[ inaudible ]
>> oh, is that what it is? Okay.
>> lift off.
[ inaudible ]
>> spend the kids in here and it's 30.
>> oh, we're on. Okay, here we go.
all right, sorry, the mic sign.
welcome, everybody, to the august 12th.
believe it or not, half the month is almost over.
the regular meeting for the laguna hills traffic commission.
welcome, everybody, for being here tonight.
we look forward to a wonderful conversation and getting our work done.
and we're going to go ahead and open up with the pledge of allegiance.
and I'm going to ask, let's see, mr. Caputo, let's have you lead us
in the pledge of allegiance tonight.
all right, a pledge of the united states of america
and to the republic for which it stands, my nation, under god,
indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
thank you, you can be seated.
all righty, so at this time we'll call on the clerk
for a roll call.
>> let the record show.
we have a quorum with four committee members present in the chamber.
>> thank you, thank you.
okay.
all right, this brings us to public comment on the agenda.
this is the time to address the traffic commission
on any matters, not listed on this agenda.
that is within the subject matter, jurisdiction of the commission.
public comments are limited to three minutes per person as determined by the chair.
at this time, clerk, do we have any public comments?
>> yes, we have one request to speak and zero electronic comments.
the first audience member, or the only audience member to speak is larry bremer.
>> okay, great, sir, if you could -- I'm sorry.
>> I don't know if larry is --
>> he thought he was going to be on the agenda probably.
>> oh, is he -- >> larry bremer thought that we were part of the handle
whilst in the form of the member's fashion, and all this kind of specific housing.
>> so he left.
>> okay, okay, great.
are there any other public speakers for this item?
I mean, for this time.
>> no, has this item 3.1?
>> well, it's just a public comment.
just -- >> no.
>> okay, so to be clear, we don't have any other public speakers,
and there was an electronic -- no electronic comments.
okay, all right, that moves us forward to presentations, and there are none.
that moves us forward to administrative reports, agenda item 3.
1, discussion, a request of acacia knolls resident,
to park on the south side of beckenham street.
and at this time, we will take staff report.
>> thank you very much, chair miller.
I guess I want to preface all of this by saying that as many of you know,
the special meeting tonight was meant to talk about parking
and street sweeping issues, but then there was interest
in the city council and the topic back on june 23rd.
at that point in time, they directed to hold a joint meeting.
unfortunately, their schedules didn't align
with the traffic commission scheduled to be able to talk about that tonight.
and since it was the same topic, I had to unexpectedly flip the topics,
making this august 12th meeting more of a regular meeting.
the september items I anticipated talking about,
and then moving what we were planning on talking about tonight to september.
and so that's the reason why this feels a little odd.
I don't know how many of you got all that from all the last minute.
email correspondence, but that's what happened.
and so this item I would have brought in september
after our parking and street sweeping discussion.
so then I had to frame this item knowing that that is still coming in september.
and so I just want to preface all that before we got into this agenda item.
and then I will try to clean up my agenda item.
I will admit that when I was writing this agenda item one,
I was unaware of a certain circumstance and two.
I was off last week thursday and friday.
compressing the week.
so I came back on monday and found out some new information, thanks to city of staff.
and that was what led to some of the amendments today.
anyway, so I take full responsibility for that in my apologies.
next slide, please.
thank you for the clarification.
because I was expecting a workshop and I had to grab my jacket for tonight.
yeah, I appreciate.
thank you for asking your question, commissioner caputo, too.
because yeah, that was the whole, again, I apologize.
so I'm glad you grabbed your jacket.
yeah, very dapper in your jacket.
thank you.
so during the july 15th traffic commission meeting,
you may recall city staff provided the results
of a residential permit park and district for camberwell,
street, sunset place, and around back-and-hand park,
rather than reading all those lists of streets there.
and then also during the july 15th traffic commission meeting,
I reviewed a presentation that I made to the city council on june 23rd,
concerning parking on the south side of laguna hills drive,
which was approved by the city council by resolution.
and citywide parking issues,
and I talked about on july 15th and on june 23rd,
that in my humble opinion, in my personal view,
the solution to citywide parking issues is generally
to provide parking near where parking demand is
greatest, which I recognize isn't always possible.
next slide, please.
so during that discussion of that separate permit parking,
but for camberwell street,
back-and-hand park and sunset place neighborhood,
one public speaker indicated the proposed permit parking district
would negatively impact the ability of vacation roles,
residents to park around back-and-hand park,
if that permit parking district were approved.
and then a second public speaker requested that parking
be reopened on the south side of beckenham street,
and no overnight parking is currently allowed on the south side of beckenham street,
but it's for indication roles in beckenham park.
and then subsequent to the july 15th meeting,
I received a personal telephone call from the public speaker
and inquiring if the south side of beckenham street
could be open to only occasion roles,
residents using the established parking permit program process.
next slide, please.
so for reference for talking about this neighborhood here,
we're talking about camberwell street and around beckenham park.
so this is the neighborhood that we received requests
from so out parking on the south side of beckenham
street adjacent, so they're intrigue-gate.
next slide, please.
and then you may recall that the traffic commission recently implemented
no overnight parking on the purple line.
I believe that was, what was that?
may, or march, march, then it was march.
and then that was adopted by the city council by resolution.
and then what's not on this map is on june
23rd, the south side of laguna hills tribe,
between indian hill and pacifica valencia,
was approved for overnight parking.
and that was the intention of that was to allow for,
I would say, a pressure relief valve of sorts for the stock port
apartments and for the alicia village apartments will the park on laguna hills drive.
next slide, please.
so I told the telephone caller that the traffic commission,
which is you, would need to consider the request and provide direction to city staff.
so it would be helpful to receive emails from immediate neighbors
indicating an interest in the idea in order to agenda
is the item for consideration of the traffic
commission, which brings us to this item tonight.
and so you have several emails now in your agenda
packet, and I'll email them out regarding that.
and so the original gender report released on august
7th indicated there was no prior precedent for the city
establishing permit parking on a city street for the exclusive benefit
of an adjoining private residential property.
and that statement was made in error my apologies.
there is prior precedent for establishing permit parking on a city street
for the exclusive benefit of an adjoining residential community
has discussed in the amendment to my agenda report released today.
and I've got one example out there.
and that is the belitz-hira community association
of permit parking on an adjoining public street next slide, please.
here is belitz-hira.
this is laguna hills drive.
interestingly, it's not that far away from what we're talking about.
it's approximately the line shown in yellow, suddenly of their driveway.
and it's for a relatively short distance.
it's for 400 in some odd feet.
so it's probably good for 25 cars, 20 or 25 cars, if they pack it in there.
next slide, please.
actually, it's 570 feet.
so that would be good for a little bit more than that.
so the resolution was adopted in 2009.
so it's been out there for 17 years.
and that resolution and that agenda report were attached
since it's a supplemental agenda report.
and then in reviewing that agenda report from 2009,
the summary is that was supported by the city council
because the lack of parking within the property
and city staff specifically stated in that 2009 report
that the parking did not meet present-day municipal code requirements for parking.
so given all of that and the information has just come to light,
I didn't have an opportunity to perform the same analysis
on this property.
that was done for that property but has I already explained
the agenda report had already been released.
so here we are tonight.
next slide, please.
so if the same rationale is used to justify parking
for occasion nulls, city staff believes the following information
is important to have in order to assist the traffic commission
in its discussion of the request, either now or in the future.
how many kind of minimum units are there?
do they have garages?
how big are they garages? Do they have driveways?
can you park on the driveways overnight?
I lived in an association in dana point a year ago
that had condominium with full, sometimes full length driveways in front of it
but the ccrs didn't allow you to park overnight in the driveway.
these strange things.
and how many guest parking spaces are on the property?
so those are some of the bare minimum questions.
next slide, please.
I did receive this afternoon reply to those questions.
I didn't get back to my desk until 445.
so here are the answers here of 99 units and occasion nulls.
they all have garages.
they all have two car garages.
not every unit has a driveway that can be parked on overnight
because there are units, some units without driveways.
I didn't get any indication about whether
or not there was a ban on overnight parking.
and then there are approximately 15 guest parking stalls
that apparently have, I don't know for sure,
have some churn over requirements or something.
I'm not sure exactly.
next slide, please.
we are also on receipt of the following information from the original requester.
he had all of this to say.
I think rather than reading all this to, I will pause
here for a minute and I will hear it for yourselves.
I can grab some water too.
everybody good on that page?
speed reader.
no, you need more time for it.
more time to take notes on this slide.
anybody need more time on this slide?
everyone's good.
next slide, please, robert.
so, city staff's recommendation is that the
traffic commission received the city staff report
and postponed detailed discussion due to the upcoming
city council traffic commission joint meeting
on september 16th to discuss policy and direction on citywide parking issues.
optionally, the traffic commission may want to discuss
this particular request now in order to help shape
options for discussing citywide parking solutions for the upcoming joint meeting.
and then my personal additional thoughts and blue here are
if the citywide parking solutions goal or objective could be to find parking.
you're a parking demand as great as should this type of solution be in a toolbox.
just putting it out there.
as the traffic commission is aware of,
I always prefer to start with the target
and then let people pick it apart rather than just,
you know, have a wide discussion.
so that's the end of my staff report.
- okay. - and I'm happening.
that's for any questions.
- okay, great.
we're going to open this up to commissioner questions.
right now everybody's mic is live.
and we're all city council members.
because that's the names on the screen.
so I don't know who's pressing what.
but we can just, you know, go through the process of,
if you'd like to ask questions or speak, just go ahead and press your button.
and I'll just call on you.
because right now it's everybody else's name.
- I don't know how to drop.
- oh, no, yours is going off.
- yeah.
- oh, if you hold it.
- press the right button.
- yeah.
- there we go.
