From: caroline horn <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 12:41 PM
To: Ahmed, Priyoti <[email protected]>; , Public Works <[email protected]>
Cc: Sybil Cramer <[email protected]>; Derek Miyahara <[email protected]> Subject: August 31 CTC meeting request
Hi,
I work with the PTSA Sustainability Committee at Los Altos High School. About half of our students live in Mountain View, and many bike on Rengstorff to and from school.
Some of them are interested in attending Monday’s CTC meeting to ask for better bike lanes on Rengstorff Avenue.
Because it is a school night, we are hoping they can address the Committee as early in the evening as possible so they can go home and study. Is this possible?
We are concerned that their voices will not be heard by the people planning their main route to school.
Thanks so much,
Caroline Horn
From: Emil Abraham <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2026 5:30 PM
To: , Public Works <[email protected]>
Subject: August 31, 2026 CTC Item 5.1 Rengstorff Complete Streets Study
Hi,
I'd like to express my support for Alternative B. It offers the most protection for bicyclists, and adds some great midblock crossings. I do wish that we could incorporate more of the green elements from Alternative C. But if space is limited, I'm not sure there's much we can do there.
Would it be possible to shrink the vehicle travel lanes a few feet to create some space for greenery?
I also wish a road diet or dedicated transit lanes were viable options. This is a major corridor in our city and I'd like it to feel more comfortable and fast for bikes, peds, and transit users. Not just automobile users.
Thanks to staff and the council for prioritizing this. Especially if the Rengstorff grade separation project is on the table.
Emil Abraham
From: Brian Cargille <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 6:21 AM
To: Hicks, Alison <[email protected]>; Kamei, Ellen <[email protected]>; McAlister, John <[email protected]> Cc: April Webster <[email protected]>; Andrea Bornschlegel <[email protected]>; , Public Works <[email protected]>; Glaser, Heather <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: On your agenda today - 4.1, Rengstoff and Green Streets :)
Thanks for your work for all of us, and sorry that we can't be there because we are out of town!
We live on California St. at Chiquita, so we go down Rengstorff often. Most of the time by bike. My wife grew up in Monte Loma, went to public schools, and learned to swim at the Rengstorff pool!
We would love it if you carry forward Alternatives B and C from the Feasibility & Alternatives Study now, and our neighbors feel the same way.
What we're hoping for is a plan that includes the most important things. • protected intersections and mid-block crossings (with PHBs); • continuous protected (class IV) bikeways;
• street trees, native planting, and green stormwater infrastructure; and • enough further design and analysis to understand the space, costs, benefits, and trade- offs before removing desired elements, and present those findings to Council and community before a preferred design is selected and finalized.
Rather than treating Alternatives A, B, and C as mutually exclusive choices, we would love it if the City uses what has been learned from each stage to develop a safer, greener, more complete design for Rengstorff Avenue.
Thanks again for your work for all of us!
Obviously, we are big fans of April Webster and you'll see many of her points and guidance reflected in what we write. She speaks for so many of us.
TY!!
From: Lada Adamic <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 10:21 AM
To: , Public Works <[email protected]>
Subject: public comment for CTC 8/31/2026 item 5.1 Rengstorff Complete Streets Study, Project 25-39
Dear CTC,
My greatest concern about Rengstorff's bike facilities is the ability of students to bike to Los Altos High from Mountain View. Many do so now, and I am concerned about their safety, and many others do not, missing out on the health and independence benefits (not to mention freeing up their parents' time who are driving them to school).
In looking at all the alternatives, they don't appear to make improvements between the Caltrain tracks and El Camino, and this is the segment most used. Also, very few students currently cross the tracks (I think) because it is dangerous. Bicyclists must merge into 35MPH through traffic at the intersection of Rengstorff/Central/tracks. This will eventually be solved with the grade separation project, however, it is not clear when that will start. Given the large funding gap, you are in a better position than me to assess whether it will start being built in the next 5 years, 10 years? If it is more than 3 years away, that is an entire student body at LAHS (today's freshmen) who will still not be able to bike safely any year they are in high school. I would suggest investigating some kind of quick build to improve the intersection.
