[0:08] [ inaudible ]

[0:09] >> oh, is that what it is? Okay.

[0:13] >> lift off.

[0:20] [ inaudible ]

[0:38] [ inaudible ]

[0:54] [ inaudible ]

[1:03] >> spend the kids in here and it's 30.

[1:06] >> oh, we're on. Okay, here we go.

[1:08] all right, sorry, the mic sign.

[1:13] welcome, everybody, to the august 12th.

[1:16] believe it or not, half the month is almost over.

[1:19] the regular meeting for the laguna hills traffic commission.

[1:23] welcome, everybody, for being here tonight.

[1:26] we look forward to a wonderful conversation and getting our work done.

[1:31] and we're going to go ahead and open up with the pledge of allegiance.

[1:34] and I'm going to ask, let's see, mr. Caputo, let's have you lead us

[1:41] in the pledge of allegiance tonight.

[1:44] all right, a pledge of the united states of america

[1:51] and to the republic for which it stands, my nation, under god,

[1:56] indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[1:59] thank you, you can be seated.

[2:07] all righty, so at this time we'll call on the clerk

[2:10] for a roll call.

[2:14] >> let the record show.

[2:15] we have a quorum with four committee members present in the chamber.

[2:18] >> thank you, thank you.

[2:20] okay.

[2:23] all right, this brings us to public comment on the agenda.

[2:29] this is the time to address the traffic commission

[2:32] on any matters, not listed on this agenda.

[2:35] that is within the subject matter, jurisdiction of the commission.

[2:40] public comments are limited to three minutes per person as determined by the chair.

[2:47] at this time, clerk, do we have any public comments?

[2:52] >> yes, we have one request to speak and zero electronic comments.

[2:58] the first audience member, or the only audience member to speak is larry bremer.

[3:01] >> okay, great, sir, if you could -- I'm sorry.

[3:06] >> I don't know if larry is --

[3:08] >> he thought he was going to be on the agenda probably.

[3:13] >> oh, is he -- >> larry bremer thought that we were part of the handle

[3:17] whilst in the form of the member's fashion, and all this kind of specific housing.

[3:22] >> so he left.

[3:24] >> okay, okay, great.

[3:26] are there any other public speakers for this item?

[3:29] I mean, for this time.

[3:34] >> no, has this item 3.1?

[3:36] >> well, it's just a public comment.

[3:38] just -- >> no.

[3:42] >> okay, so to be clear, we don't have any other public speakers,

[3:46] and there was an electronic -- no electronic comments.

[3:51] okay, all right, that moves us forward to presentations, and there are none.

[4:00] that moves us forward to administrative reports, agenda item 3.

[4:06] 1, discussion, a request of acacia knolls resident,

[4:11] to park on the south side of beckenham street.

[4:14] and at this time, we will take staff report.

[4:18] >> thank you very much, chair miller.

[4:22] I guess I want to preface all of this by saying that as many of you know,

[4:28] the special meeting tonight was meant to talk about parking

[4:32] and street sweeping issues, but then there was interest

[4:36] in the city council and the topic back on june 23rd.

[4:40] at that point in time, they directed to hold a joint meeting.

[4:45] unfortunately, their schedules didn't align

[4:48] with the traffic commission scheduled to be able to talk about that tonight.

[4:53] and since it was the same topic, I had to unexpectedly flip the topics,

[5:01] making this august 12th meeting more of a regular meeting.

[5:06] the september items I anticipated talking about,

[5:09] and then moving what we were planning on talking about tonight to september.

[5:14] and so that's the reason why this feels a little odd.

[5:16] I don't know how many of you got all that from all the last minute.

[5:20] email correspondence, but that's what happened.

[5:23] and so this item I would have brought in september

[5:30] after our parking and street sweeping discussion.

[5:33] so then I had to frame this item knowing that that is still coming in september.

[5:41] and so I just want to preface all that before we got into this agenda item.

[5:46] and then I will try to clean up my agenda item.

[5:50] I will admit that when I was writing this agenda item one,

[5:53] I was unaware of a certain circumstance and two.

[5:57] I was off last week thursday and friday.

[5:59] compressing the week.

[6:00] so I came back on monday and found out some new information, thanks to city of staff.

[6:07] and that was what led to some of the amendments today.

[6:09] anyway, so I take full responsibility for that in my apologies.

[6:13] next slide, please.

[6:14] thank you for the clarification.

[6:15] because I was expecting a workshop and I had to grab my jacket for tonight.

[6:20] yeah, I appreciate.

[6:22] thank you for asking your question, commissioner caputo, too.

[6:26] because yeah, that was the whole, again, I apologize.

[6:30] so I'm glad you grabbed your jacket.

[6:32] yeah, very dapper in your jacket.

[6:34] thank you.

[6:35] thank you.

[6:37] so during the july 15th traffic commission meeting,

[6:41] you may recall city staff provided the results

[6:44] of a residential permit park and district for camberwell,

[6:49] street, sunset place, and around back-and-hand park,

[6:53] rather than reading all those lists of streets there.

[6:56] and then also during the july 15th traffic commission meeting,

[7:01] I reviewed a presentation that I made to the city council on june 23rd,

[7:07] concerning parking on the south side of laguna hills drive,

[7:09] which was approved by the city council by resolution.

[7:13] and citywide parking issues,

[7:15] and I talked about on july 15th and on june 23rd,

[7:20] that in my humble opinion, in my personal view,

[7:24] the solution to citywide parking issues is generally

[7:26] to provide parking near where parking demand is

[7:28] greatest, which I recognize isn't always possible.

[7:33] next slide, please.

[7:34] so during that discussion of that separate permit parking,

[7:38] but for camberwell street,

[7:42] back-and-hand park and sunset place neighborhood,

[7:45] one public speaker indicated the proposed permit parking district

[7:49] would negatively impact the ability of vacation roles,

[7:52] residents to park around back-and-hand park,

[7:54] if that permit parking district were approved.

[7:58] and then a second public speaker requested that parking

[8:00] be reopened on the south side of beckenham street,

[8:04] and no overnight parking is currently allowed on the south side of beckenham street,

[8:08] but it's for indication roles in beckenham park.

[8:11] and then subsequent to the july 15th meeting,

[8:14] I received a personal telephone call from the public speaker

[8:18] and inquiring if the south side of beckenham street

[8:22] could be open to only occasion roles,

[8:23] residents using the established parking permit program process.

[8:28] next slide, please.

[8:30] so for reference for talking about this neighborhood here,

[8:35] we're talking about camberwell street and around beckenham park.

[8:44] so this is the neighborhood that we received requests

[8:46] from so out parking on the south side of beckenham

[8:49] street adjacent, so they're intrigue-gate.

[8:51] next slide, please.

[8:54] and then you may recall that the traffic commission recently implemented

[9:01] no overnight parking on the purple line.

[9:04] I believe that was, what was that?

[9:09] may, or march, march, then it was march.

[9:12] and then that was adopted by the city council by resolution.

[9:16] and then what's not on this map is on june

[9:18] 23rd, the south side of laguna hills tribe,

[9:20] between indian hill and pacifica valencia,

[9:24] was approved for overnight parking.

[9:27] and that was the intention of that was to allow for,

[9:31] I would say, a pressure relief valve of sorts for the stock port

[9:37] apartments and for the alicia village apartments will the park on laguna hills drive.

[9:42] next slide, please.

[9:44] so I told the telephone caller that the traffic commission,

[9:49] which is you, would need to consider the request and provide direction to city staff.

[9:53] so it would be helpful to receive emails from immediate neighbors

[9:57] indicating an interest in the idea in order to agenda

[10:00] is the item for consideration of the traffic

[10:01] commission, which brings us to this item tonight.

[10:05] and so you have several emails now in your agenda

[10:10] packet, and I'll email them out regarding that.

[10:15] and so the original gender report released on august

[10:17] 7th indicated there was no prior precedent for the city

[10:20] establishing permit parking on a city street for the exclusive benefit

[10:24] of an adjoining private residential property.

[10:27] and that statement was made in error my apologies.

[10:30] there is prior precedent for establishing permit parking on a city street

[10:34] for the exclusive benefit of an adjoining residential community

[10:38] has discussed in the amendment to my agenda report released today.

[10:41] and I've got one example out there.

[10:44] and that is the belitz-hira community association

[10:47] of permit parking on an adjoining public street next slide, please.

[10:51] here is belitz-hira.

[10:52] this is laguna hills drive.

[10:55] interestingly, it's not that far away from what we're talking about.

[10:58] it's approximately the line shown in yellow, suddenly of their driveway.

[11:06] and it's for a relatively short distance.

[11:09] it's for 400 in some odd feet.

[11:12] so it's probably good for 25 cars, 20 or 25 cars, if they pack it in there.

[11:18] next slide, please.

[11:20] actually, it's 570 feet.

[11:22] so that would be good for a little bit more than that.

[11:27] so the resolution was adopted in 2009.

[11:29] so it's been out there for 17 years.

[11:35] and that resolution and that agenda report were attached

[11:38] since it's a supplemental agenda report.

[11:42] and then in reviewing that agenda report from 2009,

[11:46] the summary is that was supported by the city council

[11:50] because the lack of parking within the property

[11:54] and city staff specifically stated in that 2009 report

[11:58] that the parking did not meet present-day municipal code requirements for parking.

[12:04] so given all of that and the information has just come to light,

[12:06] I didn't have an opportunity to perform the same analysis

[12:09] on this property.

[12:11] that was done for that property but has I already explained

[12:14] the agenda report had already been released.

[12:16] so here we are tonight.

[12:17] next slide, please.

[12:19] so if the same rationale is used to justify parking

[12:22] for occasion nulls, city staff believes the following information

[12:27] is important to have in order to assist the traffic commission

[12:29] in its discussion of the request, either now or in the future.

[12:33] how many kind of minimum units are there?

[12:35] do they have garages?

[12:36] how big are they garages? Do they have driveways?

[12:39] can you park on the driveways overnight?

[12:42] I lived in an association in dana point a year ago

[12:47] that had condominium with full, sometimes full length driveways in front of it

[12:51] but the ccrs didn't allow you to park overnight in the driveway.

[12:55] these strange things.

[12:57] and how many guest parking spaces are on the property?

[13:01] so those are some of the bare minimum questions.

[13:02] next slide, please.

[13:04] I did receive this afternoon reply to those questions.

[13:09] I didn't get back to my desk until 445.

[13:12] so here are the answers here of 99 units and occasion nulls.

[13:17] they all have garages.

[13:18] they all have two car garages.

[13:21] not every unit has a driveway that can be parked on overnight

[13:24] because there are units, some units without driveways.

[13:28] I didn't get any indication about whether

[13:29] or not there was a ban on overnight parking.

[13:32] and then there are approximately 15 guest parking stalls

[13:36] that apparently have, I don't know for sure,

[13:41] have some churn over requirements or something.

[13:43] I'm not sure exactly.

[13:45] next slide, please.

[13:47] we are also on receipt of the following information from the original requester.

[13:50] he had all of this to say.

[13:54] I think rather than reading all this to, I will pause

[13:57] here for a minute and I will hear it for yourselves.

[14:01] I can grab some water too.

[14:31] everybody good on that page?

[14:33] speed reader.

[14:37] no, you need more time for it.

[14:39] more time to take notes on this slide.

[14:43] anybody need more time on this slide?

[14:46] everyone's good.

[14:50] next slide, please, robert.

[14:52] so, city staff's recommendation is that the

[14:55] traffic commission received the city staff report

[14:59] and postponed detailed discussion due to the upcoming

[15:02] city council traffic commission joint meeting

[15:05] on september 16th to discuss policy and direction on citywide parking issues.

[15:10] optionally, the traffic commission may want to discuss

[15:13] this particular request now in order to help shape

[15:15] options for discussing citywide parking solutions for the upcoming joint meeting.

[15:20] and then my personal additional thoughts and blue here are

[15:26] if the citywide parking solutions goal or objective could be to find parking.

[15:31] you're a parking demand as great as should this type of solution be in a toolbox.

[15:35] just putting it out there.

[15:37] as the traffic commission is aware of,

[15:39] I always prefer to start with the target

[15:41] and then let people pick it apart rather than just,

[15:44] you know, have a wide discussion.

[15:49] so that's the end of my staff report.

[15:52] - okay. - and I'm happening.

[15:54] that's for any questions.

[15:55] - okay, great.

[15:56] we're going to open this up to commissioner questions.

[15:58] right now everybody's mic is live.

[16:00] and we're all city council members.

[16:03] because that's the names on the screen.

[16:05] so I don't know who's pressing what.

[16:07] but we can just, you know, go through the process of,

[16:12] if you'd like to ask questions or speak, just go ahead and press your button.

[16:17] and I'll just call on you.

[16:19] because right now it's everybody else's name.

[16:21] - I don't know how to drop.

[16:24] - oh, no, yours is going off.

[16:25] - yeah.

[16:27] - oh, if you hold it.

[16:28] - press the right button.

[16:30] - yeah.

[16:31] - there we go.

[16:32] - oh.

[16:33] - it's on now.

[16:34] - yeah, so.

[16:35] - okay, there we go.

[16:36] okay, it's off.

[16:37] and I still have.

[16:39] - but I have.

[16:40] - so there's three mics live.

[16:41] okay.

[16:42] so at this time we're going to open it up for, um, questions from commissioners.

[16:47] let's start on this.

[16:50] thank you.

[16:51] - okay.

