france here horn tabor yeah share blackerby here all right we're all here all right so i don't have any public comment slips for items not on the downtown waterfront and commuter a lot shuttle service changes mister allen the crosstown shuttle which supported the code a lot and the balance of that was going towards the downtown waterfront shuttle services but with the loss of rda funding we have a three hundred zero gap in our budget and  rider and it was ten dollars and seventy eight cents per per trip pretty significant subsidies for that service average ten riders per hour it's really not a very well performing service you know you get the monthly reports for that service and it's just really not performing very well to continue to justify it i kind of broke it down a little bit more based on that it was roughly twenty five to thirty individuals were used in that shuttle on a daily basis you know based on five work days if okay thank you when you say per right or whatever it is it's actually not unduplicated people it's per ride that's right so one person could ride it two times a day and it was correct we count twice right okay thank you so each trip cost ten dollars and seventy cents yes amazing it's a pretty high subsidy and you compare that to the downtown waterfront shuttle it's three dollars and change per trip and so we have a higher utilization of a downtown waterfront shuttle so one of the recommendations that staff is making is that we eliminate the shuttle service to the kre o commuter lot as also eliminating the support for the  to could easily pick up that service downtown parking staff did it a head count of individuals that were parking in the code a lot to see where they were going after they parked their automobiles majority were  and walking towards state street very few of the parkers were actually getting on the shuttle to go to go to work so again not a high utilization of that service so we think in the interest of being fiscally probably best to eliminate those two services the other thing that we are recommending is raising the fare of the downtown waterfront shuttle from twenty five cents to fifty cents we've been discussing that for a few years we've been holding off on that and it's really intersection lines one and two in particular which are pretty heavily utilized service so there is tran service that is well immediately across the street but they would have to pay the full fare of a dollar seventy five what was the rate of the commuter commit a lot shuttle was free another question yeah mister bradley i was wondering if there'd be an option of offering of maybe a reduced bus pass to those you said there's twelve or thirteen people who are actually using the service the the downtown water or not the the customer the commuter shuttle service so maybe might be possible to offer them some kind of reduction on a bus pass that would be a lot less than ten dollars per trip we could evaluate that to see if that's something that we could do and taking a look at what can we raise the monthly fee in the the parking lot to generate enough revenue to support a monthly pass and i'll have my staff take a look at that and we're having a difficult time at forty dollars a month selling mm hmm monthly permits and then i had them take a look okay when we're at thirty know i can work with mtd and see what we could possibly put together it's just a matter how do we pay for something like that it sounds like it's not a lot of people who would use it so it might not cost very much another question in this summary and the reporter says reduce midday service on crosstown shuttle for a hundred thousand hundred one thousand cost savings but wouldn't wouldn't the city's action really be just to reduce the subsidy to mtd and then it would be up to mtd to figure out how to make up for that well the agreement that we have with mtd one hundred and one thousand of the three hundred thousand dollars goes towards the crosstown shuttle  eliminate both of the shuttle services across town and the coda that's correct okay the staff report says reduce the crosstown shuttle yeah i wouldn't eliminate the crosstown shuttle it's eliminating the kolya a real there would be some sort of peace in that ridership people come off as is open at the retail opens at ten zero there'd be some people there at those hours that might make better access of that service we had a bus going then but in the mid day perhaps gate just a couple of comments here as you know i have for years i've always mentioned that i don't think it's fair to think of the creo commuter loss shuttle as a mtd bus route since it is basically a service for people that pay to park in that lot so i have always had a hard time justifying the cost when we were really it's just a service for people that park in that law you know that being said one hundred and two thousand dollars to shuttle a few people back and forth unfortunately you know i think that is a problem unless you try to somehow raise the cost of parking there to help pay for the coverage of it  lot where i am in downtown most of my employees they use the criolla and i meant i talked to them about it and they they basically understand the rationale why this is happening you know our dea money's going away and we have to figure out how to cut but they're concerned because as i said last month you know they used to ride the bus on mtd and the tin ride bus pass and then now they've decided well i'd rather have the  my car which is what the city was trying to get away from as people driving and so they're now paying for the lot i don't know if they'll go back to the bus or not or if they'll start using the city lots and do the ninety or forty foot is at forty five minutes richest seventy five minutes shuffle and you know that's what i'm afraid that we're getting back to the point where downtown employees might start using you know the whole idea of all of this was to get them out of the city parking lots for customers can park there and employees cannot but i mean i understand why we're going this direction and the way this is worded in the staff it's kind of like this would happen if we can't do anything with the rda money i mean it's still not deaf you know pretty much sure is probably going to go away but you know we always hope there are that maybe we can get this money so i mean i support this even though i think it's a you know i think it's might hurt the downtown workers as far as deciding that it's cheaper for them to chance the forty five minute and park on days when it does no street sweetening and we'll have more congestion on the streets again the crosstown shuttle i think deduction in the middle of the day i think is a great way to do that man we haven't talked about the downtown waterfront shuttle but i think we've all in the past have said that twenty five cents is pretty inexpensive and fifty cents i don't think would make a difference on that ridership a majority of probably tourists right now i know some people downtown that work there use it but it's not that big a deal but i'm you know i'm supporting all three of these i just have the concern that we're cutting back on incentives for downtown workers who are basically minimum wage employees and  you know it just makes it harder for them so anyway thank you you know we you know we've something that we've thought about you know seriously and frankly if the ridership at the curio lot would have been a lot better than we probably would be looking at other ways to solve this problem but when you know we've got twelve zero riders a year it's difficult to continue to support a service we're really highly subsidizing that service a couple of things first in terms of the timing that's mentioned here i thought the city was on a two year fiscal budget cycle and if that if i'm incorrect then how do we calibrate that with then what i'm seeing here is one year fiscal year decision making that's part of my first question and then secondly do we have any new information from the overs the rda oversight committee as to when decision could be made about the three hundred thousand that would also be approved by the state department of finance because i know they're ultimately the approvers of whatever our local decisions are on our obligations and how we may or may not be able to spend the money that we accrued after your second question first is no we have not have received any word yet hoping to hear or something fairly soon i have to move forward as dull or have a contingent plan in case they council's recommendation as to how we saw the bra but if these four measures are approved then they're sort of sitting on the shelf ready for implementation should we lose and and what if we are able to protect the three hundred thousand how then then all this drivers bidding and all that as well as any type of fare increase so it's really not fair to them that keep them in the kind of hanging out there waiting to get word from state in the oversight committee if you just be the third item that perhaps would go forward regardless correct and for about ten thousand dollars we could basically buy at market rate passes for like thirty users from the korea a lot to the year and i know city college or ucsb they have kind of a bulk purchasing agreement  certainly from mt ds perspective anybody and of course the city is welcome to buy our thirty day passes or ten ride passes we don't have something different set up with the city the opportunity with city colleges that they pay for absolutely every student as you probably know whether you ride the bus or not so it becomes a very inexpensive ride for those who do right and everybody else supports it we don't have anything like that set up other than the entire public can come and buy a fifty to thirty day pass or a eleven dollars and fifty cent ten right so certainly we'd be glad to work with the city on that we do have service that goes by there as you know on the line one and other lines coming off the freeway and i'd like to let you also know that in prep first of all i want to say thanks to the city because this knowledge came to us as soon as they have the information and they gave us a chance to ask the public how they felt about it so we've had signs out on our bus stops seeking input want you to feel comfortable about the fact that we've you know we've done the best we can to get the information to us and we have our drivers buying an insurance policy so to speak they're bidding right now on the assumption that this change will go on july nd and if it doesn't they'll stay in the bid therein before that which will be continuing the service so we're ready to have a last minute decision if we the last couple of weeks or so will be okay and that again has been with the help of the city as to what could possibly be happening and coordinating with us and that didn't really answer your question did it oh sorry no but thank you for that information i guess might like more of a comment than a question anyway is it my comment is it feels like and again i don't know quite enough about it but it feels like the challenge in losing this service to a korea lot user would be needing to pay basically full costs for using the bus for a matter of just a few blocks whereas it is along enough distance that it would be convenient to use buses that are already running on korea so it's more of a financial challenge necessarily than a challenge of having that service five or one of the other options for passes or if you're going three blocks it's a dollar seventy five we don't have ourselves just look divided into zones as some of the bigger systems do but certainly we'd be glad to welcome the people and yeah there'd be solutions had available i think you even mtd for your all's yard may have taken some the bike shells yeah and you know that seems like and again this is maybe a bit of an informal suggestion but i don't know the specifics of how that might work but some type of bike lockers because from what i know my experience with the bike coalition is these areas by the freeway and by the transit stops are very very high b easy for someone to keep a bike that then they would use to get from the lot into town even though they could very safely go down castillo take can of perdido and have very low impact low stress bike right in the center of town the issue would just be a secure place for their bikes overnight and maybe there might be bike lockers near mtd or some of these whatever it is the traffic solutions has that could be reprogrammed from the mtv site or bottom from traffic solutions i think they're actually giving them out for free for any site that can use them now because for whatever reason and maybe for you know just a handful of these employees that might make the difference and again as a bike person i feel compelled to make that suggestion especially when the three o'laughlin users come in to renew their pastor they have to pay another monthly basis we can ask them if we have secured bicycle parking at the curio live would you use it we don't want to invest a lot of time and money to put bike parking down there that it that it's not use but certainly that's a question that we could ask it's easy to ask that type of question yeah if you have thirty users doing the math basically you would have need for you know three racks and i would serve the same proportion of people who are cyclists out of the general population and the reason i would bring it up as a timely matter is just when you are making something more inconvenient it's nice to throw out any type of convenience at that same time  hundred thousand dollars and then even if just for a handful of users some secure tool for bike parking so that they could use that as their what do you call it the last mile connection possibility of thinking about reallocating the money for the curio commuter lot shuttle just because it's so expensive and maybe you could spend it more wisely somewhere else well that's probably a conversation that i'll have to have with the  administrator and the mayor city council because you take a look at these numbers and it is a pretty high subsidy and is that really the best use of public