6 1 2021 Mountain View Council Transportation Committee

Video

Agenda

Speaker Summary

(28 speakers)
SpeakerWordsTime
Chair Sally Lieber2,28121m
City Traffic Engineer Lopez2,38118m
Member Lisa Matichak2,15717m
Associate Civil Engineer Hoang1,87414m
Public Works Director Cameron1,1387m
Steven Prescop1,4637m
Member Ellen Kamei1,1677m
Bruce England1,0946m
Alan Whitaker7405m
Assistant Public Works Director Arango6604m
Serge Bonte7364m
Mary Dateo5453m
Nazanini Dashtara5383m
Mary Hodder4893m
Vladmir Yakunin4463m
Lisa Smith5333m
Eric Hertzberg2892m
Annette Neilsan3662m
Paul Donahue3132m
Roberto Miller3242m
Scott Posternack3331m
Stephane Mass3501m
Robert Cox2851m
John Brazil2701m
Ronit Bryant2361m
Albert Jeans3331m
Eitan Kensky2151m
Peying Lee1821m

Transcript

2. ROLL CALL

[00:00:01] Chair Sally Lieber: Great. Oh, good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Council Transportation Committee meeting of June 1st, 2021. I'm going to read our usual announcement as required. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the state of California executive order and 2920 dated March 17th, 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 each item by signing up at Mountain View dot gov slash CTC underscore speakers, or by phone by dialing 669-900-9128. And entering webinar ID, 968, 484-880-0824. Any emails that were received by 5 p.m. today were received directly by the members of the council transportation committee, and emails that are received past 5 p.m. 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'll go now to Don Cameron for our roll call. Thank you.

[00:01:36] Public Works Director Cameron: Uh, Mayor Kameh?

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

[00:01:39] Public Works Director Cameron: Council member Mattachek.

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

[00:01:41] Public Works Director Cameron: chairperson labor.

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

[00:01:44] Public Works Director Cameron: All present. Thank you.

3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC

[00:01:47] Chair Sally Lieber: We'll go on now to uh, oral communications. Uh, this portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the committee on any matter that is 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 and the committee from acting on nonagenda items. Would any member of the public uh, like to provide comment on non-agenda items. 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.

[00:02:35] Public Works Director Cameron: We are not seeing any raised hands at this time. Hey. Roof on? Oh, I'm sorry, um, we do now have, uh, member of the public who's raised their hand. Alan Wicktaker. Um, Joy, you may have to help me with that. Please go ahead.

[00:02:59] Alan Whitaker: Yes. Um. Yes, I realize that this, um, meeting is, uh, specifically going to address issues that were pre, um, COVID and there were a lot of things going on in town at that time, um, regarding traffic and, um, parking. Um, And, um, Just an FYI, some people in my neighborhood. I live in the Monoboloma neighborhood. I've noted that the narrow street signage has started to make its way onto the streets, to prohibiting oversized vehicles, over 22 in length, 7 in width and 7 in ninth. And, um, it's been noted and brought to my attention, and I've also witnessed it, that the signs are so far posted on streets that were not designated in the, um, press release that was on, uh, December 9th of 2020 about the go ahead on this project, and that the city plans, as I'll quote, the city plans to install signs on 444 streets, 1035 blocks, which qualify as narrow by being 40 feet in width or less. And the streets signage that so far has, um, specifically, Ringsdorf between Central and Highway 101 is in excess of 50 feet in width, and it has that signage on it. And, um, I would like to know or have direction too, if possible, um, the actual, um, The, um, Pardon me, the, um, I think it should be addressed and should be made public, um, what the actual, um, rules are that are going to dictate how the signs are going to go up rather than what, uh, was originally in the press release, and on the day before at the, uh, authorized by the city council. Um, It's kind of distressing before it, before it goes too much farther. Um, uh, I think an appropriate, um, update would be uh, would be uh, forthcoming. So, thank you very much.

[00:05:33] Chair Sally Lieber: Okay. Thank you so much for those comments. Um, not seeing. Oh, um. Yes, last camera.

[00:05:42] Public Works Director Cameron: So, um, we have Nazim Dashtara.

[00:05:54] Nazanini Dashtara: I would like to comment on one of the agenda items. So should I just save this for for that time?

[00:06:00] Chair Sally Lieber: Yes. This is the time for items that are not on the agenda.

[00:06:04] Nazanini Dashtara: Okay, so I'll just save it. Okay, great. For that. Thank you. Thank you.

4.1 Approve Minutes

[00:06:11] Chair Sally Lieber: Okay, I'm not seeing any others. So, we will, um, go on to our next part of the agenda, which is, um, approval of the minutes, and there are 2 sets of minutes for approval tonight for the May 13th, 2019. And April 20th, 2021. Um, I'll be abstaining from the May 13th, um, uh, minutes approval, but are there any other corrections or comments on the minutes? Uh, Council member Manachek.

[00:06:50] Member Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, I do have a couple of corrections. On the May 13th, 2019, um, council member McAllister recused himself from item 6.3 rather than item 6.2. And then on the April 20th, 2021 minutes. Um, in the 1st paragraph above where the minutes actually start. Um, it should be changed from bicycle pedestrian advisory committee to council transportation committee, and then the names of the council members who made the motion and 2nd the motion for the different items should be added. Thanks.

[00:07:34] Chair Sally Lieber: And you're moving approval with those those changes. Mayor, would you like to 2nd that?

[00:07:42] Member Ellen Kamei: Yes, a 2nd thank you so much.

[00:07:45] Chair Sally Lieber: Um, Okay, and um, do we need to take public comment on the minutes as well?

[00:07:54] Public Works Director Cameron: Um, I haven't seen that done before, but I guess so if any members in public wishes to comment on the minutes. Um, okay, we have, um, Museum, Dashtara has, has raised her hand. Would you like to make a comment on the minutes?

[00:08:23] Nazanini Dashtara: Yeah, hi, hi, I still, I'm not sure if this is the moment. Went to make a comment. I think it's 5.3, the residential permit with the speaker.

[00:08:35] Chair Sally Lieber: We're just on item 4 right now.

[00:08:37] Nazanini Dashtara: Oh, okay, sorry. All right. I'll just wait.

[00:08:40] Chair Sally Lieber: I'm ahead of myself. Okay.

[00:08:42] Nazanini Dashtara: Sorry about that. Okay.

[00:08:43] Chair Sally Lieber: no problem All right. Um, not seeing any other um, hands raised. So all in favor of the motion. Hi. And we have to do a roll call vote. Sorry, yeah, exactly, Miss Cameron. Thank you.

[00:09:02] Public Works Director Cameron: Mayor can May? Uh, Council member Mattachek?

[00:09:07] Member Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[00:09:08] Public Works Director Cameron: And chairperson labor.

[00:09:10] Chair Sally Lieber: Yes. With abstaining from the May 2019 minutes.

[00:09:15] Public Works Director Cameron: Yes. Okay.

5.1 Calderon Avenue Bike Lanes, Mercy Street to El Camino Real, Project 20-47

[00:09:20] Chair Sally Lieber: And we'll go on now to our new business under item five. Uh, 5.one, uh, Calderon Avenue Bike Lanes, Mercy Street, to El Camino, uh, Real. And uh, the staff presentation will be uh, provided by Maryquist, Merry Chris Wang. And um, associate civil engineer.

[00:09:48] Associate Civil Engineer Hoang: Great, thank you. Um, hope everyone could see my screen okay with the power from presentation. Awesome. Thank you. All right, so good evening, chairperson neighbor, and committee members. I'm Merry Chris Kong, associate civil engineer, uh, with the public works department. And I'm here to present the Calderon Avenue Bikeleet Improvements project item 5.one of tonight's CTC meeting. Um, and this project proposes adding bike lanes along Calderon Avenue from El Camino Royale to Mercy Street. There's one recommendation for your consideration this evening, and that is to, um, recommend to city council the approval of the project's plans and specifications. So to provide some project background, um, the Colorado Avenue bike lane improvements is a recommended bike route in the 2015 bicycle transportation plan update. It is also identified or council also identified it in the council major goals work plan. In 2017, bike lanes were installed along Calderon Avenue between Mercy Street to West Evelyn Avenue. This was the 1st part of meeting the bicycle transportation plans recommendations. In June 2020, Council approved the funding to install bike lanes along the rest of Calderon Avenue between El Camino and Mercy Street. And the improvements proposed is the addition of class 2 bike lanes, which are defined as designated, signed, stenciled, or striped, uh, one way travel bike lanes in on both sides of the roadway. As shown on the math on the slide. Calderon Avenue serves as a connection to existing facilities along, uh, bikeway facilities along Phyllis Avenue, um, Dana Street and Evelyn Avenue. It can also connect to the green bike lanes that were just installed between Mercy Street and West Evelyn Avenue. So by implementing the proposed improvements. This this project promotes the use of bicycle travel and closes the gap to create a more complete bicycle network. And route to city destinations, such as schools, the Stevens Creek Trail, and the um, transit center. The existing on street parking along the project area is shown on this diagram. And these counts were based on 20 foot car length. The following table is a summary of the parking surveys staff conducted along the project area. At the top of the table shown, we see that the project area provides a total supply of 64 parking spaces. 33 vehicles was the highest amount of vehicles observed on um, on street during a weekday afternoon. And a total of 20 parked vehicles were observed on a Sunday evening. More details on the parking survey are listed out in the CTC memo. But what we can see overall from this table is that 3 segments were observed to be highly more utilized, more often than others. So this image shows a cross section of how Colorado Avenue is currently striped, um, along the stretch, there is essentially parking along both sides of the street, and one lane, each direction for vehicle travel. There's no striping for bike lanes, so bicyclists are required to share the road with drivers. So staff held a community meeting in April for residents most impacted by the proposed improvements. Uh, 245 notices were mailed and 9 members of the community attended. Following the meeting, residents continue to provide staff input through email. So this cross section and the following 2 were presented in the community meeting as part of the preliminary design for the proposed improvements. Looking at this particular cross section between Center Street and Jesse Lane. Buffers were proposed to help add separation between vehicles and bicyclists. Between Jesse Lane and Vincent Drive. Uh, the crypticer measurement is approximately 36 feet wide. With this width, we can accommodate only one bike lane and one lane for vehicle travel in each direction. Where the street is wider. We are able to accommodate on street parking along with the proposed bike lanes and vehicle travel lane. This section within the project area wide enough for on street parking to remain is between Vincent Drive and Mercy Street. So the original proposed cross sections in the project area required removing 58 of the 64 available parking spaces due to the existing curb to curb, uh, width, sorry, curb to curb width, in addition of class 2 bikes planes. In summary, all parking would need to be removed except for 6 of the available spaces between Vincent Drive and Mercy Street. So given that 58 spaces would be removed, the community voice their desire to keep more parking, um, particularly between Center Street and Church Street. Staff reevaluated the proposed improvements to remove all 22 spaces in the segment, and was able to modify the layout to retain 13 spaces on the east side of Calderon Avenue. This was accomplished by reducing the travel lane to 10 foot each direction. Removing one lane of parking, the west side of Colorado Avenue. And removing this, the per originally proposed striped buffers from each side. Other segments were also evaluated for reconfiguration, but the street was either too narrow. And parking would still need to be removed. So to summarize the parking summer, the parking impacts with implementation of the modified project. 19 spaces can be retained versus the original 6. We were able to keep parking in the areas, um, where there seemed to be more regular on street parking by residents, which was between center and church street. As well as Vincent Drive and Mercy Street. Following tonight's meeting, staff will bring the committee's recommendation to the full study council later this month for consideration. With council approval, the project can proceed to construction, which we anticipate will be, will start around the fall. And I'm sorry, that is a typo that should be 2021. So presented here is a recommendation for your consideration, um, and this concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:17:53] Chair Sally Lieber: And now we'll 1st take uh, questions from committee members. Uh, followed by public comment, and then committee discussion, and recommendation. Uh, do any of the committee members, um, have a question for staff? Uh, Council member Manachek.

[00:18:19] Member Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um, I do have a couple questions. Um, Do we have any data on the volume of bicyclists on the street?

[00:18:35] Associate Civil Engineer Hoang: Um, yes, uh, right before the meeting. I received some data uh, from the transportation manager. Um, and I believe in a survey or account that was done in March of 2020. There was, Between El Camino and um, Calderon. Sorry, there was a count, I think at 37 bicyclist in the peak hour, 7 AM. And I believe it was 22. Sorry, I'm just grabbing my notes. 22 bicyclists at the peak hour of the evening, which is 5 p.m.

[00:19:15] Member Lisa Matichak: So sorry, you said, um, between what streets on Calderon between?

