all right so we will go ahead and call this meeting with transportation circulation committee to order and we will start with roll call committee member bush burnham here coffman gray here downtown waterfront shuttle we're gonna take that after the what's now number three review of mtd report so we'll just be moving that up above the las positas the cliff drive report that's all right  and then public comment for items not on the agenda don't have any slips all right moving right along consent calendar purple minutes from the february meeting and neighborhood advisory council was in it committee to present these data have on it but downtown waterfront several report may be helpful for the committee as we start discussion on item number five regarding the service does anybody have questions about these re all right moving right along okay so the former number five now number four review options for addressing the revenue shortfall in the downtown waterfront shuttle chair black y i need to step down for this item so i'll be outside and you can let me know when it's safe to come back in okay there all right all right thank you all hanna listen we do have a georgia moon from mtd as well as shirley fisher the general manager did answer questions but what this item is we're trying to receive input from the committee on how we can address a forty to forty thousand dollars shortfall in revenue for the downtown waterfront shuttle as a committee may recall last year the funding for the redevelop a geneva three hundred thousand dollars was eliminated because the state eliminate the re agencies so we had a three hundred thousand dollar shortfall so what we did is we limit the commuter lot shuttle service we cut back on the midday service on the crosstown shuttle and we increased the fare so we aren't making the ribbon that we had anticipated when we did the fare increase going into it we had a twenty two thousand dollar shortfall even with all the adjustments we made and we were optimistic that we would bring in more  have a really active puppy here laughter but that didn't come through so we had that twenty two thousand dollars that we had a deal with from the current fiscal year then add on top of it that were another twenty eighteen to twenty thousand dollars short that one option that we looked at was removing the nine zero a m to a m start time for the downtown seattle the other one was to remove the wharf to harbor shuttle service in its entirety the summer months changed in the head way from a fifteen minute headway to a thirty minute headway that would not impact friday and saturday service and then looked at having the waterfront apartment could you be forty thousand dollars towards the s to maintain deserve it the recommendation that staff made to the city council was option forth in your report which was having a thirty minute headway during the summer the city council had concerns over changed the headway th because there's really not very many options either you you wait for the shuttle you're getting your car and so the council asked for this committee to take a look at this and come back with a recommendation on ways to maintain the fifteen minute headway on the waterfront proportion service and address the shortfall it's it's late in the day late in the game in terms of making any changes for this coming fiscal year the summer service with the exception of adding more money to the service now so  d said well we'll take care of it this summer but we have to address it next summer and the summer service begins actually starts this weekend doesn't it memorial day weekend so it will be five weeks into the next fiscal year that we'll be talking about if we're looking and making adjustment to service and then going on from there or when the option is committee could recommend well let's find some money for with it you know waterfront department was one's out option we put out there maybe there's other options three point three passenger trips per hour so it's a pretty little low performing service because they do there are options it's not that far of a walk them stern's work to the harbor and frankly it's worse than the service that we're endanger losing funding say from the waterfront because that that's where they want they they want that service to the harbor and we were talking about a funding source being the the waterfront i believe is that is that correct yeah i mean i think what what browning just said was that one option is to request that that the waterfront department backfill part of that of what the shortfall is  the waterfront department currently is not paying towards this service right but clearly they which was there another question that you have yes do we have ridership statistics between ten zero and eleven zero it would be both directions right okay let me get that for you see me pull it out here  just for the summer service alone it's about eight point eight passengers per trip and then year round it's about eight passengers per trip just for the service from the wharf to the zoo so it's higher than it is for the wharf to the harbor mm hmm and it's five point eight persons per trip still higher than the harbor okay other questions  this year round it's about five seven persons per trip on average and the wharf to harbor is the one above and that's three point three passengers is that correct yes and that's year round got it so that's an average right it's higher in the summer lower in the winter probably yes okay not by much it's it's uh it's a option that the waterfront fund would whoever runs that would be willing to pay forty thousand dollars to what the waterfront department was not supportive of  contribution but ultimately it would be a city council decision was it enough to have waterfront monies going towards this disservice okay i just