funds and you know and maybe we instead of doing that we give them love an empty d bus pass for those who want to do it but we sell it to them so only those who really want one but would get them but you know you know taking a look that this is kind of hard to really regardless to continue the chin dollar seventy eight trip subsidy  parting us the shuttle you know we could do that we could still have to if the funding still came in would still have to do thank for those folks but if the decision is nope that requirement is no longer an effect and you're not gonna receive the three hundred thousand dollars don't think it's like just three hundred thousand dollars and it's fine just use it for whatever if they i mean i'm assuming it's going away which i think we have to do anything related to rda which i'm glad we're  taking this up other comments um yeah i i think it's okay i think it's time i think the bike pod idea is really smart i could definitely see if i were commuter keeping a bike downtown and using it to to get around and get to work and everything so i think that's a low cost good idea and i do i do think that the market can bear fifty cents on downtown waterfront front shuttle so i think these are really you know prudent decisions that we'd be making and so if there's nothing else a motion would be in order to make a recommendation to council i moved to accept staff recommendation to council eliminating financial support for the commuter lot shuttle service and increase the fare for the downtown waterfront shuttle to fifty cents all right is there a second second all right any discussion on that there was a do we want to put the third part in the motion also about the cross shuttle i think that that's included in the commuter lot shuttle service okay any other discussion on the motion all those in favor say aye opposed abstain all right reese this project as you may know has a lot of history and has been in the making for several years now it's been discussed at the tcc before as well as its it'll city council on multiple occasions most recently on january twenty four two thousand twelve council received a report that detailed four alternative designs for this intersection at that time staff was directed to move forward with the alternative that included curb extensions at all corners as well as safety lighting and highway safety improvement program grant funding has been awarded to the city for the construction of this proposed alternative staff have have developed a preliminary design for the project based on councils direction the curb extensions curb extensions shown will provide two benefits to pedestrians first improved visibility by moving the starting point for the pedestrians closer to the travel lanes and second a decreased crossing distance across state aleena this design maintains two fourteen foot wide travel lanes on day lavina street and will not interfere with the turning movements of mtd buses emergency vehicles or large delivery trucks which are the design report reducing the crossing distance on day lavina street from the existing thirty six feet down to the proposed twenty eight feet can provide approximately forty five percent more crossing opportunities for pedestrians between the hours of seven a m and seven p m on a typical weekday in addition the project will add improved lighting on both the north side and north and south sides of the intersection but the exact locations of the street already weighed in on the consistency with their circulation element at a previous meeting so we just want to come back to the committee just for the status report so you know how we're doing with it okay and there are there would there where around town you may have seen the ramps that we have with the red brick pavers in the center island so those would be brick pavers they're directional so where the  gray concrete is that's where the ramps would be right have we had any problems i mean when i block that area i find those little six inch corner raised as it like a tripping hazard and i'm just wondering is it really necessary to have when it's small i mean i'm not a design person but it just seems to me if it was just sloped for the whole way it would be less of a tripping hazard on those narrower streets because when i looked at some when i walk though some of those are not very big and they're raised and if you're not paying spent the ones you're looking at her or some of the first ones we've done and what we've done working closely with the engineering the transportation staff in engineering we have come up with the minimum size area that we would put those in if they're too small we're not going to put them in because we haven't  just notice the whole thing i just think about you really deliberate in this yeah and i had the question also about the crosswalk i mean i understand that a crosswalk can cause more liability and people have a tendency to be feel that they're safer in a crosswalk but i still like the idea of crosswalks i mean on an apollo you have the brick which hasn't really worked out that well in the city but it's like a crosswalk for people and i w you think we're trying to take a measured step by step approach doing incremental steps basically so first step is obviously going to be intersection physical improvements we're gonna monitor the intersection for crashes driver yielding rates that sort of thing if it appears as though additional improvements are going to be needed step two is going to be to add pavement markings and larson green warning signs if we need more beyond that then we're getting into the the type thing so our plan whenever we do improvements or matter what they may be is just to take an incremental approach one step at a time okay no i just general comment i'm very happy council decided to do this in all four corners verses are very conservative plan i think if it's only on one corner originally so i'm very pleased to see this going forward and  so that's my question my comments questions i just wondered what you mean when you say if it works out or doesn't work out i mean what is the criteria for the next step to happen you're not talking about an accident there are you or are you it could be obviously we we don't want any crashes to happen at that intersection but historically this intersection has been one of the higher pedestrian involved across locations in the city you mean if there is an accident if there is an accident but you know it's needed is that me and it's one accident may or may not trigger us doing something it's when the accident may happen if we go ten years and there's only one accident that's actually pretty good because one accident can happen anywhere at any time but in terms of  is the reason why you wouldn't throw some paint on one i would say the the far end if you were just gonna do one putting ladder striping on do we think that that would create like a false sense of security or something of why you wouldn't just throw some paint down when you did everything at once or that doesn't cost a significant amount right it's not a significant cost it is a maintenance issue mm hmm we do have a lot of pavement markings curb marking signs in the city that we do happen to maintain so we are trying to limit the amount of additional  devices we put in the field but that's not our motivation obviously if it makes sense to do it we will but it is a consideration but the the false sense of security with an intersection this wide it's not as big a concern as it would be on like a mill pass or a clean drive that we've been talking about recently you know the studies that have been done say that on a two lane street with these traffic volumes it's fairly neutral as to whether or not it's going to be beneficial or detrimental like we we we know that on the wider streets like memphis and cliff the markings alone detrimental not a good thing here it's fairly neutral so it would probably wouldn't hurt our ideas is to take an incremental lane ahead of me you have one thought process well it's open road in front of me but if there are i actually read those little twenty five and thirty five things in the road and if i see a big white stripe going across the road my brain says well something's happening up ahead i need to pay more attention  that's just me but so i think they have a purpose in that sense they alert people that's something different is coming up keep your eyes open but if it's a situation where it wouldn't hurt to put them in i think a little paint is cheap that may be something we want to consider i had a question on the diagram there's a gray stripe going north and south along the east side of de la vina i originally thought that was going to be a painted crosswalk could just add something it's different about this design than some of the others we've done in the city if you'll notice the length music for approaching vehicles it actually approaching driver one one issue that we have with some of the existing extensions around town is as you're approaching the extension it it's not very deep so it's kind of hard to see so we do have some issues with people seeing those having it much longer makes it much more noticeable but as well it creates more side friction even though the lanes we are leaving pretty generously wide lanes through this area it it will have an impact on drivers as they're going through and it it'll feel more like an intersection well one thing i noticed when driving through this corridor he knows this intersection really sneaks up on you and it's hard to put your thumb on exactly what it is but it it just appears really quickly so what we're trying to do is create something more substantial there to really say this is an intersection so that's that's another feature we the road and all that was an addition i was thinking that that was already there but i don't know i didn't realize it before but so that's it's all narrowing it down so that it'll slow traffic with you said side friction is that the idea caution the concept of side friction is one of a feeling of comfort for the driver if you're in a on an interstate in the middle of kansas and there's nothing around but we fields no other traffic or anything and the road is flat and straight you're gonna feel very comfortable going fast the more stuff visually and traffic interacting with you you get around you the less comfortable you feel the more likely your be more aware of your surroundings and slow down so like i said even though the alain's we're leaving fourteen foot wide lanes a freeway lane is twelve feet just comparison but a fourteen foot lane is is a good width for vehicles and bikes to share so we're leaving fourteen foot lanes even though they are wide lanes we are creating more trying to create more of a visual impact going through that intersection to create that side friction   it can't help in combination with crosswalks one thing i should have mentioned before is we moving forward we want to limit the number of new traffic control devices that we deploy  if if we can create a solution that doesn't deploy additional traffic control devices it's actually a good thing because we want drivers to recognize when there are signs and markings indicating crosswalks that it's a unique condition and that they pay extra close attention to it if you could just picture yourself driving down dale lavina and if at every un intersection there were signs and crosswalk signs and crosswalk signs and crosswalks eventually sensory wise you start to get numb to that so by limiting where and when we use signs  crosswalks we're really trying to address problems and bring extra special attention to that location so if we can solve the problem without using them then we can reserve those for all know at least i now only walk on the north side just because i know it's safer because there's not cars trying to turn left down de la vina and they usually don't see that the des trium and that's where the accident happened safer side to cross and also at the same time it would let drivers knows are going down de lavina that there is that thing in the road that might make them more off more to stop so you know if that's a possibility just to have a crosswalk on the one you know the one across and not the other ones that would just kind of to me would get pedestrians to think okay well that's the site i should really try to cross on mm hm that's just a suggestion i don't know  point and it is worth noting that the extensions alone and even crosswalks don't correct the scenario where you have drivers approaching on figaro from either side and looking north it it's really up to it's up to the drive around the pedestrian to both be aware of one another but when a dry particularly at times when they're faced with the rather lengthy platina traffic traveling through that intersection and having to wait a while they really focus to the north and they lose track of what's happening to the south of them and at that point crosswalk markings anything like that won't substitute for the pedestrian just being aware of the driver not noticing them as far as where to locate a crosswalk if there were to be one certainly the north side is closer to approaching traffic then again on the south side might bring more attention to that crossing point for side street traffic which is a significant problem on these one way streets yep all approaches are fourteen feet one thing you might notice is this extension here is actually a little bit wider than what you might notice here yeah overall the street width here is thirty six feet and forty over here so it's a twenty foot width so this is six feet versus four so there is still fourteen feet available there but it's unused pavement so to speak it's placed where cars normally are driving so we thought best use of that pavement would be to get the pedestrians shorten that crossing distance as much as possible and i really appreciate how you articulate both turning movements for large vehicles and as well how motorists might interact with cyclists in and around curb extensions especially because often curb extensions just are generalized  and i think you take pains to be very specific how they