Attachment 1. Community Input
Community engagement and outreach were a cornerstone of this process. The project team provided a variety of opportunities for the residents, business owners, Commission and Board members, and other stakeholders to provide input. City staff and the consultant team were eager to hear from the community, businesses, and policymakers about their priorities for El Camino Real.
Phase 1 Engagement Input
City staff and the project team conducted an initial round of engagement in Fall 2025 to solicit input from the community on their vision for El Camino Real. The project team received over 600 responses from in-person and online engagement, which included:
• An online survey
• In-person workshop
• Tabling at community events, such as Concert in the Park • Pop-ins at various community meetings, such as Rise South City – in which staff gave a presentation that was live translated into Spanish, and the Winston Manor Homeowners Association
• Door to door outreach to businesses on El Camino Real • Presentations to City Commissions, including the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and Traffic Safety Commission
• Posting and delivering flyers promoting the online survey at bus stops and businesses along the corridor.
From this outreach, a few key points of input emerged:
• The community wants walking and bicycling conditions to be safer and more comfortable. Potential improvement ideas include widening the sidewalks and constructing bikeways.
• Driving delays due to traffic congestion are a pain point of travel. • On-street parking near businesses should be maintained. • Placemaking elements, including trees, shade, plants, art, and lighting, are desired to benefit people who travel along El Camino Real.
Based on this input, the project team developed three design alternatives.
Phase 2 Engagement Input
From March to May 2026, City staff and the project team hosted a series of engagement activities geared towards gathering input from the community on the three design alternatives. We received almost 800 responses from in-person and online engagement. This included:
• Over 300 responses to the online survey, 291 in English and 17 in Spanish • Over 480 interactions at in-person events
• Pop-ups at grocery stores, the Library | Parks and Recreation Center, and at community events such as the May 9th South City Centennial Way Cruise • Door to door outreach to businesses on El Camino Real • Specifically connecting with Spanish-speaking residents through participating in Rise South City’s Mobility Workshop
• Engaging high school students through El Camino High School’s Career Fair • Outreach to transit riders on the South City Free Shuttle • Presentations to City Commissions, including the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Traffic Safety Commission, and the Commission on Equity and Public Safety
• Stakeholder meetings with Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition and internal City Departments
Promotion for the events and online survey included:
• Hanging posters at bus stops along El Camino Real and inside the Free South City Shuttle • Delivering flyers to businesses and residential complexes along El Camino Real, such as South City Station Apartments and Treasure Island Mobile Home Park • Posting engaging visuals on the City’s social media accounts • Publishing an informational video on the City’s social media accounts • Publishing an article in the City’s digital newsletter Across all forms of engagement, community members shared their input on three alternatives. The following is a summary of the input received.
Alternative 1: Pedestrian Focus received the greatest support of all three alternatives, with a portion of respondents also sharing neutral sentiments. Approximately 3 out of 4 respondents shared positive or neutral sentiments about Alternative 1.
Community members liked the proposed wider sidewalks, landscaping, and the three travel lanes.
Responses stated that this alternative was “practical” and “not too much change.” Some community members did not like the loss of some parking spaces and shared the view that pedestrians did not use El Camino Real, so pedestrian improvements did not make sense.
Alternative 2: Pedestrian & Bus Focus and Alternative 3: Pedestrian & Bicycle Focus received relatively similar levels of support, with approximately 1 out of 2 respondents sharing positive or neutral sentiments towards both Alternatives 2 and 3.
For Alternative 2, some respondents shared that they liked the increased bus efficiency and reliability and that buses would not hold up car traffic. Other respondents shared that they had concerns about traffic congestion since this alternative proposes the removal of a general purpose lane, and shared the view that buses and bus riders did not warrant a dedicated bus lane.
For Alterative 3, some respondents shared that they like increased safety for bicyclists, felt the option was more environmentally friendly, and felt it was overall aesthetically appealing or “looks nice.” Some respondents shared concerns about traffic congestion since this alternative proposes the removal of a general purpose lane, and shared the view that there were not enough people riding bikes to warrant a separated bikeway.
Commission Recommendations
Staff presented the draft alternatives to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Traffic Safety Commission, and the Commission on Equity and Public Safety and requested a formal recommendation for the Council’s consideration. The recommendations are as follows:
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee – Alternative 2: Pedestrian & Bus Focus as the preferred option, with Alternative 3: Pedestrian & Bicycle Focus as the secondary option.
• Traffic Safety Commission – Alternative 1: Pedestrian Focus as the preferred option, with Alternative 2: Pedestrian & Bus Focus as the secondary option. • Commission on Equity and Public Safety – Alternative 3: Pedestrian & Bicycle Focus as the preferred option, with overall support for Alternative 1: Pedestrian Focus and Alternative 2: Pedestrian & Bus Focus.
The Commission’s recommendations mirror the community feedback in there are aspects of each alternative that respondents like and do not like.