- oh.
- it's on now.
- yeah, so.
- okay, there we go.
okay, it's off.
and I still have.
- but I have.
- so there's three mics live.
okay.
so at this time we're going to open it up for, um, questions from commissioners.
let's start on this.
thank you.
- okay.
- um, going through the report.
thank you for being very comprehensive on it.
there was a lot of information that, you know,
I'm glad you got response back to how many units there are
and the requirements for the garages.
do you know, or can we find out before the next meeting
if the hoa requires garages for vehicles only
and not for storage or any other use of the garages?
I know in my particular hoa, your garage is only for vehicle use.
you must put your first two cars in the garage.
first or three cars putting on a response you have and then use of the driveway.
so I am curious if that is in their ccnr's,
currently that the garages are for vehicle use only.
- are you good?
that's it.
okay, go ahead.
- two questions.
one on wilkes, it's permit parking.
who has, who has those permits?
are the permits?
- yeah, those, the homes on wilkes are,
I believe our single family homes is just for the people
who live along wilkes.
- so a question would be possible
to spread that to a lesion holes also because one solution?
- potentially, I would need to get a recommendation
from the traffic commission on that.
it's potentially available.
I don't have any, it's a double sided street.
so you've got curb length in front of the homes
and then you've got, sorry, it's a single loaded street.
so you've got, side of the curb is no, you know.
- it stops at the end there.
so I fact it in park.
- the second question is, do we know what the
percentage of rentals in a lesion holes is?
and the reason I ask is, I live in a gated community
and as the rentals increase, so does the amount of carbs
because there's a tendency to have multiple families called.
in those units, they have more carbs.
so I'm seeing that as, I'm on the board of an hoa
that's gated and we're starting to see some issues
there as the percentage of rentals increase.
so I just be curious to see how much the rentals are and that affects it.
but just a comment, I think we're finally cleaning up
the safety issues around pecking in park and I just be inclined to let line dogs wide
but if we could do something with the whirls
as a temporary measure, it might help lesion
holes and I think mike had a good point that,
to help the kind of, help themselves is to push them cc&rs
'cause everybody wants to use their garage as storage
and it really wants to pay $200 for storage unit.
but I think we have to push for these both on apartments and the condos
that people have to help themselves out and if they could do that, that could help
'cause having just 15 units, 15 parking spots or 100 units throughout the small.
if I could see it, I could see it for us.
so just a thought and a couple of solutions.
I'm with what commissioner caputo said in possibly using wilkes.
so to tail onto that question, so the idea on your first question was
to take wilkes, which is already existing and to extend that to where?
- to a lesion holes.
- so if, is that-- - can you do it just allow them to?
- yeah, it permits also.
- can you do that without the 67% vote?
- so, like the two examples, so there was two examples.
so my original erroneous gender report talked about
a commercial complex where there was no vote taken.
and then my amendment to the gender report
also pointed to the fact that there was no vote taken
because these two in this one are the unusual situation
where you have a private development,
residential or commercial looking to park on a public street.
so those two prior examples, there was not a vote taken.
instead there was a justification, a rationale,
that was arrived at by jointly amongst the
city council traffic commission and city staff
justifying for doing that.
so this wilkes place roadway
already has permit parking on it.
I guess my only thought on that,
I'm putting a link on it, is, you know,
they requested that and then now you're changing,
and essentially changing by adding, you know, more people to that.
I don't know, you know.
- it hasn't been done.
- it hasn't been done before that way.
so I, you know, the answer hasn't been done that way before.
but prior precedent would say that a vote isn't needed for
off-site parking, but this is a new wrinkle in all of this.
- right.
- okay, good, good.
- I'm gonna see him top it.
- I'm sorry.
- that's on the same conversation.
- the parking permit on wilkes was that requested
because there were other parking happening
and it could have been the people from
location roles that were parking there already,
which is kind of that shift.
and that's why they wanted the parking permit.
is that because of what was happening from location roles?
so we don't have that information.
so it's hard to determine if we added it back
in what would be the overall play on that.
- yeah, my guess is the spread from the apartment, right?
- yeah, that's right.
- yes, everybody goes in from the apartments.
- yeah, right, so okay.
neil.
- yep, the question I have is I know it in past
when we've kind of debated about stop signs.
we city staff has really put the onus on the traffic
commission to follow the municipal code and any applicable state laws.
but, you know, kind of seeing this agenda item
and then even some previous ones where we've opened up
parking on los aliso's or, you know, on indian hill,
it seems like it's in spite of the municipal code
and like the recommendation, at least in the black and white.
so I'm just trying to, I guess I want some clarity
on why when it comes to parking matters, you know,
we can ignore some of the stated protocol.
but, you know, we're very clear to be on like stop signs
and other types of like traffic control devices.
so just...
- I don't know that I would couch it that way,
but I would say that stop signs are safety control device.
parking is a convenience.
and so I personally see that it's two very different
categories both from a liability perspective
and a safety perspective.
and so, and there is an m-u-t-c-d on parking.
there's an m-u-t-c-d on stop signs.
so that's, there's national guidance on that
and I don't have, we don't have the same things here.
and so parking controls are mostly within the purview
of the city council and so if some direction needs to change
with regard to that, then that would be on
a local level rather than national guidance.
- okay, the only, I just had a few questions, this whole idea
of creating parking for specific people groups.
this, I understand our regular permit parking that,
you know, okay, but people groups are,
I'm assuming they're getting some type of colorized sticker
or something for their specific people group
and who manages those stickers, when people leave,
when people move in, how did, what's the management program
for people groups specific parking?
- so the current, I'll just give you an over.
the current permit parking program generally is by
neighborhood, and so all of the neighborhoods have their own
decals, stickers, hangers, and so they're all labeled
accordingly, so they're all separated accordingly.
and then most of them, not all of them, most of them expire on an annual basis.
so that's the mechanism for renewal.
and the only difference then is, is that in terra bella,
you're just doing like, I guess for lack of a better term,
off-site parking, that is guaranteed to a neighborhood that is somewhere else.
- sorry.
- so the only difference with terra bella,
the reason why it makes it so different is because it's,
it's not really, we're saying we're creating permit parking
for their neighborhood, but it could be a neighborhood somewhere else.
it doesn't have to be geographically connected.
you can put, you can, you can say this, this
street, down the street, is gonna be our parking.
- I'm not sure I'm following them, I apologize.
- it's terra bella didn't have enough parking, right?
so you're designating the street, that is, in this case,
close to terra bella as their parking space, their parking garage, right?
so it's not in front of their homes, it can be somewhere else.
so theoretically with that, you could designate parking
in another location is what I'm saying.
like, you could pick out a block, a few blocks
away and say that's our block for our parking.
- if you believe that that is an example worth following
and you were to draw that, that out to a conclusion
where you could assign any public street, I suppose.
I'm not making that recommendation, ignore my,
even, I'm not making that kind of recommendation, I'm not making any recommendation.
so I would, I would say that,
that's up for the traffic commission to debate,
or decide and happy to provide any thought process on that.
but I, I mean, I'm happy to write thoughts on that,
but I would say, okay, I don't have any information
otherwise on that.
- and we know for sure this is the only place in our city where this is taking place.
- yeah, again, I apologize, so there was 14 permit
parking districts, and so my understanding is
out of the 14 permit parking districts, 12 are neighborhood
based for the frontage of residential streets,
and then we have the commercial district,
and we have this bella terra neighborhood.
oh, is it in here?
oh, let me see here, okay, so, those are the only two,
that I'm aware of out of the 14.
- okay, all right, that's good.
any other questions for stan at this time?
okay, we're gonna go ahead and move forward
to public comment on this agenda item.
are there clerk, is there any public comments on item 3.1?
- yes, we have one speaker,
the author of that nice letter, george falcone.
- okay, sir, if you could come forward, thank you for being here tonight.
- thanks for calling it a nice letter.
george falcone, I was here last month.
so, after the meeting last month, when the discussion was about the permit parking
in the other areas, I was here,
and my comment was more about the reduction of parking
around, sorry, around begging and parking,
we lost about 40 spaces with that.
it did clean up the park, so there's no doubt about that,
but it did reduce parking, and it affected us.
now, we are 99 units, they're all privately owned.
how many renters?
I don't have that number, but I am, I own my own property, in my wife.
and we saw the loss of 40 spaces, not just affecting the occasional's,
not, you know, this isn't just solely a selfish matter.
it does affect the community, because suddenly the apartment dwellers,
or whoever else is using that parking, and doesn't
even matter who it is, they are looking somewhere else,
and that's why you guys have this, you know, bigger issue, broader issue.
and it came up by not a resident of occasional's,
better resident of sunset, that they brought up,
the idea, well, why don't you park on the side of the street?
and I'm sitting here in the audience, thinking,
okay, I'll bring that up, you know, it's already
offered, you know, by other community members.
what's unique about this side of the property, this street, a beckyham street,
and this side of the street is, it is directly adjacent
to our community, and directly adjacent to our driveway.
so, the idea of parking on wilkes is, it's also adjacent to our community,
but there's no direct connection to it, right?
so, and it's not to say it's not a bad idea
of just saying that this one is by topography and by everything else is right there.
it also doesn't affect any other neighborhood.
so, directly affect any other neighbors,
or any, you know, like if we were on wilkes,
then possibly the people across the street
would be, wait a minute, I didn't have people parking in front of me, now I do.
so, this was kind of a reason that I brought it up,
was to help alleviate, not only the parking for
occasion knows, but for the broader community,
because if, I think,
staff probably hasn't gotten to the point of actually counting how many spaces I did,
it looks like we probably have about 13 to 14 spaces
available if we do that part of the street,
that reduces the impact on the rest of the camp street for others to use.
and so, that was kind of my idea when I brought it up to the streams.
so, I just wanna share that.