might operate and i think that helps better utilize this as a tool when it's needed in different intersections our community i do have to make a comment and about  about generally like paint on the road i'm even coming out from a trip recently to washington dc and then even just down in los angeles you're seeing a lot of new types of paint in cross event that they have twice a year it was great to go past these crosswalks where there were actually intricate designs that were very durable paint or actually plastic on the roads that's definitely a trend that's happening through other cities another trend that i'm seeing is is more paint on the roads not less and i have to say i've heard this a couple times now about less paint on roads as a maintenance issue and it's it's actually very alarming to me you know there is there's purpose to the pain the roads i appreciate your comment about maintaining the effectiveness of traffic control devices for the right place to get the right attention and sometimes you have to downplay those traffic control devices and other locations in order to maintain the emphasis to a user i'm not sure how much that applies in the city i tend to be a skeptical person and old traffic control devices throughout this city other south coast communities and as a motorist or whatever road user generally i'm not thinking what the road engineer is trying to make me think i'm thinking what stage of development i'm in a different town in other words there's like you know vestiges from the s from the s you know some crosswalks for school stuff are green some aren't right it's just kind of like when things got built there's a lot of there's a lack of uniformity in our south coast communities and and i just i really want to emphasize on record that i'm not comfortable with pursuit of remarks i would love to see a crosswalk on the north side as an emphasis to pedestrians and also as mister tabor said it is something that you see and especially you know we've been advised of the risk of improperly using crosswalks try things and if you're saying again i appreciate you being very specific about here it's kind of a neutral impact if that's a neutral impact and that might help us give the right message to both pedestrians and to motorists that this is emphasized i'd rather us sorry see it see this just happen in this pass than to have to take a second pass and if there's not a risk of overusing it i would i would favor deferring to using that obviously that's that's just my comments to my suggestion i think this looks very well designed and i hope maybe with the addition of a crosswalk marking and i would love if maybe as a means of saving on paint maintenance long comments i would love if if if you mister bailey and some of your staff might consider going to pro bike for a walk this year the same goes for you mister allen it's actually in long beach this year that is a over twenty year old conference of biking and walking professionals that the first conference was i think in one thousand nine hundred and ninety eight here in santa barbara and the best practices from cities that are really pushing biking and walking they're actually in a more advanced stage of that development than santa barbara is they're showing off their best practices it's a great place to see that the latest in in the art and i really hope that we have a santa barbara delegation coming out excellent i  transportation stuff well mister bailey i love love of any engineering staff it's a great great opportunity to check out long beach dale um so i'm very excited to see this design finally i think it looks really good i i know it's just an informational item but of course we're gonna w i see that i see the point of if if they're going to be crosswalk markings they should be on the north side i understand i want to set the city up for success on this and not have to do i'd have to go back so i mean if it's not going to hurt anyone and it's not that it's not bad engineering to put paint on a crosswalk if if the only thing keeping us from doing it is  we don't want to have to go back and paint over it when it gets light i don't think that's a good enough reason and i i think it's a pretty important place especially since we've had debts at the center section to like you know make it really obvious when you do everything you know people are gonna notice wow there's a big change you might as well go all the way throw some paint on the roadway and make it really obvious so but i think it looks really good and maybe we could just fill it with ice plant instead of all the beautiful fancy status and other things and all those other plantings and save money on plants and put paint on the road i had one more question are there plans to bring buses questions yeah this morning just a little detail that i didn't quite understand the vocabulary on the notes it says for designing this there was  a check on possible turning movements by a large delivery truck and then in parentheses it says the designed vehicle for downtown santa barbara i just wondered is that is there a truck that is actually used for this or do you just get a i mean do you think if it would be effective that would be the most effective place and also to appreciate mister francis comment about some of the lack of uniformity and the and what we see around town but also to appreciate looking at this intersections is certainly not a uniform intersection so during encourage and and applaud your efforts to try to make the best with what you had here and and and going forward to encourage that to happen in the future so received and thanks for your good being here okay and number five i still don't have any public comment slips but i will accept them but in the meantime  number five mason street bridge replacement project have a report first and then public  evening chair block be committee members john awash take principal civil engineer for the public works department and i'm pleased to be here today to talk to you about our mason street bridge replacement project and this bridge is structurally and hydrologically deficient and must be replaced and we're fortunate enough to have eleven million dollar highway bridge program grant which the city really only has a very minimal match typically we have eleven and a half percent match and this one it's probably closer to one percent so it's primarily grant funded and it's a challenging project and it's very complex it's challenging due to the site constraints and due to some of the competing city borden commission and staff policies and practices so i did want to elaborate more on the issues related to transportation so the projects been before the hlc historic very committee and i did provide a lot of technical information in the staff report which i don't plan on spending a lot of time on some of that technical information because i didn't want to hit the highlights and give you the general overview of the project and key on on the actions that are before the tcc today so with that we did ask the tcc review the project and comment on the consistency with the pedestrian master plans circulation element and provide comments and recommendations to council to consider whether kimberly avenues should remain as a two ways road or street and would be changed to a one way and all elaborate on that one that issue as well for the proximity it's on mason street just west of kimberly avenue and it's shown there in the blue and white writing and it's in the proximity of the chapala jana nalli at that intersection there's another bridge replacement project at that corner and that one is scheduled for construction next year and it's in its final design so as background to the project in two thousand and one that city council approved the lower mission creek flood control project the army corps project and improved and  approved the environmental impact study environmental impact report and the planning commission approved in two thousand and eight the coastal development permit and this is the foundation and the basis for the bridge design and the laura mission creek flood control project approvals and so our project this mason bridge replacement project is in the preliminary design stage were assumed to enter into the final design stage but we do have to work out some of the the geometric details of the bridge and we'd like to get your comments on that so this map is out of the approved er eis and is the foundation for design and i did want to bring to your attention a few of the features that are in this this map of course here's the bridge kimberl avenue which currently comes into a t intersection at mason street is to be realigned towards state street to widen the channel that currently is approximately thirty five feet and needs to be widened to fifty five feet and as such we would be acquiring this property here at fifteen west mason we would do a full acquisition we would be acquiring the property that exists on the north side and then it has no structures on it and it also the twenty west mason property here it does have a building on it and we're going to be constructing immediately adjacent to the building we anticipate some building damage and as such it's eligible for acquisition and again our right away in a construction our one hundred percent fully grant funded so these acquisitions are paid for by the grant the city then owns the properties and then we would resell any properties that we can and any proceeds would then go as correct cities grant matched towards the next bridge project or another bridge project there's also a partial acquisition of sixteen west mason here the romasanta property which is in the design and review boards for a hotel at this site so we anticipate that there would be a twenty foot take of that property partial property acquisition and that would accommodate our need for the realignment of kimberly avenue so the items that would like to spend a little more time on for the tcc review would be the project sidewalk issues the bridge geometry and then the one way versus two way issue of kimberly avenue with regards to traffic circulation and pavement width so here's a our latest proposed plan it reflects a twenty eight foot wide road curb to curb of the new bridge with the arrows here are indication of the traffic circulation in the neighborhood this distance of road here shown is twenty six feet what accommodate our design vehicle as you just heard in the last presentation we use our turning templates and  design vehicle can make these turns without crossing the center line of the road to avoid collisions and what's necessary for those maneuvers would be this twenty six feet in width and i'll elaborate more on on road width widths in a minute but i wanted to give you an a sense of this projects design where we are striving to attain the minimum bridge with feasible and approvable such that we would keep the bridge in character histor character of the neighborhood to try and keep it in neighborhood compatibility with the existing bridge and the way that it that it serves the the community so you can see that there is an existing road width of about thirty eight feet on a curb to curb on mason street to the west of the bridge and currently there's a thirty eight foot wide mason street road to the east of kimberly avenue to the east of the new bridge that will that will be narrowed to thirty six feet as part of the law and tr project which is to be commencing this fall october one to to widen the sidewalks and to do the lawn trotter improvement projects on the west half of state street between the railroad tracks and the mission street the mission creek bridge on state street so that project is going to be commencing is scheduled to commence in october so it will be coming first and as part of that they would be  reducing this road width by couple feet to make it city standard and to accommodate parking and the design traffic flow of circulation with this design i'll be referring to this area here which is called the habitat expansion zone and we've been with to the creeks committee into the hlc to talk about this and we tried to have this design maximize the habitat expansion zone so that we can have the emergent wetland the the vegetation the vegetative side slope and maximize this for for the benefit of water quality and of the habitat in the in the vicinity to the north what was included in the  go back to the vi reas there is another habitat expansion zone that was planned and contemplated and it is immediately north of our bridge park our bridge project ends approximately here and so it's it's actually part of the county flood control next phase project which is scheduled to occur near the same time as there is our bridge project within a year or so of the bridge project so that's work in progress it could occur as early as next year or possibly in the same year as when the bridge project occurs so what we're striving to do is been working with the creek staff and the creeks committee and the historical landmarks commission is to extend that habitat expansion zone so that it gets further down towards mason street because of the limited habitat expansion area in the lower mission creek reach we're trying to maximize that says so you might be able to figure out now that some of these are competing demands on the project we're due to the site constraints and the limited areas and the desires by the various boards and commissions so with that i'd like to start with the sidewalk network in the neighborhood on this block of this project there are existing sidewalks that are shown in blue they're also startups on state street of course but we just focused on this project vicinity as i mentioned earlier in this corner is the chapala street sidewalk and although there isn't concrete sidewalk there there's some asphalt sidewalk but as part of this construction this will get formalized and there will be concrete sidewalks on both sides of this new bridge when it gets constructed and again slated for construction next year so this whole block would have sidewalk right now there's a gap of sidewalk that is missing on this block in this vicinity and so there's a