[00:19:21] Associate Civil Engineer Hoang: Oh, it was, I'm sorry, it was, um, at the intersection of, or the count, I think, was taking to El Camino, Caldera. But the counts were taken up.

[00:19:30] Member Lisa Matichak: And they were on Calderon, not El Camino.

[00:19:34] Associate Civil Engineer Hoang: On Calderon. Correct. Sorry about that, yeah. Okay. And, um, the,

[00:19:42] Member Lisa Matichak: pictures you showed of the, uh, section that has already been done between Evelyn and Mercy. Um, so that had parking, then the bike lane that was painted green, and then the, uh, vehicle travel lane. Um, would, We also have the green paint on the rest of, Calderon. Or is it just striped?

[00:20:15] Associate Civil Engineer Hoang: Um, that that's correct. Well, we propose the green biplanes to be consistent with what's existing between Mercy and West Evelyn Avenue.

[00:20:25] Member Lisa Matichak: Oh, so they would be green. Okay. So, um, I, I guess I, um, I'm wondering why, um, Some of the input we got from residents was that they rely on street parking to park their complex. And some of those might be old and have narrow driveways, but, um, have we always required, uh, buildings to have enough parking off the street. Or is it that the requirements have changed over time? Or something else? That they say they need street parking to park there. Complex.

[00:21:21] Public Works Director Cameron: Um, I think the assistant public works director, Ed, would be in the best position to respond to that.

[00:21:28] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: I think you. Ed Orango, assistant bubble works director and city engineer. Um, to our knowledge, the rules haven't changed where um, a complex is required to, Park or provide parking for what's needed for their development on site. Um, The regulations, as I, as we know it, aren't having change over time, um, and are have been consistent with the current regulations, which, again, require the development to accommodate their own on-site parking. Okay. Um.

[00:22:09] Member Lisa Matichak: That's all I have for now. Thanks.

[00:22:13] Chair Sally Lieber: Eric, May.

[00:22:15] Member Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So I just had a question and I was just looking through the staff report, but maybe this is just for my own edification. So I know that we have, um, how many feet do you need? for there to be The bike buffer and the travel lane. Is it always 40 feet? Is it, what's the? Because I know we have 40 feet, 36 feet and 52 feet. So to be able to, I guess, maximize and get to the, you know, best class bike lanes. How many feet do you need to work with? Um,

[00:22:53] Associate Civil Engineer Hoang: yes, I think um, from the preliminary proposed improvements. My take would be, it would require, maybe around, what's it, 40 or 42 feet for a 3 foot striped buffer on both sides, with the provided 6 foot bike lanes. Um, and I think in our design standards, we would prefer minimum or not, I'm sorry, not a minimum, but, um, 11 foot, um, vehicle lanes. And so I think if I can do my math correctly on a whim, I think it's 42 feet, but I, um, I think I recall from the cross-section, it was around 40, 242 feet.

[00:23:35] Member Ellen Kamei: Got it. Great. Thank you. I was just curious because I know you, you only have like limited amount to work with, so I was just kind of curious how it measures up and sorry to make you do mental math on the fly there. Thanks so much. Thank you.

[00:23:50] Chair Sally Lieber: Council member, man, I checked. Did you have another question before we go to the public comment?

[00:23:55] Member Lisa Matichak: No, you're good for now.

[00:23:56] Chair Sally Lieber: Okay. And um, we'll go now to public comment. And um, 1st up is Bruce England.

[00:24:09] Bruce England: Hi, can you hear me okay? Yes. Thank you. Um, so I submitted a letter for uh, Mountain Dew coalition for sustainable planning with some input on Greenspace's MV as well. And just a couple of points based on what I've heard so far. The bike count at Calderon El Camino, it seems to me that leaves out where bicyclists are not going to that intersection, right? Where they're going downtown or some other location. So the count that you have right now would be low. Um, which is fine. One comment I heard from a few people is that the staff reports and the presentation at the community meeting didn't have mockups or anything that show what these would look like in actuality. So you get those sort of cross-section diagrams, but you have to apply your imagination to think about what that would look like. So the main thing for us is taking an integrated approach where all of the kinds of work that could be done along Calderon to improve it would be done either as part of one project or as a consolidation of multiple projects. So we're interested in seeing green complete streets realized through there. So talking about traffic calming, and, um, you know, trees, and anything else like that, followed by a new traffic study to see if the speed limit through there could be lowered to, um, to 30 miles, or rather 25 or 30 miles an hour. I guess it was 30 right now, I guess. So lower to 25, which is what we want to see for all the residential streets throughout Mountain View. But the only way that can be done is if all these different elements of the project are put together. Um, So those are the main points. I just want to look at the letter to see if there's anything else I want to call out on that. Um, There's there's a problem with the toters. People put their garbage toters and their recycling toters out on the bike lane, at least near where I am on North Wisman Road. And what I'd like is some kind of way of letting people know along Calderon, once these bike lanes are put in, uh, assuming they will be, that, um, that that's not allowed, because the city hasn't been able to change that behavior, at least here on North Wisman, once people have their habits, it's hard to change them. And then we wanted to highlight that the 3 schools are part of the destination points along with the transit center and other destinations like downtown. And that's important, the kids need to feel safe as they're going through there and adults. Um, I think that's it. The comments that we made earlier on the Capital Improvement program that April Webster wrote, that one made a lot of points that we would want to apply to this project too. I think I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

[00:27:00] Chair Sally Lieber: Great. And before we go on to the next speaker, I should have reminded folks that, um, you can indicate that you'd like to speak by, uh, clicking raise hand button and Zoom or pressing star 9 on the phone, and we'll go on now to Stephen Prescott. Stephen Press Cup, are you there? I think his mute button is up.

[00:27:41] Steven Prescop: There you go. Oh, awesome. I'm not familiar with all this technology, sorry. Um, so I'm, I'm arrested on Caldron. I'll be directly impacted by this by the changes in the bike lanes. I want to point out, 1st of all, that there are some bike lanes stripes along Calderon. been there as long as I've lived here, which is more than 20 years. Um, they're kind of faded and neglected, but I have, obviously, have nothing against bikes. We had them on Caldron for a long time. Um, I just submit a letter to Mary Chris. I don't see that it was included on the documents. I can certainly submit that again. But my wife is Lisa Smith, and she also submitted a letter. She did a lot of, uh, research talking to neighbors and their feelings about, um, about the bike lane proposals. Um, in particular, um, I want to point out that the, uh, as she says that they're older homes, we have single car driveways. Um, in terms of the um, requirement to have more parking. We just were approved for an ADU admission addition on the back of our house. The city did not require additional parking because we're within 500 feet, I believe it is, of a major transit, meaning El Camino hospital, El Camino Real. Um, so as a result, no, we didn't, it's put any additional parking in there. We've been running out one of our rooms to a visiting nurse during COVID. is very important to allow nurses to come and be able to stay here, close to El Camino Hospital in Stanford. Um, so that's an additional spot. The ADU potentially could have 2 spots. My wife and I have 2 spots. So to have all of this in one driveway in tandem driving. Um, in tandem park, it would be very difficult for us to kind of move our cars around to be able to move one car out and put another one in, especially we have car charges. We have electric cars. We want them to be close to the house. Um, so it'd be great expense for us to kind of develop additional parking on the um, property itself. Um, and I would wonder if there is any, um, way the city can help with that. Another option as opposed to rebuilding the street parking would be widen Caldron. a 10 foot easement on our side of the street. Um, and that could be used to help, um, accommodate both parking cyclists. My wife kind of detailed in terms of the number of people parking one side or the other, how many homes on one side or the other. That our side of the street would be on the west side of the street. Um, there's 9 places available now, but on the corner, um, there's a Calderon and Church, on the off side of the street, proposals are to sell that property. There could be additional driveways in there, so you may not actually be saving 13 parking spaces. There may actually be less. So something to consider in the future. All of the residents we talk to in Calderund are very concerned about the speed and also issues like, are we going to have to jaywalk to get one side of the street to the other. Um, which we don't want to be, obviously, fine for. Um, so I don't have any more time, but I would like to submit my letter to somewhere where it can be included in your docket. Thank you. Thank you. And

[00:30:47] Chair Sally Lieber: we're going to go on now to Paul Donahue. Hello? Um,

[00:30:55] Paul Donahue: I would like, uh, can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Um, uh, yeah, I'd like to speak in favor of the bike lanes. Um, I often use them to. I am not like a huge heavy duty cyclist, but I definitely use them to get to the Stevens Creek Trail, to bike downtown. Um, I understand some of the, the, the neighbor's concerns, and I think that that, uh, that is kind of a tough, uh, predicament there. But, uh, the previous comment about the easement is kind of interesting, though I know that would substantially increase the cost of of doing this. There were bike lanes that were removed like 10 or 15 years ago, because basically they weren't, I think they didn't meet the, um, the Caltrans requirements for the width with respect to the parking. And um, I was kind of disappointed when those uh, were removed. And one thing I noticed during the, uh, staff presentation is that Vincent and Mercy, that segment is 50 something feet wide, which I think is actually not considered a narrow street under the, uh, the, large vehicle ordinance. So it's kind of interesting that that would be allowed currently to, to have RVs parked there. Whereas, uh, if the bike lanes were put in, that, I think would not be, to, and to answer the previous, um, persons, um, question about the, the, the, the science on Rangstor, if it, it kind of ties into this. Uh, Rangstorf can't have large vehicles parked because it's, um, has bike lanes. So putting bike lanes on Calderon would kind of, um, change the status of that segment I've called around with, with respect to, um, RV parking. Um, so anyway, that's that's my thoughts. I'm in favor of, of, uh, increasing uh, bicycle mobility and uh, and safety for cyclists. Thanks. Thanks so much.

[00:33:07] Chair Sally Lieber: We'll go on to Vladimir Akunan. See. Vladimir. Vladimirya Kunan. you there? Um,

[00:33:43] Public Works Director Cameron: He's unmuted, he's unmuted. So, yeah. Oh, and I see him here. Well,

[00:33:52] Chair Sally Lieber: give him one more try. Vladimir, are you with us? We're ready for you. Oh, he just muted and then... Okay, well, I think we'll, we'll go on to John Brazil.

[00:34:23] John Brazil: Thank you. This is John. I live with my wife on Loretto Street, and I'm speaking in support of the project. I think the staff did a good job with analysis and just highlight points that were already made. This isn't the council approved bike plan, this project. It will close a gap. They're to the south of this segment. Phyllis already has bike lanes connecting down to a school and shopping in transit. Of course, on the north end, Northern Calderon already has bike lanes. So this would close that gap. And it would also connect with existing microwaves on Evelyn, Dana to the east. And of course, the major upcoming El Camino Real bike lane. Also provides good transit connections to the transit center on Evelyn and bus stops on El Camino. And of course, Dave Rotts to school are really important. So I do appreciate, you know, we live on the red street and we do own a car and we usually park it on the street. We actually recently bought an electric vehicle, so we are parking in the driveway now, and so I am sympathetic with the person's comments about parking. In my day job, I manage a transportation, uh, group in a city in southern part of the county, and we have, uh, implemented over 30 projects, removing about 2800 on street parking spaces to create space for bikeways. So this is nothing unusual or unique. And I appreciate the balancing, balancing the interests of everyone. And I think staff's done a good job. So, thank you for that. and I support the project.

[00:36:04] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you so much. Um, Mary DeTeo. Hi,

[00:36:11] Mary Dateo: I'm Mary Dadio, and I came to speak in favor of adding the bike lanes to Calderon. Um, several of years ago, I was a member of the 2nd Mountain View Environmental Sustainability Task Force, where I was on the transportation committee. And one of the recommendations of the task force was to provide a network of connected bikeways throughout the city. In order to provide a workable alternative to driving. So adding these bike lanes on Caldron is a step toward connecting our whole bicycle network, Making our roads feel comfortable for cyclists is critical to growing the number of people who will switch at least some of their miles from cars to bikes, and that is so crucial to reducing our city's carbon footprint. Like a previous speaker, I also remember when the bike lanes were removed, and it did make a very real decrease in how safe it feels to bike on that segment when they were removed. So I expect it will feel much safer when the bike lanes are added back in. Um, I'm also a member of Green Spaces, Mountain View, so I'd like to point out, um, how important it is to try to incorporate plants, especially trees, to encourage all forms of active transportation. And it's especially important to incorporate native trees and plants where possible. If it's too late to incorporate green elements in this project. We'd like to see future such projects include those items. And in addition, I agree with the previous speaker that, um, Once, uh, that there's concern about traffic speeds on this segment and once the changes are installed, um, staff expects that the, uh, speed on that on on cauldron is is going to be reduced. Um, but I'd like the city to confirm that following the project by measuring it and, uh, making sure that, uh, If it doesn't have the desired effect, of, of reducing the speed to, and try to incorporate additional traffic calming, thank you. Thank you.

