June 4, 2024 Council Transportation Committee

Video

Agenda

• 5.2 California Street (West) Complete Street Improvements, Pilot, Project 21-40 - Performance Metrics: Associate Civil Engineer Nguyen provided a presentation on the California Street (West) Complete Street Improvements, Pilot, Project 21-40—Performance Metrics. (01:29:05)
• 5.3 Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan: Transportation Planner Ahmed provided a presentation on the Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan (VZAP/LRSP). (02:10:09)
• 6. COMMITTEE/STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS, UPDATES, REQUESTS, AND COMMITTEE REPORTS (03:19:35)
• 6.1 Staff Comments: Senior Civil Engineer Houghton provided a verbal update on the Castro Street and Rengstorff Avenue Grade Separation Projects. (03:19:35)
• 6.2 Committee Comments: The Committee followed up with staff about the inquiry of a constituent, Serge Bonte, who would like to know if pedestrian detours should be available when sidewalks are closed for construction. (03:33:16)
• 7. ADJOURNMENT: At 10:08 p.m., Chair Kamei adjourned the meeting. (03:37:38)

Transcript

[00:13:03] Unknown Speaker: Okay, can you hear us now? I'm

[00:13:07] Chair Ellen Kamei: assuming they could hear us now. It just got us. Okay, here we go. Raised hand. Okay, all these people raise their hand. So I'm assuming they probably couldn't hear us. Yes. Okay. Okay. So, if you are, have raised your hand, because you could no longer hear us, if you could lower your hand to indicate that you can hear us now, that would be much appreciated. And staff will look to make sure the hands are lowering. Hands are all down. Okay. So, yeah, I know. Okay. Carl, we're gonna do public comment after the presentation. Are you raising your hand to give public comment? Inspector. Okay, great. wonderful. All right. I apologize that you did not hear the audio. Um, Shall we proceed? I mean, they have the slides. I'd

[00:14:03] Unknown Speaker: recommend proceeding. Okay, the presentation, um, no problem. is also in written form. Okay. And so the key piece is after the presentation. Okay, great. Great.

[00:14:12] Chair Ellen Kamei: Wonderful. Thank you and thank you to the public who let us know that they could not hear us. Okay, we'll proceed. Apologies. Okay,

[00:14:23] Economic Development Strategist Hinds: I think this is an update of requirements. Okay, so the next category is safety requirements, um, so the safety requirements are really, um, looking to prioritize the safety of, uh, people using the sidewalks or the bike lanes driving on our streets. Um, and some things that we've added are, um, minimizing the amount of time that the devices are stopping on a curb ramp, um, so they're not blocking the way people getting onto there, uh, minimizing the time that they're stopping at, um, push buttons too. Um, and then, uh, reducing speed limit to, uh, or limiting it to the pace of the pedestrians or cyclists, they're around. So if someone stopped on the sidewalk, they'll have to stop. They're blocking they'll have to be at a similar pace. And then just a few additional items. So clarifying where the devices are allowed to operate, so they wouldn't be, they're not allowed to operate on trails, um, and then requiring geofencing capabilities that can be updated. I'm so modifying where the devices can go and making sure that they're is, if they are fully autonomous and get past that point of having the human handler, they know where to stop and which routes to take. Um, and then aligning with city policies, um, they'd have to get a mobile vending permit, um, aligning with the active transportation plan, and for, um, devices operating within the bike lanes, uh, they'd have to follow the California vehicles those two. In terms of contractual process, the companies would have to get the mobile vending permit, and then enter into a contract with the city. and this is how it was done before too. The contract would just include the updated guidelines and our standard the city standard insurance requirements. And then any, um, any companies found not in compliance with either the permit or the agreement, uh, permit would be provoked. So in terms of next steps, we are looking to formalize a personal delivery device program, uh, and we're asking right now for feedback, uh, what's being presented, and, um, and within the memorandum, and then we can incorporate any feedback and comments into the updated guidelines, um, and potentially take us back to uh, the full city council for consideration this fall. And so, yeah, but then I can take any, welcome any questions. Thank you. Uh, no new committee numbers, questions. And I

[00:17:08] Member Alison Hicks: should I should start this off by saying, I have a lot of questions and a lot of suspicions. I, when Starship was operating, they were operating around where I live, and I had frankly a lot of problems with them. So, um, but I'm not against, you know, I'm not against delivery or even delivering robots. I just want this to be done right. So I do have a lot of questions. Um, So 1st you said there were some companies inquiring, how many companies is that? And, uh,

[00:17:42] Economic Development Strategist Hinds: um, four? Uh,

[00:17:45] Economic Vitality Manager Lang: we, yes, we've had 4 and prior to that, we had 2 additional that have no longer desired. I want a plus 2 veteran.

[00:17:56] Member Alison Hicks: And among them, how many were more sidewalk oriented, how many more bikeway oriented and how many more roadway oriented? or take home, but. That's, you can tell me that too. Yeah,

[00:18:11] Economic Development Strategist Hinds: I think it's a combination and it seems that these companies are, um, heading towards, um, going into bicycle and travel lane. Um, but traveling, you mean road or yeah. Oh, oh. Um. But I believe that most of them do both. Do you like them? Um, but yeah, do, um, and most

[00:18:38] Member Alison Hicks: of them do sidewalk and bikes. So unlike the ones here that are set, like the ones pictured, set, okay. Um, and then have you, there's a lot of talk right now about e-cargo bikes? Have you gotten any, like they're being set up in New York? all of the news. Have you had any inquiries from them? No, we haven't. Those are with e-cargo bikes. you know, they're with people. Okay. Um, And then how much is this? Um, Is the, uh, is this a considered a pilot program or a program? So the, uh, side. Yeah,

[00:19:21] Economic Development Strategist Hinds: or something. Yeah, the original, the program from 2018 and 2020 were both considered pilot, uh, and making these changes, uh, we're looking to create a program out of it. Um, But it is up to. And

[00:19:37] Member Alison Hicks: then how much have you interfaced? How much has this been? I don't know how siloed it is. Certainly they're staffed from multiple different places here, but how much is it, has it, the, um, planning work gone through economic vitality or economic development, how much of it is interfaced with the active transportation plan? Done. Well, yeah,

[00:20:06] Economic Development Strategist Hinds: I will, um, ask that question over to John.

[00:20:08] Economic Vitality Manager Lang: So, uh, These conversations have been going on for the better part of a year and a half . So we have engaged both with our public works transportation team. We've engaged with our police department. We've engaged with our planning team. Um, and then we certainly have been very cognizant of what I would say is the 1st experience with starship. There was a lot of learning that went on as a result of that. And so a lot of the augmentations and additions that are being proposed are direct learnings from that. And then beyond that, uh, we have been engaging with other communities that do have fairly active programs, uh, see a lot more of these programs in Southern California and learning from staff down there about best practices. So, internally, we've been coordinating it across the various departments and divisions that generally touch the space. Um, we've done some best practice research, and then we've been vetting these ideas both through the downtown committee and administrative advisor as well to garner their insights and feedback.

[00:21:21] Member Alison Hicks: And what are the, what are the cities that you say have done programs that you're, the Olympics, and then are? Um,

[00:21:30] Economic Vitality Manager Lang: Santa Monica is one of the bigger ones that has a very active program, and I know you did some additional research, Christian. Do you want a daylight? Yeah,

[00:21:41] Economic Development Strategist Hinds: Los Angeles has a large program too. They have, um, it is no longer in its pilot phase, um, and San Francisco. Yeah, and then we've, um, there, I can't remember what the website is now, but there, there's a group that, uh, has done a study. and what states are doing. California as a state doesn't have any regulations on delivery devices or autonomous vehicles yet. Uh, but the, There are a number of states that we looked at. There's a big table that we found that, um, kind of highlights what the weight requirements are, speed limits, um, all the things that are, a number of things that we've included in, um, within the augmentations here, I've looked at, what other, those other sites have been. And

[00:22:27] Member Alison Hicks: then I noticed that the speed limit on sidewalks, I think, correct me, because I don't have it in front of me, was 10 miles per hour. But, like 10 miles per hour, like an average jogger is going 6 miles per hour. So, Frankly, how did you come up with that number because, frankly, a robot going 10 miles per hour down side, you know, a neighborhood sidewalk or the, um, or say the pedestrian wall is probably 3 times the speed of people. there. So how did you come up with that and help her? Yeah,

[00:23:05] Economic Development Strategist Hinds: that was something that I'm just looking at what other communities and other states were doing and the speed limits that they set it up, but we've included the language in here on setting the pace to be limited at what the pedestrians or cyclists around them are going so that, you know, I think the average person walks 3 miles per hour, um, so the devices would have to. Follow that. So

[00:23:33] Member Alison Hicks: they're able to do that to gauge what people are bicyclists around them are doing and mimic that speak. Good to know. I didn't know that. Um, and are you familiar with Washington, DC, from what I've heard, they allow, uh, sidewalk robots on their more, okay, their, I don't know, on their, their, um, more suburban areas, but in their downtown where they're encouraging walking, they've banned them because, it's vehicles, all. places for people, they become just like roads, places for vehicles. So, are you familiar with cities that, like Washington, DC that have done that?

[00:24:18] Economic Development Strategist Hinds: I have been personally seen that. I'm John, I don't know who have come across anything. Uh, I

[00:24:25] Economic Vitality Manager Lang: haven't, and I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with Washington, DC's example. The one thing I would say is one of the intentions is we were trying to provide this as an opportunity, but also notice based upon the parameters, at best, there would be 30 devices anywhere in the city at any point in time. So up to 3 companies. in my comments. And, um, 10, 10 devices. Um, To the flip to the flip side of that, I would also just invite people, if you were to go down on Castro Street right now. You can see probably 15 DoorDash delivery drivers just waiting for pickups right now. And they're lingering. All with their full phones, just waiting for a pickup. Those are all single vehicle occupant trips. But

[00:25:18] Member Alison Hicks: they're not driving on the side.

[00:25:20] Economic Vitality Manager Lang: No, they've they've basically queued... They're queuing there. So I think part of what we're trying to solve is a little bit of providing another alternative, those that, that want it. My last comment, uh, expanding them up on the point would be, um, I think 1st and foremost, we'd always welcome teacher walking to their destination or biking to their destination. This is an alternative that's out there, and the reality is the marketplace is driving this. There wasn't an interest in people having deliveries. There would not be a floor dash around. We thought, these sectors don't grow, just, And earth, they grow, they're driven by demand. So, this is an offering, um, but we are not looking to, um, We certainly want to be encouraging of people walking and biking. That is always the better way to obtain your goods. Um, They're just trying to provide another alternative, um, and potentially reducing some of the trips that are being generated by a large number of simple vehicle occupants. Drivers that are picking up items for people, making short quick trips all over. Yeah,

[00:26:36] Member Alison Hicks: so I have other things to say in my comments. I'm not anti-delivery. I just want to make sure it's being done in the right place. Um, and not driving people off the site. So, um, and then what happened to the history with starship? Like the history? So I'll just, I mean, I can, like, they, one of the robots bumped into me on the sidewalk. They were not able to walk around, you know, if I stopped, they were not able to walk around me. They basically made me walk in the street. So, what, and I would tell, report this stuff to people, because it was some, program. And then did those reports go away or are they incorporated into this program? So, uh, thank

[00:27:21] Economic Vitality Manager Lang: you for the question. So, uh, 1st question on Starship itself. Starship actually withdrew operations, uh, they had asked the city, uh, on multiple occasions to expand. They were geo-fenced within the downtown area. They asked several times to expand that. Um, we wanted more data from them to understand what was happening delivery wise, and that was something that was not being met. Therefore, we were allowing them to expand. Um, when we, as staff, received inquiries from folks that had incidents, we would engage with starship representation, for, um, the recording of that information to, to understand where that conflict was. Um, we would occasionally get that data and you could see the device either stopping and thinking. Um, and so we'd have those conversations, um, with them about better ways of, uh, addressing the requirements, which was the device should be backing up or being, uh, creating a pathway for an individual to walk around. Um, ultimately, um, Starship ended up drawing, um, and at that time, the program. So that's it, uh, no problem.

[00:28:42] Member Alison Hicks: Yeah, I guess I'm just wondering because I reported a lot of those, you know, I'm familiar with that history and I reported a lot of, that it bumped into me that it, I wouldn't have stopped in front of it. It was going too slow, that it was unable to, it just beeped at me and told me to move. So if I had been in a wheelchair, We would have been stuck facing each other. So I feel like those are, think, data to learn from. And I'm just wondering whether those things have been incorporated into this policy that they basically can't operate that way. They can't, I mean, I was beeping and telling me that it had priority over me as a pedestrian. It was in the middle of the sidewalk. And I needed to go around and there was no other solution, which is fine for me. But, um, you know, like if I were in a wheelchair or somebody with vertigo or something. And it's just not okay for a robot to have priority over pedestrians. So, I'm just wondering, was that learned from and is it incorporated into this policy?

[00:29:41] Economic Vitality Manager Lang: It is. We've strengthened the requirements within the agreements for the reporting. We are also asking for, uh, additional ways to get that feedback. So in addition to whether it's reported on ASCMV, reported directly, uh, by the vendor itself, but we are also looking to capture in more ways than what we initially did. We recall the starship robots also did not really have contact information on them as a requirement. of participating in the program of actually having contact information on the device. Um, so it becomes a much quicker way to report incident.

[00:30:21] Member Alison Hicks: I said there was a person monitoring them, and I'm not sure there actually was. And I'm not sure we had staff to start off on whether they were actually doing what they said. Uh,

[00:30:33] Economic Vitality Manager Lang: so, yes, um, as I mentioned, a lot of lessons from that experience are reflected in both the contractual elements and also the program requirements. Okay,

[00:30:45] Member Lisa Matichak: those are many questions. Great, thank you. Thank you. And so along those lines, I appreciate your questions, have we specifically told them that, you know, the situations that were described, how the robot needs to behave? Because I heard you talk about reporting and all these other things, but if we told them how the robot used to behave. We have? Well,

[00:31:08] Economic Development Strategist Hinds: I think that's something we can definitely incorporate into, um, the standards, um, like, looking at things like we added in the minimize minimizing the amount of time stopping on curb ramps and at push buttons. More details can be added on that on how to reroute if they come into contact with the pedestrian. They're going, you know, the same or going opposite ways. Okay.

[00:31:35] Economic Vitality Manager Lang: I would just also maybe further at one of the other requirements we're asking is for a local presence. If you're going to be operating and that was not the case. Starship. Um, so there's a level investment here. Uh, and present. A slight presumption is if you're making that level investment, you're going to want to ensure a better experience. That

[00:31:57] Member Lisa Matichak: was one of my questions. Is there a definition of double prices? Uh,

[00:32:02] Economic Vitality Manager Lang: we've defined it as a Mountain View presence, whether that is, uh, either a home office, uh, a maintenance facility, but actually having a physical space. Okay. Um. Then,

[00:32:21] Member Lisa Matichak: um, Yeah, it talks about no more than 10 devices operating at one time. So they could actually have more than 10 in the city. And they could be staging some to get ready. So if one comes back, one could go, be ready to go. So they might have 15, 20 devices. So it's only, it's the, how many are out there operating, whatever. Okay. And then um, the content information. Is that to somebody who's available 247 or is that just the company and boost the contact at the city?

[00:32:58] Economic Development Strategist Hinds: Yeah, so we have, um, So for the contact information that we're asking for, we're asking for a contact person that the city can have, so for someone that police or fire can, um, for whatever reason, they need to contact, uh, a representative of the company to come get the device or something, um, and they come out and look at it. Then there's someone who's available in case of emergencies. The contact information that would be on the device, um, maybe more of like a customer service line or, um, someone that the, or information where, uh, resident can can go to, to make a complaint or, um, ask questions or something. Um, and then in terms of city contact, um, to be on the device, um, that hasn't quite been determined, but, um, like the community developed. Okay. Um. See,

[00:33:55] Member Lisa Matichak: let's see, others. Uh, there are, I did say that there were limits in terms of the weight. Are there limits in terms of the physical sides? In

[00:34:06] Associate Civil Engineer Nguyen: terms of the size, we didn't set, uh, in this, in the changes, we didn't set, uh, a limit for the height or width or, uh, um, uh, the size of the devices in that sense, but, uh, I don't know, John, if you're, if, uh, anything to add up, that's up size. So, um, uh, uh, we,

[00:34:29] Economic Vitality Manager Lang: we don't, we're not that prescriptive, um, as, uh, what we have seen, most of the, most of the operators there have a smaller form factor, especially the ones that tend to go on sidewalks. Um, because they are designed to be operating in a smaller space. Um, But we haven't been prescriptive of how tall or. The, the market wolves that actually dictate that. So that was something we didn't feel that describe. So

[00:35:01] Member Lisa Matichak: I'm seeing the 500 pounds. I could imagine something fairly good size, 500 pounds. Um, at least that's why I was asking about that. Um, just

[00:35:15] Associate Civil Engineer Nguyen: a comment to add on that too. So like an electric bike with a person riding it, could potentially be that way too. So if you think about it in that way. Um, depending on the size of the e-bike, uh, that might be a larger one, but, um, it, that could be about that weight. Okay. It's not... And

[00:35:35] Member Lisa Matichak: I think, um, I also asked the rest of the question. Great.