competing need for this area with regards to pavement with sloped embankment vegetated embankment and for the sidewalk so again it's about an eighty foot sidewalk gap that is on the east side kimberly laura mission creek our mission creek and so there's this compete the compas for this missing link but in filling that gap and providing that sidewalk it would be in conformance with our circulation element and i believe that we would need to do this as part to meet the american with disabilities act because we do have sidewalk in the vicinity and in my understanding of the american disabilities act is that when you have this situation it is  their policies and one of their goals is to maximize the habitat expansion zone and to lower the jason rica retaining walls that would be necessary because we do have a significant great difference between the creek bottom and at the intersection of of mason and kimberly the rodela the difference in grade between the road elevation here and the creek is about fourteen feet and so there is a necessity for a retaining wall to this point what staff is working on is trying to minimize that height of the retaining wall and the exposure of it as it's more desirable i believe from most boards and commissions and people's perspective to have less retaining wall exposure so on the east side of kimberly opposite that gap side their existing sidewalk is eight and a half feet with trees and tree wells now again let's go back to that diagram on the east side so now i'm referring to this stretch the sidewalk ends at at this point three quarters the way down the block and then there is no sidewalk currently on this side nor nor any that are in this project or the laura mission creek projects so if that sidewalk was to happen it would be likely through the development of these of these project sites as they come through for development but so this stretch that exists now is an eight and a half foot why sidewalk and staff in working with the boards and commissions has has their project designed currently so that the the portion of the project within our project limits would be designed to six feet with no tree wells and that would meet the circulation element but it just doesn't meet what's existing and so that was one of the the compromises that we believe that we would or at least trying to find the balance of the project such that we could try and meet some of the goals and the the policy issues of the other boards and commissions so this reduction in that sidewalk from the eight and a half to a six would result in increased vegetated creek bank area and also would help in the reduction of the retaining wall height because the side slope of the creek is approximately two to one slope so for every two feet of width of pavement or sidewalk that is that is out there then there's one foot of height that would be less on a retaining wall that would be adjacent to the site the project so with regards to the bridge sidewalk issues the existing sidewalk on mason street that is west of the bridge on both the north and south side of mason street west of the bridge that existing sidewalk is six feet currently and so we are pardoned our proposed design is to maintain the six foot sidewalk on the new bridge to be consistent with the existing sidewalk and in accordance with their pedestrian master plan the the  both recommended that the bridge be as narrow as as reasonably or feasible pas are possible and that five foot sidewalks be be recommended on the bridge moving on to  bridge geometry the existing bridge width currently is thirty three point four feet and that would be twenty four point four feet curb to curb and our proposed bridge design now is to have it be forty three feet wide and twenty eight feet curb explain that in a little more detail in a minute with regards to bridge geometry the bridge with has many factors that determine are added into the bridge width and so our bridge a roadway approach with and their transitions as i mentioned before because the existing mason street road is wider and it would need to narrow to come to a narrower bridge width that we are striving for to try and find a balanced project here now the bridge  i mentioned that twenty eight feet is curb to curb width and so that is to fourteen foot halves as as mister bailey explained in the last presentation the eleven foot travel vehicle lane plus a three foot shoulder accommodates a vehicle and cyclists on the roadway and so our city designs try and and reflect that and so our staff recommendation is to have fourteen feet foot on each half which what a comp which would make the twenty eight foot curb the curb with again the sidewalk width as i mentioned and then there's the barrier rail width typically the barrier rail width is about eighteen inches foot and a half on each side so that would be a three foot issue for the bridge with we are receptive to having a narrower very rail if that makes sense but the barrier rail has to be crash resistant for vehicles up to a height of thirty two inches so that's a detail that will be worked out in the final design and i want to talk about barrier rails a little more detail later in my presentation so another bridge geometry issue is that proximity to the kimberly and mason intersection and with the kimberly being two way we have a sight distance issue and to have the bridge design a bridge i'm sorry to have a vehicle at kimberley avenue that is at the tns section heading s to state street to make a left or east turn on state street it has to see the vehicles on the right or the west side of on macomb from mason street and the criteria for the sight distance is that sight distance has to go  what i understand is as far as chapala street so the sight distance is a very important element in the safety of that intersection and kimberly as as two way would be in accordance with our  circulation element as well so again back to the drawing the sight distance issue is with regards to this vehicle at this corner looking in this direction to see an oncoming vehicle from chapala street across the bridge and going the circulation element and the hoc in the creeks advisory committee were recommending one way and the basis for that was that one way could allow that twenty six foot throat on kimberly to be reduced to twenty feet if one way were the the project and so that would be a six foot difference which conceivably could go into the creek embankment side and give more greenery and vegetation and creek slope and enhancement to the creek so it's understandable why why they would like to have that and although that some of the difficulty we have with this is that changing the street to one way would require a council approval it's not part of this and it would also need to have the neighborhood support and neighborhood outreach and an additional sequel review would be required for that and staff is concerned about the delay that that would add to the project and could possibly jeopardize some of our federal or all of the federal funding with delays that we've had projects in the city that have been appealed and delayed and it has taken some of them have taken years to get through that process and so we didn't want to jeopardize that but primarily we're looking at as from a circulation element perspective that two way traffic on kimberly would be the recommended recommended width and that twenty six feet is the minimum needed for those turning maneuvers at the kimberly and mason intersection so again the the kimberly pavement width is thirty one eight feet and the adjacent streets as i've shown they actually have widths that vary from thirty six to forty two feet believe i have yeah i have a slight slide here that shows those existing widths as they exist today so kimberly is thirty one eight feet for the length and what we're talking about is this area right here where we would have the opportunity to narrow the street down to to meet the widens up to forty two feet on jana and ollie and then back to third so this would be the narrowest or bottleneck on the the grid and so staff is recommending a pub work staff is recommending this be  two way twenty six foot wide segment that would accommodate two we street a twenty foot wide would not meet our standards for these turning movements and so would a twenty foot road would prohibit to way safe travel okay so that again i explained that that six foot difference would be beneficial to the the vegetated creek bank and to minimize the the retaining wall heights so one of the the issues that we are pursuing is a see through bridge rail style that caltrans has that could be a potential solution to solve this two way one way issue with need to to the vit the visibility would need to be achieved and and this is an example of one of the caltrans see through bridge rail styles it actually isn't that far off from the existing style that is there today so i did share this with the chair of the hlc this week and and we're going to be talking about this style with the hlc in the near future tentatively scheduled to go back to the h another see through bridge style is this style so you can see that they can be rather aesthetically pleasing as opposed to some of the other styles that are crash rated that may not be but there are some options for the h to review to see if that maybe that meets some of the goals and issues and if a see through bridge rail is viable then it offers the same bridge with as as would be attained if pemberly was one way both of those scenarios would be a twenty eight foot wide curb to curb roadway width on the bridge so in conclusion our proposed project strives to balance those competing city goals and of the hlc the creek advisory committee and the transportation policies our proposed project includes six foot sidewalks throughout the project including the sidewalk info on the west side of kimberly and on the bridge we are pursuing the narrowest bridge with it that is feasible that can meet the standards and be approved we do have eleven million dollar grant fund that needs to we need to meet all the requirements of the state and the feds and we also have to meet our sit on city standards and sid and kimberly as  actually it should say two way i'm sorry kimberly is a two way street is proposing the currents with the approved year cre are in circulation element and we don't want to risk losing our grant funding so our action for you today is to comment on the project's consistency with the head master planet circulation element and to provide recommendations and comments on to council to consider whether kimberly avenue you should remain two way or change to one way and i anticipate that we are targeting to go to council on july th so with that i'd be happy to answer questions okay so let's just now we do have public comment and speaker but are there any quick questions before we do that i'm sure there will be lots of other questions and comments but and it's good to be here i was one of the original founding members of this committee and i was the chair dave tabor remembers of the original transportation committee but this time i'm representing the special  subcommittee of creeks which has voted three times unanimously to recommend a one way option on kimberly with the narrow as possible sidewalks and i'm sure you've probably notice from your staff report that historic landmarks commission whose patron david gebhardt stares down at us from the wall has indicated four times that the president design is still not as good as it could be and  visual with the overhead either for the sidewalk or the street system because sometimes the pictures worth a thousand words could you put back the powerpoint with the overhead  is one of only two natural banked sections of mission creek below oak park and the difference between preserving it in a healthy fashion for the foreseeable future at least for the next generation and maintaining gradually sloping banks which are essential to water quality and to the wildlife in the creek versus having steep vertical walls would be number one moving kimberly avenue in the realignment further to the right number to getting the sidewalks as narrow as possible in the area number three putting the retaining wall underneath the westerly edge of kimberl avenue rather than on the creek bank making kimberley avenue narrower which could be achieved by making it into a one way street which everyone in the neighborhood everyone on a chelsea and everyone had creaks as soon as they see this proposal and they realized that kimberly and that part of jana nalli have two of the lowest set of average daily trips and one of the lowest accident rates in the entire city and if you were to move to the left off of the photograph into the west beach area in the palomar circle you will all know that the streets get even dilawar and they've been in that fashion pretty much for the last one hundred years and you may remember when you were briefed on plan santa barbara there are no intended initiatives especially with the redevelopment funding going away to do anything about getting those super narrow streets that mason street bridge would be feeding to be any wider so i have to state off of the top there is no one in the community no one on creeks and no one in a chelsea who opposes getting a brand new state of the art federally funded bridge at mason street everyone acknowledges that that's necessary but the line of sight issue the need for the width  of the mason street bridge all go away if kimberly becomes a one way street with one extra large lane that could accommodate trucks buses in normal traffic and you know you'd have a very simple maneuver to come around no pressing need for kimberly to be two way mister romasanta junior mark has testified at repeated televised hearings that as one of the developers of the new hotel on the left mason street that they don't particularly care whether it's one lane or two lanes and they actually would prefer a narrower street there if we can step kimberly a little bit to the right make it a little bit nearer which a one way street would achieve as mister bradley knows that would also add to the safety component because one