[16:52] - um, going through the report.

[16:54] thank you for being very comprehensive on it.

[16:56] there was a lot of information that, you know,

[16:59] I'm glad you got response back to how many units there are

[17:02] and the requirements for the garages.

[17:06] do you know, or can we find out before the next meeting

[17:09] if the hoa requires garages for vehicles only

[17:12] and not for storage or any other use of the garages?

[17:19] I know in my particular hoa, your garage is only for vehicle use.

[17:21] you must put your first two cars in the garage.

[17:25] first or three cars putting on a response you have and then use of the driveway.

[17:30] so I am curious if that is in their ccnr's,

[17:33] currently that the garages are for vehicle use only.

[17:45] - are you good?

[17:46] that's it.

[17:47] okay, go ahead.

[17:48] - two questions.

[17:49] one on wilkes, it's permit parking.

[17:54] who has, who has those permits?

[17:56] are the permits?

[18:06] - yeah, those, the homes on wilkes are,

[18:09] I believe our single family homes is just for the people

[18:13] who live along wilkes.

[18:17] - so a question would be possible

[18:18] to spread that to a lesion holes also because one solution?

[18:32] - potentially, I would need to get a recommendation

[18:36] from the traffic commission on that.

[18:40] it's potentially available.

[18:42] I don't have any, it's a double sided street.

[18:46] so you've got curb length in front of the homes

[18:49] and then you've got, sorry, it's a single loaded street.

[18:52] so you've got, side of the curb is no, you know.

[18:57] - it stops at the end there.

[18:59] so I fact it in park.

[19:04] - the second question is, do we know what the

[19:05] percentage of rentals in a lesion holes is?

[19:10] and the reason I ask is, I live in a gated community

[19:14] and as the rentals increase, so does the amount of carbs

[19:20] because there's a tendency to have multiple families called.

[19:26] in those units, they have more carbs.

[19:33] so I'm seeing that as, I'm on the board of an hoa

[19:38] that's gated and we're starting to see some issues

[19:42] there as the percentage of rentals increase.

[19:47] so I just be curious to see how much the rentals are and that affects it.

[19:55] but just a comment, I think we're finally cleaning up

[20:00] the safety issues around pecking in park and I just be inclined to let line dogs wide

[20:10] but if we could do something with the whirls

[20:12] as a temporary measure, it might help lesion

[20:16] holes and I think mike had a good point that,

[20:22] to help the kind of, help themselves is to push them cc&rs

[20:33] 'cause everybody wants to use their garage as storage

[20:38] and it really wants to pay $200 for storage unit.

[20:43] but I think we have to push for these both on apartments and the condos

[20:54] that people have to help themselves out and if they could do that, that could help

[20:59] 'cause having just 15 units, 15 parking spots or 100 units throughout the small.

[21:07] if I could see it, I could see it for us.

[21:12] so just a thought and a couple of solutions.

[21:14] I'm with what commissioner caputo said in possibly using wilkes.

[21:22] so to tail onto that question, so the idea on your first question was

[21:28] to take wilkes, which is already existing and to extend that to where?

[21:33] - to a lesion holes.

[21:34] - so if, is that-- - can you do it just allow them to?

[21:38] - yeah, it permits also.

[21:40] - can you do that without the 67% vote?

[21:48] - so, like the two examples, so there was two examples.

[21:53] so my original erroneous gender report talked about

[21:56] a commercial complex where there was no vote taken.

[22:00] and then my amendment to the gender report

[22:03] also pointed to the fact that there was no vote taken

[22:07] because these two in this one are the unusual situation

[22:12] where you have a private development,

[22:16] residential or commercial looking to park on a public street.

[22:21] so those two prior examples, there was not a vote taken.

[22:24] instead there was a justification, a rationale,

[22:28] that was arrived at by jointly amongst the

[22:31] city council traffic commission and city staff

[22:34] justifying for doing that.

[22:38] so this wilkes place roadway

[22:44] already has permit parking on it.

[22:47] I guess my only thought on that,

[22:50] I'm putting a link on it, is, you know,

[22:52] they requested that and then now you're changing,

[22:56] and essentially changing by adding, you know, more people to that.

[23:00] I don't know, you know.

[23:02] - it hasn't been done.

[23:03] - it hasn't been done before that way.

[23:05] so I, you know, the answer hasn't been done that way before.

[23:09] but prior precedent would say that a vote isn't needed for

[23:14] off-site parking, but this is a new wrinkle in all of this.

[23:19] - right.

[23:20] - okay, good, good.

[23:21] - I'm gonna see him top it.

[23:22] - I'm sorry.

[23:23] - that's on the same conversation.

[23:25] - the parking permit on wilkes was that requested

[23:28] because there were other parking happening

[23:31] and it could have been the people from

[23:32] location roles that were parking there already,

[23:36] which is kind of that shift.

[23:37] and that's why they wanted the parking permit.

[23:39] is that because of what was happening from location roles?

[23:42] so we don't have that information.

[23:43] so it's hard to determine if we added it back

[23:45] in what would be the overall play on that.

[23:48] - yeah, my guess is the spread from the apartment, right?

[23:50] - yeah, that's right.

[23:51] - yes, everybody goes in from the apartments.

[23:53] - yeah, right, so okay.

[23:55] neil.

[23:56] - yep, the question I have is I know it in past

[23:59] when we've kind of debated about stop signs.

[24:03] we city staff has really put the onus on the traffic

[24:08] commission to follow the municipal code and any applicable state laws.

[24:12] but, you know, kind of seeing this agenda item

[24:15] and then even some previous ones where we've opened up

[24:17] parking on los aliso's or, you know, on indian hill,

[24:21] it seems like it's in spite of the municipal code

[24:24] and like the recommendation, at least in the black and white.

[24:27] so I'm just trying to, I guess I want some clarity

[24:29] on why when it comes to parking matters, you know,

[24:33] we can ignore some of the stated protocol.

[24:37] but, you know, we're very clear to be on like stop signs

[24:42] and other types of like traffic control devices.

[24:45] so just...

[24:51] - I don't know that I would couch it that way,

[24:54] but I would say that stop signs are safety control device.

[24:59] parking is a convenience.

[25:08] and so I personally see that it's two very different

[25:11] categories both from a liability perspective

[25:14] and a safety perspective.

[25:16] and so, and there is an m-u-t-c-d on parking.

[25:21] there's an m-u-t-c-d on stop signs.

[25:24] so that's, there's national guidance on that

[25:27] and I don't have, we don't have the same things here.

[25:30] and so parking controls are mostly within the purview

[25:34] of the city council and so if some direction needs to change

[25:39] with regard to that, then that would be on

[25:40] a local level rather than national guidance.

[25:48] - okay, the only, I just had a few questions, this whole idea

[25:55] of creating parking for specific people groups.

[25:59] this, I understand our regular permit parking that,

[26:05] you know, okay, but people groups are,

[26:09] I'm assuming they're getting some type of colorized sticker

[26:14] or something for their specific people group

[26:16] and who manages those stickers, when people leave,

[26:21] when people move in, how did, what's the management program

[26:26] for people groups specific parking?

[26:30] - so the current, I'll just give you an over.

[26:35] the current permit parking program generally is by

[26:39] neighborhood, and so all of the neighborhoods have their own

[26:43] decals, stickers, hangers, and so they're all labeled

[26:50] accordingly, so they're all separated accordingly.

[26:53] and then most of them, not all of them, most of them expire on an annual basis.

[27:00] so that's the mechanism for renewal.

[27:05] and the only difference then is, is that in terra bella,

[27:11] you're just doing like, I guess for lack of a better term,

[27:14] off-site parking, that is guaranteed to a neighborhood that is somewhere else.

[27:19] - sorry.

[27:25] - so the only difference with terra bella,

[27:27] the reason why it makes it so different is because it's,

[27:31] it's not really, we're saying we're creating permit parking

[27:35] for their neighborhood, but it could be a neighborhood somewhere else.

[27:39] it doesn't have to be geographically connected.

[27:43] you can put, you can, you can say this, this

[27:46] street, down the street, is gonna be our parking.

[27:54] - I'm not sure I'm following them, I apologize.

[27:56] - it's terra bella didn't have enough parking, right?

[28:01] so you're designating the street, that is, in this case,

[28:06] close to terra bella as their parking space, their parking garage, right?

[28:13] so it's not in front of their homes, it can be somewhere else.

[28:16] so theoretically with that, you could designate parking

[28:21] in another location is what I'm saying.

[28:26] like, you could pick out a block, a few blocks

[28:29] away and say that's our block for our parking.

[28:32] - if you believe that that is an example worth following

[28:38] and you were to draw that, that out to a conclusion

[28:43] where you could assign any public street, I suppose.

[28:45] I'm not making that recommendation, ignore my,

[28:50] even, I'm not making that kind of recommendation, I'm not making any recommendation.

[28:54] so I would, I would say that,

[28:59] that's up for the traffic commission to debate,

[29:03] or decide and happy to provide any thought process on that.

[29:05] but I, I mean, I'm happy to write thoughts on that,

[29:10] but I would say, okay, I don't have any information

[29:12] otherwise on that.

[29:13] - and we know for sure this is the only place in our city where this is taking place.

[29:18] - yeah, again, I apologize, so there was 14 permit

[29:23] parking districts, and so my understanding is

[29:27] out of the 14 permit parking districts, 12 are neighborhood

[29:31] based for the frontage of residential streets,

[29:36] and then we have the commercial district,

[29:39] and we have this bella terra neighborhood.

[29:42] oh, is it in here?

[29:43] oh, let me see here, okay, so, those are the only two,

[29:57] that I'm aware of out of the 14.

[29:58] - okay, all right, that's good.

[30:01] any other questions for stan at this time?

[30:05] okay, we're gonna go ahead and move forward

[30:09] to public comment on this agenda item.

[30:12] are there clerk, is there any public comments on item 3.1?

[30:17] - yes, we have one speaker,

[30:20] the author of that nice letter, george falcone.

[30:23] - okay, sir, if you could come forward, thank you for being here tonight.

[30:28] - thanks for calling it a nice letter.

[30:30] george falcone, I was here last month.

[30:33] so, after the meeting last month, when the discussion was about the permit parking

[30:41] in the other areas, I was here,

[30:46] and my comment was more about the reduction of parking

[30:51] around, sorry, around begging and parking,

[30:54] we lost about 40 spaces with that.

[30:57] it did clean up the park, so there's no doubt about that,

[31:03] but it did reduce parking, and it affected us.

[31:08] now, we are 99 units, they're all privately owned.

[31:12] how many renters?

[31:14] I don't have that number, but I am, I own my own property, in my wife.

[31:22] and we saw the loss of 40 spaces, not just affecting the occasional's,

[31:33] not, you know, this isn't just solely a selfish matter.

[31:36] it does affect the community, because suddenly the apartment dwellers,

[31:41] or whoever else is using that parking, and doesn't

[31:43] even matter who it is, they are looking somewhere else,

[31:48] and that's why you guys have this, you know, bigger issue, broader issue.

[31:53] and it came up by not a resident of occasional's,

[31:56] better resident of sunset, that they brought up,

[32:00] the idea, well, why don't you park on the side of the street?

[32:03] and I'm sitting here in the audience, thinking,

[32:06] okay, I'll bring that up, you know, it's already

[32:08] offered, you know, by other community members.

[32:11] what's unique about this side of the property, this street, a beckyham street,

[32:16] and this side of the street is, it is directly adjacent

[32:20] to our community, and directly adjacent to our driveway.

[32:23] so, the idea of parking on wilkes is, it's also adjacent to our community,

[32:30] but there's no direct connection to it, right?

[32:32] so, and it's not to say it's not a bad idea

[32:35] of just saying that this one is by topography and by everything else is right there.

[32:42] it also doesn't affect any other neighborhood.

[32:45] so, directly affect any other neighbors,

[32:49] or any, you know, like if we were on wilkes,

[32:51] then possibly the people across the street

[32:53] would be, wait a minute, I didn't have people parking in front of me, now I do.

[32:56] so, this was kind of a reason that I brought it up,

[33:00] was to help alleviate, not only the parking for

[33:02] occasion knows, but for the broader community,

[33:05] because if, I think,

[33:08] staff probably hasn't gotten to the point of actually counting how many spaces I did,

[33:14] it looks like we probably have about 13 to 14 spaces

[33:16] available if we do that part of the street,

[33:19] that reduces the impact on the rest of the camp street for others to use.

[33:27] and so, that was kind of my idea when I brought it up to the streams.

[33:32] so, I just wanna share that.

[33:35] - okay, great, why don't you sit there for a second

[33:38] and let's ask the commissioners if they have any

[33:40] questions for you, anybody have any questions?

[33:44] for our speaker, we're good.

[33:46] well, we appreciate you being here tonight

[33:49] and sharing your comments.

[33:50] thank you so much.

[33:51] - sure, thank you.

[33:52] - five things.

[33:53] - are there any other comments on this agenda item?

[33:57] - no.

[33:58] - no other comments.

[33:59] okay, we're gonna bring this back to the commission

[34:03] for open discussion and recommendations on direction.

[34:08] and, mr. Caputto.

[34:13] - can we back on the screen,

[34:14] the staff recommendations, there were three options

[34:16] that you as a recommending, can I see that again?

[34:19] - there we go.

[34:23] - I have no other comments, but I'd like to make recommendations if possible.

[34:29] - what would you like to make a motion?

[34:32] - or, okay, what would your motion be?