like to say that those the first two options look so much better to me than anything else on here talking about the waterfront enterprise zone is that correct for transportation issues the waterfront department waterfront department's not paying any money towards any type of loan none of the businesses are contributing for the shuttles that's correct okay well i think forty thousand isn't very much out of their huge budget that they could help fund and this service of bringing their customers back and forth between the harbor and because it seems like that is a low amount and its services most of the businesses down in that area so i would be willing to go ahead and move towards item five and asked them to chip in to help  i haven't been down there to analyze the traffic flow or anything but it seems that cutting down the access would not be a good idea in the summer and some of these other options where you have very low passenger utilization would be more effective i just wanted to understand why you guys recommended that well we had a meeting with the mtd staff city staff the administration we met with empty staff he staffer looked at all the various options and we felt that this was the best option we can come up with but there was probably the least still have the service from stearns wharf to the harbor would we just change the head ways none of the options that we looked at and change terms of changing a service scene something we really wanted to do and we know we knew hey eliminating the wharf to the harbor might have some concerns with some of because they want ways to get people to come into the harbor but when you look at three three trips per hour you know doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of the financial and benefit of it but we know there are some people who who enjoy that type of if if we went with option five would that possibly give those merchants down there incentive to encourage and attract more ridership that's one question and the second question if we went with option five would this be an interim solution something we would revisit next year for a more permanent solution in the waterfront you give me incentive to say hey you know we're we're having to put out the money to to support this we should you know that would give me an incentive to encourage people to come to my business riding the bus i think it'd probably be more on the waterfront department staff more so than the businesses because it's coming out of their budget you know they don't assess they would not be assessing the businesses to pay for this service but they do assess the businesses already where they pay rent down there you know much between the stearns wharf and the freeway but when you get further up state street start seeing it drop up for ridership but you know there is a problem on the lower portion never were there's a lot of people left standing at the curve because the shadows are full especially during the summer months so know it's a challenge mm hmm well i'm um just to make a few comments about this um and i didn't receive any public comment slips so i will oh you  can feel free yeah yeah i have one more thing that i haven't thought to share with you during our original conversations about this jim armstrong city manager asked that we contact the zoo to see how they felt about the potential of less frequent services so i did talk to rich block i don't want to speak for rich but if i'm paraphrasing and he said that although they would understand if it was necessary to reduce the level of service to the zoo they would also offer to pump up the volume on encouraging riders especially during this this time period when there's some changes happening at the zoo's bus stop etc so he wanted to express that they would do anything they could to work with everybody to encourage rider shipment i just feel like fair if i didn't press that on okay okay well yeah we would love for them to do that no matter what happens with service um but i would was that   to have this service be active you know if we it's something that definitely benefits them it reduces parking congestion and all the bad stuff that comes with you know traffic down there um i would say you know if i were harbor merchants i'd be i'd be glad that um the the service was continued and maybe it we can communicate to them if  the city council does go with option five communicate to them that you know if this service continues to not perform in this way and that leg it might go away and is that something that they maybe they don't care and whatever we can save a few bucks or if it's something they'd like to fight to keep because i don't i don't know how much they know about what's what was proposed or what's going on with that and and they may care more about it if they know it might be taken away so i'm definitely supportive number five you know the city council said they wanted to hear from us what our what our thoughts were and so um definitely be supportive of the motion other comments it's a committee you want to consider  want them to negotiate with okay and i mean i would say i'm pretty much always for not reducing service mm hmm on any type of thing on you know a commuter line on a line that is used a lot by by people visiting i'm just not for it that will always be my last option personally and so that's you know that's where i'm with that i i still support the motion i don't know if the if it can be conveyed to the city council that you know this is this is what we want and i mean obviously if they're gonna that they ultimately have a decision on these other things i don't know adding a second and we've done that emotion those this committee in the past but um i don't know that adding a second here like our second favorite option is necessary well that's why i think i should just