April 20, 2021 Council Transportation Committee

Video

Agenda

• 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Sally Lieber called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. (00:00:00)
• 2. ROLL CALL: Staff members present: Public Works Director Dawn Cameron, Associate Civil Engineer Darwin Galang, City Traffic Engineer Lorenzo Lopez, Transportation Manager Ria Hutabarat Lo. (00:00:00)
• 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC (00:01:49)
• 4. APPROVE MINUTES - None (00:08:23)
• 5. NEW BUSINESS (00:08:23)
• 5.1 Grant Road and Sleeper Avenue Intersection Study: Recommendation: That the Committee recommend that the City Council approve Alternative No. (00:08:23)
• 5.2 AccessMV: Comprehensive Modal Plan: Recommendation: That the Committee recommend the City Council approve the Draft Report for AccessMV, Mountain View’s Comprehensive Modal Plan (Attachment 1 to the memorandum). (00:58:36)
• 5.3 2021 Meeting Schedule: Approve scheduling the next meeting of the Council Transportation Committee for either Tuesday, May 18, 2021, or Tuesday, June 1, 2021, at 6:30 p.m. MOTION: To set the next Council Transportation Committee Meeting to June 1, 2021. (01:48:03)
• 6. COMMITTEE/STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS, UPDATES, REQUESTS, AND COMMITTEE REPORTS (01:50:23)
• 6.1 Staff Comments (01:50:23)
• 6.2 Committee Comments (01:50:23)
• 7. ADJOURNMENT: Sally Lieber adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p.m. (01:50:23)

Transcript

2. ROLL CALL

[00:00:00] Chair Sally Lieber: Hey everyone, and welcome to the Council Transportation Committee meeting of April 20th, 2021. I am going to read the usual announcement as required. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the state of California executive order, N 2920, dated March 17, 2020. All members of the city transportation committee are participating in this meeting by video conference with no physical meeting location. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period for the item by signing up at mountainview.gov, backslash CTC, underscore speakers, or by phone by dialing 669 900-9128. And entering webinar ID, 921. 691-83910. Any emails, uh, received by 5 p.m. today, were received directly by the council transportation committee members. Emails received after 5 PM. Will not be read during the meeting, but will be entered into the record for the meeting. All votes will be taken by a roll call vote. And we can go on now to our uh, attendance roll call, um, Ms. Cameron. Thank you very much.

[00:01:34] Public Works Director Cameron: Uh, member Ellen Camari?

[00:01:37] Member Ellen Kamei: Here.

[00:01:38] Public Works Director Cameron: Member Lisa Madichek?

[00:01:40] Member Lisa Matichak: Here.

[00:01:41] Public Works Director Cameron: Chair Sally Lieber.

[00:01:43] Chair Sally Lieber: Here.

[00:01:44] Public Works Director Cameron: All righty. The entire council transportation committee is present. Thank you.

3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC

[00:01:49] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you. And we'll go on now to oral communications. Uh, this portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the committee on any matter, not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non-agenda items. Would any member of the public, uh, on the line, like to provide comment on non-agenda item. If so, please click the raise hand button. In Zoom, or press star 9 on your phone, and staff will display the timer on the screen.

[00:02:30] Public Works Director Cameron: Thank you very much, chair. We have 2 members of the public who raise their hands. Uh, Bruce England. Um, if you will unmute, um, you, you can begin to speak, Joy, if you could bring the timer up. Thank you, Dawn. Um,

[00:02:50] Bruce England: there's the timer. Good evening, everybody. It's been a while since I've seen this committee meet. I just have a couple of things I'd like to bring up fairly briefly. Um, one is that I'm interested in seeing the city, uh, advocate for Bill AB 122. This is the, I guess it's uh, considered the Idaho stop, a legislation or the current one for California. And this is, uh, a bill that would allow bicyclists to come to basically a yield stop at stop signs, um, instead of coming to a full stop, and any of you who bicycle know that it's, um, not super convenient to have to do that, you know, and you got stop signs at almost every other intersection, you're stopping and going all the time. And it's a different experience from uh, driving a car, going to a dead stop and restarting again and um, uh, neighboring states have already passed this. Washington and Oregon have passed it. I'm not sure about all the states. It's, it has been an assembly uh, committee, and I'm not sure where it's going from here, and what the Senate will do about it, but if Mountain View and other cities in California can advocate for it. We have a good chance of seeing it come to pass. The other thing I wanted to talk with you about briefly is, um, on Fairchild Drive, there's a sound wall that goes between, um, let's see, Moffat Boulevard and Ellis, but it doesn't go the entire length of Fairchild. And so if you go along there, if you happen to bike or even drive along there, you'll see that there are areas where it's just storm fencing between, um, 101 traffic and Fairchild Drive, and I, I myself bike at night. And I was going along there. I think it was last month where a car had gone through the fence apparently, and landed on Fairchild, and I was lucky enough not to be there when that happened. But I had just been there and I was passing by there again. And that's when I became aware of the vulnerability. It just seems like a really bad idea that just have storm fencing or. That's not going to protect anybody on Fairchild Drive if somebody loses control. of their vehicle on 101 and goes through. Um, I've been told that that's a Caltrans matter, um, but I think that Mountain View has the ability or the power to ask Caltrans to take that issue seriously and try to do something about it. Maybe there can be a partnership in that. So I just wanted to bring these things to your attention. Thank you.

[00:05:25] Public Works Director Cameron: Thank you. Next is Albert Jeans.

[00:05:34] Albert Jeans: Good evening. I think this is the 1st time I ever spoken to this group. I sent you some material earlier, the graphics, and I was originally going to put this under item 5.3, but since it's general enough, and I wanted to speak about other things on 5.3, I thought I would just put this under the general comments, and that is, we all know that, you know, COVID has really changed things a lot, and especially traffic, you know, because Google is no longer in session. You know, there's pretty much no traffic in Mountain View now, which is great, you know? But, um, you know, it may come back and to a certain extent, you know, I do expect, you know, people to come back to the office in the global, but probably not to the extent that they were pre-COVID. And so to look at that, I ran my simulation. As you know, I've done micro simulations in the shrine corridor. And I just wanted to see the sensitivity of those backups to the traffic volume. And I found out that if you decrease the traffic to 90% of normal, you know, you see some decrease in the cues, they cut down by about half, but things are still pretty congested. But if you go to 80%, the cues pretty much disappear. And so all that means is all it takes is every employee just to take one day off a week and work from home. And, you know, our traffic problems will not, you know, will not return like they were before. Now, I understand, of course, North Bay Shore may grow and all that stuff. But on the other hand, you know, I think COVID is going to present some lasting changes in our behavior. You know, maybe with social distancing, less density in the offices. again, more people want to work from home. It's it's just sort of a big unknown. But one thing is for sure. I think the assumptions that were made, you know, for all of traffic studies and things that were happened, you know, 5 or 6 years ago really don't apply. And so all I ask is that the city, consider, you know, if you go to your consultants, see if they can, you know, kind of anticipate, you know, what will happen if traffic volumes don't return to their normal levels. What implications do that have to, you know, all the CIP projects that are big? Uh construction projects in the pipeline. Because, you know, I think the last thing we want to do is build something that's not going to be used. Uh, so that's all, I'll talk again later. Thank you.

[00:08:03] Public Works Director Cameron: Thank you, um, Madam Chair, that ends, um, all members that ask to speak at this time. Oh, you're on mute?

5.1 Grant Road and Sleeper Avenue Intersection Study

[00:08:23] Chair Sally Lieber: Mute button. Um, we're at the, um, time when we would normally approve minutes, but we have no minutes for approval tonight, so we'll go on to our new business. Item 5.one, uh, is the Grant Road and Sleeper Avenue intersection study, and the staff presentation will be provided by Darwin Galung, Associate Civil Engineer. Andrew, you wanna share your screen? Uh,

[00:09:02] Consultant Dickinson: yeah, it's currently not allowing me to. I think I'm a participant. Joy,

[00:09:16] Public Works Director Cameron: can you make Andrew a co-host so he can share his screen? I don't see you on the participant list. He's in panelist. I see him on panelists. Oh. Perfect.

[00:09:36] Chair Sally Lieber: It worked. Thank you. Can you see it, Darwin?

[00:09:49] Associate Civil Engineer Galang: Yes, thank you. Thanks, Joyce. Good evening, committee, Sherry Lieber. Uh, member of Man Schnich, American Man, in the community. This presentation for the grand. Super Avenue intersection study. My name is Darren, the Long Associate Civil Engineer. Project manager for the City Mountain View. I will be presenting with Andrew Dickinson. Project manager for TJKM. We're also joined by Ruthage Patel from TJ Cam. Other runs of Lopez, our city traffic engineer. In this presentation tonight, we'll talk about the goals of the project and the purpose of this presentation. We'll also talk about the background information regarding the study intersection and how alternatives compare with each other. We'll also briefly talk about feedback received from the community and of EPAC. Let's begin with project objective. The main goals of the study are to develop and evaluate conceptual alternatives, to facilitate safe movement of pedestrians and bicyclists, crossing grant road, of super avenue. As we present these improvements or alternatives, staff would like to request, with the CTC, recommend that the city council approve alternative number two, which is supported by the community and BPAC, in which will be discussed in detail in this presentation. The intersection of Grant Road, the Super Avenue is a T intersection located along Grant Road, approximately midway between North Drive, south of this intersection and Question Drive, which is north of this intersection. The intersection is adjacent to Questell Park, to the west, and it's an essential connection to the entrance of the Stevens Creek Trail. There is approximately half a mile to the east of the intersection. Alcomino hospital on YMCA are both to the west of the intersection along North Drive. As mentioned earlier, Grant Road is super avenue forms the T intersection where sleeper avenue traffic is stop control, while traffic on Grant Road is uncontrolled. Grant road is a 4 lane arterial roadway with a 35 mile per hour posted speed limit while sleeper avenue is a 2 lane residential street with a 25 mile per hour. Post speed limit. There are no exclusive bike facilities of Long Sweeper Avenue. Well, Grant Road provides class 2 or stripe bike lanes for bicyclists. Currently, there is only one more cross hook at the eastern leg of the intersection to cross Sweeper Avenue, while immediate opening and accessible curb ramps are provided on the southern leg of the intersection to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to cross front row. And now I'll turn you over to Andrew, we'll talk about the alternatives in detail.