[34:34] - I'd like to move this agenda to our next meeting.

[34:42] it hopes that we can get some more answers regarding the parking from cc and ours,

[34:47] so that then we could then adapt this

[34:50] into what our topic really is, is on parking for the city overall,

[34:53] as opposed to continuing to maneuver parking areas

[34:58] without the city 'cause we are continuing to move it around.

[35:06] so, until we have resolution on the overall city

[35:06] problem, it's hard to continue this conversation.

[35:10] - okay, so you're asking to move the agenda item

[35:14] to our consolidated meeting with the city council, and also what data did you want?

[35:22] - I think it's gonna see an hour of information

[35:24] on the parking in the garages.

[35:25] - okay. - it's use of garage.

[35:27] - okay, is staff clear on that motion?

[35:32] - I am, I guess, so for the september 16th meeting though,

[35:36] I was planning on putting on a singular agenda item,

[35:40] which was gonna talk about citywide parking

[35:45] on street sweeping issues, and then review the, and that would basically be a review

[35:49] of my june 23rd staff report to the city council,

[35:55] which I also reviewed here on july 15th,

[35:57] and then I had envisioned that once we got direction on that,

[36:02] that would allow us to re-agendize this particular item

[36:07] if warren said for the november meeting.

[36:10] - that was what I would like to do then.

[36:12] - okay, so you're changing your motion,

[36:16] then to move this item to the november meeting, but also grab the data for that.

[36:26] so staff understands that, okay, and do, I have a second, okay, we have a second,

[36:31] and clerk, can we take a vote on that motion?

[36:38] - commissioner caputo.

[36:39] - aye.

[36:42] - commissioner jones. - aye.

[36:43] - vice chair patel. - aye.

[36:46] - chair miller. - aye.

[36:49] - motion passes unanimously.

[36:50] - thank you, thank you, motion passes unanimously.

[36:53] thank you so much for being here tonight, sir, and bringing your comments, thank you.

[36:59] okay, we move forward to our next administrative report,

[37:04] 3.2, discussion of citywide street related traffic,

[37:12] concerns, and the residential street management, traffic management policy.

[37:17] and at this time, we'll receive staff reports.

[37:21] - thank you, next slide, please.

[37:26] so on april 30th, 2026,

[37:31] four months ago, the traffic commission held a special meeting,

[37:38] and one of the items on the special meeting agenda was the strategic planning workshop

[37:43] to discuss a comprehensive approach to traffic related concerns,

[37:47] which included discussion of citywide's speed related traffic concerns.

[37:53] and at the conclusion of that item, the traffic commission recommended a few things,

[37:58] that city staff returned to the traffic commission

[38:00] with a review of the compass data collection program

[38:04] that we briefly previewed.

[38:06] and it's a software program provided by the orange county

[38:08] transportation authority that captures anonymized vehicle data.

[38:12] and then to a literature review of the acceptable prevailing speed threshold

[38:17] for residential streets identified in existing lagoon hills

[38:21] residential traffic management policy number 350.

[38:25] in addition, the traffic commission recommended that the commissioners be prepared

[38:28] to present their individual recommended edits to policy number 350.

[38:33] so because the first item list requires a real-time review

[38:38] of a proprietary software program that can only be accessed by city staff.

[38:42] and the second item requires an additional

[38:44] context not easily conveyed in the agenda report.

[38:47] I'm making this city staff presentation in response to items one and two above.

[38:56] and then so the recommended action will be to receive a presentation of city staff

[39:03] and provide direction to city staff regarding policy 350.

[39:08] next slide, please.

[39:09] and so I want to talk about what this compass program is

[39:15] that we briefly started talking about in on april 30th.

[39:20] so the compass program is a proprietary software program

[39:28] from an australian company that takes anonymized vehicle data.

[39:35] next slide, please.

[39:38] so what is a connected vehicle?

[39:41] so most modern passenger private and freighting vehicles

[39:47] have a sim card embedded at the point of manufacture

[39:51] and the sim card allows and internet connections

[39:54] to connect to other devices or smart sensors

[39:57] and these connections allow the transfer of data

[39:59] between the car and the manufacturer.

[40:01] vehicles that have this capability are considered connected vehicles.

[40:06] and so as the program proponent indicates connected vehicles are like smart devices.

[40:16] and so some of the information presented

[40:18] in this brochure was written a few years ago,

[40:21] but it's still relatively accurate even today.

[40:25] so as of 2023 it was estimated that by 2030,

[40:30] 96% of all new cars will be globally connected in the united states as of 2020,

[40:38] 91% of the new cars sold were connected and my understanding

[40:43] from compass is that vehicles generally built after 2018 are connected vehicles.

[40:51] so the connected data connected vehicles provide is known to be more accurate

[40:56] than other forms of data collection.

[40:58] I think whether you realize it or not,

[41:01] even the cell phones that you carry, sends anonymized data

[41:05] and anonymized data can track where you're at

[41:11] and how fast this device moves

[41:14] and it can surmise that you're in a motor vehicle

[41:16] and that's also one of the ways that data is collected.

[41:21] in this case, we're talking about your car though,

[41:23] I mean newer cars.

[41:25] so the data connected vehicles provide

[41:27] is known to be more accurate than other forms

[41:29] of data collection according to the proponent of the software.

[41:34] different sensors in site connected vehicles

[41:36] are streaming via the cloud, machine learning analytics

[41:39] process, the raw sensor data and users can instantly access

[41:43] the real, the network wide and real time vehicle data from anywhere.

[41:47] next slide please.

[41:49] and then so how is this data different

[41:52] from other forms of data?

[41:53] and hopefully this will start to make sense

[41:55] in light of policy 350, which we'll eventually get to.

[41:59] so traditionally most data about drivers is collected using

[42:04] external hardware and you're all familiar with tube counts.

[42:07] we've talked about that in the traffic commission where we lie tubes across the road

[42:12] and we actually measure the, based upon how far apart

[42:15] the tubes are, the time it takes for the tire

[42:18] to hit the first tube versus the second tube

[42:20] and you can calculate the speed based upon the mathematics

[42:24] of that manual counts by people using radar device, cameras,

[42:31] mobile phone data that I just mentioned, external plug-in devices.

[42:36] and according to a compass, mobile data

[42:40] data sets can be unreliable or could be

[42:42] heavily skewed in vehicles or multiple devices.

[42:45] so if you're in a bus or a car with more than one person,

[42:49] hardware-reliant methods don't offer the same level

[42:51] of granularity and large scale hardware is difficult, expensive to scale.

[42:56] I can't put light tubes everywhere.

[42:59] so it would be prohibitively cost costly for the city to do, for anyone to do.

[43:04] next slide, please.

[43:06] so connective vehicle data from motor vehicles also has greater coverage and accuracy

[43:14] because it also collects other data, g-force,

[43:19] which is acceleration, breaking, swerving travel times, timestamps, median speed,

[43:24] making model, gyroscopic, and axis changes in latitude and longitude.

[43:30] next slide, please.

[43:33] so the benefits of connective vehicle data

[43:35] for use by public agencies is it can be proactive, granular,

[43:41] constant, and it provides opportunities to scale.

[43:46] next slide, please.

[43:49] and so with this type of data, it leads

[43:51] to use cases across road safety, freight origin destination,

[43:55] which is really important, really hard to collect origin and destination data.

[44:00] the traditional method of doing origin and destination,

[44:04] like if you want to know how many people were

[44:05] cutting through a neighborhood, for instance.

[44:08] you have seen in the past that we have had cameras up on poles

[44:12] and people have asked me what these cameras are.

[44:15] and I had forgotten that the cameras were out there,

[44:18] and they're just up there for a few days at a time.

[44:21] and what that was was just basically

[44:23] to photocapture plates so that way we could compare origin

[44:28] and destination that same plate into the neighborhood versus left the neighborhood.

[44:33] that's what that was used for.

[44:34] asset maintenance, transport modeling, parking capacity,

[44:38] and a variety of other things as you can see there.

[44:40] next slide, please.

[44:42] so the software, the claim they ingest billions

[44:49] of vehicle generated data from connected vehicles

[44:52] and online units across multiple makes and models means

[44:56] that the software can help solve complex problems

[44:59] that we can't capture everything with hardware.

[45:02] and then they're passively collected across every road

[45:05] so this helps folks like us make proactive decisions

[45:08] backed by data, and then I already went over some of the data

[45:13] that it collects anonymized data.

[45:16] next slide, please.

[45:18] and there are limitations of the data.

[45:21] so at this point in time, as I already mentioned earlier,

[45:27] not all cars provide anonymized connected vehicle data.

[45:33] cars generally built before 2018 don't provide the data.

[45:37] and then on top of that, not all the data

[45:41] is being transmitted all the time to the manufacturers

[45:45] and an insurance to companies like compass as anonymized data.

[45:50] so what that means in the last sentence

[45:54] is that not all of it is, however, for a robust analysis

[46:00] using connected vehicle data, it commonly accepted

[46:04] that if you have a sample size of 3% to 5%,

[46:07] you're generally capturing what's going on.

[46:10] and that's true, generally, in the real world.

[46:13] not that this is a perfect example,

[46:17] but when we do speed surveys that are required by state law

[46:20] every seven years to establish speed limits, 85th percentile,

[46:24] required to collect a sample of 100 vehicles.

[46:28] that is clearly it's not all the vehicles out there

[46:32] that travel every day or across a week.

[46:34] but that is a sample.

[46:36] and so next slide, please.

[46:40] and of course, the data, because it's only installed

[46:46] in newer vehicles, gives you a new car about bias.

[46:50] connected vehicles are going to be on new vehicles.

[46:56] and so it's important to consider how

[46:59] and areas, socioeconomics may impact the level of cd data available.

[47:05] I don't think that's a problem here in laguna hills.

[47:09] and then you have oems and third party vendors and databases.

[47:13] compass is only a subset of all connected vehicles.

[47:17] and it should increase in scales,

[47:19] older fleets of vehicles cycled through the population.

[47:21] next slide, please.

[47:24] if there is one.

[47:30] if there is not, next one.

[47:32] so at this point in time, I'm going to go sit

[47:34] where robert sat, and I'm going to show you what the program is.

[47:40] here it is right here.

[47:48] here's what we're trying to fill down and be mindful of here.

[47:50] we had a wireless line up, and a fire was mine.

[47:55] hope on and here, right?

[48:00] [inaudible] hello.

[48:08] does work?

[48:10] so this is not a perfect program.

[48:15] where's the mouse?

[48:16] does the mouse?

[48:17] this is the mouse.

[48:25] I'm wondering if we need to zoom in here so what is it?

[48:27] control s. Control x. How do you zoom in on this thing?

[48:36] yeah, let's do it.

[48:37] I'm going to do it a little bit more here.

[48:41] no, this is actually more of a problem.

[48:44] here we are.

[48:46] I don't think I can be filled on in here today.

[48:50] so I'm going to move my mouse here, and the mouse is--

[48:54] so I don't really care for the way that the software breaks

[49:00] down speeds in a different category is slower than 15.

[49:04] I'm between 15 and 40 isn't particularly helpful.

[49:07] and I'm still learning how to use some of this.

[49:10] but what is important here is I can do on the

[49:13] left-hand side, there is a path analysis over here.

[49:18] and then I can do a date selection.

[49:19] if you can see my tiny little mouse cursor here,

[49:22] it's next to date selection, which is august 10, august 26.

[49:31] and then I can click on any street, and click on any street,

[49:40] and I can see for--

[49:42] there's an example here.

[49:44] this is a street that we've talked about in the past

[49:47] that the 85th percentile of the sample of cars

[49:53] that have driven on the street for the month

[49:56] between july 10 and august 10 is 28 miles

[49:59] per hour, based upon collected vehicle data.

[50:02] and I can do that for any street in the city

[50:06] for most date ranges going back a couple years.

[50:10] and I can even break it down by days of the week and time of day.

[50:16] and so, theoretically, here's alicia parkway

[50:20] going southbound in front of the carl's jr.

[50:24] and in front of marshalls, the 85th percentile is 42.

[50:31] 25 miles per hour.

[50:37] here's 42.72 miles per hour.

[50:41] and then over here, people are picking up the speed

[50:43] and past gusto and the 85th percentile is 52 miles per hour.

[50:50] no, I would ignore that.

[50:53] that they would have gotten that data from some other source.

[50:58] and then as you can see here, I eat a 5th percentile.

[51:06] this is accurate here, 45 miles an hour.

[51:09] 51 miles an hour on this westbound laguna hills drive.

[51:17] and most-- not all streets as you get down to the--

[51:22] as you get down to a cul-de-sac, you're not going to find

[51:24] data because there's not enough sample of vehicles driving.

[51:28] but we could go over here 22 miles per hour.

[51:33] we can go to this street here.

[51:41] here is mustang over here, 31 32 miles per hour.

[51:49] over here, 28 miles an hour, 27 miles an hour.

[51:52] house of parkway would expect to be a fast roadway,

[51:54] which it is, 85th percentile is 57 miles an hour.

[51:57] let's see.

[52:09] west and east 38 and 41 miles an hour on this to the a-ho there.

[52:14] but then when they're approaching the newly implemented stop sign,

[52:18] we're at 30 on that segment on average.

[52:22] [inaudible]

[52:29] yeah, I haven't gotten to this yet.

[52:31] so what this is here, so if I can get the

[52:35] cursor to work, these are spots on the program.

[52:42] can I click on it?