weighs with good fields of vision or almost always safer than two ways especially at a bridge area  and put the retaining wall underneath the left side of the newly realign kimberley avenue the slope and bank of that part of mission creek would be preserved the mason street bridge would be narrower the health of the creek and the habitat underneath the mason street bridge the nearer the bridge gets the better it is for the water quality and for the habitat and based on our conversations in washington not only with congressman lois capps and her staff but with the us department of transportation and our conversations with members of the state transportation commission who've checked with caltrans we have no reason to believe that either the federal funding or the state funding is in any way jeopardized and as a matter of fact the greatest delay in this process has been when this was first put forward last august the need for the public works staff to do more research on different design options  we believe that since this would be a safer option than a two way thing the sequal review would be fairly rapid fairly cursory says there's strong support in hlc and in the neighborhood for a one way street and  bridge we think that there would be fewer impacts rather than more and that this could go through fairly quickly it would be a win win win we'd get a brand new state of the art bridge that would last for the next fifty to one hundred years we would fill in gaps in the sidewalk system we would have the sidewalk in the bridge with compatible with a historic west beach area and compatible with the guidelines of the local coastal plan for city infrastructure improvements in the coastal zone and we will be guaranteeing the health of that part of lower mission creek in perpetuity so that's why we don't oppose a new bridge but why we ask you to reject the current plan because of the kimberley avenue component and because the bas street proposal record is still too wide and unless surely so and we'd be willing to do anything we can to work with you and your staff to make that happen and i'm open for any questions okay thank  um do we have other if we don't have other public comment i've got a couple of letters that i just want to mention but i think we might have some okay well i'll just mention the letters first one from the well one quick question for mister ross at the children's museum santa barbara that's being okay great so we do have a letter from the executive director of children's museum one hundred and twenty five state street and they okay so they're being approved  they are saying that on kimberly each weekday more so they're projecting that their annual attendance would be seventy five thousand people including fourteen thousand schoolchildren that will travel to and from the museum  bus each weekday morning at nine zero a m two school buses will drop off students at the museums education gateway entrance on kimberly and return at p m to pick them up at the same location so they're saying so that the kids wouldn't have to cross the street it is essential that school buses be able to travel from south to north and kimberly so they're saying to keep it two way on kimberly  requesting that remain a two way street also please do not slant or angle the parking spaces leave them perpendicular to the curb as they're now facing the train depot oh i think they mean on revenue loss of bed tax and great hardship for businesses and residents alike so there's that somebody i mean i wish there were more people from the neighborhood because it's kind of hard to tell and i'm wondering and m get into this later if there were people from the neighborhood coming to all these other meetings and they just have meeting fatigue at this point so it would be interesting to hear that but we can wait till we're done with public comment miss k am not prepared like all these people to be here and but i they brought up some issues for example about people from the neighborhood not being here because we've never been informed the children museum was passed in one quick meeting maybe it was a slow meeting at the planning commission and then within ten days or so it was passed by the city council we are concerned where going from ship ala around that building to the right the and the right is where the parking is for that building and then the pictures that this man showed also previously showed kimberl changing angles and that though if you narrow kimberly you're going to be losing all of the parking on both sides of kimberly for the residences for the businesses and also by the creek is going to be taking sidewalk there on the lower side of mason and then you're going to have people go to the other side of the street where you'd never have sidewalk on the other side but four hours a day you're going to have buses where the sidewalk  depot parking it's also been allocated for that building at the end there on a yawn anole street that had be counted in their square footage of parking you probably don't know that the children museum is also an event center with hundreds of people on friday and saturday night there are only two parking places but by the square footage of that three story new building city zoning ordinance required sixty five parking places sixty five required and handicap there no parking for employees directors visitors anybody so now if you have school buses going on kimberly and you have the parents following following to volunteer there's where are they going to park on kimberly where those a bus is going to be protruding in the street for hours a day on kimberly if you narrow it down the hole yes there are very few accidents on kimberl because the traffic there is very calm it's very narrowing neighborhood and there's a lot of respect for each people that are using that the what you're talking about is destroying the neighborhood basically they're making the one way street that and then changing that angle in mason street and kimberly is further facilitating the buses for the shoulders museum and events center but it's certainly devastating to street this year the museum is going to be taking the parking obviously and then now you're narrowing the streets and there's a little parking so okay we get some answers maybe you'll have some con clarify because it wasn't mentioned whether or not oh i mean i'm own stuff yeah just to clarify would whether it be whether it's state to a as is proposed or go to one way would parking be removed or they're still parking and they're just be one traffic lane sure lockerbie the proposed project is to way the hlc and the creeks advisory committee is advocating for one way and primarily they're advocating that so that they would have more habitat expansion for the creek and one way would assure the narrowest bridge as i tried to explain  that see through bridge rail would accommodate the same narrow bridge that the hlc and ii and the crease advisory committee so i'm actively pursuing that with the goal of achieving that but we do have to confirm there are there there is criteria that we would need to be evaluated in our final design so staff is is honestly trying to accommodate the desires of the narrowest bridge feasible we just need to ensure that it does meet the standards so that a professional engineer can sign it and it can get approved through the system so that is the the one way versus two way issue now with regards to parking there's no parking on the existing bridge now on the yeah i don't mean on the bridge i mean on kimberly okay  there wouldn't be parking what i was getting to is that there is a net loss of parking in the project because the the new bridge is going to be wider and there is the narrowing of kimberly on this side i'm sorry narrowing of basement street on this side of kimberly as a result of the law and trata project again this is thirty eight feet wide the lawn trata project is going to be making these improvements on state street they're also going to be making the improvements up until our project there's a line here where the two projects will meet so we have currently perpendicular parking here now what will be in the end the parallel parking on both sides and so that results in a net loss of parking but also there will be no parking for this narrowed section of kimberly in a in the goal of trying to maximize again the the creek habitat area so again the existing kimberly width is thirty one and forty eight inches i believe and by narrowing it to either twenty six or twenty feet here that would result in no parking on both side of the street currently there's a driveway and and there's no parking and portions of this as it exists now and the bigger effect would be on this side of the street where there would be no parking as a result have been narrowed street because the lane widths that we're recommending are only for through traveling vehicles so how many spots i mean i don't care canvass the neighborhood to see how they feel is you know people are touching about parking and they're also touching about how they get to their either home or the place of business so this would have them def impact not only on kimberly be on an alley at repolish tree so so this  um one what i'm wondering i really appreciate everything being put in the context for pedestrian master plan and circulation element i know that other committees like to dabble in transportation planning so i appreciate that it's being brought to us i think one of my questions is with regards to both completing sidewalk breaks in the sidewalk and then  to narrowing sidewalks has this been brought before the access advisory committee or is that going to happen madam chair we weren't planning on it because we've we've had some indication from our attorney's office that if we don't do this as part of this project we would be in violation of the american disabilities act so stab i believe that it's it's a it's a necessity to do that to fill in that gap of the sidewalk that's my understanding and  then you must bring it up into compliance with the americans with disability act and my concern is if we don't put this last link in especially when you have businesses at the other end of kimberly and there's a sidewalk leading you're leading a disabled person to  a dead end there's no way for them to cross the street so they have to go back and you get the other end there's not a sidewalk on the other side of the street right sorry i wasn't clear yeah i'm not clear obviously we should fill in sidewalk and everywhere we don't have a sidewalk i'm what i'm wondering is narrowing sidewalks and i mention the access advisory committee making sure that that's cool the six foot sidewalk is you know fine i mean because obviously they're wider now and obviously we want to a six foot sidewalk in the ferry we were out we would like to see a wider sidewalk so we can have three wells but transportation staff would settle for six let's lie when we get down to five foot sidewalk that's getting a little narrow and  sidewalk if anybody's walked on a forward sidewalk we have them around this building here and it's really inadequate for t people comfortably walk in a sidewalk okay okay and then the i mean the i guess what i'm wondering about what the h is dealing with them the current bridge i mean the way that looks i'm assuming that's not i mean i guess history is what it is but like is that would they want something that looks like that which was kind of hideous i have a similarities and we're gonna explore to see if this style in the same height forty two inches is the height that we would need to have for this bridge rail height for pedestrian safety but if this could be made to look like wood perhaps and then you would have a similarity obviously the gaps are too large for the new standards up to thirty two inches we can't have wider than a four inch gap right like that's not crafted right a couple different sets of criteria that must be met and so we're being challenged but we found that this style is crash rated and it would need to have four inch gaps only be to a height of thirty two inches and then it can increase  you see there's a there's a little more of a gap on the top and so this style we are hoping can can meet this like this kreitzer if it does we get down to the minimum bridge with that we can get approved again this would if this proves little different style it has a thicker member in the middle which i believe may be problematic for the sight distance visibility we need to have as big gaps as many gaps as we can to be able to see the vehicles from kimberly  yeah i mean i i'm inclined to what mister multiverse said about it about the fed saying it's probably whatever would happen or any changes be made obviously you need to stay pretty much think guidelines of the area ask but things do change in projects i don't know i mean you say we wouldn't want to jeopardize funding of course we wouldn't but i i would doubt that minor changes would totally say no actually give us all the money back but um if you're still replacing the bridge but do we know if back on the parking do we know if the children's medium there's really no parking with the project or maybe planning commission can actually i know about that project they are have a there have handicapped spaces on site and they are meeting their parking demand requirement on by using the  just have one for you john on the bridge you didn't mention it but i assume with if you were able to do that new type of railing you're still talking about this six foot sidewalk on each side staff report i do mention the design exceptions we do are required to have some design exceptions the more design exceptions that we apply for asked for the greater reliability of the city and with liability exposure if an accident happens and we and we have to explain or the the attorney's office would have to explain why we are deviating from the standard and we are trying to minimize those numbers but yet trying and work with the boards and commissions and  with city policies and goals to have a balanced project so we get and that's why i showed you that habitat expansion zone to the south or downstream and then we're trying