be strong on one option and let them know if we're an animal unanimous on it that you know we want them to really negotiate with those downtown the waterfront district to help them kick in some money from their budget to support the service for all their businesses down there this morning i don't like the idea of the of asking the waterfront fund for money because  it's like dunning businesses kind of thing and that i think they'll be pushed back against that plus i don't know that three customers in one hour and each day is i don't even know if they're going to be customers for the waterfront but when i think about three riders between ten and eleven o'clock to me it seems like  very inefficient use of the city dollars of the mtd dollars to support that and especially if it's it'd be very hard to market any better than them is being done now because i'm assuming i may be wrong but i'm assuming it that a lot of these would be tourists and there's already pretty good marketing to tourists and i could be wrong but anyway i  really think if i my feeling is that it'd be much better to have a more efficient choice such as number one remove twelve nine to ten a m for downtown shuttle and that gives us a little over the forty thousand dollars as well so i'm that's what i'm leaning to work and this the second option is also looks very viable to me so that's my sniper yes yeah i'm i'm leaning toward um i would prefer five i wouldn't like to leave eliminate any service because i don't want to ever  message that we that it's changed people quit using things if they think it's gonna change next month or after it changes they forget and it just starts to go in the wrong direction but if we were to not be able to have five it looks to me from the document that you've given us that maybe just the ten to eleven to the waterfront would be the least painful because that if i understand that it's only three point three passengers the three points wharf to harbor and that saves but that's now that's what's confusing that's you're proposing removing that all day anything yes that would basically it's an underperforming leg of the service of the one the option was three point three passenger trips at sixty seven thousand dollars a year ago just cost you to provide that service for three point three passengers on on average per day is it really worth spending that money that was one of the thoughts you know so  the problem we see with the service is really on the waterfront portion not the state street portion soi when we're taking a look at it we really don't want to make any adjustments to state street if anything we want to put more shuttles on state street none take away service on state  that we were focusing on the waterfront portion where to be from the harbor to stearns wharf or the entire length of the again the waterfront service so i'd be comfortable with a secondary recommendation i know we keith is talking about  that brownie mentioned earlier that it's not that far of a walk from the wharf to the harbor and it's not it's it's very doable for a person unless they're you know have a walker or a wheelchair or you know hip problems around which you know i can understand but it's a pretty short trip for someone that wanted to do that assuming they know where it is  or that it's there okay other comments or questions on the motion i just wanted clarification so number one you're talking about removing nine to ten for the whole downtown shuttle including state street is that correct is that what item one is that's yes trip from nine to ten it's a half hour service on state street right okay so i yeah i definitely wouldn't be agree for number one right okay other other comments the the motion currently is to actually have one more question mister allen um these options that have come to us i know this went to city council and then they said come talk come talk to this committee was number five an option that they came up with her all these options just came up with staff to bring to us or were they given any of these secondary choices i would just like to have a vote to see if it passes at first as stands and then if that doesn't work then we can go figure out other options okay okay so to the motion on the motion then which is to recommend the city council the option number five which is to seek funding from the waterfront fund to maintain the current level of service  item nope all right so that's our recommendation yes i don't know if we need a motion but i'd like the message to go back that that well i'm not thrilled with for even though that was the staff recommendation i don't know how other people feel so maybe we could take a poll of ourselves and give a sense of the committee instead of  motion i don't know how you do that i don't either because i think they would benefit from our discussion you know i mean just the motion does send a strong message but i think they would also benefit from how we don't do the forty then then what is it change the service from ten to eleven or stop the service from stearns wharf to the hardware or go back to the thirty minute headway but the city council really wasn't crazy about changing the highway from thirty minutes from fifteen minutes or thirty minutes none of the options that we looked at other than finding additional funding was optimal because we're affecting service to the customers you know and we just see increase the ridership during the summer months because we have tourists coming in but empty need to do a survey last year and the ridership is about level fifty eight or so it's pretty balanced so it's not they hear people all the time saying well the shuttles just for tourists well no it's not we have a lot of locals that use but i'm just wondering it you know that it is it is for more for more than just tourists and when it