[00:38:18] Chair Sally Lieber: Go on now too, Eric Herzberg. Can you hear me? Yes.

[00:38:27] Eric Hertzberg: Okay, yeah. Um, I'm a resident right across the street from Steve Prescott and right next door to Vladimir. I missed his last name. Um, And I'm a, uh, I commuted my bicycle to work for decades. Um, But I'm very worried about removing parking. Um, And I'm worried about the effect of doing this at the same time as Mountain View is pushing densification. Um, massively. Um, I think these 2 effects are working against each other. It would be lovely not to have on street parking if we didn't need it, but I don't see any way out of this. And You gave some numbers for cyclists during the day. Um, it was something like 25 in the Evening and 40 or so in the morning. That's not a very big number. You know, if we were talking about hundreds. Um, That be very different from, Such a small number. So I think there's some real conflicts here. Uh, I really don't Approve of this. Um, Because I think that we're working to actually increase the number of drivers in this town. whether we mean to or not. And that means the traffic is going to continue to go up. Another thing that's been said several times is people feel more comfortable riding in a bike plane. Um, There are real hazards riding a bicycle. I had a couple of collisions. Um, I won't go into how that happened. It was always, um, having to do with right terms by motorists, and and feeling more comfortable. I don't think is necessarily good. You want to make it more safe. That's true. But feeling more comfortable may work against you. So that's enough of me talking. Thank you.

[00:40:49] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you so much. And next up, we have former mayor, Ronan Bryant. Thank you.

[00:41:00] Ronit Bryant: So I live very close. Am I finally unmuted? Yep, you were sure? Right. So I live very close to Coloron and I walk my dog there practically every day, so I know the street well. And I'm, I'm puzzled by staff's assumption that if you take away parking and put some red paint on the, on the street, traffic will slow down. My experience of color on has been the cars go way above 30 miles per hour. They go 4045. It's practically a straight shot. So I would, I'm very much in favor of the bike lanes, but I urge you to, when you make a recommendation to cancel. To add lowering the speed limit. Because if you want to make pedestrians and bicyclists feel safe, then cars going more slowly is a good step in that direction. So please make that part of the project, looking at the speed limit and lowering it. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:42:04] Chair Sally Lieber: We'll go on now to Atown Kensky. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Great.

[00:42:13] Eitan Kensky: I live on Calderon, in the section between center and church, Tudor is down from Eric, although we don't really know each other. Um, I'm here today to speak in favor of the bike lanes. We really want to thank the staff for working to include some new parking and to retain some of the parking and the modified plans. One of our concerns with the initial design that we expressed to the city was that the combination of 12 foot travel lanes and the buffers would lead to the perception of an extremely wide road, and as many of the people have, uh, who've commented so far have said, they, uh, there's a speed issue on Calderon, and the perception of width would add to that speed issue and lead to cars going much faster. In addition, we're concerned that the wide roads would actually be safer for, we would be safer for the cyclists because they would have the buffer, but not necessarily safer for pedestrians, who would have to cross the street, perhaps against cars that are going really fast. So we want to thank staff for working to retain some parking and to narrow the lanes in order to help slow down and calm traffic on the street. Okay, thank you.

[00:43:25] Chair Sally Lieber: And um, we're going to go back to um, Vladimir Yakunan. Hello,

[00:43:32] Vladmir Yakunin: can you hear me now? Yes. Nice. Amazing. So, um, I, um, I agree with 2 previous speaker, 2 last speakers that, uh, Indeed, it's very surprising that the project didn't discuss safety at all. And uh, 35 a mile per hour uh, is a speed at which 50% of collisions sleep to pedestrian death, and uh, approximately the same for bicyclists, and I personally know uh, someone in our daycare who almost died and uh, is in critical condition with head trauma. He was biking in a bike plane in a helmet, and there was an old person who hit him in a car in SUV, and people make mistakes. We must design streets in such a way that mistakes don't lead to death and injuries. So, I think that it's very important if you want to make city uh, safe for pedestrians and for uh, bicyclists. Uh, we must reduce uh, speed limit and not just the speed limit. So speed limit must be 20 miles per hour, per hour or less. Uh, it, it's like, it's the, the upper limit when collisions are relatively safe and don't usually kill people. But also, as people mentioned here, uh, speed limits are not enforced in mountain view. I'm not sure if it's like a political decision or, you know, lack of resources or anything, but, uh, since we are talking about street design, uh, we can design streets so the, um, speed limits don't need to be enforced by police. Uh, and the obvious design decision is to make much narrower lanes. Uh, and research uh, that I found on the internet shows that uh, lanes uh, below 10 feet wide, uh, it should be 9 point something. Uh, lead to average speed of 20 miles per hour, and like this should, this should inform the decision on both uh, Lane width and uh, the speed limit, the safety concern and how people actually drive on those lanes. And of course, uh, I support uh, the bike lanes, uh, I think it's very important. And also, I think it's very dangerous to add a bike plane and supposedly we expect more bike traffic there, but not add any buffers between cars, car traffic and bike traffic. So, uh, there can be, uh, just like small. Uh, Small delineators, uh, that uh, separate the traffic war even better if we uh, put both uh, ways, bike lanes on the same side of the road and separate it from the car traffic by the parked cars. It would be very safe for bikers. I'm not sure if you considered it, maybe it's a better solution. Thank you.

[00:46:36] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you so much. Um, and our next speaker is Lisa Smith. So I think you are on mute. There you go. Can you hear me now? Yep.

[00:46:54] Lisa Smith: Ah, Eureka. Okay, um, thank you. I submitted 2 letters, and I also know, I'm the wife of Stephen Prescott, but I know that he as well, and some other people have also spent letters that I did not see on the website, and I'd like to have, they have a lot of insight, and we're very good. First off, I thought about this a lot. And I did a survey myself on how many homes in the driveways along Calderon between Church Street and El Camino, that stretch. It's, um, the west side, and there were 38 homes along there. Most, most of them have single driveways, and we'd be required to park tandem with our cars. So how do you get a car out? That's, you know, one end. when you cannot park on the street to pull one out. You'd have to go all the way down to Church Street, um, to park the outer one, walk back to your home, then pull out the other car. Um, and Also, center street wouldn't be much of an option because there's, you'd have to jaywalk across the street there just to get to ride there. So I recommend um, Yes, main, I'm for the bike lanes, but I'd like to maintain some parking. And I'd like the parking to be on the west side because there's far more homes, 38 homes. Um, There's less properties than that, but there's numerous homes on those properties versus 7 on the other side of the street. Um, Also, they're, um, Uh, so if we could put a crosswalk at center, That would be wonderful and also a stop sign, the net would also stop traffic from getting it from Church Street to El Camino, which they, you know, they see the light ahead, screen, and they know they don't have much time to make it. Otherwise, they'll have to wait a long time at El Camino. which doesn't make it safe for pedestrians and cyclists. There's also numerous children on that street as well. Uh, and I also saw one, about 4 years ago, um, there was a body in the street that I, that the ambulance came and took away, you know, he might have been hit by a car, but, you know, there's accidents have happened on that street and also a car hit or a fence, um, in the morning as well. But if you reduce the speed to like 20 miles an hour, um, or 25, do the crosswalk. Another stop sign, maybe speed bumps, humps that'll help. Uh, and also, um, There's most likely to be, um, construction on the corner of church and Calderon, uh, maybe condos, homes, um, townhomes when they sell that property. They want to park right now, but if that doesn't work out, there's going to be homes and the street will be torn up. And so I also recommend delaying construction of the bike lanes for maybe 2 or 3 years to all that construction is done. Otherwise, you have to repave and repaint as well. And there'd be less parking for constructions. And thank you for listening to me and everyone else.

[00:49:56] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you so much. And our next speaker is Paying Lee. I think you're on mute. Okay,

[00:50:13] Peying Lee: gone. Thank you. Thank you so much. So hi committee. Yes, I'm paying to her. I just want to echo some earlier comments and our letters from Green Space's MV and MVCSP. Um, just really reinforcing our delight for the project's new bike lanes. I think if possible for the project and future projects. We really would appreciate incorporating green infrastructure and natural elements into transportation improvements. I think integrating trees and native plants landscaping can overlap in multiple benefits. So to safety, active transportation like walkability and overall health promotion. Um, I think we strongly support transportation connectedness with ecological connectivity, and I think that really aligns with a lot of our initiatives and goals across the city. Um, I think in regards to safety and traffic calming. We find that framing streets with trees or other creative opportunities to incorporate trees and native plants, um, to buffer bike lanes, um, can really help with traffic calming measures. And I really just want to keep that short. Thank you so much for all your work on this. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:51:23] Chair Sally Lieber: And we'll go on now to, um, and I'm probably gonna say this wrong, uh, Stefan Mace. Stefane.

[00:51:34] Stephane Mass: Yes, that's correct. Stefan Moss. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. Thanks a lot. I live on Paul Avenue, just around the corner from Calderon. Many of the kids in the neighborhood, who go to Grand Middle School and in Mountain View High School, use Calderon as a thoroughfare, to go down Phyllis, to get, uh, to Graham or to, uh, Mountain View High School. Um, it is definitely a concern a lot of times because there is no clear path. when the children are riding school. So I'm not sure about the numbers that were mentioned before, but, um, I know at least, uh, you know, 6 uh, during school uh, school days when schools, um, happening here uh, at our house and then probably, you know, 12 more in the neighborhood that all the kids all ride together. So I'm not sure those numbers may reflect kind of school days when kids are going to and from school. But it is definitely very concerning around the speed. So I think the combination mentioned around, you know, some traffic calming is often a result of, um, adding bike lanes will be very important because the speed along with no clear path for cyclists and, um, door prizes sometimes from, uh, parked cars, open the door. Kids, you know, that are younger, don't pay as much attention. They get older, they learn, but please, you know, keep in mind the fact that kids are definitely going to school. So, uh, in the fall, if it commences in the fall, uh, the construction, I think that's really important because all the kids are going back to school, COVID, you know, will hopefully behind us and, uh, uh, I hate to see another year where that work has not been done given the phase head, the 1st phase has been done so long ago. So very supportive and many in our neighborhood, uh, here in old Mountain View, who have kids that go to both schools, uh, are also very supportive, uh, given the safety concerns, the way it's configured today. Thank you.

[00:53:23] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you so much. And it looks like we don't have other public comment. Um, so we'll close public comment and bring it back to the committee for discussion and deliberation.

[00:53:40] Chair Sally Lieber: I'm sorry, chairperson, it does look like we have one more member of the public. Oops. Poster neck. Okay. He is not showing up on my, my list here. Oh, there he is. Um, okay, Scott Posternack.

[00:53:58] Scott Posternack: Hi there, thank you very much. I fully report the bike lanes. I think it's a great idea. Very glad that they're being put in. Um, I actually also sent in a uh, letter, um, to the to the committee. I didn't see it in either the agenda or in the memo, but it could be that I just missed it. My, my point was actually on a couple of things that were taught about, by a couple of other people, specifically related to the speed, um, and trying to get to the light over at El Camino Royale, and having a more, a good integrated approach, in terms of looking at the overall calderon street. Um, there, there is a pretty big narrowing of the street when you get to El Camino Real and, uh, it's true, the drivers do see that light, it's a three-way signal, and they know that it's extremely long before they'll get a green light again. And so they do kind of gun it. Um, and that is dangerous, without a doubt. Um, uh, the suggestion that I had, uh, put in was to look at, uh, perhaps, um, widening that, uh, portion of the, of the street of Calderon in order to allow for, uh, lanes of traffic to go left straight and right and get rid of the 3 way, um, signal. So that, uh, drivers and, and bicyclists and pedestrians are not waiting as long as they currently are. across the street and we'll probably end up seeing drivers that are not going to try and gun it in order to cross the light simply because they know that it's going to be a very long wait. And for those drivers that do want to turn right, they'll be able to turn right. There's going to be a dedicate, some sort of a dedicated right turn lane, like there is on Priscilla, to go on to El Camino Real, towards the 237. Thank you.

[00:55:52] Chair Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you. I think that is the last public comment. You know? Not seeing another one. Here, so we'll go ahead and bring it back to the committee. Um. For discussion. Anyone who would like to start us off? Mayor to me.