- okay, great, why don't you sit there for a second
and let's ask the commissioners if they have any
questions for you, anybody have any questions?
for our speaker, we're good.
well, we appreciate you being here tonight
and sharing your comments.
thank you so much.
- sure, thank you.
- five things.
- are there any other comments on this agenda item?
- no.
- no other comments.
okay, we're gonna bring this back to the commission
for open discussion and recommendations on direction.
and, mr. Caputto.
- can we back on the screen,
the staff recommendations, there were three options
that you as a recommending, can I see that again?
- there we go.
- I have no other comments, but I'd like to make recommendations if possible.
- what would you like to make a motion?
- or, okay, what would your motion be?
- I'd like to move this agenda to our next meeting.
it hopes that we can get some more answers regarding the parking from cc and ours,
so that then we could then adapt this
into what our topic really is, is on parking for the city overall,
as opposed to continuing to maneuver parking areas
without the city 'cause we are continuing to move it around.
so, until we have resolution on the overall city
problem, it's hard to continue this conversation.
- okay, so you're asking to move the agenda item
to our consolidated meeting with the city council, and also what data did you want?
- I think it's gonna see an hour of information
on the parking in the garages.
- okay. - it's use of garage.
- okay, is staff clear on that motion?
- I am, I guess, so for the september 16th meeting though,
I was planning on putting on a singular agenda item,
which was gonna talk about citywide parking
on street sweeping issues, and then review the, and that would basically be a review
of my june 23rd staff report to the city council,
which I also reviewed here on july 15th,
and then I had envisioned that once we got direction on that,
that would allow us to re-agendize this particular item
if warren said for the november meeting.
- that was what I would like to do then.
- okay, so you're changing your motion,
then to move this item to the november meeting, but also grab the data for that.
so staff understands that, okay, and do, I have a second, okay, we have a second,
and clerk, can we take a vote on that motion?
- commissioner caputo.
- aye.
- commissioner jones. - aye.
- vice chair patel. - aye.
- chair miller. - aye.
- motion passes unanimously.
- thank you, thank you, motion passes unanimously.
thank you so much for being here tonight, sir, and bringing your comments, thank you.
okay, we move forward to our next administrative report,
3.2, discussion of citywide street related traffic,
concerns, and the residential street management, traffic management policy.
and at this time, we'll receive staff reports.
- thank you, next slide, please.
so on april 30th, 2026,
four months ago, the traffic commission held a special meeting,
and one of the items on the special meeting agenda was the strategic planning workshop
to discuss a comprehensive approach to traffic related concerns,
which included discussion of citywide's speed related traffic concerns.
and at the conclusion of that item, the traffic commission recommended a few things,
that city staff returned to the traffic commission
with a review of the compass data collection program
that we briefly previewed.
and it's a software program provided by the orange county
transportation authority that captures anonymized vehicle data.
and then to a literature review of the acceptable prevailing speed threshold
for residential streets identified in existing lagoon hills
residential traffic management policy number 350.
in addition, the traffic commission recommended that the commissioners be prepared
to present their individual recommended edits to policy number 350.
so because the first item list requires a real-time review
of a proprietary software program that can only be accessed by city staff.
and the second item requires an additional
context not easily conveyed in the agenda report.
I'm making this city staff presentation in response to items one and two above.
and then so the recommended action will be to receive a presentation of city staff
and provide direction to city staff regarding policy 350.
next slide, please.
and so I want to talk about what this compass program is
that we briefly started talking about in on april 30th.
so the compass program is a proprietary software program
from an australian company that takes anonymized vehicle data.
next slide, please.
so what is a connected vehicle?
so most modern passenger private and freighting vehicles
have a sim card embedded at the point of manufacture
and the sim card allows and internet connections
to connect to other devices or smart sensors
and these connections allow the transfer of data
between the car and the manufacturer.
vehicles that have this capability are considered connected vehicles.
and so as the program proponent indicates connected vehicles are like smart devices.
and so some of the information presented
in this brochure was written a few years ago,
but it's still relatively accurate even today.
so as of 2023 it was estimated that by 2030,
96% of all new cars will be globally connected in the united states as of 2020,
91% of the new cars sold were connected and my understanding
from compass is that vehicles generally built after 2018 are connected vehicles.
so the connected data connected vehicles provide is known to be more accurate
than other forms of data collection.
I think whether you realize it or not,
even the cell phones that you carry, sends anonymized data
and anonymized data can track where you're at
and how fast this device moves
and it can surmise that you're in a motor vehicle
and that's also one of the ways that data is collected.
in this case, we're talking about your car though,
I mean newer cars.
so the data connected vehicles provide
is known to be more accurate than other forms
of data collection according to the proponent of the software.
different sensors in site connected vehicles
are streaming via the cloud, machine learning analytics
process, the raw sensor data and users can instantly access
the real, the network wide and real time vehicle data from anywhere.
next slide please.
and then so how is this data different
from other forms of data?
and hopefully this will start to make sense
in light of policy 350, which we'll eventually get to.
so traditionally most data about drivers is collected using
external hardware and you're all familiar with tube counts.
we've talked about that in the traffic commission where we lie tubes across the road
and we actually measure the, based upon how far apart
the tubes are, the time it takes for the tire
to hit the first tube versus the second tube
and you can calculate the speed based upon the mathematics
of that manual counts by people using radar device, cameras,
mobile phone data that I just mentioned, external plug-in devices.
and according to a compass, mobile data
data sets can be unreliable or could be
heavily skewed in vehicles or multiple devices.
so if you're in a bus or a car with more than one person,
hardware-reliant methods don't offer the same level
of granularity and large scale hardware is difficult, expensive to scale.
I can't put light tubes everywhere.
so it would be prohibitively cost costly for the city to do, for anyone to do.
next slide, please.
so connective vehicle data from motor vehicles also has greater coverage and accuracy
because it also collects other data, g-force,
which is acceleration, breaking, swerving travel times, timestamps, median speed,
making model, gyroscopic, and axis changes in latitude and longitude.
next slide, please.
so the benefits of connective vehicle data
for use by public agencies is it can be proactive, granular,
constant, and it provides opportunities to scale.
next slide, please.
and so with this type of data, it leads
to use cases across road safety, freight origin destination,
which is really important, really hard to collect origin and destination data.
the traditional method of doing origin and destination,
like if you want to know how many people were
cutting through a neighborhood, for instance.
you have seen in the past that we have had cameras up on poles
and people have asked me what these cameras are.
and I had forgotten that the cameras were out there,
and they're just up there for a few days at a time.
and what that was was just basically
to photocapture plates so that way we could compare origin
and destination that same plate into the neighborhood versus left the neighborhood.
that's what that was used for.
asset maintenance, transport modeling, parking capacity,
and a variety of other things as you can see there.
next slide, please.
so the software, the claim they ingest billions
of vehicle generated data from connected vehicles
and online units across multiple makes and models means
that the software can help solve complex problems
that we can't capture everything with hardware.
and then they're passively collected across every road
so this helps folks like us make proactive decisions
backed by data, and then I already went over some of the data
that it collects anonymized data.
next slide, please.
and there are limitations of the data.
so at this point in time, as I already mentioned earlier,
not all cars provide anonymized connected vehicle data.
cars generally built before 2018 don't provide the data.
and then on top of that, not all the data
is being transmitted all the time to the manufacturers
and an insurance to companies like compass as anonymized data.
so what that means in the last sentence
is that not all of it is, however, for a robust analysis
using connected vehicle data, it commonly accepted
that if you have a sample size of 3% to 5%,
you're generally capturing what's going on.
and that's true, generally, in the real world.
not that this is a perfect example,
but when we do speed surveys that are required by state law
every seven years to establish speed limits, 85th percentile,
required to collect a sample of 100 vehicles.
that is clearly it's not all the vehicles out there
that travel every day or across a week.
but that is a sample.
and so next slide, please.
and of course, the data, because it's only installed
in newer vehicles, gives you a new car about bias.
connected vehicles are going to be on new vehicles.
and so it's important to consider how
and areas, socioeconomics may impact the level of cd data available.
I don't think that's a problem here in laguna hills.
and then you have oems and third party vendors and databases.
compass is only a subset of all connected vehicles.
and it should increase in scales,
older fleets of vehicles cycled through the population.
next slide, please.
if there is one.
if there is not, next one.
so at this point in time, I'm going to go sit
where robert sat, and I'm going to show you what the program is.
here it is right here.
here's what we're trying to fill down and be mindful of here.
we had a wireless line up, and a fire was mine.
hope on and here, right?
[inaudible] hello.
does work?
so this is not a perfect program.
where's the mouse?
does the mouse?
this is the mouse.
I'm wondering if we need to zoom in here so what is it?
control s. Control x. How do you zoom in on this thing?
yeah, let's do it.
I'm going to do it a little bit more here.
no, this is actually more of a problem.
here we are.
I don't think I can be filled on in here today.
so I'm going to move my mouse here, and the mouse is--
so I don't really care for the way that the software breaks
down speeds in a different category is slower than 15.
I'm between 15 and 40 isn't particularly helpful.
and I'm still learning how to use some of this.
but what is important here is I can do on the
left-hand side, there is a path analysis over here.
and then I can do a date selection.
if you can see my tiny little mouse cursor here,
it's next to date selection, which is august 10, august 26.
and then I can click on any street, and click on any street,
and I can see for--
there's an example here.
this is a street that we've talked about in the past
that the 85th percentile of the sample of cars
that have driven on the street for the month
between july 10 and august 10 is 28 miles
per hour, based upon collected vehicle data.
and I can do that for any street in the city
for most date ranges going back a couple years.
and I can even break it down by days of the week and time of day.
and so, theoretically, here's alicia parkway
going southbound in front of the carl's jr.
and in front of marshalls, the 85th percentile is 42.