comes to tourists they might be trying to get to that to the zoo at a decent hour to you know beat the heat or whatever i'm yeah i just think there are a lot of reasons why i know ultimately if the council says well we're not gonna get forty zero from waterfront then i guess they're gonna have to figure something else out but i don't know statistics on those trips as far a street yeah okay a year round for nine to ten it's about ten point one passengers per trip and then during the summer it's eleven point seven for the nine to ten hour and about nine point four during the winter which averages out to that ten point one three around so let me let me just add so if the were to say you know we just don't want to do the forty thousand dollars out of the waterfront department or for the water commission says the way you know whatever we would continue to you know mtd said they will not make changes to the summer service to this summer because it's too late in the year to make those changes so we would continue to sit down with mtd see if there's any other options and maybe come back to this committee with the other options that we talked about with another recommendation you know but you know well basically i would see how the city council reacts they want to refer back to committee okay now that's not a go so look at the other four options that are out there and with another recommendation that that could probably what we would do over this over the summer but we didn't do no we need to make changes for fy fifteen right but this is starting the conversation and you know the only thing if we're forty thousand dollars could go into effect for fy fourteen officially this beginning but changing the service will be for fy fifteen and part of fy fourteen sure yes i'm just a little confused we just had a vote and we the majority voted for option five i think that is what we did and i think that's i don't know why we're discussing further should go to council if it council doesn't like that they can refer back to us or go from there but i think we're just kind of dragging this out when we just did a vote on option five and you know we're just going to be confusing council more if we start adding all this other stuff after we just voted all right well there you go any other comments or questions all right that's why they get the big bucks they get to make the ultimate  great and we'll won't bring remember bush back in improvements project as you'll recall back in november of last year staff presented to the committee three alternatives for making improvements to the cliff drive las positas intersection to improve operations  the intersection particularly during the a m and p m peak hours the three alternatives that were presented included and always stopped with two southbound left turn lanes a traffic signal with two southbound left turn lanes and a single lane round about as a quick reminder the traffic signal and roundabout alternatives were found to provide a comparable improvement in level of service and delay at the intersection under both the existing volume conditions and future volume conditions at a level of service b during the p m peak back in november seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars in stip grant funding had been identified for construction and that was the only funding that had been identified for the project and as a result there was a significant project shortfall for the roundabout alternative and a relatively small shortfall for the traffic signal alternative so given all that information the tcc motioned to keep the roundabout as the preferred alternative for staff to continue seeking additional funding sources for the roundabout and then to return to the committee with an update so i'm here tonight to provide you with an update this slide shows a summary of the costs for each of the two alternatives as presented last year as you can see the roundabout has a shortfall of a little over a million dollars and the traffic signal has a shortfall of about one hundred and forty zero dollars and since that time staff has done some additional analysis of the traffic signal alternative and cost estimate and now anticipates that that alternative would have a lower construction cost than was previously presented and as a result  staff no longer anticipates a project shortfall for that alternative the reason for that cost savings is due to a couple of factors one being the elimination of the second southbound left turn lane which would have required widening las positas road and some modifications to existing drainage culvert after doing some more detailed level of service analysis staff concluded that a single southbound left turn lane could accommodate existing and future traffic volumes at the intersection and would continue to provide a level of service be at the intersection so that was that's a cost savings and another cost savings potentially would be for the final design of the traffic signal to be completed by city staff in house rather than a consultant which is something that's being considered right now and in the event that the traffic signal alternative does move forward and the full seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars in grant funding isn't needed for construction staff would look to apply any remaining funds elsewhere just as a quick summary of the different grant funding opportunities that staff pursued these are some of the funding sources that we looked at i'm not going to go into all the detail because it's included in your staff report but staff did complete a detailed investigation of all of the grant funding sources that could potentially fund the roundabout alternative we spoke with both  need for additional funds if we were to move forward the roundabout and hmm so just as a quick summary the