[00:56:23] Member Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, so just want to thank staff for the presentation and the public for all their comments and emails and outreach. I know that this has been a pretty robust conversation. Um, you know, I think that, um, The, the, some of the comments are are perhaps worth looking into, um, you know, I thought in particular, the, the comments on the, um, potential speed reduction, and I think we're going to be talking about neighborhood traffic and the next item. But, you know, what, um, I know that that was some some good feedback, I guess, have traveling through that area often, um, on my way to City Hall. I was kind of thinking the same thing. Um, I think one of the, one of the things that, that I've heard the most during the, the pandemic is, um, wanting to create opportunities to increase people's ability to get outside, to, to enjoy, I think there's comments about nature, to, to walk and to, and to cycle and to enjoy our city. And I do feel the the comments about the loss of parking on Calderon. I think staff, you know, I appreciate that you looked as much as possible in terms of the the feet available to create safety for for cyclists with the Bufford lane and then also looking at opportunities to kind of retain some of that parking. I thought that that was, um, really important and would say where we're able to do, um, that in the future. I'd like to see that too. Um, But I, but I really feel that, you know, to, to meet the needs of, of our community, which I think are increasingly outside, wanting to be safely cycling around, and I've had my own in occurrences with, with vehicles and, and being on my own bike. Um, And, and I, I feel like this is a step in the right direction in terms of wanting to, to create a safe cycling community. So, you know, I think we, this is great feedback for all of us in terms of how we can be innovative and creative on some parking solutions for the future.

[00:58:48] Member Ellen Kamei: Um, and maybe, I think there were some comments on the placement of where those parking spots are in terms of the greatest need. Um, and I know there's gonna be perhaps more community outreach on this. Um, but I think, you know, weighing all the different options. I really want to be supportive, um, of the bike lanes on Calderon. Thank you, chair.

[00:59:13] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you. Uh, Council member Metachek. Thanks.

[00:59:19] Member Lisa Matichak: So, um, I feel like this is a challenge. Um, for me, because we are always trying to balance what often can be conflicting objectives. And as was pointed out, we are absolutely increasing the amount of housing in Mountain View. And while we are desperately trying to do something about public transportation, It's just not, um, there. And uh, I think it's going to be quite some time before we have great public transportation. In and around our city. Um, we're trying to get people to not, you know, drive their cars as much, and yet, In many cases, there's not a good alternative. Um, I hear the comments about, um, making it safer for folks who are on bicycles. Um, especially along this route because it is one that can go to some of the schools in the transit center. Um, But I also feel like I hear the comments about, you know, it's a concern that, We are removing parking that people who live right there, um, are using, Um, and they don't have an alternative, it sounds like. So, You know, I was wondering, um. Did we look at, Changing the configuration between Church and Jesse? Um, we looked at changing it between center and church. And it looks like Church and Jesse could have the same kind of configuration. And actually, you know, we've also heard tonight, which I agree with, the narrower the lane for vehicles, the slower people will go. So, if we felt comfortable reducing it to 10 feet. Um, Between center and church, why wouldn't we just continue that? Between center and Jesse. It leaves a few more parking spaces. Um, and, you know, it's not ideal. I feel like nothing is going to be ideal for everyone. We're trying to find some sort of balance here. Um, that would leave a few more parking spaces. I was wondering if staff had looked at that and if they had any comments about that. Oh,

[01:02:07] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: Ed Orango, this is some public works director, city engineer. I want to ask, um, uh, associate engineer, um, America's Wine to provide the details on that segment between Church and Jesse.

[01:02:21] Associate Civil Engineer Hoang: Well, um, again, Merry Christmas, Hong, let's say civil engineer. Um, so we did take a look at the reconfiguration, um, given that it is similar to the modified layout or, originally, to the, um, previous layout between center and church with the buffers. Um, so if we were to continue on to saving the parking on the east side of Coloron Avenue, um, between Church and Jesse, um, that would provide us about 2 more parking spaces. That what's available right currently right now, given there's red curb, and um, a driveway to the, um, existing commercial retail, um, space that's there. And, um, I think we would need to also further evaluate, um, a couple redesign. Um, between that area, just to just make sure, confirm if, um, there isn't any additional parking needed to remove to make that work with the, um, with just the, Configuration of the bike lanes, the vehicle lanes. Um, and so, so yes, that that would be, uh, that we could take a further look into between Church and Jesse, but, um, given that we are probably only saving 2 more spaces. So on table one

[01:03:52] Member Lisa Matichak: on page 4, Between church and Jesse, oh, maybe it's uh, Yeah, I thought it was 7 spaces. Well,

[01:04:04] Public Works Director Cameron: this is Don Harmon public works director. There are currently 7 spaces, but just like the other segment, You don't even be able to say parking on one side of the street. And the other piece, as you noted, as was noted, only one car was observed in this segment in terms of all that checking it out, uh, different times. And what you'd be giving up is this was one of the areas where we thought we could preserve a buffer between the bike lane and the traveling. So the travel lanes would still be, you know, narrowed down to 11 feet, but we could provide a buffer. So that's what would be dropped. to try to, um, make the same configuration of preserving parking on one side of the street.

[01:04:50] Member Lisa Matichak: We look at, um, preserving parking on the west side of the street versus the east side of the street. And why did we decide on the east side of the street? Hey,

[01:05:04] Associate Civil Engineer Hoang: so, um, so yes, we, we can further look into that. Um, initially, the intent was to maximize the amount of parking that we could retain, and um, on the east side, it provided, um, it gave us back potentially 13 more spaces versus the 9 on the west side. But if um, yes. Okay. So, um,

[01:05:34] Member Lisa Matichak: I would like to preserve the additional spaces. Um, by doing this on the east side. Uh, versus the west side, but I also would like to consider if my colleagues would, um, just doing the same configuration between, uh, church and Jesse. It adds a few more spaces, um, and while we didn't see great utilization there. Because we are taking away spaces right down the street, we might see greater utilization. I'm assuming we would. Um, and so I, I would like to look at that. If I look at, um, the section between Evelyn and Mercy, There's parking. Uh, is there parking on both sides of the streets there? And there's no buffer, there's just the green bike lane. That is better. Um,

[01:06:39] Associate Civil Engineer Hoang: no buffer, but um, on street parking can remain in, um, along with the green bike lanes and vehicles. Yeah, okay. So

[01:06:51] Member Lisa Matichak: since it's working there, I feel like we could do the same thing here. and preserve a little bit more parking. So I would like to, um, so I'll make a motion that we, um, mostly go with staff's recommendation. Um, but we do the configuration, uh, that is proposed between center and church, to go to Jesse, which preserves a couple more spaces. And, um, That's the only part of the recommendation, right? There's nothing else like allegating money or anything, it's just making a recommendation. Thanks. Mini

[01:07:41] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: member, can I add a, um, just some background information to support the recommendation? Yes. Request that the recommendation be staff evaluate to preserve the spaces on the east side of cauldron between church and Jesse. Um, we, we would need to evaluate, um, the layout and the design as the report identified cauldron varies in width, and as you transition from one block to another. There's a need to make sure that that transition happens appropriately. Um, and we haven't gone to that level of detail for this um, section. So, uh, we'd appreciate just adding a staff to evaluate that, um, possibility of, uh, keeping the existing parking spaces on the east side of Caldron, um, rather than recommending it to remain when we have an evaluated the design effort yet.

[01:08:39] Member Lisa Matichak: That is totally fine with me. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, Mayor May.

[01:08:46] Chair Sally Lieber: I'll 2nd the motion. Okay. So there's a motion by council member Manachek, 2nded by Mayor Kumay. And assuming no other comments from the committee members. Um, will uh, go to Ms. Cameron for the roll call. Thank you. Mayor K May? Yes.

[01:09:11] Public Works Director Cameron: Council member Mattachek? Yes. Chairperson labor. Yes. Passage unanimously. Thank you. Thank you.

5.2 Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Revisions

[01:09:22] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you. And thank you to stay for the presentation. Very comprehensive and good. Thank you so much. Thank you too. Thank you. And um, we will go on now to item 5.2. Uh, this is the neighborhood transportation management program revisions. And the staff presentation will be by Lorenzo Lopez, City Traffic Engineer. Let me do my presentation set up here. Hmm. Okay.

[01:10:35] City Traffic Engineer Lopez: Hopefully you can see my screen. Yes. Good evening, chairperson Lieber and members of the committee. My name is Lorenzo Lopez and I'm the city traffic engineer. Tonight's presentation is about the proposed revisions to the neighborhood traffic management program, also known as the NTMP. I'll begin with some background. NTMP was 1st adopted by council in 1996 with revisions in 1998 and 2002. In 2019, council requested staff review the NTMP to streamline the process and implement improvements faster. In 2020, I presented an overview of the NTMP with some proposed revisions to the program and requested feedback from council. To recap, These are the 7 steps of the NTMP. They are described in more detail than the council study session memo, which is attachment one to the CTC memo from tonight. At the February 11th study, February 11th, 2020 study session. Staff recommended 4 modifications to the NTMP. All of which were unanimously supported by counsel. The 4 modifications have been incorporated into the recommended NTMP guidelines. And the 1st modification, To, is to step one, Change the petition signature requirement to be a minimum of 5 signatures or a minimum of 10% of the residents or property owners on the street in question, whichever is higher. The same requirement is recommended for step 7 to remove a device. After a device has been in place for at least one year. Second recommended modification was to step three. Modify NTMP guidelines to add electronic speed feedback signs to the toolbox and to also allow staff to authorize additional traffic calming measures as new techniques or devices are developed. The next recommendation, recommended modification was to step four. Require a minimum 35% return rate for the postcards. And a super majority, 67% approval of the returned postcards to ensure that there is adequate support for the traffic calming devices to be installed. Staff has also added to the process that at least one additional notice. will be sent by mail or email to remind residents and property owners to vote to promote the highest response rate possible. Council also directed staff that if there are multiple recommended traffic calming devices to be voted on by the neighborhood. Each device should be itemized on the postcard survey. And each device's approval shall be independent of any other device rather than using an all or nothing approval approach. And the 4th recommended modification was to step five. Allow staff more discretion and use of professional judgment in determining whether it is necessary to take a recommendation to CTC or counsel. In order to streamline the process. Table 3 on your screen. Show the proposed revisions to the NTMP guidelines providing staff recommendation provides staff recommended changes to the approval process. So as you can see, The traffic circles, chokers, raised intersections, electronic speed feedback signs, all of these were moved up from, from below. Um, and the electronic speed feedback signs were added during this, this revision. In addition to the staff proposed modifications, council requested staff bring back an analysis for reducing the speed criteria threshold from 32 miles per hour to 31 miles per hour for the 85th percentile on local residential streets. A handful of additional streets would have qualified for NTMP. If the speed threshold was lowered from 32 miles per hour to 31 miles per hour, as shown on the screen. Staff considers it to be a reasonable change to lower the threshold to 31 miles per hour, and has included this in the recommended revisions to the NTMP guidelines. All proposed revisions to the guidelines are included in the red lined version of the NTMP guidelines, which is attachment to the CTC memo. With CTC's approval tonight, the proposed revisions will be taken to council for approval. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

[01:15:56] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you so much. And um, we'll, Go to council questions. No takers. Okay, then we'll go straight to our our public comment. And uh, we have uh, Bruce England up first. Here we go. Thank you, chair. Um, yeah,

[01:16:30] Bruce England: so I wrote a letter for mandu coalition for sustainable planning. Um, in general. We think the changes look fine. Um, but I have 5 things in the letter. I'd like to bring up. One is, uh, some online availability on some of the forms and the petitions and things like that right now. Last time I looked for a neighbor. Um, they had to do everything by going to City Hall, which was just about impossible during COVID. But even during regular times, um, It's nice to be able to do as much as you can online. The, uh, lowering the threshold from, uh, from the current level. Sounds okay, but it seems like it's not very much. And as we were talking about the last agenda item, what we'd like to see is lower speed limits. And throughout the city, so down to 25 miles an hour, on residential streets, and we know that people drive faster than that. Um, and it's really inappropriate for residential streets. On the traffic calming devices, we want to see more of the green complete streets elements. So, landscaping, um, trees, canopy, native drug tolerant pollinator friendly plants and that sort of thing, which can help to, uh, to come traffic too. In fact, we would like to see trees prioritized. among the solutions. Um, My page won't scroll. There we go. Um, Yeah, on the city approval process, having trees not reviewed by the public, this seems wrong to us. And we would like to have the tree choices and everything related to that part. Um, opened up, uh, public input. So that means, um, going through the regular public process on that. Um, and then finally, uh, the public has been involved in discussions with community services, the parks division about planning in some areas of the city, some marginal park areas and so on. And there's a lot of opportunity on the traffic circles and on bowl ballots and those sort of constructions for that kind of work to be done. And to have that level of consideration included in the process would be great. Um, and also just highlighting the vision 0, uh, and active transportation goals, the city has or will have, um, in that documentation, so the people in the public see it and people working on the program see it and are reminded that those are the goals we have. Thank you. Okay,

[01:18:58] Chair Sally Lieber: thank you. And, um, I'd like to remind folks that if you would like to speak, uh, you may press the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your telephone. And we'll go next to Mary, and I know that I messed up your last name again before, and I probably will again, Mary DeTeo. Oh,

[01:19:21] Mary Dateo: that's that's perfect. Thank you. So, um, uh, I'm a member of Green Space's Mountain View, and I wanted to, um, comment about something I noticed. So as I started reading the neighborhood traffic management program guidelines document, and the has the proposed revisions in it. Um, I was excited actually to see that the cover of the document has a photo of a traffic island and it has at least 3 trees in the traffic island. Um, it could be chance. But I suspect this photo was chosen for the cover because with the trees, it's one of the more attractive traffic management techniques. And, um, I've actually passed this island quite frequently and having, uh, the trees in the, uh, traffic management there. Um, at that intersection is even more attractive in real life. So, unfortunately, within the document, there was no discussion of green spaces in the guiding principles section. So I'd like to see in the guiding principles, um, uh, a guiding principle to be added about green space, especially trees such as the falling, um, where space allows, permanent neighborhood traffic calming measures will incorporate climate appropriate and native trees and plants to encourage active transportation as well as to calm traffic. Thank you.