[00:35:42] Chair Ellen Kamei: Um, I have a I have a couple questions. So, um, I believe in the past as part of the pilot program. Um, public safety, some that had, uh, I went forward, had invited public safety to actually come to their physical presence and do a tour and learn more about the device itself. I didn't see anything written in the stock report about how that might be something that we could add. Is that something? But then I know that we talked about the contact person to respond to law enforcement. But would there be an opportunity for us, for us to also ask? Because I think, Should anything happen right? And they get the call? Is that, is that something we can incorporate or recommend tonight as an addition or?

[00:36:29] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Okay. Um,

[00:36:31] Chair Ellen Kamei: and then, so say this, um, goes forward to the full council. Um, with, is the idea that that, some of the data or the information would get recorded back to BPAC or the economics of era, the downtown committee, would it come to CTC? Is that also an opportunity for us to give feedback on that tonight or I don't know what the...

[00:36:55] Economic Vitality Manager Lang: Absolutely. So I think what we're, so very good questions and those are things we absolutely welcome for feedback. Um, by implementing a program. We certainly want to be able to have metrics to share. Um, so whether that is a recommendation to come back to a specific body, whether it be full council, uh, the feedback or CTC, uh, we're happy to do that, but one of the things you'll see in the augmentations is really to collect information. Um, part of, part of a benefit of doing this is, Learning what, what's potentially changing. Is there a particular pattern that's going on? Um, that can all be very useful to the city from a public policy making? So, we'd love to include that information and certainly would take guides from this body on the full council and what the preference might be, in terms of coming back to which body. I would also say we would want to structure something where If there is a minor augmentation. At what point does this come back to council, or a bigger conversation versus something that we need to make a small augmentation that doesn't materially change the program, so providing that authority to maybe the community development director or the public works director, providing some a little bit of a leeway around a program in that, and where are things that come back to the full bottom, or this is a significant change or could have a significant impact. Uh, we'd want, you know, to look. That's interesting. Uh, because

[00:38:41] Chair Ellen Kamei: I, my understanding is that, uh, This came back to us as a consent item to continue the pilot program. Right? And that was big, that was, I think, more operator driven, right? There was some people that participated. I think. Is that something staff wouldn't? Is that what you think a minor augmentation would be, like, coming back to council for that or, so I, It's kind of like chicken or egg, I suppose, right? Because we don't know what we would be delegating the authority to whoever. So I don't, I think in that instance, there's an operator or somebody who wants to participate, I would, I don't want to go too far into a discussion, but I'm trying to, I guess. Maybe

[00:39:31] Economic Vitality Manager Lang: to answer the question. So part of the action council took was effectively the program, because it was adopted as a pilot, when COVID-19 happened. It was a way to provide an opportunity. So that 2020 action wasn't prior to COVID, it was in the middle of COVID. So, um, by taking a more formal action, uh, in adopting a program which we're not asking you to do this evening. We're definitely seeking feedback, um, from the committee, is, you know, we can define what would be the ground rules for wanting to needing to come back. If it's something of, uh, you know, having to do with more information on the device that we think is critically important because of lessons learned, that may be viewed as a minor modification to the program. Whereas going from, 3 companies to 10 that may be viewed as, Maybe, The fuller body needs to better understand that, and we can outline what those parameters would be. Um, kind of seeking what would be a minor modification versus something. Find as a much bigger, where we think there needs to be a bigger involvement from the council and the community discussion. The

[00:40:56] Chair Ellen Kamei: decision that this committee would make tonight or any recommendations kept going on as an action item, correct? So it would be for the final adoption for the council of it, you know?

[00:41:06] Economic Vitality Manager Lang: This is strictly feedback, whether there's whether this can be improved, whether this is not the right program. Um, staff will want to evaluate, express anything that this body comes up with, you would like to go to council with a program, but there's not a willingness there. You will certainly incorporate that feedback and decide whether we, which program doesn't move on or if this program should go to council. Okay, well,

[00:41:38] Chair Ellen Kamei: this is eliminated from colleagues as well. I thought

[00:41:41] Member Alison Hicks: that was a true. Okay. Um, all right. Seems like we do things here that are, like, not quite a study session,

[00:41:48] Chair Ellen Kamei: not quite. Right. Well, it says receive update and provide feedback, so I wasn't sure. So I think that clarifies. So we And fake augment pigeons, right? And then have it come back to CTC. We could make augmentations, have it go to the full body. I think that will be part of our deliberation. So I was invite all of us. Yes, just to clarify. And hopefully it'll be clear for the public, who I know, probably are ready to give us public comment if there are any more questions. All right, great. Thank you very much. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person, like to provide comment on this item. If so, please click the raise hand button zoom or approach the lectern. We'll take in-person speakers 1st and each speaker will have 3 minutes. So we'll start with interest today. Okay. And please, just at least state your name, public. Thanks. Uh,

[00:42:41] Cliff Chambers: Club Chambers, uh, resident of Mountain View. Um, as you're aware, when the council took up the scoring criteria on the active transportation plan, referred it back to your committee, because with the cart before the horse, essentially you made. And I really feel the same way about this. Here we are doing an active transportation plan. We're gonna see a network. We're on the network. Where did PDTs go? Would they be able to go? On Stevens Creek Trail, predict bike lane, what kind of facilities would they be? We don't really know. And it's an important question to, to, to answer. Um, there's going to be policies, as part of the act of transportation plan. And some of those policies are going to be what mobility devices, and they're emerging over time. are gonna be allowed in various, uh, bicycle infrastructure. And those policies should consider PDDs. But you're doing this totally out of context with the rest of the act of transportation plan. So I urge you to step back, as you did before, and make this as part of the policy decision of the overall act of transportation plan. The 2nd point I like to make. Is that I really feel my personal bias is that sidewalks and bicycle lanes are for moving people primarily. I'm not so much against PDDs. But as uh, council member Hicksis, they really need to be done right. And I haven't seen the evidence, the data, if there's data from Santa Monica, data from LA, Data nationally, from the National Academy of Sciences. I wanna see how these have been working. Has there been impediments to bicyclists? To, uh, pedestrians. We want to make this active transportation network, safe and secure, so more people are going to be riding bicycles, and walking. And I don't want a £500 PD, PDD, going on a protected bike lane that gets stuck in, you know, it could create a lot of props. And I just don't have enough data to make it informed choice. In terms of whether this will work or not. So, I, I really urge you to, and, and the data, it's not even, uh, included on the starship. Were there pedestrian interferences, et cetera. And I think there's just a lack of data for you to really go forward. So I urge you to get more data. Uh, before you, you make a decision. But I'd really like to see it as broader part of the active transportation plan. Thank you. Thank

[00:45:38] Serge Bonte: Good evening. So, my name is still Sergeant, I'm still a resident of Mountain Dew. Um, so I 1st had one question that came out during presentation, we, um, why don't we have a mobile, mobile funding permit for Doldash and Uber, its deliveries? Uh, I don't know. That's, that seems to me that would be a way to regulate them at least, you know, where they should be stopping, you know, what's of insurance we should carry and so on. That seems to be go by US. Um, So, I appreciate the need for economic development. We all need, you know, this type of things and I appreciate that that, that, um, Mountain View is supportive type of things, but in this guys, it looks like Mountain View already has spent a lot of time. doing 2 pilots, essentially. Without any data coming back, uh, being, you know, like how data, you know, how many complaints did we get, you know, what were the issues and so on? Uh, so, and and there are many other things that the city could be doing instead of this. So, so that's my, beyond this. It's disappointing to not see basic geometry used here. So I'm all for tech, you know, there are a lot of cool designs there with radars, cameras and so on. But it to me it comes on to basic geometry. Uh, so just like, um, uh, council member Hicks, um, I work a lot. I bike a lot and most of our sidewalks and most of our pipelines are narrow. So the whip of these things is very important, and I think it's it's just not very serious not to have that basic information to see if they even fit in a bike line. Um, and then the experience when I walk, uh, is that whenever I encounter somebody in a wheelchair or somebody with a strutter, I just make way just like I leave my seat to the bus, the place, the space is better for them. They need the space more than I do. And I just get on the streets and go around them. Um, I'm not sure that robots needs the space more than I do. Um, I would pray go there because I'm I'm able, but some of my friend neighbors, They won't be able to go on the work. It will get stuck. Um, you know, and keep in mind that resort lots are delivery robots. So they will stop. For five, 10 minutes until somebody goes pick up the thing. So, so it's not a question of, will they be blocking things? They will. The same is true in a bike line. When I bike, whenever there's an obstacle or a slow cyclist, I take emerge into traffic. I'm very confident. I don't mind doing this. Do I mind this if it's for a robot, probably. But many other bikers won't be able to do this out of fear, and they may try to do it once, scared, and not bike anymore. That's that's the wrong thing. In the steps, you should stop at this thing. So, thank you. What

[00:48:37] Chair Ellen Kamei: about virtual speakers? Yes. Bruce

[00:48:40] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: England. click to allow you to talk.

[00:48:43] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: Please unmute yourself and you'll have 3 minutes. Thanks, Brandon. Um,

[00:48:48] Bruce England: Bruce England, Wisman Station Drive. Hello, committee members and staff. Um, yeah, when this 1st came up with Starship, I was pretty much against it, but I have somewhat changed my opinion because I've had the experience over the last year or so with my elderly parents, seeing how dependent they are on home service and home delivery. They really, they can't drive. And, um, they're really homebound basically. And so highly dependent on that. It really has been an important thing for them to be able to keep their autonomy and to be able to stay at home. The whole aging and placing that we have in Mountain View is really important. So, however, I do think we should do this right as much as we can. So I agree with other comments that have been made so far, um, I have a couple of questions based on the staff report. The one had to do with the e-bike delivery comment that was made at a BPAC meeting, that there was a lot of interest in that when it was discussed at BPAC, and yet it isn't further discussed in the memo, I would really like that to be taken up and taken seriously, prioritize bike delivery over robot delivery if that's possible. Um, next one is about with restrictions. I mean, there aren't any restrictions that I saw. There is a weight restriction, but not the width and the search set. That's really critical. We don't want things blocking the way if we can avoid it. Um, And the next one is, um, the, uh, consider allowing devices to operate within bike lanes. I'm not sure considers the right word. I think that it should be a preferred, uh, means, I think we should avoid having the devices on the sidewalks because we ran into all kinds of trouble with the earlier implementation of the slidewalks, too small space, to have those devices there if we can avoid it. Um, The Doc, the thing about documenting all public inquiries and complaints. It doesn't, it doesn't spreadsheet summary, but it doesn't say where that's going to be. It's very vague on how that's going to be posted. Are you drawing from Ask Mountain View? Are you drawing from vendor complaints, city complaints, and is that going to be publicly available? So we can see what's going on. Um, the mobile vending permit. That really puzzles me because it's not, that's not really who the vendor is. It's a platform for delivering items, and they could have multiple vendors, including some of the small businesses that people like Kavita IR have been talking about and others promoting that sort of thing. John Lang knows about that. So I'd like to see that being more flexible and not necessarily having that permit tied to the, um, the device vendor, but rather to the people who are actually selling the food, et cetera. And that's it for me. Thank you. Thank

[00:51:37] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: you, Bruce. Laura Risley, a value robotics. I'm going to click to allow you to talk, please and meet yourself and you'll have 3 minutes. Hi,

[00:51:50] Laura Risley: my name is Laura Brisley. I am the chief commercial officer for Waiu Robotics. I am here today to express my appreciation and to encourage the relaunch of the personal delivery device program in Mountain View. I'll take the 1st half of my time with you just to remind the committee of the numerous benefits to our community. And then I'll wrap up with a few ideas for maybe quickening the reimplementation of the program. Um, first, a quick reminder of a few ways in which the citizens of Mountain View stand to gain from this program. Personal delivery devices do offer convenience, to busy families, to individuals with mobility challenges, and to our seniors, like the former speaker, uh, suggested, uh, providing them with access to necessities, um, like groceries and prescriptions, uh, without leaving their home. Also, it does support the mountain view local businesses by enhancing their ability to serve their customers. Um, from an environmental perspective, the benefits are equally uh, significant, PDDs are typically electric, and they produce 0 emissions. So if we've replaced those delivery vehicles with PDDs, We can lower mountain views carbon footprint, which I think aligns perfectly with your broader environmental goals. Public safety is another critical area where this program shines. Fewer delivery trucks and vans mean reducing traffic congestion, which enhances the safety for pedestrians and cyclists. In doing a little research, it seems that you have broad support for relaunching the program and you're now focused on making a few important improvements. Um, given that a few other Bay Area communities followed Mountain View's lead and adopted their own PDD programs. I'd like to make a few soft suggestions for sort of a straighter path to maybe getting the PDDs back on the road in the community. Firstly, I'd like to suggest that perhaps the CTC could recommend that staff at least begin publicizing the program in accepting applications. Of course, with the caveat that the program is still being redefined. Secondly, I'd like to recommend that if a PDD company has met the requirements for certification in a neighboring Bay Area community, would it be possible to leverage the work done in that community, to fast track the approvals to operate in mountain view, so long as the neighboring city requirements are similar. And then lastly, I'd like to encourage you to definitely get this done, while it is true that other communities have implemented their own PDD programs in the Bay Area Bayou, at least, is eager to operate here, close to home. Uh, I do want to commend the committee for considering the relaunch of the program. It's a progressive step toward a more convenient, environmentally friendly and safe city. Thank you.

[00:55:02] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: Carl Hanson, I'm going to click to allow you to talk, please unmute yourself, and you'll have 3 minutes. Good.

[00:55:10] Carl Hansen: Good evening, council members. Um, I'm Carl Hanson, uh, head of government relations at Coco, uh, remotely piloted delivery robot service, uh, that has been operating in, uh, Southern California cities, uh, since 2020, uh, currently in Los Angeles, West Hollywood, and, uh, uh, City of Santa Monica. Uh, we've completed 100s of 1000s of miles of safe, sustainable, and cost-effective deliveries with our, um, sidewalk delivery robots. Tonight, I'm speaking in strong support of the updates proposed by city staff to the program in Mountain View. Um, in California today, almost all food delivery is done in a car, um, and often those reverses charge exorbitant fees to merchants. There's really no reason to have a, you know, £one poke bowl and a 2 ton car going for a 2 mile delivery. When a delivery robot can complete the same delivery trip with 0 emissions. And with a significant cost savings to the merchants. Um, in many markets where we operate over 60% of merchant volume is within a 2 mile radius. Um, the 2 mile radius that we serve. So there's a sizable portion of car trips that we can help produce and traffic and illegal parking and bike lanes is delivery drivers, you know, rush inside to figure out which order is theirs. We can cut, um, a big, big chunk of that down. Um, safety. I think it is a very valid concern, totally understand the the questions and concerns raised here. That's been a top priority for us since launching. Um, and we're proud to have had no significant accidents or injuries, um, uh, over those 100s of 1000s of miles of travel we've done. Our pilots are trained to act as the most respectful form of pedestrian, and that they yield to all other sidewalk users, even pets. Um, and they're especially mindful of anyone who may have a mobility challenge or look confused around a bot. Um, if there's a narrow sidewalk and say there's like a sandwich board sign that, um, blocks part of the pathway, the bot is trained to to pull to the side or actually back up, um, if there are pedestrians, um, that need to pass. Um, we operate in some of the, um, busiest uh, pedestrian areas in the country, Hollywood Boulevards, Santa Monica Promenade, Abbott Kenny in Venice, um, with Abbott Kenny has very narrow sidewalks, very busy shopping district, um, would love for, um, any, anyone from the city or the council. Um, if you happen to be down in LA, um, to either visit us at our headquarters, would love to show you, um, uh, Cocoa in the Wild at one of our, uh, merchant partners. We'd also be happy to bring a bot up to Mountain View. Um, to demo there um, at City Hall, uh, if appropriate. Um, did want to say one thing on fleet capsize, uh, completely understand the desire to, you know, limit a new technology as they're introduced, but I would hope the program would allow staff to grant an increase in fleet size. Um, if something's going well. Um, and obviously. Obviously not, if it's not. Um, We're super excited about the program proposed. Happy to answer any questions, um, and, uh, hope you move this forward tonight. Thank you. Yeah. Side

[00:58:14] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: at corns. I going to click to, I eat it hot. Please admit yourself and have 3 minutes. Hello,

[00:58:23] Theda Korns: I'm Theta Corns. I am a 25 year resident of Mountain Jeep and also an MBA trustee on the active transportation committee. I'm actually speaking as a member of the active transportation committee. Um, we value our partnership with the city, and to my knowledge, um, we have not discussed PDDs on the active transportation committee. I don't have comments as to the trade-off of PDDs. At this time, I do have a couple of questions as a member of the active transportation committee. My 1st question is, why is city council considering PDDs as a separate policy and not part as an active transportation policy? And my 2nd question relates to the city report. The city report reads, the PDD travels approximately 4 miles per hour, which is similar to a typical pedestrian. So why is the maximum speed set to 5 miles per hour? Thank you very much. You. April