I do appreciate the effort to provide shade throughout the corridor.
Thanks for reading!
Lada
From: Serge Bonte <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2026 4:12 PM
To: Kamei, Ellen <[email protected]>; McAlister, John <[email protected]>; Hicks, Alison <[email protected]> Cc: Boyer, Allison <[email protected]>; Ledbetter, Lauren <[email protected]>
Subject: Re; CTC 8/31/26 Meeting - Rengtorff Complete Streets Alternative.
Dear Committee Members:
When this agenda item came to BPAC, I had to recuse myself as I own a rental condo on Latham Street near Rengstorff. I was also told I could provide comments in my personal capacity to CTC which I'm doing here.
First I'd like to bring your attention to the conceptual street cutouts in the Active Transportation Plan. In most, proper protected bike lanes are linked to a resurfacing of the street, permanent green elements are linked to a reconstruction of the street. Enhanced crossings would most likely not require resurfacing at least not for the whole street. This mirrors the 3 alternatives in front of you, so it's fair to assume that Alternative B -resurfacing- might be an order of magnitude more expensive than Alternative A and Alternative C -reconstruction- an order of magnitude pricier than Alternative B.
And Mountain View has a slew of unfunded or underfunded capital projects already..
Second, I don't think we'll have a cohesive street and safe bike route from Leghorn to El Camino Real until after the grade separation occurs Also it's probably better to delay extensive resurfacing or street reconstruction until after that grade separation (look at the state of Miramonte after the flood basin work).
Third, with any network (or even plumbing), the most critical points are the connections (in plumbing that's where most leaks occur). Look at the existing conditions appendix, intersections is where most collisions occur (especially for bikes and pedestrians). Look at the community surveys in the Active Transportation Plan, the biggest areas of community concern are at intersections, many of them along Rengstorff. So I don't view Alternative A as the status quo but as making meaningful progress towards a safer and more comfortable Mountain View.
For these reasons (costs and having to wait for grade separation), my preference would be to go with Alternative A+ and consider other alternatives later (closer to completion of the grade separation).
Alternative A+ would be all of what is currently proposed PLUS - Implementing as many NACTO best practices for crosswalks as possible (daylighting, pedestrian scale/scoped sidewalk/crosswalk lighting, refuge/safety island on all intersections, stop bars/shark teeth well ahead of the crosswalk....)
- mark the currently unmarked crosswalks on side streets - change sidewalk cutouts at crosswalks to match the direction of the crosswalks (vs. towards the middle of the intersection (btw: the City is doing a great job on that on Miramonte)
- consider green elements for new intersection elements )for instance mid block crossings)
- improve all existing bike lane segments short of resurfacing and removing parking. Since there is little to no parking from California to El Camino Real, it might be possible to "quick build" protected bike lanes on that segment.
As the grade separation nears completion, I'm supportive of any combination of Alternative B and C.
Two final points:
1. At the BPAC meeting it was suggested to close Crisanto sooner. I fully support that idea as Crisanto will be closed anyways with the grade separation. Closing it now (by the end of the year?) would greatly benefit pedestrians and cyclists (one less
crossing/intersection to worry about) but also motorists (no waiting at a light for Crisanto traffic or being aggravated by that traffic trying to sneak in)
2.Because crossing El Camino is only possible on one side of the Rengstorff intersection, LAHS students often bike down from Distel next to the lone crosswalk (there are green bike markings to be used by cyclists making a left on ECR from Rengstorff) and continue down contra flow in the bike lane to Latham or even California. While I've been startled a few times while biking in the "right" direction on these bike lanes, I can't blame the students. If I were in their biking shoes, I'd do the same. In the report there was mention of the team looking at two way bike tracks and discarding the idea. it might be worth revisiting for the east side of Rengstorff from ECR to California. Or maybe widen the bike lane in that segment to make it a bit more comfortable for cyclists riding the "right" way). Of course,the better longer term fix would be to fix the ECR/Rengstorff intersection so that one can cross on either side of Rengstorff:)
Sincerely
Serge Bonte
From: Eugene C Cordero <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 12:53 PM
To: , Public Works <[email protected]>
Cc: Hicks, Alison <[email protected]>; Kamei, Ellen <[email protected]>; McAlister, John <[email protected]> Subject: Rengstorff Complete Streets Study, Project 25-39
Dear Chair and Members of the Council Transportation Committee,
I am writing to ask that the Rengstorff Complete Streets Study be returned with a revised, integrated alternative that treats safety for people walking and biking as the starting point, not as one option among several competing priorities.