our best to maximize they have a debt expansion zone to the north again the irs did not have the habitat expansion zone within this projects limits but we have expanded that habitat expansion zone to include a greater vegetated slope than what was currently what was then contemplated in the iras so  we're again i think you can see where we're staffing to balance and trying to come up with the best citywide project that we can and so we do have these challenges we do appreciate your input and comments on all of those aspects about what we will do is staffs role to surmise these and if we do whatever decisions that we believe we would want to have council give direction on we would then proceed with that for example if we still need to have counsels input on one way we would certainly bring that to council but we want to have all the information to provide to council for an informed decision and so so what which is what's proposed it gets its kimberly then that gets narrower but it really gets the narrow narrowing from curb to curb from that thirty one foot thirty one eight feet  we're recommending twenty six feet and again to allow two way traffic to to exist in the neighborhood on kimberly okay we're just going through questions now so what is the  average what is the average daily trip mister moldiva mentioned this is amongst the lowest in the city it's no it's one hundred and twenty thousand ten that the count was one hundred and twenty eight vehicles per day on kimberly as a and but on be clear there has there yet been a decision like an official like statement or policy statement come out from the attorney's office about compliance with a da regarding the parking lot or is that like staffs initial take on the situation we have not gotten one for this particular location when everyone we were doing some street work about ten years ago eleven years ago a question came up the do we have what do we have to do and at that time anything when we were doing work that was touching the pedestrian way of travel we had to bring it up to eighty and standards to work yeah we're using that same logic in terms of looking at the sidewalk here but we can double check with the attorney's office but okay feel pretty confident especially when you take a look at where i person who might be wilter restricted or visually impaired yeah who might be at the corner of kimberly and jana lally they don't have any options i understand that i guess my question is if a chelsea and cac have made that as recommendation it i would request that information be very clear so if if city council were to ask like is it existing there's proposed and then there's proposed a chelsea cac in terms of like kimberly becoming one way or somehow narrower so is the and actually you know i'm getting out of my purview for if you were gonna do that it would probably runs from south to north actually i do have a i do have a slide of the one way that's the alternative project nope sorry this is the one way so the difference between the two is that this instead of this being twenty feet wide i'm sorry instead of this pavement width being twenty six feet wide for two way a twenty right right so this curb line then moved from this location here to that location here so the face of curb and the two ways here and a piece of curb in the one way okay is there so the problem of not being able to get to the end of kimberly wouldn't really is this is what we're still working on this design so it's not refined but here is where we are headed with the two way option andor the one way where the retaining wall would be adjacent to the sidewalk but it would be a minimal height it actually would be screened by the so with this option which is our current option we believe that we are striving to meet the goals of the creeks advisory committee and the hlc with regards to maximizing this vegetated slope and minimizing the right through the center of that area so from everywhere north that there will that wall will diminish and go away so what we're talking about is that section two is getting the the height of the wall would be exposed more because this width gets narrower plus the height difference between the road and the creek is again fourteen feet requiring a necessity for a retaining wall we're just trying to minimize it and to to conceal it or or to have vegetation in front of it such that it be visually minimized so i believe the staff is doing our best efforts to try and balance the project with the competing needs seems if you narrow the sidewalk right through that one section from maybe six to five feet on each side that would get you another have the power to stop the project altogether hlc approval is needed is required they are an approving authority and so we seek to work with them to to get their approval  and if we are unable to get their approval we would need to go to the city council to get direction from the city council because staff is doing what we believe is in the best interest of the city and it counts whatever council direction we get we would certainly follow but our staff job is to balance that the priorities and and bring a proposed project forward which we are doing at present so they could not stop the project but we would hope that were they we could work with them but if they deny yes i do have a couple questions um in looking at how the bridge narrows at the road is wider on both sides what would happen if there was a bicycle going down that road and there there was space on the side you know the shoulder but then when mister bailey mentioned in the last presentation that fourteen foot width for each half of the road is comprised of eleven foot vehicle and a three foot shoulder and so that fourteen generally just as it does the prior project would be the same scenario here in this project where vehicles and bicycles share the road and we believe that believes that the fourteen feet can accommodate a vehicle and a cyclists actually two  cyclists across the road with okay and then thank you and then under the bridge it looks like you know with the the channel for the water and then the the wetland a habitat expansion there is so much wider than the bridge and so what happens at the bridge to those habitat areas are they just completely cut off and then the channel of water the like for flood is there enough with there for the water to come through and is it is other walls on each side that where it ends let me let me see if i can  me understand your question but but it first of all i'll let you know that on this side we've got vertical walls so this is a vertical wall that remains unchanged in the new new design that's the existing condition what's changed is that this channel with currently it's about thirty five feet wide which is which is about in this vicinity so to convey the design flow to go from a current six year storm event to it convey a twenty year storm event this extra with the channels being widened so it's being wide additional flood conveyance capacity and so the water would simply go up the bank and similarly here that there'd be a little more additional capacity here than there would be where the bridge narrows down and of course through here is that twenty year flood event designed capacity does that help yeah that is what my question was thanks  there addressing the question of the traffic flow in the number of cars and now and compared to after all the development do you have a projected traffic flow for our numbers of cars for vehicles for after the development launch we've projected the numbers for the bridge project so for the bridge project we we have projected figures for two thousand as the design vehicle per day number nation state mason street bridge i don't have any vehicle   or kimberly for the children's they were done for the children museum i cannot remember what they were but we would see an increase in vehicles on kimberly as a result of the children museum the la entrada would not have much of an impact on that kimberly as well and kirsten this might be at the outside of my purview but it's a burning question and that is has in the property acquisitions you were talking about have any of the property owners been contacted about that possibility some but not all we have just gotten council approval to hire the consultant who does that work for the project and tuesday's council meeting this property owner here at twenty west mason did show up at the council meeting and we've been actually meeting and have met and meeting with this property owner to talk about initial initial discussions u regulations and so we have also been working closely with mister romasanta on his project as we want to find viable solutions to both projects and so my discussions with him this week was that he is we have a twenty foot take at this point see this right away line it would there's distance here between the existing property line and the future property line would be a twenty foot and he acknowledged that that twenty feet is the maximum that he would be be wanting us to do but he acknowledged that if we could accommodate the two way with only the twenty foot take that he wouldn't object okay thank you that's very very helpful and the last thing is just i guess it's more a comment which i mean i don't think probably this could be i don't know if this can be a motion or not but just what you mentioned browning about outreach to the neighborhood and i mean it sounds like there was no noticing yet to the neighborhood about these plans and i'm just hoping that there will be a way for the neighborhood to comment and that's my hope and i think it's really important joe blackery we do have public noticing for all the the public meetings including this one so we did have no public meets but i think what i'm hearing is that we need to do additional outreach and and we can we will certainly do that as part of this project and we plan to do that especially if there's a desire to pursue a one wing of kimberly that's gonna be even more important that we do outreach on that one because it's go impact a lot of people is when we talked about this earlier like something that we don't really want to propose unless there's s have no questions with for comments yeah yeah okay well i'm glad i'm preparin marth again why don't reverse city council they have to balance all these things and we just have to look at one book so that's that's that's why we're here instead about else elsewhere and i think also in the summer join a transportation committee it's gonna be a city that doesn't have any buildings in it so we can just start from the ground up do it right the first time whatever that means it's hard looking at these plans and thinking about something being on the east side of kimberly beause it hasn't been a lot there for so long so uh options here i think i agree that sidewalks versus no sidewalks that's an easy call we need sidewalks there i think that uh as mister bradley said we can squeeze him down a little bit to the five feet rather than six feet but i think the sidewalks need to be there and the other question i had was by i think was why do we why did we stop there with kimberly if we move it over just a little bit more we can get a lot of benefit but don't know we have a property owner there who's got an existing approved project and you've kind of gone through all that that already but i think if there was a little more shifting there we could would have a lot to gain possibly i again the sidewalks on the mason street bridge i think are essential and important and again i can agree to a little bit of pinching continue with the see through option as it seems like it improves a lot of a lot those balancing issues help out there of and i'm not prepared to make a room that recommendation one or the other on the one way street but i don't see any reason with the current flow of traffic and the way things flow through that neighborhood why we couldn't explore that yeah i mean don't force  it first of all i want to thank you for a very detailed presentation i mean this is a very complicated issue i know it's involves the coastal commission we have a chelsea historic creeks we're just here to talk about transportation i mean i could go off into all kinds of areas but it's all about transportation tonight and i guess my big thing is our mission as a committee is about the circulation element and  master plan many many hours were were used to produce that document and i think it's very important that we uphold what previous people have done in the past for the city and have standards that we meet so you know i think the city has worked really hard to get a project that come you know conforms with our circulation element and try to meet the needs of the other committees in the city as far as the creeks and a chelsea so to me it's a no brainer about we definitely need the sidewalks for the connectivity in the neighborhood you know six feet i think is the right way to go and that's what it's what's mentioned in the pedestrian master plan you know i'm a little concerned about the loss of parking but you know again we're looking at a creek that needs lots of help and so unfortunately there's going to be some loss of parking to be able to help with the health of the creek the main part of this project of course is the bridge that we're talking about and i think the city has done a very good job at looking at making sure the widths is a right width fourteen for each lane i'm glad to hear the sidewalk would be six with all the projects that are going to be happening in this area i'm sure the traffic on mason street will be increased over the years in the future and hopefully with all the hotel and visitor type amenities that are going on in that area hopefully a lot of the people will be walking those areas and not getting their car and driving so definitely i think having a nice sidewalk on each side is is very important the railing issue i think is a very intriguing that that can help narrow that bridge a little bit to help for sight lines so i'm definitely in favor of going looking into that further i know it's just a initial phase for that so i definitely you know i could agree going