[00:59:39] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: Webster, I'm going to quit to allow you to talk. Please unmute yourself and you'll have 3 minutes. Hi,

[00:59:51] April Webster: um, April Webster, I'm also on the Mountain View ATP tech. Um, I'm speaking for myself, though, and I want to say that I strongly feel the CC should recommend this program be slowed down so we can get it right. There is a lot at risk here. And I urge you to think carefully and critically, um, with the city goal, the city's goals in mind to evaluate whether this will actually encourage more people to walk and bike, or, in my opinion, discourage them and, um, and therefore be not in line with city's goals. Um, I would also like to echo Theatos, Theatos, question about why this is being considered outside of the ATP and hasn't yet come before the attack. Um, to me, this program seems like backwards progress for the city of Mountain View, especially in relation to its goals to encourage more people to walk and bike. Um, just from the Mountain View Voice a few days ago in quotes, over the past decade, Mountain View has taken steps to prioritize pedestrian and bicycle related projects with ambitious goals to develop the city's traffic corridors into safe, accessible and low stress routes for walkers, bikers, and rollers. And I want to ask you again. Do you are are we going to walk the walk and ensure that the streets are actually being designed for people first? Um, I'm in agreement with clip that sidewalks and bicycling should be prioritized for moving people, not machines. Um, a lot of people uh, fall into the category of interest, interested but concerned. And we've heard this multiple times over the past few years. And that forms about 50 to 60% of the population. And my sense is that people falling into that category wouldn't feel safe and comfortable with delivery bots in the lane. Um, I would also like to see some of the gaps in this, um, an analysis, um, addressed and a thorough and unbiased cost benefit analysis and a risk assessment at the least. Um, I think failing to do so um, could be negligent. I'd like to understand how the company intends to address requirements such as bicycle, safety, and perceptionist safety, which really does impact modality shift, and bike lane usage, potential, bought bicyclist conflicts, software, hardware, bugs, and failures, et cetera. Um, you know, it's not unusual for robots to break down or even um, just run low on battery. This is an unusual. Um, there have been a number of issues with self-driving cars. San Francisco recently filed a lawsuit suing California over self-driving cars. And then I'd like to make a plug for an enthusiastic plug for e-bike delivery prioritization. This seems more economic and environmentally friendly option. And, um, you know, in, in my career, I, I've been in the tech industry for, I think, a couple of decades. And to me, this seems like when you have a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail. I think there are other options that we can consider that would be a better solution for delivery. Thank you. Evan

[01:02:55] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: Crowe, I'm gonna click to allow you to talk. Please and meet yourself and you'll have 3 minutes. Hi,

[01:03:06] Evan Crow: can you hear me? Okay? Yes. Okay, thank you. Um, hi, uh, my name is Evan Crowe. Um, I'm actually a recent, I recently moved to Mountain View in the last year or so. Um, and I am here to speak against the approval of this pilot program. Um, I guess I 1st have to say that as a new resident, you know, with experience living elsewhere, I really think our pedestrian and cycling, uh, infrastructure and facilities and the, and, and the city currently is subpar. And I understand there are, and, and ambitious plans to, to improve those things. However, to get to the point, um, in my neighborhood, side, sidewalks are 4 feet wide and obstructed every dozen feet or so by a street sign, or a very steep sloped, uh, surface. which is a driveway, and it's a busy, uh, lots of pedestrians around, and frankly, you can't even walk and pass someone, if you're walking with, uh, your partner, or if you're passing someone who has grocery bags, and in their hand, you have to step off of the sidewalk. Um, to pass them. Um, and I just can't imagine. Well, I personally would be really frustrated if I had to then deal with a robot, um, from some private company that's trying to just make a bunch of money. Um, Using up the really poor side, uh, sidewalk that I have to use already to do my daily errands. Um, likewise, in the street of my neighborhood. The bike lanes, many of them are essentially in the gutter and border on high speed traffic, 35 miles an hour or more. Um, and I'm, I would be pretty concerned if there was a robot in that bike lane who might stop to deliver or uh, stall, you know, many of these self-driving vehicles stall. Because really, Leaving the bike lane is a pretty dangerous proposition when the traffic is going 35 miles an hour. Um, And then lastly, I just want to touch on the environmental, uh, considerations is, which I really think this would be it. Well, yeah, I mean, we, we, we should be encouraging people to walk to their their destinations or cycle rather than stay at home and order them to be delivered to their, their homes. So, really, I think delivery robots would have a negative effect on the environmental considerations. Uh, and that's all my comments. Thanks. Thank

[01:05:53] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: you, Emil Abraham, I've been a click to allow you to talk. Please and meet yourself and you'll have 3 minutes. Hi,

[01:06:00] Emil Abraham: uh, my name's Emil Abraham. Um, I live on Middlefield Road. Um, overall, I'm generally in favor of businesses working with the city. Google has certainly helped create some of the better bike lanes in Mountain View. Um, however, this technology. It's very much in its infancy, right? Where like a pilot program. So like the previous public comments, I'm not sure what the best paths would be to reduce the odds of like an accident occurring. So, we should probably approach this in the safest way possible. I'd hate for this idea. Um, to die in the cradle. Um, so one thing I'd like for staff and council members to consider. Is that is what we as a city get from this relationship. Right now, it seems like all we get is maybe some data. Um, but we inherit all the risks and all the bad reputation that could happen if there is an accident or something, some bad news. So I think it would be in the city's best interest to seek something in return. So maybe the companies will only allow these pots an extremely wide and safe pathways at 1st and then we can very gradually move it, um, But if they would like to operate in narrower pathways, perhaps they could provide some funding to widen those pathways so that not only they can use it, maybe it'll help other bicyclists and pedestrians get better walkways. Um, so this way, they can at least leave the city in a better place, regardless of the results of the pilot program. Um, thank you. That's all. And there are no more hands raised here. Great.

[01:07:44] Chair Ellen Kamei: Thank you. All right. Um, I'll close public comment and bring it back to the committee. For, I suppose, to look at deliberation, it says it's a received report, so. Or if there's any additional questions. Committee member Hicks.

[01:08:03] Member Alison Hicks: So, I think I took a lot of notes while people were talking. My, my personal preference would be that, that, um, bikes be for bikers and sidewalks be for pedestrians and that we encourage, as there have been delivery robots that would be on the road. I think Neuro was one. I'm not sure what happened to Nero. Um, but they were one that was going to operate on the road and that's, that would be my preference. And then e-cardio bites for 5 clients. However, that's not, that may not be the preference of the majority of council. So in the case that that may not be, um, I think, and the reason I think that is that I, I really think we're trying to, um, encourage more people to bike and walk, and we're trying to make them low stress and attractive places to bike and walk, and I don't think that, that's what robots would be doing. And I think there are other places for them goes and then e-cargo rights on bike ways. However, if, if, um, My additional comments on top of that would be, I agreed with speakers who said we're kind of putting the cart before the horse, that this has to be a considered part of putting together the active transportation plan. It has to, I would say it has to go to the um, active transportation committee. Um, and go through all the outreach that the active transportation plan would be going through. I would like it to still be a pilot and open to change. And the reason is that there's so many, I think one of the commentators said, um, this is in its infancy, and I really think it is. I mean, I was, while I was driving my car today, I heard a lot of reports about e-cargo bikes being implemented, being the thing that's being implemented in cities in New York, and that they're completely changing the bike lanes to accommodate them. So if that's something that spreads around, you know, that, that really impacts what we're doing here. And I would hate to have a very set policy. just for the companies that are coming to us now when they're a number of new things coming down the road. So, um, still be a pilot open to change. Um, I said, uh, I'm, I would like to, cargo bike delivery, and the, uh, robot delivery on the road. Um, I have read, as I, this staff report. I read that, um, in some states, and I believe these are very auto oriented states, actually, they're giving, um, PDDs, the rights of pedestrians, just like corporations being given the rights of people. And I would like to lobby against that happening in California. I don't think that robots should be considered people or pedestrians. Um, and, um, I also think that I would like, if this is operating as a pilot, I would like, um, uh, information, data, whether it be complimentary or complaints to be available to the public and transparent, because I feel like the experience we went through with Starship, the, the information that we gathered, um, and like I said, it was all around. They were on my sidewalks all the, all the time. They would get stuck in my driveway. and my husband would go out and help them along. I mean, it was like a daily experience. And I think all that information just disappeared. Um, so I would like it to be transparent. Oh, and the other comment on, having them not stop at the, um, you said you'd make, one of the things we learned was to have them not stop at the, um, what theatric, the curb. Yes. The comments that people were making on that is they were stopping and blocking and people had to stand in the road and couldn't get off the crosswalk and onto the sidewalk. So that wasn't a, I, you know, that wasn't a minor thing. People got stuck in the street. Um, so, I guess my, my big thing is it needs, it needs to be a pilot. It needs to go to the, um, am I saying the name of this, right? Um, to the active transportation committee and be an integrated part of that. of that whole process so that we do prioritize sidewalks. Um, so that we make our sidewalks and bikeways, low stress places that attract people to do long biking and walking. Thank. Man,

[01:12:55] Member Lisa Matichak: I have a few questions first. Were we thinking that, um, these could go in any type of bike lane? Protected by playing. Green paint, uh, one where there's just line. I

[01:13:11] Associate Civil Engineer Nguyen: think it's, it's not something that's necessarily been hashed out yet, and that would need to be, um, discussed with, um, the public works to be. Have any of the companies that want to do this? Say their preference for operating on the sidewalk, in the street, in the bike lane, trails. Like, is there a general sense of what they want to do? It seems like it's, it's varied a little bit by company, but, um, I'm from what we've heard, um, the, the companies, they try and and take routes where sidewalks are larger, um, where it's generally easier for them to, um, get around and not get in the way of people. Um, but I do think it may vary, um, by company, and it's other 10 that I did put upon the experience with, um, Starship that you're describing. John, do you have anything to add? The one thing I would be

[01:14:13] Economic Vitality Manager Lang: very, uh, clear about entrails, uh, code actually explicitly prohibits it. So that is something we're not looking at, opening up to at all. It's been very clear in conversations with folks. Um, so the code currently prohibits that, so that's not something we'll explore, and I just echo what? Just insured, which is conversations with different providers, um, you know, they're looking for, the clearest path forward as well for them. So, Most don't just do random, randomized things, so create kind of, these are the 2 best ways to get into this neighborhood and then figure out once you're in the neighborhood where to get to that destination. But they want to find that most clear path. They don't want to be, say, crossing shoreline at an unsignalized intersection. As a, for instance, right? So, you would want to designate, this is where you're gonna cross. Um, so, there is some thought that goes into, um, designing, and once again, most all the providers do have some ability to geofets their devices. You cannot go onto this, on this path, this place. Um, those are all requirements that could be given. And

[01:15:35] Member Lisa Matichak: I think I heard you say that we haven't had any interest, um, the um, e-bikes, the cargo bikes. Is that you said?

[01:15:43] Associate Civil Engineer Nguyen: Absolutely correct.

[01:15:45] Member Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, So I'm kind of, um, I guess surprised at some of the discussion here tonight. Um, I think that, uh, it's nice to have new technology, um, it's nice to provide, uh, another way of, um, helping people that need help, um, as was mentioned by, uh, one of the speakers tonight. Um, we have some residents who are, uh, Stuck at home. And for them to get delivery of food, medicine, um, books from library, uh, is really important. Um, I don't view this at all as part of the active transportation plan. To me, the active transportation plan is about people. Not robots. So I don't think it makes sense to include this in that. Um, I do think it's important to put some parameters on this. Um, I'm a little bit concerned about the £500 weight limit. I guess I prefer to stick with the smaller, um, robots, um, and have some sort of uh, width restrictions. Um, and what's most important to me is that, No matter where they operate. Um, that people and bicycles and animals are the priority. Not the robot. And so they need to figure out how to program them or control them, uh, to make that happen. And that's at intersections, you know. If it's in a bike lane, if it's on the sidewalk. Um, I would also like to control. Where it goes. So I don't want it in on a sidewalk or a bike lane, where then the pedestrian or the bicyclists are crowded out. Because again, that's not prioritizing pedestrians or bicyclists. So we might have to put some restrictions on that. Um, but I do think it's important to embrace new technology, and give it a try, and You know, make the best of it, um, because clearly, it is something that people value. I don't think this is taking away from people walking or biking. I'm hoping it takes away from people driving because, um, it's the delivery of things that might be driving a car to get to. Um. So I, I guess I'm, I'm willing to go forward with, you know, having maybe the next round with the, with this group to say, here's what we heard, here's how we're, um, planning to modify it, and then have it go to counsel. That's it for now. Thank you.

[01:18:42] Chair Ellen Kamei: Um, well, I, one of the things that I love about living in Bellevue growing up here is that I feel like we're always adapting and changing, and you're, um, I think it falls into the community for all in the ways that we try to innovate in our open, our openness and willingness. Um, to try new things, especially when it comes to helping our residents and obviously our business community. Um, so I'll caveat my comments with that. I think, um, you know, for myself, it's the 1st time that I'm having the opportunity to really discuss it since I came to council in 2018 and then in 2020, it was a consent item, and, you know, so I think perhaps that's also part of the feedback we're receiving tonight is that there's been no avenue. I feel to really talk about. So personal delivery devices. And so, I think in that way, um, There's a lot of feedback and I would say, um, some suggestions that I'd love to share and see if my, um, colleagues agree with in terms of, um, you know, if this were to move forward. I'm hearing there's some openness and I think at this point, it should continue as a pilot program. I wouldn't go beyond a pilot. I, I, part of that is, The pilot began in 2018, but I don't feel like we have any data. And I feel like that's really a missing opponent on being able to move forward with anything more permanent. And I think that's part of the, the discussion is there's really, I would say, a lot of open threads, but, but that's nothing to kind of weave it together. And so for this to go forward, I would hope that it would be successful in that, we would be able to have data with understanding if this works for the community of Mountfield. So some, um, sufficions that I think, uh, are important, our network. So, I also feel like the active transportation plan, while it's important, and I think that they should be, um, the dots should be connected. I do see this as something different. But I want to understand where the devices may operate, and as Mr. Lang was saying, if it's going to take a most direct route, what are those routes? I think in that way, I'd also like the community to provide feedback on if they think that those are roots where there could be potential conflict zones. And I agree with any member Mattachek and that we're looking to eliminate any potential points of conflict, whether it's a cyclist, somebody walking, pets, someone, um, in a wheelchair, right? So, as, as part of the program, pilot program, I would hope that applicants would be able to provide a draft network or up and path. And I think that would also be really helpful in terms of, maybe alleviating any safety concerns or, uh, better understanding the technology. I understand that they could geo offense it. We can also say as Starship, right? You can only operate in a certain area. But, I think more transparency on that, is important for it to go forward. Um, I also would love to see uh, kind of cops from the other cities. So we talked about Venice, LA, Santa Monica. My understanding is there's a pilot going on in San Ramon. And I'd love for us to have a chart to understand what the different devices are, how they're being operated in different communities. I get a better sense of how we can figure out what babies love for Mountain View. Um, what, what this. Um, and I think, see. I love the idea of exploring the e-cargo, and I wonder if there's a way, if the do those fall under, or not, right? And so I'd love for stuff to be able to cut back and share more about that. And perhaps it's also a proactive site on the city to see what companies are out there, if they're operating and if this is something of interest for them. Since the community BPAC has expressed that it's of interest. So, Those are my suggestions. I'm open to also understanding kind of the, the, weight with height, and maybe those can be in the carpet about us with those, uh, companies that are operated in other jurisdictions, so we can have a set a better sense. So, My suggestion to the committee would be provider feedback to staff. Uh, to investigate a pilot program, uh, to CTC, uh, before, to, to cancel. If we should choose. would be my suggestion.

[01:23:58] Member Alison Hicks: Sure, I mean, I would agree with having a pilot program. Um, and I would agree with, um, just because our comments were kind of disparate. I would agree with, uh, you know, doing outrage, and I think sometimes companies come to us, but sometimes whether it's the library, bookmobile or whatever, I don't think the bookmobile contacted us. I think we contacted for the book might be a smaller thing, but, um, I think we can contact the e-cargoes, like, also the BPAC brought up something like that. So I think we can do our bridge to them at that. If that ends up being one of our preferred delivery forms. Um, And then, yeah, I would join a pilot is fine. I, it's super important to me that we, that the data be transparent that we get because I feel like, you know, people who felt like they were stuck in the road and couldn't get back on the sidewalk, but those different things just seem to have disappeared. And Starship promised us they wouldn't do those things. But it didn't happen. So I just don't want to repeat that experience. Um, And, uh, then I, I also hope that we can, I'm losing some of the numbers in all of this, but, uh, oh, no more than 10 devices operating at one time. Uh, I think, uh, member Matachek said she doesn't want to crowd out pedestrians and bikers, and that's really my main. You know, I don't care if a few robots as long as, you know, they're safe, they're not blocking people, so they can't walk so far. I don't care if a few of them are around. I just don't want to have, for example, a pedestrian mall with like, more robots than people. Um, or a sidewalk that happens. I like that you brought up the roots that people choose. I don't, I wouldn't want to be somebody living in a neighborhood where my sidewalk was the one that was chosen to go to a larger, you know, bunch of houses, and they were just constant streams of them coming down my particular sidewalk. No one else is. Those are the kinds of things that I want to make sure they'll happen. Um, uh, and then the other thing, I do have a concern about the pedestrian mall that they aren't just streaming out of the restaurants. There is an alley behind every single restaurant. So I would prefer that they, um, Yeah. you know, that they exit from the alley, rather than be all over the pedestrian mall so that it's hard to, whatever you do there, window shell, play cornhall, whatever.