[52:43] oh, I can just scroll my mouse.

[52:45] it's great.

[52:47] these are g-force, and I haven't played with this a lot.

[52:52] but this is our points on the map

[52:56] where the program believes people are

[53:00] experiencing hard breaking or hard turning.

[53:05] and it could be for-- it doesn't tell you why it's occurring.

[53:08] it just shows you where it's occurring.

[53:10] it could be because people are, in this case,

[53:14] maybe they're driving pretty fast approaching a red light

[53:17] and they are stopping too fast.

[53:19] or they-- this is a point where maybe someone

[53:21] was about ready to rear in someone else.

[53:25] or maybe they made a hard turn.

[53:26] or something happened over here.

[53:28] but I don't have-- I still have to play with this program.

[53:31] not surprisingly, there's a lot of points of g-force

[53:35] acceleration and stopping on a near-free ways for that reason.

[53:40] sometimes you've got some unexpected backups on southbound 5

[53:46] and it's sitting at osaparkway.

[53:47] and you're approaching stop vehicles and you're making a hard stop.

[53:56] again, there's a lot of those kinds of spots in near-free ways.

[53:59] but then there's also a few spots here that are shown on our trail highways.

[54:16] and not surprisingly, we have slow speeds within the future village at laguna hills.

[54:26] and then we can also see-- as a point of comparison,

[54:27] what's going on in our neighboring cities

[54:30] to draw conclusions on what maybe draw conclusions

[54:33] on what similar neighborhoods are experiencing,

[54:36] which is also helpful, right?

[54:40] and then we have-- also, here's mill creek.

[54:45] this is southbound 34 miles an hour and northbound 35 miles

[54:50] an hour, 85th percentile.

[54:51] [inaudible]

[55:02] so this is, no, 37 miles per hour here.

[55:08] so this is-- this legend is different than this part here.

[55:14] so-- oh, there you go.

[55:22] so the data appears to be correct.

[55:24] I am still learning how to do a variety of different things.

[55:28] but what we can do with this-- this is pretty cool.

[55:31] let's see if I can do this.

[55:33] sam's better at this than I am.

[55:37] unfortunately, she couldn't be here tonight.

[55:38] let's see here.

[55:42] are we still in laguna hills?

[55:47] I think that's laguna woods.

[55:48] now we are.

[55:48] we're getting back to laguna hills.

[55:51] so one of the things that we were working on over here

[55:55] is how many people go from here to here, as cut through.

[56:01] so I'm going to go and see if I can make this work.

[56:04] so I think if I do this, I draw a wow.

[56:22] and I want to say-- and now this is the path.

[56:36] oops.

[56:49] you can see the speed-- the 85th percentile is really interested here.

[56:53] you can see-- you see the car on the screen on the left-hand side?

[56:57] there's a little pink car I'm moving.

[56:59] so if I move my cursor here, this shows what the speed is

[57:04] on the specific path as you go around the-- as you traverse.

[57:09] and there was a stop sign back, I believe.

[57:11] this was when I dipped low.

[57:13] and then they go around the corner.

[57:14] so on any sample path that you choose,

[57:18] you can see where the 85th percentile is,

[57:21] and how that changes as you go around the corner.

[57:26] and obviously, this is connected to vehicle status.

[57:29] there's a few gaps here.

[57:33] you can see how that changes as the car speeds up and goes

[57:36] around the corner for the vehicle data that it did collect.

[57:40] and then what I wanted to show you, though,

[57:48] was the g4s, it's near misses.

[57:57] so there's a near miss thing where the g4s was a near miss,

[58:01] but another motor vehicle.

[58:18] [inaudible]

[58:27] when you do the view results, is it like you scroll down and you can see further?

[58:39] oh, thank you.

[58:45] yes, g4s, trajectory analysis, travel times.

[58:48] but I wanted to show you was there's

[58:52] a way on here of what percentage of vehicles are going through on that route.

[59:00] and you can do that with this.

[59:02] and I did it before.

[59:04] and I'm a little bit lost in how to do that.

[59:06] but just take my word for it that it does work.

[59:08] as long as there's enough connected vehicle data.

[59:12] so I wanted to demonstrate this to you.

[59:14] right now, I don't know how long we're

[59:18] going to have this information for.

[59:21] it's something occ is currently--

[59:24] orange county transportation authority is currently

[59:25] providing the cities this on a trial basis of that charge.

[59:31] eventually, they're going to stop doing that.

[59:33] and they're going to ask cities to individually pay

[59:37] for the program if they find it desirable.

[59:40] I still would like to play with it some more.

[59:43] I think there's a value in the program.

[59:47] I see the promise, at least with some program like this,

[59:49] there are other ones where maybe we can get away

[59:53] from using tubes in our decision-making process about what's valid, what's not valid,

[1:00:01] where are the hot spots, what's not, some like this may.

[1:00:05] in a meeting, just like this tonight,

[1:00:08] where you can sit here and in real time

[1:00:08] bring something up and decide if something

[1:00:12] is warrants for their analysis or not.

[1:00:16] so I think that's what I want to get across with this thing.

[1:00:19] it's not a perfect software, but it is available.

[1:00:22] can you download some of the results?

[1:00:24] I believe I can.

[1:00:26] there are-- there's an export data, but I've never done that.

[1:00:34] but it's over there.

[1:00:35] so I guess if we know that the trial period is expiring,

[1:00:39] you can always pick some of your hot spots like that data.

[1:00:43] I could do that.

[1:00:44] I've already looked at a few places that have come up

[1:00:47] a time and time again, and the information

[1:00:50] is interestingly no different than the tube counts were.

[1:00:52] well, within about a mile of an hour, that was my focus here, was this area here

[1:01:01] to see if the information was any different.

[1:01:03] I didn't find really any information that

[1:01:05] was different than what has been presented.

[1:01:08] that's how I kind of validated the model, I suppose,

[1:01:12] was we did this survey multiple times,

[1:01:15] and the information is basically the same.

[1:01:18] so that's what gave me some confidence.

[1:01:22] thank you for asking the question about whether

[1:01:24] or not this was validated and useful or not.

[1:01:35] so after you cover this part, we're going to be covering the 350.

[1:01:39] so while we're here with the application open,

[1:01:44] I'm going to ask if commissioners have any questions

[1:01:47] specifically about the application.

[1:01:49] mr. [inaudible] I think yes.

[1:01:52] I have a few.

[1:01:54] it's pulling off the vehicle information of being a connected vehicle.

[1:01:59] is it also able to pull off the owner information

[1:02:03] and is the security features behind that as well?

[1:02:05] no, I can't do that.

[1:02:07] the only information I can see is the one here on the screen.

[1:02:10] so this is a view-only program.

[1:02:15] so I don't have any access to any data behind it.

[1:02:19] I am informed that this is anonymized data.

[1:02:23] so I'm not capable of getting down to the granular level

[1:02:27] of making model of vehicles that provided the data.

[1:02:32] if that was your question.

[1:02:34] yeah, I mean, it said that it does show that different vehicles.

[1:02:38] but looking at it for several different reasons, obviously,

[1:02:43] if we see a repetitive pattern of a certain vehicle,

[1:02:49] the owner, it's repetitive for speeding,

[1:02:52] repetitive of where they park.

[1:02:54] it could be helpful service if this was adaptable or tweakable

[1:02:58] in the program that we can see repetitive cars

[1:03:01] where they're parking on streets to help us with data

[1:03:05] that we can say, hey, this is a hotspot area

[1:03:08] where they are continuing to be non-mobile.

[1:03:09] they're parking here and do they live there?

[1:03:10] do they live in the apartment complexes?

[1:03:13] that would be something that if it's tweakable,

[1:03:16] I think it would be a great opportunity for us,

[1:03:18] also seeing that with police services as well.

[1:03:23] you also noted that this is a cause of a program.

[1:03:27] is it going to be a licensing-based program?

[1:03:28] or do we know how that will line up?

[1:03:37] right now, occa held occa gave compass,

[1:03:44] the director of public works contact information for every city.

[1:03:48] and then compass, in turn, contacted me a few months ago

[1:03:53] and offered to give a presentation, and I honestly didn't even know what it was.

[1:03:56] I just, I got an email and I thought it was on a sales pitch and it kind of was.

[1:04:01] except they said, wait a second, wait a second, this is truly

[1:04:03] free and I'm like, not, I can't be free, you know, right?

[1:04:06] you know, like, no, no, somebody else paid for this.

[1:04:08] I'm like, oh, okay.

[1:04:09] so I took the call and then had the appointment

[1:04:13] and sam and I met with them and they said,

[1:04:18] what would you, you know, we can give you

[1:04:19] only city staff and give you, you know, a couple of

[1:04:23] licenses which is just your username and password.

[1:04:27] and so as of right now, I don't know what the licensing

[1:04:31] even looks like 'cause right now it's complimentary.

[1:04:34] so when it does kind of time to actually adopt this

[1:04:39] into usage, assuming there will become a licensing fee for us.

[1:04:41] assuming at some point in time, look at the cost value

[1:04:44] of what the current traditional surveys cost for the tubing in relation to unlimited,

[1:04:50] multiple opportunities to be live and a meeting

[1:04:54] and be able to see what's happening in the

[1:04:56] opportunity is something that we need to consider.

[1:04:58] - I think I won't call it priceless.

[1:05:00] this sounds like a master card commercial but I mean it sounds priceless to me.

[1:05:04] - thank you.

[1:05:05] - agreed.

[1:05:06] - thank you, that's all I have.

[1:05:07] - okay.

[1:05:08] - are you stupid or nothing?

[1:05:09] - yeah.

[1:05:12] - not on this.

[1:05:14] just a few things.

[1:05:16] so currently right now, the cities have access to this data.

[1:05:23] it just seems like such a wonderful wealth of information.

[1:05:31] I'm just amazed, it's a lot of folks

[1:05:36] they're concerned about us putting cameras out there

[1:05:44] to collect data and then I look at all this data

[1:05:46] and they don't even realize their car is transmitting data.

[1:05:51] currently, does our police services take advantage

[1:05:58] of any of this data to find hotspots or anything like that?

[1:06:04] - I have not had an opportunity to sit down

[1:06:09] with the motor deputies or with our police chief to go through this, that's on me.

[1:06:15] I'm still learning a little bit how to use it,

[1:06:17] sort of like train the trainer kind of program.

[1:06:20] so I wanted to go through and actually learn a

[1:06:23] little bit more how to use this and again, do some,

[1:06:27] again, comparisons with some of our past traffic engineering

[1:06:30] reports and really verify the validity of that.

[1:06:34] I think part of what I wanted to get out of the traffic

[1:06:36] emissions tonight when it sounds like you already

[1:06:38] have a lot of interest in it is how much of a tool

[1:06:41] do you see this to be and how much, you know,

[1:06:44] what kind of effort should we put into this and this

[1:06:45] sounds like we should put a lot of effort into it?

[1:06:48] - real quickly from our police chief, sir.

[1:06:52] - yes, hello, just wanted to comment.

[1:06:55] no, we do not use this software to find speeders at this time.

[1:06:59] we base our enforcement on where collisions occur

[1:07:03] in the city and we try to do our enforcement in that area to curb those collisions.

[1:07:09] so, just wanted to-- thank you.

[1:07:12] I appreciate this.

[1:07:14] it sounds like from the commission unless I'm getting

[1:07:18] this wrong that there's a lot of interest in this tool.

[1:07:24] it's an amazing amount of data that we're

[1:07:27] getting here and depending on how you analyze it.

[1:07:32] I mean, even the tool that you showed where you draw the line down one street

[1:07:36] and then another street and you can see if there's any cross-through traffic going

[1:07:42] in that neighborhood and you can analyze that is a wonderful tool and the fact

[1:07:52] that cars that are 2018 and older or newer

[1:07:57] are putting out this kind of data,

[1:08:01] which is very significant, very significant.

[1:08:06] - did you have something, neil?

[1:08:08] - just had a quick question.

[1:08:10] so, it was the concern from our police services

[1:08:14] that is it technically using this kind of real time data

[1:08:18] or data from after the fact considered like speed trap

[1:08:22] where you're trying to monitor traffic?

[1:08:25] - no sir, there's no concern from us at this point

[1:08:29] as far as I know I haven't contacted legal or anything,

[1:08:32] but just speaking from myself from what I know

[1:08:34] on using this type of software, in fact,

[1:08:37] it may be something that we could look at

[1:08:40] in the future and see where the trends of speeding are.

[1:08:43] like we would have no problem with that,

[1:08:46] but it's not a sheriff's department data system,

[1:08:51] so it's before using it, it's something that we would look into

[1:08:54] whether it's appropriate to use for enforcement purposes, you know what I mean?

[1:09:00] but it looks like it looks very interesting to me.

[1:09:04] I can see where the speeders are and things

[1:09:05] like that might be some places to hang out,

[1:09:07] and I can almost guarantee that some of those places

[1:09:09] are where our collisions are occurring, you know, at the speeding areas.

[1:09:17] - and then mr. Ames, just a quick question.

[1:09:19] so, is this even able to kind of detect

[1:09:22] if like a signal like a stoplight is mistimed, causing like backup?

[1:09:28] no, okay.

[1:09:29] - no, it doesn't do anything.

[1:09:31] it doesn't monitor queuing, unfortunately, that I'm aware of.

[1:09:34] it doesn't monitor queuing that I'm aware of.

[1:09:36] - okay.