near a little bit narrower on the bridge if we can do that c railing for the two way for kimberly i i'm very i can just say strongly i really think the two way in kimberly we shouldn't be messing with traffic flow and it's been that way for many years and with all the projects going on this children's museum  something that we really don't know how it's going to impact the neighborhood yet but i have a feeling that with the business on the north end and a children's museum the idea of changing it to one way i really think it should be off the table i'm i really can't see that going forward but i think the other you know so i basically agree with the staff recommendation so far and i think you've been working really hard to get a project that accommodates with everybody so i agree with the staff on  committee and public works and the kind of transportation minded vision that obviously tcc represent represents the circulation element and we're looking at transportation needs but in terms of perspectives you know one way you can look at this is this is a new project this is a flood control project and this bridge is bigger and this bridge is bigger in an area where there's really low traffic and you know i totally understand how folks a chelsea crease advisory committee are looking at this as a new project that is impacting the creek and the discussion of kimberly it almost sounds like kimberly is coming out of nowhere but kimberly is coming out of mitigating the impacts of a new project in a sense and as a cyclist you know i i think i actually have a different perspective on the width of mason so we're talking about like subpar and only on one side sidewalk there but there's also a lot of traffic right i mean probably like ten thousand trips a day off of that roundabout it's it's significant as a result pedestrians are really concerned because the ability to share roadway to walk on that on the shoulder isn't really there when you have high speeds and a lot of traffic but this is different this is very low and i mean i as a cyclist i'd scan back there's six hundred trips a day you know nine times out of ten i actually take this frequently off of state street to get out by the harbor right and nine times out of ten there are no vehicles there and so i understand you know the traffic standards and this is obviously your challenge and i absolutely empathize with you because again there's two totally different perspectives on this but in terms of the circulation element  i can easily understand why we would defer from standards from other projects in the city where we would always push a certain way because we're talking about higher traffic volumes this is different this is this is creek territory this bridge this is a residential bridge right and this is not a major thoroughfare so i'm very sympathetic to the concerns that hlc and that cac have brought forward and i i would definitely make the point that and not just the concerns that they brought forward i think they have actually brought forward an alternative vantage and detail of the project and obviously you all are doing your best to reconcile those two vantage's but i would i would make clear in my view that we can uphold the circulation element and affirm access for pedestrians for bicyclists and of course access for motorists and also you make good trade offs on what is a new project that that does affect a sensitive habitat area so so that in my comments i mean i again you know just just on the on the we're going from like thirty three point six to forty three something feet it's a jump and it's not that the purpose of this is for transportation the purpose of this is flood control and floyd control is already w it out in terms of the channel and now we're talking about and i understand i mean next week there's a meeting for the one hundred and one and the overpass in carpinteria and you know obviously they need to standardize that bridge this is really similar in a lot of ways right but in another way it's not because that's you know at a commercial district and over the one hundred and one and there is that traffic and the inability to share but there is the ability to share here you know with there it's a residential street and i think we yeah yeah i used to live about a block from that the bridge and notice you know more more pedestrians and cars usually and then there are a lot of people walking from the train station or from state street down to the beach through back streets and from the youth hostel there i'm not sure how much the children's museum and the  creeks commission want without going to the if it's possible to do it without going to the one way street that's great and still meet you know ninety percent of what they want but i'm kind of agnostic on the one way street i think in the in the past it wouldn't have affected traffic flow very much it might lose a few more parking spaces but it's not clear how that will work in the future music would be it would be interesting to know what the other what the residents think about that option project whether there was the idea or not is the right thing to do so disagree with the other committees on that piece it seems like the possible see through bridge i mean see through would achieve the narrows bridge that staff can support twenty feet wide curb to curb which requires the design exception we asked caltrans what is the narrowest that they believe that they believe is approvable without design exception they said thirty feet and so we are planning to do a design exception to get to twenty eight feet so that's curb to curb but but what's the full width forty three feet forty three and but your proposed before we knew meetings on this i don't know if those rooms were full maybe you can shed some light on that but i feel uncomfortable saying yeah let's change the direction of a street when only one neighbor which we appreciate has shown up you know we've done like when we change brinkerhoff the room was full and people said yes do this was a very clear message from the neighborhood you know i'm not gonna make  that all here tonight saying yeah let's let's look at one way i understand the and frankly there's not many people from creeks or a chelsea here so it's it's kind of hard to tell what the what the real feeling of the the people that live there are which to me is is pretty important so i would say i mean i would hope that a chelsea and csc can come to you know move a little and agreements say knowing that i'm sorry we need sidewalks and maybe the see through railing and keep it to way if they just absolutely won't budge or whatever but there'd need to be a lot of outreach to the neighborhood i  asking for the design exception to get twenty eight feet code we could at two twenty eight correct the standard the minimum standard that we've been told by caltrans would be thirty foot and and the difference between those two not going to be weighing in on that aspect so but the transitions require a design exception just because there's a standard that the the roads approaching a bridge are to be the same with the bridge needs to be the same width as the rose approaching or i'm gonna be able to achieve that so we will ask for the design exception we expect to get that caltrans and supporting that design exception and so also the going from fifteen feet or thirty foot wide curb to curb to twenty eight curb to curb caltrans would support our on all of it right mmm sure yeah two things i've heard different things from different committee members with regards to sidewalk with some said that they could possibly support a five foot some are saying six foot so i'd like to get a unified  committee direction on five versus six for the project sidewalk widths and then secondly we'd like to get the unified committee recommendations for one versus two i think i could put together a and to pursue the see through railing and to maintain get a solution and a better creek bed to go down to five feet in some areas of kimberly i wouldn't have any problem with that myself okay i don't you know six feet is a number it's in a book but you know we should be willing to negotiate or to compromise some places here other discussion yep madam chair i'm not sure that we should take a position on kimberly as a body if it's not necessary okay well it's busted so actually we are requesting used to either you could do one of two things maintain kimberly has a two way street or if you want us to consider with a chelsea and the creeks advisory committee is suggesting then say then whatever public process that the staff needs to do to get feedback from the community thing you should do it but committees and it's gonna be before the city council we're hoping we don't have to have the council break the tie basically but that is the that is the ultimate body that could make that final decision but we're hoping that we'll be able to bridge that five to six months of me going to back and forth to boards and commissions and i need to get this project designed and built and so there have been delays and bridge projects have resulted in project funding being pulled so it's real we're going to be impressing upon council that need to move forward sooner than later so that that's just some added information one more little piece that i forgot to mention that i should have which is on the chapala bridge project which is in final design that has gone through the  few approvals and is nearing the completion of its design there was a determination at that time that there would be two way directional but the width of the bridge was then discussed and that bridge varies from its on the curve so it varies because of turning movements on it varies from thirty three to thirty five feet curb to curb and it accommodates two way traffic so at that stage of the of that project there was the determination that at that location there would be  know i believe we're moving forward with this design it was scheduled for construction we're going out to bid this winter and schedule for destruction next next summer so that i wouldn't consider that as a redesign clarification are you when you say th motion if we're not making a final determination about the one way of kimberly but would basically be authorizing staff to do what is additional work to do public process in order to present the worthwhile again because of the pressure on the the creek easement this is a project that affects the creek that again this is secondary because of the flood control project we're talking about more width the road and what what the creeks our folks are trying to do is minimize the impact of a necessary project and i i think we have to respect that because i just clarify one thing normally we would not have brought a project like this before the transportation circulation committee this is basically a maintenance project we're replacing a bridge but because of the direction that john has been receiving from historic landmarks and the creeks advisory committee what they have been requesting him to do that's not consistent with the circulation element that's why we brought it to this committee to see if you agree or disagree with making modifications on this project because it is not consistent with the circulation element otherwise we wouldn't have been bringing it before this committee and i gotta say motivating my motion you know it's a recommendation we're doing it based on ped master plan and circulation element and for that reason i feel like we you know we're our own committee certainly other committees have no problem recommending things about transportation right and that's what i want to stick to and so i think it is important to weigh in pretty and old his excuse me historic and and we're supposed to look at you know can pedestrians and cyclists and motorists get through in the best way so i mean you can vote against the motion but a member of the committee though oh that's that's why i was asking you what's that and alternative safe mobility everywhere in the city we don't make these recommendations ago from six to five lightly but on the street like kimberly or on mason where the current traffic is so very light and the children's museum has been coming forward for about fifty percent longer than the miramar is being remodeled and someday i'm sure it will arrive but we don't know when but this project because of control and the bridge has to go through now and the five feet would make a big difference so if the chair was willing to consider that from the police perspective i can't speak for a chelsea it that that that would be a big deal okay well thank you for necessary in the interest of coming to a conclusion five feet you know allowing wiggle room down to five feet but that the ideal of course f sidewalk in this area would be six feet so not that we removable on that and six foot would be great but if this gets us to moving forward with a project and i you know reasonable amount of time then you know i'd become with them madam chair i would not you know withdraw my motion i mean i second it on the six foot because i feel that we have sidewalks already that are eight foot and going down to five would not be consistent with the circulation elements so i would what enough withdraw my motion on my second how about this let's try the motion that we had we'll put it back at six and then we'll go from there to see where we are and and maybe move on and with the understanding perhaps that seeing the the sense of the body that maybe five feet might be doable at some point but can we close the session of the motion and yeah favor i want to revisit the two waivers the one way element of the motion of i think my feeling is that at this point in time right now as i sit here i have not heard a couple very important pieces of that  what i would need to have in front of me but in order to make a decision yea or nay on two waivers is one way so i don't know if i could support the motion saying keep it to way because there may be a very good reason to make it one way i don't know i'm sure that misrepresents us or not i there's not enough there not much traffic there and i don't see that going up to two thousand cars a day