coastal resources enhancement funds funding was found not to be feasible for a couple of reasons one being there hasn't been a public solicitation for that funding since two thousand and ten and a representative was unsure when there would be a next public solicitation there these grant have also been relatively small amounts in the past so it wouldn't amount to closing the big gap that we have for funding the roundabout and it's unsure whether the project would even be competitive for these fund no public works projects were found to be eligible for the environmental enhancement and mitigation program funding for the highway safety improvement program funding because collision rates at the las intersection are below the state average this intersection wouldn't qualify for this type of funding there's a potential that the pedestrian improvements associated with the roundabouts could qualify because there was a pedestrian fatality and long loss positas several years ago but this would only amount to about two hundred thousand dollars of the over one and a half million dollar construction costs for the roundabout so still be a significant shortfall and that's similar with the measure a bike and pedestrian funds only the ped and bike facilities would could potentially qualify and it would be a relatively small amount and not enough to fund the gap and finally the transportation enhancement funds were found it was found that the project is unlikely to be a feasible candidate for that funding so in summary despite staffs hardest efforts no additional funding sources have been identified for the roundabout alternative and as a result and the traffic signal alternative is now found to be fully funded based on some updated analysis and as a result public works is proposing to move forward with the traffic signal alternative we are scheduled to go to city council with an update on june t seek input from the committee as we prepare our presentation to council so with that i'm happy to answer any questions signal as far as improving congestion there sure the it was found that both the traffic signal and the roundabout alternatives would significantly improve operations the intersection currently operates at a level of service f which is the worst level of service during both the a m and the pm peak and under using existing traffic volumes both of those alternatives would improve the level of service to  with just to give some numbers the traffic signal would result in twelve point two seconds of delay which is the amount of the average amount of time a vehicle would have to wait at the intersection and a roundabout  would reduce it to ten point nine seconds which is still a level of service b so the roundabout is slightly better than the traffic signal but both very comparable misspoke just on that particular point even with reducing the signal option to one left turn lane it's still the same reduction and delay that seems unlikely well well you're right the the level of service would be the same the delay could be slightly higher okay yeah yeah okay i apologized that i wasn't here in november to ask you all these questions before so i'm probably going farther back then you really want to one of my questions is what's the urgency of fixing this problem now that's a great question this project has been in the works for many many years  original project study report was done in two thousand and one and at that time the seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars was was identified for construction funding and at that time seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars was full funding because of several delays one being the ongoing negotiations of the highway two hundred and twenty five relinquishment the project was put on hold there that is a good question and we could potentially ask for an extension on the funding i don't know for certain whether that would be granted or if the state even has the funding available yet for it so that is something that we could ask of i guess where i was going with that was i'm drawing a blank here would would it make sense is just another opportunity to go with the double the two left turn lanes and no signal to save money just do the inexpensive kind of semi fix for wouldn't that alternative wouldn't be eligible for the stip funding because it wouldn't improve the level of service to an acceptable level even though it would make a noticeable difference out at the intersection of improvement wouldn't have to get caltrans approval if it was if it was something that was done as a more local project that's something that could be but i would say would be more likely be to say for that unless we say we're gonna take ten percent out of john wozniak road maintenance budget which he would have major issues with and it still would take us ten years to come up with that kind of money so it this it's tough you know the money's tight you know as we something new is difficult we're fortunate that the step money is most when we first got it was gonna be a hundred percent funding towards the construction of it but because of delays and the issues would have being a caltrans facility and we spent a lot of time going back and forth yeah the cost has gone up cost estimates have gone up so if we could have built it back in two thousand and two if the money would have been available it might have been cheaper but now it's it's what eleven years later is m i guess my last question on all that is city of santa barbara has a level of service c threshold but that's not a state imposed stress hold right or is it or i guess where i was going with that question is i think i've heard of other communities making exceptions in their general plan to define for instance the levels of service d as being adequate for this intersection and would that