[01:26:40] Chair Ellen Kamei: And I wonder for those jurisdictions or the our devices of operating. Does the, Does the restaurant, or retail, like, opt in, or can they, like, form a partnership with, I don't know how that relationship is, but I know one of the speakers, um, discuss Abbott Kinney, and if you've been to Abbott Kinney, It's similar, from what I recall, um, it's also closed down. It's, uh, And I, I, I don't know how that operates. So, I, I don't know if it's a like for like, or I know Santa's a public problem, right? Where there's areas that are shut down. So maybe we could get, I just, I feel like there's more information before formally moving forward. And so I don't feel comfortable recommending kind of anything beyond gathering more information on a potential pilot at this point. So. But I agree. No lot of. Um,

[01:27:50] Member Lisa Matichak: I have a question. The pilot that we had. Didn't we require them to not be in Castro and they left in the back? They

[01:28:00] Economic Vitality Manager Lang: left from the front and it was not at that time. Um, Yeah, they were all staged in front. They were loaded from the front and they could take off from, uh, front of the Castro Street. Okay. So

[01:28:13] Member Lisa Matichak: I agree. With not having them, the street ball area. Um, because that is, we're prioritizing pedestrians there. Um, I agree with your comments, um, generic may, and, um, it would be useful to have more data. Um, See. Because that's it. It's

[01:28:44] Economic Vitality Manager Lang: been very helpful Uh, I think there's some very strong things around more information, better categorized information. Happy to work on this, and obviously look into, uh, E cargo opportunities. what's out there. Generally appreciate the community. I

5.2 California Street (West) Complete Street Improvements, Pilot, Project 21-40 - Performance Metrics

[01:29:05] Chair Ellen Kamei: think, I think, you know, lastly, see, understanding where they operate. Are they the right of way and... Thank you so much. Great. Right. So I think this concludes item 5.1. Does that think that you were given feedback? You don't need a book. Great, wonderful. All right, we'll move on to item five. We choose California Street West, complete street improvements, pilot, Project 21 dash 40 performance metrics. The sound presentation will be provided by Juan Wynn, associate civil engineer, Robert Gonzalez, principal civil engineer, will be available to answer questions after the presentation. Bye,

[01:30:04] Associate Civil Engineer Nguyen: Robert. Yes, sir. Okay. Go ahead, Sis. Thank

[01:30:18] Chair Ellen Kamei: you, you can just switch. Oh, sure. No, just the placards. Yeah, it was empty, yeah. Yeah,

[01:31:30] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: that's her 2nd screen. Window P. So, window P. Windows key, and... That's even open. You need to see her now. Yes. When does P hand it back to extend? Undo this. So take it out of full screen. Yeah, try it again and see if it switches it because you're connected to the monitor. Looks at this. Go

[01:32:25] Member Lisa Matichak: ahead, click here to go to presentation.

[01:32:35] Unknown Speaker: Right, right here, Jen presentation. No, right above it. Okay. Uh, yep. So, yeah. Sure. Brandon. Oh. Share. Oh,

[01:32:55] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: you want fuck it? No, I didn't. There we go. Thank you. All right, um, but

[01:33:04] Associate Civil Engineer Nguyen: even in comedian members. My name is Juan Weil, associates for engineer. With the Zivo Infrastructures. I'm here today with Robert Gonzalez. Principal engineer. To provide the project update, um, where we are at, and to get cities if you bet, on performance metrics, for the California street chemistry improvements. Pilot face. Project location is on California, between showers, drive, and shore, like, all over, as highlighted yellow. The project design is based on the 2015 California excular show like the street visibility study. The study recommended. Implementing the street improvements on local California in 2 phases. 1st phase is a pilot phase created to Petman Markins. And temporary improvements, including Poland to drillland Rhode Island. So we left and center land. I can protected violence. Mid block crossing with lighting, protected intersection, treatment, selected, the section. The permanent phase will convert tambourine improvement, the permanent, Including green street landscaping features, At intersection and mid block crossing locations. This project will implement the pilot phase of the study. Existing condition. Existing condition can be split into 2 distinct segments. One segment is from showers to Mariposa. This segment compresses mostly multi-family homes. To travel less in the direction. Area have 2 ways. Send the left hand lane, pumpkin on one or both sides. They are struck by the next to the club opportunity. Second segment is from my south to shoreline. This segment consists of Primary single family homes. There is center, less median, up in on both sides. To travel lens in that direction, and violence between pumpkin and doublens. On October 12, 2023. The project would brought to CTC to provide project update. The updated design included, uh, additional improvements, as the result of incorporating the bank receipt from the BP. Uh, the 1st feedback was to include a Tubmit block crossing. Um, the, the permit box, cousin was added to the project. Location is between Octavia and rain stuff. I saw in the top, the black corner. Image. And the cousin was, location was strategically select, um, to improve access to Glen Park. The 2nd and 3rd it back from the BPAC world to consider studier vertical devices. That the typical flexible cost. And to consider green street infrastructure. We have selected 5 vertical devices to apply test cases along the corridor. I show on the top, right corner. Image. Uh These devices include case 71. Blubby, rubber cup, Amadillo, and blender box. Green Street infrastructure will be provided to the user blender box. The last bit back from the be backwards to update the committees on the, well, for months, metrics. And we'll talk about them in later slice. Because it is a big corridor with a lot of elements. I will, I will walk you to a couple examples of the finish, design layout. West end of the corridor, June showers and Ortega. Plant the box and case of the one I used. This about Tega, we are using armadillo, and floppies with small base. Second example show, is end segments. So from my posa, to petis, quesadic one and planted box are used. K 71 from pet is to Colorado. And from Colorado to shoreline, we are installing floppies with long base. Perman's matrix. As mentioned earlier, the last feedback from the be back was to update the committees. On the per common area. The goal the goal of the step and to evaluate the success of the project. You may wonder how we select these metrics. We selected these metrics. That will allow us to to have recently collect data. With our substantially efforts. Why still collecting sufficient data necessary to identify corridor performance? Sick metrics were selected, including bicycle cows. Pedestrian cows. J walking cows, vehicle cows, vehicle speed, and coalition reports. Data will be collected for both free and post construction. We plan to collect the data in the summer and fall up this calendar year. Or until construction begins. For reconjunction. And quarterly for one year after construction. Data will be collected by both staff and consultants. We also utilize As traffic data, such as uh, bicycle cows. J Walk and Kels. Next time, the design is complete, council approved, project plans, and specs, certifications. And authorized that to advertise the project for bits on May 28. Construction is bland. Or later, the month of each year. Preconstruction data will be. Starting this summer. After construction incomplete. And boss construction data are collected and evaluated. Staff will return to CDC to present the resource of the corridor performance. That's conclude my presentation. Great.

[01:40:24] Chair Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Do any committee members have questions? That's our adventure. Thank you. Um, I

[01:40:33] Member Lisa Matichak: have a few questions. So, we have assumption on both of them that we're testing. And so I was wondering, um, do we have metrics or how are we gonna evaluate those? I was kind of expecting to see that in along with the other performance back.

[01:40:52] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: So we're really looking at 2 items here. One is maintainability. We want to see that these are durable enough to kind of take a beating. Sometimes these are, these are, especially the ones that are closer, closest to the corner will get hit occasionally. So we want them to be able to be maintainable, replaceable. So we're going to get feedback from our maintenance goes on those. And also obviously effectiveness. What, which ones work on this particular corridor. They've all been proven the evokement traffic rated, so we know that they're, they're effective somewhere. We just want to see if they work for this corridor. Um, we're taking this opportunity to try these out on California. If we like them, we'll make look at other corridors for those. Um, so we didn't create criteria and metrics for the performance of the this particular element. It was really about the pilot itself was the criteria. That's how we develop. Okay. Um, And, uh,

[01:41:48] Member Lisa Matichak: in the staff reporter talked about how there will be data collection devices. Um, and do those work for all of those? Like, how does it measure J1? So

[01:42:01] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: jaywalking is the most expensive. Um, and that is actually required uh, video requirements. So we put that on the consultant. We ask that they include that as part of their proposal. So we put, we mounted some cameras. Actually, it was about a year ago, at specific locations where we knew there was a lot of jaywalking near the commercial area. And so we did pre-construction counts already for jaywalking. And then after the after the improvements are in place, we'll repost those cameras and do a post construction survey. The simpler ones are things like the bubbler accounts or we know how to do them. Okay. Um. Yeah. Are

[01:42:45] Member Lisa Matichak: we also keeping track of complaints? Um, and that could be complaints from many different sources, from how you delivery drivers who can no longer park there, from people who can't find a parking spot, from people using bike lane, saying, you know, um, this is an issue here or that's an issue there. Are we going to keep track of those and update on that too? So

[01:43:11] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: we're making a deliberate effort to do some outreach to users of the corridor, including the school. We haven't yet reached out to delivery drivers yet, but we anticipate if we can put out some, um, some yard signs with a QR code or with, uh, connection to like an ask MV or a survey, we'll get, we'll start getting feedback on users very quickly. Um, so, so far we, we did, we do do a, um, a staff light survey. We have started to get, um, responses back pre-construction. We've got 700 as of last week. right. This is a popular, it's also a long quarter. Keep in mind the number of users, the multiple variety. Correct. The variety of users. So that's in a combination of a social media effort as well as the yard signs. So we'll keep that up. Uh, for a while. We'll collect all that. There still needs to be a lot of work for us to comb through all of those comments as well. And then we'll also do a post-construction survey. We want to get a feel for all of the metrics we identified, and then also, It's important that the corridor feels and the experience is that it's safer. So some of the some of the questions on the survey was, um, how do you use it now? How would you expect to use it in the future? And do you feel safe using it now? Those will be natural feedback. Oops, what do we go to, uh, those construction things? Okay. Um, so

[01:44:39] Member Lisa Matichak: I'll just say my quick comment. I thought the metrics you have the post were spot on, so thanks. Thank you. Ask

[01:44:48] Member Alison Hicks: my questions. Um, what are you looking for in the, um, you know, the bicycle, pedestrian, jaywalking vehicle, vehicle speed collision, I kind of get what that's about. But, are you looking to see whether people are walking more or biking more on particular stretches of or the entire thing or what's, what are the goals?

[01:45:14] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: So originally the goals of the study, um, Speeding was a big concern on this corridor. So a lot of the design was designed around narrowing the lanes, that the, uh, The road diet was specifically designed to slow speeds. So that's really where we started was what are the vehicle counts or what are the vehicle speaks? How does that how does that book? And then the other ones developed from there. I was, honestly, I wasn't sure if bicycle counts would change over 12 months, but we wanted to start there to see if there was actually more usage. So, um, are there more people using bikes? Are there more pedestrians? How do they use it? Are they using it more frequently? Like some of the bike counts, if we're counting it along the quarter, we'll get a sense of how people are using it if they're using it for longer trips. Um, and that goes along with search the survey of asking if they feel safer. So, we're hoping for increase, and by counts, but even if they're the same, we can we can look at the speeds and and see that the corridor is actually safer. The collisions are also one that.

[01:46:18] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: Um, it's obvious why why it's there. We have a big data collection of prior collisions. But we only have the same, maybe a 12 to 18 month period after it's being in place. So that will be an interesting metric to look at afterwards as well. I'll

[01:46:35] Member Alison Hicks: roll a comment in here, because it just pertains to this. Maybe I should save it for comments, but there is, from what I read, there's really changing, like, the number of people who walk and bike is really changing because whether people are doing hybrid work or not. You know, if you work from home, you don't work to work that day or you don't work to work that day. There's been a big drop, which is, like, could be a positive thing or at least not a negative thing. You're not driving. So, my plea is just to, there are other factors besides the street improvement that could affect whether people are biking or walking into kind of take that into consideration. Um, And beyond that, um, Beyond that, and then my other question, I guess, is these 7 other comments, are they on anything people want to comment on? Because I know there were a lot of other, when people came and gave public comment on this during the council meeting, they had a lot of things in addition to this, you know, whether they, about the green elements, and whether they just felt nicer, and things like that.

[01:47:48] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: They were responses to the survey, so there was, there was a number of questions and the questions were, three, partially agree, strongly disagree. And then also was how to use the coroner now to hit a button for a bike, hit a button for a vehicle. And then at the end, there was an open comic. So the 700 is really kind of guiding us through all of those questions that we want to collect. Preconstruction.

[01:48:14] Member Alison Hicks: And then getting additional comments that they want. So, okay, thank you.

[01:48:21] Chair Ellen Kamei: I just have a question, and maybe this is for, uh, future. So, is it, possible to get information on how many, uh, existing. So my I'm trying to figure out the right way to ask this. So, My understanding is that some of it, especially as you're going into being like multi-multifamily dwellings or the environments may be in need of seismic retrofit. And is there enough, would staff be able to collect that data to, and my question about that is, we're gonna be creating all this infrastructure, even though it's a pilot? Well, what happens if they're may be use changes along the corridor or something gets redeveloped? how that might affect. Um, what are we doing? And so I'd love to get it possible for stuff to be able to collect, um, you know, how many of those properties are on our list of seismic or flavor, uh, in need of seismic retrofit, uh, just so we can get a sense. And I know it's myths, there's substitute family, there's some multi, some apartment. Um, but my understanding is that quarter has quite a bit of CSMRA, um, properties. And so I would ask staff too, if you could, when this comes back to CTC to help us understand. Well, we then, whoever's development, how the, you know, entrances and exits might be affected, would that affect the pedestrian experience, would they have to build in, like, the existing, Like, one of the experiences I have, especially from the shoreline, to, um, String right now. But the 1st half of it, there's so, there's so many, um, multi-fan points. Side, side, self-story. Yeah. driveways. Sorry. Okay, yes, correct. So you can walk and there's a driveway and then a driveway and a driveway. And so that really affects, I feel the user experience is a pedestrian or a cyclist. You're not feeling safe on California. So I'm just trying to get a better sense of how we may be able to address that as we're making these. So, you know, I really need to come out. Do you know? I don't know. Oh, it's a question. Yeah, I mean, like, I'd love to get more information, if that could look into that, or how Sam might address that, if that's...

[01:51:04] Associate Civil Engineer Nguyen: So, as part of, um, when properties do redevelop. So seismic retrofit aside, um, where puppies do redevelop, staff does do pretty intensive review of development project, and, um, how the circulation, you know, work for the project. As part of that, we also look at ensure that site visibility for pets and bikes and vehicles are all taken into account for access to the site. So, um, we would do that as part of the development review classes. when a new property would come in from B development. And then how it would fit here is we would see, like a lot of times, sometimes they'll consolidate. You try to get consolidation of access points as well for reconval sites. So if they have multiple dragways,

[01:51:47] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: as you can go in, there's a lot of tributaries on

[01:51:50] Associate Civil Engineer Nguyen: California because there's a lot of, you know, small properties, large properties with multiple access points. We really try to consolidate that to really, um, reduce a lot of conflict points. So we would do that with that effort. And then, um, with this effort, what we did is, um, we didn't take any access points away, but we wanted to be sure that the sight lines were, um, appropriate. So, um, as part of that evaluation was, do we have enough at each driveway? What do we need to do? Because we're really changing the configuration. We're not putting the cars right next to the curve anymore. We're pushing them out. And so there may be that site visibilities that open up media. So we had to remove some access for parking within those sight lines, to provide the driver's visibility, 2 bikes, and other cars, as well as other cars, to the driveway, as by vehicle city, in the driveway, as well as bicyclists at Petro's.

[01:52:42] Chair Ellen Kamei: And that will come back to, see, we'll see a little bit back at this once it comes back and decide. Yeah,

[01:52:48] Associate Civil Engineer Nguyen: um, what we were trying to do with the, um, with the performance measures really was a focus on, sort of, a success of the cord, what makes a successful one. That's why we identified those goals in those specific criteria. Performance metrics and daily collection can Google audience. You can collect data to a little, uh, trying to move the place. And it can be very intensive for staff in order to collect all this data and to continue to report them. So we tried to be focused on sort of with the key data, keep it light as well. So there was a real balance there and a not over extend staff or just resources that we do on the collection. So the focus was on the metrics that you would. You saw against the book. Well,

[01:53:34] Chair Ellen Kamei: it's great to hear that there's consolidation, because I feel like there's just, you know, there's so many access points there, I feel like that has led to, I think, no, I try to avoid any type of grabbing everything, because I don't want to get... Okay, committing my present profits. Just

[01:53:52] Member Alison Hicks: related to that, and I think I'm going into conference now, but just related to that, I also had wondered when I was reading the staff report, if, like, like you said, there are a lot of, uh, operators that may change due to earthquake rentrofit needs. Uh, the change in parking needs. Um, and which impacts what you could do with the bike lanes a lot. So that's another thing I wondered what that was being. taken into account or could be taken in.