[1:09:40] are you seeking direction from the commission to recommend to the city council

[1:09:45] to pursue a subscription to this type of data?

[1:09:49] - no, I wasn't looking at that.

[1:09:51] I think where I wanted to go with this was the reason why this came up

[1:09:56] at the april 30th meeting, it was in context

[1:10:01] with the residential streets management policy.

[1:10:06] and so the answer is maybe,

[1:10:08] but the larger context that I wanted to give

[1:10:11] was we currently, in our residential

[1:10:15] streets management policy, have this iterative process.

[1:10:18] and part of the iterative process is the data collection effort.

[1:10:21] - yeah.

[1:10:22] - I guess I would like to see, if for my two cents,

[1:10:27] I would like to be able to use a tool like this

[1:10:29] so that whether or not that data collection effort should even be done to start with

[1:10:35] as sort of a screening tool.

[1:10:37] - so you would like to hear from the commission

[1:10:39] if there is interest in pursuing this application.

[1:10:44] so I don't know if we need to take a vote on that,

[1:10:47] but I think I'm hearing a positive response

[1:10:50] from all the commissioners

[1:10:52] that we would like to pursue this application.

[1:10:56] - okay, I think we'll just take it at that because when and if the freebie stops

[1:11:04] we'll have to then budget it in our it budget,

[1:11:08] like every other software we normally subscribe to.

[1:11:11] so I'll just take that for what it is.

[1:11:13] and then I would next like to talk about the

[1:11:17] actual policy 350 because there was ambits swing

[1:11:21] getting to the commissioner's thoughts on edits.

[1:11:24] there was an interim question about what is this 32 to 34 mile an hour thing?

[1:11:28] - right, right.

[1:11:29] - so I kind of wanted to go, my binder's over there,

[1:11:31] so I'm gonna go back over there and then I'm gonna try to explain what that was.

[1:11:36] - do you have something else on the software?

[1:11:38] - more like the 350, you know,

[1:11:41] could we just easily add in a section g under data collection?

[1:11:44] - so we're gonna get to the edits.

[1:11:45] - yeah.

[1:11:46] - we're gonna get to the edits.

[1:11:48] - yeah.

[1:11:49] - yes.

[1:11:52] - I haven't heard the word fill down a hue like in forever,

[1:11:56] but I know exactly who he is.

[1:12:01] - you might have had an area to do.

[1:12:02] (laughing)

[1:12:06] - so, policy 350.

[1:12:13] so there was a lot of conversation about the paragraph.

[1:12:21] where is 32 to 34 miles an hour come in as an

[1:12:25] acceptable range of speeds on a 25 mile an hour,

[1:12:32] either posted roadway or a de facto speed limit

[1:12:35] on a residential street?

[1:12:37] and so the answer is actually within the

[1:12:40] paragraph and you have to read it a few times.

[1:12:43] it's a kind of get what it's trying to say to you.

[1:12:46] so I'm gonna read it to you and then I'm gonna tell you

[1:12:49] really what that means.

[1:12:51] - from an engineering perspective.

[1:12:52] - page page 32, 36 of your agenda packet.

[1:12:55] page four of the city council policy number 350.

[1:13:00] - okay.

[1:13:05] so, I will read it to you.

[1:13:09] so through numerous studies of traffic speeds

[1:13:12] on residential streets in the city, it has been found that the typical prevailing

[1:13:18] traffic speed range is between 32 and 34 miles per hour.

[1:13:23] now, we just clicked on some streets on compass

[1:13:28] and I am seeing 85th percentile's at 28 miles an hour,

[1:13:32] 27 miles an hour on some of the streets

[1:13:34] and we've also been looking at

[1:13:39] some streets where the 85th percentile is, 31, 33 miles per hour.

[1:13:46] so keep that in mind.

[1:13:49] and so the prevailing speed is the speed at

[1:13:51] which 85% of the motorists drive at or below.

[1:13:55] and the next sentence is, if motorists are driving on a

[1:13:58] residential street in that 32 to 34 mile an hour range,

[1:14:03] because the author at the time of writing this said that based upon the traffic,

[1:14:09] the studies conducted around that time

[1:14:14] that the results of the residential request

[1:14:19] for, you know, redoing speeds,

[1:14:22] the 85th percentile came back a lot of times

[1:14:25] as 32 to 34 miles an hour.

[1:14:27] that's what the author is trying to say.

[1:14:29] and the author is saying that if they are doing so safely

[1:14:33] as evidenced by the lack of documented speed-related traffic collisions.

[1:14:39] so we first have to accept that the speed studies

[1:14:42] coming back should the 85th percentile on a residential

[1:14:47] street has been coming back by the city's own traffic studies

[1:14:51] of 32 to 34 miles per hour.

[1:14:54] and the study found that there were not any

[1:14:56] traffic collisions reported in a five-year period.

[1:15:02] and a field review of the location, and that reveal any

[1:15:03] unusual conditions raising other concerns for traffic safety.

[1:15:09] then that speed range will not automatically trigger

[1:15:12] implementation as policy.

[1:15:15] so what the author is, I believe, trying to say

[1:15:19] is that if the majority of your speeds

[1:15:22] being reported on a residential street,

[1:15:26] 85th percentile, or 32 to 34 miles an hour,

[1:15:29] and those studies have found that there are no documented collisions,

[1:15:34] and there are no other extenuating circumstances,

[1:15:38] then it's something that doesn't need to be addressed.

[1:15:41] that's-- that's-- unless you've got a ticket.

[1:15:48] what's that?

[1:15:49] unless you've got a ticket.

[1:15:50] unless you've got a ticket.

[1:15:52] accordingly, actions to address speeding issues

[1:15:55] on residential streets will only be recommended

[1:15:58] when the prevailing speed of traffic on the street

[1:16:00] has been then found to be greater than 32 to 34 miles per hour,

[1:16:04] or other unusual conditions exist on the roadway

[1:16:07] that raise traffic safety concerns

[1:16:10] as determined by the traffic engineer.

[1:16:13] so without having had the benefit of the compass data,

[1:16:18] but after having done many, many studies

[1:16:22] based upon many complaints of speeding in neighborhoods,

[1:16:28] the author has found that none of the--

[1:16:33] but even though it was above 25 miles per hour,

[1:16:38] based upon the lack of documented traffic collisions

[1:16:42] or other things that would indicate there's a problem,

[1:16:45] there doesn't need to be any further work or physical devices

[1:16:49] or any further consideration made because that is the 85th percentile on the roadway.

[1:16:54] that is the 85th percentile that I wish everybody else.

[1:16:57] it's a network-wide speed.

[1:17:02] and so therefore, you need to draw a line somewhere of what

[1:17:05] is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

[1:17:07] the author has written that this--

[1:17:10] and then it was later adopted by the city council

[1:17:13] that this line is the 32 to 34 mile an hour line.

[1:17:18] I guess I would submit-- I don't have any--

[1:17:21] so that's just my interpretation of what this is.

[1:17:25] but I would submit that the next part of the question

[1:17:28] from april 30th was, does that line need to be moved up, down, or left alone?

[1:17:35] and I would say that up until now we've never had a software like compass

[1:17:41] to tell us if we move the line up or down as a line of concern,

[1:17:47] how many more or less streets would then be of concern in this policy,

[1:17:55] which would warrant action?

[1:17:57] so that's the data I don't have for you because I just don't have the data yet.

[1:18:02] ok.

[1:18:03] I have a question.

[1:18:05] yes.

[1:18:06] so on that-- so the basis for the 305 is not about

[1:18:09] speeding or breaking the law, the speed limit.

[1:18:15] it is purely about whether we need to regulate the speed of travel

[1:18:19] on that for a very safe passage.

[1:18:22] the purpose of 350 is about the threshold at which you

[1:18:29] install additional traffic control devices to affect the-- yes.

[1:18:37] I think we're in an agreement.

[1:18:38] that's fine.

[1:18:38] I'm going to clear up this on my past comment about getting a ticket.

[1:18:41] yeah.

[1:18:42] so this is about traffic control devices and when is it appropriate

[1:18:48] or recommended to start installing traffic control devices because there's an outlier.

[1:18:54] the roadway is an outlier and the otherwise network of roads and laguna hills.

[1:19:00] ok.

[1:19:01] thank you for the clarification.

[1:19:02] yeah.

[1:19:03] let me do this real quick.

[1:19:04] so we can stay to the format and just touch

[1:19:06] all the bases before we get to the discussion.

[1:19:09] so does that conclude the staff report at this time?

[1:19:14] yes, it does.

[1:19:15] ok.

[1:19:16] all right.

[1:19:18] ok.

[1:19:21] so at this point, we're going to go to commissioner

[1:19:25] questions for staff on any of these items.

[1:19:29] and then we'll also ask for public comment on this agenda item.

[1:19:35] so are there any questions for staff at this point based

[1:19:39] on the items that we've covered during the staff report?

[1:19:43] yeah, the question.

[1:19:46] why is it at 85 percentile?

[1:19:50] it's just like the 32, 34.

[1:19:52] why do we pick?

[1:19:57] because if you increase your decrease it,

[1:20:01] you know, it have pretty significant ramifications on where you put.

[1:20:13] I'm just asking why the 85th percentile is

[1:20:17] the traffic engineering world also state law,

[1:20:21] based on what you establish speed limits on other roadways.

[1:20:25] so the presumption is rightly or wrong,

[1:20:29] that 85% of the drivers on the roadway are driving.

[1:20:36] samely, I suppose, and 15% are driving maybe not as well.

[1:20:44] and so I have to do a literature review on that.

[1:20:47] but the 85th percentile is the line at which you decide where

[1:20:50] the threshold should be for establishment of a speed limit,

[1:20:55] which is the reason why we do our speed limit surveys every

[1:20:59] seven years for establishing speed limits on roadways.

[1:21:04] and we actually have to go through on arterial highways and collector roadways,

[1:21:08] and actually do the sample of the hundred cars that I talked about earlier,

[1:21:12] and then that in turn informs and recommends where speed limits should be set.

[1:21:19] so it's that same sort of idea that the acceptable

[1:21:23] speed at which people drive is that 85th percentile,

[1:21:27] because it's just been practice, and it's

[1:21:30] been that practice for long before I was here.

[1:21:34] so that's my answer right now, but I'm happy to get back to you

[1:21:37] with more information on why the benefit of the sample is set.

[1:21:45] I was curious, it's things come into practice and never kind of get looked at.

[1:21:50] so I'm happy to provide more information and some traffic commission.

[1:21:54] and I'm sure it's a state.

[1:21:56] it is.

[1:21:57] so 85th percentile number is a state thing for setting speed limits.

[1:22:01] why 85th percentile came in a practice?

[1:22:04] I would need to do a little chance of that.

[1:22:06] some study.

[1:22:08] so many came up with the numbers.

[1:22:10] I'm going to happen in 1970 and several of it now.

[1:22:13] sure.

[1:22:14] [inaudible]

[1:22:17] yeah, just, it was a question.

[1:22:19] so any other specific questions, we're going to go through

[1:22:22] the questions then we're going to ask for, you know,

[1:22:25] the formal public comment, and then we'll come back to discussion.

[1:22:31] that's pretty much where we're going to do a

[1:22:32] lot of the heavy lifting on this agenda item,

[1:22:34] including the edits and all those things.

[1:22:37] so any other more specific questions on this item?

[1:22:41] okay.

[1:22:42] clerk, are there any public comments on this agenda item?

[1:22:47] no, they're not.

[1:22:48] and there are no electronic comments.

[1:22:50] okay.

[1:22:51] thank you so much.

[1:22:52] okay. We're going to bring it back to the commission for discussion and edits.

[1:22:59] and I had just, just as an overview, just

[1:23:03] actually speaking to what you just said was,

[1:23:07] I just had something I wanted to say as we go into the discussion and edits.

[1:23:13] and that is, so the policy was created in '95 and the last refresh on it.

[1:23:21] was august 28th, 2018.

[1:23:25] so since then, many changes have taken place.

[1:23:30] we have more population.

[1:23:33] we have permit parking impacts.

[1:23:36] we now have e-bikes.

[1:23:38] we have new developments that are coming into the city.

[1:23:42] we have a lot more behavior that's connected with parking.

[1:23:46] even the way that we maintain our streets has been impacted

[1:23:50] with the cycle of how we're maintaining our streets.

[1:23:56] because of the fiber install that we did here in the city, a lot

[1:24:00] of our streets look very interesting right now as a patchwork.

[1:24:04] and so, as was just mentioned, the policy was created in that timestamp.

[1:24:12] 2018 was the refresh on that.

[1:24:16] so obviously, we're here to look at, you know, what would the edits be?

[1:24:21] how can we make this policy better?

[1:24:24] even looking at the software tonight is a major

[1:24:28] addition to how the policy could be treated.

[1:24:37] so, all that being said, it's been eight years

[1:24:41] since the city council has touched this policy.

[1:24:45] so, they're probably not even aware that this policy needs updates.

[1:24:51] so, all that being said, we're going to go ahead and bring

[1:24:55] it back to the commissioners for discussion and for edits.

[1:24:59] would you like to, should we just start with the edits?

[1:25:03] and we can start creating a list of those.

[1:25:08] I think that would be helpful.

[1:25:11] I think it would also be helpful to discuss why you're making edits.

[1:25:16] why, okay.

[1:25:19] with the recommendations that you would be making, I'd

[1:25:23] like to know the why so that way I can provide context.

[1:25:27] okay. And I also wanted to state, you know, this was on our last agenda.