25 miles per hour.
here's 42.72 miles per hour.
and then over here, people are picking up the speed
and past gusto and the 85th percentile is 52 miles per hour.
no, I would ignore that.
that they would have gotten that data from some other source.
and then as you can see here, I eat a 5th percentile.
this is accurate here, 45 miles an hour.
51 miles an hour on this westbound laguna hills drive.
and most-- not all streets as you get down to the--
as you get down to a cul-de-sac, you're not going to find
data because there's not enough sample of vehicles driving.
but we could go over here 22 miles per hour.
we can go to this street here.
here is mustang over here, 31 32 miles per hour.
over here, 28 miles an hour, 27 miles an hour.
house of parkway would expect to be a fast roadway,
which it is, 85th percentile is 57 miles an hour.
let's see.
west and east 38 and 41 miles an hour on this to the a-ho there.
but then when they're approaching the newly implemented stop sign,
we're at 30 on that segment on average.
[inaudible]
yeah, I haven't gotten to this yet.
so what this is here, so if I can get the
cursor to work, these are spots on the program.
can I click on it?
oh, I can just scroll my mouse.
it's great.
these are g-force, and I haven't played with this a lot.
but this is our points on the map
where the program believes people are
experiencing hard breaking or hard turning.
and it could be for-- it doesn't tell you why it's occurring.
it just shows you where it's occurring.
it could be because people are, in this case,
maybe they're driving pretty fast approaching a red light
and they are stopping too fast.
or they-- this is a point where maybe someone
was about ready to rear in someone else.
or maybe they made a hard turn.
or something happened over here.
but I don't have-- I still have to play with this program.
not surprisingly, there's a lot of points of g-force
acceleration and stopping on a near-free ways for that reason.
sometimes you've got some unexpected backups on southbound 5
and it's sitting at osaparkway.
and you're approaching stop vehicles and you're making a hard stop.
again, there's a lot of those kinds of spots in near-free ways.
but then there's also a few spots here that are shown on our trail highways.
and not surprisingly, we have slow speeds within the future village at laguna hills.
and then we can also see-- as a point of comparison,
what's going on in our neighboring cities
to draw conclusions on what maybe draw conclusions
on what similar neighborhoods are experiencing,
which is also helpful, right?
and then we have-- also, here's mill creek.
this is southbound 34 miles an hour and northbound 35 miles
an hour, 85th percentile.
[inaudible]
so this is, no, 37 miles per hour here.
so this is-- this legend is different than this part here.
so-- oh, there you go.
so the data appears to be correct.
I am still learning how to do a variety of different things.
but what we can do with this-- this is pretty cool.
let's see if I can do this.
sam's better at this than I am.
unfortunately, she couldn't be here tonight.
let's see here.
are we still in laguna hills?
I think that's laguna woods.
now we are.
we're getting back to laguna hills.
so one of the things that we were working on over here
is how many people go from here to here, as cut through.
so I'm going to go and see if I can make this work.
so I think if I do this, I draw a wow.
and I want to say-- and now this is the path.
oops.
you can see the speed-- the 85th percentile is really interested here.
you can see-- you see the car on the screen on the left-hand side?
there's a little pink car I'm moving.
so if I move my cursor here, this shows what the speed is
on the specific path as you go around the-- as you traverse.
and there was a stop sign back, I believe.
this was when I dipped low.
and then they go around the corner.
so on any sample path that you choose,
you can see where the 85th percentile is,
and how that changes as you go around the corner.
and obviously, this is connected to vehicle status.
there's a few gaps here.
you can see how that changes as the car speeds up and goes
around the corner for the vehicle data that it did collect.
and then what I wanted to show you, though,
was the g4s, it's near misses.
so there's a near miss thing where the g4s was a near miss,
but another motor vehicle.
[inaudible]
when you do the view results, is it like you scroll down and you can see further?
oh, thank you.
yes, g4s, trajectory analysis, travel times.
but I wanted to show you was there's
a way on here of what percentage of vehicles are going through on that route.
and you can do that with this.
and I did it before.
and I'm a little bit lost in how to do that.
but just take my word for it that it does work.
as long as there's enough connected vehicle data.
so I wanted to demonstrate this to you.
right now, I don't know how long we're
going to have this information for.
it's something occ is currently--
orange county transportation authority is currently
providing the cities this on a trial basis of that charge.
eventually, they're going to stop doing that.
and they're going to ask cities to individually pay
for the program if they find it desirable.
I still would like to play with it some more.
I think there's a value in the program.
I see the promise, at least with some program like this,
there are other ones where maybe we can get away
from using tubes in our decision-making process about what's valid, what's not valid,
where are the hot spots, what's not, some like this may.
in a meeting, just like this tonight,
where you can sit here and in real time
bring something up and decide if something
is warrants for their analysis or not.
so I think that's what I want to get across with this thing.
it's not a perfect software, but it is available.
can you download some of the results?
I believe I can.
there are-- there's an export data, but I've never done that.
but it's over there.
so I guess if we know that the trial period is expiring,
you can always pick some of your hot spots like that data.
I could do that.
I've already looked at a few places that have come up
a time and time again, and the information
is interestingly no different than the tube counts were.
well, within about a mile of an hour, that was my focus here, was this area here
to see if the information was any different.
I didn't find really any information that
was different than what has been presented.
that's how I kind of validated the model, I suppose,
was we did this survey multiple times,
and the information is basically the same.
so that's what gave me some confidence.
thank you for asking the question about whether
or not this was validated and useful or not.
so after you cover this part, we're going to be covering the 350.
so while we're here with the application open,
I'm going to ask if commissioners have any questions
specifically about the application.
mr. [inaudible] I think yes.
I have a few.
it's pulling off the vehicle information of being a connected vehicle.
is it also able to pull off the owner information
and is the security features behind that as well?
no, I can't do that.
the only information I can see is the one here on the screen.
so this is a view-only program.
so I don't have any access to any data behind it.
I am informed that this is anonymized data.
so I'm not capable of getting down to the granular level
of making model of vehicles that provided the data.
if that was your question.
yeah, I mean, it said that it does show that different vehicles.
but looking at it for several different reasons, obviously,
if we see a repetitive pattern of a certain vehicle,
the owner, it's repetitive for speeding,
repetitive of where they park.
it could be helpful service if this was adaptable or tweakable
in the program that we can see repetitive cars
where they're parking on streets to help us with data
that we can say, hey, this is a hotspot area
where they are continuing to be non-mobile.
they're parking here and do they live there?
do they live in the apartment complexes?
that would be something that if it's tweakable,
I think it would be a great opportunity for us,
also seeing that with police services as well.
you also noted that this is a cause of a program.
is it going to be a licensing-based program?
or do we know how that will line up?
right now, occa held occa gave compass,
the director of public works contact information for every city.
and then compass, in turn, contacted me a few months ago
and offered to give a presentation, and I honestly didn't even know what it was.
I just, I got an email and I thought it was on a sales pitch and it kind of was.
except they said, wait a second, wait a second, this is truly
free and I'm like, not, I can't be free, you know, right?
you know, like, no, no, somebody else paid for this.
I'm like, oh, okay.
so I took the call and then had the appointment
and sam and I met with them and they said,
what would you, you know, we can give you
only city staff and give you, you know, a couple of
licenses which is just your username and password.
and so as of right now, I don't know what the licensing
even looks like 'cause right now it's complimentary.
so when it does kind of time to actually adopt this
into usage, assuming there will become a licensing fee for us.
assuming at some point in time, look at the cost value
of what the current traditional surveys cost for the tubing in relation to unlimited,
multiple opportunities to be live and a meeting
and be able to see what's happening in the
opportunity is something that we need to consider.
- I think I won't call it priceless.
this sounds like a master card commercial but I mean it sounds priceless to me.
- thank you.
- agreed.
- thank you, that's all I have.
- okay.
- are you stupid or nothing?
- yeah.
- not on this.
just a few things.
so currently right now, the cities have access to this data.
it just seems like such a wonderful wealth of information.
I'm just amazed, it's a lot of folks
they're concerned about us putting cameras out there
to collect data and then I look at all this data
and they don't even realize their car is transmitting data.
currently, does our police services take advantage
of any of this data to find hotspots or anything like that?
- I have not had an opportunity to sit down
with the motor deputies or with our police chief to go through this, that's on me.
I'm still learning a little bit how to use it,
sort of like train the trainer kind of program.
so I wanted to go through and actually learn a
little bit more how to use this and again, do some,
again, comparisons with some of our past traffic engineering
reports and really verify the validity of that.
I think part of what I wanted to get out of the traffic
emissions tonight when it sounds like you already
have a lot of interest in it is how much of a tool
do you see this to be and how much, you know,
what kind of effort should we put into this and this
sounds like we should put a lot of effort into it?
- real quickly from our police chief, sir.
- yes, hello, just wanted to comment.
no, we do not use this software to find speeders at this time.
we base our enforcement on where collisions occur
in the city and we try to do our enforcement in that area to curb those collisions.
so, just wanted to-- thank you.
I appreciate this.
it sounds like from the commission unless I'm getting
this wrong that there's a lot of interest in this tool.
it's an amazing amount of data that we're
getting here and depending on how you analyze it.
I mean, even the tool that you showed where you draw the line down one street
and then another street and you can see if there's any cross-through traffic going
in that neighborhood and you can analyze that is a wonderful tool and the fact
that cars that are 2018 and older or newer
are putting out this kind of data,
which is very significant, very significant.
- did you have something, neil?
- just had a quick question.
so, it was the concern from our police services
that is it technically using this kind of real time data
or data from after the fact considered like speed trap
where you're trying to monitor traffic?