be a possibility that would get us miss tip funding and i don't know i'm just looking for i am not sure about that i would have to i would have to report back you know when we make a change to the project you know if we're not going to build what we originally applied for would be a traffic signal or around about you know they're gonna want as caltrans is gonna want to know are you using money to address the problem you identified when you apply for the money and if we're not improved in level surface to acceptable level of service if we're going from an f to a d they're probably the same it's not good enough we're going into an f to see possibly i'm going through the funding options that you were going through and reading what you gave us and there's a few in here i mean first of all i just want to say when we originally as as a committee you know we kind of picked the six months it's kind of an arbitrary number out of the hat or different see if you could do something so it wasn't like the least it wasn't for me when i voted for the six months that something had to be decided in six months one way or the other it was more of a come back to us let's see what you could do and obviously you tried but a lot of these things they're still potential money in there may be small but there's small amounts and then there's this whole transportation  reading the paragraph there it says details of funding opportunities are still emerging however it is known that any funding for the project either program would be competitive at a minimum but it sounds like there's you know there's a chance that you could bid for and possibly get the money down the road i just hate spending nine hundred and some thousand dollars for a signal at one of the main entrances to our waterfront in a natural reserve area and put up a light post and lamps and stuff when it's just a great natural resource there and instead of continuing to find how we can maybe fund this roundabout down the road i mean that's a lot of money once we spend nine hundred thousand dollars for a signal we'll probably not even revisit that area for years whereas if we wait and really see if we can find that funding to get what we really want especially with the relinquishment of the two hundred and twenty two from unbelief city council just voted on it this tuesday that they're going forward with that i just hate seeing us jump in and saying let's put a signal there and you know that area is just it's an environmental treasure that we have in santa barbara there's open space there and the whole idea the roundabout was to minimize any you know just disturbance of that area as much as possible because that's where we go to the beach we go i mean it's just a great natural area and i just i have a problem when i look at these they're still potential out there maybe not right now but i hate to just go forward with a signal and then we're stuck with it for decades and decades and wish that we had not done that i have comment i you know i would love nothing more than to have a round about it would be beautiful lovely the the presentation we got in november talking about how much  asphalt could be taken out and there would be you know actual permeable surface hopefully there's there would be some of that that we could pick up if we if we do a signal i don't know what the exact configurations are since it is environmentally sensitive but if if we have a major intersection that's level service f and it is really gnarly during peak hours it's i think we're derelict in our duty to just like keep waiting for that because if you're you'd love to see a roundabout with nice landscaping but you don't want to wait you know four more years to get home at a decent time and to i mean the environmental impacts of all those cars queuing up is even the years we would wait for a roundabout to save money for that is is gonna impact the sensitive environment um you know in more ways so i you know i would love to have that but we did and you guys tried to find the money and certain types of those funding opportunities that might still be out there there are plenty other places in the city that we could apply those funds and and you know go after them and i know that you that you will um even especially on cliff drive if if the city really takes it from the state there's gonna be a lot of pet improvements bike improvements things like that that that people are gonna be wanting and you're go be seeking and you know the whole corridor needs a lot of love from the city and so i think going forward with a with a traffic signal although they're not the greatest getting from an f to b is pretty decent and i have a feeling that people who live over there are like pretty tired of waiting so um i think that's one thing like i wouldn't i would love to wait but to me six months wasn't arbitrary because it's been since two thousand and one since the first study report and it's just like to see something happen in the next couple years rather than the next ten years if and and they're still you going to be if yeah well if it would ever happen so i do that intersection every day several times and i as do many people and i would really like to see something done and it you know other things done on cliff drive that do have a great importance now so i totally agree with every all your point and i love the roundabouts i'm not great driving at him but i'm committed to learning how to do it because i think they're wonderful so the memphis roundabout i i used that street a lot and i remember many years sitting at that damn signal and it's so nice now and the one down on coast village road i think is is is really nice and i just i think it's really really a disappointment that we can't find some funding for around about we've got the douglas family preserve we've got the wind