Rengstorff is Mountain View’s highest-priority Vision Zero corridor. The City has committed to Complete Streets because streets must work safely for people of all ages and abilities, whether they walk, bike, use transit, drive, or use mobility devices. This is also central to our climate goals: reducing vehicle miles traveled requires making safe, practical non-car trips possible.
Yet the alternatives now presented divide core outcomes that should work together. Alternative B provides protected bikeways but does not include the full pedestrian and green-street improvements of Alternative C. Alternative C provides wider sidewalks, trees, landscaping, and bioretention, but leaves bicycle facilities unchanged. Alternative A largely preserves existing conditions.
Mountain View should also acknowledge the broader challenge: many residents do not feel safe bicycling on our arterial streets. PeopleForBikes’ City Ratings evaluates whether people can safely and practically reach daily destinations by bicycle; Mountain View’s current rating of 41 (98
th in California) underscores the need for a more connected, low-stress network rather than isolated improvements. A city cannot expect more people to choose bicycles while asking them to ride beside fast traffic with gaps in protection.
Traffic delay and parking impacts are real tradeoffs, but they should be weighed against the City’s adopted safety, mobility, equity, climate, and public-health commitments. On Mountain View’s highest-priority safety corridor, preserving vehicle throughput should not automatically outweigh the safety of people walking and biking.
Please direct staff to return with a revised set of alternatives that makes a truly safe, connected, and green Rengstorff Avenue a real option for the community to evaluate.
Sincerely,
Eugene Cordero
421 Loreto St.
From: Daniel Hulse <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 1:29 PM
To: , Public Works <[email protected]>
Cc: Hicks, Alison <[email protected]>; Kamei, Ellen <[email protected]>; McAlister, John <[email protected]> Subject: Subject: CTC Meeting 8/31/26 — Agenda Item 5.1 — Rengstorff Green Complete Streets
Dear Council Transportation Committee,
I am hoping to join the meeting today but I thought I'd send in a written comment also in support of the Complete Streets project.
To get a good idea about the impact of this project on my daily life I rode a portion of Rengstorff on my daily bike commute from my apartment at the end of California Street to my office which is in the general area of (but not at) google bayview. I usually don't ride Rengstorff because it is dangerous, but Google Maps tells me that the fastest way is taking California to Rengstorff, and then going over the Permanente Creek Trail Overpass before heading over where I need to go. On my ride I noticed the following:
- Many more bikes are on California Street than I remember when I was riding it more regularly last year, thanks a lot to our new bike lane improvements there - The section between California Street and the north side of Central Expressway is a major pinch point. A lot of cars like to treat the bike lane as "their space" which leads to some conflicts. Of course, then the road throws you into a shared lane which is not fun for anyone. I believe this will all be addressed in the grade separation project, but I wanted to highlight it here also.
- Much of the parking is totally unused and can be removed. In fact, aside from the pinch point lines at Central Expressway, the road seemed basically empty. I don't see why we wouldn't pursue a road diet here.
- Despite the dangers of this road, there are already a fair amount of bikes on Rengstorff. It makes a lot of sense that this is a high injury street because we have (1) a poor built environment for bicycles and (2) high utilization.
Aside from my trip report I also have some thoughts that I am also putting in bullet point format:
- This is a very high-value transportation corridor for bicycling. This is because (1) It is the only rail crossing for at least a mile or so on both sides (2) it connects other major bike routes like the bike boulevard, california street, and el camino, and (3) it connects housing with major job sites and parks.