- no sir, there's no concern from us at this point
as far as I know I haven't contacted legal or anything,
but just speaking from myself from what I know
on using this type of software, in fact,
it may be something that we could look at
in the future and see where the trends of speeding are.
like we would have no problem with that,
but it's not a sheriff's department data system,
so it's before using it, it's something that we would look into
whether it's appropriate to use for enforcement purposes, you know what I mean?
but it looks like it looks very interesting to me.
I can see where the speeders are and things
like that might be some places to hang out,
and I can almost guarantee that some of those places
are where our collisions are occurring, you know, at the speeding areas.
- and then mr. Ames, just a quick question.
so, is this even able to kind of detect
if like a signal like a stoplight is mistimed, causing like backup?
no, okay.
- no, it doesn't do anything.
it doesn't monitor queuing, unfortunately, that I'm aware of.
it doesn't monitor queuing that I'm aware of.
- okay.
are you seeking direction from the commission to recommend to the city council
to pursue a subscription to this type of data?
- no, I wasn't looking at that.
I think where I wanted to go with this was the reason why this came up
at the april 30th meeting, it was in context
with the residential streets management policy.
and so the answer is maybe,
but the larger context that I wanted to give
was we currently, in our residential
streets management policy, have this iterative process.
and part of the iterative process is the data collection effort.
- yeah.
- I guess I would like to see, if for my two cents,
I would like to be able to use a tool like this
so that whether or not that data collection effort should even be done to start with
as sort of a screening tool.
- so you would like to hear from the commission
if there is interest in pursuing this application.
so I don't know if we need to take a vote on that,
but I think I'm hearing a positive response
from all the commissioners
that we would like to pursue this application.
- okay, I think we'll just take it at that because when and if the freebie stops
we'll have to then budget it in our it budget,
like every other software we normally subscribe to.
so I'll just take that for what it is.
and then I would next like to talk about the
actual policy 350 because there was ambits swing
getting to the commissioner's thoughts on edits.
there was an interim question about what is this 32 to 34 mile an hour thing?
- right, right.
- so I kind of wanted to go, my binder's over there,
so I'm gonna go back over there and then I'm gonna try to explain what that was.
- do you have something else on the software?
- more like the 350, you know,
could we just easily add in a section g under data collection?
- so we're gonna get to the edits.
- yeah.
- we're gonna get to the edits.
- yeah.
- yes.
- I haven't heard the word fill down a hue like in forever,
but I know exactly who he is.
- you might have had an area to do.
(laughing)
- so, policy 350.
so there was a lot of conversation about the paragraph.
where is 32 to 34 miles an hour come in as an
acceptable range of speeds on a 25 mile an hour,
either posted roadway or a de facto speed limit
on a residential street?
and so the answer is actually within the
paragraph and you have to read it a few times.
it's a kind of get what it's trying to say to you.
so I'm gonna read it to you and then I'm gonna tell you
really what that means.
- from an engineering perspective.
- page page 32, 36 of your agenda packet.
page four of the city council policy number 350.
- okay.
so, I will read it to you.
so through numerous studies of traffic speeds
on residential streets in the city, it has been found that the typical prevailing
traffic speed range is between 32 and 34 miles per hour.
now, we just clicked on some streets on compass
and I am seeing 85th percentile's at 28 miles an hour,
27 miles an hour on some of the streets
and we've also been looking at
some streets where the 85th percentile is, 31, 33 miles per hour.
so keep that in mind.
and so the prevailing speed is the speed at
which 85% of the motorists drive at or below.
and the next sentence is, if motorists are driving on a
residential street in that 32 to 34 mile an hour range,
because the author at the time of writing this said that based upon the traffic,
the studies conducted around that time
that the results of the residential request
for, you know, redoing speeds,
the 85th percentile came back a lot of times
as 32 to 34 miles an hour.
that's what the author is trying to say.
and the author is saying that if they are doing so safely
as evidenced by the lack of documented speed-related traffic collisions.
so we first have to accept that the speed studies
coming back should the 85th percentile on a residential
street has been coming back by the city's own traffic studies
of 32 to 34 miles per hour.
and the study found that there were not any
traffic collisions reported in a five-year period.
and a field review of the location, and that reveal any
unusual conditions raising other concerns for traffic safety.
then that speed range will not automatically trigger
implementation as policy.
so what the author is, I believe, trying to say
is that if the majority of your speeds
being reported on a residential street,
85th percentile, or 32 to 34 miles an hour,
and those studies have found that there are no documented collisions,
and there are no other extenuating circumstances,
then it's something that doesn't need to be addressed.
that's-- that's-- unless you've got a ticket.
what's that?
unless you've got a ticket.
accordingly, actions to address speeding issues
on residential streets will only be recommended
when the prevailing speed of traffic on the street
has been then found to be greater than 32 to 34 miles per hour,
or other unusual conditions exist on the roadway
that raise traffic safety concerns
as determined by the traffic engineer.
so without having had the benefit of the compass data,
but after having done many, many studies
based upon many complaints of speeding in neighborhoods,
the author has found that none of the--
but even though it was above 25 miles per hour,
based upon the lack of documented traffic collisions
or other things that would indicate there's a problem,
there doesn't need to be any further work or physical devices
or any further consideration made because that is the 85th percentile on the roadway.
that is the 85th percentile that I wish everybody else.
it's a network-wide speed.
and so therefore, you need to draw a line somewhere of what
is acceptable and what is not acceptable.
the author has written that this--
and then it was later adopted by the city council
that this line is the 32 to 34 mile an hour line.
I guess I would submit-- I don't have any--
so that's just my interpretation of what this is.
but I would submit that the next part of the question
from april 30th was, does that line need to be moved up, down, or left alone?
and I would say that up until now we've never had a software like compass
to tell us if we move the line up or down as a line of concern,
how many more or less streets would then be of concern in this policy,
which would warrant action?
so that's the data I don't have for you because I just don't have the data yet.
ok.
I have a question.
yes.
so on that-- so the basis for the 305 is not about
speeding or breaking the law, the speed limit.
it is purely about whether we need to regulate the speed of travel
on that for a very safe passage.
the purpose of 350 is about the threshold at which you
install additional traffic control devices to affect the-- yes.
I think we're in an agreement.
that's fine.
I'm going to clear up this on my past comment about getting a ticket.
yeah.
so this is about traffic control devices and when is it appropriate
or recommended to start installing traffic control devices because there's an outlier.
the roadway is an outlier and the otherwise network of roads and laguna hills.
ok.
thank you for the clarification.
yeah.
let me do this real quick.
so we can stay to the format and just touch
all the bases before we get to the discussion.
so does that conclude the staff report at this time?
yes, it does.
ok.
all right.
ok.
so at this point, we're going to go to commissioner
questions for staff on any of these items.
and then we'll also ask for public comment on this agenda item.
so are there any questions for staff at this point based
on the items that we've covered during the staff report?
yeah, the question.
why is it at 85 percentile?
it's just like the 32, 34.
why do we pick?
because if you increase your decrease it,
you know, it have pretty significant ramifications on where you put.
I'm just asking why the 85th percentile is
the traffic engineering world also state law,
based on what you establish speed limits on other roadways.
so the presumption is rightly or wrong,
that 85% of the drivers on the roadway are driving.
samely, I suppose, and 15% are driving maybe not as well.
and so I have to do a literature review on that.
but the 85th percentile is the line at which you decide where
the threshold should be for establishment of a speed limit,
which is the reason why we do our speed limit surveys every
seven years for establishing speed limits on roadways.
and we actually have to go through on arterial highways and collector roadways,
and actually do the sample of the hundred cars that I talked about earlier,
and then that in turn informs and recommends where speed limits should be set.
so it's that same sort of idea that the acceptable
speed at which people drive is that 85th percentile,
because it's just been practice, and it's
been that practice for long before I was here.
so that's my answer right now, but I'm happy to get back to you
with more information on why the benefit of the sample is set.
I was curious, it's things come into practice and never kind of get looked at.
so I'm happy to provide more information and some traffic commission.
and I'm sure it's a state.
it is.
so 85th percentile number is a state thing for setting speed limits.
why 85th percentile came in a practice?
I would need to do a little chance of that.
some study.
so many came up with the numbers.
I'm going to happen in 1970 and several of it now.
sure.
[inaudible]
yeah, just, it was a question.
so any other specific questions, we're going to go through
the questions then we're going to ask for, you know,
the formal public comment, and then we'll come back to discussion.
that's pretty much where we're going to do a
lot of the heavy lifting on this agenda item,
including the edits and all those things.
so any other more specific questions on this item?
okay.
clerk, are there any public comments on this agenda item?
no, they're not.
and there are no electronic comments.
okay.
thank you so much.
okay. We're going to bring it back to the commission for discussion and edits.
and I had just, just as an overview, just
actually speaking to what you just said was,
I just had something I wanted to say as we go into the discussion and edits.
and that is, so the policy was created in '95 and the last refresh on it.
was august 28th, 2018.
so since then, many changes have taken place.
we have more population.
we have permit parking impacts.
we now have e-bikes.
we have new developments that are coming into the city.
we have a lot more behavior that's connected with parking.
even the way that we maintain our streets has been impacted
with the cycle of how we're maintaining our streets.
because of the fiber install that we did here in the city, a lot
of our streets look very interesting right now as a patchwork.
and so, as was just mentioned, the policy was created in that timestamp.
2018 was the refresh on that.
so obviously, we're here to look at, you know, what would the edits be?
how can we make this policy better?
even looking at the software tonight is a major
addition to how the policy could be treated.
so, all that being said, it's been eight years
since the city council has touched this policy.
so, they're probably not even aware that this policy needs updates.
so, all that being said, we're going to go ahead and bring
it back to the commissioners for discussion and for edits.
would you like to, should we just start with the edits?
and we can start creating a list of those.