the fellows with their when surfing and the beach and it's the back entrance no branch they you know a main entrance to the mesa so the only thing that really sticks with me as you said that the transition in the ownership or dominion over cliff drive is going to change how soon is that going to change on tuesday council voted to continue moving forward with the process we're still negotiating some points of the relinquishment with the state if things go as planned and  are able to negotiate those points it would likely be by the end of the calendar year it seems to me that we don't have to postpone it forever if we waited for the relinquish to see if that would have any transition in the funding or make us eligible for other funding for the whole corridor along that whole cliff drive corridor to be improved it needs significant improvements as we all know so i'm i'm more partial to giving it a little more time that's just my opinion other questions or comments yeah i had another comment which was you know you you were arguing that that it's time to do something to fix the problem and not wait around for a lot longer but the the two southbound left turn lane alternative with with the always stop it does reduce the delay at peak which was the the worst from more than three minutes down to about half a minute that's a significant improvement and you know it may still be level of service d but it's pretty it seems pretty darn good to me and it and and it seems to me that it would be worth as ms rodriguez said waiting a little bit longer to see how things shake out once the city has control and then perhaps moving forward with the to left turn lanes while we continue to pursue the roundabout which was the preferred alternative planning commission regardless of what your recommendation might turn out to be i just want to point out that a key principle in our general plan is sustainability and when i look at the options before us i don't know how we can support a environmentally inferior alternative at this level f intersection in our community which has been lingering for quite some time when i look at i'm going to set aside the fun issue for a moment and just look at the environmental issue and consequences or implications associated with the traffic signal versus the roundabout the city has gone to great lengths including great expense to restore and maintain the wonderful arroyo creek habitat right there and we continue to make these investments and make statements around our environmental quality and protection in the city so here we're looking at to me what looks like an environmentally superior versus an environmentally inferior solution and when i look at a traffic signal solution where there will be cars backed up idling that furthers my concern about advancing and environmentally inferior solution so you know for me i i would say the starting point is it shouldn't be the money i know ultimately the council will have to wrestle with the financial issue but i think we need to start at kind of a higher level of consideration for our community and from their work towards how we are going to secure funding for what we think is the right solution at this intersection so i thank you for that consideration a question for ashley what is what are we looking at as far as a timeline for construction of a roundabout at this intersection from start to finish all things go  of yeah the construction yeah we're estimating most likely six to nine months possibly more in order to keep traffic open throughout the entire construction period okay it seems a little lengthy i don't know the details of the construction of a roundabout as far as no traffic traffic flow and how you interphase that with the construction process the phasing of constructing a roundabout can be relatively complicated in order to maintain traffic flow through the intersection while they're constructing but that is just an estimate right now so it could we could come with a shorter yeah we could come up with a really brilliant way to to divert traffic and build it faster we would certainly look to do that if possible okay thank you other questions comments this so the item that we're on is to receive a status report and provide input it doesn't necessarily say give a recommendation on an alternative i don't know if that was the intent  we're certainly giving input and i i have a motion i could make but i have a feeling it wouldn't be supported is there it would tell us what you're looking for well we you know the whole idea we you know the as a whole feels that that's not a good idea you can do the roundabout continue looking for the roundabout or vice versa we're great you did your best shot this build a signal put the signal in because it's time to do it that's fine you can you can make a motion to the of of either either way but stash recommendation to council will be doing it during a traffic signal mm hmm and and has it i'm sure in the past this issue has gone before council  but i don't know which one which council but i'm wondering if i know at our the last time we discussed this in november we said the roundabout would be the best for so many reasons  but you know go seek the funding come back when's the last time the city council was given the the option or had this laid before them to say look this is something that would be environmentally superior it would be sustainable traffic wise lot less well i don't know if it's less maintenance ultimately there's less electronic equipment to deal with but there's probably more landscaping um trade off yeah it's a trade off so those those things i just wonder if that has been laid before the council to to make the decision to give them the option to you know because staff can can look up grant funding but ultimately the council and they are not flush with cash by any means but they could make a decision now obviously the knowing what our capital shortfall is in the city and this is not sadly the only intersection in the city the council and we are faced with with a long list of things that need to be done when's the last time that's happened do you think that that's something that you know that this council really has wrestled with or what do you think so the last time this project went to council was in february of last year to award the preliminary design for our consultant penfield and smith to do a preliminary design for both the traffic signal and roundabout alternatives and updated cost estimates so it wasn't brought to them to make a decision on an alternative it was just  gap you know going after grant funds as many of you know it's difficult there's no guarantee that we're gonna be able to get grant funds i've had conversation with staff at sb cag if you're only looking at another seven hundred and fifty and we could probably find the money but there's no guarantee that they're gonna be able to come up with the money because any money they come up with have to come out of their pot of money they have to already set aside or maybe the one one hiv project or savings from other projects so there's no guarantee that we would be able to be successful in receiving additional funding if we were to go down the we're doing a roundabout i think you know i think everybody in the community understands that a roundabout be great be a good gateway to the community but how do we afford it that's where we are so i'm gonna try a motion try bear with me council can make fiscal decisions you know make fiscal decisions that would make that possible would make the funding of that possible that would be the  that would be what we would prefer if that becomes impossible that they perceive quickly quit then installing a traffic signal does that make  well i think you know my position i i i really think we should let council know that we still really want the roundabout and further and do further research in trying to get more funding  okay any other comments or questions on the motion yes miss beth i won't be supporting supporting the motion either for the same reasons as mister kaufman gray okay me me three great all right shall we take a vote on this motion did you turn your mic yeah mmm could we entertain a new motion that takes out the traffic signal just a statement that we strongly urge the council to look to continue to pursue the roundabout option at this time leave it at that i'll second  that i have a comment about that and what i'm just wondering from the committee and ultimately it is a council's decision but as an advisory body is there any point at which we think it's too long to wait  interim sort of thing just to help speed traffic there i mean that to me is might be a viable thing until the roundabout could go in as far as just making an extra turn lane i mean i could support going forward with something that instead of the traffic signal um i mean if you wanted to put something like that i i really think that we have a if we have a motion on the table i second it we could vote on that and then have another like a recommendation motion as an alternative which would be a temporary we wanted to do that so this is a recommendation right a recommendation to count as i understand the motion the recommendation is that we support the roundabout and encourage do we say okay we tried let me help the committee out yeah room i think obviously if we can't get another extension on the use of the stiff funds then we're gonna make a decision to move forward the traffic  stiff funding has not been available because of state resources now money is becoming available to do these projects so if they say no fifteen sixteen you got to have it done you have to have your authorization to move the construction by in fifty or th they said no more extensions and were and we're not ready to build a roundabout we're most likely going to do this traffic signal why why not do the interim solution well just looking at the cost estimates you know i would be i have a hard time recommending to my boss and working with engineering staff to spend three or four hundred thousand dollars on an interim solution where we could you know and that would be city money if we're gonna do that you know apply that money going towards and dealing with the roundabout report that we were hired to submit with with caltrans until the relinquishment started moving more in a positive realm we were in that mode but now that is it's looking really apparent that when we don't have enough money to do the things we want to do and if we're gonna actually take over to twenty five that could be money we could spend other places on to twenty five ronny you just mentioned that you would go forward with the signal wouldn't council have to decide on okay other comments on the motion discussion on the motion okay so on the motion to recommend to council the support of the roundabout and  encouragement or demands that they continue to to seek funding to make it happen all those in favor say aye aye oppose all right that's all we have for the agenda i think kim sent an email we're looking at doing a special tcc meeting on june th in the evening to talk about the east side in tmpa so so you haven't responded to her please respond her about your availability as well as um we want to try to a special meeting in the morning with the downtown parking committee so right now i think we only have two or three confirmed four because i've little confused so they're both on the th right the seven thirty a m and then p m that's why we said i know it might be difficult for you guys to come out basically twice for for meetings but but so if there's any way you can make two meetings that'd be great w