[01:20:51] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you so much. We'll go now to Mayor Ronnie Bryant.

[01:21:00] Ronit Bryant: Yes, thank you. Um, I'm kind of harping back to Calderon. I wonder if any of this neighborhood traffic management would actually be relevant to Calderon because it's, I think it's a collector straight rather than a neighborhood street. And uh, what, what? What could the residents on Calderon do? To move forward with lowering the speed on their street. I would very much appreciate an answer from staff if possible at some stage. Thank you.

[01:21:36] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you. And we'll go now to Stephen Prescott.

[01:21:44] Steven Prescop: Hello, can you hear me?

[01:21:46] Steven Prescop: Yes. Oh, it was a lot faster this time. First of all, I'd like to thank Roney so much for, for that comment because, um, uh, well, I've known Roney for years ago where, you know, our daughters were best friends in high school, and, and so I'm so glad that she's thinking about us here in Caldron. But, um, so, um, Yeah, my concern is what's the next step for us here to slow down the traffic on Calderon. Um, I, um, I, I mean, with proposing this, and I agree, if it's a, if it's a citywide issue, a regional, you know, neighborhood issue, then it's something that us here in Calderon probably can't do much about other than perhaps petitioning for a speed bump or even the stop sign that my wife had recommended it at the, um, corner of uh, center street. Um, I uh, love the idea of having more greenery, especially in traffic circles. Um, I would, um, question, however, in terms of traffic circles or, uh, those center circles you have, there's one on Church Street now. I'm concerned about that. I grew up in Berkeley, and back in the 70s, they put all sorts of barricades and traffic circles and things without really thinking so much on whether it was safe or not. My street was extremely narrow, probably only 30 feet across, and they put the traffic circle in it, which meant that you had to drive up on sidewalks to go on the traffic circle. So the ones on Church Street, um, uh, over by Mercy, I think. Um, so that one, it's, I get that same feeling that this circle is like, you know, you have to go into the crosswall to drive around safely. So I hope that the, whatever committee approves or looks at these things in engineering, they take that into consideration, but by all means, the traffic circle should not go into the, um, could go into the, um, crosswalks with that particular, um, location. Um, and uh, let's see, what else is going to say? The boa, the boas. I think those were a great idea. My, my, my, my 1st wife used to do child daycare in Calderon. She would have 6 kids in tow, and she could not get across the street to lentil school. Nobody would stop for her. Thank you so much for putting in those bowouts in the little bumps and stuff like that in the island in the middle. Because drivers would not slow down. I'd even slow down, even stop. You know, seeing somebody with 6 kids in tow trying to cross the street to get to the school. So I think those were great idea, wherever they can be done. Um, the other thing with the speed humps, um, I hope that they're at least designed to the point where it slows people down to maybe 5 miles per hour below the speed limit, not so slow that you have to come to a, you know, 10 mile per hour speed limit without, um, damaging your um, suspension in your car. Um, thank you so much for uh, for looking into this. Thank

[01:24:29] Chair Sally Lieber: you for those comments. Uh, is there anyone else who's queuing to comment? Okay. Not seeing one. Uh, so we'll go ahead and close the public comment and bring it back to the committee for discussion and deliberation. Uh, Council member Manachek. Thanks.

[01:25:03] Member Lisa Matichak: So I feel like I've been talking about the NTMP for the last 4.5 years quite frequently. And I so appreciate all the proposed changes. I think it reflects input from the community, from staff, from the council. Um, I feel like we're almost there in terms of what I think is, you know, a much better program. Um, I did want to see, though, if it would be possible to incorporate some of the feedback we heard tonight about, you know, can we prioritize? Um, any of the potential? It's listed under devices, but, um, techniques we use to calm traffic. Like, could we say our 1st priority is to look at trees? Um. But I also understand if that's not always possible. Um, and so then we go down the list, but I would like to prioritize trees. Um, I do, however, understand the challenges of the, um, traffic circles. I think a lot of people find those incredibly confusing. Um, if you just drive near them, you can see people not knowing what to do. So I'm not a huge fan of those, but I am a fan of trees. So um, I would like to see if we could prioritize that. And I guess I'm just kind of curious if that's okay. You know, to step any step of any concerns about that. Thank

[01:26:40] Public Works Director Cameron: you, John. Don Cameron, Public Works director. Uh, one of the things we will note is that on that table that, um, Traffic engineer Lopez showed, uh, about the devices, you know, curbside trees were were shown as high up on the list, meaning that, One, they are an option that is offered to the community when looking at traffic calming, if there is room and spaces for the tree. I mean, that's that's the 1st consideration. But it is a tool kit. And though that particular technique only requires the public works director approval combined with um, 67% majority approval of the returned postcards. So that's, that tech, that technique is allowed and actually streamlined because it doesn't even require approval from CTC or the council to implement. But the, I think, um, Lorenzo can fit you in further, if you like, many times when we're out looking at the streets, there, there is limited opportunity in terms of right away to plant more trees and, especially as a traffic calming method. Um, putting in traffic circles does require a certain amount of right away, for instance, to create that as a space for a tree, putting a tree in a, in a simple bowl bout can create certain issues that may not have enough room for the tree itself. So these are all the considerations. But trees are high up on the list and they are definitely in the toolkit. Okay.

[01:28:14] Member Lisa Matichak: So this is actually in a prioritized list.

[01:28:19] Public Works Director Cameron: I wouldn't say it's prioritized as much as this is the full list of devices possible that get discussed with the community during the community meeting and explored. And The, um, devices near the top are easier to get approved and get installed and require less, it's more streamlined. But there, just

[01:28:44] Member Lisa Matichak: to clarify, um, Staff would go out and assess the situation to figure out what solutions are possible. And those solutions are the ones that are discussed at the community meeting or the neighborhood meeting, right? Not all of the solutions because you wouldn't want to get people's hopes up. that you could do something. Okay. Yeah,

[01:29:06] City Traffic Engineer Lopez: that's correct. There are, there are times where we'll look at the toolbox and say this is just not possible, as Don mentioned, A lot of the, um, devices that we install are on well, pretty much all of them are on residential streets. So you have limited right of way, and you already have, in some cases, a very narrow sidewalk. So there's not much opportunity to put these curbside trees. Um, it's, it's, If you have a more detached sidewalk situation, then curbside choose is more of a, an option, but without that, it's kind of hard to do. But you also have to, um, What we don't want to do is introduce, uh, uh, site hazard at an intersection when it comes to bull bouts and traffic circles and by putting a tree that that creates a visibility concern. So we have to balance all of those things constantly, um, when we're looking at, um, potential improvements. Okay. So

[01:30:09] Member Lisa Matichak: I am really happy this is now before the CTC and that the council will be able to act on it. I think these are great improvements to this program. So thank you again very much for this. And I'm happy to move the staff recommendation. Thanks. Um,

[01:30:25] Member Ellen Kamei: Mayor Kmay. I'm happy to 2nd the motion and just wanted to say I appreciated the comments about opportunities for online engagement and interaction. I think, you know, we're still navigating our way out of the out of the pandemic. And so, and I think it's it's also shown we can move a lot online. Um, both, I think, and I think it's a win-win for for staff and and for the public to be able to have those opportunities, such as wanted to to echo those comments. Thanks. Thank you, Mayor. And

[01:31:01] Chair Sally Lieber: I'll just, um, add my comments that I think that we have the most tree conscious, most native plant conscious staff of any city, and that's really, um, kudos to staff and kudos to, uh, council members in the community for, uh, really raising those issues. And someone mentioned the, um, the traffic, um, uh, circle on Church Street. And I remember when we, um, were 1st uh, deliberating on that. And there was a lot of discussion about the, the response time for our firefighter paramedics and the need for uh, the rolled curbs. And so I know that our staff will be looking at the trees and the vegetation and especially uh, native vegetation and and having those uh, islands of greenery. Um, where, where we can, and, um, uh, balancing that, as Mr. Lopez mentioned with the visibility, and and safety is our highest priority, um, for people in the community. So I want to, um, thanks staff for the work that's been done on this. And, uh, we have a motion from Councilmer Manachek, and a 2nd premiere to May. Uh so we could go ahead and move to our roll call. Certainly Mayor May?

[01:32:28] Member Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[01:32:29] Chair Sally Lieber: Council member Mattachek?

[01:32:30] Member Lisa Matichak: Yes.

5.3 Residential Parking Permit Program Revisions

[01:32:32] Chair Sally Lieber: Chairperson Labor. Yes. Passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, and thank you to staff for the uh, report. And now we'll go on to item 5.3, which is the residential parking permit program revisions. And this staff presentation will also be provided by Mr. Lopez, the city traffic engineer. Thank you

[01:33:02] City Traffic Engineer Lopez: again. Share this presentation. Okay. I hope you can see that. Good evening again, chairperson Lieber and members of the committee. Again, my name is Lorenzo Lopez and I'm the city's traffic engineer. This presentation is about the proposed revisions to the residential parking permit program, also known as the RPP program. I'll begin with some background. In October 2016. Council adopted an ordinance to amend the city code to create the RPP program. The primary purpose of the RPP program is to provide relief for neighborhoods that are affected by overflow parking. By non-residents from adjacent uses. This program does not restrict the use of on street parking to only residents within the zone. Rather, it sets time limits for public parking on these city streets based on peak demand, and the permits will exempt residents from those time limits. In 2019, council requested staff review the RPP and proposed changes to make it easier to qualify for the program and lowered the permit cost for residents. At a study session in November 2019, staff provided an overview of the RPP and proposed revisions to the program. To recap. These are the 8 steps of the RPP program. They are described in more detail in the city council study session memo, which is attachment one to the CTC memo tonight for this item. After November 19th, 2019, I'm sorry, November 12th, 2019 study council study session. Staff recommended modifications to the RPP program. Staff suggested, and counsel unanimously supported applying the 51% signature requirement to the total proposed RPP zone and not for each block. Staff suggested and council unanimously concurred with applying the percentages of surveys returned and votes in support to the total proposed zone and not blocked by block. Council members also suggested options to reduce the 67% support requirement. Staff does not recommend reducing the current support requirement because it could result in a much smaller number of residents approving than desired for a program that will directly affect every resident in the zone. For example. This table is a comparison of the number of residents required to approve, if only the minimum number of postcards are returned, under the current 67% approval, and under, and also under a lower 55% approval to compare, to compare the two. Under the current threshold, if only 51% voted. 35 residents could make the decision to establish the RPP zone for 100 residents. If the threshold was reduced to 55%, 29 out of the 100 residents could be making this decision. Staff recommends retaining the 67% approval rate requirement, and no changes were made for this requirement in the redlined edits. of the RPP program guidelines in attachment 3 to the CTC memo. Question one to, to you all tonight. Does CTC support retaining the 67% approval rate requirement? When the fee schedule was established. It was estimated that it would provide 50% cost recovery. Staff has received feedback that the program should have no cost to residents within the permit zone. At the November 12th 2019 study session, council unanimously supported lowering the permit fee. There were several suggestions from council members to reduce the cost on the initial permit, and it could be, and it could be tiered for additional permits. As staff explained in the report, It would be more efficient to provide permits at no charge rather than a modest fee that would be less than 20% cost recovery. Because of this, staff recommends a pilot program for no charge permits. Here are some highlights of the proposed pilot program. Each household in an RPP zone may receive 2 free residential parking permits that are not vehicle specific. Hang tags that residents could use for their own vehicles, provide to guests when visiting and or give to caregivers or contractors working on their homes. Additional permits could be provided under special circumstances with approval from the direct public works director. The permits provided would be two-year permits where all permits have the same start and end dates. After an RPP zone is implemented, residents would come to city hall to pick up their permits after showing proof of address and signing for their permits. When the two-year period is nearly expired, staff would send out reminder notices of the expirations, and remind them, remind residents to return to city hall for their new two-year permits. One of the 1st RPP zone once the 1st RPP zone is established. Staff will monitor the pilot program to determine the level of staff effort and costs involved. Based on the 1st 2 years of implementation. A determination could be made if permits should continue to be free, or a fee should be charged. Question two. Does the CTC support the proposed pilot program to provide up to 2 free 2 year parking permits to each household in an RPP zone. In addition to Approval of the proposed red line edits and the guidelines. Staff is requesting CTC feedback on these 2 questions. That I've read to you before.