- Despite the traffic at the crossing, the road is not very busy. It's also very easy to see adverse vehicle speeding here due to the "open road" effect. So there isn't a strong reason not to road diet the street and/or remove parking, and there could be a strong safety benefit, also. (In fact, if we had decided to do a road diet back when we were designing the rengstorff grade separation project, we also could have perhaps saved millions of dollars.)
So yes, I am supporting Alternative B, with the caveat that (1) we should also be considering road diets to fully complete the protected bike lane and (2) we need to ensure safety in the portion south of Central Expressway. I also disagree with the framing of the alternatives in the report and online survey that we have to have either a "green street" or an "improved bicycle facility." Good design can give us both.
Thanks,
Daniel Hulse
Del Medio
From: April Webster <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 1:42 PM
To: Hicks, Alison <[email protected]>; Kamei, Ellen <[email protected]>; McAlister, John <[email protected]> Cc: , Public Works <[email protected]>; Ng, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Boyer, Allison <[email protected]>; Ledbetter, Lauren <[email protected]>; Ahmed, Priyoti <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Bruce England <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; Cliff Chambers <[email protected]>; Silja Paymer <[email protected]>; Tracy Ferea <[email protected]>; Shani Kleinhaus <[email protected]>; Mary Dateo <[email protected]>; Rashmi Sahai <[email protected]>; Jesse Cupp <[email protected]>; Lada Adamic <[email protected]>; Mountain View MVCSP <[email protected]>; , City Manager <[email protected]>; , City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: CTC Agenda Item 5.1 (August 31) — Rengstorff Green Complete Streets Study, Project 25-39
Dear Council Transportation Committee members and staff,
Please find attached a joint community letter regarding the Rengstorff Green Complete Streets Study, signed by representatives and members of MVCSP , Bike Walk MVLA (formerly SVBC MVLA), GreenSpacesMV, Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance, and other community members.
To make sure the requested action is clear and easy to reference during the meeting, I’ve also included the proposed CTC motion below.
Requested CTC Motion
Move that the Council Transportation Committee direct staff to use the next phase of the Rengstorff Avenue Complete Streets Study to develop and evaluate a full Green Complete Streets concept that integrates the core safety and green infrastructure elements that were tested individually in Alternatives A, B, and C, rather than selecting among the current alternatives as- is. In particular, direct staff to:
• Develop a full concept design: that integrates continuous Class IV protected bicycle lanes, protected intersections and all four mid-block crossings with Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, together with street trees, regionally native and biodiversity-supportive planting designed as functioning habitat, and functional green stormwater infrastructure.
• Do the design work needed to determine how it can fit: test 10-foot inner vehicle lanes, lane reduction where appropriate, reallocation of the 14-foot median, City-controlled land and right-of-way, and additional parking reconfiguration or removal.
Bring the full concept back to the CTC and community including the planning-level costs, space requirements, benefits, and trade-offs for the major elements and different levels of investment before removing elements or selecting a preferred concept.
Thank you for considering our comments and for including the attached letter in the public record for Agenda Item 5.1.
Sincerely,
April Webster
Bike Walk MVLA Team Lead
MVCSP Executive Committee
Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning and GreenSpacesMV c/o Aaron Grossman 817 Montgomery Street Mountain View, CA 94041 Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance (SCVBA) 22221 McClellan Road Cupertino, CA, 95014 August 31, 2026 Re: Agenda Item 5.1 — Rengstorff Green Complete Streets Study, Project 25-39 Dear Council Transportation Committee members,
We are writing on behalf of community organizations supporting the Rengstorff Avenue Green Complete
Streets
project.
Rengstorff is the City’s highest-priority Vision Zero corridor, and Council has already directed it to advance as it's first Green Complete Streets project.
The current feasibility study is an opportunity to determine how safety, active transportation, green
infrastructure,
shade,
stormwater
management,
and
climate
resilience
can
work
together
within
the
corridor.
