestrian facilities. Additionally, several intersections on the corridor were identified as candidates for pedestrian improvements: the signalized intersection at Castro Street/Marilyn Drive as well as the intersection at Hans Avenue. The signalized intersection at Castro Street/Marilyn Drive underwent improvements after the PMP was released.

2.2. Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2015
The Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) is a comprehensive policy document that proposed a City-wide bicycle network along with bicycle-related programs and support facilities to improve access and safety for bicyclists. The BTP built upon mobility goals outlined in the City's 2030 General Plan. The BTP recommended a Class II bike lane on Miramonte Avenue from El Camino Real to Harpster Drive and a Class IIB buffered bike lane along Miramonte Avenue from Gest Drive to Harpster Drive.

2.3. Active Transportation Plan (ongoing)
The City is currently developing an Active Transportation Plan (ATP), which will update and build upon the previously completed Pedestrian Master Plan and Bicycle Transportation Plan. The ATP will provide a roadmap of projects and policies with an emphasis on green treatments to support walking, rolling, and biking in Mountain View. The draft final plan is slated to be released in 2026.

2.4. Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Roads Safety Plan, 2024 The Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP)/Local Roads Safety Plan (LRSP) both analyzed the City's crash history to recommend infrastructure and non-infrastructure improvements aimed at enhancing roadway safety in the City. The VZAP focuses on programmatic and policy strategies to prevent severe injuries and fatal crashes with a focus on the City's high injury network (HIN). The LRSP systematically identifies, analyzes, and prioritizes infrastructure improvements for the City's roadways, based on guidance from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The VZAP identified Miramonte Avenue as part of the top twenty projects and the intersections of Miramonte Avenue at Hans Avenue (Segment B) and Cuesta Drive (Segments B and C) as high-crash intersections for walking and biking.

Final Report
7 2.5. Plan Layout for Miramonte Avenue Improvements
Project (Segment B)
The Miramonte Avenue Improvements Project (Project), which spans the segment between Castro Street/Marilyn Drive and Cuesta Drive (Segment B of the Study), has completed its design, with construction set to begin in 2026. The Project objective is to enhance multimodal and school access, as identified in this Study, as well as reconstruct the roadway along Miramonte Avenue between Castro Street/Marilyn Drive and Cuesta Drive (Segment B). The Project's plan layout is shown in Figure 2.

Improvements include:
• Remove one travel lane in each direction;
• Accessible curb ramps;
• High-visibility crosswalks;
• Rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFBs) at Hans Avenue; • Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes;
• A two-way Class IV protected bikeway between Castro Street/Marilyn Drive and Hans Avenue adjacent to Graham Middle School; and
• Restripe all lane markings for cars, bikes, and pedestrians to replace 4" striping with 6" striping per the latest Caltrans' striping standards for diver visibility.

The concept designs for Segments A and C consider the transition of the roadway to match the condition to be built as part of the Miramonte Avenue Improvements Project.

Figure 2: Miramonte Avenue Improvements Project (Segment B)

Final Report
8 3. Existing Conditions
In September 2024, a site visit was conducted to better understand the existing conditions along Miramonte Avenue. Table 1 summarizes pedestrian and bicycle volumes that were collected at intersections along Miramonte Avenue and Image 1 and Image 2 show various segments of Miramonte Avenue being used by bicyclists and pedestrians. Altogether, the volumes and site visit observations illustrate the high number of pedestrians and bicyclists that use the corridor.

Table 1: Peak Hour Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes
Intersection AM Peak Hour
Pedestrian Volume
AM Peak Hour
Bicycle Volume
Miramonte Avenue and El Camino Real
(Segment A) 31 19
Miramonte Avenue and Park Drive
(Segment A) 5 13
Miramonte Avenue and Castro
Street/Marilyn Drive (Segment A) 52 84
Miramonte Avenue and Cuesta Drive
(Segment B) 37 37
Miramonte Avenue and Madison Drive
(Segment B) 35 34

Image 1: Various Photos Showing Bicyclists and Pedestrians Traveling Along Segment A

Final Report
9 Image 2: Various Photos Showing Bicyclists and Pedestrians Traveling Along Segment C

3.1. Bikeways
Figure 3 shows the existing bike network in the vicinity of Miramonte Avenue, per the City's online Interactive Bikeway Map. On Miramonte Avenue, a Class III ("s harrows") bike route exists from El Camino Real to Harpster Drive. South of Harpster Drive, Miramonte Avenue has Class II bike lanes.

Adjacent bikeways connect Miramonte Avenue to several schools and parks.

Figure 3 illustrates the City's online Interactive Bikeway Map. However, it was noted that the entire stretch of Castro Street is not a Class IV Protected Bikeway. Additionally, the proposed Class IV Protected Bikeway on El Camino Real has been implemented.

Final Report
10 Figure 3: Existing Bikeways

3.2. Traffic Data
To assess the existing conditions of Segments A and C, turning movement counts, average daily traffic (ADT) counts, spot speed surveys, and parking utilization data was collected. The full data collection summary can be found in Appendix A: Data Collection Summary.

Final Report
11 Turning Movement Counts
Turning movement counts, including bikes and pedestrians, were conducted at the following five intersections in September 2024:
• Miramonte Ave and El Camino Real (Segment A);
• Miramonte Ave and Park Dr (Segment A);
• Miramonte Ave and Castro St/Marilyn Dr (Segment A);
• Miramonte Ave and Cuesta Dr (Segment C); and
• Miramonte Ave and Madison Dr (Segment C).

Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
ADT counts were conducted at the following two locations, also in September 2024:
• Miramonte Ave, just south of Sonia Way (Segment A); and • Miramonte Ave, just south of Rose Ave (Segment C).

Weekday ADT in Segment A is approximately 8,000. Weekend ADT is approximately 65% of weekday ADT – approximately 5,200.

Weekday ADT in Segment C is approximately 9,000. Weekend ADT is approximately 69% of weekday ADT – approximately 6,200.

Auto Speeds
Spot speed surveys were conducted at the following two locations, also in September 2024:
• Miramonte Ave, just north of Trophy Dr (Segment A); and • Miramonte Ave, just south of Madison Dr (Segment C).

The speed limit is 25 miles per hour (mph) north of Trophy Drive and 35 mph south of Trophy Drive.

Near Trophy Dr (Segment A), the 85th percentile northbound speed was 38 mph, and the 85th percentile southbound speed was 36 mph, three mph and one mph over the posted speed limit of 35 mph, respectively.

Near Madison Drive (Segment C), the 85th percentile northbound speed was 37 mph, and the 85th percentile southbound speed was 39 mph, two mph and four mph over the posted speed limit of 35 mph, respectively.

Collision Analysis
Over the past 10 years, there have been two severe injury collisions on Miramonte Avenue – one at El Camino Real and the other at Sonia Way. Table 2 summarizes the collisions on Miramonte Avenue.

Final Report
12 Table 2: Project Area Collisions from 2013-2023 (source: Transportation Injury Mapping System, (TIMS)) Primary Rd
(name of the
roadway on which
the crash occurred)
Secondary Rd
(name of the
roadway that
intersects the
Primary Rd)
Severe
Injury
Collisions
Ped-
Involved
Collisions
Bike-
Involved
Collisions
All
Collisions
El Camino Real Shoreline Bl 0 0 1 12
El Camino Real Miramonte Av 1 1 1 9
Miramonte Av Castro St 0 1 1 7
Miramonte Av Cuesta Dr 0 0 4 6
Miramonte Av Hans Av 0 0 2 4
Miramonte Av Barbara Av 0 0 2 2
Miramonte Av Sladky Av 0 0 1 2
Miramonte Av Madison Dr 0 0 1 2
Miramonte Av Yardis Ct 0 0 0 1
Miramonte Av Starr Wy 0 0 0 1
Miramonte Av Park Dr 0 0 0 1
Miramonte Av Eichler Dr 0 0 0 1
Miramonte Av Rose Av 0 0 0 1
Miramonte Av Sonia Wy 1 0 0 1
Total

2 2 13 50

3.3. Parking Conditions
Figure 4 shows existing on-street parking in Segment A and Figure 5 shows existing on-street parking in Segment C.

Final Report
13 Figure 4: Existing Parking Supply in Segment A

Final Report
14 Figure 5: Existing Parking Supply in Segment C

City staff collected parking utilization data along the entire length of Miramonte Avenue from El Camino Real to Yardis Court, including both on-street and off-street parking. Data was collected at various times throughout the day in February, March, and September 2024.

There are approximately 161 on-street parking spaces in Segment A and approximately 154 on-street parking spaces in Segment C. The maximum number of parking spaces occupied at any given time in Segment A was 36 (27%) and in Segment C was 12 (8%).

Final Report
15 4. Community Outreach Round 1
The first round of outreach took place in Fall 2024 and consisted of an online survey, bike and walking tour, and community events. The survey and events were promoted through the project webpage, e- mails to interested and affected parties, mailed postcards to all addresses within 750' on both sides of Miramonte Avenue in Segments A, B, and C, social media posts, door-to-door engagement with businesses on the corridor, and other advertisements in the community (posters, lawn signs, palm cards, spoke cards, and flyers on car windshields). Community Outreach Round 1 is summarized below, and the detailed outreach summary can be found in Appendix B: Outreach Round 1 Summary.

4.1. Events
The following in-person events were conducted during the first round of outreach:
• Community Bike Ride – September 28, 2024 (Image 3)
• Neighborhood Walk – November 16, 2024 (Image 4)
• Community Meeting – December 3, 2024 (Image 5)
• Four pop-up events – October 25, October 26, November 13, and November 14, 2024 At each event, City staff engaged with community members to raise awareness about the Study and gather feedback.