[00:12:27] Consultant Dickinson: All right, thank you, darling. Um, the 1st proposed intersection improvement to look at is a pedestrian Harvard beacon, which is used to increase motorist awareness of pedestrians crossing at uncontrolled marked crosswalk locations. Pestrian Harvard beans have become much, much more common, uh, a much more common traffic controlled device, including a project installing them at many locations along El Camino real. This project also included the pedestrian hybrid veacon installation in Mountain View that was recently installed at the intersection of El Camino, Real, and Distal Circle. We will now go into a video to show you how a pedestrian harbored vegan functions. One of the major advantages of pedestrian Harvard beacons is that the vehicle beacons are dark when there's no crossing activity from pedestrians or bicyclists. This allows vehicles to use the intersection as normal and proceed through without coming to a stop unless a pedestrian has activated the cross. While there are no pedestrians at the crossing, the pedestrian signal head also rests on the do not walk symbols. Once the pedestrian presses the push button, the vehicle beacons begin flashing yellow, indicating to drivers that they must begin slowing down. The flashing beacon then becomes solid yellow, so much to a normal track signal head, which indicates the drivers that they must prepare to come to a complete stop. The beacon then changes to 2 solid red lights. Which indicates indicates that drivers must be at a complete stop, so much of a travel signal read. During this time, the pedestrian device list is given the walk sign and may begin crossing the intersection. After a certain amount of time, the pedestrian countdown will begin and the begins will begin flashing red. This will indicate to drivers that they must stop, but may proceed with caution if there are no pedestrians in the crosswalk. Once the pedestrian timer is over, the beacons will turn off and vehicles will be able to proceed through the intersection normally, while pedestrians are given the do not walk symbol. One benefit of pedestrian hired beacons is that they were studied by the federal highway administration to have a yield rate that exceeds 90%. This shows that the pedestrian hired veacons help notify drivers when pedestrians are using the crossing. Another benefit is that during normal operation, the pedestrian air beacon wrestles on black, which allows vehicles to proceed normally through the intersection, unless a pedestrian is actively using the crossover. Pedestrian hard beacons can also be coordinated with nearby track signals to the north and the south to improve traffic flow and minimize traffic delay. Pedestrian harbor beacons also bring a unique challenge and that drivers are often not familiar with this transcontrol device. Despite this, pedestrian hard beacons are becoming more prevalent in the Bay Area and motorists and vestrians are becoming more familiar. Pedestrian hired veacons are also costly, but it's important to note that pedestrian hired beacons are less costly than a new trap signal installation. For this study, we looked at many alternatives, but narrated down to the 4 alternatives that you see here. The 2nd alternative is the preferred alternative based on the feedback received from both the public and DPAC. The 1st alternative is for pedestrian have a beacon at Grant Road, sleeper Avenue with a new crosswalk installed at the northern portion of the intersection. The figure on the left gives us a general layout of how the uh intersection will look, including a northern crosswalk, with a northwestern pedestrian ramp, as well as closing the existing median opening, and the southwestern pedestrian ramps, that pedestrians, they no longer cross the southern portion of the intersection. One benefit for this alternative is that it will eliminate the conflict between left turning vehicles from Sleeper Avenue and pedestrians crossing Grant Road. The sidewalk also ends at the southern portion of Seaver Avenue. So Preston will be able across the crosswalk and continue along the sidewalk on secret avenue. One impact on this alternative is that vehicles turning right from Sleeper Avenue will conflict with pedestrians and bike lists that will be crossing Grant Road. The 2nd alternative we want to discuss is a pedestrian harvard beacon with a southern crockswalk and is the preferred alternative. This alternative will include a southern crosswalk, as well as a left turn restriction, for vehicles that are turning left from Slaver Avenue onto Grant Road. Prohibiting the left turn movement will eliminate the vehicle conflict with pedestrians and base list crossing at the intersection, as well as vehicles traveling on Grant Road while not having an, having a major impact on current traffic needs. The peak hour counts for left turn movement can be seen in the slide. The left chain restriction will be created using temporary striping, temporary uh, delineators as well as stripings and signs. If the community provides positive feedback, the left ear restrictions can be made permanent through a median extension. In addition, in addition to the pedestrian hybrid beacon advantages such as the high yield rate, being less costly than a trap signal, the ability to be coordinated with nearby trap signals, and resting on black when pedestrians are not active. Alternative 2 also adds the benefit of reducing conflict points and the ability to use the existing median opening in southwestern pedestrian ramp. These are the main reasons why alternative 2 is a preferred alternative. The next alternative is a travel signal. Some benefits for installing a trap signal are that people are familiar with them. Trap signals have different phases to reduce conflicts, and they can be coordinated with nearby trash signals to improve traffic flow. The impacts of the track signal which led us to not recommend this alternative are the following. It is the highest cost alternative. It will create a conflict between right turning vehicles from Sleeper Avenue and pedestrians crossing Grant Road. And it will also have the highest amount of delay out of the alternatives due to the full walk and don't walk phases for pedestrians crossing Grant Road. As always for studies conducted, we looked at the 4th alternative, which is keeping the existing conditions as they are. This alternative will have no associated cost. Due to feedback from the community and impact on this alternative, we are not recommending to keep the existing conditions. The 1st meeting was held with the community and surrounding area of the interception. In this meeting, we provided the community with poll questions in order to receive their feedback. The community feedback on the existing conditions, including concerns for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety as well as concern for vehicle speeds along Grant Road. The community supported the 2 pedestrian hybrid beacon alternatives, as well as the idea of adding a left turn restriction. The least supported alternatives were trap signals and leaving existing conditions as is. The next meeting was held with the bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee. The committee supported alternative 2 with 4 members in favor of the alternative and one member abstaining. I will now pass it off to Darwin to discuss the project schedule moving forward. Thank

[00:19:26] Associate Civil Engineer Galang: you, Andrew, for the next step to the project, we plan to take the recommended alternative to counsel as a consent item in May 2021 with counsel's approval of the alternative staff will complete the study report and proceed with the project design as soon as the project manager is available. The design and construction of the proposed improvements have been funded. Lastly, I would like to recap the staff request is CTC to recommend alternative 2, which is a PHD with a southern crossbalk and a left turn restriction from super avenue to the council for approval, and that concludes our presentation for tonight. Thank you so much. Thank

[00:20:07] Chair Sally Lieber: you to stay off for the presentation. Um, we'd like to go 1st to council questions. Uh, do the council members have any questions? Council member Manachek. Thanks. Uh,

[00:20:25] Member Lisa Matichak: I do have a few questions. Did the BPAC or the community have the information that we now have regarding collisions at this intersection? When they were discussing this?

[00:20:54] Associate Civil Engineer Galang: I believe the question was asked regarding, uh, collision report, and we gave them, uh, the numbers, but not as much detail as we have provided the CTC.

[00:21:09] Member Lisa Matichak: So the BPAC had some data did, was it also shared with the public? Uh, during, um, the community, meetings. Yes,

[00:21:20] Associate Civil Engineer Galang: I believe the question was asked during the meeting, if not during the committee meeting, it was during the BPAC meeting. Okay. Um,

[00:21:32] Member Lisa Matichak: While you were presenting. Um, I heard you say that other options were considered. And um, I was also wondering about some other options. So, could you tell me what other options were considered? And why, um, they didn't even make it to the list of the 3 that were looked at in more detail? Andrew,

[00:21:58] Associate Civil Engineer Galang: you want to take that question? Yeah,

[00:22:01] Consultant Dickinson: um, so we considered multiple different alternatives um, for the pedestrian hybrid beacons, including a northern, southern crosswalk with left turn restrictions. Um, we also considered removing the existing median opening, um, and not allowing possessions across. We also considered um LED enhanced signs. With both the northern and southern crosswalks and electric restriction. Um, and then different trash signal um, alternatives. I believe I covered them all. Okay,

[00:22:31] Member Lisa Matichak: so for the um, PHB. In the um. Options that were considered. Um, I was trying to figure out if, The circle, with the, um, 4 bars that go out from it. Like on option three. Um, the one that's on Quest, uh, the Quest of Parkside. Is that also a PHB? Sending, um, information, so to speak, to any vehicle or person on sleeper. Can

[00:23:20] Public Works Director Cameron: you take us, um, to the slide that shows, um, for instance, alternative two? So, um, Remember Matachek, if I understand your question correctly, you're asking who can see the pedestrian hybrid beacons from what, Traffic directions? Yeah, because it looks to

[00:23:48] Member Lisa Matichak: me like there's, um, One, on the Questa Park side of Grant Road, facing sleeper. Is that, is that what that is or is that something else? I'll

[00:24:01] City Traffic Engineer Lopez: take that. Lorenzo Lopez traffic engineer? Uh, I think you're talking about what's a street light. That's a street light symbol. Yeah, so that's on the, yeah, right there. That's a street light, and then you have a street light above each of the pedestrian hybrid beacon, um, masked arms. Okay. So that symbol represents a street light. Okay. So, um, is

[00:24:28] Member Lisa Matichak: it possible to have a 3rd PhD that, um, faces sleeper? That it is in sync with the other 2 when a pedestrian pushes the button or a bicyclist pushes the button. Typically,

[00:24:47] City Traffic Engineer Lopez: typically the uh, pedestrian hybrid beacon is only for the, the road that it's facing, in this situation, um, it would be confusing to the driver a long sleeper, because they have a, they have a stop control at all times, so they have to pull up to the intersection and stop, regardless of the, whether the beacons are on. So, Those beacons are only in place for those vehicles on Grant Road that only stop when the beacons are on. Hopefully that makes sense. Okay. Got it. Um. And

[00:25:23] Member Lisa Matichak: then, um, Could you repeat the reasons why? Um, this alternative was the one that's recommended. Um, I heard um, several things and I want to make sure I jotted them all down. Like one of the things I heard was cost.