It’s
also
an
important
early
test
of
how
the
City
can
translate
its
broader
policy commitments into street design—particularly the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan and the soon-to-be-adopted Active Transportation Plan.
Council has funded feasibility and preliminary design work that includes both transportation safety
and
green
infrastructure
improvements,
and
the
project
has
received
strong
community
support.
The question at this stage is therefore how to deliver that direction most effectively, not whether the
corridor
should
receive
meaningful
safety
and
Green
Complete
Streets
improvements.
In meeting with staff last week, we learned that Alternatives A, B, and C are intended to test different elements and uses of street space—not necessarily to serve as three mutually exclusive choices. Staff also confirmed that the next design round is the appropriate time to combine desired elements, confirm dimensions, and identify additional opportunities for space.
Our request
We respectfully ask the Council Transportation Committee to pass the following motion.
Requested CTC Motion
Move that the Council Transportation Committee direct staff to use the next phase of the Rengstorff Avenue Complete Streets Study to develop and evaluate a full Green Complete Streets concept that integrates the core safety and green infrastructure elements that were tested individually in Alternatives A, B, and C, rather than selecting among the current alternatives as-is. In particular, direct staff to:
● Develop a full concept design: that integrates continuous Class IV protected bicycle lanes, protected intersections and all four mid-block crossings with Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, together with street trees, regionally native and biodiversity-supportive planting designed as functioning habitat, and functional green stormwater infrastructure. ● Do the design work needed to determine how it can fit: test 10-foot inner vehicle lanes, lane reduction where appropriate, reallocation of the 14-foot median, City-controlled land and right-of-way, and additional parking reconfiguration or removal.
Bring the full concept back to the CTC and community including the planning-level costs, space requirements, benefits, and trade-offs for the major elements and different levels of investment before removing elements or selecting a preferred concept.
Additional technical detail supporting each element of the requested motion is provided in Appendix A.
The first round showed us the pieces. For the next round, we ask the City to put them together and bring back the information Council and the community need to make informed trade-offs.
Thank you to Lauren, Priyoti, and the broader project team for their work and for taking the time to discuss the design process with us.
Sincerely,
April Webster, Bike Walk MVLA Team Lead, MVCSP Executive Committee Bruce England, Bike Walk MVLA Team Lead, MVCSP Executive Committee Cliff Chambers, MVCSP Executive Committee Silja Paymer, President GreenSpaces MV Tracy Ferea, Vice President GreenSpaces MV Caroline Horn, Bike Walk MVLA Team Lead Shani Kleinhaus, Environmental Advocate, Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance Rashmi Sahai, GreenSpacesMV Jesse Cupp, Bike Walk MVLA Mary Dateo, Bike Walk MVLA Lada Adamic, Bike Walk MVLA Isaac Stone, signing on his own behalf
On behalf of
Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning (MVCSP) Mountain View Active Transportation Policy Working Group, Bike Walk MVLA (formerly SVBC MVLA) GreenSpacesMV About Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning The Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning is a local volunteer-based organization dedicated to making Mountain View as beautiful, economically healthy, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian accessible, and affordable as possible. MVCSP member interest and expertise covers areas such as housing, transportation, the environment, the economy, and beyond! For more information, see http://www.mvcsp.org. To contact us, send email to [email protected] .
About GreenSpacesMV Our focus is on biodiversity, native, drought-tolerant, and pollinator-friendly landscaping, complete green streets, parks and other open spaces, including Privately owned, publicly accessible (or POPA) park spaces, and so on. For more information, see https://www.facebook.com/GreenSpacesMV. To contact us, send email to [email protected].
Appendix A: Supporting detail for the requested motion The following provides additional context and technical detail supporting the requested motion.
1. Green Complete Streets as the baseline
More substantial bikeway protection
● Evaluate raised curbs or constructed buffers integrated with street trees and planting as a stronger form of Class IV protection, treating street trees as part of the bikeway protection strategy rather than simply decorative landscaping. ● Use planted buffers to provide multiple functions within the same space: stronger physical separation, shade and heat safety, visual narrowing and traffic calming, biodiversity, and potentially stormwater management.