[01:54:27] Associate Civil Engineer Nguyen: So, your question regarding to also look at what possible change in person as properties we develop along this to the court.

[01:54:35] Member Alison Hicks: Yeah, um, in particular, if, if it's likely as, as the chair said, that a lot of the will be redeveloped, if we do an earthquake retrofit program. What's the change in parking needs and how does that, um, you know, maybe they incorporate more parking on site. And there's not as big a parking aid or maybe they don't because of state law. And because of, whatever, because they can't put it up, I think, building easily anymore. So how does that affect, you know, how we do the, how we do the bike, just, you know, if they incorporate more parking there, then maybe, um, we could do better bike planes in some way, or, if not, it's. Yeah. I

[01:55:20] Associate Civil Engineer Nguyen: see, um, acting, uh, see a manager, uh, screen health director, wants to see, too.

[01:55:26] Acting Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Cameron: Well, thank you and thank you for the question. Again, Don Cameron. Currently acting assistant city manager, community development director. Um, this is a broader question you're bringing on at Vanges, California. And it is something I've heard council members bring up at past meetings that they're concerned about. So I guess it's time to put in a plug right now for next Tuesday nights council meeting. Uh, we are bringing forward a study session on the council priority for the holistic review of street parking regulations. And that does provide that overview of all the city street parking regulations, but, and when you see that, you will see that stuff and key findings and upcoming challenges brings up, the, the, the concept that you're bringing up that we could have changing conditions for our street parking in the future, uh, and particularly the, the, um, Could see the supply of street parking be reduced as we look at other potential uses of our ride away, including adding bicycle improvements, wider sidewalks, green street elements, and how that plays off with, uh, kind of reduction in supply with potential increase in demand. as we look at, um, new development projects coming in, that may propose little to no parking, either consistent with state law, or even our precise plants, in some cases, really want to focus on not using cars, other means, and therefore, uh, working on reducing the amount of parking provided on site, but, What does that really mean for what may happen is on street parking? So, we don't spend a lot of time on that report. We bring it up, and then you find that, um, staff is proposing a particular study and approach that if counsel wants to support it, that we could look into doing, that not just looks at California, but other areas in the city where we could see, um, Partic- particular challenges for on street parking in the future and what that could look like. Good

[01:57:50] Member Alison Hicks: to know. Any other questions? Um,

[01:57:58] Chair Ellen Kamei: we'll move on to public comment. So would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or approach the lecter. We'll take in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have 3 minutes. Thanks.

[01:58:17] Cliff Chambers: Club Chambers, resident of Mountain Gube. I've been a long supporter of this project, and I'm finally seeing that the construction will potentially happen this summer. Yeah. Um, it's been a long time coming. I've been really happy on how this project has developed. The extension from showers all the way to Shoreline is major. I really like the vertical treatments that are being evaluated, including Green Street improvements. I think staff has done a wonderful job with outreach and responding to public comments on this. So I think we're really ready to go forward. I'm very happy with the evaluation process. Uh, that's, that's actually already been implemented. The only thing that I'd like to see a little bit more rigorous evaluation is of the vertical treatments. Not only for what might be used to cost effectively use in the, uh, the final project, but also as we consider quarters like ranks or, where are the lessons learned, that we can apply and hopefully not take 10 years from the time the complete streets program came about to actual construction of the pilot program. So those lessons learned, I think, in an evaluation process would be really important. I'd like to see a little bit more rigor go into that, so we can use that data. For future projects. So thank you very much. Good

[01:59:57] Serge Bonte: evening, Serbant, uh, resident of Mountain View. So, uh, I wanted to tie back to the comment I made during oral comments. Uh, one thing you want to make sure is that you, you know, in Mountain View, we don't close sidewalks for uh, uh, in alternate amount of time when there is redevelopment. You know, you're going to do counts and surveys and things like this. I can tell you that if you did one on rain stuff right now, you would get a very rough walking squad, because there is no walking, right? So, uh, that's one thing uh, to keep in mind. You also don't want to change the conditions. So there was a lot of discussions about the SpDDs. Uh, should they start during that pilot? Um, you know, I'm not sure you're going to get the benefits to this, but maybe that's going to be proof that maybe it's not a good idea. So, so that that would be maybe a good fitback from a PDD program. Um, in terms of the metrics. There is one, but I think you should be able to measure, uh, that's, it's a big embodiment for, for, for, pedestrians. That's the constant encroachments on sidewalks, on crosswalks, by cars, by bikes, by car, that's typically because they can do a ride on red. But it's really like a lot of times it's like playing that game like Frogger, you know, on a crosswalk where you shouldn't be doing this and and I'm hoping that with the improvements you provide, there would be less encroachments, maybe bike boxes, for instance, so that bikes don't stop in the crosswalk. Uh, and, and, you know, hopefully at some point, you know, no rights on red, so that it would limit a big chunk of encroachments because that limits the vision that's not safe. But it's really not comfortable because you have to zigzag around cars. Thank you.

[02:01:56] Chair Ellen Kamei: Yes, we do. April

[02:01:58] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: Wester, I'm going to click to what I talk. Please help me yourself. I have 3 minutes. Hi,

[02:02:07] April Webster: thanks, um, April Webster, um, like if I am absolutely thrilled that this is moving forward. Um, and that, um, you know, council, um, voted to consider green infrastructure here, and even to, for the final project, the, um, when the pilot's done, to implement this as a green complete streets project where green infrastructure will be integrated. Um, and, you know, help us as a city meet our, the ever increasing, ever, It makes me more strict um, requirements for GSI, um, that we have um, for our, our license for MRP 3.0. They just each time that comes around, they make it more strict, which I think is absolutely wonderful. But, um, I wanted to ask a question, uh, and talk a bit about the metrics. And I think it's great that we have quantitative metrics. We looking at performance. But I think there are also some important qualitative metrics that we need to look at and how we're, and we're using this in the ATP and it's very common, um, um, as a met check for evaluating act of transportation infrastructure. Um, we see it in Caltrans, um, guidelines. It's one of their goals is comfort. And, um, not just comfort but perception of safety. And I don't think that the performance metrics could can accurately capture that. Um, I think we should be a little bit more careful in how we do that. Um, and I thought, you know, in addition to looking at the different types of vertical separation, that, um, in some way, there could be a way, uh, we could survey people using it to see if there's differences in, um, you know, the differences that are seen in industry, in a larger population if we also see that in mountain view. And often, you know, I'll bring this up again, but the interested but concerned, they tend to favor more robust, um, vertical separation. Um, the, like, um, I'm just reading from, um, uh, a DOT document. Um, a majority of people in the US are interested in bicycling and low stress environments, they are likely to skip bicycling altogether, unless they have physical separation. And I know we're slowing um, the car, the traffic down by narrowing lanes, but I think it's still important to look at those different types of vertical separation and understand that. Um, dib 94s also refers to this on page 22 that you want to maximize horizontal and vertical vertical separation whenever feasible. And those different types of separators do a different job of that. And then finally, they do and and also, and did 94 talk about using green options to provide shade and and get that comfortable and enjoyable experience. So I'd like to evaluate that somehow if we could. Thank you.

[02:05:10] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: Neil Abraham, I'm going to quit to allow you to talk. Please meet yourself and you'll have 3 minutes.

[02:05:18] Emil Abraham: E How's it going? Meal, live on middle field. Um, honestly, I've been watching the progress of this project ever since I moved here. Um, this has been my favorite project to follow. Um, and I'm super excited. Uh, every other roadway project, uh, felt very much like we were playing ketchup or or patching things with Band-Aids. Um, squeezing in like the bare minimum, active transportation, like whatever we could do. Um, wherever it's possible. This is the 1st project to me that feels very, very different and almost like proactive. Um, so my favorite things, um, like the 1st is before and after survey. I don't recall having this for many other projects. Um, absolutely love being able to participate. Um, so I've shared this survey with everyone I know here. Um, and the other thing I like a lot is the piloting and vertical elements. So, great opportunity to collect data so that we can make more informed decisions in the future. So, um, I really hope to see a lot more projects like this where we're, it feels like proactive. Um, big thanks to all the staff and the and the council members, uh, involved. Uh, thank you very much.

[02:06:39] Chair Ellen Kamei: And we have no more public. Great. Thank you. All right, I'll bring the, uh, item back to the committee for, um, they have any, additional comments they'd like to make, no formal, um, action from our committees necessary, but if there's anything else to add of yourself. Thanks.

[02:07:00] Member Lisa Matichak: As I said before, I think your electrics are the right ones have. Um, I appreciate that you will also be looking at vertical treatments. Um, to see which ones, um, can be maintained, uh, and... Thank you. Um, I think those are good. Um, I, I kind of ashamed that some of the things, uh, members of the public mentioned like, um, do people feel comfortable? Well, I think if they do, we'll see more people using it. So, I was kind of folding all of those into the other metrics that you have, but, um, people who can still provide input, right? On the softer, uh, metrics, so to speak, like I felt comfortable. Would they do that via the survey? Or is it a different survey?

[02:07:48] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: That's really the design of the survey is to get to that comfort question that Emperor Webster was referring to.

[02:07:54] Member Lisa Matichak: Okay. And that's what I thought. So I'm good with what you proposed. Thanks.

[02:08:02] Member Alison Hicks: Yeah, I'm glad this is going forward and I, I echo things other, speakers said, um, and I think most of my comments I incorporated into my questions. Thank you.

[02:08:15] Chair Ellen Kamei: Great. Yes, big, big thank you to staff, I think, just hearing the level of responsiveness from the community, I think, is wonderful and given it's such a long stretch as well. Um, it's really great to hear such positive feedback from residents on a project. So large that I think will transform the 4 door, which I'm really excited about. And kind of my question slash comment earlier was concerned that we're gonna do all this infrastructure. And then we might have to make some changes if some brand new big project comes, right? And I wouldn't want that to kind of impede what I think is really gonna be a project that revolutionizes that full corridor. So my concern was, you know, knowing that there could be changes, making sure that we can preserve this because, as mentioned by Mr. Chambers multiple times, just the length that I mistaken this to come forward. And I wouldn't want, um, I wouldn't want any changes to kind of, uh, yeah, if they keep that. So.

[02:09:20] Member Lisa Matichak: Sorry, I did have another comment. Um, because you forgot. And we were talking about that. Um, I do believe staff when we have redevelopment does look reducing the number of curb cuts. Um, and so that's, you know, great. Although I'm not sure we'll see those, um, Once a family units redevelop because of SB 33. Um, But seismic retrofit is completely different. And I don't think that would change the number of parking spaces or the access or anything. You're just, probably a very simplistic way of saying that, sort of shoring up the building, um, as opposed to redeveloping it. So I don't think it would change much of anything, um, as my understanding. Good to have. Yeah.

5.3 Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan

[02:10:09] Chair Ellen Kamei: I just know that that could be a heavily impacted area for a lot of... Great. All right. I think that concludes. I think stuff is everything they need very much. It's just... Thank you. All right, we'll move on to Idem 5.3, division 0 action plan and local Russian plan. So staff presentation can be provided by Frioti Ahmed, transportation planner. Mm-hmm.

[02:12:07] Unknown Speaker: Let's do something. Um,

[02:12:23] Transportation Planner Ahmed: hello, good evening, CTC members. I am POT Ahmed, uh, transportation planner with City of Mountain View, and today, I'll be presenting Vision 0 action plan and local safety plan final report for your review. To provide a bit of background, in 2019, Mountain View City Council adopted Vision 0 policy, which sets the goal of 0 fetal collisions by 2030. Vision 0 action plan is integrated with local road safety plan to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements. This integrated plan recommends a new set of projects and policies that will improve safety and safe lives. This table shows the key components of the 2 plans. These 2 plants have similarities such as setting clear goal and vision, but they differ in approach. Vision 0 tends to focus on severe and fatal collision, also known as case size here, and specific locations where local road safety plan not only identify the same location, but also identifies location with similar land use and roadway factors. Locaro safety plan recommendations are infrastructure based, where vision 0 has a multidisciplinary approach that includes education, encouragement, enforcement to prevent future severe and fatal collision. The integration of these 2 plants allowed us to conduct a more holistic crash analysis and develop recommendations that are both infrastructure and non-infrastructure focused. So this timeline shows, um, the period from when the adoption was uh, when this policy was adopted till where we are today. Um, so today I'll point out the few key milestones from this timeline. Um, December of 2019, Vision 0 policy was adopted and we started this plan in May of 2020. Based on the systemic analysis feedback, uh, we have identified safety projects in our CIP, and we also expanded the safe roster school program, as well as the crossing guard program. On March 22, we received feedback on identified counter, uh, measures, uh, countermeasure toolbox and project prioritization criteria. These uh, deliverables were, uh, uh, these delivers were shared with vision to your working group, BPAC, CTC, and general public. So based on the feedback we have received. We have drafted our recommendations that include infrastructure and non-infrastructure program and policy, and we'll be going over them today. Um, before we dive into the recommendation, I wanted to update you about the safety corridor. This plans systemic analysis, identified in identified cities, high injury network, which highlights corridors with a high number of severe and fatal collisions. During the development of this plan, 8043 was signed. CBC defined a safety corridor as a roadway segment within overall roadway network where the highest number of serious injury and fatal collisions occur. After reviewing AB43, it was determined that the safety corridor definition is consistent with the high injury network defined in this plan. The safety corridor qualifies for additional 5 miles per hour speed reduction from 85th percentile speed. Note El Camino real and Central Express rate are listed in Hyjury Network, but are not part of safety corridors, due to being outside of cities authority. Since the end of the crash analysis period, many of the safety improvements along Hynejury network have been completed or underway, such as El Camino Real, Shoreline, California Street, El Monte, Middlefield, Miramonte, Wester Drive, and theater, and we have multiple intersections that are also have improvements. So now do the recommendations. As I mentioned earlier, the integration of the boat plans allowed us to develop recommendation that include infrastructure and non-infrastructure, programs and policy. Within the infrastructure, uh, within the infrastructure's part, we have statements and intersections, and non-frastructure includes programs and policies. The infrastructure improvements are based on identified countermeasure toolbox that was developed by federal highway administration and other best practices. These toolbox have been reviewed by visitor working group, BPAC, CTC, and general public. Some of the countermeasures include protected left turn, class 4 protected bikeways, road diets, and different tropic calming measures. For the infrastructure recommendation segments. We applied this 2 box 2 scored segments based on project prioritization criteria, and here are some of the highlights. We have Rainstorf Street, which is, we are proposing RingStor, Green Complete Street, Study, illustrate, protected bikeways, grant road, high visibility crosswalks, and new bikeways from Martins to El Camino. And for infrastructure recommendation, intersection, we followed the same process of identifying the intersections, and some of the key projects include El Camino Real and Castro protected intersection, Middlefield Road, and Independence Avenue, um, that includes various pedestrian and bicycle improvements, Charleston Road at F Theater Parkway, again, uh, pedestrian and bicycle religion improvements, and Ortega and League them Street. But the non-professoratory improvements, these were strategies that were not engineering based. So these included education, enforcement, encouragement, engagement, equity, and evaluation. These strategies where presented in 5 C system elements that include safe road users, safe vehicles, safe speeds, safe roads, and post crash care. Within these recommendations, there were um, a couple of common buckets. So 1st one being safeguards to school. So through this plan, we'll be continuing to provide, uh, safe for us to school education to all mountain view students. We'll be working with school and parents, to stay in partnership, and to encourage them to walk invite to school, and we'll be also advancing, safe us to school, walk on an observation, into improvement recommendation. We are currently uh starting, we are currently working on um, conducting vision 0 marketing and outreach campaign. We'll be holding community wide, fight, walk, and fight tours, um, enforcement efforts that focus on behavior associated with fatal and severe uh, injuries, including speeding and driving under influence of drugs or alcohol. And finally, city policy and organizational efforts to support cities, visions, your policy, such as providing staff training on visions, your best practices, and reviewing city protocols to improve consistency with vision zero. We presented the draft, uh, draft recommendation to be packed in March, and they supported the overall recommendation and provided additional feedback, including implementing a no right turn on red prohibition at certain locations, reporting of all traffic collision involving pedestrian and bicyclists, tracking and reporting progress updates on implementation of vision zero. Action plan and local road safety plan. We have we have included all these feedback into our recommendation that we present here today. For the next steps, we are here to uh, take your feedback and uh, we are planning uh, based on our conversation today, we are planning to take this as a consent item to cancel in September. Um, in terms of the plan implementation, as I mentioned earlier, we are working to launch vision 0 marketing and outreach campaign. Uh, we are working with multiple teams to identify funding opportunities for the projects, and we will be holding quarterly visions you're working group meeting that is an internal working group to work through some of the non-infrastructure rectifications. With that, um, the discussion here today is review and recommend the city council to adopt the integrated visions your action plan and move forward safety plan draft report. With that type of food, my presentation. Great. Thank you very much. Do committee members have questions?

[02:21:52] Member Lisa Matichak: Remember, that shit. Thanks. Um, I do have some questions. Uh. Given that we just recently talked about the active transportation plan, and now we have these two. Uh, I guess I'm wondering. Do we have any other bicycle or pedestrian plans? Or is that it?