[01:39:56] Associate Civil Engineer Hoang: Does CTC support retaining the 67% approval rate requirement, and question two, does CTC support the proposed pilot program to provide up to 2 free 2 year parking permits to each household in an RPP zone. All proposed revisions to the guidelines are included in the redlined version of the RPP program guidelines, which is attachment 3 to the CTC memo. With CTC's approval and direction tonight, proposed revisions will be taken to council for approval. That concludes my presentation and I am available for questions. Thank you. Thank you so much. Uh,

[01:40:42] Chair Sally Lieber: go 1st to counsel questions. Council member Manachek. Thanks. Um.

[01:40:56] Member Lisa Matichak: As staff looked at this um potential pilot program. Did you consider just, uh, sending the hand hang tags to all of the homes as opposed to having folks come into City Hall to pick them up? Similar to what was done with the uh, Ah, the stadium program? Um,

[01:41:26] Public Works Director Cameron: Don Cameron, public works director. At this time, we did not actually consider that for a couple reasons. One is, this is a similar program that I'm familiar with and I ran for the county of Santa Clara. And we found by having people come in and provide proof of address, we could be assured they received their permits. Uh, as opposed if we send it in the mail, they could come in and say they never got it, and next thing we know that, you know, we could be hitting 46 permits, should somebody choose to play the game. But the other piece we found is that, um, residents who really didn't need the permits or weren't interested in them, did not come in and pick them up, and that just just reduced the demand for the on street parking, in terms of the use of the permits. Which was what gave greater flexibility, should there be a particular hardship to maybe provide a 3rd permit to a resident because you knew that there were some permits not pulled. So there were a lot of balancing reasons for saying, yes, you do need to come in, show proof of address, and you need to sign so that we know, and we can show you, that you did receive your 2 permits.

[01:42:38] Member Lisa Matichak: Got it. Thanks. And then, um, I feel like I should know the answer to this. But the pilot program. If it's a 2 year program, for, A given Area? It's not like it's 2 years and if we don't have any areas form and RPP area. Uh, you know, the pilot could be a year. So it's, it's, uh. So the pilot could go on longer than 2 years. Because we might not have an RPP area until maybe a year from now or something like that, right? Is that how it works?

[01:43:29] Public Works Director Cameron: That's exactly it. The clock would start the 2 year clock would start when we have our

[01:43:34] Member Lisa Matichak: 1st RPP. Yes. Okay. But we could have more than one RPP in zone in the pilot. Yes. Okay. Um. How is this enforced? Like, which group does the enforcement? And is it 24 seven?

[01:43:59] Associate Civil Engineer Hoang: It depends. I take the list on. It depends on what time restrictions, days and time limits are implemented within that zone. And it would be enforced by the police department.

[01:44:14] Member Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um. I think that's it for now. Thanks. Mayor to me. Great,

[01:44:24] Member Ellen Kamei: thank you. Um, so I had um, some questions about the postcard surveys. Um, so, um, you know, I think, You know, I understand staff wanting to keep the current 67% support requirement, but I was just wondering a little bit, um, about kind of the, the schematics of, of maybe the evolution of postcard surveys. You know, I feel like I've probably brought this up before. I'm not sure everyone sees the postcards that they receive in the mail, and I know that we had just talked about on the prior item, how people can submit things online and other options. And so I think while I understand coming in for the, you know, physical, um, permit. I was just wondering maybe a little bit if we could talk about, how post, the postcard survey program has worked in the past and maybe how you're thinking about evolving, um, with the times. If, if that's a thing or if, if it's been proven that postcards still work. Please let me know.

[01:45:34] Public Works Director Cameron: I will say that the postcards have been a tried intrude, uh, mechanism not, uh, not necessary for, for Mountain View because I haven't been personally involved yet with Mountain View for this, but in other jurisdictions like the county, that's been the more traditional method. But, as you state, you know, technology has come a long ways, and I, and I did note, and I do think we established, should be considering the ability to handle petitions and even the surveying online, where it's possible. And it's just something we would have to work with the IT department to see if it can be done in a way to ensure again, you know, they have to identify their address or household so that we can assure their boats only being counted once. But I, a lot of that could be set up, and then we'd probably want to fall. I'm just thinking at top of my head, you want to fall back of also providing the postcard. For those members of the public that don't feel as comfortable using computers or have easy access to it so that we're reaching out as far as possible.

[01:46:39] Associate Civil Engineer Hoang: I can add, if I can add a little bit to that. Um, what we found is The neighbors talk to each other. And sometimes one neighbor will say, did you get the postcard and they say, oh, I never got it when we check our list and we we know it went to that address, but for whatever reason, it may have been thrown away. So I've received many calls over the years from, and I'm talking specifically about NTMP postcards. Um, I received a call saying, can I vote? Online. I never got my postcard. And so we allow them to submit their vote via email. So, We, we will accept electronic, you know, in those cases when they, if they, if they really just do not want to submit it back to us by mail, that's fine. As long as we are able to confirm their address and that they were, they're the one within the zone. That's probably one of the most important pieces of it. Has to be the right person applying. Great,

[01:47:38] Member Ellen Kamei: thank you. I think, you know, some of my questions are, I know there was a neighborhood that got pretty close to the RPP program once, and they did the 50%, but they didn't meet the 60% postcard return. And so I was just wondering what the flexibility, um, could could be like. And I, and Ms. Cameron. I like the idea of, you know, doing both or, um, you know, having some sort of hybrid because they think that would really, um, um, hopefully increase in engagement. So, all right, thank you so much. Those are my questions.

[01:48:11] Associate Civil Engineer Hoang: I want to add one more thing. This is another reason why we added that additional notice going out. Um, to remind people to that there's a vote for, for this. So this is in both programs. We, we added an additional step that we would send out another reminder that you can, you can still vote. So I think that will hopefully address those people that maybe lost the 1st one or just didn't see it. Hopefully they get that 2nd one. Thank you.

[01:48:43] Chair Sally Lieber: Great, and seeing no further counsel questions. We'll go to our public comment. And uh, again, if you would like to comment, you can do so uh, by clicking the raise hand button and zoom or pressing star 9 on your phone and staff will be displaying a timer. And we'll go 1st uh, to Nazanan Dashara.

[01:49:16] Nazanini Dashtara: Yes, hi. Do you hear me?

[01:49:18] Chair Sally Lieber: Yes.

[01:49:19] Nazanini Dashtara: Okay, finally. Okay. I got you. Um, So, 1st of all, I've never received a postcard and our neighbors don't talk to each other, so I just wanted to put that out there. Um, so if there's another way to vote and and if I was a, My house was supposed to receive a postcard, I would love to know about it. Um, The other thing is, um, so I live between uh, Dana and Caldron and before the pandemic. Um, this was a very impacted street with commuter parking, people parking for 3 day weekends while taking Caltrain, to the airport or wherever, uh, people park here to work at their companies in downtown for 8 to 10 hour days. Um, and it's a narrow street for some reason, I don't know why. The bike lane arrows through downtown, go through Dana Street, which is very unsafe, as it is compact with cars. And it's a narrow street. So I don't know how that decision came about. But I want to make an appeal if there's any parents on the council on this committee. Um, I have 2 daughters, especially with COVID, ones back home from college. The other one is um, in high school. They both do sports. They come home late. They have to walk far away to park. Um, and carry their athletic equipment to home. I mean, as a parent, I see this as a big safety issue for me. And, um, you know, I just feel like, you know, there should be, um, attention paid to this, rather than serving non-residents, and and, and their, you know, rather than them not wanting to park at the train station and, and paying for parking, or not wanting to pay for, um, you know, parking the parking lots or getting permits for parking lots in downtown to, to work in the companies here. Um, they, um, you know, my kids have to, Park very far away, carry their equipment at night. Um, in the dark. My girls, and I see this as a safety issue, and this is something that I feel, the city is obligated to address, instead of him and ha about this parking issue. The parking should primarily be for residents. People from outside are welcome to come here, park during the day for 5 hours, go shop, have a good time. It's lovely to see them, but all these 3 days, 10 hour days. I think that's excessive. They should pay parking the lot. The, the, uh, transit lot. Uh, you know, park in the parking lots and pay, so Mountain View can make the money for that. I believe this is an issue. Thank you for your time.

[01:52:24] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you so much. And we'll go on now to Bruce England.

[01:52:31] Bruce England: Thank you. Um, Speaking just for myself this time, um, I'm really unsure about the logic of providing the free parking permits, because we are moving, as we've discussed in the earlier agenda items, we've been talking about vision 0 and the act of transportation plan. And something I know anecdotally from talking to bicyclists is that they'll commonly go up on the sidewalk because they don't feel safe out on the street. where cars are moving in and out of parking spaces and things like that. Well, that's no good for pedestrians. On the sidewalks, which is what the sidewalks are for. So this seems inconsistent with city goals on getting people out of their vehicles and onto their feet and riding bikes and other things that don't require being in a vehicle and driving around. We also have climate change actions ahead of us. We have goals for 2030. That's only 9 years away. So it seems like we need to get serious about de-emphasizing automobile travel and the infrastructure being applied to vehicle travel. And that's it for my comments. Thank you.

[01:53:40] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you. Robert Cox is next.

[01:53:48] Robert Cox: Can you hear me?

[01:53:49] Chair Sally Lieber: Yes.

[01:53:50] Robert Cox: Okay. Uh, thanks for the opportunity to speak on this item. I'm speaking to you as the co-chair of the Amna parking subcommittee. I've already sent you an official letter from subcommittee, so I won't repeat every point. I just want to reiterate that we support dropping the requirement from 67% approval to 55%, provided that the permits issued in the pilot programs are distributed without charge. We believe that the key opposition to establishing the RPP zone is the cost of the permits, and as evidence of this, I would note that there was no opposition to the permits issued during the Levi Stadium pilot program, and those permits were given to the residents at no cost. Um, beyond that, I'll add a personal note, and then I would caution the city against investing an expensive technology to enforce parking before we have a broader experience with the pilot program. Let's start simple, see how things go, and make an investment in expensive technology only when we know it's worth it. And then, um, Beyond that, I can appreciate the staff's concern about how many residents it takes to approve a parking zone if you drop the approval to 55%. On the other hand, you know, I mean, I wouldn't change the way we elect our elected officials based on, you know, I mean, that if only 51% comes up, then the number that we vote on, you know, I mean, isn't sufficient to elect people. It's, and the people who care will speak. And I think that's the way to do it. So those are mine and the committee's opinions. Thank you for the chance to talk about it.

[01:55:38] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you. We'll go on to Annette Nielsen.

[01:55:48] Annette Neilsan: Good evening. I am also on the parking subcommittee for the old Mountain View neighborhood and I sent an email yesterday, which I hope you received that had specific blocks that already have parking restrictions noted. Um, I'm really disappointed and frustrated that the revisions to the program steps do not include options for those of us who already live in restricted area zones. We essentially have a parking zone that's, whether it's 2 hours or 5 hours. And I can understand why the 8 steps are necessary for those streets that do not have restrictions because you are asking those residents to suddenly start living with timed restrictions. Um, but we already have those. And so there's no reason for us to have a petition or postcard surveys or voting or the city to do a zone boundary study because the zone is already set up and the timing is already set up. And I don't understand why, even though we've brought this up for years, This has never been included in the program's steps that the staff has prepared. And I'd like to have an answer for that. And there's no reason why those of us who already have timed restrictions on our streets on Bush, Yosemite, um, one block of, of, uh, Dana, um, all along Villa. Um, and view why we can't just be given automatically, uh, permits to park so we don't have to move our cars or in the case of workmen. I had a workman here when we had some flood damage in the house, and he had to set a timer every 2 hours to go out and move his truck. Um, because we don't have driveways, some of us, to park um, workers vehicles in. And so please consider giving automatic parking permits to those of us that are already in a time zone that the city has imposed. Thank you.