[1:25:32] and mr. Caputo, he couldn't make it to that meeting.

[1:25:36] and it was unanimous.

[1:25:38] we didn't want to do this without you.

[1:25:41] yeah.

[1:25:42] yeah.

[1:25:44] it was important because we realized that you were putting work

[1:25:48] into this and into what, into what those edits would look like.

[1:25:52] so, why don't we start with you, with your edits, and if you'd like.

[1:25:57] and staff is asking for the edit and the reason for the edit.

[1:26:02] I can't, I can't ask about it.

[1:26:04] oh.

[1:26:05] okay.

[1:26:06] you're, you're, you're.

[1:26:08] I don't think that's, he's got some great things there.

[1:26:11] okay, great.

[1:26:12] wonderful.

[1:26:13] neil, would you like to start?

[1:26:14] yeah, I can start.

[1:26:15] I kind of had just two things really.

[1:26:23] so, regarding section three data collection,

[1:26:25] I wanted to add a separate section g, stating

[1:26:27] that if available the data collection may be

[1:26:29] conducted using a third party data source.

[1:26:31] if it available by city staff to conduct, you know, sections d through f.

[1:26:42] and then the second one, kind of, I don't think I can really regarding

[1:26:46] section four approach the speeding issues that mr. Ames pointed out.

[1:26:50] I think for me, I'd like to see data on whether that threshold really makes sense.

[1:26:56] given different.

[1:26:58] not the 85, but the actual 32 to the 34.

[1:27:02] whether that makes sense in every part of this community.

[1:27:05] and so, I was wondering if there would be support from the rest of our

[1:27:08] commission to see if we could split this city into three kind of zones.

[1:27:12] north laguna hills, central laguna hills, which is defined north of la paz.

[1:27:16] and then kind of molten, molten flash.

[1:27:21] the, uh, meligale neighborhoods where you have south of la paz.

[1:27:26] to see if those 85 percentile is based on those three zones very significantly,

[1:27:30] just because the neighborhoods are very different, the development is different.

[1:27:35] and the expected development is going to be different between those three areas.

[1:27:39] and so, for me, that kind of made sense regarding

[1:27:41] what we saw with the compass data tonight.

[1:27:44] so, not really an action item on that second piece, but, you know, a

[1:27:48] continuation is I think what I'd like to see after we get more data.

[1:27:52] okay, does the staff understand that statement?

[1:27:57] I think it's an excellent suggestion.

[1:28:00] okay. Do you need a y for that?

[1:28:05] okay, all right.

[1:28:07] okay.

[1:28:08] all right, wonderful.

[1:28:09] were those your edits?

[1:28:11] yep.

[1:28:12] okay, mr. Jones, would you like to present your edits?

[1:28:15] first one is initiating an evaluation page one page one.

[1:28:28] and, uh, the second sentence for the bottom, it's, uh, going

[1:28:30] back to the 18-month period that's been previously evaluated.

[1:28:45] you know, over time, we've seen, you know, we would file a report and

[1:28:48] then maybe two meetings later, you get a pile of pile of people in.

[1:28:50] so, I think the 18-month is, you know, is, is long.

[1:29:01] now, you do have, um, a page two that, that's a traffic

[1:29:03] engineer comes, you know, override the 18-months.

[1:29:15] but, I just, I just think it's just, it seems

[1:29:16] to me a long period of time because these

[1:29:17] things, if it's an issue in one meeting, it's generally going to keep, keep coming up.

[1:29:19] and, if you're saying, you're not going to do anything 18-months.

[1:29:25] what's your recommendation on what the time period should be?

[1:29:32] um, I actually think it should be knocked out and just have, you know,

[1:29:36] have a, you know, at the discretion of the commission and the traffic.

[1:29:41] so, remove that complete.

[1:29:52] it's going to come up multiple times at a commission meeting,

[1:29:55] or if you're getting, or if mr. Ames is getting phone calls and,

[1:30:08] it's kind of a moot point, if it asks me. Okay, just, just my opinion.

[1:30:11] okay, does, uh, the staff understand that recommendation and the reason why?

[1:30:17] I do understand the recommendation and the reason why, um, I guess, my, I guess

[1:30:21] my concern is then, what, what does the, what does the feedback look like?

[1:30:34] I mean, how does, if there's no time limit on that, um, I guess, so if I took the,

[1:30:38] that, um, commission at the cell, made on g, and then I remove the time limit on here.

[1:30:46] I guess, then, if those two recommendations were put into implementation, or we remove

[1:30:50] the time limit, but then I have a new tool

[1:30:52] that allows me to see if anything's changed.

[1:30:56] would that, and then I declare that it's nothing's changed, does that, does that take

[1:31:00] care of the problem, or does it need to be brought back to the traffic commission?

[1:31:30] my only worry is then loading up the traffic commission agenda with, with items.

[1:31:33] I guess that's what I'm trying to get more clarification.

[1:31:39] that we have to put an 18 months, you know, it's

[1:31:41] going to continue to come up. It's just, I think it's

[1:31:43] kind of a redundant because it's, but just, you

[1:31:45] know, in my opinion, you're going to clarify that.

[1:31:48] so when you mean strike out, like strike out if the identified issue blah,

[1:31:51] blah, blah, and then even that second sentence after that no further evaluation.

[1:31:59] yeah. Yeah. So it currently the way the policy is

[1:32:03] written, and correct, staff correct me if I'm wrong.

[1:32:16] even though it does say 18 months, the, the city engineer

[1:32:18] has a lot of, if you look through the whole policy, and

[1:32:20] I know that we all have, there's a lot of discretion for

[1:32:23] the city engineer to step up and say something's changed.

[1:32:28] we have new data, there's new input, and that

[1:32:31] basically wipes out that 18 month timeline anyways.

[1:32:44] but, but I understand what you're saying. And,

[1:32:46] and so, and so what, so what you'd like to see

[1:32:48] is, is specifically, you want to see from the word

[1:32:50] if, and that entire sentence all the way down.

[1:32:53] so directs. And, and then, and then on the next page

[1:32:57] getting rid of no further evaluation will be performed.

[1:33:03] so in other words, we're removing all of those words. Exactly.

[1:33:07] okay. Does, does staff understand that recommendation?

[1:33:11] I understand the recommendation, but I, I don't agree with it.

[1:33:15] okay. Okay. All right. That's okay.

[1:33:19] that's okay. And then next is number two evaluation process. Okay.

[1:33:38] if fair first sentence, when a resident raises traffic

[1:33:40] safety concern, then, I'd like to add, you know,

[1:33:42] total volume of traffic amount of pass through

[1:33:43] traffic, and then add to that, both parking and noise.

[1:33:45] okay. So, say, say that again. What sentence is that?

[1:33:49] um, the first, first sentence. The first paragraph.

[1:33:52] yeah. It has a, a number of criteria. Okay.

[1:33:55] and you want to ask the, uh, collision events, pedestrian

[1:33:59] access issues, then add to that parking and noise.

[1:34:03] so, comma, parking and noise. Okay. Does staff understand that recommendation?

[1:34:11] can we add, um, you know, street sweeping or

[1:34:15] like a road maintenance? Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

[1:34:19] uh, like a behavioral aspect with like the trash or something like that. Yeah.

[1:34:27] does, does staff need a, a why for that? Yes, please.

[1:34:30] yeah. I think, you know, we had two or three meetings ago.

[1:34:42] an issue from laguna woods on, you know, what's concerning is you're getting, um, you

[1:34:45] know, the street takeovers, the intersection

[1:34:47] takeovers, which is a noise issue, obviously.

[1:34:56] and then if, you know, we're seeing a legal parking to have, to have people

[1:35:00] have, have, uh, citizens come up and, you know, address that with us also.

[1:35:10] and then, um, possibly it's street sweeping because I personally,

[1:35:13] when street sweeping initially came up, I was kind of pro brewing it.

[1:35:24] I think it's a big tool that we should be using

[1:35:26] more to make sure that cars are staying put for one.

[1:35:32] they're not being moved like, like I'm, like I'm the old most right, for example.

[1:35:36] so I, yeah, I think street sweeping is a big, is an issue.

[1:35:46] okay. So, so you added your words, um,

[1:35:47] mr. Patel, you added the street sweeping and then

[1:35:50] could I change the second to adverse on social behavior, adverse on social behavior.

[1:35:57] so, yeah, because, because, yeah, we saw, we saw it. But how do we, how do we

[1:36:00] define that, though? Because we're being very specific with the other words.

[1:36:06] you know, we're talking about, that's very specific street sweeping, we're,

[1:36:10] we're talking about very specific things. How do we define that term?

[1:36:19] I think, you know, adverse on social behavior, such as

[1:36:22] littering, you know, drug use, yeah, sexual, yeah, something.

[1:36:27] so in other words, you would have to add that statement

[1:36:30] and then you would have to put some examples, such as,

[1:36:40] when people are seeing, you know, right, needles.

[1:36:42] well, we've had a lot of public speakers. I

[1:36:43] mean, it can also include things like, you know,

[1:36:46] drag racing, donuts, you know, things like that.

[1:36:48] okay. But that would have to be defined, though, right?

[1:36:51] okay. Staff has some comments on this.

[1:36:58] yeah, I do. Sorry. Yeah, no, no. Yeah, we can see the body language. We're

[1:37:01] throwing things out there. No, I appreciate that, actually. So, a few comments.

[1:37:08] so, this is a residential streets traffic management policy.

[1:37:11] so, it's not meant to be applied to arterial highways or even collector roadways.

[1:37:18] and the end result of this residential streets management

[1:37:22] policy at the back is about traffic control devices. Okay.

[1:37:26] so, I'm, I'm appreciate that all of those are concerns.

[1:37:30] we've heard all those concerns. I'm just not sure.

[1:37:39] we're stuck there applicable to this policy because I can't,

[1:37:41] I can't measure noise and I wouldn't know how to put up a sign

[1:37:43] to address noise or put in a speed hump to address noise or

[1:37:45] street maintenance or trash or anything else related to that.

[1:37:47] okay. This is a, that's a good point.

[1:37:49] yeah, this is a, a speeding, this is relating to speeding.

[1:37:52] okay. Yeah. So, I, I think if, if we want to address

[1:37:55] those other items, that would be in a different place.

[1:38:04] so, how do these recommendations then, what's been

[1:38:06] presented by mr. Jones in regards to moving the

[1:38:08] timeline and those things, those, those are

[1:38:10] applicable to the, you know, obviously to the policy.

[1:38:14] but in regards to the other, other items that were just presented,

[1:38:18] what portion of that is acceptable to the policy or is there nothing?

[1:38:25] I, I, I wouldn't call, I wouldn't couches acceptable or not acceptable. I would

[1:38:29] more couch it is, whether or not it's within the realm of what the policy is.

[1:38:37] so, I wouldn't say noises, trash, street sweeping, street maintenance,

[1:38:41] I mean adverse, the donuts on the roadways, unless they occur.

[1:38:47] and in the middle of a residential street, most of the

[1:38:49] donuts are occurring on white or arterial highways. I don't

[1:38:51] think, I think it's pretty hard to do a donut on

[1:38:53] intersection of two small residential streets, but maybe not.

[1:38:58] great route in victoria, that's the end of victoria. Those are not

[1:39:00] residential streets, those sort of arterial highway in a, okay.

[1:39:03] in the collector roadway, so I guess I'm just trying to illustrate

[1:39:06] that I think those things belong in a different discussion.

[1:39:09] okay, somewhere else outside of this policy.

[1:39:12] so that's fine. Are you good on that?

[1:39:15] okay, absolutely. Okay, that's good.

[1:39:18] all right, you can continue with your edits, please.

[1:39:46] I remember five, you know, one of the things that we get hit

[1:39:49] with on a lot of the streets is they're relatively low volume.

[1:39:53] so we're talking about, you know, 1,500 and number five.

[1:39:57] which page are you on? I know. It's approach to volume issues.

[1:40:13] okay, got it. All these streets are relatively

[1:40:15] low volume, and so if we, it's difficult,

[1:40:17] you know, to get to the volumes, to put in, you know, some of the speed controls.

[1:40:31] is, is the amount of volume necessary is the 1500,

[1:40:33] a adjustable, or is it something that, again,

[1:40:39] and the reason I ask is just, we hit it and you're going, well, it

[1:40:42] doesn't make any sense to put it because the volumes are so small.

[1:40:48] and, so it's kind of a more of a question than.

[1:40:51] so you don't like the way the volumes are presented, or it, or it doesn't make sense.

[1:40:58] why do we use, if volumes, like that? Yeah.

[1:41:02] okay, so for some.

[1:41:03] so this requires a little bit of, I think, historical context.

[1:41:16] so this, this part here is, it's related to speeding, it's

[1:41:19] related to residential streets, but there was a point in time.

[1:41:23] when the city was a newer city that there was a lot of concerns,

[1:41:27] more concerns there are today about cut through traffic.

[1:41:32] yeah. Hi, and I'm a little bit surmising here,

[1:41:36] but I, I, but I also used to work here years ago.

[1:41:40] so I, I think I know what this is trying to say.

[1:41:45] this is, this paragraph is trying to talk about what an

[1:41:48] acceptable level of number of vehicles should be on a street.

[1:41:53] and I think what it's, it's the volume of pass through traffic.

[1:41:58] so what it's trying to get at is the notion that there needs to be.

[1:42:06] gates or hard stops in the middle of a block to redirect traffic to another street.