[00:25:51] City Traffic Engineer Lopez: And we're talking about it. Yeah,

[00:25:54] Consultant Patel: I can, I can jump into, um, Pedestrian hybrid beacons are provide a very, uh, nice guild rate. It's proven by the FHWA Caltrans that have been implementing them along El Camino, a T-legged intersection, similar to this one. And they've proven effective tool for reducing, um, driver. I mean, increasing driver awareness of pedestrians inside the beacon, inside the crosswalk. Sorry,

[00:26:25] Member Lisa Matichak: I thought there were more than just that. I

[00:26:28] Consultant Dickinson: can... Sorry about that. Um, so there's the high yield rate that uh, Rudy just discussed, um, less costly than a trap signal. Um, they have the ability to be coordinated with nearby traffic signals to the north and the south. Um, they rest on black, uh, meaning that when uh, pedestrians are not at the intersection, you can just travel through the intersection freely. Um, alternative 2 also has the benefit of reducing uh, conflicts due to the left turn restriction. And then we also will have the ability to use the existing meeting opening as well as the southwestern pedestrian ramp.

[00:27:12] City Traffic Engineer Lopez: To add to that, the right turning vehicle from sleeper will not be conflicting with a crosswalk if that was an alternative one on the north side of sleeper. So, essentially, This option eliminates the left turn, left turn conflicts with pedestrians and the right turn conflicts with pedestrians, um, that are crossing Grant Road. Um, That's that's the reason why we were actually proposing the restriction of the left turn. So you cannot cross and conflict with that, that crosswalk on the south side. Okay. Um. That's

[00:27:57] Member Lisa Matichak: all I have. Thanks. Hey,

[00:28:00] Member Ellen Kamei: Merrick May. Great, thank you. I just had a quick question. So I think, um, from what I'm hearing and and read an apologies if I miss this. There's been, um, focus on vehicular traffic as well as, um, put up, you know, putting pedestrian use forward. I was wondering, I do know that people cycle on on grant. Um, so as we've been thinking about the various alternatives, particularly one and two, which it sounds like the, the residents and the community was for, Can you talk a little bit about, um, how, uh, cyclists were thought about in terms of, um, if there was any points of conflict or how the flow might be. Um, I know that it's kind of limited existing bike lanes currently on grant in particular. I can take that Um,

[00:28:55] City Traffic Engineer Lopez: there are bike lanes on grant in this specific location. Um, Actually, as part of the design for the project. So this this was basically a study to narrow down preferred alternatives. But once we go into the actual design, the detailed design, we understand that there's a need to provide, um, Some guidance to bikes that are traveling from the right of your screen to the left. So from sleeper across to Cuesta Park. I think that's probably what you're getting at. Um, yeah. So, as part of the design, we, we, we plan to look at every option possible to get, um, bikes across in a, in a safe manner. If it, if it stays like this without any sort of opening for bikes, then you would have, um, bikes would have to dismount, cross sleeper, and cross grant. Um, but, again, as part of the design, we we plan to look at that specific movement, um, which is the one that would be the most difficult to make, uh, as shown on the screen. If you're going the opposite direction, you can cross parallel with the with the existing or the proposed crosswalk that's there. And we've, you know, we've grown around ideas about, uh, uh, like a green bicycle, um, striping adjacent to the pedestrian crossing. So, something like that would be most likely considered on the northern side of the intersection for bikes to get through. Um, If we do that, there will be a potential conflict with right turning vehicles and those bikes. So we would be reintroducing a conflict that we were trying to eliminate, but we do understand the need to get the bikes across in that on the right side of the road across to Cuesta Park. Great,

[00:30:47] Member Ellen Kamei: thank you. Um, so, you know, tonight it sounds like we're, we're being asked to, um, recommend alternative 2 to council. And then I think I saw in the staff report, it would be on consent. At what point would we hear back on what was decided for, um, what you were just describing, um, in terms of what we would do with the cyclists, or I guess, you know, the further design elements would, would that be something that would go back to BPAC or some, or something like that, or would it go back to the community for further input or, I was just curious about the process? Or

[00:31:23] Public Works Director Cameron: do they want me to take that? I can. Don't care, public works director. So a couple things. We did discuss, uh, this need to really look at accommodating bicyclists a little bit more as part of this concept. And our thoughts were that, um, the committee could in making a recommendation to council also directs staff that during design, because this is just concept work, to look at, uh, ways that we can accommodate and further improve conditions for bicyclists crossing Grant Road. And then that case, during design, we do tend to have another community meeting so that we can show where we're at on design. We do revisit the BPAC. Um, Council, in general, would see it again when it's time to approve the PS and E, uh, for construction of the project. So, unless you direct us to bring it back before then, what you're basically doing is directing us to, um, you know, incorporate something in for bicyclists, work through the community and BPAC as we develop the design and then you'll see the final design. at council. Great,

[00:32:34] Member Ellen Kamei: thank you. I appreciate the clarification on the process. I know that, particularly in this area, people are using so many different modes. I know that people use wheelchairs and then I see a lot of bicycles with trailers, you know, with, um, with children or animals. And so, just wanted to ask and get further clarification. But it, but it, it's going back to, um, you know, the community and, and there's a, you know, further opportunity where a council will MPEC would see it in some form. I think that's really great. I think my, my hope was that it would go back to the community and it sounds like it does. Thank you so much. Those are my questions. Thank

[00:33:12] Chair Sally Lieber: you, mayor. And seeing no further questions from the committee. Uh, we'd like to go to the public if uh, there are any members of the public on the line who would like to uh, provide comments on this item. If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone and staff will display a timer on the screen. Okay,

[00:33:39] Public Works Director Cameron: thank you, chair. We do have a couple members of the public that would like to speak to this item. Please forgive me if I mispronounce your name. It looks like Brulant der Vesiglu. I'm so sorry So, um, Joy, can you go ahead and start the timer and allow um, this person to unmute themselves. Hi,

[00:34:04] Bulent Dervisoglu: uh, can you hear me? Yes,

[00:34:08] Public Works Director Cameron: we can hear you. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:34:11] Bulent Dervisoglu: This is this is Vilante, Darvish, I live on 495 Sleeper Avenue. I thank to commit you for a very good, very detailed analysis and presentation. I pass the issue and the options in a slightly different way that you have presented. I think one dimension is, on what side of the crossing, north or south, should we do something or not do anything at all? And the other is, what is the nature of thing that we will do? Is that gonna be an typical traffic light or one of these new different mode of operation traffic lights? If I tackle the first one first, if I cross the Grand Road, coming from Sleeper Avenue, using the south side of the Grand Road as the exit, or rather the pedestrian way, as it is now, I have to make a crossing on Sleeper Avenue, from its right side, to its left side, before I do the crossing. And down, I'm in the clear. And when I come back, I'm automatically on the clear once I've reentered Sleeper Avenue. Whereas, if you do the crossing on the north side, then, when I leave sleeper to do the crossing, I'm already on the right side, and when I'm coming back, I have to first cross ground road, I'm finding myself on the road, wrong side of sleeper, and then have to make a crossing to the right side of sleeper. In any event, sleeper being less traffic than Grant Road, probably this particular maneuver on sleeper avenue is not that critical. So, to me, whether it's south or north is not a major difference, and I think the committee, with their experience, can choose the appropriate side, and I'm perfectly okay with that. The nature of the traffic light itself, however, I already see that I don't even know its name, that kind of light on El Camino, and always, when I see it at a distance, I step on the brake, I have to think, what does this light mean? Is there someone on the street? Can I cross it, so on? Therefore, I fail to see why there should not be a button enabled crossing for the pedestrians, and a sensor, roadberry, sensor enabled crossing, and regular, the traffic light crossing. But that's my view. If you think that, for technical reasons, we really cannot accommodate the existing style of traffic, I'm sure, any one of us will eventually adjust to the new type of traffic light, I'd rather not have to do the adjusting, but if I have to adjust, hey, that's the list of my problems. Thanks very much for your time and listening. Thank you. Thank you. Okay,

[00:37:34] Public Works Director Cameron: next, we have Albert Jeans. Hi,

[00:37:42] Albert Jeans: not again. I figured as long as I'm here, I might as well say something, since I do have some experience with that light. I did see one of these, what they call PHP whites on El Camino. For the 1st time a few days ago, and yeah, it was very confusing. Um, I said, you know, what in the hell is this thing? What am I supposed to do when these lights are flashing and all that stuff? And I'm sure, like, previous speaker said, you know, it's one more thing we can learn and get used to it, just like, you know, we have those flashing crossing signs now, like on Shoreline. You know, we kind of get used to those too. But this one is particularly confusing as the previous speakers said. So if you do install it, somehow, I think you have to put up some kind of, or distribute some kind of public, you know, information thing on how this thing is working and how you're supposed to react to it. I mean, it has so many different phases. And then having the 2 flashing red lights on top is just so, you know, unusual. It really, I think it really throws people for a loop. And I'm really glad I saw how this thing is supposed to work, but I'm still going to take time, some time to internalize it and really understand what I'm supposed to do when I see one of these. Thanks.

[00:38:57] Public Works Director Cameron: Next is Molly C. Hi.

[00:39:06] Molly C.: Um, do you hear me? Yes. Okay. 1st of all, I'd just like to say thank you for addressing this. I'm glad that, um, there's some moment movement towards making this intersection safer. And I just have 2 points. One is that I'm sad to see that left turn go away since, as a person who lives on sleeper neighborhood, um, the other is, I agree with Ellen Kamai, that I see, it's really important that the bikes be addressed, and I'm not sure that they are being addressed in this planned so far, and that's all I had. Thank you.

[00:39:51] Public Works Director Cameron: Next, we have Toby Vanderbeek. Hi there. Hi,

[00:40:04] Lindsay van der Beek: this is Lindsay Vanderbeek. You can hear me? Yes. All right, 1st I want to say thank you very much for, um, doing this project, uh, because having this, um, intersection be safer for the cars and for the, um, pedestrians has certainly been needed for quite some time. Um, So thank you. Yeah, we live up further up, Carol, or up, sleeper on Carol. Um, so we noticed that yes, while the left hand turn restriction would be, um, a little bit disruptive to us, we really only use that left hand turn when it's, um, not heavy traffic time, um, and I recognize that restricting that left hand turn is far safer for the pedestrians. So I would I value that safety on the pedestrians. So, you know, we would learn how to not use that left hand turn, just go up the block. I also want to echo that need for thinking about the bicycle safety. Um, because really when I I come up sleeper to quest a park with my small children. Uh, we don't even try to cross sleeper along grant, that other edge of the crosswalk that you've drawn there. Um, because with the left hand turned from grant onto sleeper. It feels way too dangerous to cross there with our children. So I cross much further up sleeper and kind of come up the wrong side of the street where there is no sidewalk. Um, so that we can be on the crosswalk side. Um, and that seems to feel safer for me with the children. Um, so maybe if there's a way to get that bike lane drawn as well as building a sidewalk, further up sleeper, um, that could help protect people that are on that side of the street. And I think that is it. Thank you again so much for working on this project. Thank

[00:41:59] Chair Sally Lieber: you. I think that takes care of all the public comments. And so I'd like to bring it back to... excuse me, pardon. Pardon me, we've got one more from our former mayor, so we want to be sure to take that one. John McAllister. Okay,

[00:42:22] John McAlister: there I. I think I unmuted myself. Yes. Welcome. Thank you. Good to see everybody again. Lorenzo, you owe me. So, uh, I've lived on sleeper for like a Lorenzo guilty. I lived on a sleeper for over 60 years and so I'm quite familiar with this intersection. Through many different studies that the city has done over the years, and there was always a concern about the traffic. Build up between Grant Road and Eunice and Grant Road and Questa during the old days when we used to have quite a bit of traffic. And so I have some thoughts as you move forward on this that, uh, you may want to consider. If the, as you know, it might always it was, what are we trying to solve? Or we're trying to, and your goal was to facilitate safe movement of bike and ped people. And there was one alternative that wasn't looked at was to, Remove the ramp and put in a pedestrian barrier and direct people to Eunice or to quest a, where they have signals that will be safer. And also when you're talking about bicyclists, sleeper is a narrow street. It's an old county road and has no sidewalks. Whereas Eunice is much wider, has sidewalks and accommodate people and bikes much more safer. So, um, you may want to go back and take a look at that. Also, that also, relocating people to go to the north and go to Cuesta at Grant Road. Again, you have a signal light, which will be safer for everyone and go through there. And so that's a consideration that I hadn't seen, uh, you should look at. Another consideration is when you guys looked at your survey, you looked at people within 700 feet of this intersection. And that is a major flaw that has affected the city for years is that that intersection affects everybody up and down Sleeper Avenue and all the artillery, auxillary seats, streets along that side. So your base is much larger, larger than which you are sampling. And so that you, it affects everybody from where I live down on Franklin all the way around the corner. So, I don't think you got a true sense of what the community wanted from this particular one. And another thing that concerns me is that you guys say you can coordinate with Grant, the signal at Grant and Quest and Sleeper and Eunice. And so that's going to be very interesting because when we have that morning rush or that 3 o'clock rush, traffic is back to back, it goes from one signal all the way to the other. And by putting in this signal, And if you can, to synchronize it with this particular intersection. How are you going to do that, or can you do that so that, but one individual doesn't disrupt cars going along along that road too, because that is a major consideration, because that is a major ulterior for people going to the hospital, going to the schools, high schools, and going shopping. So please put that into your thoughts. Thank you. Thank

[00:45:28] Chair Sally Lieber: you, Mayor. It's good to hear your voice again. Miss Cameron, we have a couple more there. Yes,

[00:45:36] Public Works Director Cameron: we do. And Bradford.

[00:45:41] Anne Bradford: Yeah, hi. I just had a quick comment. We live in the neighborhood also. We are frequent bicyclists and I do think addressing the bike issue is really important. Also, just more clearly marking the bike lane on the, um, I guess, south side of sleeper. I think often when I'm getting across from Questa Park onto sleeper. I worried someone's going to quickly turn from Grant Road onto sleeper and take me out just around that corner. So I don't think that's marked very clearly and very safe right now. Thanks for working on this. We've been anxious for this to come for a long time. Thank you.

[00:46:22] Public Works Director Cameron: Valerie Fenwick. Hi,

[00:46:28] Valerie Fenwick: I'm Valerie Fenwick. I am a resident of Mountain View. I am on the BPAC, but not representing the BPAC at this time. I just wanted to have a great call out here for this intersection. If you look at the other pedestrian crossings, They are for car very close, for bicycles, not too bad. For someone on foot is very significant distance. There's a major problem in mountain view with things designated as long blocks that lead pedestrians to do dangerous jaywalking behaviors mid-block, um, and, um, this with all the great parks and the Y and the hospital right on the other side of this intersection. I just think that I would just, I've already, you know, had my own opinion, and the committees had their opinion, but just, I wanted to really call out that this would be a situation, a scenario called a long block that can be, um, caused a lot of, we have all over Shoreline and on, um, on Grant as well. And so this is a way to enable pedestrians to move much more smoothly and safely to the amenities that are right across the street. Thank you. Thank

[00:47:39] Chair Sally Lieber: you so much. And if there are no further public comments. We'll go ahead and bring it back to council for deliberation. Comments or emotion? Council member Metachek. Thanks. Um,

[00:48:04] Member Lisa Matichak: maybe I have another question or 2 and that is, um, Did we, you know, I saw the, uh, collision data and, I guess I was kind of surprised because, It seems like we've heard from a number of folks that this is an incredibly dangerous, um, intersection. And yet when you look at the data, Um, what seems to be the issue is vehicles, rear ending vehicles. Um, as a, or bicyclist, um, doing movements that, um, We're not safe. Um, and so I thought, well, what, you know, is it because people, they don't feel safe when they're crossing this intersection? Um, But they are paying attention to what's happening, and um, watching out for themselves, and modifying, you know, maybe what they would normally do, um, in order to safely cross the street. And that still is obviously a concern because we do want people to feel safe. Um, But I found it kind of interesting that the data is not at all when I expected it to be when it came to the collisions that happen there. Um, I was wondering if we, um, thought about doing this in phases and maybe, um, did the PHBs. And, um, saw the impact and then, um, if we needed to, change the or restrict the left turn lane. Um, I also have some concerns that, um, I checked with some folks who live either on sleeper or off of sleeper between Carol and Grant. And, um, they they weren't really aware of this project. And they did have concerns about restricting the left turn lane. And those are the folks who are the most impacted by this change because, um, they are between Carol and Grant. Um, so they'd have to go the opposite way. Whereas other folks could just turn on Carol to get to a different street. Um, so I felt like, you know, maybe we could do this in phases and do the PHBs 1st and the other improvements and then see whether or not we need to restrict the left hand turn. Um. And I was wondering, did Steph think about that at all? Doing this in phases?

[00:50:49] City Traffic Engineer Lopez: think about doing it in phases. We looked at that as a separate alternative without the left turn restriction. So there was the alternative one, which is the northern crosswalk, alternative, alternative 2 with the southern crosswalk, and then like a 2B, um, or with a restriction, and then the 2B without the restriction. And we felt, The goal was to make this as safe as possible for the pedestrians crossing my apologies. for the pedestrians crossing the um, Crossing grant road by eliminating any potential conflicts with with the left turning vehicles from sleepers. So, that was, uh, It was considered, but we we didn't look at it in phases. We wanted to go straight to this alternative and almost the reverse of what you're saying, put it all in and see what kind of feedback we get. And after a year of, once it's constructed a year from that point, we gather the feedback and say, okay, this is a success or the neighborhood absolutely hates it and they're requesting that it gets removed. So, That's kind of the thought process that we had as we were as we were going over the alternatives. Okay. And and uh, and to your comment about the residence between Grant and Carol, this is the 3rd time that we've met on this project, and we've sent notices specifically to that section every, every single time. So, If they haven't heard about this, they're throwing their mail away or I don't know what's happening, but we, we definitely have have, have mailed to that, that section of sleeper. Yeah,

[00:52:30] Member Lisa Matichak: that's always a frustration. Um, we feel like we try to communicate and reach out to folks, and yet, um, for some reason, I feel like, you know, we're not always able to reach the folks, who, you know, especially in this case, would be the most impacted, similar to, like, the NTMP, where we reach out to the folks who would be most impacted by a change, uh, to get their input. So, that concerns me that, um, You know, a lot of them hadn't heard of this. Um, been interested in, uh, what my colleagues are thinking. Um,

[00:53:09] Chair Sally Lieber: Mayor Committee, did you have comments? Um, hey,

[00:53:13] Member Ellen Kamei: well, I was gonna, um, make a motion, um, and then try to incorporate some of the feedback that I've been hearing into that motion, if possible, looking to our public rights director to see if that that would be. Um, but kind of given a customer Mattachek's, um, Feedback, I'm not sure. If she, well, I can just see if there's the entertainment of it. So, um, I'd like to, um, move forward with the stock, uh, recommendation to prove alternative number 2, the pedestrian hybrid beacon, with a southern crosswalk and left turn restriction from Sleeper Avenue. As the preferred alternative for Grant Road, and Sleeper Avenue intersection study. Um, it also, you know, like, um, to, I don't know how to incorporate this with camera, but, you know, I think that as we are looking at the design, perhaps being able to have that be sent back to maybe this committee, um, in an off agenda memo or something. Um, I know they're just going to be a community meeting, but something to keep us appraised of the situation would be the only kind of addition and I'd like to see. And then perhaps, um, we could address the community outreach, um, concern that Councilman Rumatachek just brought up. Okay,

[00:54:38] Public Works Director Cameron: did you also want to include in there to direct staff to look at incorporating bicycle crossing features into the design? Okay. Yes, please. Okay. So, um, so the motion, as we understand it, is to approve staff's recommendation with the addition of incorporating bicycle crossing features into the design, and to, um, as the design proceeds to return to the council transportation committee, um, with, And I would suggest we not make an off agenda memo, we are going to need to meet again in the fall, so we can bring it back to you in the fall with, this is what It's looking like, as well as share with you where we're at on community outreach, as we continue.

[00:55:32] Chair Sally Lieber: And um, I'll just make my comments that I'm, I'm very comfortable with the motion that's been made. I am would be concerned about installing a PHP and giving the public the understanding that it's safe to cross Grant Road, if the left turns were still being made freely. Um, because I, I, I think that children could be crossing to try to get to the park and, um, although the left turns appear to be very rare from sleeper onto Grant Road, mostly because drivers don't feel like it's a safe turn to make. Um, I think that the, the risk of having someone, um, have the understanding that it's safe and then no indication going to drivers that would be making that left would be, um, a concerning situation to have. So I'm very comfortable with emotion. And, um, Council member man a check. Yeah,

[00:56:41] Member Lisa Matichak: well, the folks turning left from sleep around to Grant would still have the stop sign. Um, and would, I think they have greater visibility of what's happening to the left than they do the right. Um, so I'm more concerned about the right turn than I am left turn. Um, I feel like the PHBs are, um, going to give even more indication to folks, um, from sleeper, going to, uh, southbound on grant, that, you know, there's pedestrians or bicyclists crossing. So, I guess, um, since this, since the, uh, no left turn, is potentially temporary, um, because of the way this is set up, um, and there's another opportunity for public, uh, input, um, I will support the motion. I just really want to make sure we, I mean, I'll ask the folks that I know in that area to let their neighbors know. Um, so that the next time we talk about this, if they have real serious concerns, um, that they're able to share that with all of us.

[00:57:56] Chair Sally Lieber: Absolutely. And would you like to 2nd the motion? Um, okay. Okay, great. We have a motion by Mayor of May and a 2nd by council member Metachek. Um, um, Ms. Cameron, should we take a roll call? Yeah, done this.

[00:58:18] Public Works Director Cameron: We will take a roll call vote. So Mayor Kameh?

[00:58:22] Member Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[00:58:24] Public Works Director Cameron: Council member Mattachek.

[00:58:26] Member Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[00:58:27] Public Works Director Cameron: Person Lieber?

[00:58:28] Chair Sally Lieber: Yes.

[00:58:29] Public Works Director Cameron: Okay, it passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay, thank you. And

5.2 AccessMV: Comprehensive Modal Plan

[00:58:36] Chair Sally Lieber: now we'll go on to item 5.2 Access MV, the comprehensive modal plan. Uh, the staff presentation will be provided by Rhea Hudabra, low uh, transportation manager. Okay,

[00:59:02] Public Works Director Cameron: Rhea, can you share your screen? Excellent. Hello,

[00:59:22] Transportation Manager Lo: um, I'm Rio Hutch Barrett Lowe. on the transportation manager. And I'm joined tonight also by Sam Corbett, who is a consultant working on this work, to talk about Access MV, Mountain Views, comprehensive modal plan. So Access MV was initiated as a council major goal. How come this is not advancing? There we go. Um, To develop and implement coordinated transportation strategies to achieve mobility, connectivity and safety for people of all ages. Access MV is not intended to identify new projects in the city, but to consolidate projects from over 31 different plans and studies into a single cohesive, prioritized frame, uh, prioritization framework or process. In working towards this process, we've engaged the community and stakeholders, through a number of opportunities, including 2 virtual community meetings, and online survey for BPAC sessions and a study session on prioritization criteria last November. These engagement opportunities have allowed community members, stakeholders, and the council to provide input on the prioritization criteria. And so as a result, we've made a number of updates to the prioritization criteria which we previously presented to council, including an equity metric that is based on household income, uh, say routes to schools, some um, uh, consistency metrics, and also, um, we added a metric relating to regional transit priority corridors. And these corridors are based on both the city plans as well as VTA plans. So what we ended up with was 6 goals. 15 criteria and a scoring system with a maximum possible score of 135. In applying this criteria to the 147 different corridor segments that make up mountain views transportation network, we identified priority corridors that are displayed in this figure. The highest corridor, scoring corridor was El Camino Royale between Renksdorf Avenue and SR 85. It had a score of 112. This was followed by Ringstorff Avenue, Shoreline Boulevard, San Antonio Road, and California Streets. Across, across, California Street. Across the city, scores ranged from 41 to 112. The corridor priority score was then used as the 1st step in analyzing the project priority, which also incorporated information on things like feasibility, um, strategic importance, um, the project cost, that sort of thing. And so based on this project prioritization process, projects have been prioritized by mode. For bicycles, uh, for bicycle transportation, uh, the highest priority projects were classed for bikeways alongshoreline, California, and El Camino Real. For roadways, there were fewer projects due to the largely built out nature of the roadway network and the more operational nature of improvements like road repaving and also signal upgrades, that sort of thing. The analyzed projects included adaptive signal, uh, projects across a, across corridors, complete streets, traffic calming, and some new, uh, new streets. These are particularly in areas such as the North Bay Shore, San Antonio area and East Wisman, where we have precise plants. For transit, we analyzed services as part of the shuttle study, which Council considered last February, February 2020. Um, and the shuttle study included recommendations for expansion of the mountain view community shuttle hours of service, hours of service. Facilities that were analyzed include Charleston, transit corridor, as well as the shoreline bus line, uh, shoreline, uh, bus lane, which is currently under construction. Finally, for pedestrians, we do not have a priority project, a priority project list because there was a lack of specific pedestrian projects in the plans and studies and also because we tend to rely more on general bundled programs for delivering pedestrian improvements as well as private developments. In order to implement the priorities that have outlined in Access MV. There are, it turns out that there are many projects that were identified as priorities that are already in the city's five-year capital improvement program. Other priority projects, um, for other priority projects, we plan to add them as funding becomes available. We're also pursuing an initial, um, uh, initial study, uh, shuttle study enhancements using measure B funds, um, innovative transit, uh, grant funds which we run from uh, VTA, and then also later this year we'll be starting the active transportation plan and we'll use this to address uh, identified gaps in terms of active transportation and also competing demands for a right of ways, such as between bicyclists, pedestrians, green infrastructure and motorists. Tonight, staff are recommend recommending that you review the priority corridors and project prioritization criteria, and we also recommend that you make a recommendation to the city council that they approved the Access MV draft report. Okay,

[01:05:21] Chair Sally Lieber: thank you so much. We'll go 1st to any council questions. Okay. Council my roommate check. Thanks.

[01:05:38] Member Ellen Kamei: I do have a few. Um. When is the pedestrian master plan scheduled to be updated? It,

[01:05:52] Transportation Manager Lo: it, it was scheduled to be updated already. Um, we are understaffed at the moment, and so I plan to get it started as soon as we have someone hired as the new transportation planner.

[01:06:03] Public Works Director Cameron: However, for clarification, what we are doing is merging it with updating the bicycle transportation plans. So what's going to be started as soon as possible is the active transportation plan, which will encompass both the pedestrian master plan and the bicycle transportation plan. Ah. Um, so

[01:06:27] Member Ellen Kamei: I feel like we've talked about that before, and I appreciate that they are emerging. I guess I thought that that was still coming to council. Um, is, is it to merge that, or is that just going to happen? And I can say, woohoo. Well,

[01:06:42] Public Works Director Cameron: technically, it comes to council, um, at your next meeting is one of the strategic plan priorities and it's on the, you know, what's council is discussed before and what, you know, Agenda hasn't been published, but staff is supporting the idea developing an active transportation plan. That will be followed by council considering the 5 year CIP, where we would rename the pedestrian master plan, an active transportation plan, and additional funding so that it can be more all encompassing of both bicycle and pedestrian needs. Okay. Um,

[01:07:29] Member Ellen Kamei: I'd like to dig in a little bit into complete streets. So I feel like when we were doing the general plan update. And um, talked about complete streets. I feel like maybe I had a different perspective on what that meant. Um. And I guess I want to understand a little bit more. Does that mean, like, we just have to make sure that we have, um, Streets that are good for bicyclists and streets that are good for, Vehicles and streets that are good for transit. Um, or does it mean that Pretty much every street has to be good for every mode of transportation or of getting around, I should say. So,

[01:08:22] Transportation Manager Lo: generally, complete streets. Oh, I'm I'm getting a lot of echo. Maria,

[01:08:30] Public Works Director Cameron: do you want me to take this one? Sure. Alrighty. So generally, the complete streets, policy, resolutions, all of that essentially says that every street will serve all modes, but it does not say you have to serve all modes. It's not one size fit all for every street. So you can determine that for some streets, uh, you know, you might want to emphasize the pedestrian needs on that street or the bicycle needs over the motorist needs. Well, on a parallel street, you may have more of an arterio that's more serving the motorist needs. So, The idea is you do have to accommodate all modes on all streets, but you can prioritize what mode you're focused on for a particular street, especially if you can balance out your transportation network to make sure all modes have options and can get around. And that's where that piece that Rhea brought in that we've also heard from counsel, the importance that we're going to have to look at in terms of, uh, when you have competing uses for limited ride away. How do you how do you address that? Yeah, that's a challenge. Um,

[01:09:50] Member Ellen Kamei: okay, so, um, I thought I had a follow-up on that, but I don't. So, in the executive summary, um, on page 13. It talks about, um, That the pedestrian master plan did not include specific pedestrian project recommendations. And so that mode was not included in the analysis. And yet, as I continue reading this, I do see specific, um, planned pedestrian improvements. That are included. And so I guess I'm trying to figure out, um, Where did those come from? Or were some include, was it like not comprehensive in the pedestrian master plan or how do I reconcile kind of what's included in what might be missing? So

[01:10:56] Transportation Manager Lo: the ones that are included are ones that also have a bicycle component. So there's some sort of sharing between the 2 modes, like a bicycle pedestrian undercrossing or bicycle pedestrian bridge, um, But the pedestrian master plan that was done in 2014, it tended to be more of a policy document rather than listing a lot of projects like the bicycle transportation plan did. And it. So the mode the mode was analyzed, but in terms of the projects, We don't have a lot of them to actually put in the mix. Okay. Um. No,

[01:11:39] Member Ellen Kamei: the last page of the executive summary. It uh, talks about how access Mountain View. Um, and I'm really glad we changed the name because between multimodal, you comprehensive model, and all those, I was always confused. Um, Access MV is so much better. So thank you for changing the name. But, um, how can this be used to prioritize the new, um, like tree canopy and green streets? How would we use this to help that?

[01:12:19] Transportation Manager Lo: So I think that, um, what we're recommending, uh, given that we don't have projects that are, Green streets projects that we're analyzing as part of this, what we're recommending is that there's more um, collaboration between the open, uh, the open space and parks, plan and also the community street plan and what we're doing in transportation. And also as we do the active transportation plan also that we are communicating, you know, that we're incorporating green infrastructure and trees in that as well. Okay.

[01:12:54] Member Ellen Kamei: Would this be a living document that gets updated whenever one of the underlying or whenever a few of the underlying documents get updated?

[01:13:05] Transportation Manager Lo: That is my hope. Um, so we have, uh, you know, we have all of the infrastructure and how this was prioritized in terms of the the spreadsheets and um, so we can, we can treat it as a living. It's not just a document, but the analysis behind it as well. Okay. Um,

[01:13:24] Member Ellen Kamei: on page 65. Where it's showing, I think that was the short trips. Uh, The origin and destination. Map. I must admit that I had a really difficult time telling if the thickness of any of these lines were different. Um, or if they were all 11 to 50 or 51 to 100. So, Can you help me? Is like, are they all the same thickness and they're all the same? Um, volume? Or is there really a difference between these?

[01:14:11] Transportation Manager Lo: I'm wondering if um, I can't tell if Sam is on the call. I'm wondering if we can have Sam help us with this question.

[01:14:19] Consultant Corbett: I am. Yes, I'm looking at that map too, and I would agree with your assessment. The lines, they all appear to be either in the lowest or the 2nd from lowest category. Um, I would note that this was really just sharing data points, it didn't, um, it didn't factor in our prioritization or our analysis significantly, but I I think you're right. It's either the lowest or the 2nd to lowest category. For OD pairs. Okay. Um. So

[01:15:00] Member Ellen Kamei: it basically says everyone goes everywhere. Correct. That was my takeaway. Okay, um. Let's see. Um, and on page 46. That's where the short trips were discussed. Yeah, I thought that was, um, really interesting, and I was wondering if there was, did it factor in at all, I don't know how it could, but, Did it factor in at all, what the short trip was for? The purpose? Or is it just, This was a short trip by a vehicle? Yeah,

[01:15:45] Transportation Manager Lo: this is a, it's the latter. I'm getting feedback again. Um, so it's it's based on cell phone data. And so it actually may overestimate slightly the short trips because if someone, for example, stops for 5 minutes to get a cup of coffee or to fill up the tank with petrol, gas, um, then it will break the trip and it will restart. And so there is a slight amount of overestimating and we have a lot of caveats. I don't know. You noticed all the caveats around the data that we used for that, but I thought it was a very interesting data. analysis. Yep. Okay. Um, and

[01:16:29] Member Ellen Kamei: then, uh, one more question. You know, when I look at, um, the priority, um, of some streets, for vehicle, pedestrian or bicycles. I was really wondering, what does that really mean? If that's a priority. And the one that really comes to mind for me is El Camino. So, um, uh, I can't remember, what pages is on? Maybe 68? Yes, a 68. So for El Camino, which is, Um. It has um, vehicle is high priority. Transit is high priority. Um, Pedestrian is high priority. But bicycle was medium to low. And yet, we just, well, not just a little while ago. Um, did the streetscape plan for El Camino and the um, bicycle lanes on both sides. And I was thinking, well, What? You know, why did we not potentially consider, um, expanding the sidewalks, or having a planter strip between the sidewalk and the road, another one, and making it more pleasant for pedestrians, when they are higher priority than bicyclists, according to this, um, on that street.

[01:18:31] Transportation Manager Lo: The El Camina Royale Street Skype Plan actually does include widened sidewalks and a planter strip. And however, it's not a city CIP, it would be done with development. So as the area redevelops those, those get built. I think you can see some of them already in places where there are new developments within the city. So

[01:18:52] Member Ellen Kamei: I guess I was thinking even more than what we have. Because I feel like even though for some new developments that happens, you could even take some of the area that we've now, um, designated as a bike lane and make it, um, an even wider sidewalk with even more greenery for pedestrians that might make it even more attractive. And I guess, how do we think about that when one street? You know, as designated as several modes are high priority. But one mode really isn't. You know, because I felt like we, we definitely prioritized, um, bicycles on El Camino, and yet I'm not sure that's what this chart says.

[01:19:45] Public Works Director Cameron: So I don't know if that's a question. Oh, a couple things. One is, I think the chart table 3 dash 5. That's taken currently out of the general plan. I'm trying to see which one you're considering to be El Camino real. But, in general, that spoke in generalities, but at times, you have to be, uh, you know, it did not mean that it was set in stone. And I think what happened with El Camino and it came up during the El Camino Rio precise plan originally. And then further, even as under the Grand Boulevard, studied for El Camino. And as we did the streetscape plan, is that with all of the destinations along El Camino, and the lack of alternate routes for bicyclists, especially for key points like crossing 85. As well as just a lack of immediately uh, parallel, easy to use uh, roadways for bicyclists. The importance of serving bicycles on El Camino became much higher, and the demand is there. So, I, I, you know, I can intuit, since I was not part of the precise plan, that that came up during the El Camino real precise plan and acknowledge and Grand Boulevard. But I think El Camino Real is sort of a special case that, the, the land use is along it, the demand along it, it is one of those where all prio- all modes are a high priority. And we're working hard to serve them all, pedestrians, bicyclists, definitely transit. As well as the motor vehicles and the trucks that use El Camino real. So, the streetscape plan worked hard to balance all of these needs together.

[01:21:39] Member Lisa Matichak: So, um, on page 69, it's considered a boulevard, and then I was looking at page 68 for, um, what are the general plan mode priority for a boulevard. And

[01:21:54] Public Works Director Cameron: I and I, so again, yes, I see the correlation now. But when I compare this to the other boulevards, you know, El Camino does stick out as a little bit unique. And, again, it kind of goes back to the precise plan and the Grand Boulevard that, you know, bicycles are also a high priority here.

[01:22:19] Member Lisa Matichak: Okay, those are all my questions. Thanks.

[01:22:22] Chair Sally Lieber: Hey, Mayor Comet. Great,

[01:22:26] Member Ellen Kamei: thank you. Um, so I just, uh, had a Quick question. So, um, kind of in the same idea, I think, of council member Mattachek. So, um, you know, one of the things that we've received a lot of feedback in during the pandemic is wanting to have, um, you know, a friendlier environment, um, you know, visually to uh, walking and and biking around. And so I wonder for, when we're talking about the access empty plan, under sustainability, we talk about reducing vehicle, miles traveled and related greenhouse gas emissions. I wonder if there's a way to kind of incorporate, um, kind of the feedback we've, city council's been receiving on, kind of, greenways or green pass, and I know that, Miss Cameron, you just answer that in terms of streetscape, but I wonder if we can incorporate that or, or if it's kind of, the ship has already failed on that. Yeah,

[01:23:32] Transportation Manager Lo: I think that this will come out more in the active transportation plan. So our goal with Access MV was not to introduce new projects, but just to prioritize the 100s of projects that we already have in all of our different plans. But I think that as we update the active transportation plan, this is something that we would consider. And also, it is something that we're starting to think about as we deliver some of those projects that are already in the plans. Okay,

[01:23:59] Member Ellen Kamei: and thank you, Ms. Lowe. And then this kind of dovetails into my 2nd question, which is, you know, I think that staff's recommendation in terms of the priority corridors and the project prioritization and have the recommendation here for approval, it makes sense to me. I just know as we're entering year 2 of the pandemic, how, um, we have been or perhaps staff can share some of the things, um, that that have risen to the top in terms of any changes that have needed to be made to the plan, um, as people hopefully are in their vehicles less. Um, I'm just curious if staff has anything that they've been able to kind of uncover, if it's changed anything, as we've been looking at, um, the Axis MP plan. So

[01:24:47] Transportation Manager Lo: in terms of the, um, so if I understand the question correctly, you're asking kind of in terms of the changes that the pandemic might make, right. So, um, I think that what we're looking at in terms of access MV is a long-term conditions. And yes, we have reduced traffic right now, but we have reduced transit ridership. And so a transit vehicle, accommodates 60 people, a motor vehicle, typically one. 2.2. And so we, I've seen reports that the, you know, the, you know, the traffic relief we're getting right now could be, like give us false assurance for how, as things come back, if people are still feeling nervous about taking transit, it could actually be worse than before, not better. Even with work from home. So there's, we don't know what the long-term conditions are, but we're planning based on kind of what we've what we've modeled as long-term conditions. It could be more, it could be less. Um, But yeah, I wouldn't, I wouldn't assume that it was, that these conditions we're seeing now are permanent. Great.

[01:25:52] Member Ellen Kamei: I think that's helpful to daylight a bit because I think as we're looking at this, you know, how does the, how does what we adopt, kind of live, live on and stay a bit evergreen, right? And, um, as I was looking at the staff report, you know, I saw the, hold on, pull it up really quickly. You know, the, and I don't think this is the, prioritization, but it, it was listed, that the, you know, it's a bicycle, it's listed a bicycle 1st, pet 1st roadway vehicular, and then transit. Um, in the staff report. I am hoping that vehicular will be last, but I'm assuming that that's, you know, is just written that way, but it's not in terms of, um, priority, but great. All right, those are my questions. Thanks so much. Thank you, Mayor. And,

[01:26:46] Chair Sally Lieber: um, my question is whether it would be possible in the, in the plan to amplify, um, Issues of equity around access, uh, for people of differing abilities, and people utilizing assistive technologies, and and devices. Um, and I think some of our most heavily used corridors are particularly, um, difficult for people who, um, use assistive devices. Um, know that looking through things, there, there are mentions of, um, ability, but it seems like most things are silo to, uh, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicles. Um, and so if we could possibly, uh, look for more inclusion of, of that, I would appreciate it. And, um, then also maybe address that under the equity issues as well. Okay, and if there are no further counsel questions, um, we can, uh, go to members of the public. And if members of the public would like to comment on this item. If you would please click the raise hand button in Zoom, or press star 9 on your phone. And staff will display a timer on the screen.

[01:28:30] Public Works Director Cameron: Thank you. First on our list is Bruce England. Thank you, Don. Oh,

[01:28:39] Bruce England: good. We got 3 minutes. Okay, yeah, I have several things I'd like to say, partially on behalf of Green Space is MV. So I heard the discussion from Maria about some of these details are going to be in the active transportation plan, but you know, all these connect to each other. And I think that access MV is about connectivity, but also experience and safety need to be accounted for. And this occurred to me, and I heard some comments from some other people offline about the near missed data. Um, for my ears on the BPAC. We talked about this a lot, and as far as I know, this still isn't really being adequately reported or maybe not reported at all. There's near missed data that's reported through the police department that really ought to be incorporated in actual collisions. And sometimes at intersections and other locations, you don't get the full picture unless you also know about the near misses that might have happened. As far as this plan and draft form, and I've commented on this before, so this won't be new to a lot of you, but there seems to be a lack of east-west connectivity, and that includes going between Palo Alto through Mountain View and into Sunnyvale. So, for example, the Allen Fletcher Boulevard in Palo Alto could be continued through Mountain View deliberately. But that's not really included here because it stops at our city borders. And I think that should be explored. Also, the east side of Mountain View is lacking. If you look at those maps, you'll see that beyond 85 and going to the east, it's fairly sparse, and as somebody who lives in that part of Mountain View, I'd like to see more coverage out along Dana, uh, and around the Wisman area, and so on. And, um, Also, the discussion about uh, complete streets, there's a movement towards making complete streets, more complete green streets, and that means adding green or linear park type experiences to the uh, to the streetscape, so you don't have to go to a park to see trees and and landscape. It's all part of your experience throughout the city. And that really plays into this plan a whole lot because you ought to be able to go long stretches through mountain view and experience greenery along there. Mark Berman had some draft legislation about this. Um, that was titled Sustainable Streets, and it got lost in um, current legislation, but uh, hopefully it will be reintroduced, and that will be something worth following. Um, and then the hatch Hetchy right of way, uh, is something that could be considered a very long-term project, maybe across decades that I'd like to see explored, and um, council member of Liber knows about this from me. And lastly, the R3 discussion, is looking at densifying further densifying Mountain View, and the streetscape needs to be paid attention to in that for both the pedestrian experience and the bicycle experience. So setbacks and stepbacks and son are very important there. Anyway, it's somewhat unrelated, but it all ties together. Thank you. Thank

[01:31:36] Public Works Director Cameron: you. Next, um, John McAllister.

[01:31:43] John McAlister: Guys, I'll just let you know that this is a rare occasion. I do not follow you, but this is very close to and dear to my heart, as Miss Cameron knows. And after 3.5 years, I am somewhat envious of you guys that you are able to recommend this going forward. But then that envy is cooled down when I see it's a report of over 300 pages and I go, 0 my God, thank God, I dont have to read that. But I trust you guys for doing everything. Yes, it's I'm glad to see it going. I will continue to follow this one since I was sort of, The one that spearheaded this thing, and I think it's well deserved, and I would like to follow up a little bit on what Bruce said is that as you continue to add density. That shuttle's schedule is which one of the things that I was concerned about is that over here where I live, we're sort of in a transit desert down here in the southeast. part of town. And it would be nice to be able to get up to town in all these other areas. But thank you for moving. Hopefully, you'll all approve this, moving it forward, and continue the long reading that you get to do. And I appreciate your time and questions. And, uh, I will let you go and have fun, and I will go myself and retire to, where old guys retire too. Cranky old man, just sit back and relax. So thank you all. And vote for it and please keep going with transit is so important to so many lives as you guys find out. Good night, good night, Don. Thank you, Ellen, Lisa, Rhea, Sam, all you guys. Okay, I'm done. Thank you, Mayor.

[01:33:28] Public Works Director Cameron: Okay, Albert Jeans.

[01:33:33] Albert Jeans: Hi again. Yeah, overall, I'm really pleased to see everything tied together in this one, as John said, very volume in this document. I look forward to making my way through it, reading it all. As an avid cyclist, I just want to point out a concern I have about the bicycle level of stress map that I've seen in a couple places. In general, I agree with most of the ratings. As a bicyclist, as you may know, you definitely feel different levels of stress depending on where you're biking. But where I see a couple discrepancies are on the roads that cross 101, namely shoreline and ranksdorf. You know, going over those overpasses to me is one of the most dangerous places, you know, in the city. I mean, you're almost lane splitting with lots of traffic, that is when, you know, we used to have lots of traffic. And yeah, those are rated at the same level as West Middlefield where I feel comfortable riding without my hands on the handlebar. And so I know that, you know, whoever made the map, you know, they go through some algorithm, they rate different things, and this is a score they come up with, but somehow the overall result, I think, doesn't reflect reality in some of these cases. Um, yeah, crossing a freeway, you're going up, you know, you're going up a slope, which is hard for a lot of people, and you've got lots of traffic, and you've got merging cars. You know, that's the worst place. Maybe there aren't that many accidents because everybody's really careful and only they're really confident people try writing there, but I think those are definitely right up there along right up there with riding on Central Expressway and El Camino. So that's all I have. Thank you.

[01:35:14] Chair Sally Lieber: Okay, are there any other members of the public who would like to comment? Seeing none, we're gonna close public comment and bring it back to the committee for discussion and motion.

[01:35:34] Chair Sally Lieber: Council member Manachek.

[01:35:37] Member Lisa Matichak: Another question. Mr. England brought up the near miss data, and I wasn't aware that that exists. But it might explain why I was so surprised about the data on the previous topic, that maybe there were a lot of near misses at that intersection of Sleeper and Grant, that were not, um, in the data we saw because they were near misses. But, um, what does the near miss data? Look like? Is it similar to the collision data? With the same amount of information?

[01:36:10] Transportation Manager Lo: No, it's not. It's based on ask MV data. So it really relies on people self-reporting if they had a near miss. And for that reason, there are concerns in terms of equity and who would be self-reporting.

[01:36:27] Member Lisa Matichak: Ah, okay. Thanks. And what does it mean to accept this draft or recommend acceptance of the draft? Does it stay a draft? And we just keep on updating it? Or does it mean, this is like a final and The next final comes out? Or what does it really mean to accept the draft?