[01:57:53] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you. Well, go on now to Mary Hodder. Great. Okay, great. And Mary, I think you're still on mute. There you go.

[01:58:11] Mary Hodder: Okay. Um hi. Thanks for, um, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, thanks for inviting us to speak. Um, I also signed the letter from the old Mountain View neighborhood association parking group. Um, I wanted to specifically address the issue of percentages for returns of um, the coastcards. Um, aside from the fact that, uh, I often receive my neighbor's mail and they often receive mine because the guy is off that particular day or week due to vacation. Um so the mail isn't perfect. Um, we also have a problem where one owner can actually hold an entire zone hostage. This is what happened in the Oak Street example, which was the only zone that attempted to get an RPP set up. Um, basically, what happened was there was a block with only 2 owners. Right? So by doing the program, no matter whether it's 51% or 67%. Block by block. One owner in a 2 owner block was able to hold the entire zone away from participation, because that person didn't return their signature. Um, so, I'm for the 51% because I think, you know, in democracy, it's the 50 It's the folks who show up who vote, um, and that's how we vote for you all. Um, we don't say that if as Robert mentioned, um, if, if we don't get the percentage, um, we, we throw out the election and we start over. Um, however, even if we go with a 67% approval, the block by block thing totally doesn't work, and the very 1st example of when an RPP was attempted, that was the problem. It didn't pass because a single owner on a 2 person block was able to stop it. The other, um, points that I'd like to mention is one on the comp sheet that you included with the agenda and other documents, years ago, we added Sunnyvale and Santa Clara, because they were left off of that sheet, and I presented it to council up on the dais screen and um, gave everybody copies and to staff and whatnot. But at the time, the existing staff mentioned that they weren't able to get a hold of the RPPP, um, representatives for Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, and I would really like to encourage you because I was able to call up and immediately fill out the rest of the spreadsheet. I would encourage you to do it. I think they're important examples for Mountain View because Santa Clara has a district that's near the stadium, and Sunnyvale has the train area, very similar to what Mountain View faces where some neighborhoods are not an issue, and other neighborhoods have high pressure. Uh, situations like the, like our proximity to the train and the villa and other zones that are near the downtown. So, I would like to encourage um, making that spreadsheet thorough. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well,

[02:01:18] Chair Sally Lieber: go on now to Stephen Prescott. Hello?

[02:01:25] Steven Prescop: Yes. Uh, yeah, thanks for letting me speak again. Um, so I, um, I'm not impacted by parking permits at this point in my neighborhood, but I did want to address the comments made about the, um, uh, how effective these postcards are and, and, uh, in particular, um, you know, my issues before had to do with the, um, the bike lanes on Keldron Avenue, and I see these postcards coming in from all sorts of different government agencies. Um, you know, from different counties. Maybe we have involvement in different properties here, there, whatever. And most of the time I glance at them and I think, oh, I don't have time for this. Or we never got it. So the one in particular for, um, for the bike lane proposals, that ended up getting stuck with a bunch of other mail that we're going to look through later. And, um, we didn't actually look until until one of our neighbors told us at all that. So word of mouth work that time. But on the other hand, um, it doesn't always work. And I can't, and you shouldn't assume that the people who are really interested in what's happening in their neighborhood are going to automatically respond to these postcards, uh, because they, for whatever reason, may not, um, have response, or, you know, may have received the response or acted on it, because they didn't really, um, have a full understanding of how much that, um, issue would be, um, impacting them. So, um, I would certainly encourage uh, what other, whatever other alternatives there are. you know, by email or or certainly follow-up postparts, I think, are great. But, um, I see there's a lot of problems, which is relying on postcards. So I, I hope you, you would look into other methods to advise, um, neighbors or prospective changes. Thank you for your time.

[02:03:08] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you. Alan Whittaker?

[02:03:15] Alan Whitaker: Thank you very much for having this opportunity to speak. Um, I'm, um, a homeowner and a block resident on the 2500 block of Alvin Street, quite a distance from where most of the people have been talking about, um, this program, um, and how it might affect them and what they would like to see about it. Um, We have a, um, I'm on a block that is on next to another city. Um, we have overflow traffic that comes in from a different city. Um, that comes in daily and also due to situations outside of our control. Um, and and things outside of anyone's control, everyone doing what they need to do. what they have to do. Um, we have a lot of long term parking on our block. And, um, I, I don't know how far the history goes back, but I do have a problem with the fact that our safety, our safety officers are now going to be called upon to be doing more and more diligence dealing with parking rather than safety. That is our police department. It was said that the people that will be doing this work, we're going to be putting our police department. Basically, they're going to be downtown and working these zones as meter maids. Um, They already have a very bad uh, reputation of being able to uh, enforce because they have other things that they need to do. They need to be free to do the things that the police need to do. There are safety people. Um, they shouldn't be involved with parking management. Um, We have, as I said, um, we have people that constantly violate the 72 hour rule, which Mountain View hasn't been enforcing since the, uh, well, even before the COVID uh, emergency declaration. Um, the police department can't enforce the 72 hour roll or won't. Um, one, you have to have 72 hours yourself, then they come have to have to come out and do another 72 hours to prove that you were right the 1st time, and they then will make and do almost. They will almost do everything in their power not to issue a ticket. And not to enforce it. All that has to happen is some people get ticketed, and some people have to move the 1000 feet. They have to move their vehicle, a 1000 feet. you know, before they can park back in the same area again. But anyway, I think the police shouldn't be involved. needs another, another way to do it. Thank you.

[02:06:23] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you so much. We'll go on now to Serge Bontip.

[02:06:39] Serge Bonte: Yeah, can you hear me? Yeah, sorry. I keep switching Zoom, WebEx teams. I don't know all day and I always forget where? to unplug things. So, um, I'll send you a kind of a, an email with lots of details that I won't repeat here about the specifics of the programs, but, um, I don't live in, um, a neighborhood, but it is impacted by parking. Um, but, um, I do drive uh, and talk downtown. And um, to me, um, I, I, I want a system where it, it doesn't take a, uh, a PhD to figure out where I can talk and for how long um, as a visitor. So, whatever you do, you need to have some consistency between zones, it can't be like one rule for one block, another set of rules or another block. It's completely unmanageable for visitors who happen to be also mountain view residents and taxpayers and it's just not right. Um, uh, also, you know, if you have very complex systems like this, it makes enforcements nearly impossible because, you know, the police departments on top of their extra jobs will have to have to look at a menu or to figure out, you know, where exactly the, the car is located, you know, in conjunctions to which set of rules. and so on. So, um, you need to have some consistency. Uh, a previous speaker mentioned that, um, something that I agree with, it, it, it, it, it's kind of backwards where, um, you, people can petition for, um, uh, uh, a permit parking without having time restricting, um, areas in place. So I think a prequisite before doing a position is to be in a block that has time restrictions already. And the times restrictions should be based on on comments and stuff. So if it's to avoid um, to to to encourage people to rotate because it's next to to downtown and businesses, then during the day you'd set a time limit of 2 hours or 3 hours or something like this, um, and you set it and then you can do your your petition. Uh, but not the other way around. Um, finally, um, on, on the specific that I proposed that, I, I, I'm against free permits. The city has fees for just about everything that we want an exclusive views of. If I want to to book a park, I have to pay a fee. If I want to book a community room, I have to pay a fee. Um, if I want to book a barbecue spot, I have to pay a fee. Why on earth should parking be free? Um, so there should be a fee and it could be minimal for the 1st car and so on. Finally, um, you know, I think the clock was off, so, but I try to keep it shorter around this. Um, Finally, um, I think that in terms of requirements, I think you're proposing to drop for requirements to to, uh, register to provide car registration. I think it's a big mistake. The permit historic car, but not for an individual. Um, and that's the best way to prove residency. It's the best way also to provide enforcement. San Francisco is moving to a system where are they going to do, um, systematically, um, um, reading the license plates. So the enforcement is very simple. You drive your car, read the license plates in a block, and you can flag very quickly, you know, who has a permit, who doesn't, who has an expired permit, and who deserves a citation. Um, and and that's would be consistent with other type of enforcements that the MVPD would have to do. And one last thing, um, you know, I'm not sure if I have time, but...

[02:10:22] Chair Sally Lieber: You're right at your time, but do it very quickly, sir.

[02:10:25] Serge Bonte: Show up, so the last thing is something I noticed in the table that shows the fees. There is a rubric for guests and guests can get a permit for up to a year. That doesn't make any sense to me. If you, if you are a guest for a year, you are a resident. And, and, you know, that shouldn't be there. And to me, that's opening the door to people being able to provide free parking for their Airbnb host. And as a taxpayer, I have no desire to subsidize their business. Thank you.

[02:10:57] Chair Sally Lieber: Okay, we'll cut it off there. Thank you, thank you. And we'll go on now to Roberto Miller.

[02:11:07] Roberto Miller: To unmute there. Hope you can hear me. Yes. Okay, great. Want to thanks staff for working on this, the issue of the RPP, which has been around for some time and never been implemented, so I'm glad that everybody, CTC and everyone is working together. I'm part, I'm also part of the, um, old Mountain View neighborhood association parking subcommittee and uh, and share those views. Um, uh, I'm in the Mercy Bush uh, view area. I sent out the letter which uh, our committee put together for uh, for staff and and the CTC to review. and received those who responded, responded positively. The majority of them did. And others had questions, uh, such as, uh, this is regarding a household, would an ADU or a duplex. Would that be considered 2 households? Just a question to clarify for some residents. Um, I do think it's fair for each household to receive um, um, free, uh, to parking permits, and I really hope that goes forward. The postcard issue. I agree that I get a lot of mail, a lot of postcards every day. Most of it goes into recycling. I wish we could actually stop junk mail somehow not being delivered. Um, so it's just kind of a thing we'd rather have it to be more online available or in addition to the cards. Um, that would be great. Um, And the threshold, if you go with 55%. I hope that applies for online as well in addition to cards. And I do advocate for the 55% majority to put the program forward. And so we can see after 2 years what the data really says and have less stress around parking in the area and find ways to bring business downtown and have residents have a place for everybody else. I appreciate that. So thanks again for good work. Look forward to seeing how this goes. Thank you. Thank you

[02:13:11] Chair Sally Lieber: so much. And we have a hand up from Annette Nielsen, and I'm assuming that this is the Annette Nielsen that already spoke. Um, So we'll go next to Albert Jeans, and then, uh, if we didn't hear from, if this is a different Annette, um, please do keep your hand up and we'll we'll go to you last. But Albert Jeans will be next. Hi, there. you hear me?

[02:13:39] Albert Jeans: Yes. Great. Yeah, in general, I'm actually, you know, I don't like street parking in general, so I'm glad that you're doing something to restrict parking. Um, and this revised RPP is a step of the right direction. Unfortunately, my neighbors and I won't be able to benefit from it because our impacted area is only about a block law. We've routinely get overflow parking from a nearby apartment complex. In fact, just this morning, you know, street cleaning day, I said, oh, great, you know, look outside. My street is fully parked in front of my house. And it wasn't last night. And, you know, if I know there's going to be a couple of big cars there, I could go out there with my blower and blow the stuff out into the middle of the street so the street creepy streeper can get it, but this happens so often. In fact, some of my neighbors actually park their cars in front of their house, just to keep those cars from parking there, so when street cleaner comes, they move their cars, street cleaner, Queensland Street, then they put their cars back there. Because otherwise they have no control over. Same thing with garbage cans. Sometimes there's so many cars parked there. We can barely put our cars down on the curb. But it's only a one block section that's impacted. And so we'll never qualify for the 3 block minimum. Um that RPP requires. I was actually, you know, on that, I was a little bit puzzled why they say there's a 5 block minimum, but if you don't have 53 is good enough. You know, is it 3 or is it 5? Just a small point. Um, so I guess, you know, there's nothing we can do about it for now, maybe in the future, we can revise it so that, uh, you know, increase the granular, so a small section as one block, get an, can get an RPP.

[02:15:17] Chair Sally Lieber: Thanks a lot. Thanks so much. And we'll go on now and check if this Annette Nielsen is a different one. Uh, Annette Nielsen, are you there?

[02:15:34] Annette Neilsan: I am, um, Madam chair, and it's the same one. I didn't use it all my time.

[02:15:40] Chair Sally Lieber: I'm sorry, no, it's, um, only once, um, regardless whether you use all the time, regrettably.

[02:15:49] Annette Neilsan: Okay, thank you. I wanted to discuss the fact that we already are under enforcement, so it's no added enforcement for those that are already in the time zones.

[02:15:59] Chair Sally Lieber: Yeah, got that point earlier. Thank you so much. Okay, so, um, we will close the, um, close the public comment, and bring it back to the committee. And Committee discussion or Questions? Council my romantic.

[02:16:26] Member Lisa Matichak: Thanks. So I guess I have more questions now that we've heard a lot from residents. Um, And I apologize if this was in the material we got, I I, um, apparently didn't have a question about it then, but I do now. Um, and I am wondering how an ADU is treated. Um, If it has a separate address, it might be different than if it has the same address, but how would an ADU be treated?

[02:16:57] Public Works Director Cameron: Uh, thank you, Councilman or Mattercheck, Don Cameron, public works director. There's actually, as you know, an ordinance, uh, that defines the residential parking permit program, and it has a definition of a dwelling unit, our residence, and, and that's the determination. So that definition says, uh, dwelling unit or residence shall mean a self-contained house, apartment, condominium or other residence with an assigned address as used by the U.S. postal service, or as listed in the city directory. So if the ADU has a separate address as defined by U.S. Postal Service, it is a 2nd dwelling unit, if it does not, under this ordinance, it would not be. Okay. And

[02:17:45] Member Lisa Matichak: I don't really have a good feel for that, and I don't know if you do either, um, if they typically have a separate address or not. I

[02:17:52] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: don't either. So we would, again, we've applied the definition for the ordinance. Okay. And,

[02:18:00] Member Lisa Matichak: um, We are, the staff did recommend that we do away with the block by block, qualification, and so it's the entire area, right? The percent of the entire area. Just want to confirm that.

[02:18:16] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: That's correct.

[02:18:17] Member Lisa Matichak: Thanks. And um, let's see. Reaching residence is always a challenge. And certainly, you know, postcards is one way. But I am wondering if we have tried other ways. And what our experience has been. We we don't have the email addresses of all of our residents. Is my understanding. And even then, I feel like an email could get lost. Um, it could go to your spam folder or somebody could just miss it. Um, are there other ways that we've thought about that we've tried to reach residents? So

[02:19:02] City Traffic Engineer Lopez: it kind of depends on what we're, what we're trying to reach them for. If it's a meeting like tonight, We, we send out, um, emails to the neighborhood associations, all the neighborhood associations throughout the city. Um, And, you know, in some cases, we would do social media, blasts, you know, it really depends on what the meeting is for. But if you're trying to pinpoint a smaller section of people, And you only want their votes. An email blast to the whole city doesn't work or social media, advertising doesn't work. Um, So it is a challenge. We recognize that. Uh, We're, we're happy to listen to options. You know, that, that's, I know it's come up a couple of times and we're happy to listen to options, but we, we do have to keep in mind that it has to be for those specific people that we're trying to get a hold of, not everyone in the downtown area. You know, if 5 blocks within downtown want RPP, We wanna contact those 5 blocks only. Right.

[02:20:12] Member Lisa Matichak: I suppose you could have a little bit of spillover, but you certainly wouldn't want to do the whole city or an entire maybe neighborhood association. Uh, that covers a really large area. I've seen the cool blocks, but those don't necessarily line up. Well, we don't have a ton of cool walks so far, but it also doesn't necessarily line up with um, an area that we would be considering for an RPB. So, yeah, I get that this is a challenge that we always have. Um, okay, um. Let's see. Um. The enforcement by the police department. Um, I, I think there are different groups within the police department, and it wouldn't be the folks who are addressing safety. It would be like traffic department, right? Or a similar department. So

[02:21:13] City Traffic Engineer Lopez: the parking enforcement is done by what's called the community service officer. Right. And they, they have a, I'm not sure how many they have, the police department has, but, um, they're the actual people that are doing strictly parking enforcement. So they're not. The normal police, sworn police officer that's going out fighting crime, I guess you could say. They're specific to parking. So those, there is a definite distinction between the two. They've even dressed differently. Right. Got

[02:21:45] Member Lisa Matichak: it. Um, and then, um, we had a question about 3 blocks or 5 blocks. Right.

[02:21:53] City Traffic Engineer Lopez: that it is kind of odd. The intent is to shoot for a minimum of 5 blocks, so we're covering as much of an area as possible. Because what we don't want to do is have one block or 2 blocks come in. And then once the signs and the zone is implemented, the adjacent blocks to say, hey, what about us? We want we want that same type of program. So, part of the program is whoever comes in, We we hope to have a minimum of 5 blocks and we actually reach out to adjacent blocks, um, at the endpoints or in all directions from that initial request to see if they're also interested. Uh, so that we can try to maximize the zone when possible. But there are some cases where, The, the layout of the streets just doesn't quite work out and you can only get 3 blocks. So that's the, I guess, the special circumstance of, If it's not 5, it can be three.

[02:22:53] Member Lisa Matichak: Got. Um, and then there was the question about, um, if an area already has, Time restrictions. Why would we not just say that is an RPP area and provide, um, the thing tags to that area? I was wondering if staff had thought about that approach and, um, Why or why not? You don't think that's a good idea. So, the

[02:23:28] City Traffic Engineer Lopez: intent of the program is to address the problem of people parking for extended periods of time that are not within that area. And There has to be an issue 1st before we try to address it. And if, you know, there are many timed parking zones throughout downtown, throughout the city. And if there's not an issue now, or that we're not aware of an issue, um, it's hard for us to address it. But, initiating the RPP zone, we would potentially keep that time restriction, but make the, but allow the residents to be exempt from it. So, if you have 2 hour parking, this is why we need feedback from the residents, if they want to participate. You know, we, to date, we've only had one resident, uh, initiated, study and one council initiated. And neither one had the uh, return rate that we were, that meet the guidelines of the program guidelines. So, you know, we, We have to see a problem, and in order to see a problem, we have to be made aware of it. And that's why we're asking for the petition to say, okay, um, whoever spoke earlier. We have a problem on my street and my daughters can't, Can't park near the house. Well, if they put together a petition for multiple blocks within that area. We can go look at it and say, okay, it looks like it's not just a, a 9 to 5 problem. It's a, 9 to 10 PM problem or something like that. We can cater the zone that would go in to address the specific problem. And if it's not a problem on the weekend. We wouldn't worry about it extending into the weekends. So, It's it's really about catering to the specific area that's that has an issue. Hope that makes sense.

[02:25:30] Member Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um. Let's see. I think. That's all I have for now. Thanks.

[02:25:39] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you. Um, Mayor, did you have comments right away?

[02:25:47] Member Ellen Kamei: Yeah, I didn't. I didn't know, I don't, I don't have any questions. Um, you know, I think that, We're all trying to continue to tweak the RPP to find something that works for the community, that for me is the ultimate goal is I know that this program was established, but it doesn't exist in any of our neighborhoods yet. So, you know, my ultimate goal is that people can use this so that they can address all the variety of issues that can come up, which we heard throughout the public comment. So, you know, I, um, I guess the only, okay, maybe this is a question. So, you know, staff has made these recommendations and asked the CTC to forward it to counsel. Um, you know, should we receive further feedback, you know, what is the opportunity for us to make any tweaks along the way? Um, to continue to augment the, the program to make sure that it works or, you know, I guess that's the only thing that I have in terms of questions.

[02:26:54] Chair Sally Lieber: And Mr. Lopez or Ms. Cameron, um, when would you envision this if it's approved by this committee going to council? And would council as a whole still have the ability to, um, make, make changes or, um, modifications?

[02:27:18] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: So, we were looking to see if we could turn this around as quickly enough to go to council on June 22nd. Uh, We still have to see if a special resolution would be necessary, however, for the pilot program. And if so, that may take a little more time with everything on everybody's plate. And part of what we were waiting to see was whether there was going to be a request to look at several more things. That would mean we wouldn't try to go June 22nd, but if you're inclined to approve the, um, Staff's recommended modifications. Including the pilot program for the free permits and so on. There's a good chance we would try to turn it around and take it to council June 22nd, and of course, it would be subject to then council approval, at which time, if any council members at other concerns, they, they, they could pull the item and, and ask that it be addressed. But I think, I also wanted to mention to the mayor's question. Uh, we do envision CTC meeting at least 3 times a year. There's plenty of issues coming up all the time. And there can be a check in on this program a year from now. You know, so what happened over the last year? Did we get applications? Did any go through? Do you want to take a fresh look at the guidelines once again? So we can do check-ins. Then

[02:28:47] Member Ellen Kamei: if I may, um, Cheerleader, I'll move the staff recommendation with the addition that we have a check in at CTC in one year's time. Um, related to the program. Thank you.

[02:29:03] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you. And, uh, council member, Mattachek. I

[02:29:08] Member Lisa Matichak: will 2nd that in motion. I want to add that I appreciate all the changes that have been made to this. Uh, the dropping of the block by block. Um, I think will go a long way toward, um, having more successful RPPs established. Um, and, you know, there was a comment about, um, we are trying to get folks out of their vehicles. We are, but we haven't really got that great public transportation, and, um, a lot of folks are not gonna ride a bike or walk. And so we're trying to help our residents. Um, deal with issues that they've encountered. Um, and I think it's the right thing to do to help our residents. So, I appreciate the changes. I appreciate the suggestion to have a check in. Um, but, um, I think this is a, a great, uh, modification to the program, so I'll support it. Thanks. Okay,

[02:30:09] Chair Sally Lieber: and I'll, I'll just add a couple comments. I am very supportive of the changes proposed by staff. And, um, I think that one thing about the postcards that could really help is that postcards coming from all government agencies tend to be very, um, text-based. And, um, not a lot of graphics that really grab your eye. And even if they are printed on plain paper, um, you know, things like oversized logos or, um, some kind of graphic element to it can really help to, to wake up the senses. And, I think that, uh, younger people are definitely more comfortable with online, um, but, uh, a huge, um, Part of our, our community and mountain view are very um, paper based and and tech-based um, still, and I, I know from volunteering at the mass vaccination site that we'd be asking people, oh, did you get a, a barcode on your phone and people would carefully pull out their clamshell phone. And ask me where it would be on there. And they'd have a little handwritten note where they had talked to an operator and been told their date and um, That was like 1000s and 1000s of people. Um, so, uh, a lot of folks still are, but I think that we can maybe grab some of the younger set by just making the, the postcards more, um, more graphically oriented. And that might, um, really help to bridge that gap uh, a lot. But I am very pleased to see the work done by staff. So we'll go ahead if there are no further comments from the committee. We'll go ahead to our roll call. Hey, thank you. Mayor Kameh?

[02:32:13] Member Ellen Kamei: Yes. Council

[02:32:15] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: member Mattachek?

[02:32:16] Member Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[02:32:17] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: Chairperson Lieber.

[02:32:19] Chair Sally Lieber: Yes.

[02:32:20] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: Passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay.

6.2 Committee Comments

[02:32:23] Chair Sally Lieber: And thank you to staff for the presentation. Mr. Lopez, we appreciate it. Um, now we'll go on to uh, council, staff, and committee reports. Um, item 6.one would normally be our, our staff comments, and Ms. Cameron, um, has informed me that staff have no additional, uh, comments or reports. And item 6.2 is um, committee comments. Do any of the committee members have uh, comments or reports to share with the committee? Uh,

[02:33:06] Member Lisa Matichak: Customer Remanachek. So I assume this is the time when we could also ask staff question based upon public input earlier. Um on a different topic, kind of like we do at a council meeting. And uh, the question was raised about the, No oversized vehicles on Langdorf, and I, I think I know the answer to that question or that comment. Um, but, um, maybe Ms. Cameron, um, wants to comment on that. I think it's because those are bike lanes and that was a different ordinance. Um, but if. That, that is. That

[02:33:45] Assistant Public Works Director Arango: is correct. Um, there was another ordinance that prohibited the, uh, parking of oversized vehicles on streets with bike lanes. And those signs went in over a year ago, uh, for all the streets, including rainstorf that has bike planes. We have not yet begun the installation of the signage for the streets that qualified as narrow streets, those that are 40 feet or less. At this point, we expect that to begin towards the end of June. The city does have a web page devoted to that, that is going to, um, be updated frequently as soon as installation starts showing the progress, which neighborhood area we're in. Um, it's, uh, it's mountain view dot gov slash narrow streets, I believe is how you find it on our website. So we'll encourage the public to check that website to get updates on a regular basis.

[02:34:41] Member Lisa Matichak: Great. Thank you. Unfortunately, it looks like, uh, Mr. Whitaker is, uh, not still at the meeting. Thank you. Sorry, you're muted, chair labor.

[02:35:00] Chair Sally Lieber: Thank you so much for telling me I've I've been muting to avoid the weird growling trash can noise. So I don't know if my me being unmuted was the thing that brought it about, but thought I'd call that. Um, so I want to thank everyone for uh, joining us for a robust conversation. Our next council transportation committee will be in the fall with a date to be determined, uh, until then, uh, stay safe.