and even we have plenty of streets in town with well over two thousand cars a day that are one way  so it could work it could easily work if we had the engineering in front of us and if we had the proper public outreach in front of us so i don't know what i'm saying really religion motion though except that i'm not really opposed to one way or the other i'm not really ready to make that call tonight okay mister paden and since mister husak said it would be a separate project anyway maybe we could split that into two motions for three hey all right so we're gonna i mean i just want to see where we're at can we can we give the you know do a favor of the chair let's see where we are with this motion and it might it might give us a picture of where people are at all right so all those in favor of the motion say aye hi oppose  saying wild card over here all right okay so motion fails so let's try this music let's break it apart to talking about the br itself with the width of the bridge and the part of my motion that had  forty that's a different street though we're talking about kimberly were you're talking abouts i was talking about the sidewalk on the bridge okay i thought the first motion was about kimberly yeah it was about the whole a whole scene right okay so shall we have a sidewalk motion then what do we think somebody want to do  feet on the whole project on the bridge wilson yeah okay so i mean yeah okay so how about we try that we would recommend that the sidewalks on in the area  you know these staff preferences going with cyclic sidewalk on both sides of kimberly but i think we could compromise a little bit on the creek side on mason street because you got a twelve foot any half of six but you know six foot makes sense we could probably live with i i would request that we get direction to the design engineer not give him the task of trying to satisfy more boards and commissions right that's that's my suggestion but you look actually hlc further also we are and they're go for five so it's really before you to decide between five and six i feel because we've got direction from them and staff would likely follow a unified boarding commission direction especially if we're talking about three and a half foot sidewalks existing because the the bridge is a lot bigger and a lot of that is just design standards and i understand mister wozniak nee didn't go through caltrans and know be stent following design standards but we're talking about a neighborhood bridge that is thirty three feet wide total existing with three and a half feet sidewalks so if i'm the bridge they got in a foot and a half extra to five which helps the folks who are trying to minimize the impact and creek area and adheres to a da and adheres to the city standard then in this rare case being a foot less than the pedestrian master plan goal seems doable now if on kimberly we are currently at eight and a half we're cutting out the trees which are significant because there's create pinch points right it's unfortunate that those are being reduced if you're basically five feet as well helps this very sensitive area and if you use to a da then on both sides of kimberly having five foot and if in the design they can get up to six and appease the with the the creeks advisory committee is requesting then that's fine but giving staff the ability to go down to five is there a second okay there's a second imus wearing it that discussion i'm madam chair yeah yeah i i'm concerned on mason street this is a you know there's a lot of development going on in the future of that area and the sidewalks are six on each side i just could not support narrowing six going down to five on the bridge i can i can go along with kimberly street on the creek side to five and then keep it six on the west east side you know as it goes down but i cannot support the five feet on the new on the new bridge on mason street  that's a major area that's going to have a lot more foot traffic and i think it's important to keep the consistency and also just the look of the whole neighborhood to have the sidewalks consistent on each  direction that the sidewalks can be less than a pedestrian master plan i would take that as a friendly amendment to the motion that i put on the floor okay but i think i guess i guess what we're what we're getting from staff is it's not particularly helpful for us to say well you could do this you could do this but like what's our what's our recommendation we gotta own up and say by feet or six feet and six feet failed five feets being proposed so we need to and i think it's obvious that like yeah we want the widest sidewalks possible forever and ever if we can but that's not a recommendation yeah madam chair if i could express a concern from a transportation perspective there's two things in keeping with creeks desire to minimize the bridge width for standards from creeks from the transportation standpoint as well i've spoken to the bicycling issue of having fourteen feet and each travel lane so that two bikes and two cars could be crossing a bridge the same time in this case because of the extremely low average daily trips and the residential nature which mister kauffman gray is correct there is going to be new development how significant that development is we're not sure how quickly it's gonna come staff is is absolutely doing their due diligence to respond to that but i in the spirit of keeping a as narrow as possible so it's going to be larger than it is now bridge but as narrow as possible bridge in with new standards give staff the ability to go down two to five feet and i would hope that whatever they're able to come up with in terms of the the side railing perhaps the side railing isn't on a concrete base that's horizontal but instead vertical ones actually mounted to the side and that saves a foot on the bridge there i don't know if  basically mounting on the side of the bridge for the fence instead of mounting on top i don't know if that's something that is possible from engineering standard but basically obviously this is sensitive it's going to go through extra time so spending a couple moments here i think is helpful so that i see it's basically mounted like on a flat is there any type of railing that is actually mounted on the side i'm sure i'm not aware of that and i would wonder about that we would see we've got what's missing from this picture is the sidewalk so the sidewalk would be there in our bridge scenario so the the thirty two inches of that bottom rail has to be crash rated so i think it would be a challenge to have it mounted to the side and be cross rated to the degree you see those those vertical members are very solid and would likely need to be embedded into the concrete so i it so you lose approximately six to twelve inches because of that you know the scheie distances as you will so in effect if we have a five foot because of the railing of the bridge is really going to be four and a half to four foot sign like because a lot of pedestrians are going to feel comfortable and  if if we have an increase in traffic they're going to be moving away from the curb because this is gonna be curved a sidewalk there's not going to be any thing protecting the the projection from the vehicles that's why we want to go with a wider sidewalk in the bridge because of the railing and keeping them and i appreciate the time for that having made my point that there is well as a transportation desire in a residential neighborhood to have as narrow a bridge as possible especially in the vehicular lane and hearing this regarding and that i really appreciate that comment mister allen because that is something i wasn't taking into consideration obviously yeah with with that railing i want to buy a little extra space if that's not an engineering option available then i would actually rescind my motion and appreciate the comment yes if we can go down to five on the quick side of kimberly and then do six feet on the non creek side of kimberly and on both motion is withdrawn the new motion is to have to be very specific to have five foot sidewalk on the creek side of kimberly six foot sidewalk thank  that's one that's one now there's the rest of it and that was two waivers did we i guess we haven't formally have we formally given you a motion about pursuing the see through barrier you can do that but we're doing that anyway you're doing anything it doesn't matter okay we'll save our motion power okay so the next thing i want you have to contend with is whether kimberly remains wouldn't be for pursuing a two way i'm sorry a one way this project would be pursuing to wait but if council wanted at one way we would seek a separate and parallel project to do that right i mean that's what we're contending with now either as proposed to way or do we think that the city should pursue one way option sorry we gave it as a courtesy from him representing our other city committee suite we gave him some time so public comment is is over at this point okay so does somebody does somebody have a motion ma'am your your concerns have been expressed and we i didn't really want to but we gave courtesy to one of our other advisory committee members as a as a representative on this issue so is there a motion how is how is that going to be done because is it there the whole setback issue that would need to be resolved concurrently the the reason staff would be recommending to council that that be a separate and parallel project is because of the additional environmental review that would be required for one way that one way is not part of the approved environmental so that's why we anticipate that to be a one year plus process possibly because of the  the hoops that would need to be jumped through through the city and the federal process and so our project we feel can't afford that duration as we've had some delay already and trying to do our due diligence and trying to pull together the best project that we feel that we can within the existing approvals so this would need an amendment to the environmental so that that is you know and we would follow council direction of council out told us to make it part of this project we certainly would but staff was recommendation would be that that we would keep this project moving forward so we can stay on our schedules because again if we lose a year or lose a significant amount of time we start following the dominoes start falling on the other bridge projects and the other work by the county fl control and then we get these impacts of projects occurring in the same neighborhood at this at the same time and and we're trying to avoid those types of things and trying to expedite the work so that it can be done in in a planned process that that would i don't know that so funding it my funding the kimberly project if we were to separate it might be an issue the grant might not fund if we don't know that and knowing our streets capital we don't have the street and it seems like you should at least add to the motion something about doing some outreach to find out what the community what the neighbors feels about it i mean or thinks about it recommendation but it's not likely to end there so we should be thinking what what else could be done as far as getting getting the input from the neighborhood well i'm just thinking if no matter what we do tonight if this there is council direction to go with a one way street it will come back to us at x date in the future i agree in keeping this project on the road and keeping it moving no pun intended i don't think it's really necessary for us to convolute some sort of side process to this that will happen despite what we do here tonight  go with the direction of let's look at the one way it might jeopardize the funding for this project and that's my big concern here you know councils the one that can decide if they think they want to jeopardize a project by looking at the one way and going through the outreach but i'm not comfortable i i think this project as proposed is keeping it as two way and the funding the way i understand it includes the bridge and the the work along kimberly is one total project so if we start splitting off part of it that would jeopardize all the funding and that's why i'm going with the motion that i have and i agree with the motion and i would say engineering basis and circulation element basis it seems like keeping it to a but we got a nudge it a little is gonna be you know works best for the neighborhood only heard from one person who lives in the neighborhood and they want to keep  way what i would recommend moving forward no matter what the recommend is from this committee is and the other committees would be that if you're at home watching and you live in the neighborhood write a letter send an email come out to the meeting until tell people what you think i mean don't wait for somebody knock on your door and ask you what how you feel about your street like let us know say reach out to your neighbors and make me known so that whether or council i think we should leave it to the council that if they want to go down that road and say well let's do this hole their public process to to see if we might change the direction on kimberly then then that's  them but for us to get you know direct staff to wade into that whole thing i think is not really nessus area and the community is not saying it's it's particularly necessary from what we can say but it's hard to tell because there's no one here pretty much so i agree with motion and i would encourage the public to get engaged in this no matter how they feel about it whether they're a creek lover that wants it one way or they live in the neighborhood and they want it difficult will be for the council when we come back to them and it's a complex part project but we appreciate all the time and extra time that you've taken we didn't anticipate that's going this long but but i believe that you have understood the the issues very well and  the comments back yeah thank you for explaining everything for us and thank you for those of you who are here and who did stay we do appreciate it a few though you may be we we do appreciate you being engaged in the public process so