[01:36:53] Transportation Manager Lo: So we would turn it into a final document with whatever edits you recommend and um, then we can, we can make it a living document down the track, but it's, it's kind of, uh, like a snapshot right now and then if we, you know, continue to update it over time, then, uh, you know, it's not necessarily like the 2021 version, but it would be like a living document moving forward from there.

[01:37:17] Member Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, um, I do have, um, uh, I guess concerns about the, um, areas where there are overlaps. Yeah, I feel like over the past 4 years. Um, we've had discussions on council about, Um, changes that were proposed where there are overlaps. And it seems like it's a challenge to figure out what's the right thing to do. Um, and so I was ex, you know, I guess I, I would like to not have those challenges, um, you know, trying to balance the competing objectives, um, of different routes. Um, staff seemed to indicate that, you know, it was mostly, um, older plans versus newer plans and it could easily be resolved. I feel like, yeah, but we still have those discussions that counsel about the different modes and the competing nature of them. So how how would we address that?

[01:38:25] Public Works Director Cameron: So, again, um, what you're seeing here, of course, in excess MV, because the idea was to pull together all the existing plans and identify the gaps, identify as you're saying, um, areas where there are overlaps or competing recommendations. So right now, what we have in the report is, this is what is. Now, with undertaking the active transportation plan, this is where we're going to get to start resolving some of those issues when it relates to the bicycle and pedestrian uses of our streets. And this is where this becomes a living document, after the act of transportation is done, and it helps clarify where there is overlap, competition, or, you know, 11, One plan says this is going to be a protected bikeway. Well, another one says, no, this is going to just be a typical old class to bike lane. What's really going to happen there in terms of what's feasible the right away? We'll get to that with the active transportation plan, and then, again, this is where this becomes a living document that we can then re-prioritize corridors and projects using this criteria as we go forward to help inform. And I think this was the ultimate goal of this process and continuing to use it. is it will help us inform as we put together our future five-year capital improvement programs. One of the things that, um, when this even was 1st suggested by council member McAllister as a council goal, my predecessor, Mike Fuller, had said to me when I, when I came on board and that it just started, he said, this would be such a relief to start getting some clear direction on where our priorities are, because there are literally 100s of projects in all of these plans and to have a systematic way. to be clear on what's our next set of priorities to include in our 5 year CIP. Will be very useful. So, in some respects, while this document is sort of a snapshot in time, what it does do, is it says, here, right now, here's the criteria reviews, this is how we plan to prioritize, and as we update our list of projects and improvements and identify them through things like the active transportation plan, we can go through this scoring process again.

[01:40:58] Member Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I feel like we're counting on the active transportation plan to do a lot. Um, and, um, I'm a little bit worried we don't have the resources right now to do that in a real timely fashion. Um, or are they imminent?

[01:41:15] Public Works Director Cameron: Well, we, fingers crossed, you know, we have the vacancies, we've been recruiting, and we're hoping to fill at least one of the 2 vacancies soon, but if we're lucky, we'll build to fill the other ones shortly thereafter, at which time the transportation section headed by Rhea will be fully staffed. And that's going to make a big difference for her because right now, her section is supposed to be herself, +3 full-time transportation planners, right now it's just her and one full-time transportation planner. So she's at 50% staffing, but we're in recruitment. We have offers out. We're really hopeful. And then we will be needing to add budget, and that's part of the CIP process coming to you. Um, to make the pedestrian master plan into an active transportation plan. So we've already identified what we would suggest as a budget funding source and we'll be coming to council because we will need really good, strong consultant assistance in this as well.

[01:42:17] Member Lisa Matichak: So I guess for me, um, I would also like to see more about, um, the environment that a pedestrian or a bicyclist is experiencing. Um, and Um, while I appreciate that that is part of the active transportational plan. I would like all of that to also be included in this. Um, and so, I don't know if that active transportation plan is a one year project, a 2 year project, you know, once we get folks on board. Um, but I don't want to wait too long before that's factored in. Um, because I think it's really important. So is it like a, is this a one year, 2 year, 3 year thing by the time it gets back into the, um, Access MV plan?

[01:43:13] Public Works Director Cameron: I would say that we should assume 18 months because we're gonna want some really strong community engagement and that always that takes time to work your way through that. So, Again, what we're at right now is we sort of need to bring this particular project with this work product to a close. And we move on to the active transportation plan, but then, um, what we can look at is making, look at updating, access MV once the active transportation plan is completed.

[01:43:51] Member Lisa Matichak: Okay, so the act of transportation is about an 18 month project. Just that part alone. Okay. Okay. Um, Great. So, um, I want to say again, I appreciate you changing the name of this. Makes it so much easier. Um, I also appreciate just the fact that this was done. Um, I know when I 1st was elected, um, and I was having my meetings with all of the department heads, um, it was Mike Fuller at the time, and I said, wow, there are so many plans for transportation. Um, Do we have anything that puts them all together? And he just looked at me like, you gotta be kidding me. Um, So, um, I guess I'll let McAllister take credit for uh, pushing this one forward. Um, but I was in the background. Um, But I really did, all kidding aside, I really do appreciate it. I think this is incredibly helpful. I think it gives us a much better view of all the different projects going on and what we're trying to get to as an end game, so to speak. Um, I'm really looking forward to the active transportation plan and the inclusion of greenways, trees, all the things that make it pleasant to walk and bike through our city. To me, that's kind of one of the most important parts of this whole thing. Um, so thank you for all the great work on this. I really, really appreciate it. Okay. And, uh,

[01:45:32] Chair Sally Lieber: Mayrick May.

[01:45:35] Member Ellen Kamei: I don't really have, um, comments at this point, but I'm happy to make emotion. So, I, uh, will recommend that the, uh, city council approve, well, I guess this gets sent to the city council to approve the draft report for access MV. Um, and the mountain and mountain views uh, comprehensive modal plan. I'll second it.

[01:45:58] Chair Sally Lieber: Okay, great. There's a motion by Mayrick May and a 2nd by council member Manachek. And I would just like to comment relative to the the near miss data. Um, I am not a huge fan of ask MV. And, um, I, I think that for, it would never occur to me to self-report a near miss into something that's called ask MV. Um, even though I, I have that on my phone and and I could do it, if I really studied the app enough to understand that that was what it was for. Um, but if staff can keep it in the back of their mind that, um, if there's a better way for folks to report near misses that they've seen or or ones that they've had. Um, I think that that would be valuable to try to get more data, um, because I think as, as staff alluded to, um, people who are not native speakers of English, and people who are not as, as technological with the apps and the smartphones. Um, wouldn't be reporting those in, and so there may be other ways of getting that information. And then again, just to put it out there again, whatever we can do to really amplify, um, the differing abilities as part of access, um, mountain view and, uh, the assistive devices because we do have a, A silver tsunami coming and for some of us, it's already here. And, uh, I think that's just a really important part of our our future in mountain view. Um, so we do have emotion in a 2nd and Ms. Cameron, if you'd like to call the roll. Okay, uh, Mayor Kameh? Council

[01:47:58] Public Works Director Cameron: member Mattachek?

[01:47:59] Member Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[01:48:00] Public Works Director Cameron: Chairperson Lieber?

[01:48:02] Chair Sally Lieber: Yes.

[01:48:03] Public Works Director Cameron: It

5.3 2021 Meeting Schedule

[01:48:03] Chair Sally Lieber: passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay, thank you to stay up and one thing that I should have said on the previous item as well as this one is, uh, thank you to the B pack. Uh, also, it's quite a commitment to serve on the BPAC and uh, I think we've seen the utility of their work. Uh, right here as well as the depth of the staff work on both of these items. So thank you so much. Okay, and we'll go on to our, um, next item. Uh, item 5.3 uh, calls for approving the next CTC meeting. For either May 18th or June 1st, 2021. And staff is available for any questions um, about this. And if there are not questions, I'd like to ask the committee members if they have a preference on those 2 dates. Council member Metachek.

[01:49:03] Member Lisa Matichak: I was actually wondering if staff had a preference. Well,

[01:49:08] Public Works Director Cameron: I appreciate you asking because I did receive a text message from our city traffic engineer who, it's his section that has to prepare the next 2 items and he said, If they could pick June first, he would really appreciate it. And my preference is June first.

[01:49:27] Chair Sally Lieber: Okay. Great. Um, well, now we're gonna take um, public comments. on this item. So if there are any members of the public who would like to comment on, uh, these 2 dates. And, uh, I think you know what to do as far as uh, clicking the raise hand button in Zoom or pressing Star 9 on your phone. And I do not see any members of the public who have indicated that they would like to uh, speak on it. So, um, can we take June 1st as a emotion from, uh, Council member Manachek and and 2nded by Mayor Camay? And Ms. Cameron, do you need a roll call on this one as well?

[01:50:18] Public Works Director Cameron: I think we could just do raised hands in this case. Okay.

7. ADJOURNMENT

[01:50:23] Chair Sally Lieber: Okay, if we can all raise our hands if we're on board with June 1st. So June 1st, 2021, it is with the unanimous vote. And uh, we'll go on now to um, item 6. is staff comments, and Ms. Cameron has informed me previously that staff have no additional comments or reports, if that's still the case. Uh, we'll go on to uh, item 6.2 committee comments. Do any committee members have comments or reports to share with the committee at this time? Okay, uh, seeing, uh, none will go on to our adjournment, and I want to thank everyone for joining us. Our next council transportation committee. will be on June 1st, 2021. And uh, until then, uh, stay safe. Uh, stay healthy, and our meeting will stand adjourn at 8.22 p.m. Thank you. Thank you everybody. Thank you.

• Next →