[02:22:14] Transportation Planner Ahmed: I believe these 2 are it, yeah. And then the active transportation plan. So, yes, yeah. That's Brandon reading active transportation plan, and this is vision 0, uh, action plan and local road safety plan that's in the final report stage.

[02:22:30] Member Lisa Matichak: So how do we prioritize? Uh, what we do when it comes to, um, bike pet improvements among the 3 plans.

[02:22:42] Transportation Planner Ahmed: So this plan, um, this is the integrated plan. We are looking into improving safety for all modes that includes motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrian. So our goal kind of going into it was this, we had kind of one major goal is to, you know, get to 0 vision 0. And through reducing the collisions among all modes, where, uh, and through also the policies for our engagement, you know, we have a other ease policy that gets to, um, achieving that goal. So looking at the prioritorization criteria for this specific plan had that very clear, that safety was the 1st and then it was, you know, equity and we had, uh, kind of a vulnerable road users. So if there was a, because, We saw a lot of severe collision, including bike get pad. So kind of making sure that was reflected. So that's how kind of we went from there.

[02:23:48] Member Lisa Matichak: So if we have a finite amount of money. How do we divide it between the different projects we could be working on?

[02:23:57] Acting Public Works Director Arango: Yeah, if I can, uh, let me try it. Answer me that question. Um, so this, the vision 0 action plan, the world safety plan. It's, it, we're sort of at the end of the line for the project on identifying as the segments and intersections that you've seen, you know, been identified. Um, That's part of the active transportation plan. We're seeing that this starts to feed into the act of transportation plan and has evaluated in a holistic manner, not only with these projects, but other products that we've identified in the bike, I'm going to get this wrong, bike master plan. Bike transportation plan. Yeah, that's your master plan. I always get those too confused. as well as other projects that we've identified among staff and then we've heard from the community. So really the actual transplant fan, we see as the, um, the focus of prioritizing all the projects that we've seen, and that was the intent of the, Kenneth's holistic, what are everything out there? How do we prioritize that? What are the policies relating to that? So that way staff has some clear, um, criteria and guidance on, um, as new projects come in and existing projects. Where do they live in projectation for staffing resources and funding resources?

[02:25:10] Member Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, um, would, Would these plans be updated?

[02:25:18] Transportation Planner Ahmed: Yes. So, uh, this plan would be updated every 5 years. It'll be 5 years.

[02:25:23] Member Lisa Matichak: Um, and then we would update the active transportation plan. based upon updates to these two. I guess my, um, my ultimate question is, why do we have 3 plans? Why do we not just have one plan? and have criteria that it's part of vision 0 or it's part of, um, the local road safety plan as ranking criteria for what gets one.

[02:25:53] Transportation Planner Whyte: Oh, appreciate the question and um, let me see if I can. as well. Um, so, uh, as a transportation planner, Med was mentioning, um, number one, yes, the city did adopt division 0 policy. And policy is a great thing, but we knew when we adopted the policy that it needs to be accompanied by an action plan. And that action plan, as noted, is more than just, um, infrastructure, it is programs, it's policy, it's, and it is looking at the entire transportation network and all the users. It's not just focus on the Mexican pedestrians as noted. Local road safety plan came along after we adopted vision several policy and many jurisdictions were. And actually, just so you know, The concept of a local road safety plan came down to us from, I want to say, federal and then down to stay, to the point of, in order for jurisdiction to qualify for certain, certain grant programs, you must have a local road safety plan. So we've used these particular grant programs in the past, we'd like to use them in the future. So we were required to make sure we adopted one. And but there were so many similarities with division 0 action plan. That's when it was decided and other jurisdictions have done this as well. It should be a combined approach. And one of the main differences, as mentioned, is a vision 0 plan focuses on where you have the history of collisions. While the local road safety plan was to be a systemic approach that looked at not just where you have collisions, but where you have other areas with similar characteristics. And it really is a menu of countermeasures that can be considered. Where you have these conditions, which so one of the key pieces is the tool kit. So it's not, Meant to be overly prescriptive. of exactly what you're going to do, where? But, you know, what are all your toolkit pieces to look at? And then you get to, yes, the question of prioritization, which quarter should be focused on 1st and that's where you get to the safety quarters, the high entry network. The, In the middle of that, as you're bringing up, there was definitely a need to redo and update what was called the pedestrian bastard plan and the bicycle plan transportation plan, and the desire to take more holistically about active transportation plans, which is why you go with the integrated improvement. And that's where you get to projects that not only are dealing with safety. But as well as improvements we can make to our roadway system, that will in general encourage more walking and bicycling, um, with the goal of more walking and bicycling, not just to make it safer. So yes, we end up now with these 2 different plans. Um, but we, you know, we definitely see the vision 0 action plan, local rate safety plan. Uh, where where it relates to bicycle pedestrian improvements feeding into the active transportation plan. Please correct me if anything is switched. And it's going to be a key factor in helping to determine priority improvements uh, in terms of the bicycle and pedestrian network. So this is a very valuable data. Definitely feeds into it. It also will continue to inform the, you know, the recommended commitments. The city should make towards programs, policies to improve safety. It's one of the, The key movers and shakers that led to what is now a very robust, low, um, Safe rooster school education encouragement program. I really think that this laid a really excellent foundation as we were working on this. Uh, for enhancing that as well as now the new marketing campaign that it's about to go out. So we're always going to have a situation where, There isn't just, there's going to be different lists, and we will have to regularly kind of reconcile how we prioritize projects among these different lists. Um, and some of this prioritization also is going to relate to what are the funding sources, and what are we allowed to use the funding on? And in fact, in some cases, it's always been advisable that when you do a priority list, even through the active transportation plan, you don't do, one, two, three, four, five, you do, more of a tier approach. These are the highest priority ones. Um, the highest tier, I, And the reason why is you never know where your funding's going to come from, which grants would be most appropriate, where your redevelopment opportunities come from. So you want to be able to position yourself to, look in terms of, um, getting as many of these higher priority projects delivered without trying to be too rigorous, that this has to be 1st, then this, that. I don't know if that fully answered your question, but all of this is just, It's not unusual. To have different lists based upon. What the priorities are you're trying to achieve. And it's true, the capital improvement program process, where we're trying to bring it all together in terms of which projects we're going to pursue in. So

[02:31:38] Member Lisa Matichak: I appreciate Hearing all of that, that was great. Um, I, um, I feel like I'm still looking for the big picture. Um, of this active transportation plan, and could the active transportation plan identify, which projects are part of either division 0, the combined vision 0, local road safety plan. And identify those so we know. Okay. Um, We,

[02:32:14] Acting Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Cameron: we will definitely, number one. Um, based upon the direction of the we've got from council about the active transportation plan, we will be getting together and and preparing for bringing to CTC in September. That starts to really, um, take a look back at what the network would look like, things that we were hearing, as well as what the universe of projects would be, and, um, Definitely, as you're, as you're asking, um, that we would show which of the projects you're seeing here were also identified in this plan. Okay. Um.

[02:33:01] Member Lisa Matichak: here is a little bit here. Um, why do we need a marketing? plan on the vision zero. Um,

[02:33:09] Transportation Planner Ahmed: so yeah, it's vision 0 marketing and outreach campaign. As I said, vision store has all these other e's that influence education, encouragement. So our primary goal for this one is to really raise the awareness of like, what is a vision to your policy? Why does it matter? and kind of get city, kind of I've got residents into it, excited, and other campaign, messaging, we focus on anti-speeding, to, especially on schools and parks where we see a lot of people walking, a lot of conflicts happening. Those are the areas where we're going to be kind of really doing anti-speeding. And I've been told there's various cool ways. We can provide these type of messaging out. So. Okay.

[02:33:51] Member Lisa Matichak: Um, that helps. You can have a specific comment, but let me look it up because it's been a while since I wrote it down. Um, On topic H2, staff report. Oh, um. The 2nd bullet. Develop 8 emphasis areas to achieve fiction 0,

[02:34:13] Transportation Planner Ahmed: actually, what does that mean? Yeah, so after going through the crash analysis, um, and, you know, a public outreach process, uh, Local safety plan and and vision 0 both kind of, uh, we identify what are the big areas to address in order to get get to vision 0? What are the big buckets? So number one is the high injury network. We want to kind of target the corridors we've identified to a high injury network, where we are going to recommend projects. Second was, uh, uh, I don't know if a second, but it was one of them was pedestrian safety, then bicycle safety, because those, the user we see are involved in more severe and fatal fascists, that there was equity. Um, one of them was um, near school routes and park routes, uh, that we want to kind of, Start, going through identifying different projects. So that was kind of feed into selecting the locations. Okay. Um. That's all

[02:35:20] Member Lisa Matichak: I have for now. Mm-hmm. So,

[02:35:24] Member Alison Hicks: good, big picture, that's, just conference some, some details. So I was, I was just intrigued when you said, uh, They're cool ways. You can talk about things like anti-speeding, um, because it sounds always sounds very sort of. something to me. Um, Do you have an example or?

[02:35:44] Transportation Planner Ahmed: Yeah, so Seattle. So there's this heads up boulder that they use in Colorado. Um, I think Seattle used uh, slow the lockdown. and they had pictures of birds. Seattle's big outdoor community. I think that really resonated. And I think they were saying the way you would provide, they're able to kind of track of where people travel from and push out these campaigns through either social media and radio channels, with those users that are driving through those corridors. And that, you know, feels, uh, you know, that feels kind of, uh, very targeted to the audience that we want to kind of speak to in terms of getting them aware of, well, how to reduce speed and the importance of reducing speed. That keeps me more of a picture. Yeah. Let's see. Um, so

[02:36:40] Member Alison Hicks: BPAC suggested, um, I like the tech suggestions, and one of them was, uh, recommendation related to, you know, right, turn on red prohibitions at certain locations. Um, And, and, That's one I've heard talked about a lot. Um, and I was wondering whether you had locations picked out or whether that's a future.

[02:37:07] Transportation Planner Ahmed: Yeah, so we address this in 2 ways. First, we added this countermeasure to, um, El Camino and Grand Intersection recommendation that's in, I believe, um, that's in the table. And we also included this in the non-infrastructure recommendation, and we added a policy, um, you know, a strategy term that says explore processes for implementing no turn on red, uh, countermeasure and develop policy for, no turn on red, uh, consideration. So, We want to kind of know what's the policy for implementing and then develop a policy, citywide. So

[02:37:46] Member Alison Hicks: you have that one identified and then possible more to come

[02:37:50] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: with them. If I may, this can sort of illustrate how the interaction is happening between the plants here and the active transportation plan. You know, we heard that feedback. And so we've been working with our traffic engineering department. We have a meeting scheduled, um, and our current, that currently consultant for the ATP is generating information on, on house other, other cities have set up the criteria to select the locations for our right counter rent and then the metrics for success. When we get that information back from the consultant that we're going to work together as a team internally to see what works. Um, and then bring that through the processes, tag at PAC, CTC, VPAC, or Council. Um, so, That is a great example of how her plan is impacting our plan and how we're working internally to get to that from a logical perspective, looking at best practices that other cities have used.

[02:38:54] Member Alison Hicks: Thanks, you handled that. Okay. Um, So what exactly does a protected intersection project entail?

[02:39:08] Transportation Planner Ahmed: Yeah, um, protected intersection project can have like various features. So it has a setback, which pulls intersection and kind of provides the visibility for the bicyclist, it has green pains to provide them the space to work, to wait again, increasing their visibility. It has curb extension to like square out again to kind of increasing the visibility. So, it creates a separation from, uh, uh, vehicles, uh, to bicyclist, as well as um, it provides that space increases the visibility. Do anything? Yeah,

[02:39:50] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: absolutely. Thank you. Um, it's more of a set forward for the bicyclist. So, and you can see these in real life here, not you. Uh, at uh, Charleston and Joyline. Um, so what, what you do is you keep the start, stop bar for motor vehicle is where it currently is. But then the bicycle lane basically extends forward into the intersection. And then a coroner protective island is placed that is at least 6 feet because that's the length of a bicycle. Um, that is out of the path of the bicyclists that want to turn left. And completely out of the path of motorists. And this creates about 15 to 20 feet really depends on the intersection of distance between where the bicycle stops and where the motorist stops. And it's basically a time difference. So when that same light will just use one light goes green. Bicycles are already head in the field of vision of the motorist, and already moving, and in theory, clearing before the motorist wants to make their right turn. It's very important because when the cyclists in a conventional biplane are equal next to each other with the motorists. With that light turns screen, they both go forward. Well, the motorist can turn right into the cyclist because there isn't distance created there. And then the last thing that the projected intersection does really well, is it protects the left. Now you have to make a 2 stage left instead of the motor vehicle merging left, which a lot of cyclists interested, the concern cyclists do not want to merge through multiple lengths of traffic. So the 2 stage left, they can, like a pedestrian, cross once, there's space for them to wait. It's protected with that corner island, and then go on the next light. So they have to go on 2 faces of the light. Um, and that's how we do it with infrastructure. You can do it also with like signal heads, um, if you don't have the space, and you simply get like signal head floor green, then the waters. So

[02:41:39] Member Alison Hicks: that's a good example of what we might locate elsewhere, where we have space.

[02:41:44] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: 100% yeah. Yeah, and we are doing it in the California complete streets project with 6 or 7 or 8, several. Checked intersections will be tested.

[02:41:53] Principal Civil Engineer Gonzales: Signalized intersections on California will be protected. There'll be paint. Um, and the pilot face, and then we're also looking at that, um, Council approve the Castro and El Camino intersection. Okay, intersection. I can go on. So

[02:42:12] Acting Public Works Director Arango: we like to talk about this because this is really our bread and butter on all the elements. When staff answered the question perfectly. One element that it also, these protected intersections. You hear these islands that are put out in the intersection at the corners to provide this protection for bicyclists. They also increase the radius for cars to turn. So that requires, that provides, and I spoke a little bit about visibility on California street on these driveways, that really allows a car to make a wider radius turn and provide that visibility. So you're not at a skew angle as you're turning and to see the bicyclist, you're more at a right angle. It's

[02:42:51] Member Alison Hicks: your bread and butter. Um, What can we do legally to slow speeds on neighborhood streets? Is there? None.

[02:43:03] Acting Public Works Director Arango: Well, we have our neighborhood traffic management program that's impactive program that we're actually, you're going to hear an update through one of the upcoming council connections on all the activity that's been happening on the neighborhood traffic management program in various neighborhoods. So, um, the way that program works, it's really, um, resident driven. And we really allow the residents to really drive that process. They petition the city on, um, they're finding speeding, which is a common occurrence on these corridors along neighborhood streets, where they've uh, identified, um, a need to uh, address this meeting or to provide some kind of tool that's available in the toolbox in the program to apply to that street. And so it goes through the process. Um, the petitioner city, we evaluate to see if it meets the criteria for um, an NTMP program. That's our acronym for it. And then, um, we reach out to the community. We have a community meeting to identify, here's some possible tools that could apply, if it meets the criteria. We have that community, which recently had, I'm sorry. And um, we get their buy-in. on the type of tools that could apply. And then again, it's, you know, very democratic. We put out postcards to all those effect on corridors to identify. Here's the tools that we've heard from the community that they want to implement. Do you agree with these, you know, implementing these tours or not? And then based on that feedback, um, I forget the exact few numbers. But, um, We need to receive a certain amount of responses and other responses, we need to receive a minimum amount of other responses. I think it's, I want to say 66% of those on the court, I need to respond. And then of those 33%, I believe, need to agree to the the numbers. And then the city implements the implements. So some examples are radar feedback signs, um, or what's really popular are speed hubs. So we find that those are very effective and we've just applied those recently on church. So as a recent exam. So you know them? Yeah. Yeah,

[02:45:06] Member Alison Hicks: and there are also, aren't there also like traffic circles and some kind of green infrastructure, the narrow streets that are included in, I've looked through the long list of neighborhood traffic management. Um tools. And I think those are like in the very bottom of the toolbox and not used to.

[02:45:26] Associate Civil Engineer Nguyen: Perhaps, yeah, they um, we provide a whole list of examples that could be applied. Um, and we really focus on the um, the light, easy, um, uh, opportunities to apply these quickly. So that's why those feedback signs at the top. And the speed humps really come to the top because we've implemented them. They're easy to buy, and don't really change the configuration. But we are looking at a local street, I mean, when they grant, uh, neighborhood to, um, it's a, um, sort of L Street that has 2 access points, and we've received feedback from the community. Um, that they really want to close one of the signs. We're implementing that, those temporary measures that you actually are seeing here tonight on California Street with some, you know, flexible posts, some rubber curves, so that we can pilot this, see how it's going to work. And we got very high support from that community that really wants to see that. So, um, But it allows us to imply quickly. So that's why I took those rice.