I think that would be helpful.
I think it would also be helpful to discuss why you're making edits.
why, okay.
with the recommendations that you would be making, I'd
like to know the why so that way I can provide context.
okay. And I also wanted to state, you know, this was on our last agenda.
and mr. Caputo, he couldn't make it to that meeting.
and it was unanimous.
we didn't want to do this without you.
yeah.
it was important because we realized that you were putting work
into this and into what, into what those edits would look like.
so, why don't we start with you, with your edits, and if you'd like.
and staff is asking for the edit and the reason for the edit.
I can't, I can't ask about it.
oh.
okay.
you're, you're, you're.
I don't think that's, he's got some great things there.
okay, great.
wonderful.
neil, would you like to start?
yeah, I can start.
I kind of had just two things really.
so, regarding section three data collection,
I wanted to add a separate section g, stating
that if available the data collection may be
conducted using a third party data source.
if it available by city staff to conduct, you know, sections d through f.
and then the second one, kind of, I don't think I can really regarding
section four approach the speeding issues that mr. Ames pointed out.
I think for me, I'd like to see data on whether that threshold really makes sense.
given different.
not the 85, but the actual 32 to the 34.
whether that makes sense in every part of this community.
and so, I was wondering if there would be support from the rest of our
commission to see if we could split this city into three kind of zones.
north laguna hills, central laguna hills, which is defined north of la paz.
and then kind of molten, molten flash.
the, uh, meligale neighborhoods where you have south of la paz.
to see if those 85 percentile is based on those three zones very significantly,
just because the neighborhoods are very different, the development is different.
and the expected development is going to be different between those three areas.
and so, for me, that kind of made sense regarding
what we saw with the compass data tonight.
so, not really an action item on that second piece, but, you know, a
continuation is I think what I'd like to see after we get more data.
okay, does the staff understand that statement?
I think it's an excellent suggestion.
okay. Do you need a y for that?
okay, all right.
okay.
all right, wonderful.
were those your edits?
yep.
okay, mr. Jones, would you like to present your edits?
first one is initiating an evaluation page one page one.
and, uh, the second sentence for the bottom, it's, uh, going
back to the 18-month period that's been previously evaluated.
you know, over time, we've seen, you know, we would file a report and
then maybe two meetings later, you get a pile of pile of people in.
so, I think the 18-month is, you know, is, is long.
now, you do have, um, a page two that, that's a traffic
engineer comes, you know, override the 18-months.
but, I just, I just think it's just, it seems
to me a long period of time because these
things, if it's an issue in one meeting, it's generally going to keep, keep coming up.
and, if you're saying, you're not going to do anything 18-months.
what's your recommendation on what the time period should be?
um, I actually think it should be knocked out and just have, you know,
have a, you know, at the discretion of the commission and the traffic.
so, remove that complete.
it's going to come up multiple times at a commission meeting,
or if you're getting, or if mr. Ames is getting phone calls and,
it's kind of a moot point, if it asks me. Okay, just, just my opinion.
okay, does, uh, the staff understand that recommendation and the reason why?
I do understand the recommendation and the reason why, um, I guess, my, I guess
my concern is then, what, what does the, what does the feedback look like?
I mean, how does, if there's no time limit on that, um, I guess, so if I took the,
that, um, commission at the cell, made on g, and then I remove the time limit on here.
I guess, then, if those two recommendations were put into implementation, or we remove
the time limit, but then I have a new tool
that allows me to see if anything's changed.
would that, and then I declare that it's nothing's changed, does that, does that take
care of the problem, or does it need to be brought back to the traffic commission?
my only worry is then loading up the traffic commission agenda with, with items.
I guess that's what I'm trying to get more clarification.
that we have to put an 18 months, you know, it's
going to continue to come up. It's just, I think it's
kind of a redundant because it's, but just, you
know, in my opinion, you're going to clarify that.
so when you mean strike out, like strike out if the identified issue blah,
blah, blah, and then even that second sentence after that no further evaluation.
yeah. Yeah. So it currently the way the policy is
written, and correct, staff correct me if I'm wrong.
even though it does say 18 months, the, the city engineer
has a lot of, if you look through the whole policy, and
I know that we all have, there's a lot of discretion for
the city engineer to step up and say something's changed.
we have new data, there's new input, and that
basically wipes out that 18 month timeline anyways.
but, but I understand what you're saying. And,
and so, and so what, so what you'd like to see
is, is specifically, you want to see from the word
if, and that entire sentence all the way down.
so directs. And, and then, and then on the next page
getting rid of no further evaluation will be performed.
so in other words, we're removing all of those words. Exactly.
okay. Does, does staff understand that recommendation?
I understand the recommendation, but I, I don't agree with it.
okay. Okay. All right. That's okay.
that's okay. And then next is number two evaluation process. Okay.
if fair first sentence, when a resident raises traffic
safety concern, then, I'd like to add, you know,
total volume of traffic amount of pass through
traffic, and then add to that, both parking and noise.
okay. So, say, say that again. What sentence is that?
um, the first, first sentence. The first paragraph.
yeah. It has a, a number of criteria. Okay.
and you want to ask the, uh, collision events, pedestrian
access issues, then add to that parking and noise.
so, comma, parking and noise. Okay. Does staff understand that recommendation?
can we add, um, you know, street sweeping or
like a road maintenance? Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
uh, like a behavioral aspect with like the trash or something like that. Yeah.
does, does staff need a, a why for that? Yes, please.
yeah. I think, you know, we had two or three meetings ago.
an issue from laguna woods on, you know, what's concerning is you're getting, um, you
know, the street takeovers, the intersection
takeovers, which is a noise issue, obviously.
and then if, you know, we're seeing a legal parking to have, to have people
have, have, uh, citizens come up and, you know, address that with us also.
and then, um, possibly it's street sweeping because I personally,
when street sweeping initially came up, I was kind of pro brewing it.
I think it's a big tool that we should be using
more to make sure that cars are staying put for one.
they're not being moved like, like I'm, like I'm the old most right, for example.
so I, yeah, I think street sweeping is a big, is an issue.
okay. So, so you added your words, um,
mr. Patel, you added the street sweeping and then
could I change the second to adverse on social behavior, adverse on social behavior.
so, yeah, because, because, yeah, we saw, we saw it. But how do we, how do we
define that, though? Because we're being very specific with the other words.
you know, we're talking about, that's very specific street sweeping, we're,
we're talking about very specific things. How do we define that term?
I think, you know, adverse on social behavior, such as
littering, you know, drug use, yeah, sexual, yeah, something.
so in other words, you would have to add that statement
and then you would have to put some examples, such as,
when people are seeing, you know, right, needles.
well, we've had a lot of public speakers. I
mean, it can also include things like, you know,
drag racing, donuts, you know, things like that.
okay. But that would have to be defined, though, right?
okay. Staff has some comments on this.
yeah, I do. Sorry. Yeah, no, no. Yeah, we can see the body language. We're
throwing things out there. No, I appreciate that, actually. So, a few comments.
so, this is a residential streets traffic management policy.
so, it's not meant to be applied to arterial highways or even collector roadways.
and the end result of this residential streets management
policy at the back is about traffic control devices. Okay.
so, I'm, I'm appreciate that all of those are concerns.
we've heard all those concerns. I'm just not sure.
we're stuck there applicable to this policy because I can't,
I can't measure noise and I wouldn't know how to put up a sign
to address noise or put in a speed hump to address noise or
street maintenance or trash or anything else related to that.
okay. This is a, that's a good point.
yeah, this is a, a speeding, this is relating to speeding.
okay. Yeah. So, I, I think if, if we want to address
those other items, that would be in a different place.
so, how do these recommendations then, what's been
presented by mr. Jones in regards to moving the
timeline and those things, those, those are
applicable to the, you know, obviously to the policy.
but in regards to the other, other items that were just presented,
what portion of that is acceptable to the policy or is there nothing?
I, I, I wouldn't call, I wouldn't couches acceptable or not acceptable. I would
more couch it is, whether or not it's within the realm of what the policy is.
so, I wouldn't say noises, trash, street sweeping, street maintenance,
I mean adverse, the donuts on the roadways, unless they occur.
and in the middle of a residential street, most of the
donuts are occurring on white or arterial highways. I don't
think, I think it's pretty hard to do a donut on
intersection of two small residential streets, but maybe not.
great route in victoria, that's the end of victoria. Those are not
residential streets, those sort of arterial highway in a, okay.
in the collector roadway, so I guess I'm just trying to illustrate
that I think those things belong in a different discussion.
okay, somewhere else outside of this policy.
so that's fine. Are you good on that?
okay, absolutely. Okay, that's good.
all right, you can continue with your edits, please.
I remember five, you know, one of the things that we get hit
with on a lot of the streets is they're relatively low volume.
so we're talking about, you know, 1,500 and number five.
which page are you on? I know. It's approach to volume issues.
okay, got it. All these streets are relatively
low volume, and so if we, it's difficult,
you know, to get to the volumes, to put in, you know, some of the speed controls.
is, is the amount of volume necessary is the 1500,
a adjustable, or is it something that, again,
and the reason I ask is just, we hit it and you're going, well, it
doesn't make any sense to put it because the volumes are so small.
and, so it's kind of a more of a question than.
so you don't like the way the volumes are presented, or it, or it doesn't make sense.
why do we use, if volumes, like that? Yeah.
okay, so for some.
so this requires a little bit of, I think, historical context.
so this, this part here is, it's related to speeding, it's
related to residential streets, but there was a point in time.
when the city was a newer city that there was a lot of concerns,
more concerns there are today about cut through traffic.
yeah. Hi, and I'm a little bit surmising here,
but I, I, but I also used to work here years ago.
so I, I think I know what this is trying to say.
this is, this paragraph is trying to talk about what an
acceptable level of number of vehicles should be on a street.
and I think what it's, it's the volume of pass through traffic.
so what it's trying to get at is the notion that there needs to be.
gates or hard stops in the middle of a block to redirect traffic to another street.
and I, I believe what this is trying to get at is what are the acceptable thresholds
for vehicles going down a residential streets,
the point where it becomes of a concern.
case in point, we're aware of in some neighborhoods,
the neighborhood that we're talking about right now.
beck and ham street, cammerwell, wilkes, they have the
double gates over there to separate out the motorists.
on beck and ham from being able to turn on cammerwell
to turn on wilkes, you had previously heard from prior
speakers that have history in the area about why those
were put up, and why they were maybe put up after the fact.
and I think that's what this is meant to address.
it's kind of a, it's a, it's an adjoining but not direct topic with speeding.
it's meant to address that if there's a lot of cars on the roadway and
they're all speeding, you know, we should be talking about volume as well.
and so this is just slightly, slightly different thing than the rest of it.
the only time that it talks about speeding is when we finally
get down to roman numeral 6, which is physical devices.
and basically the 5000 vehicles is meant to really try
to capture, are you getting your bang for the buck,
after you've spent money installing something, is it
really affecting that many people, and that many motorists.
but this, this section right here, the redistribution of motor vehicles
is a little bit of an outlier almost in the rest of this, this policy.
I think it was meant to address the very specific other topic of concern.
okay.
is that, yeah.
yeah.
is that good?
yeah.
I'm just concerned that, you know, we keep bumping up against the volumes and
it, to me, it doesn't make a lot of sense if, you know, it's like this to the ao.
I don't think, I don't think you have 1500.
in fact, most of these, 25 mile an hour streets, I think, I doubt if you have,
through the 85% that most of them don't have more than a few hundred I would guess.
I think that's what the authors trying to indicate is that
a lot of these streets don't even meet these thresholds.
so trying to reroute traffic, for instance, it
shouldn't be above paramount concern, I guess.
is the best way I could couch that.
all right.
that's it.
you're good?
yeah.
good.
okay.
real quickly, before we end your edits, I just wanted to make
sure I'm, it's page number two of the policy packet page 30 of 36.
we're commissioner jones asked for where it says at the
end there on the first paragraph under evaluation process.
at the end where it says pedestrian access issues,
comma, did we leave in the streets we've been named.
and so I was concerned because we kind of got caught up in a conversation there.
and I wanted to make sure because you had mentioned street sweeping.
yeah, I think we've got it.
it's, this isn't where we put.
because because I know in the past we've tried
to talk about a policy for street sweeping.
I didn't give we do want to talk about street sweeping.
one of the things I do want to do tonight is for that meeting next meeting
when we do talk about parking, we should bring up the 1994 ordinance.
on the parking permit program.
because I think that is where we can add street
sweeping because I don't think it wasn't that one.
okay.
yeah.
I think it's just doesn't apply to street sweeping and noise and that.
okay.
yeah.
because it's, it's gotta fit somewhere.
it's really speed.
but it just, it just doesn't fit in this, in this policy because again,
whether it's e-bikes or any of these other issues, it's got to fit in a policy.
yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Right. Okay. Are you done?
I'm done.
okay. Good, good, good.
okay. Let's move our to your mystery.
we don't.
thank you very much.
you know, noting that in your, in chair miller's opening statements
that the, you know, this policy was created in 1995 and revised 2018.
you know, just in that amount of time how much things have changed.
you know, the kind of cars we're doing looking at technology
that's, that's really changed how we're doing it changes fast.
really fast.
so looking at what we have in our current overall
view, which is kind of why I wanted, you know, make
sure that we're all interested in the clarity of, you know, what
was, was discussed on, on page four, page three, two, three, six.
you know, that the floors are driving an essential lack of
documented speeds and a three, two, three, four percent tiles.
that this was not for speeding.
it was for traffic control devices.
and that's really what this whole thing is about.
we were shown a fantastic, you know, current live compass program.
we really don't have it worth stated that our technology is about to step into this.
so looking at the data collection, adding in not necessarily compass as the word,
but adding in a section, the wording I don't have with me today, but, you know,
that we're able to, to take, you know, the available data information
available to us, because it doesn't really state, you know, it's, it's
showing that we have available, you know, but we're doing it the old
school way, and taking this information and then using it correctly.
and because if we, if we add that kind of information
into the data collection, it makes things real time.
and then it changes our 18 month concern, then it changes our 60 day concern, then
it changes everything else that it folds backwards into our, our other statements.
so by changing one statement or adding in that
a ability to use technology for evaluating
item 350 and number 350, it changes our guidelines to how we approach those items.
so I'd like to get something in the, in the
verbiage of that where we put it, I'm not 100% sure,
but I think it's, it's something to definitely
look at as how we place that into our current.
so under approach to speeding issues, you would
like a paragraph that specifically talks about
using our current tools to collect data in
regards to how we approach the speeding issues.
so this whole article is not about, it's not about speeding, it's about controlling.
and this is how to, how do we control the overall
flow and how it's doing and what's acceptable.
but by taking the control devices, which is all this
everything it's right been put in place, then it goes
back to, you know, page five where it's saying, okay,
now these are the devices we currently have to us to use.
so it's all pressing up to page five.
so without establishing what we're, you know, how we get the information over doing
up to this point, you know, we're not, it's all about how do we slow down the speed.
and adding in the, the current warning signs and downhill speed signs
and repainting streets, I mean, that is how it reduce the speed.
but the reasons why we're doing it is because of there is they, you
know, 32 mile an hour, 85% tiles, you know, three evaluation of it.
we have technology that we don't have to go
through those channels anymore to do that and just
kind of bringing us to the current, you know, the
current available technology that we have to us.
so finding how to get to there, that's really
what we want to do because even, even some of
these switches, you know, we've, we've also wanted
to look at what modern devices are there now.
we've got some ideas here, but, you know, these are all old ideas.
there's got to be new ideas out there that we can adapt.
and a good example would be like a modern speed trailer that
not only tells the driver what their speed is, but maybe takes a
picture of their license plate sends them a friendly coat postcard
mail and says, hey, just to, well, friendly is, is it can be.
that says, hey, you, please slow down on this street, you
know, so, you know, I'm sure there's all kinds of technology
as, as you're saying, that's available that, I mean, we
got a little taste of it tonight, which is really good.
to staff understand what type of a paragraph is being requested to be added.
I think I do, but I also, I think maybe part of it was addressed already by
commissioner patel
with the point g, adding in from an afternoon roman numeral three data collection,
where you have
a little bit of an off ramp there where if available data collection could be
collected by a third
party source, and I'd put a hyphen in there or comma such as collect, collect a
vehicle data.
so, to collect data for items d and f kind of thing is what I heard.
the other part about it, I heard, I thought I heard was about going back to the
32 to 34 miles per hour in the approach to speeding issues, and I wasn't quite
sure if you were indicating that there needed to be, wasn't sure what you were
indicating in terms of what needed to be added specifically to roman numeral four.
I think it's just clarity that the speeding issues are not, because we
have the 32 and 34 mile an hour range, it's not, it's still illegal.
it's 25 hours opposed to speed limit, because that's the range
that is to determine on whether we use a speed controlled device.
can you say it one more time?
just because the average 85% tile is the 32 to 34 miles
per hour, or that they're up, that it's not that you're not
breaking the law, you're still speeding, but it's a
recommendation, whether we need to add in speed controlled devices.
I think that's an excellent point.
ok, I fully understand that it helps them when they go to court, and they
say, well, I'm within safe, it says here I can be safe, I'm driving safe.
it's not that, whether you're driving safe, that's
for a speed controlled device, not for truly speeding.
the clarification of this policy is for speed controlled
devices that this range is only for that purpose.
that one, compass does, I don't know if we need,
there's a very open on page eight, it does say other
issues with the traffic engineering will be considered
as a team to program by city traffic engineer.
is that really an overall statement that anything is in this particular
number 350 can be altered at the discretion of the city traffic engineer?
is that a kind of a catch all?
it is, so I would, so the item, roman imeral 6 physical
devices is concentrated on speed humps, and I think g
is a catch all as it relates only to speed humps, and
then the list above it, a through f is meant to document.
it's meant to document examples or requirements of when
speed humps can be implemented or should not be implemented.
and I think that the, I would think of the author put that in there because
there are things that may not have been contemplated that should be considered.
in that analysis, and I guess I would say that even if g exists, there would, if you
got to roman imeral 6 and are implementing a physical device, that doesn't preempt the
city traffic engineer would still need to create the traffic commission agenda report
and the city council agenda report and justify the whole list of reasons why or why
not.
and that thing is required or not required.
so I'm not really sure, so I'm not sure that it adds a lot of value,
but at the same time I don't think it will result in surprise.
the traffic engineer came up with some new
criteria that you've never heard of and that
you're never going to see in that there was a unilateral decision not to do something.
I think this is just meant to be a catch all because the author didn't think
of all the things that could affect the installation of the speed humps.
and so my thought on that was maybe adding a safety net to that is traffic
engineer and recommendation or recommendation from traffic commission.
if it is a catch all, then it allows us to check and balance.
so define that last sentence of what you'd like to see there.
the verbiage is fine by the city engineer and the traffic commission.
so it's a recommendation that is still going to go back to the city council.
for the reasons why I explain I don't necessarily see a problem with that.
just the checks and balance so that it's not all the
pressures on the city engineer to have the full onus of it.
so staff understands that recommendation.
that's all I have.
okay, you're good.
all right, so mine are, you all covered a lot of it.
which is why we get a later.
yeah, I'll cover it a lot of it.
my first edit, let's see here.
let me go to page one.
let me find it here.
these issues will be documented addressed through
the use of available traffic engineering standards.
place important.
so it was just a suggestion that it's the first paragraph and I'll read it.
it's the middle sentence.
these issues will be documented and addressed through the use of
available traffic engineering standards and police enforcement tools.