Image 3: Photos from the Community Bike Ride

Final Report
16 Image 4: Photos from the Neighborhood Walk

Image 5: Photos from the Community Meeting

4.2. Online Survey
A survey hosted on the Social Pinpoint platform was open for feedback for seven weeks from October 18 to December 9, 2024. The survey featured an interactive map where users could place geographic pins to locate issues they experience in the Study area and a question-based survey.

The interactive map received 230 responses and the question-based survey received 252 responses.

Of the respondents to the question-based survey, 74% indicated that they reside on or near Miramonte Avenue.

Final Report
17 4.3. Key Findings
Respondents were asked to categorize the pins noting project issues by type. Figure 6 shows the breakdown of responses by pin category.

Figure 6: Social Pinpoint Pin Breakdown

Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the density of pedestrian concern and bicycle concern pins, respectively.

The intersections of Miramonte Avenue with Cuesta Drive, Park Drive, and El Camino Real were all identified as areas where pedestrians and cyclists have the greatest concerns. 29%
32%
14%
9%
16% Pedestrian Concern
Bicycle Concern
Vehicle/Auto Concern
Green Street Feature
Ideas & Suggestions

Final Report
18 Figure 7: Density of Pedestrian Concern Pins

Figure 8: Density of Bicycle Concern Pins

Final Report
19 The following key findings and themes were identified through the first round of outreach:
• Bicyclists and pedestrians often feel uncomfortable on Miramonte Avenue due to the speed of traffic.
• Existing crosswalks feel uncomfortable and pedestrian waiting areas are small. Figure 9 shows that respondents collectively prioritized improved crosswalks. • While respondents noted existing safety concerns, many still bike and walk on the corridor because they lack a convenient alternative connection.
• Respondents felt that current traffic signal timing is not catered to bicyclists and pedestrians.

Suggestions from the community included Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) and bike actuated signals.
• Traffic calming measures suggested by community members include speed bumps, bulb-outs, and a road diet.

Figure 9: Improvement Priorities for Round 1 Survey Respondents

*Only answers for ranks 1 through 3 are shown.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Improvements for people with disabilities
Improved environment (e.g. street trees)
Reduced traffic speeds
Improved sidewalks
New or improved bikeways
Improved crosswalks
% of Respondents
How important are the following potential
improvements for Miramonte Avenue?
(1 is most important, 6 is least important)*
1 2 3

Final Report
20 5. Study Recommendation
Based on initial feedback from the City, the Study recommends a resurfacing concept for Segment A only. This concept would be implemented in the near term, along with a repaving effort in that segment.

It would integrate with the upcoming construction of improvements in Segment B, which is expected to start in 2026. Segment C does not have a near-term resurfacing alternative, as it currently does not have a planned repaving project.

5.1. Segment A: Resurfacing Concept
The preferred resurfacing alternative for Segment A, as outlined in full in Appendix C: Study Recommendation – Segment A, proposes a road diet that removes one travel lane in each direction and adds Class IV bike lanes on both sides. In this alternative, existing curbs are maintained, and as much on-street parking as possible is preserved. Typical cross sections for the resurfacing alternative are shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11.

Figure 10: Typical Cross-Section from El Camino Real to South of E. Park Drive

Final Report
21 Figure 11: Typical Cross-Section from E. Park Drive to Trophy Drive

Traffic Analysis
To determine the impact of the proposed changes with the resurfacing alternative, a traffic operations analysis was conducted at the following locations where count data was available in Segment A:
• Miramonte Ave and El Camino Real – signalized;
• Miramonte Ave and Park Dr – side-street stop-controlled; and • Miramonte Ave and Castro St/Marilyn Dr – signalized.

The analysis evaluated Existing Baseline (2024 volumes, existing geometry) and Existing with Project (2024 volumes, proposed geometry) conditions during the AM and PM peak periods. The full traffic analysis can be found in Appendix D: Traffic Analysis Summary.

The intersection analysis found that the proposed road diet in Segment A of Miramonte Avenue does not result in impacts to traffic operations at the three intersections analyzed. Additionally, daily roadway volumes, which are less than 10,000, indicate that a road diet could be explored for implementation

1. Cost Estimate
The total preliminary cost estimate for the resurfacing alternative for Segment A, including 30% contingency and administration, design, and permitting costs is just over $4.5 Million. A summary of the cost is provided in Table 3.

1 Federal Highway Administration, Road Diet Information Guide, 2014

Final Report
22 Table 3: Summary of Preliminary Cost Estimate

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL GENERAL ITEMS $406,000
TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS $1,254,000
TOTAL SIGNING AND STRIPING IMPROVEMENTS $830,000
TOTAL SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS $450,000
CONTINGENCY (30%) $882,000
TOTAL SOFT COSTS $688,000
TOTA L CA PITA L OUTLA Y COSTS $4,509,000

RESURFACING ALTERNATIVE

1. These estimates reflect the proposed improvements identified in the concept drawings dated October 2025
NOTES:

City of Montain View
Miramonte Ave - Bikeways Project
Summary of Project Cost
Conceptual ROM

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Final Report
23 6. Long-Term Reconstruction
After improvements for Segments A and B are complete, the segments should be studied to evaluate improvements to bicycle and pedestrian safety and accessibility. Based on the results, future improvement projects should reference the Vision Zero Action Plan's Toolbox of Safety Countermeasures, which recommends multimodal improvements to address specific crash types. The Study scope includes long-term concepts for Segments A and C to establish a vision for the corridor.

These alternatives are in draft form and would require substantial planning, engineering, and community outreach if funding becomes available for future implementation. Their inclusion serves to document the study process and provide high-level guidance for potential future planning or design efforts. The long-term alternatives were developed for both Segments A and C. The long-term options may include a road diet, greening elements, raised crosswalks, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, and other safety improvements.

6.1. Segment A
The long-term reconstruction alternative for Segment A envisions a roadway renovation that includes a road diet, involving the removal of one travel lane and the addition of a center turn lane. This alternative will include the same number of on-street parking spaces as the resurfacing option and the additional roadway space would accommodate landscape-separated Class IV bikeways on both sides of the street. Additional improvements may include intersection enhancements such as upgraded bicycle and pedestrian crossings, a raised intersection, and the installation of roundabouts where feasible. This alternative remains in draft form and would require substantial planning, engineering, and community outreach if funding becomes available for future implementation. Its inclusion in the Study serves to document the planning process and provide high-level guidance for potential future design and implementation efforts.

6.2. Segment C
In this alternative, Segment C roadway would be reconstructed to include a road diet that removes one travel lane in each direction and adds a center turn lane. The existing Class II bike lanes would be upgraded to landscape-separated Class IV bikeways on both sides of the street by removing on-street parking. Both sidewalks would be separated from the Class IV bikeways by landscaped buffers.

Additional intersection improvements may include enhanced bicycle and pedestrian crossings, such as new RRFBs at Gest Drive and Rose Avenue, as well as median refuges and roundabouts where feasible. This alternative would also provide additional green space along the east side of Miramonte Avenue. This concept remains in draft form and would require substantial planning, engineering, and community outreach if funding becomes available for future implementation. Its inclusion in the Study serves to document the planning process and provide high-level guidance for potential future design and implementation efforts.

Final Report
24 7. Community Outreach Round 2
The second round of outreach occurred during the summer of 2025 and included a survey and community events to seek feedback on the resurfacing altenrative plan. Community Outreach Round 2 is summarized below, and the detailed outreach summary can be found in Appendix E: Outreach Round 2 Summary.

The Study was also presented to the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) on August 27, 2025, and to the Council Transportation Committee (CTC) on September 2, 2025. The BPAC suggested additional midblock crossings and crosswalks, as well as a bi-directional bike lane from the maintenance driveway south of McKelvey Ball Park to Park Drive, which will be considered in the final design. The CTC requested the location and cost for biodiversity and trees along the corridor.

7.1. Events
The following in-person event was conducted by City staff during the second round of outreach:
• McKelvey Ball Park Pop-Up – June 7, 2025 (Image 6)
• Pop-ups at Graham Middle School, Bubb Elementary School, Mountain View Whisman School District Orientation – August 2025
Image 6: City Staff at the McKelvey Ball Park Pop-up

7.2. Online Survey
An online question-based survey hosted on the Cvent platform was open for six weeks from July 17 to August 29, 2025. Respondents were presented with project-related questions, including an open-ended

Final Report
25 question, as well as optional demographic questions. The survey received 548 responses, including partial responses.

7.3. Key Findings
Key findings from the second round of outreach include the following:
• Approximately 67% of respondents reside on or near Miramonte Ave with close to 30% living south of Castro St/Marilyn Dr.
• At least 50% of respondents walk and/or bike on Miramonte Ave. • 52% of respondents support the proposed resurfacing concept. • Of the 36% who do not support the new roadway design, 39% do not want a travel lane removed, and 25% want to see no changes to the roadway. • 43% of respondents would walk or bike more often if the proposed roadway concept was built. • 65% of respondents were supportive of the proposed parking removal or with removing even more parking than proposed.
• The top three features, beyond the bicycle facility improvements, that respondents would like to see included in the Study are new and improved pedestrian crossings, more street trees and landscaping, and traffic calming to lower vehicle speeds. Figure 12 shows the breakdown of respondents' priorities for roadway features.

Final Report
26 Figure 12: Round 2 Outreach Question Survey Results for Question 8

7.4. Committee Review
On August 27, 2025, BPAC reviewed and recommended the preferred resurfacing concept plan to the Council Transportation Committee (CTC). Along with the recommendation, BPAC also provided additional feedback:

1. Explore switching the on-street parking near McKelvy ballpark to loading zones and converting the McKelvey Park loading zone to parking.

2. Consider installing an additional midblock crossing at Miramonte Avenue and W. Park Drive.

3. Evaluate the potential for adding a driveway at the maintenance road directly below the ballpark.

4. Assess conditions for northbound cyclists on Miramonte Avenue turning left onto Park Drive.

5. Consider installing a bi-directional bike lane from Miramonte Avenue and the maintenance alleyway to Miramonte Avenue and E. Park Drive.