Green infrastructure and GSI
● Treat green infrastructure as functional street infrastructure, not simply beautification, and use limited street space to deliver multiple benefits where possible: shade and heat safety, stormwater management, biodiversity, traffic calming, and physical separation. ● Develop and price a base level and one or more enhanced levels of green/GSI investment, rather than treating these elements as all-or-nothing, with planning-level costs and the additional climate-resilience, stormwater, shade, heat-safety, and biodiversity benefits provided at each level.
Biodiversity and native planting ● Implement the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan through the corridor design by prioritizing regionally native trees, shrubs, grasses, and flowering plants that provide habitat and food resources for birds, pollinators, and other wildlife. Design planted areas as functioning habitat rather than ornamental landscaping, with sufficient planting diversity, understory, and soil volume to support long-term ecological value, while retaining existing mature trees and valuable habitat wherever feasible.
Interdepartmental implementation
● Clarify the roles of Public Works and Community Services in the design, species selection, installation, establishment, and long-term maintenance of trees, native planting, and GSI. ● Document clear responsibilities and project requirements so the Green Complete Streets elements carried into the preferred concept are preserved through detailed design, construction, and maintenance.
2. Opportunities to find additional space
Across all opportunities to find or reallocate space, prioritize safety and exhaust reasonable opportunities to find space before accepting gaps in the continuous safety network.
Lane narrowing and lane reduction
● Re-evaluate lane reduction on selected segments, particularly south of Central Expressway, even if congestion and capacity constraints at major intersections preclude a corridor-wide road diet. ● Test 10-foot inner vehicle lanes throughout the corridor. Alternative C already uses 10.5-foot inner lanes, and existing conditions show at least one 10-foot inner lane on Rengstorff. ● Confirm actual roadway dimensions, including widths staff indicated still need field verification, and reclaim any additional width identified for safety and Green Complete Streets elements. ● Use lane narrowing and lane reduction for speed management as well as space allocation. Staff shared that drivers commonly travel 6–8 mph above the posted speed limit, so reducing vehicle speeds should be an explicit design objective.
Reallocation of the 14-foot landscaped median
● Determine how much of the existing 14-foot landscaped median is actually needed and evaluate reallocating some or all of it to higher-function uses along the sides of the roadway: continuous physical bikeway protection and raised separation, street trees and shade, GSI, and biodiversity-supportive planting. ● Compare retaining the full median with reallocating that space to functions that provide greater benefits for people walking and bicycling, including physical and heat safety, traffic calming, stormwater management, biodiversity, and active transportation . ● Evaluate irrigation and maintenance requirements for relocating landscaping, including whether reliance on water trucks constrains the location or design of street trees, planting, bioswales, or other GSI.
Multimodal analysis and transparency
● Provide the CTC and community with the key inputs, assumptions, outputs, and findings of the multimodal analysis, including how vehicle congestion, safety, active transportation, transit, and other constraints and trade-offs were evaluated. ● Explain how that analysis informed the alternatives and design decisions, particularly where vehicle congestion or capacity constrains other Complete Streets improvements. Transparency around modal trade-offs has also been raised by the community and BPAC on other Complete Streets projects, including Moffett and Middlefield.
City-owned or City-controlled space
● Examine City-owned or City-controlled property, excess right-of-way, applicable easements, and publicly controlled frontage, particularly near Rengstorff Park, for opportunities to accommodate Green Complete Streets elements outside the existing curb-to-curb roadway. ● Prioritize this additional space for the continuous safety network and Green Complete Streets elements, including raised bicycle facilities, physical separation, and protective street-tree buffers; once those are accommodated, consider comfort and convenience improvements such as widening narrow sidewalk sections.
Parking
● Evaluate parking-protected bikeways and other configurations that preserve the continuous Class IV facility where parking is retained, while keeping additional parking removal or reconfiguration available where needed rather than compromising the continuous safety network. ● Evaluate street trees in the sidewalk, furnishing, or planting zone in parking-protected configurations, allowing parking to provide bicycle-lane separation while trees provide shade and vertical traffic-calming elements. ● Where parking is retained, investigate ways to reduce parking demand and make remaining spaces work better for residents, including residential parking permits or stickers, time limits, designated loading or short-term spaces, and better use of existing off-street or underused parking.