[02:46:29] Chair Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Um, so I just had um, 2 questions. So for the education component, especially regarding our vision 0 plan and the safe routes to school, is there outreach to the community that's near the school? So I think what I've seen and is a lot of kind of what I'd call like opt in, you know, like a, we have a community meeting, please come, or if your children goes to a school, then you're getting that information. other ways to, or, is any of this marketing and outreach going to be for those that are in the surrounding areas on education because, uh, Yeah,

[02:47:12] Transportation Planner Ahmed: I know. So, uh, we are planning to launch this. So currently we are like developing the messages and like figuring out all the methodology and whatnot, but we want to launch it during back to school time. So back to school time for safe routes. We go to every school, they have ice cream social, you know, kind of orientation. So we go with our presence, and this time we're going to take vision 0 messaging. So we, We'll be kind of meeting people where they already are, um, and that, and also school drop off pickup is kind of a whole thing on its own, and we see a lot of bad behaviors around it, and I think, I, I think reminding folks about vision 0 and talking about anti-speeding could be very valuable. Um, so that's how we are kind of thinking about launching it. We also will have focus groups that we are currently recruiting parents. Um, to participate in. Um, That could be also neighborhood specific. Um, I think the PM is thinking more about neighborhood Pacific, so we are trying to reach out to parents in specific schools too. So I guess what I, my

[02:48:22] Chair Ellen Kamei: question is, is more, how are we? Educating those hornogs. I see. Because I think, so on my way to this meeting, for example, I saw that somebody in my neighborhood put up a little bit, a little sign that's like, please don't speed kids at play. They had put one up in my neighborhood, right? And so, which, you know, I appreciate because I do feel like people speak in my neighborhood. I think everyone thinks that when the neighborhood they live. But so I don't know what education we're doing for those who don't, but might be, by live in a neighborhood, where they're right next to, a park or a school where they meet to adhere to, a lot of people do the rolling stops, right? So. Yeah,

[02:49:06] Transportation Planner Ahmed: so we'll be doing the yard signs around the schools. Um, we will be doing some, like, uh, farmer's market type of pop-ups, uh, general, general public outreach will happen through the campaign and there will be, uh, you know, social media messaging, targeting to different groups. We have our radio stations and We used to kind of provide those campaigns. So a general outreach specific will happen. And, um, I, I, working in Mountain View, I know yard science are quite effective. So I think we will kind of lean into some of those, uh, strategy here. as well. Has

[02:49:46] Chair Ellen Kamei: there been any direct interaction with like neighborhood associations?

[02:49:50] Transportation Planner Ahmed: We are reaching out to them to kind of see what type of rep, what type of strategy works for them to kind of start building that relationship. Okay, great,

[02:49:58] Chair Ellen Kamei: thanks. And then for figure one, the, it's noted that these conflict points are from 2014, 2019, um, try to obviously a lot change since then. So are we seeing, do we have any more, like, recent data, are we seeing the same conflict points as we were from the 2014th of 2019 period? Or hasn't changed at all? Um,

[02:50:23] Transportation Planner Ahmed: we haven't done this detailed analysis in 2019. We have looked at collision and a holistic number, like total collision, um, which is slowly going up, but we have been looked into specific this level of analysis. Yeah, the

[02:50:38] Unknown Speaker: ATP has.

[02:50:40] Chair Ellen Kamei: Okay, yes. So we'll counsel itself for be able to get kind of updated information. Because I feel, I'd love to know if, like, trends have changed or not. or some release, same as they were from this time period. It just...

[02:50:59] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: Yes, we can do that. Oh, currently the existing issues report is on the website, the active transportation plan. So those,

[02:51:08] Chair Ellen Kamei: those are updated. So we can, Okay, so we can assume the data of the conflict points from the active transportation plan. So we can look at this figure for 2014 to 2019. With this plan, but know that your plan has the updated figures. All right, got it. Okay. Thank you. So, would we update this plans? Informations, that's the transportation plan has it or...

[02:51:44] Transportation Planner Ahmed: Are you talking about just updating the map in terms of showing the conflict points? Um, we can take a look and see if it is formally here. Yeah, like if it's just updating a map, you know, I think we'll be able to accommodate that. I

[02:51:59] Chair Ellen Kamei: don't know. I would think that it's great that we have it. And so that's, I was kind of getting confused. So thank you very much because I thought of it, didn't we update it? Did we talk about this last week? I don't know. But okay, that would be, I think, great to do. All right.

[02:52:14] Chair Ellen Kamei: Anyone else have any name? I

[02:52:16] Member Lisa Matichak: guess I have another one. Okay. So, um, in the actual plan itself, and sometimes in the staff report, um, it says the recommended improvements, and are those ones that will be evaluated? Like, there's some here that say diverters, and that seems to be a hot topic in the community when diverters are. So, um, are these recommended that we're going to study and get um, input on before we finalize it. Okay. These are kind of a very high level.

[02:52:51] Transportation Planner Ahmed: We kind of through everything on the pot and then we'll like go through the analysis. They're going to be engineering analysis, visibility analysis done, to come up with the final, final location specific kind of matures. Okay. So

[02:53:03] Member Lisa Matichak: um, I appreciate your comment about that. And the data. And, um, well, it would be good to update the map, um, To me, what's also important is updating then the projects because if something is no longer, um, a crash location. Um, I would think we would want to update the plan. The whole plan. And not just the map. Because then the map would be out of state with the projects that you have listed. So

[02:53:39] Transportation Planner Ahmed: we, in the memo, we do have current projects that are on the works and being funded. So that's not part of the recommendation. We already said, kind of, these are Hindu network and we already know plants like California is to read El Camino that all have already been going on. So these are really looking at where there are no projects have been identified or they have been identifying some other plan. We are pulling it here to make it, you know, not repetitive, like centralizing it. Um, so these plans are uh, based on locations where we don't have currently ongoing things. Plants

[02:54:19] Member Lisa Matichak: listed in the actual plan itself. Recommendations, yes. Right. So, but what if, um, this map has changed so much, that those are no longer areas we should focus on. There's other higher priorities. How, when would we update that? Uh,

[02:54:40] Transportation Planner Ahmed: I, I, I mean, Don, if you want to respond to it. confused. No,

[02:54:45] Acting Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Cameron: thank you. Yeah, I really think. And thank you for really continuing to ask the question. And I think I wanted to just comment that I, I think, The question that's being asked, it needs to, This is what I understand the questions that's being asked. The data that we've worked from, for this and what the maps, that show, the intersections, the high injury network porters and so on. Is collision data that went through 2019. I recall. So it's 5 years later, yes, we've been through COVID, which made a lot of changes to travel patterns. things are bouncing back. So, have we been able to, I know also just to be aware, that the, the information or collision data isn't immediate to us. We usually work with Switters or from the Berkeley... Yeah, Switters, Tims, and that can be about from 18 months ago. That I recall. So, we can look at the collisions that occurred since 2019 till about 18 months ago, to confirm, are these the same intersections and roadway segments, are continuing to see, um, to see where the collisions are most are currently occurring or have any new ones popped up? And I believe that's, that's what you're asking for to make sure, that the list of locations identified here are still the ones that we should still be focused on. So is this something, um, staff has been able to look at is the more recent collision history?

[02:56:29] Transportation Planner Ahmed: We haven't looked at the most recent collision history to this detail of like location specific detail. Okay. All

[02:56:37] Acting Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Cameron: righty. So, um, What is the pot? Sorry, I have been a little bit of a location of that. Yes. And I do want to make sure your questions get answered because we are aiming to come back in the fall for counsel to adopt this and it's not, you know, a one time thing. It does need to be updated on a regular basis. So do we think there's an opportunity to do this, some of this analysis over the summer before we just confirm. I mean, right now our suspicions are, I mean, what we've identified is how piatry network continues to be where we see most of the religions. It, it, it could be more specific intersections where we could see if there's many significant changes in, in where the collisions are occurring. Sure.

[02:57:30] Transportation Planner Ahmed: Brendan just let me know that he has very detailed data as part of ATP. So we can definitely compare to 22. Um, so we can compare and see if there is any significant change and we'll recommend the, the latest one. So

[02:57:45] Member Alison Hicks: I kind of have a follow-up question on that, but maybe you're not. So, If you get different, you know, different injuries, let's say in the last 5 years from what was, There before, maybe some of them are similar and some of them are different. Unless something significant has changed. I would think that would just be additional information. I would think I wouldn't look back at the ones that happen 20 years ago and say, well, no one will ever be hit. Some was hit there 20 years ago, but no one will ever be hit there again. You know, because we don't get somebody hit. Hopefully, you know, like every week. It's just, it's cumulative data, unless we've met is what I'm thinking, and you can tell me how wrong I am. Unless, unless we've made a significant change in that place. Then I might, then I made an improvement, I would hope there would be fewer crashes and maybe we don't have to reconsider it. But if we haven't made any changes, I would think that's, even though it's old data, it's still useful. Is this wrong?

[02:58:48] Acting Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Cameron: No, you're not. And in fact, it's one of the reasons we make sure we look at least 10 years back. Because we're very fortunate that we don't have a locations like constant. Which we don't want to see. But in order to see where, um, where there might be a history, we do want to look back 10 years at least. So we, we would not, move away from the previous locations as much as seeing making sure there are no new locations to, to be added to be considered. But the other piece is, it comes back to the countermeasures that might be applied when it's time. So you don't want to just know, quantity of collisions. You want to know the type of collision. And and because that can help inform the review of the intersection in terms of which types of countermeasures would be most appropriate, and and could best, um, make it a safer, safer intersection. So that is, that's another reason to kind of look at what's happened between 2019 and 2022 to see. You know, in terms of the change of travel patterns that occurred, has that also affected the types of collisions we could be seeing or developed, that went in and significantly increased the, the traffic volumes through that intersection or, or, hopefully, more bikes and tents going through the intersection and how does that, that type of thing? But I think back to the original purpose of the question. We'll take a look at it and and the data is still comparable to what we had before. This is what you'd see coming to council in the fall for approval of this plan. But if some new information has popped up, we'll be sure to add that in before it's about to cancel.

[03:00:55] Chair Ellen Kamei: Right. And then, Apologies. So at this plan is for 5 years. I just, um, Would it be, so for, Appreciate that the timeline is added. It's there, and then I think the status is also listed. Is staff in a place where, We would know, it's just really, I know, it's next exhibition, for those that are under, underway when they might be competing, or is that kind of too, with the weeds on, on that. Like, we would just, when it gets updated in 5 years, we'll be told what if, when it was completed. Um,

[03:01:45] Transportation Planner Ahmed: we can provide an interim update if that's, you know,

[03:01:48] Chair Ellen Kamei: just, yeah, just, I was just curious, because I think we've been, um, Council's been getting varied information, just when they, you know, and just thinking about the CIP and other things, and, uh, though I didn't get a chance to see it because I was only, well, be in the meeting. I did look at it Um, it's helpful to know when they're getting. Okay, great. Thank you. Any other questions? All right, then we can bring into public comment. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or approach selector. We'll say in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have 3 minutes. Still sage? Yeah,

[03:02:29] Serge Bonte: and still cell phones, still awake. and then still a mountain view resident. So, I wanted to touch on 2 things. I mean, one is the, the, the, no, no, no, write on reds, or no turn on reds. don't know. It is a better approach, I think. Um, I wanted to bring up your attention, but there are some some signs like this in Mountain View already. Um, you know, there is one from, I think, Up Street to um, to prevent to turn onto um, Evelyn by the transit center. There is one out of all places, um, not to avoid a turn onto shoreline by the fire station there. near the amphibia car. I suspect it's because there is a bike treatment, so there's kind of a bike box and a light, and obviously, you know, in this cases, you don't want quite on, right? Uh, and there is one already on um, California, uh, to prevent the ride on, on, on red uh, onto the new developments that's across the former mill pan. That's semi-private street. I'm not sure. Yeah, it's a CC street, but there is one there. I'm not aware of any council meetings or BPAC meetings around that. Uh, you know, to establish fan, we just appeared. So I don't know why we need to do a complex policy. I think we should do it every chance we get. Um, and you mentioned some some improvements for bikes, you know, with bike boxes or things like this. That should be, you know, part of it because the only way a back box will work is if you prevent the right on right or otherwise, you know, people will be going on the bike box. Uh, and I think it's a big improvement there. I also wanted to touch on the discussion on the collision data. To me, it's very additive. So I live on a high injury on a transit safety corridor on Almonte. Um, we had a death there, and it was, at this time, you know, almost like 10 years ago now. Um, That person is still not no longer with us. you know, so that's not like she can be wiped away, you know, the conditions have not really improved. There's a long running, you know, set of projects that have been delayed a few times. Uh, none of our faults. So, uh, you know, it it has to be additive because projects take a very long time in Montedu and hopefully we'll do it faster, but we have to take this into account. So it's possible that there are new locations that may occurred. Maybe an entire five, but, and then they should be added and maybe we'll get more transit, you know, corridors, but, uh, we, we can't just give up on people who, who have been injured or, or, or pass away, uh, just because we have effect, you know, in new data. So, thank you. Thank you

[03:05:21] Member Lisa Matichak: And I don't see any other members of the public here in person, so do we have any emergency? Yep,

[03:05:29] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: no answers. Seriously, are

[03:05:33] Member Lisa Matichak: there any members of the public still virtually?

[03:05:35] Member Alison Hicks: There are four.

[03:05:37] Member Lisa Matichak: Okay, but nobody has a comment on this. Okay. So we'll close public comments. And we will, as the committee provide our. It's a little mix. Oh, wow. Sorry, I'm the uh, the chair. Vice chair for a few minutes. Um,

[03:06:01] Member Alison Hicks: I don't really have, you know, most of my comments were reflected in my questions. Um, I guess the only additional things. The only additional thing that I was thinking while we were, uh, talking is that, um, some of the things we're talking about for safety, like curb extensions, and, um, the, uh, and the neighborhood traffic management, uh, program can also be opportunities to provide green improvements. So I'm hoping there's some overlap, you know, when we're doing a lot, the project for safety reasons. We can also do it for reasons, you know, for other reasons to, you know, like, street cooler, or, and it's more closer to walk on and that we can kind of do both of the safety goals, keep that in mind. I think that was... I, um... Yeah, I think that, that was my only remaining comment. Okay, thank you. Um, so,

[03:07:13] Member Lisa Matichak: let's see, my comments. Um, I want to clarify what I was saying about, um, updating the data and the, um, the information and the map, uh, I agree that, uh, older data is still useful. Well, I was thinking is uh, we might have changed an intersection and made improvements to it. And now if the more recent data says it's a much safer intersection, that that would change or potentially our prioritization, because it's no longer as dangerous as it used to be. Not that past information is useless. Um, Fortunately, Mr. Moncheft. Um, and, um, I do support, uh, using no right turn on red. Uh, I think there are, um, I find that very helpful, um, because I tend to be a rule follower. I'm going to stop at the stoplight. I'm gonna stop at the stop sign. Um, and, You know, I feel like sometimes people in back of me are anxious to go. And, um, I don't feel necessarily safe turning, right? So having that, no right turn on red, it's really helpful. Um, I really appreciate the one on, Is that, uh, Hope and Evelyn. Um. Yeah. Uh, that's the way I often go home from cows natives. So um, I do think those are useful, um, and we should consider those in more places. Um, I want to get back to, um, my line of questioning about how these plans all fit together. And I guess, you know, I'm thinking, uh, and, you know, feel free to tell me that this is not at all what you had in mind or why it won't work. But I was thinking, you know, we have this active transportation plan. And as we discussed with the last council meeting, um, you know, we want the big picture of what it looks like. And for me, what that big picture looks like. is, um, because we can't make every single road a complete street. There's not the physical room for that. Um, that we have some optimized for bicyclists, some for pedestrians and some for vehicles. Now that doesn't mean the others can't use them. But these are the ones we're really going to focus on. Um, similar to the safe routes to school where we have a map. Here are the main routes that bicyclists can use that we have improved, that they should feel safe on, that it's optimized for bicyclists. And yes, you can go other places, you know, we're not going to prevent that. But the same thing for pedestrians, same thing for vehicles. Um, but then we have criteria that says, um, okay, when we're planning or sorry, not criteria, but, um, Well, like I said, it's, you know, is it even feasible to do those rates for those different modes of transportation. And because if it's not, we should look at an alternative route that something could take. And but then we layer into it, um, things like, which are the, um, intersections or other areas that are part of the IO tree network? or, um, part of the, uh, vision 0 or the local road safety plan, and those should have higher priority in my mind, than areas that are not part of that network. that we've defined, that are the best ways to get around town, if you're a bike, if you're a pedestrian or if you're a vehicle. Um, and is that what we're thinking? Or are we, Are they disconnected more than that? Like, are these 2 plans for now an integrated plan? Are they more disconnected than what I was describing?

[03:11:26] Transportation Planner Ahmed: I don't believe they're disconnected. Um, I, I, I think the way Dawn described it, that, The recommendation will feed into ATP as ATP is look going through its own processes. So these list of projects, you will see part of, you know, part of their overall location or improvement plan, I don't know where you're calling that, but there will be a connection that is made between these, you know, 2 separate plan. But, um, uh, yeah, I, I, I, I, I do like the fact that, you know, the way you laid out of like different modes and you have like different ways of screening it. So I think we will be heading. We are heading toward that as this plant kind of gets adopted and that's recommendation will feed into a DP.

[03:12:15] Member Lisa Matichak: Okay, well we see the, um, ATP, the next, um, Oh, will it come to council before? This comes to council.

[03:12:32] Acting Public Works Director Arango: I believe so. So the CTC. We'll be seeing the active transportation plan. In September. I think we were looking to bring the 0 action plan local safety plan. So, to council, what was the date? September 9th. September. So it'll be very close. I think I'm, I'm, I'm understanding some elements up here, because we heard this is some good feedback tonight, that speaks to the ATP. Um, because the, the, um, what we have, uh, the information that we have for the business your action plan. I was going to feed into the actual transportation. We're hanging this, um, this theme of, um, knowing where the project came from. And so, um, we're going to start developing a strategy to bring to you in September at the CTC, um, around the active transportation. You still need to convene and figure out, you know, the next steps. But we've heard a lot of, we heard a lot of feedback at the council meeting as well as tonight. Um, and that'll be part of the, um, conversation that we have with CTC on, um, the various elements. It's not only it's seeing that the network is a big picture and how it all fits together, but also on elements that are specific to the different plants and where the plants come from. So you can have a better idea of where does this project fit? Where did it come from? And how is it prioritized rather than not knowing where the basis was? Because then that, I think that's what you're leading to is there's some elements of certain plans that should be prioritized higher. Yeah,

[03:14:16] Member Lisa Matichak: what I'm concerned about is, um, Having just a list of projects. Um, with a prioritization when I don't know how they offered to get. Um, like when I look at, uh, Let's see, I guess it was an action plan. Um, and it has, um, lines and they're all over the city. But they, they're not connected. Are you talking about safest school? No, uh, in the um,

[03:14:48] Member Alison Hicks: the actual planet project. Yeah. And, you

[03:14:52] Member Lisa Matichak: know, I think I'm not sure I want to do projects that don't further the active transportation plan as the highest priority. I really want, um, this to feed into the active transportation plan, and those projects to be higher priority than a project that's not connected at all, not on a main route, um, that not many people take. Um, so that we at least have the base of, Kind of like safe routes of school. But for bicyclists, pedestrians and vehicles. Can I ask a question about your comments? Well, sure. Um,

[03:15:34] Member Alison Hicks: so it seems like, like there may be a, I, I generally agree with everything you're saying. I am looking forward to the active transportation plan as being sets of networks that prioritize different modes. Um, that wouldn't you sometimes find, um, like, in the high injury, if a place that has a high injury, probably shouldn't be, your safe route to school, or your, or your, your major biking. I mean, When I bike, I don't go on any of the roads that were improving. I never bike on El Camino Royale. I never bike on California Street. And I go, I used to go down there a lot. So I just went to school down there. I went down Latham. And I go in on the neighborhood streets, and when I see safe routes to school, they mostly, I'm happy to see that they're not on El Camino. You know, they are on those my, so, I'm thinking that, where there are high injuries and where we're recommending the people, the networks that people bike on and the networks that people walk on, are maybe different places. Maybe, hopefully there's very little overlap. Because I want people biking in high entry places. So, and then there's your question of priority. Do we improve? Those the biking network, the walking network or the high entry place. Which may be 3 distinct places. So

[03:17:03] Member Lisa Matichak: I guess I was thinking that if the best route happens to include something, that is, um, a high entry. I hope it doesn't. That's why, that you'd fix that. Yeah, okay. Yeah. ASAP. So that that is the best route. Um, I would not want to divine the mouse and maybe they change over time. Um, because we want to avoid them until we can correct them. Um, but maybe that is ultimately the best route to take, because it's the shortest, it's the safest, it's the most efficient or something, um, that makes it the best route to go, but it, not if it's unsafe. Because, yeah, I think safety is,

[03:17:48] Member Alison Hicks: I only bike on, I only bike on boulevards with trees because I won't buy, and with not a lot of cars. So I was never... So for me, that's what a bicycle I hope that there's some emphasis on that because I think, I, that I'm not the only person. And that's also what I see in the safe roots to school, they often are. Yeah. Um, okay.

[03:18:16] Member Lisa Matichak: So, um, let me see if I have any comments. I think I've got all my comments and unfortunately, um, Cherkme is not back yet. It'd be great to get her comments. Um, could we maybe, um, all this until she comes back to finish it, and do a couple of other items on each other? Sure,

[03:18:42] Acting Public Works Director Arango: we can, um, there's a couple options. We can just take a, you know, or

[03:18:45] Member Alison Hicks: we can take like, because it

[03:18:46] Acting Public Works Director Arango: has been since 630 since we started.

[03:18:49] Member Alison Hicks: Or if they're council staff or committee.

[03:18:51] Acting Public Works Director Arango: Yeah, and where we can, we can keep going with, um, come back to this, uh, provide the next item, which I think was the, the committee, the staff updates. I remember it on the agenda. Awesome. Yeah, after this is the, um, Committee and staff announcements. And, um, staff had one. We can provide one.

[03:19:14] Member Lisa Matichak: Yeah, whatever we did that because I really do. I'm sure. absolutely.

[03:19:19] Unknown Speaker: Sorry, for the change, we're counting on an action for this item, so it is the chair back. Yeah. Yeah.. Okay,

6.1 Staff Comments

[03:19:35] Member Lisa Matichak: so, well, President, we'll put this on pause. Put this on pause, yep, and we will move on to item 6.9. Let me just out comments.

[03:20:15] Acting Public Works Director Arango: Robert can get your name. Sorry, we sort of... We'll just be patient for a minute here while we get up to plug in first. Okay. Um, the 1st one on our list is um, an update. This is, there was no report on this. Um, this is just a, um, a verbal update with a presentation regarding the, the 2 great separation projects, which is at the transit center and a regular store. Join, can, can what? Thank you. Good

[03:20:47] Senior Civil Engineer Houghton: evening, committee members. Chair is missing. My name's Joy Houghton, senior civil engineer and public works, and I'm here tonight to provide updates on the city's 2 great separation projects at Castro Street and Ringstorf Avenue. Thank you, Robert. Let me begin with a brief update on the most recent council direction on the great separation projects. As you may recall, the city received 65% design plans for Castro in June 2023, and the class estimate based on 65% design, um, in September 2023, which triggered a need for value engineering options. In November of 2023 staff presented to the Council Transportation Committee. An update on the Castro Street project, including recommendation to reduce the project's scope by deferring elements of the project outside the Caltrain right away that the city would then deliver in the future as separate projects. The elements recommended to be deferred, included the Moffatt Street Boulevard, Moffatt Boulevard Improvements, the Evelyn Avenue Realignment, or the S Curve, the Evelyn Avenue Ramp that connects to Shoreline Boulevard. And the multi-use path on the south side of Evelyn, um, connecting the west side shoreline and Franklin Street. And earlier this year, January, staff provided updates and status on the 2 great separation projects to city council. And recommended to prioritize one of the projects. As the city does not have the funding resources to continue both through construction. As mentioned, um, staff presented information on the 2 projects, including status, benefits, and cost to city council, due to, um, limited funding sources and a very significant funding shortfall for the Castro Street project. Staff recommended to prioritize the ring surf avenue grade separation project. Council supported this recommendation given the following. Um, we have an interim solution for Castro Street that doesn't exist for Rainstorf. Ring surf is also more challenging to pedestrians and bicyclists compared to Castro. And prioritizing Frankstorf means that the city would focus our funding resources, including the city's share of the measure B funds, towards Frankstorf, and, um, which results in reducing the funding shortfall to approximately 31 million. As the project has need but clearance, there are federal grant opportunities Frankstorf can pursue. And the project would be more competitive with a reduced funding shortfall. What does the prioritization mean to the 2 projects? For rain surf, it means completing a final design and right away acquisition. Also considering value engineering options to further reduce the funding shortfall, and constructing the great separation about completion of the final design and right away acquisition phase. For Castro, it means completing the final design of the undercrossings, constructing the city utility relocation project to prepare the city utilities for the future undercrossings. Obtaining Nipa clearance to be eligible for federal funding. Implementing interim improvements, which I'll share on the next slide, and constructing the undercross things when funding becomes available. One factor that helped cancel prioritize ringstorf is the proposed interim solution for Castro Street, with an unknown timeline for construction, for the construction of the undercrossings. Staff recommendation included the interim improvements. To the Castro Moffat and Central Expressway intersection. The improvements would permanently close the rail crossing to vehicles while retaining the existing at grade, rail crossing for bikes and pets. And convert the Evelyn Avenue at Castro for westbound traffic only with bike accommodations. The improvements would reduce vehicle conflicts for bikes and pets and allow elimination of the railroad signal preemption for central Expressway, and reducing the bike pit wait times to cross central. Continuing with updates for Castro, again, city council directed staff to prioritize Springstore in January, 2024. And in May, the project was assigned a new Caltrain project manager since the departure of the previous one in March. And this month we are continuing to progress designed from 65% to 95%, well, also working on the concepts for the interim improvements. And later this year, in December, staff will return to city council to provide updated information. Moving on to Rainstorf. Again, in January, council directed staff to prioritize Ringstorf. Also in January, Caltrain released the request for proposals for the construction manager, general contractor, or CMGC for the project. And as a reminder, this is a Caltrain approved project delivery method, in which a general contractor collaborates with the project design team to provide input on construction methods during the design phase. In March of 2024, the final design was kicked off with a e-com as the design consultant. And more recently, last month, A e-com submitted an alternative construction method analysis providing a feasibility review of the box jacking method. Staff is evaluating this, um, report, to determine if this could be a cost-effective method for constructing the structure for the rail. Also, in May, the governor's May budget revision was released, which affects an awarded grab to the city, and more on that later. Um, and in May, I'm happy to report that the city along with Caltrain and VTA submitted a grant application for the federal railroad administration, consolidated rail infrastructure, and safety improvements program. Um, and for next steps, we are anticipating approval of the CMGC contract in August, and we'll be on boarding the CMGC in September prior to the completion of the 65%. Designs the middle, um, expected in December, and also in December, we will be returning to city council with updated information on the 2 Great Step projects. And as mentioned, the governor's made budget revision was released on May 10th, um, and proposed to eliminate the funding for the cycle 6 transit and inner city real capital program, or tersep, which is approximately 35000000 of statewide program funds. This includes the 20000000 um, grant awarded to the city towards, brings towards construction of the Rankstorf Avenue great separation project. Elimination of the program increases the project funding shortfall. By 20000000 and causes delay in construction, which also then results in a significant increase in cost, and loss of federal funding opportunities to close the funding gap. Um, Don't worry. Well, for now, staff has been actively communicating with Senator Beckers, and assembly man, Berman, staff, coordinating with Caltrain, VTA, and the cities of Burlingame and Palo Alto, to help advocate for preserving the funding by requesting, to delay disbursement rather than eliminating the program funds. And that concludes my updates for tonight.

[03:29:05] Chair Ellen Kamei: Thank you. So I think it's just an update, we'll receive it. If there's any questions?

[03:29:11] Acting Public Works Director Arango: Great. Okay. Where we're at right now.

[03:29:13] Chair Ellen Kamei: Perfect, great. Thank you. Thank you. Great, great timeline. Thank you for that day. Much appreciated. Are there any other staff comments for

[03:29:22] Unknown Speaker: 6 point one? Okay. And

[03:29:25] Chair Ellen Kamei: apologies. We'll move back. I think we're just gonna rewind very quickly to by point three, which is our vision 0 action plan and local road safety plan. And I saw Zoom that my colleagues made there. Um, comments. So I'll add my comments because I do know this actually requires a review and recommendation to the full council. So, um, my recommendations, um, or my comments are out of the outreach, um, the engagement education component, um, are the 2 of the 70s that really strike me. Um, because I'd really like to see, um, behavior changes, not just for those who would be, like, using our, hopefully biking and, um, walking, but those who are not, and to understand, um, in a more general understanding, I think of those of the road. And, um, I like that outreach to be, I know we have our quarterly newsletter that goes out from the city. I forget what that's called right now. Um, But I'd also like to see, um, as these changes go forward, you know, the, if you're within the 700 feet radius of a, of a school to get that engagement. I know sometimes we do those noticings that be equally important for those babies who are not, who did the school system. I also see an opportunity with the neighborhood associations, and then our civic leadership academies, really like them to both academies to learn, about what we're trying to do. Um, I think that really affects them, follow good life. So those would be, um, my comments, um, then, obviously, the one I made earlier about just skating the, the, uh, data, you know, though it may not change, if we have the data, we pay for that information from our consultant and gathered, it might as well put it in. And I think lastly, um, hearing some of the comments of my colleagues. If, at some point, CTC could get, and I don't know if it's through this vision zero, actually plan on local road safety, or maybe like an offline is maybe the timeline of all the plans and something that council's been getting is, uh, Sometimes we've been seeing, okay, this is the timeline for this plan and this is kind of this graph, graph chart of all the different plans and their timelines, and I know, especially since all of them are 5 years, just kind of visually be able to see that representation. I think would be helpful. Some of the plants talk to each other, but as was mentioned, they need to be independent and I think, Getting a little bit, yeah, a wrap, at least would help, help visual. visual that way, because I know we also have our bike pedbling, our ATP coming up. Um, but also knowing that at any time a resident or community effort could give in, but right? So, meeting that door open. Uh, so those are, are my comments, uh, to play some emails they'd like to add? No publishing name.

[03:32:35] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, great. Comotional? Yes, please. I would like to recommend that, uh, recommend that the city council adopt the integrated vision 0 action plan on local road safety plan that, um, draft report. It's been presenting tonight.

[03:32:56] Member Lisa Matichak: So I, um, would recommend we and then that motion. To, um, include the part of that and updating it before it goes to council, taking a look at the what we've updated. Sure. If there is any updates to be made. So

[03:33:11] Chair Ellen Kamei: we're making, are you I

[03:33:14] Member Lisa Matichak: will 2nd with that addition. Great.

6.2 Committee Comments

[03:33:16] Chair Ellen Kamei: Thank you. So we have a Moshe and by committee member, Hicks with a 2nd by committee member of Metachek. We'll take a vote. So I'll those in paper. All right, that is unanimous. Thank you very much to staff. So we've done item 6.one. So we'll move on to item 6.2. Our committee comments. Do any member, uh, committee, have comments, or reports to share.

[03:33:43] Member Lisa Matichak: So, um, I do have a question. Um, Mr. Bond brought up earlier this evening about Lisa, um, and running storage, and the sidewalk issue, and I feel like we also received an email from someone this. Um, I don't, I don't know if staff could invite us with an update on how that was being addressed. Um, I don't know that I've seen a response to that person yet, but, um, is there a way to update that person as well as Mr. Montag, what we might be able to do or what is being done to address that? Sidewalk issue? Yeah,

[03:34:22] Acting Public Works Director Arango: so, um, I'm, I think I also recall there was another, we received a lot of, um, public input and inquiries regarding just sidewalks in general, and it's overlapping with the El Camino real project, um, which, you know, Cal Trans is controlling, because there are closing, where they're excavating outsidewalk areas, curb ramps to do the ramp reconstruction, um, in the middle of some of our projects as well. as well as development projects. So, um, we have it on our list to give back to those residents. I mean, we can add, um, Thank you, Mr. Bond, to the update on where that is, because, uh, if I recall that Mr. Bond also reached out to us, I want to say on Friday, about that location. But, um, so we're, we're, You know, aware of the comments, we're going to provide responses, and we'll include them with that rank shortly from intersection as well. Thank you. And if you could include us, so we know.

[03:35:27] Member Alison Hicks: I actually have an additional question on that. I was just going to email Kimber at my ask, I'm going to take care of, but this is better. Um, is this more of a, in terms of the project taking longer than Mr. Bond Brock brought up tonight and the sidewalk being unavailable for longer? Is it more of a updating people on information question or a policy question? Because I think he was asking for some way that, that there could be a sidewalk provider, like a wooden player. Um,

[03:35:59] Acting Public Works Director Arango: so, I, it may be both. I think there is asking about, oh, is there a plan? If it closed for a while. And I don't have the details right now, but we'll absolutely evaluate that and identify a response for Shabont. Um, but, um, as a practice, we do, um, We do have not only city projects, but development projects. Follow a practice of about a one week rule. You're going to shed close the sidewalk for excavation or utility word that you need. To keep it close for about a week. Again, there's certain exceptions to that rule. Um, and if they can't abide by it. We try to have, um, be sure to have implement a, um, a detour plan or alternative routing plan for pedestrians so that way they can get around it. But again, the specifics of this location will get back, will identify if the reasoning behind it, and whether or not, whether we missed it, or there's a special circumstances, we made this one, but I know that they have been actively working. At one of these locations that I think Mr. Bott have brought up, and as recently as Friday poured some sidewalks. So, um, and I'm not sure if it's matching up where it will look at. But as a practice, we do try to, uh, make sure that the sidewalks turn close from a long ago. We put that in our permits for developers. We put that in. I won't contract documents for the sleep projects. But more information to come on specifics of this location. Thank you. Thank you. All

7. ADJOURNMENT

[03:37:38] Chair Ellen Kamei: right, any more comments? All right. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or approach the lecter. We'll take in-person speakers first. There are any, and I don't see any. Is there any more virtually? No. Okay, Thursday, great. Thank you. So we'll move on to item 7, adjournment at 1008 PM. Thank you very much.

• ← Previous
• Next →