6. Review guidance for marked and unmarked crosswalks on southbound Miramonte Avenue.

7. Explore implementing No Turn on Red (NTOR) restrictions at Sonia Way/Miramonte Avenue for all approaches.

8. Explore opportunities to shorten turn radii where feasible to slow vehicles when crossing the bike lane.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
None
Wayfinding signage for walking and biking
Better lighting
Traffic calming to lower vehicle speed (e.g. curb
extensions)
More street trees and landscaping
New and improved pedestrian crossings
What other features would you like to see included in
the final street design? Rank the top 3 features, with 1 being the most important.

Most Important 2nd Most Important 3rd Most Important

Final Report
27 9. Explore options to shorten and improve the merge/transition between Segments A and B.

During the design phase, staff will evaluate BPAC's feedback and incorporate it where feasible, based on the project scope, budget, and technical analysis. Staff has included BPAC's feedback (#3) and added maintenance driveway in the preferred resurfacing plan.

7.5. Council Transportation Committee (CTC)
On September 2, 2025, CTC reviewed and recommended the preferred resurfacing concept plan for Miramonte Avenue from El Camino Real to Castro Street/Marilyn Street (Segment A) to City Council with added feedback including:

1. Identify next steps to include BPAC feedback into the preferred plan and design.

2. Explore areas for shade desserts and recommend tree locations.

3. Provide high-level cost estimates for greening and tree implementation in the Study area.

Staff identified that trees could be located along the ballpark near Park Drive and Sonia Drive. The preliminary cost estimate to implement and maintain trees within raised medians with design and contingency is approximately $500,000. The design team will update this preliminary cost estimate during the project design phase.

Final Report
28 8. Next Steps
The Study builds upon the Miramonte Avenue Improvements Project to enhance the safety and accessibility of Miramonte Avenue, which has been identified through previous City planning efforts as a vital corridor in Mountain View that could benefit from improvements. The Study uses a combination of public input and technical analysis to identify current challenges, such as the need for reduced operating speeds and improved pedestrian crossings. The Study recommendation is a resurfacing alternative for Segment A that can be included in the City's upcoming paving program for Miramonte Avenue from El Camino Real to Castro Street/Marilyn Street. The Study recommendation implements a road diet on Miramonte Avenue between El Camino Real and Castro Street/Marilyn Street to install a Class IV protected bike facility, provide new and enhanced pedestrian crossings, and reserve space for additional landscaping in the future. Long-term draft alternatives are proposed for Segments A and C for future consideration and review.

If the City Council approves the final report, the next steps would be to proceed with detailed design and environmental clearance of the recommended resurfacing alternative. The bike and pedestrian improvements would be implemented as part of an upcoming repaving effort.

The long-term improvements for both Segments A and C will require substantial planning, engineering, and community outreach to refine the concepts further and select a preferred alternative before seeking City Council approval to proceed with final design, environmental, and construction.

Final Report
Appendix A: Data Collection Summary

1 December 2024
Data Collection

1 Data Collection
Data Collection
Turning Movement Counts (TMC)
Turning movement counts, including bikes and pedestrians, were conducted at the following five intersections on Thursday, September 19, 2024 between 7AM and 9AM and between 2PM and 6PM:

1. Miramonte Ave and El Camino Real (Segment A)

2. Miramonte Ave and Park Dr (Segment A)

3. Miramonte Ave and Castro St/Marilyn Dr (Segment A)

4. Miramonte Ave and Cuesta Dr (Segment C)

5. Miramonte Ave and Madison Dr (Segment C) (recollected on 9/26 due to equipment failure) Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts
ADT counts were conducted at the following two locations, 24 hours a day for seven days, from Monday, September 16, 2024 to Sunday, September 22, 2024:

1. Miramonte Ave, just south of Sonia Way (Segment A)

2. Miramonte Ave, just south of Rose Ave (Segment C)
Speed Surveys
Speed surveys were conducted at the following two locations on Tuesday, September 10, 2024 starting at 10:15AM and ending at 11:50AM, once the speed of 100 vehicles at each location had been measured:

1. Miramonte Ave, near Trophy Dr (Segment A)

2. Miramonte Ave, just south of Madison Dr (Segment C)
Parking Utilization
City of Mountain View staff collected parking utilization data along the entire length of Miramonte Avenue from El Camino Real to Yardis Court, including on-street and off-street data. Data was collected at the following dates and times:
• Tuesday, February 27, 2024, at 6AM, 9AM, 12PM, 4PM, 7PM and 11PM • Sunday, March 3, 2024, at 6AM, 9AM, 12PM, 4PM, 7PM and 11PM • Saturday, March 9, 2024, at 6AM, 9AM, 12PM, 4PM, 7PM and 11PM • Wednesday, September 18, 2024, at 6AM, 9AM, 12PM, 4PM, 7PM and 11PM (4PM data was recollected on 10/16)
• Thursday, September 19, 2024, at 6AM, 9AM, 12PM, 4PM, 7PM and 11PM (9AM data was recollected on 10/17)

2 Data Collection
• Saturday, September 21, 2024, at 6AM, 9AM, 12PM, 4PM, 7PM and 11PM Summary of Data
Turning Movement Counts
Miramonte Ave and El Camino Real (Segment A)
The peak hours at this intersection occur between 7:45AM and 8:45AM and between 5PM and 6PM.

During the AM peak hour, 3,847 vehicles pass through the intersection and during the PM peak hour, 4,257 vehicles pass through the intersection.

During the AM peak hour, 497 vehicles travel northbound on Miramonte Avenue and 773 travel southbound. During the PM peak hour, 391 travel northbound and 855 travel southbound.

A total of 19 and 18 bikes travel through the intersection in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

Most cyclists, 15 and 11 in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, are completing through movements on Miramonte Avenue.

During each peak hour, 31 pedestrians cross at the intersection.

Miramonte Ave and Park Dr (Segment A)
The peak hours at this intersection occur between 7:45AM and 8:45AM and between 4:45PM and 5:45PM. During the AM peak hour, 1,126 vehicles pass through the intersection and during the PM peak hour, 976 vehicles pass through the intersection. The vast majority of traffic is through traffic on Miramonte Avenue (>98%) with no more than 14 vehicles traveling in any one direction during any peak hour on Park Drive.

During the AM peak hour, 546 vehicles travel northbound on Miramonte Avenue and 566 travel southbound. During the PM peak hour, 457 travel northbound and 514 travel southbound.

A total of 13 and 9 bikes travel through the intersection in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

A total of 5 and 6 pedestrians cross at the intersection in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

Miramonte Ave and Castro St/Marilyn Dr (Segment A)
The peak hours at this intersection occur between 7:45AM and 8:45AM and between 5PM and 6PM.

During the AM peak hour, 1,264 vehicles pass through the intersection and during the PM peak hour, 1,156 vehicles pass through the intersection. The majority of traffic is on Miramonte Avenue with the western leg of the intersection experiencing the lowest traffic volumes.

3 Data Collection
During the AM peak hour, 620 vehicles travel northbound on Miramonte Avenue and 512 travel southbound. During the PM peak hour, 528 travel northbound and 467 travel southbound. Over 200 vehicles make the NBR turning movement in the AM peak hour and over 130 vehicles make each of the NBR and WBL turning movements in the PM peak hour.

A total of 84 bikes travel through the intersection in the AM peak hour, over 50% of which make the NBR turning movement from Miramonte Avenue onto Castro Street. A total of 33 bikes travel through the intersection in the PM peak hour.

A total of 52 and 27 pedestrians cross at the intersection in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

The majority of pedestrian crossings occurred on the south leg of Miramonte Avenue.

Miramonte Ave and Cuesta Dr (Segment C)
The peak hours at this intersection occur between 7:45AM and 8:45AM and between 4:45PM and 5:45PM. During the AM peak hour, 2,204 vehicles pass through the intersection and during the PM peak hour, 2,232 vehicles pass through the intersection.

During the AM peak hour, 617 vehicles travel northbound on Miramonte Avenue and 486 travel southbound. During the PM peak hour, 417 travel northbound and 525 travel southbound.

A total of 37 bikes travel through the intersection in the AM peak hour, almost 50% of which are through movements on Miramonte Avenue. A total of 28 bikes travel through the intersection in the PM peak hour.

A total of 37 and 33 pedestrians cross at the intersection in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

Miramonte Ave and Madison Dr (Segment C)
The peak hours at this intersection occur between 7:30AM and 8:30AM and between 4:30PM and 5:30PM. During the AM peak hour, 1,060 vehicles pass through the intersection and during the PM peak hour, 937 vehicles pass through the intersection.

During the AM peak hour, 262 vehicles travel northbound on Miramonte Avenue and 440 travel southbound. During the PM peak hour, 347 vehicles travel northbound and 464 travel southbound.

A total of 34 and 21 bikes travel through the intersection in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively with over 88% being through movements on Miramonte Avenue.

A total of 35 and 20 pedestrians cross at the intersection in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

4 Data Collection
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts
Miramonte Ave, just south of Sonia Way (Segment A)
Weekday average daily traffic (ADT) in Segment A is approximately 8,000. Weekend traffic is approximately 65% of weekday traffic – approximately 5,200 vehicles.

The weekday AM peak hour is between 8AM and 9AM with up to 928 vehicles traveling in both directions. The weekday PM peak hour is between 5PM and 6PM with up to 926 vehicles traveling in both directions.

During the weekend, the peak hour occurs at midday with up to 530 vehicles traveling in both directions.

Figure 1 shows hourly volumes on Segment A of Miramonte Avenue.

Figure 1: Traffic Volumes on Segment A of Miramonte Avenue

0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500Traffic Volume
End of Time Period
Weekday NB Weekday SB Weekend NB Weekend SB

5 Data Collection
Miramonte Ave, just south of Rose Ave (Segment C)
Weekday ADT in Segment C is approximately 9,000. Weekend traffic is approximately 69% of weekday traffic – approximately 6,200 vehicles.

The weekday AM peak hour is between 8AM and 9AM with up to 1,040 vehicles traveling in both directions. The weekday PM peak hour is between 5PM and 6PM with up to 914 vehicles traveling in both directions.

During the weekend, the peak hour occurs at midday with up to 573 vehicles traveling in both directions.

Figure 2 shows hourly volumes on Segment C of Miramonte Avenue.

Figure 2: Traffic Volumes on Segment C of Miramonte Avenue

0 100
200
300
400
500
600Traffic Volume
End of Time Period
Weekday NB Weekday SB Weekend NB Weekend SB

6 Data Collection
Speed Surveys
Near Trophy Dr (Segment A), the 85th percentile northbound speed was 38mph, 13mph over the posted speed limit of 25mph.

The 85th percentile southbound speed was 36mph, 1mph over the posted speed limit of 35mph at that location. Further north, near Park Drive, the posted speed limit reduces to 25mph.

The maximum speed recorded at this location was 40mph which occurred in the northbound direction.

Near Madison Dr (Segment C), the 85th percentile northbound speed was 37mph, the 85th percentile southbound speed was 39mph, and the 85th percentile bidirectional speed was 38mph. The 85th percentile speed was at most 4mph over the posted speed limit of 35mph. The maximum speed recorded at this location was 43mph which occurred in the southbound direction.

Parking Utilization
There are 161 on-street parking spaces in Segment A and 154 on-street parking spaces in Segment C.

Parking utilization is generally higher in the morning. In Segment A, less than a quarter of parking spaces are occupied at any given time with only 6AM on a Saturday seeing higher levels of parking utilization (27%). Parking utilization in Segment C does not exceed 8% at any time, which occurs at 9AM on a weekday. T able 1 summarizes the parking utilization data.

Table 1: Summary of Parking Utilization Data
Segment A Segment C
Number of on-street parking spaces 161 154
Maximum number of occupied spaces – weekday 36 12
Maximum percentage of occupied space – weekday 22% 8%
Maximum number of occupied spaces – weekend 43 4
Maximum percentage of occupied space – weekend 27% 3%

Final Report
Appendix B: Outreach Round 1 Summary

Outreach Round 1
Outreach Round 1 Summary
December 2024
Outreach Round 1
Overview
• Round 1 community outreach consisted of:
• 9/28: Community bike ride
• 11/16: Neighborhood walk
• 12/3: Community Meeting
• 10/25, 10/26, 11/13, 11/14: Pop-ups
• Online interactive map and question survey
• Project and events were promoted through:
• Webpage
• E-mails to interested and affected parties
• Mailed postcards
• Social media posts
• Door-to-door engagement with businesses on corridor
• Flyers on car windshields
• Posters, lawn signs, palm cards, and spoke cards
2 Outreach Round 1
Events
3 Outreach Round 1
Community Bike Ride – September 28, 2024
• Date: Saturday, September 28, 2024
• Time: 10:00AM / 10:15AM
• Location: Mountain View Transit
Center / Schaefer Park: 914
Mountain View Avenue
4 Outreach Round 1
Neighborhood Walk – November 16, 2024
• Date: Saturday, November 16, 2024
• Time: 9:00AM
• Location: Schaefer Park: 914
Mountain View Avenue
5 Outreach Round 1
Community Meeting – December 3, 2024
• Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2024
• Time: 6:30PM
• Location: Mountain View City Hall:

Plaza Conference Room (2nd Floor)
6 Outreach Round 1
Pop-Up Events
• 10/26: Monster Bash:
• 10:00AM to 2:00PM
• Rengstorff Park, Mountain View
• 11/13: Graham Middle School Anything But a Car Day
• 11/14: Bubb Elementary School Ruby Bridges Day
7 Outreach Round 1
Survey
8 Outreach Round 1
Details
• Social Pinpoint
• Interactive map survey
• Question survey
• Open for seven (7) weeks: Friday, October 18, 2024 – Monday, December 9, 2024 • Shared with:
• People who attended events
• ATP subscriber list (>1,000)
• Every residence on either side of Miramonte Ave (within 750 ft) via 2 flights of postcards • Businesses on Miramonte
• Available on website
9 Outreach Round 1
Interactive Map Survey Responses: 230
Question Survey Responses: 252
10 Results
Outreach Round 1
Interactive Map Survey
Map Pins by Category
11 29%
32%
14%
9%
16%
Pedestrian Concern
Bicycle Concern
Vehicle/Auto Concern
Green Street Feature
Ideas & Suggestions

Outreach Round 1
Pedestrian Concern Pins
12 - 67 pins
- Locations with high densities of
pedestrian concerns:
- Intersection of Cuesta Dr
- Intersection of Park Dr
- Intersection of El Camino
Real
Outreach Round 1
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Missing wayfinding signage
No sidewalk
Poor lighting
No crosswalk
Crossing is in poor condition
Poor access for those with mobility challenges
Other
Concerns about conflict with autos/bikes on sidewalk
Sidewalk is in poor condition
Sidewalk is too narrow
Concerns about conflict with autos/bikes at crossing
Crossing is difficult
What issue do you experience at this location as a pedestrian? (select all that apply)
Pedestrian Concern: Question 1
13 Example “Other”
responses:
- “Such a wide crossing
and cars make the right
turn from Miramonte to
Cuesta so easily and at a
higher speed that it feels
challenging to cross even
on a walk signal”
- “cars often do not slow
down/stop, even when
the crosswalk warning is
on”
Outreach Round 1
Pedestrian Concern: Question 2
14 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Walk on the road/parking lane/bikeway
Choose not to walk
Choose a different path
Other
Walk through this location anyway
In response to these issues, what do you do?
Example “Other”
responses:
- “I've walked it and I've
opted to drive instead”
- “I've walked it, or take a
different path, even if it's
longer, but because the
nicer/safer route is longer,
sometimes I just drive”
- “Very careful when
crossing especially with
kids”
Outreach Round 1
Bicycle Concern Pins
15 - 74 pins
- Locations with high densities of
bicycle concern pins:
- Intersection of Cuesta Dr
- Intersection of Marilyn
Dr/Castro St
- Intersection of El Camino
Real
Outreach Round 1
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Missing wayfinding signage
Poor lighting
Bikeway is in poor condition
Other
No bikeway
Bikeway is not comfortable to use
What issue do you experience at this location as a bicyclist? (select all that apply)
Bicycle Concern: Question 1
16 Example “Other”
responses:
- “Cars encroaching on
sidewalk/bike lane”
- “Parked cars here leave
no room for bike to get
through without going into
traffic or going into door
zone. Please don't allow
parking here”
- “Not sure on Traffic light
trigger location”
Outreach Round 1
Bicycle Concern: Question 2
17 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Other
Take a different bike route
Choose not to bike
Bike on the sidewalk/road/parking lane
Bike through this location anyway
In response to these issues, what do you do?
Outreach Round 1
Vehicle/Auto Concern Pins
18 - 32 pins
- Locations with high densities of
vehicle/auto concern pins:
- Intersection of Gest Dr
- Intersection of Cuesta Dr
- Intersection of Marilyn
Dr/Castro St
Outreach Round 1
Vehicle/Auto Concern: Question 1
19 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Parking is scarce/difficult to find
Vehicles block sidewalk/crosswalk/bikeway
Vehicles do not stop
Vehicle traffic congestion
Other
Vehicles travel too quickly
What issue do you experience at this location? (select all that apply) Example “Other”
responses:
- “Signage obstructs left-
hand turn signal from
Cuesta to Miramonte”
- “Vehicles drive
dangerously and uturn.”
- “Low visibility for left turn
from Hans onto
miramonte”
Outreach Round 1
Vehicle/Auto Concern: Question 2
20 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Choose not to drive
Walk/bike around vehicles
Park elsewhere
Choose not to bike
Choose not to walk
Avoid the intersection
Other
In response to these issues, what do you do?
Example “Other”
responses:
- “Drive with extra caution”
- “be hyper-vigilant at that
corner”
- “go very carefully”
Outreach Round 1
Green Street Feature Pins
21 - 21 pins
- Locations with high densities of
green street feature pins:
- Intersection of Cuesta Dr
Outreach Round 1
Green Street Feature: Question 1
22 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Trees/plants obstruct path of travel
Other
Would like more trees/plants
What is your suggestion/concern with green features at this location? (select all that apply)
Outreach Round 1
Ideas and Suggestions Pins
23 - 36 pins
- Locations with high densities of
ideas and suggestions pins:
- Intersection of Rose Ave
- Intersection of Cuesta Dr
- Intersection of Marilyn
Dr/Castro St
- Intersection of El Camino
Real
Outreach Round 1
Ideas and Suggestions Pins: Yardis Ct to Cuesta Dr
24 Connect crosswalk signal
to crosswalk signal at
Gest
Improve signage at exit
from St. Francis High
School
- Example
responses are
called out
Outreach Round 1
Ideas and Suggestions Pins: Castro St to El Camino Real 25 During school hours, turn
intersection into a
pedestrian scramble
Add bulb-out to shorten
crossing distances Widen sidewalk in front of
Saint Joseph’s School
Remove slip lane to slow
down vehicular right turns
and improve pedestrian
safety
- Example
responses are
called out
Outreach Round 1
Question Survey
• Questions:
• 8 project-related questions
• 4 demographic questions
• Email address collection
26 Outreach Round 1
Question 1
27 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
I or a family member attend St. Joseph Mountain View
I or a family member attend Saint Francis High School
I work at or own a business on or near Miramonte Avenue Other
I or a family member attend Benjamin Bubb Elementary
School
I or a family member attend Graham Middle School
I regularly travel along or across Miramonte Avenue for recreational or social purposes
I reside on or near Miramonte Avenue
What is your relationship to Miramonte Avenue? (select all that apply) 252 respondents
Outreach Round 1
Question 2
28 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Between Cuesta Drive and Yardis Court, east of
Miramonte Avenue
In Los Altos
Other (please specify)
Between Cuesta Drive and Yardis Court, west of
Miramonte Avenue
In Mountain View, but not near Miramonte Avenue
Between El Camino Real and Cuesta Drive, east of
Miramonte Avenue
Between El Camino Real and Cuesta Drive, west of
Miramonte Avenue
Where do you live?
252 respondents
Outreach Round 1
Question 3
29 250 respondents
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Never
A few times a year
1-3 times a month
1-3 times a week
Nearly every day
How often do you travel along or across Miramonte Avenue on foot? Outreach Round 1
Question 4
30 251 respondents
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Never
A few times a year
1-3 times a month
1-3 times a week
Nearly every day
How often do you travel along or across Miramonte Avenue by bike, skateboard, or scooter?
Outreach Round 1
Question 5
31 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Never
A few times a year
1-3 times a month
1-3 times a week
Nearly every day
How often do you travel along or across Miramonte Avenue by car or motorcycle?
251 respondents
Outreach Round 1
Question 6
32 249 respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Never
A few times a year
1-3 times a month
1-3 times a week
Nearly every day
How often do you travel along or across Miramonte Avenue by bus? Outreach Round 1
Question 7
33 - 188 respondents
- “New or improved
bikeways” was ranked as
the most important
improvement by the most
respondents (63
respondents, 34%)
- “Improved crosswalks”
was ranked as a top three
priority improvement by
the most respondents
(144 respondents, 77%)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Improvements for people with disabilities
Improved environment (e.g. street trees)
Reduced traffic speeds
Improved sidewalks
New or improved bikeways
Improved crosswalks
How important are the following potential improvements for Miramonte Avenue?
1 (Most Important) 2 3 (Least Important)
Outreach Round 1
Question 8:

Are there any other priorities that should be considered for Miramonte Avenue between Yardis Court and Cuesta Drive, or between Castro Street and El Camino Real?
• 130 responses
• Common comments
• Repairing potholes (11 comments)
• Repaving (11 comments)
34 Outreach Round 1
Question 9
35 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Non-binary
Other
Prefer not to specify
Male
Female
What is your gender identity?
234 respondents
Outreach Round 1
Question 10
36 244 respondents
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Prefer not to answer
65+ years
55 to 64 years
45 to 54 years
35 to 44 years
25 to 34 years
18 to 24 years
Under 18
What is your age?
Outreach Round 1
Question 11
37 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Less than $24,999 per year
$25,000 to $49,999 per year
$50,000 to $99,999 per year
$100,000 to $149,999 per year
$150,000 to $199,999 per year
$200,000 or more per year
What is your household income?
199 respondents
Outreach Round 1
Question 12
38 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
NextDoor
Lawn sign
In-person/pop-up event
City of Mountain View website
City of Mountain View X, Instagram, or Facebook
Communication from school
City of Mountain View e-mail/newsletter
Postcard
Other (please specify)
Other website, newsletter, social media
Sign along Miramonte Avenue
How did you hear about this survey? (select all that apply) 246 respondents
Outreach Round 1
Collateral
39 Outreach Round 1
Collateral – Lawn Sign
40 Outreach Round 1
Collateral – Palm Card
41 Outreach Round 1
Collateral – Poster
42 Outreach Round 1
Collateral – Spoke Card
43 Outreach Round 1
Collateral – Board
44 Outreach Round 1
Collateral – Postcards
45 Final Report
Appendix C: Study Recommendation – Segment A

Miramonte Complete Streets Study - Segment AOctober 2025 NORTH
Miramonte Ave Between Castro St and Sonia Way | Page 1/2

MATCHLINE - SEE BELOW LEFT
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVEMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 2
NORTH
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 1
Miramonte Complete Streets Study - Segment AOctober 2025 Miramonte Ave Between Park Dr and El Camino Real | Page 2/2

Final Report
Appendix D: Traffic Analysis Summary

1 August 2025
Traffic Analysis Summary

1 Traffic Analysis
Introduction
This report summarizes the results of a traffic operations analysis conducted for the three study intersections along Miramonte Avenue, between El Camino Real and Castro St/Marilyn Dr, in the City of Mountain View. The analysis evaluated Existing Baseline and Existing with Project conditions during the AM and PM peak periods using Synchro Version 12.

Data Collection
Turning Movement Counts
Turning movement counts, including bicycles and pedestrians, were collected on Thursday, September 19, 2024, between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM at the following intersections:

1. Miramonte Ave and El Camino Real – signalized

2. Miramonte Ave and Park Dr – side street stop controlled

3. Miramonte Ave and Castro St/Marilyn Dr – signalized
Average Daily Traffic
Average daily traffic (ADT) counts were conducted along Miramonte Ave, just south of Sonia Wy, 24 hours a day for seven days, from Monday, September 16, 2024 to Sunday, September 22, 2024.

Additional details on data collection are provided in Appendix A: Data Collection.

Signal timing data was provided by the City of Mountain View.

Analysis Scenarios
Two scenarios were evaluated:
• Existing Baseline Conditions: Based on observed traffic volumes and current intersection configurations.
• Existing with Project Conditions: Reflects proposed roadway modifications, including a road diet on Miramonte Avenue. No vehicle diversion is assumed to occur due to the capacity reduction. Note that the Project is not proposed to change intersection geometrics at Intersections 1 and 3.

2 Traffic Analysis
Methodology
Intersection performance was analyzed using Synchro Version 12 to obtain traffic measures of effectiveness (MOEs). MOEs for this analysis include intersection delay, Level of Service (LOS), and 95th percentile queue length.

Intersection delay, which is measured in seconds, is the average time that drivers wait at an intersection during the peak 15-minutes of the peak hour of roadway traffic. Higher intersection delay is associated with a poorer experience for drivers. Delay measurements were generated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology.

LOS is a qualitative measure expressed as a letter grade (A through F) that describes the operation of an intersection. LOS A is associated with the ideal operation of an intersection where drivers experience free flow traffic. LOS F is associated with the worst operation of an intersection where drivers experience high congestion. Per California Senate Bill SB743 and City of Mountain View Resolution 18484: Adopt Policy Implementing Calif. Environmental Quality Act Senate Bill 743, LOS is not a determinant for project impacts as part of state environmental review. It is provided here for informational purposes only.

The 95th percentile queue length represents the queue length that is only expected to be exceeded 5% of the time during the peak 15 minutes in the peak hour. It is commonly used as a basis of determining turn pocket lengths.

Results
Weekday ADT is approximately 8,000. Weekend traffic is approximately 65% of weekday traffic – approximately 5,200 vehicles. An ADT of less than 10,000 indicates that a road diet could be implemented with minimal operational impacts.
1 Detailed Synchro outputs are provided in Appendix B: Detailed Synchro Reports. The summary tables below present LOS and average delay for each intersection, as well as 95th percentile queue lengths.

1 Federal Highway Administration, Road Diet Information Guide, 2014.

3 Traffic Analysis
Table 1: Intersection Delay and LOS Results – Miramonte Ave and El Camino Real Intersection
Approach
AM Existing
(Delay (s) / LOS)
AM Ex + Proj
(Delay (s) / LOS)
PM Existing
(Delay (s) / LOS)
PM Ex + Proj
(Delay (s) / LOS)
EB 43.2 / D 43.2 / D 40.3 / D 40.3 / D
WB 35.7 / D 35.7 / D 32.2 / C 32.2 / C
NB 87.9 / F 87.9 / F 96.4 / F 96.4 / F
SB 76.0 / E 76.0 / E 73.5 / E 73.5 / E
Overall 54.0 / D 54.0 / D 50.2 / D 50.2 / D

Table 2: 95th Percentile Queue Results – Miramonte Ave and El Camino Real Movement AM Existing
(95th Percentile
Queue Length (ft))
AM Ex + Proj
(95th Percentile
Queue Length
(ft))
PM Existing
(95th Percentile
Queue Length
(ft))
PM Ex + Proj
(95th Percentile
Queue Length
(ft))
EBL 240 240 255 255
EBT 494 494 600 600
EBR 63 63 56 56
WBL 197 197 227* 227*
WBT 493 493 512 512
NBL 240 240 282* 282*
NBT 288 288 200 200
SBL 311 311 289 289
SBT 291 291 261 261
SBR 50 50 224 224
*95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

4 Traffic Analysis
The Project is not proposing to change geometrics at the Miramonte Ave and El Camino Real intersection. Therefore, the Existing and Existing + Project results are identical.

Table 3: Intersection Delay and LOS Results – Miramonte Ave and Park Dr Intersection
Approach
AM Existing
(Delay (s) / LOS)
AM Ex + Proj
(Delay (s) / LOS)
PM Existing
(Delay (s) / LOS)
PM Ex + Proj
(Delay (s) / LOS)
WB 10.9 / B 13.9 / B 9.9 / A 11.5 / B

NB N/A N/A N/A N/A

SB N/A N/A N/A N/A
Overall 0.1 / A 0.1 / A 0.1 / A 0.1 / A

Table 4: 95th Percentile Queue Results – Miramonte Ave and Park Dr Movement AM Existing
(95th Percentile
Queue Length (ft))
AM Ex + Proj
(95th Percentile
Queue Length
(ft))
PM Existing
(95th Percentile
Queue Length
(ft))
PM Existing
(95th Percentile
Queue Length
(ft))
WBL <1 vehicle <1 vehicle <1 vehicle <1 vehicle
WBR 0 0 0 0
NBT 0 0 0 0
NBR 0 0 0 0
SBL 0 0 0 0
SBT 0 0 0 0

The Project is proposing to reduce the number of travel lanes by one in each direction on Miramonte Ave on each side of Park Dr. The proposed improvements would lead to a nominal delay increase on the westbound (stop controlled) leg of Miramonte Ave and Park Dr of 3.0 seconds in the AM peak and

1.6 seconds in the PM peak. The LOS during the AM and PM peak periods remains at LOS A in the

5 Traffic Analysis
Existing with Project condition. During the AM peak, the 95th percentile queue on the westbound leg would not see a measurable increase.

Table 5: Intersection Delay and LOS Results – Miramonte Ave and Castro St/Marilyn Dr Intersection
Approach
AM Existing
(Delay (s) / LOS)
AM Ex + Proj
(Delay (s) / LOS)
PM Existing
(Delay (s) / LOS)
PM Ex + Proj
(Delay (s) / LOS)
EB 33.4 / C 33.4 / C 25.7 / C 25.7 / C
WB 34.2 / C 34.2 / C 20.9 / C 20.9 / C
NB 18.6 / B 18.6 / B 12.5 / B 12.5 / B
SB 13.5 / B 13.5 / B 11.6 / B 11.6 / B
Overall 18.3 / B 18.3 / B 13.5 / B 13.5 / B

Table 6: 95th Percentile Queue Results – Miramonte Ave and Castro St/Marilyn Dr Movement AM Existing
(95th Percentile
Queue Length (ft))
AM Ex + Proj
(95th Percentile
Queue Length
(ft))
PM Existing
(95th Percentile
Queue Length
(ft))
PM Ex + Proj
(95th Percentile
Queue Length
(ft))
EBL 40 40 21 21
WBL 64 64 74 74
WBT 63 63 73 73
NBL <1 vehicle <1 vehicle <1 vehicle <1 vehicle
NBT 192 192 156 156
SBL 101 101 31 31
SBT 120 120 137 137
*95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

6 Traffic Analysis
The Project is not proposing to change geometrics at the Miramonte Ave and Castro St/Marilyn Dr intersection. Therefore, the Existing and Existing + Project results are identical.

Key Findings and Conclusion
Existing Baseline Conditions (2024 volumes, existing geometry):
• All three intersections operate at acceptable LOS during both AM and PM peak periods.

Existing with Project Conditions (2024 volumes, proposed geometry):
• The road diet slightly increases delay on the westbound (stop controlled) leg of Miramonte Ave and Park Dr, with the LOS remaining at LOS B or better. • Delay, LOS, and 95th percentile queues remain unchanged at the signalized intersections of Miramonte Ave and El Camino Real and Miramonte Ave and Castro St/Marilyn Dr as the Project would not change intersection geometrics at those locations.

The proposed road diet on Miramonte Avenue (between El Camino Real and Castro Street/Marilyn Drive) does not result in impacts to traffic operations.

8 Traffic Analysis
Appendix B: Detailed Synchro Reports
Queues Miramonte Ave
1: Miramonte Ave/S Shorline Blvd & El Camino Real No Build AM Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 343 995 152 107 1285 164 450 217 452 274 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.54 0.18 0.59 0.51 0.80 0.84 0.86 0.71 0.55 Control Delay (s/veh) 92.6 32.4 8.5 91.9 33.5 103.1 87.5 104.4 76.2 10.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 92.6 32.4 8.5 91.9 33.5 103.1 87.5 104.4 76.2 10.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 207 414 23 123 375 192 272 254 267 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 240 494 63 197 493 240 288 311 291 50 Internal Link Dist (ft) 343 461 677 208
Turn Bay Length (ft) 190 200 225
Base Capacity (vph) 505 1845 853 180 2515 280 692 310 762 548 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.68 0.54 0.18 0.59 0.51 0.59 0.65 0.70 0.59 0.50 Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Miramonte Ave 1: Miramonte Ave/S Shorline Blvd & El Camino Real No Build AM Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 288 836 128 103 1133 101 133 318 46 178 371 225 Future Volume (vph) 288 836 128 103 1133 101 133 318 46 178 371 225 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3610 1562 1805 5114 1805 3524 1805 3610 1573 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3610 1562 1805 5114 1805 3524 1805 3610 1573 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.82 Adj. Flow (vph) 343 995 152 107 1180 105 164 393 57 217 452 274 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 55 0 5 0 0 7 0 0 0 226
Lane Group Flow (vph) 343 995 97 107 1280 0 164 443 0 217 452 48 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 10 10 5 8 8 8 8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 7 9 2
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.7 92.0 92.0 18.0 88.3 20.6 27.0 25.3 31.7 31.7 Effective Green, g (s) 21.7 92.0 92.0 18.0 88.3 20.6 27.0 25.3 31.7 31.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.51 0.51 0.10 0.49 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 422 1845 798 180 2508 206 528 253 635 277 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.28 c0.06 0.25 0.09 c0.13 c0.12 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.54 0.12 0.59 0.51 0.80 0.84 0.86 0.71 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 77.2 29.7 22.9 77.5 31.2 77.7 74.4 75.6 69.8 63.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.8 1.1 0.3 3.5 0.7 17.7 10.8 23.0 3.1 0.1 Delay (s) 88.0 30.8 23.2 81.0 31.9 95.4 85.2 98.6 73.0 63.1 Level of Service F C C F C F F F E E
Approach Delay (s/veh) 43.2 35.7 87.9 76.0
Approach LOS D D F E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 54.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 180.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Miramonte Ave 2: Park Dr & Miramonte Ave No Build AM
Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 14 546 0 0 566
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 14 546 0 0 566
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 16 728 0 0 755
Pedestrians 2 3
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 0 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 757
pX, platoon unblocked 0.88
vC, conflicting volume 1108 369 730
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 860 369 730
tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 97 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 264 631 882
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 16 364 364 0 378 378
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 16 0 0 0 0 0
cSH 631 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.22 0.22
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s/veh) 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 10.9 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Queues Miramonte Ave
3: Miramonte Ave & Marilyn Dr/Castro St No Build AM
Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 4
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 64 63 6 759 121 519
v/c Ratio 0.19 0.23 0.23 0.02 0.59 0.38 0.24
Control Delay (s/veh) 31.3 35.2 35.2 34.0 20.9 35.6 11.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 31.3 35.2 35.2 34.0 20.9 35.6 11.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 20 29 28 3 144 53 63
Queue Length 95th (ft) 40 64 63 13 192 101 120
Internal Link Dist (ft) 129 279 2529 1804
Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 70 100
Base Capacity (vph) 942 893 891 341 1842 570 2290
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.41 0.21 0.23
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Miramonte Ave 3: Miramonte Ave & Marilyn Dr/Castro St No Build AM
Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 11 17 7 87 6 4 5 409 206 97 410 5
Future Volume (vph) 11 17 7 87 6 4 5 409 206 97 410 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.2 5.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 0.96 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1803 1715 1712 1805 3394 1805 3602
Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 0.96 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1803 1715 1712 1805 3394 1805 3602
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.80 Adj. Flow (vph) 17 27 11 114 8 5 6 505 254 121 512 6
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 48 0 64 63 0 6 723 0 121 519 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 28 28 7 10 7 7 10
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 8 5 24 4
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.2 7.4 7.4 1.6 30.4 12.6 41.4
Effective Green, g (s) 7.2 7.4 7.4 1.6 30.4 12.6 41.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.39 0.16 0.54
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.2 5.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 168 164 164 37 1339 295 1936
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.04 0.04 0.00 c0.21 c0.07 0.14
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.28 0.39 0.38 0.16 0.54 0.41 0.27
Uniform Delay, d1 32.5 32.7 32.7 37.0 17.9 28.9 9.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 1.5 1.5 2.1 0.5 0.9 0.1
Delay (s) 33.4 34.2 34.2 39.1 18.5 29.8 9.7
Level of Service C C C D B C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 33.4 34.2 18.6 13.5
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 18.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues Miramonte Ave
1: Miramonte Ave/S Shorline Blvd & El Camino Real Build AM Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 343 995 152 107 1285 164 450 217 452 274 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.54 0.18 0.59 0.51 0.80 0.84 0.86 0.71 0.55 Control Delay (s/veh) 92.6 32.4 8.6 91.9 33.5 103.1 87.5 104.4 76.2 10.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 92.6 32.4 8.6 91.9 33.5 103.1 87.5 104.4 76.2 10.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 207 414 23 123 375 192 272 254 267 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 240 494 63 197 493 240 288 311 291 50 Internal Link Dist (ft) 343 461 677 208
Turn Bay Length (ft) 190 200 225
Base Capacity (vph) 505 1845 834 180 2515 280 692 310 762 548 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.68 0.54 0.18 0.59 0.51 0.59 0.65 0.70 0.59 0.50 Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Miramonte Ave 1: Miramonte Ave/S Shorline Blvd & El Camino Real Build AM Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 288 836 128 103 1133 101 133 318 46 178 371 225 Future Volume (vph) 288 836 128 103 1133 101 133 318 46 178 371 225 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3610 1526 1805 5114 1805 3524 1805 3610 1573 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3610 1526 1805 5114 1805 3524 1805 3610 1573 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.82 Adj. Flow (vph) 343 995 152 107 1180 105 164 393 57 217 452 274 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 55 0 5 0 0 7 0 0 0 226
Lane Group Flow (vph) 343 995 97 107 1280 0 164 443 0 217 452 48 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 10 10 5 8 8 8 8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 7 9 2
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.7 92.0 92.0 18.0 88.3 20.6 27.0 25.3 31.7 31.7 Effective Green, g (s) 21.7 92.0 92.0 18.0 88.3 20.6 27.0 25.3 31.7 31.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.51 0.51 0.10 0.49 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 422 1845 779 180 2508 206 528 253 635 277 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.28 c0.06 0.25 0.09 c0.13 c0.12 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.54 0.12 0.59 0.51 0.80 0.84 0.86 0.71 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 77.2 29.7 23.0 77.5 31.2 77.7 74.4 75.6 69.8 63.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.8 1.1 0.3 3.5 0.7 17.7 10.8 23.0 3.1 0.1 Delay (s) 88.0 30.8 23.3 81.0 31.9 95.4 85.2 98.6 73.0 63.1 Level of Service F C C F C F F F E E
Approach Delay (s/veh) 43.2 35.7 87.9 76.0
Approach LOS D D F E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 54.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 180.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Miramonte Ave 2: Park Dr & Miramonte Ave Build AM
Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 14 546 0 0 566
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 14 546 0 0 566
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 16 728 0 0 755
Pedestrians 2 3
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 0 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 757
pX, platoon unblocked 0.85
vC, conflicting volume 1485 733 730
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1482 733 730
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 96 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 117 422 882
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 16 728 0 755
Volume Left 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 16 0 0 0
cSH 422 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.43 0.00 0.44
Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 0
Control Delay (s/veh) 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 13.9 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Queues Miramonte Ave
3: Miramonte Ave & Marilyn Dr/Castro St Build AM
Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 4
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 64 63 6 759 121 519
v/c Ratio 0.19 0.23 0.23 0.02 0.59 0.38 0.24
Control Delay (s/veh) 31.3 35.2 35.2 34.0 20.9 35.6 11.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 31.3 35.2 35.2 34.0 20.9 35.6 11.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 20 29 28 3 144 53 63
Queue Length 95th (ft) 40 64 63 13 192 101 120
Internal Link Dist (ft) 129 279 2529 1804
Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 70 100
Base Capacity (vph) 942 893 890 341 1842 570 2290
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.41 0.21 0.23
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Miramonte Ave 3: Miramonte Ave & Marilyn Dr/Castro St Build AM
Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 11 17 7 87 6 4 5 409 206 97 410 5
Future Volume (vph) 11 17 7 87 6 4 5 409 206 97 410 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.2 5.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 0.96 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1803 1715 1709 1805 3394 1805 3602
Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 0.96 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1803 1715 1709 1805 3394 1805 3602
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.80 Adj. Flow (vph) 17 27 11 114 8 5 6 505 254 121 512 6
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 48 0 64 63 0 6 723 0 121 519 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 28 28 7 10 7 7 10
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 8 5 24 4
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.2 7.4 7.4 1.6 30.4 12.6 41.4
Effective Green, g (s) 7.2 7.4 7.4 1.6 30.4 12.6 41.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.39 0.16 0.54
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.2 5.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 168 164 164 37 1339 295 1936
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.04 0.04 0.00 c0.21 c0.07 0.14
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.28 0.39 0.38 0.16 0.54 0.41 0.27
Uniform Delay, d1 32.5 32.7 32.7 37.0 17.9 28.9 9.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 1.5 1.5 2.1 0.5 0.9 0.1
Delay (s) 33.4 34.2 34.2 39.1 18.5 29.8 9.7
Level of Service C C C D B C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 33.4 34.2 18.6 13.5
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 18.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues Miramonte Ave
1: Miramonte Ave/S Shorline Blvd & El Camino Real No Build PM Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 348 1152 124 129 1473 179 323 189 389 362 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.60 0.14 0.68 0.55 0.95 0.78 0.76 0.72 0.79 Control Delay (s/veh) 91.8 29.6 6.7 91.2 29.1 126.0 85.0 89.1 76.2 31.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 91.8 29.6 6.7 91.2 29.1 126.0 85.0 89.1 76.2 31.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 197 442 14 141 390 201 184 208 223 110 Queue Length 95th (ft) 255 600 56 #227 512 #282 200 289 261 224 Internal Link Dist (ft) 343 461 677 208
Turn Bay Length (ft) 190 200 225
Base Capacity (vph) 453 1933 888 191 2674 191 717 329 998 620 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.77 0.60 0.14 0.68 0.55 0.94 0.45 0.57 0.39 0.58 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Miramonte Ave 1: Miramonte Ave/S Shorline Blvd & El Camino Real No Build PM Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 334 1106 119 119 1231 124 140 235 17 172 354 329 Future Volume (vph) 334 1106 119 119 1231 124 140 235 17 172 354 329 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3610 1576 1805 5101 1805 3569 1805 3610 1549 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3610 1576 1805 5101 1805 3569 1805 3610 1549 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 348 1152 124 129 1338 135 179 301 22 189 389 362 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 45 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 225
Lane Group Flow (vph) 348 1152 79 129 1468 0 179 319 0 189 389 137 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 4 4 12 15 15
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 12 2 6
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.1 90.9 90.9 18.1 88.9 17.9 19.6 23.7 25.4 25.4 Effective Green, g (s) 20.1 90.9 90.9 18.1 88.9 17.9 19.6 23.7 25.4 25.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.53 0.53 0.11 0.52 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 414 1930 842 192 2667 190 411 251 539 231 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.32 c0.07 0.29 c0.10 0.09 0.10 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.09
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.60 0.09 0.67 0.55 0.94 0.78 0.75 0.72 0.59 Uniform Delay, d1 73.4 27.0 19.4 73.1 27.2 75.5 73.1 70.3 68.9 67.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.7 1.4 0.2 7.1 0.8 48.2 8.2 10.8 4.0 2.7 Delay (s) 87.1 28.4 19.6 80.2 28.0 123.8 81.3 81.1 73.0 70.2 Level of Service F C B F C F F F E E
Approach Delay (s/veh) 40.3 32.2 96.4 73.5
Approach LOS D C F E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 50.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 170.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Miramonte Ave 2: Park Dr & Miramonte Ave No Build PM
Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 5 456 1 0 514
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 5 456 1 0 514
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.62 0.62 0.90 0.90 0.84 0.84
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 8 507 1 0 612
Pedestrians 5 1
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 0 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 757
pX, platoon unblocked 0.90
vC, conflicting volume 818 260 512
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 586 260 512
tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 401 741 1059
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 8 254 254 1 306 306
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 8 0 0 1 0 0
cSH 741 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.18 0.18
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s/veh) 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 9.9 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Queues Miramonte Ave
3: Miramonte Ave & Marilyn Dr/Castro St No Build PM
Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 4
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 23 91 90 8 599 23 490
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.01 0.35 0.04 0.26
Control Delay (s/veh) 21.6 23.8 23.8 26.3 14.0 26.0 11.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 21.6 23.8 23.8 26.3 14.0 26.0 11.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 15 15 1 34 4 28
Queue Length 95th (ft) 21 74 73 15 156 31 137
Internal Link Dist (ft) 129 279 2529 1804
Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 70 100
Base Capacity (vph) 1330 1282 1278 654 2619 973 2965
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.23 0.02 0.17
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Miramonte Ave 3: Miramonte Ave & Marilyn Dr/Castro St No Build PM
Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 3 8 6 132 6 6 7 380 141 21 432 14
Future Volume (vph) 3 8 6 132 6 6 7 380 141 21 432 14
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.2 5.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 0.96 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1773 1715 1708 1805 3448 1805 3590
Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 0.96 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1773 1715 1708 1805 3448 1805 3590
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 4 11 8 165 8 8 8 437 162 23 475 15
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 1 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 15 0 91 90 0 8 577 0 23 489 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 11 11 5 6 5 5 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 2 4 4
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 2.5 8.4 8.4 1.2 20.9 2.5 22.2
Effective Green, g (s) 2.5 8.4 8.4 1.2 20.9 2.5 22.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.16 0.16 0.02 0.39 0.05 0.41
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.2 5.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 82 268 267 40 1341 84 1484
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.05 0.05 0.00 c0.17 c0.01 0.14
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.19 0.34 0.34 0.20 0.43 0.27 0.33
Uniform Delay, d1 24.6 20.2 20.2 25.8 12.0 24.7 10.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.8 0.8 2.5 0.3 1.8 0.2
Delay (s) 25.7 20.9 20.9 28.2 12.3 26.5 10.9
Level of Service C C C C B C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 25.7 20.9 12.5 11.6
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 13.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 53.7 Sum of lost time (s) 19.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues Miramonte Ave
1: Miramonte Ave/S Shorline Blvd & El Camino Real Build PM Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 348 1152 124 129 1473 179 323 189 389 362 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.60 0.14 0.68 0.55 0.95 0.78 0.76 0.72 0.79 Control Delay (s/veh) 91.8 29.6 6.8 91.2 29.1 126.0 85.0 89.1 76.2 31.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 91.8 29.6 6.8 91.2 29.1 126.0 85.0 89.1 76.2 31.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 197 442 14 141 390 201 184 208 223 110 Queue Length 95th (ft) 255 600 56 #227 512 #282 200 289 261 224 Internal Link Dist (ft) 343 461 677 208
Turn Bay Length (ft) 190 200 225
Base Capacity (vph) 453 1933 872 191 2674 191 717 329 998 620 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.77 0.60 0.14 0.68 0.55 0.94 0.45 0.57 0.39 0.58 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Miramonte Ave 1: Miramonte Ave/S Shorline Blvd & El Camino Real Build PM Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 334 1106 119 119 1231 124 140 235 17 172 354 329 Future Volume (vph) 334 1106 119 119 1231 124 140 235 17 172 354 329 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 3610 1550 1805 5101 1805 3569 1805 3610 1549 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 3610 1550 1805 5101 1805 3569 1805 3610 1549 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 348 1152 124 129 1338 135 179 301 22 189 389 362 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 45 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 225
Lane Group Flow (vph) 348 1152 79 129 1468 0 179 319 0 189 389 137 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 4 4 12 15 15
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 12 2 6
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.1 90.9 90.9 18.1 88.9 17.9 19.6 23.7 25.4 25.4 Effective Green, g (s) 20.1 90.9 90.9 18.1 88.9 17.9 19.6 23.7 25.4 25.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.53 0.53 0.11 0.52 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 414 1930 828 192 2667 190 411 251 539 231 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.32 c0.07 0.29 c0.10 0.09 0.10 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.09
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.60 0.10 0.67 0.55 0.94 0.78 0.75 0.72 0.59 Uniform Delay, d1 73.4 27.0 19.4 73.1 27.2 75.5 73.1 70.3 68.9 67.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.7 1.4 0.2 7.1 0.8 48.2 8.2 10.8 4.0 2.7 Delay (s) 87.1 28.4 19.6 80.2 28.0 123.8 81.3 81.1 73.0 70.2 Level of Service F C B F C F F F E E
Approach Delay (s/veh) 40.3 32.2 96.4 73.5
Approach LOS D C F E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 50.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 170.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Miramonte Ave 2: Park Dr & Miramonte Ave Build PM
Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 5 456 1 0 514
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 5 456 1 0 514
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.62 0.62 0.90 0.90 0.84 0.84
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 8 507 1 0 612
Pedestrians 5 1
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 0 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 757
pX, platoon unblocked 0.86
vC, conflicting volume 1124 513 512
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1065 513 512
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 214 562 1059
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 8 507 1 612
Volume Left 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 8 0 1 0
cSH 562 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.30 0.00 0.36
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0
Control Delay (s/veh) 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 11.5 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Queues Miramonte Ave
3: Miramonte Ave & Marilyn Dr/Castro St Build PM
Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 4
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 23 91 90 8 599 23 490
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.01 0.35 0.04 0.26
Control Delay (s/veh) 21.6 23.8 23.8 26.3 14.0 26.0 11.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 21.6 23.8 23.8 26.3 14.0 26.0 11.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 15 15 1 34 4 28
Queue Length 95th (ft) 21 74 73 15 156 31 137
Internal Link Dist (ft) 129 279 2529 1804
Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 70 100
Base Capacity (vph) 1330 1282 1276 654 2619 973 2965
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.23 0.02 0.17
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Miramonte Ave 3: Miramonte Ave & Marilyn Dr/Castro St Build PM
Synchro 12 Report
08/19/2025 Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 3 8 6 132 6 6 7 380 141 21 432 14
Future Volume (vph) 3 8 6 132 6 6 7 380 141 21 432 14
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.2 5.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 0.96 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1773 1715 1706 1805 3448 1805 3590
Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 0.96 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1773 1715 1706 1805 3448 1805 3590
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 4 11 8 165 8 8 8 437 162 23 475 15
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 1 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 15 0 91 90 0 8 577 0 23 489 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 11 11 5 6 5 5 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 2 4 4
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 2.5 8.4 8.4 1.2 20.9 2.5 22.2
Effective Green, g (s) 2.5 8.4 8.4 1.2 20.9 2.5 22.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.16 0.16 0.02 0.39 0.05 0.41
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.2 5.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 82 268 266 40 1341 84 1484
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.05 0.05 0.00 c0.17 c0.01 0.14
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.19 0.34 0.34 0.20 0.43 0.27 0.33
Uniform Delay, d1 24.6 20.2 20.2 25.8 12.0 24.7 10.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.8 0.8 2.5 0.3 1.8 0.2
Delay (s) 25.7 20.9 20.9 28.2 12.3 26.5 10.9
Level of Service C C C C B C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 25.7 20.9 12.5 11.6
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 13.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 53.7 Sum of lost time (s) 19.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

Final Report
Appendix E: Outreach Round 2 Summary

Outreach Round 2
Outreach Round 2 Summary
September 2025
Outreach Round 2
Overview
• Round 2 community outreach consisted of:
• 6/7/25: McKelvey Ballpark pop-up
• Online question survey
• Events and survey were promoted through:
• Webpage
• E-mails to interested and affected parties
• Mailed postcards
• Social media posts
• Door-to-door engagement with businesses on corridor
• Flyers on car windshields
• Posters, lawn signs, palm cards, and spoke cards
2 Outreach Round 2
Events
3 Outreach Round 2
McKelvey Ballpark Pop-Up - 6/7/25
• 33 people were engaged
• Everyone lived in the City of Mountain View
• 90% of people drove to the ballpark
• All but one person supported the proposed
bikeway. Nearly all supported the road diet
and parking removal.
• Over 50% would have biked to the ballpark
if the proposed roadway changes were
made
4 Outreach Round 2
Survey
5 Outreach Round 2
Survey
• Open for 6 weeks from July 17 to August 29, 2025
• 548 responded to at least one question
• Questions:
• Email address collection
• 9 project-related questions (incl. follow up and open ended questions) • 4 demographic questions
• 1 question to determine how people heard about the survey 6 Outreach Round 2
Key Takeaways
• Almost 67% of respondents reside on or near Miramonte Ave with close to 30% living south of Castro St / Marilyn Dr
• At least 50% of respondents walk and/or bike on Miramonte Ave • More than 50% of respondents support the new roadway design • Of the 36% who do not support the new roadway design, 39% want a travel lane preserved and 25% want to see no changes to the roadway
• 43% of respondents would walk or bike more often if the proposed roadway design was built • 65% of respondents were supportive of the proposed parking removal or with removing even more parking than proposed
• The top three additional features that respondents would like to see included in the project are:
• New and improved pedestrian crossings
• More street trees and landscaping
• Traffic calming to lower vehicle speed
7 Outreach Round 2
Question 1
504 respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
I or a family member attend St. Joseph School Mountain View I or a family member attend Saint Francis High School
I work at or own a business on or near Miramonte Avenue I or a family member attend Benjamin Bubb Elementary
School
Other (describe)
I or a family member attend Graham Middle School
I reside on or near Miramonte Avenue
I regularly travel along or across Miramonte Avenue for recreational or social purposes
What is your relationship to Miramonte Avenue? (select all that apply)
8 Outreach Round 2
Question 2
504 respondents
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
In Los Altos
Between El Camino Real and Castro Street, east of Miramonte Avenue Near Miramonte Avenue / Shoreline Boulevard, north of El Camino Real Other (please specify)
Between El Camino Real and Castro Street, west of Miramonte Avenue In Mountain View, but not near Miramonte Avenue
Near Miramonte Avenue, south of Castro Street / Marilyn Drive Where do you live?
9 Outreach Round 2
Question 3
504 respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Using a wheelchair or mobility device
Bus
By bike, skateboard, scooter, or similar device
On foot
Car or motorcycle
Please select the ways you currently travel on Miramonte Avenue. (select all that apply)
10 Outreach Round 2
Question 4
411 respondents
Figure 7. Proposed Bikeways Map
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Not sure (follow up question)
No (follow up question)
Yes
Do you support the new roadway design of Miramonte
Avenue shown in Figure 7?
11 Outreach Round 2
Question 5
187 respondents
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Preserve existing on-street parking in select locations. Please specify
Preserve all existing on-street parking
Provide Class IV protected bike lane
I don’t support any changes to the current roadway
Preserve travel lane
If not, what changes would you support?
12 Outreach Round 2
Question 6
411 respondents
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Other (please specify)
I would walk more often
I would bike more often
I would not change how I travel
Would the way you travel change if the proposed roadway design was built?
13 Outreach Round 2
Question 7
398 respondents
Figure 8. Proposed Parking Map
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Some on-street parking removal is ok, but not where you have shown (please specify)
Remove more on-street parking to further improve
safety and comfort for people biking and walking
Do not remove any on-street parking
Remove on-street parking where shown in Figure 8 to
improve safety and comfort for people biking and
walking
Please select which idea you support the most regarding parking (see Figure 8). (select one)
14 Outreach Round 2
Question 8
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
None
Wayfinding signage for walking and biking
Better lighting
Traffic calming to lower vehicle speed (e.g. curb extensions) More street trees and landscaping
New and improved pedestrian crossings
What other features would you like to see included in the final street design? Rank the top 3 features, with 1 being the most important.

Most Important 2nd Most Important 3rd Most Important
• 360 respondents
• 274 respondents (76%)
chose “new and
improved pedestrian
crossings” as one of
their top three priorities
• “New and improved
pedestrian crossings”
was also chosen as the
highest priority by the
most respondents (116
respondents, 32%)
15 Outreach Round 2
Question 9
Do you have any other comments or want to see another feature not listed in Question 8?
• 192 responses
• Common recommendations:
• Repaving
• Increased and more visible speed limit signage
• Traffic calming
• Common concerns:
• Increased congestion if road diet is implemented with references to California Avenue • Curb extensions can be dangerous
16 Outreach Round 2
Question 10
389 respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Non-binary
Other
Prefer not to say
Female
Male
What is your gender identity? (optional)
17 Outreach Round 2
Question 11
387 respondents
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Under 18 years
18 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
Prefer not to say
35 to 44 years
65+ years
55 to 64 years
45 to 54 years
What is your age? (optional)
18 Outreach Round 2
Question 12
382 respondents
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Less than $24,999 per year
$25,000 to $49,999 per year
$150,000 to $199,999 per year
$50,000 to $99,999 per year
$100,000 to $149,999 per year
$200,000 or more per year
Prefer not to say
What is your household income? (optional)
19 Outreach Round 2
Question 13
386 respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
American Indian or Alaska Native
Black or African American
Other
Hispanic or Latino
Asian
Prefer not to say
White
With which race(s)/ethinicity(ies) do you identify most closely? (optional)
20 Outreach Round 2
Question 14
392 respondents
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Communication from school
City of Mountain View X, Instagram, or Facebook
Lawn sign
In-person/pop-up event with city staff
Prefer not to say
Nextdoor
City of Mountain View website
Other (please specify)
Postcard
Other website, newsletter, or social media
My neighborhood association or HOA
Sign along Miramonte Avenue
City of Mountain View e-mail/newsletter
How did you hear about this survey? (select all that apply) (optional) 21 Outreach Round 2
Collateral
22 Outreach Round 2
Collateral – Lawn Sign
23 Outreach Round 2
Collateral – Palm Card
24 Outreach Round 2
Collateral – Poster
25 Outreach Round 2
Collateral – Spoke Card
26 Outreach Round 2
Collateral – Postcards
27