[1:42:17] and I, I believe what this is trying to get at is what are the acceptable thresholds

[1:42:20] for vehicles going down a residential streets,

[1:42:23] the point where it becomes of a concern.

[1:42:25] case in point, we're aware of in some neighborhoods,

[1:42:28] the neighborhood that we're talking about right now.

[1:42:31] beck and ham street, cammerwell, wilkes, they have the

[1:42:35] double gates over there to separate out the motorists.

[1:42:44] on beck and ham from being able to turn on cammerwell

[1:42:46] to turn on wilkes, you had previously heard from prior

[1:42:48] speakers that have history in the area about why those

[1:42:50] were put up, and why they were maybe put up after the fact.

[1:42:52] and I think that's what this is meant to address.

[1:42:55] it's kind of a, it's a, it's an adjoining but not direct topic with speeding.

[1:43:03] it's meant to address that if there's a lot of cars on the roadway and

[1:43:07] they're all speeding, you know, we should be talking about volume as well.

[1:43:12] and so this is just slightly, slightly different thing than the rest of it.

[1:43:17] the only time that it talks about speeding is when we finally

[1:43:21] get down to roman numeral 6, which is physical devices.

[1:43:31] and basically the 5000 vehicles is meant to really try

[1:43:33] to capture, are you getting your bang for the buck,

[1:43:35] after you've spent money installing something, is it

[1:43:37] really affecting that many people, and that many motorists.

[1:43:42] but this, this section right here, the redistribution of motor vehicles

[1:43:46] is a little bit of an outlier almost in the rest of this, this policy.

[1:43:50] I think it was meant to address the very specific other topic of concern.

[1:43:54] okay.

[1:43:55] is that, yeah.

[1:43:58] yeah.

[1:43:59] is that good?

[1:44:00] yeah.

[1:44:08] I'm just concerned that, you know, we keep bumping up against the volumes and

[1:44:12] it, to me, it doesn't make a lot of sense if, you know, it's like this to the ao.

[1:44:16] I don't think, I don't think you have 1500.

[1:44:28] in fact, most of these, 25 mile an hour streets, I think, I doubt if you have,

[1:44:31] through the 85% that most of them don't have more than a few hundred I would guess.

[1:44:36] I think that's what the authors trying to indicate is that

[1:44:40] a lot of these streets don't even meet these thresholds.

[1:44:44] so trying to reroute traffic, for instance, it

[1:44:47] shouldn't be above paramount concern, I guess.

[1:44:50] is the best way I could couch that.

[1:44:54] all right.

[1:44:55] that's it.

[1:44:56] you're good?

[1:44:57] yeah.

[1:44:58] good.

[1:44:59] okay.

[1:45:00] real quickly, before we end your edits, I just wanted to make

[1:45:03] sure I'm, it's page number two of the policy packet page 30 of 36.

[1:45:12] we're commissioner jones asked for where it says at the

[1:45:15] end there on the first paragraph under evaluation process.

[1:45:21] at the end where it says pedestrian access issues,

[1:45:24] comma, did we leave in the streets we've been named.

[1:45:29] and so I was concerned because we kind of got caught up in a conversation there.

[1:45:35] and I wanted to make sure because you had mentioned street sweeping.

[1:45:39] yeah, I think we've got it.

[1:45:41] it's, this isn't where we put.

[1:45:45] because because I know in the past we've tried

[1:45:48] to talk about a policy for street sweeping.

[1:45:52] I didn't give we do want to talk about street sweeping.

[1:45:57] one of the things I do want to do tonight is for that meeting next meeting

[1:46:00] when we do talk about parking, we should bring up the 1994 ordinance.

[1:46:04] on the parking permit program.

[1:46:07] because I think that is where we can add street

[1:46:08] sweeping because I don't think it wasn't that one.

[1:46:11] okay.

[1:46:12] yeah.

[1:46:13] yeah.

[1:46:14] I think it's just doesn't apply to street sweeping and noise and that.

[1:46:17] okay.

[1:46:18] yeah.

[1:46:19] because it's, it's gotta fit somewhere.

[1:46:20] it's really speed.

[1:46:23] but it just, it just doesn't fit in this, in this policy because again,

[1:46:27] whether it's e-bikes or any of these other issues, it's got to fit in a policy.

[1:46:31] yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Right. Okay. Are you done?

[1:46:34] I'm done.

[1:46:35] okay. Good, good, good.

[1:46:36] okay. Let's move our to your mystery.

[1:46:38] we don't.

[1:46:39] thank you very much.

[1:46:42] you know, noting that in your, in chair miller's opening statements

[1:46:46] that the, you know, this policy was created in 1995 and revised 2018.

[1:46:50] you know, just in that amount of time how much things have changed.

[1:46:53] you know, the kind of cars we're doing looking at technology

[1:46:56] that's, that's really changed how we're doing it changes fast.

[1:46:59] really fast.

[1:47:05] so looking at what we have in our current overall

[1:47:07] view, which is kind of why I wanted, you know, make

[1:47:09] sure that we're all interested in the clarity of, you know, what

[1:47:11] was, was discussed on, on page four, page three, two, three, six.

[1:47:15] you know, that the floors are driving an essential lack of

[1:47:17] documented speeds and a three, two, three, four percent tiles.

[1:47:20] that this was not for speeding.

[1:47:24] it was for traffic control devices.

[1:47:26] and that's really what this whole thing is about.

[1:47:30] we were shown a fantastic, you know, current live compass program.

[1:47:39] we really don't have it worth stated that our technology is about to step into this.

[1:47:44] so looking at the data collection, adding in not necessarily compass as the word,

[1:47:48] but adding in a section, the wording I don't have with me today, but, you know,

[1:48:01] that we're able to, to take, you know, the available data information

[1:48:03] available to us, because it doesn't really state, you know, it's, it's

[1:48:05] showing that we have available, you know, but we're doing it the old

[1:48:07] school way, and taking this information and then using it correctly.

[1:48:09] and because if we, if we add that kind of information

[1:48:12] into the data collection, it makes things real time.

[1:48:18] and then it changes our 18 month concern, then it changes our 60 day concern, then

[1:48:22] it changes everything else that it folds backwards into our, our other statements.

[1:48:37] so by changing one statement or adding in that

[1:48:38] a ability to use technology for evaluating

[1:48:40] item 350 and number 350, it changes our guidelines to how we approach those items.

[1:48:42] so I'd like to get something in the, in the

[1:48:44] verbiage of that where we put it, I'm not 100% sure,

[1:48:46] but I think it's, it's something to definitely

[1:48:48] look at as how we place that into our current.

[1:49:02] so under approach to speeding issues, you would

[1:49:04] like a paragraph that specifically talks about

[1:49:06] using our current tools to collect data in

[1:49:07] regards to how we approach the speeding issues.

[1:49:15] so this whole article is not about, it's not about speeding, it's about controlling.

[1:49:20] and this is how to, how do we control the overall

[1:49:22] flow and how it's doing and what's acceptable.

[1:49:28] but by taking the control devices, which is all this

[1:49:30] everything it's right been put in place, then it goes

[1:49:32] back to, you know, page five where it's saying, okay,

[1:49:34] now these are the devices we currently have to us to use.

[1:49:36] so it's all pressing up to page five.

[1:49:42] so without establishing what we're, you know, how we get the information over doing

[1:49:46] up to this point, you know, we're not, it's all about how do we slow down the speed.

[1:49:51] and adding in the, the current warning signs and downhill speed signs

[1:49:54] and repainting streets, I mean, that is how it reduce the speed.

[1:50:00] but the reasons why we're doing it is because of there is they, you

[1:50:03] know, 32 mile an hour, 85% tiles, you know, three evaluation of it.

[1:50:12] we have technology that we don't have to go

[1:50:13] through those channels anymore to do that and just

[1:50:15] kind of bringing us to the current, you know, the

[1:50:18] current available technology that we have to us.

[1:50:24] so finding how to get to there, that's really

[1:50:26] what we want to do because even, even some of

[1:50:27] these switches, you know, we've, we've also wanted

[1:50:29] to look at what modern devices are there now.

[1:50:31] we've got some ideas here, but, you know, these are all old ideas.

[1:50:35] there's got to be new ideas out there that we can adapt.

[1:50:56] and a good example would be like a modern speed trailer that

[1:50:58] not only tells the driver what their speed is, but maybe takes a

[1:51:01] picture of their license plate sends them a friendly coat postcard

[1:51:03] mail and says, hey, just to, well, friendly is, is it can be.

[1:51:06] that says, hey, you, please slow down on this street, you

[1:51:08] know, so, you know, I'm sure there's all kinds of technology

[1:51:10] as, as you're saying, that's available that, I mean, we

[1:51:12] got a little taste of it tonight, which is really good.

[1:51:14] to staff understand what type of a paragraph is being requested to be added.

[1:51:41] I think I do, but I also, I think maybe part of it was addressed already by

[1:51:43] commissioner patel

[1:51:43] with the point g, adding in from an afternoon roman numeral three data collection,

[1:51:45] where you have

[1:51:45] a little bit of an off ramp there where if available data collection could be

[1:51:47] collected by a third

[1:51:47] party source, and I'd put a hyphen in there or comma such as collect, collect a

[1:51:48] vehicle data.

[1:51:49] so, to collect data for items d and f kind of thing is what I heard.

[1:52:10] the other part about it, I heard, I thought I heard was about going back to the

[1:52:13] 32 to 34 miles per hour in the approach to speeding issues, and I wasn't quite

[1:52:16] sure if you were indicating that there needed to be, wasn't sure what you were

[1:52:19] indicating in terms of what needed to be added specifically to roman numeral four.

[1:52:29] I think it's just clarity that the speeding issues are not, because we

[1:52:31] have the 32 and 34 mile an hour range, it's not, it's still illegal.

[1:52:41] it's 25 hours opposed to speed limit, because that's the range

[1:52:44] that is to determine on whether we use a speed controlled device.

[1:52:47] can you say it one more time?

[1:53:03] just because the average 85% tile is the 32 to 34 miles

[1:53:04] per hour, or that they're up, that it's not that you're not

[1:53:05] breaking the law, you're still speeding, but it's a

[1:53:06] recommendation, whether we need to add in speed controlled devices.

[1:53:07] I think that's an excellent point.

[1:53:12] ok, I fully understand that it helps them when they go to court, and they

[1:53:15] say, well, I'm within safe, it says here I can be safe, I'm driving safe.

[1:53:19] it's not that, whether you're driving safe, that's

[1:53:21] for a speed controlled device, not for truly speeding.

[1:53:32] the clarification of this policy is for speed controlled

[1:53:36] devices that this range is only for that purpose.

[1:53:51] that one, compass does, I don't know if we need,

[1:53:53] there's a very open on page eight, it does say other

[1:53:55] issues with the traffic engineering will be considered

[1:53:57] as a team to program by city traffic engineer.

[1:54:07] is that really an overall statement that anything is in this particular

[1:54:11] number 350 can be altered at the discretion of the city traffic engineer?

[1:54:15] is that a kind of a catch all?

[1:54:38] it is, so I would, so the item, roman imeral 6 physical

[1:54:40] devices is concentrated on speed humps, and I think g

[1:54:42] is a catch all as it relates only to speed humps, and

[1:54:44] then the list above it, a through f is meant to document.

[1:54:54] it's meant to document examples or requirements of when

[1:54:57] speed humps can be implemented or should not be implemented.

[1:55:06] and I think that the, I would think of the author put that in there because

[1:55:10] there are things that may not have been contemplated that should be considered.

[1:55:35] in that analysis, and I guess I would say that even if g exists, there would, if you

[1:55:37] got to roman imeral 6 and are implementing a physical device, that doesn't preempt the

[1:55:40] city traffic engineer would still need to create the traffic commission agenda report

[1:55:42] and the city council agenda report and justify the whole list of reasons why or why

[1:55:45] not.

[1:55:45] and that thing is required or not required.

[1:55:50] so I'm not really sure, so I'm not sure that it adds a lot of value,

[1:55:54] but at the same time I don't think it will result in surprise.

[1:55:59] the traffic engineer came up with some new

[1:56:01] criteria that you've never heard of and that

[1:56:03] you're never going to see in that there was a unilateral decision not to do something.

[1:56:08] I think this is just meant to be a catch all because the author didn't think

[1:56:12] of all the things that could affect the installation of the speed humps.

[1:56:21] and so my thought on that was maybe adding a safety net to that is traffic

[1:56:25] engineer and recommendation or recommendation from traffic commission.

[1:56:30] if it is a catch all, then it allows us to check and balance.

[1:56:37] so define that last sentence of what you'd like to see there.

[1:56:43] the verbiage is fine by the city engineer and the traffic commission.

[1:56:53] so it's a recommendation that is still going to go back to the city council.

[1:57:01] for the reasons why I explain I don't necessarily see a problem with that.

[1:57:10] just the checks and balance so that it's not all the

[1:57:13] pressures on the city engineer to have the full onus of it.

[1:57:18] so staff understands that recommendation.

[1:57:22] that's all I have.

[1:57:25] okay, you're good.

[1:57:27] all right, so mine are, you all covered a lot of it.

[1:57:33] which is why we get a later.

[1:57:35] yeah, I'll cover it a lot of it.

[1:57:37] my first edit, let's see here.

[1:57:42] let me go to page one.

[1:57:46] let me find it here.

[1:57:52] these issues will be documented addressed through

[1:57:55] the use of available traffic engineering standards.