I was actually going to stop with a comma there,
police enforcement comma traffic controlling tools.
does that make sense?
I know it's just wordsmithing at this point.
well, the standard is the standard which
defines how we're going to do things, right?
but the tools in this point, I was trying to say traffic
controlling tools would be the things we've already talked about.
are we putting in speed humps or whatever, stop signs or whatever?
yeah.
the next item below that, it's in initiating and evaluation.
it's really just paragraphs a and b.
they both start out with a resident has.
and it seems to me that you could actually take the words from
a and b and you could actually combine them into one paragraph.
because basically we're saying, okay, a resident
has contacted city staff by letter by an email.
when really, it could be as simple as a resident has contacted the city in
any form, whether it's city staff, city council, by electronic communication.
it doesn't matter, they've contacted the city.
so, and what I mean by all of that is that we don't
have to spell out by telephone, by letter, by email.
because they could contact us anyway.
I mean, they might, you know, a resident may see you at a coffee shop and say, mr.
jones, we got this, you know, and so, so in other words,
instead of defining all these different pathways for contacting us, I
think those two paragraphs a and b could be very simple and just combined.
and it's just a wordsmithing thing, you know, just to add
to that, the, you know, I think it's contact to the city.
you know, me personally, if someone goes up to me and wants to have a complaint to me.
I don't want that responsibility to me that that's the day I
saw mike and he said, I told him and he didn't push the city.
I think keeping the verbiage that they need to connect with the city is.
and in official, what you're saying is in an official.
correct.
yeah.
because by coming to us, then we take on the onus of their complaint
if we take that part out of it, then we are the onus of it.
okay.
contact the city.
no, no, no.
I like you contact it.
you can fax, you know, pigeon, whatever it has to be,
but I mean, they still need to contact the city for that.
and that would be my, if someone asked me, I would say,
please, you know, file, file this issue with the city.
because I don't, I don't want to have that come back on me.
but I want to make sure that if we're taking out those items,
it's just make sure it states that it's back to the city.
and yeah.
so we're defining it as an official contact,
official, whatever those are defined as.
yeah, I think I would agree with you that there's probably some stream landing that
can be done here, but I think the underlying message between a and b is the fact that
they either the city staff was either directly contacted or the city staff was here
as in the fact that the traffic commission meeting heard the complaint kind of thing.
and we have a record of it that way.
okay.
good.
um, the other items, and again, we're, we're in this
process of figuring out where all this new stuff fits.
you know, like take for instance, and I just wrote these down as notes, not more
of of edits because I think we've done all the edits, but just in regards of.
e bike policy, you know, put.
when developers come to our city and they're going
to build a new apartment building and having that in
place where, you know, the state may say, oh, well,
you can build an apartment with only 1.5 parking spots.
but the city of lagoon hills is asking for two parking spots, you know, and
again, that's it's not within this policy, but, but it's it's the whole idea of.
what I mean, we had that other discussion about do we need to
create an entire policy just for street sweeping when when really.
and the only reason why I'm bringing these up is
because this policy hasn't been touched in eight years.
and, um, I think I think a lot of times we're playing whack a mole with
a lot of these ideas because the policy hasn't been touched in a while.
but I don't I don't have any outside of that. I don't have
any other edits. I mean, it's we we've covered pretty much
everything. And I think from this point forward, I'm assuming
and staff can tell me the process now or tell us the process.
are we going to bring this back at the november
meeting with all of the edits for us to
go through this process again and like kind
of ratify the edits or how we can handle that.
I thought that far ahead. But now that you mentioned that
the november meeting that seems like a really long ways
away. Right. But we have our special meeting, which is for
a specific thing, which isn't about this. So I suppose.
yeah, that's true. We did. I didn't mention that
I wanted some time to go through the the compass
regarding the 3234 so I guess the short answer
is yes, I guess this would come back in november.
I think what I will do, though, if I can, and time allows. I
think what I'll do is that most edits are there other than this
research component here on number four thing that what I could
do is just send out a red line and then bcc and then you could.
if anybody wants to provide me any feedback before november,
you can tell me if I got it wrong. And then that way we're not
looking at it for the first time, you know, right beforehand
kind of thing. I think that would be helpful to me at least.
yeah, I mean, we do this with the recommended edits. I
mean, eventually, eventually, even after all this is done,
it still have to go to for off a beaten path and by
continue to talk about it. We can't, you know, so if we can.
I'm not, I mean, your edits are, are not that many.
so, but I, if I see any red flags, I'll do that.
okay, perfect. So, is, is that an acceptable timeline to, to, so basically then within
the next, I don't know, maybe by october you're sending us out the edited document.
and then you're bringing that back to us in november. And pretty much at that
point, we've all looked at it and we've all said, yes, this is good to go.
yeah, that's right, that's right, collect a recommendation.
right, and then we make our recommendations. Yeah, okay.
is that sound good to the information? Okay, wonderful.
oh, I just staff understand all the direction on, on this item.
yeah, I think so. Okay, great. Thank you.
alrighty, so that, that takes care of, do we need to take a vote on that?
on the recommendations. I'm not even sure how we
would, I suppose if you want to take a vote on it,
your, your, if I can, so I'll repeat what I think
would be a good recommendation based upon all of this.
I would say that the recommendation of the traffic commission
is for city staff to receive the proposed edits and to do a
red line document for presentation of the traffic commission
at the next available meeting which is likely to be november.
and then the second item that I heard you say earlier
was, is that you're recommending city staff, pursue
the technology, collective vehicle data technology,
if and when that the, the, it stops becoming free.
does everybody understand the recommendations? I'll first that recommendation
if you want to be needed for georgia. Julie was that as he put it.
yeah, this is some smiles over here. I mean, that we got it on
video. We got on recording. So I think we got it. We'll find a way
to clean up a little bit as long as they give us a little bit of
leeway on the language exactly, but I think we got that right.
okay, so we're good. Yeah, so if you want to take a vote on that. Okay, everybody
understands the recommendation. I'll make a motion to accept staff's recommendations.
I'll second, and we have a second on clerk. You can take the.
vice chair patel. Aye. Chair miller. Aye. Commissioner jones. Aye.
commissioner caputo. Aye.
motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.
that moves us forward to our informational items. And at this time, we're
going to have our police chief provide our sheriff's department verbal report.
sir.
sir, as I have nothing to report tonight since, since last meeting.
well, I will say that you put together a wonderful national night out.
it was a wonderful event out at the park. It was well attended.
they had all of their special forces out there,
including all your drone technology, which
is amazing. So thank you so much for putting together a wonderful event for the city.
it was very well done. Very well done.
yes, that moves us forward to agenda item 4.2.
and this is our city engineer's verbal report.
I have no report to provide tonight. Okay, thank you. That brings us forward
to our commissioner comments, and we can start down here with mr. Caputo.
no comments. No comment.
just a quick request for city staff. So during the meeting
next month, I was wondering if we could bring just for
purposes of discussion, the 1994 parking ordinance to set
up the permit parking for everyone to review any prior
parking agendas, maybe just like even the staff
reports, not necessarily all the addendum behind
it. So at least, you know, some of the various
issues are at top of mind or even a list, maybe.
so there's usually, we have 14 permit parking, are you talking about the permit parking district ones
specifically or the the parking permit district specifically, but also, you know,
situations like los alisos
and some of the other ones that we've kind of discussed, just so that,
you know at least everyone has
it top of mind that, you know, over the years we've
discussed x y z
through all the greek alphabet letters almost. Yeah.
I will do my best. I'm anticipating that's a lot of pages.
but I'll do my best to find, I think I know where I
think I know where you're going with this to find a
good cross section of the release to those those topics.
and, you know, our arterial highways and collector streets and residential streets and
residential street parking, all those things of parking being that was brought up.
yeah, the street sweeping thing needs to be
brought up. It's going to be an interesting
report. I had envisioned writing a dart board of a report and letting everybody.
tell me what they think of it kind of thing, you know, yeah,
okay, I do have a housekeeping question. Yes, not a comment.
yes, for next next month's meeting, what's the format of that obviously it's going
to be a full house with us and city council. Is it going to be a workshop type table?
is it going to be at the chamber here or how are we actually
going to, you know, what we prepared for what we're working on?
it's going to be a, well, we haven't done this before.
let's put it that way. Like on their seats that's why I was aking.
we are making history. We are making history.
we are anticipating this will be on the dais.
it is a city council meeting. So with implementation of senate bill
707, which came july 1st, it needs to be the full suite of technology.
so we need to, we need to video it. We need to audio cast it
and we need to allow comments remote comments from the public to
telephone in. So the best position that we're going to be able to
do that is going to be with the technology that's here on the dais.
so right now off the top of my head, I think it's going to be on the dais.
otherwise, doing it off the dais would require a significant amount of work.
to your point though, there are a limited number of chairs.
the good news is we have chairs inside city hall.
so I think we're probably going to have to share some monitors, some microphones.
those are just my thoughts right off the top of my head.
and if we have done this joint meeting before
I'm just unaware of it. In my time here we haven't done it, so.
I'm excited for it. It's going to be interesting.
thank you. Any other? That was it. Okay.
so we're going to adjourn our meeting tonight with our next meeting
that it sounds like it's a city council meeting and we are their guests.
okay. Okay. That that that works. And yeah. So september 16 at what time?
so our regularly scheduled traffic commission time.
so it'll be september 16 at six o'clock at six o'clock.
okay. Well, thank you. Wonderful meeting tonight. Thanks for all the good work.
we got it done. And this meeting is adjourned.