3. Planning-level costs and design trade-offs
● Provide separate planning-level cost estimates, where practicable, for major design elements, including safety elements (Class IV protected bikeway and levels of protection, protected intersections—ideally by intersection—and each mid-block crossing) and green infrastructure/GSI elements (street and GSI trees, native and biodiversity-supportive planting, bioswales, bioretention, and other significant GSI treatments). ● Compare different levels of investment rather than treating major elements as all-or-nothing. For bikeway protection, compare the currently proposed treatment with more substantial physical protection, raised curb or constructed separation, and separation integrated with planting and street/GSI trees. For green infrastructure and GSI, compare base and enhanced levels. ● Show the incremental cost and the key benefits gained—or lost—at each level, including safety and traffic calming, heat safety and shade, stormwater management, biodiversity, comfort and accessibility, and reduced transportation-related GHG emissions through mode shift, so Council and the community can make informed trade-offs. ● Where full build-out cannot be funded immediately, preserve the necessary space in the conceptual design and identify elements that can be phased or supported through supplementary funding.
4. Evaluate the complete concept before making cuts If utilities, drainage, pavement conditions, construction escalation, or other project costs ultimately require reductions, make those decisions after Council and the community can see the costs, benefits, and trade-offs.
We would prefer to see the complete concept evaluated before deciding what must be reduced, rather than reducing it before knowing whether those reductions are necessary.
From: Eleanor Hopkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 2:09 PM
To: , Public Works <[email protected]>
Cc: Hicks, Alison <[email protected]>; Kamei, Ellen <[email protected]>; McAlister, John <[email protected]> Subject: CTC Meeting 8/31/26 — Agenda Item 5.1 — Rengstorff Green Complete Streets
Dear Members of the Council Transportation Committee,
I am a mother of three children in Mountain View, and our family tries to bike everywhere we can; to work, to school, for shopping, and to all our extra curricular activities. Although there have been improvements in the city's bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, we can still do so much better. The upcoming renovations to Rengstorff Avenue present a perfect opportunity to get it right for cyclists, pedestrians, and motor vehicles who use this important corridor.
The current survey on street renovation options, however, asks residents to choose between 3 inadequate options, and completely misses the mark. I urge the committee to consider combining elements from the 3 options so that Rengstorff can be made into a fully complete and green street. There needs to be a continuous protected class IV bike lane for the entire length of the corridor, protected intersections, mid-block crossings with Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, and green stormwater infrastructure incorporated into the design.
Rengstorff is one of the most dangerous corridors for people walking and biking, as well as an important route for high school students attending Los Altos High school in the Mountain View Los Altos High school district. Please consider implementing everything you can do to honor your commitments to make this area safe and green for all of those who use this important transportation route.
Thank you for your time,
Eleanor Hopkins van den Berg
Mountain View resident
From: Steinberg, Talya <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 3:42 PM
To: , Public Works <[email protected]>
Cc: Hicks, Alison <[email protected]>; Kamei, Ellen <[email protected]>; McAlister, John <[email protected]> Subject: CTC Meeting 8/31/26 — Agenda Item 5.1 — Rengstorff Green Complete Streets
I support Rengstorff Green Complete Streets as a fully complete and green street. Please direct staff to combine continuous Class IV protected bike lanes, protected intersections and mid-block crossings with Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, trees and shade, green and green stormwater infrastructure, and native planting and biodiversity into the preferred design.
The City has already identified Rengstorff as its most dangerous corridor for people walking and biking and its first Green Complete Streets project. It is also an important school route for Mountain View students. Please follow through on those commitments and make Rengstorff safe and green.
As an additional note, I would opt to bike to school but I am so nervous of getting into an accident that I drive instead.
Thank you,
Talya
Monta Loma