[1:57:58] place important.

[1:58:00] so it was just a suggestion that it's the first paragraph and I'll read it.

[1:58:06] it's the middle sentence.

[1:58:14] these issues will be documented and addressed through the use of

[1:58:17] available traffic engineering standards and police enforcement tools.

[1:58:24] I was actually going to stop with a comma there,

[1:58:27] police enforcement comma traffic controlling tools.

[1:58:32] does that make sense?

[1:58:36] I know it's just wordsmithing at this point.

[1:58:42] well, the standard is the standard which

[1:58:45] defines how we're going to do things, right?

[1:58:52] but the tools in this point, I was trying to say traffic

[1:58:55] controlling tools would be the things we've already talked about.

[1:59:01] are we putting in speed humps or whatever, stop signs or whatever?

[1:59:10] yeah.

[1:59:11] the next item below that, it's in initiating and evaluation.

[1:59:16] it's really just paragraphs a and b.

[1:59:20] they both start out with a resident has.

[1:59:31] and it seems to me that you could actually take the words from

[1:59:35] a and b and you could actually combine them into one paragraph.

[1:59:39] because basically we're saying, okay, a resident

[1:59:43] has contacted city staff by letter by an email.

[1:59:51] when really, it could be as simple as a resident has contacted the city in

[1:59:55] any form, whether it's city staff, city council, by electronic communication.

[1:59:59] it doesn't matter, they've contacted the city.

[2:00:07] so, and what I mean by all of that is that we don't

[2:00:11] have to spell out by telephone, by letter, by email.

[2:00:15] because they could contact us anyway.

[2:00:23] I mean, they might, you know, a resident may see you at a coffee shop and say, mr.

[2:00:28] jones, we got this, you know, and so, so in other words,

[2:00:35] instead of defining all these different pathways for contacting us, I

[2:00:38] think those two paragraphs a and b could be very simple and just combined.

[2:00:41] and it's just a wordsmithing thing, you know, just to add

[2:00:45] to that, the, you know, I think it's contact to the city.

[2:00:49] you know, me personally, if someone goes up to me and wants to have a complaint to me.

[2:00:54] I don't want that responsibility to me that that's the day I

[2:00:57] saw mike and he said, I told him and he didn't push the city.

[2:01:01] I think keeping the verbiage that they need to connect with the city is.

[2:01:05] and in official, what you're saying is in an official.

[2:01:11] correct.

[2:01:12] yeah.

[2:01:14] because by coming to us, then we take on the onus of their complaint

[2:01:18] if we take that part out of it, then we are the onus of it.

[2:01:22] okay.

[2:01:23] contact the city.

[2:01:24] no, no, no.

[2:01:25] I like you contact it.

[2:01:26] you can fax, you know, pigeon, whatever it has to be,

[2:01:28] but I mean, they still need to contact the city for that.

[2:01:31] and that would be my, if someone asked me, I would say,

[2:01:34] please, you know, file, file this issue with the city.

[2:01:37] because I don't, I don't want to have that come back on me.

[2:01:41] but I want to make sure that if we're taking out those items,

[2:01:44] it's just make sure it states that it's back to the city.

[2:01:47] and yeah.

[2:01:48] so we're defining it as an official contact,

[2:01:52] official, whatever those are defined as.

[2:02:08] yeah, I think I would agree with you that there's probably some stream landing that

[2:02:10] can be done here, but I think the underlying message between a and b is the fact that

[2:02:12] they either the city staff was either directly contacted or the city staff was here

[2:02:14] as in the fact that the traffic commission meeting heard the complaint kind of thing.

[2:02:16] and we have a record of it that way.

[2:02:18] okay.

[2:02:19] good.

[2:02:24] um, the other items, and again, we're, we're in this

[2:02:28] process of figuring out where all this new stuff fits.

[2:02:37] you know, like take for instance, and I just wrote these down as notes, not more

[2:02:41] of of edits because I think we've done all the edits, but just in regards of.

[2:02:45] e bike policy, you know, put.

[2:02:58] when developers come to our city and they're going

[2:03:00] to build a new apartment building and having that in

[2:03:02] place where, you know, the state may say, oh, well,

[2:03:04] you can build an apartment with only 1.5 parking spots.

[2:03:11] but the city of lagoon hills is asking for two parking spots, you know, and

[2:03:15] again, that's it's not within this policy, but, but it's it's the whole idea of.

[2:03:21] what I mean, we had that other discussion about do we need to

[2:03:25] create an entire policy just for street sweeping when when really.

[2:03:29] and the only reason why I'm bringing these up is

[2:03:32] because this policy hasn't been touched in eight years.

[2:03:40] and, um, I think I think a lot of times we're playing whack a mole with

[2:03:44] a lot of these ideas because the policy hasn't been touched in a while.

[2:04:01] but I don't I don't have any outside of that. I don't have

[2:04:03] any other edits. I mean, it's we we've covered pretty much

[2:04:06] everything. And I think from this point forward, I'm assuming

[2:04:08] and staff can tell me the process now or tell us the process.

[2:04:16] are we going to bring this back at the november

[2:04:18] meeting with all of the edits for us to

[2:04:20] go through this process again and like kind

[2:04:22] of ratify the edits or how we can handle that.

[2:04:31] I thought that far ahead. But now that you mentioned that

[2:04:33] the november meeting that seems like a really long ways

[2:04:36] away. Right. But we have our special meeting, which is for

[2:04:38] a specific thing, which isn't about this. So I suppose.

[2:04:47] yeah, that's true. We did. I didn't mention that

[2:04:49] I wanted some time to go through the the compass

[2:04:51] regarding the 3234 so I guess the short answer

[2:04:53] is yes, I guess this would come back in november.

[2:05:09] I think what I will do, though, if I can, and time allows. I

[2:05:12] think what I'll do is that most edits are there other than this

[2:05:14] research component here on number four thing that what I could

[2:05:17] do is just send out a red line and then bcc and then you could.

[2:05:22] if anybody wants to provide me any feedback before november,

[2:05:24] you can tell me if I got it wrong. And then that way we're not

[2:05:27] looking at it for the first time, you know, right beforehand

[2:05:29] kind of thing. I think that would be helpful to me at least.

[2:05:44] yeah, I mean, we do this with the recommended edits. I

[2:05:46] mean, eventually, eventually, even after all this is done,

[2:05:49] it still have to go to for off a beaten path and by

[2:05:51] continue to talk about it. We can't, you know, so if we can.

[2:05:56] I'm not, I mean, your edits are, are not that many.

[2:05:59] so, but I, if I see any red flags, I'll do that.

[2:06:17] okay, perfect. So, is, is that an acceptable timeline to, to, so basically then within

[2:06:20] the next, I don't know, maybe by october you're sending us out the edited document.

[2:06:23] and then you're bringing that back to us in november. And pretty much at that

[2:06:27] point, we've all looked at it and we've all said, yes, this is good to go.

[2:06:32] yeah, that's right, that's right, collect a recommendation.

[2:06:34] right, and then we make our recommendations. Yeah, okay.

[2:06:36] is that sound good to the information? Okay, wonderful.

[2:06:44] oh, I just staff understand all the direction on, on this item.

[2:06:47] yeah, I think so. Okay, great. Thank you.

[2:06:53] alrighty, so that, that takes care of, do we need to take a vote on that?

[2:07:07] on the recommendations. I'm not even sure how we

[2:07:09] would, I suppose if you want to take a vote on it,

[2:07:11] your, your, if I can, so I'll repeat what I think

[2:07:13] would be a good recommendation based upon all of this.

[2:07:26] I would say that the recommendation of the traffic commission

[2:07:28] is for city staff to receive the proposed edits and to do a

[2:07:31] red line document for presentation of the traffic commission

[2:07:33] at the next available meeting which is likely to be november.

[2:07:47] and then the second item that I heard you say earlier

[2:07:49] was, is that you're recommending city staff, pursue

[2:07:52] the technology, collective vehicle data technology,

[2:07:54] if and when that the, the, it stops becoming free.

[2:07:57] does everybody understand the recommendations? I'll first that recommendation

[2:08:01] if you want to be needed for georgia. Julie was that as he put it.

[2:08:08] yeah, this is some smiles over here. I mean, that we got it on

[2:08:10] video. We got on recording. So I think we got it. We'll find a way

[2:08:12] to clean up a little bit as long as they give us a little bit of

[2:08:14] leeway on the language exactly, but I think we got that right.

[2:08:16] okay, so we're good. Yeah, so if you want to take a vote on that. Okay, everybody

[2:08:20] understands the recommendation. I'll make a motion to accept staff's recommendations.

[2:08:24] I'll second, and we have a second on clerk. You can take the.

[2:08:31] vice chair patel. Aye. Chair miller. Aye. Commissioner jones. Aye.

[2:08:37] commissioner caputo. Aye.

[2:08:40] motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.

[2:08:52] that moves us forward to our informational items. And at this time, we're

[2:08:55] going to have our police chief provide our sheriff's department verbal report.

[2:08:59] sir.

[2:09:01] sir, as I have nothing to report tonight since, since last meeting.

[2:09:07] well, I will say that you put together a wonderful national night out.

[2:09:11] it was a wonderful event out at the park. It was well attended.

[2:09:16] they had all of their special forces out there,

[2:09:20] including all your drone technology, which

[2:09:22] is amazing. So thank you so much for putting together a wonderful event for the city.

[2:09:28] it was very well done. Very well done.

[2:09:33] yes, that moves us forward to agenda item 4.2.

[2:09:38] and this is our city engineer's verbal report.

[2:09:41] I have no report to provide tonight. Okay, thank you. That brings us forward

[2:09:47] to our commissioner comments, and we can start down here with mr. Caputo.

[2:09:52] no comments. No comment.

[2:09:55] just a quick request for city staff. So during the meeting

[2:10:00] next month, I was wondering if we could bring just for

[2:10:04] purposes of discussion, the 1994 parking ordinance to set

[2:10:08] up the permit parking for everyone to review any prior

[2:10:14] parking agendas, maybe just like even the staff

[2:10:17] reports, not necessarily all the addendum behind

[2:10:21] it. So at least, you know, some of the various

[2:10:24] issues are at top of mind or even a list, maybe.

[2:10:32] so there's usually, we have 14 permit parking, are you talking about the permit parking district ones

[2:10:39] specifically or the the parking permit district specifically, but also, you know,

[2:10:45] situations like los alisos

[2:10:47] and some of the other ones that we've kind of discussed, just so that,

[2:10:50] you know at least everyone has

[2:10:52] it top of mind that, you know, over the years we've

[2:10:55] discussed x y z

[2:10:58] through all the greek alphabet letters almost. Yeah.

[2:11:00] I will do my best. I'm anticipating that's a lot of pages.

[2:11:04] but I'll do my best to find, I think I know where I

[2:11:11] think I know where you're going with this to find a

[2:11:13] good cross section of the release to those those topics.

[2:11:16] and, you know, our arterial highways and collector streets and residential streets and

[2:11:22] residential street parking, all those things of parking being that was brought up.

[2:11:26] yeah, the street sweeping thing needs to be

[2:11:28] brought up. It's going to be an interesting

[2:11:32] report. I had envisioned writing a dart board of a report and letting everybody.

[2:11:36] tell me what they think of it kind of thing, you know, yeah,

[2:11:46] okay, I do have a housekeeping question. Yes, not a comment.

[2:11:49] yes, for next next month's meeting, what's the format of that obviously it's going

[2:11:54] to be a full house with us and city council. Is it going to be a workshop type table?

[2:11:59] is it going to be at the chamber here or how are we actually

[2:12:02] going to, you know, what we prepared for what we're working on?

[2:12:06] it's going to be a, well, we haven't done this before.

[2:12:11] let's put it that way. Like on their seats that's why I was aking.

[2:12:15] we are making history. We are making history.

[2:12:20] we are anticipating this will be on the dais.

[2:12:24] it is a city council meeting. So with implementation of senate bill

[2:12:30] 707, which came july 1st, it needs to be the full suite of technology.

[2:12:38] so we need to, we need to video it. We need to audio cast it

[2:12:44] and we need to allow comments remote comments from the public to

[2:12:47] telephone in. So the best position that we're going to be able to

[2:12:52] do that is going to be with the technology that's here on the dais.

[2:12:55] so right now off the top of my head, I think it's going to be on the dais.

[2:13:00] otherwise, doing it off the dais would require a significant amount of work.

[2:13:05] to your point though, there are a limited number of chairs.

[2:13:08] the good news is we have chairs inside city hall.

[2:13:13] so I think we're probably going to have to share some monitors, some microphones.

[2:13:17] those are just my thoughts right off the top of my head.

[2:13:22] and if we have done this joint meeting before

[2:13:23] I'm just unaware of it. In my time here we haven't done it, so.

[2:13:27] I'm excited for it. It's going to be interesting.

[2:13:30] thank you. Any other? That was it. Okay.

[2:13:34] so we're going to adjourn our meeting tonight with our next meeting

[2:13:40] that it sounds like it's a city council meeting and we are their guests.

[2:13:48] okay. Okay. That that that works. And yeah. So september 16 at what time?

[2:13:59] so our regularly scheduled traffic commission time.

[2:14:01] so it'll be september 16 at six o'clock at six o'clock.

[2:14:05] okay. Well, thank you. Wonderful meeting tonight. Thanks for all the good work.

[2:14:10] we got it done. And this meeting is adjourned.

Traffic Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript