Council Study Session

MINUTES OF THE GILBERT TOWN COUNCIL, IN SPECIAL MEETING FOR A STUDY SESSION, TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2022, AT 5:15 P.M., GILBERT PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING FACILITY, ATLAS AUDITORIUM, 6860 SOUTH POWER ROAD, GILBERT, ARIZONA COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Brigette Peterson, Vice Mayor Aimee Yentes, Councilmembers Scott Anderson, Laurin Hendrix, Yung Koprowski, Scott September, and Kathy Tilque COUNCIL ABSENT:None STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Patrick Banger, Town Clerk Chaveli Herrera, Town Attorney Chris Payne, Development Services Director Kyle Mieras, Transportation Planning Supervisor Stephanie Bubenheim, Senior Transportation Planner Nathan Williams CALL TO ORDER OF SPECIAL MEETING Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. AGENDA ITEM 1. Discussion on Transportation Master Plan. Development Services Director Mieras spoke of the importance of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), stating it was an item that had a lot of input from multiple departments and outside input. He introduced outside consultants Vamshi Yellisetty, Senior Principal Planner, and Phyllis Huegel, Associate Planner, both of Kittelson & Associates, Inc., and Aaron Xavier, Senior Service Planner for Valley Metro. He mentioned a close partnership with Valley Metro to compare information from surrounding cities to address creating a transit plan that would integrate with the TMP. He noted it was a twenty-year plan that had seven chapters and six appendices and was a dynamic document as each chapter built on the previous and included an implementation strategy that could be followed every year. He explained that the Study Session was an introduction to the plan as it would be presented to the Council on June 28th, 2022 for adoption, but they wanted to provide an opportunity for an overview and allow for questions and modifications prior to the intended adoption date. Senior Principal Planner Yellisetty noted the TMP was a two-year endeavor thus far and said he would present highlights from the plan and help to answer any questions. He began with sharing the purpose of the plan was to understand changes since the last plan was made approximately eight years ago; to create a more viable, equitable and connected multimodal transportation network; and to create a realistic Action Plan that the Town would truly use as a blueprint or guidebook, adding it was in line with City of the Future initiative. He explained the reasons for creating the plan consisted of the added stress to the transportation system due to Gilbert’s observed and projected population and employment increases, refocusing the plan to emphasize moving people rather than cars, should they choose an alternate transportation mode, and to provide a prioritized list of investments to the Town. He said the group followed a five-step approach of internal working groups, multi-phase community engagement, stakeholder outreach, and partnership with Valley Metro. He discussed the process to gain public input and potential solutions that would make sense for each of the identified issues. He highlighted the importance of the public engagement and the extreme lengths made to ensure the public had access to the virtual approach of engagement. He stated the approach was successful in garnering public engagement and shared figures highlighting 4,968 visitors to the project website, a virtual open house, 1,975 surveys completed, and 565 map comments provided. Senior Principal Planner Yellisetty said solutions offered were an integrated TMP, a connected network design, multi-use path implementation plan and design toolbox, and emerging mobility playbook. He said the toolbox could be utilized by Gilbert going forward. Associate Planner Huegel reviewed the findings that helped move their project forward. She said by 2050 there was a projected 20% population increase and a 48% projected employment increase in Gilbert and encouraged everyone to imagine the impact that would have on transportation in the town. She said driving was the primary mode of transportation in Gilbert and shared the survey results that 92% of respondents found it easy to travel around Gilbert by car, and 67% of respondents shared they saw Gilbert’s transportation network travel by car worsening in the future. She discussed congestion and delays in travel as well as safety, with an in- depth safety assessment to identify hotspots and to develop plans and counter measures. She shared that the top public responses to the survey question of the Town’s greatest transportation need were reducing travel congestion and improving safety for all users. Associate Planner Huegel reiterated that the plan was developed from an all-modes perspective and emphasized the partnership with Valley Metro throughout the process starting with evaluating the current transit routes. She noted that, according to the public survey results, most people felt it was easy to get around by car at 92% of respondents, but less by walking at 66%, bicycles at 63%, and even less by bus or other public transportation at 32%. She reported that when respondents were asked what they would do to improve transit, 52% said they would expand public transportation to new areas, and 30% said they would increase the frequency and stop amenities on popular routes. She added that the existing conditions analysis, community profile, and socio-economic analysis helped drive Valley Metro’s assessment to find solutions going forward. Associate Planner Huegel explained that freight movement was also considered, with companies like Amazon and UPS using the roadways at high rates, so they worked with Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) to identify and address corridors in need of improvement for goods movements. She added that they needed to look at all their users and reported that people said they wanted additional transportation options for more livable community space. She stated that given the public feedback, they evaluated Gilbert’s biking and walking networks compared to neighboring communities and found that Gilbert trended lower on walking and biking scores compared to those other communities. Associate Planner Huegel addressed the importance of the analysis and public outreach done and emphasized what they then wanted to know was what the public prioritized the Town to invest in. She explained that they asked the public some hard decisions involving investments in trade-off scenarios; such as whether people preferred to improve, expand, or preserve the current transportation system, expansion versus modernization versus preservation. She reported some of the results included almost an even split in interest in upgrading or expanding the transportation system, and a high interest in more protected facilities for bike lanes, as well as more miles of trails and enhanced connectivity. She elaborated that the public response focus on connectivity and access to the transit network shifted the focus of the plan and helped set a baseline for the strategies, programs, and projects identified in the TMP. Associate Planner Huegel summarized the key findings and outcomes of the work conducted in creating the plan. She first addressed the lack of mobility options and why that was the case; she then introduced the topic of complete networks and how they assigned each corridor with its modal needs. She provided visual examples of Gilbert’s freight, transit, vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian networks, then explained that each current network highlighted where the corridors were for that transportation mode and how that related to the considerations that should be made when developing a transportation plan. She expanded on complete networks, explaining that complete networks made for safer and more comfortable transportation by mode. Associate Planner Huegel shared that one of the metrics used to assess the complete network effectiveness considered how much of Gilbert could be reached via a 20-minute bike ride. They found that only 3.4% of Gilbert could be reached via the current low-stress network, but with a complete bicycle network, 13% of the Town could be accessed in that same timeframe. She added the impact it would have on accessibility to jobs that could be reached via a 20-minute bike ride; whereas, currently only 2,957 jobs could be reached within those parameters, a complete network would provide bike access to 7,922 jobs. She then discussed another key finding was that the lack of flexibility in street design resulted in the lack alternative modes; as was seen across the country as most streets were based on functional classification only. She discussed street typologies and that street design was not a one size fits all approach when the street and corridor context and needs were taken into consideration. She said the 16 street typologies were based on how people use the street, land use context (urban, suburban, rural, etc.), and the modal needs of the corridor. She explained they were pulled directly from the General Plan in collaboration with the General Plan consultant and the Planning Department to develop the plan types, or land use types. She elaborated that the 16 street typologies allowed for a flexible approach when designing corridors to meet future needs. Senior Principal Planner Yellisetty discussed the plan to prioritize the following investment types: capacity projects, maintenance projects, intersection and safety projects, pedestrian improvements, bicycle and multi-use path projects, and transit recommendations. He discussed how the investments were prioritized and what the projects were evaluated on, including the TMP goals and objectives, benefits and issues addressed, and cost and feasibility. He discussed the priorities in Tier I, the highest priority with a 1-7-year timeframe; Tier II, medium priority with an 8-15-year timeframe; and Tier III, projects that may not be needed immediately but may develop over time as funding and opportunities arose. He emphasized that Tier II projects were not necessarily of lower importance, but could be more expensive projects or may not have accessible funding in place. Senior Principal Planner Yellisetty discussed some of the roadway improvement projects such as the Baseline Road Improvements—Greenfield Road to Power Road, and the Heritage District—Ash Street Realignment, Vaughn Ventilator. He also discussed some intersection improvement examples such as the intersections of Guadalupe Road at McQueen Road, Lindsay Road and Val Vista Drive. He explained that at the congested intersections they assessed the needs for new signals, upgraded signal infrastructure, retiming of the signals, and other options to make them more efficient. He discussed safety improvements and concerns brought forth by residents expressing their lack of trail use was due to feeling unsafe when in crossings to access the existing trail systems. He explained that they expanded on the Town’s initial study recommendations and identified more locations that would benefit from improvements. Senior Principal Planner Yellisetty discussed transit improvements and the many aspects considered and influence of neighboring cities when they did the analysis for determining the plan to prioritize investments. He noted that expanding transit was expensive, so they explored potential microtransit areas, which was essential to on-demand ridesharing systems. He also discussed their review of Gilbert’s active transportation and sidewalks, which was extensive but included gaps in the system preventing pedestrian usage. He stated they did a similar review with bicycle trails and multi-use path/trail facilities. He described the vision and design guidance for designing the trail network to address the gaps, and lastly, he discussed implementation and moving forward strategies. Councilmember September stated while reviewing the materials he understood how intensive the work was and expressed appreciation to staff and the outside partners that worked on it. He acknowledged how they discussed the matter and highlighted investments. Senior Planner Yellisetty praised the Town staff for their collaboration and dedication. Mayor Peterson thanked him for his comment and stated she agreed that Gilbert had a wonderful staff. Councilmember Tilque asked how the priorities of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) priorities tied in with those of the TMP and how they would possibly change. Senior Planner Yellisetty responded that CIP projects, as well as bond projects, were taken into consideration and were evaluated with the current data they had, then used that to group the priorities in the tiers previously discussed. He added that, based on data, some recommendations were to enhance certain CIP projects to get more “bang for your buck”. Director Mieras commented that each Fall CIP projects were reviewed and prepared to bring forth to the Council during the current time of year in order to have analysis and prioritization of the projects. Mayor Peterson noted both the TMP and CIP were fluid documents that could be changed as priorities changed and reassessment was needed each year. Councilmember Koprowski thanked the staff and consultants for the presentation, for the additional time to review the documents prior to the June 28, 2022 adoption date, as well as for their context-driven approach and not treating all roadways the same. She noted it was forward- thinking and she appreciated the public engagement as well, especially as they needed to consider the next 20 years of transportation for the Town. Senior Planner Yellisetty acknowledged the hard work of the Digital Government Team as they were critical to the outreach component. Vice Mayor Yentes stated she would offer a contrary opinion for the sake of discussion, highlighting a major disconnect between the presented document and valid and recent survey regarding the bond that only passed by 164 votes. She asked who prepared the survey instrument, either Valley Metro or Gilbert Digital Government. Senior Planner Yellisetty responded they had not been a part of the bond process. Vice Mayor Yentes confirmed her question was regarding the TMP related survey; she noted that when she reviewed the bond question, she saw their guidance on how some of the projects could be prioritized or where funding might come from. She stated the bond may be the backbone of the project and read the bond language provided in the TMP. She explained that she felt there was a disconnect between the bond-related language that was on the ballot when the public voted and the language that was presented in the TMP. She stated that bike paths and hiking trails were recreation projects, not transportation projects, and though she appreciated the approach the basis of the plan was focused on moving people, not cars. She emphasized that 95% of the population were moved with cars and noted the involvement of freight transportation and consumer behaviors, thus setting the investment in roadways even higher. She added that parks and recreation projects were better served being on a parks and recreation bond for transparency to the public and felt the TMP survey was skewed in leading to favorable responses due to the survey question design. She commented that it may not be wise to have 20-year planning envelopes for projects that were so fluid and disruptive in the technological space as transportation was. She made a comparison to the scenario if people were asked if they would use the gym more if they were offered a free entry pass, the results would be overwhelmingly positive, but the reality would likely be they would not actually use the gym. She stated that investments should be made to encourage people to bike and walk more, but did not feel the investments would make an impact in changing behavior because people did not want to use those transportation methods outside of recreational purposes. She added there were important details that needed to be addressed, such as throughput and diminishment on capacity, that were not included in the plan and the document missed the mark in guiding those that wanted to invest in transportation via the bond. Mayor Peterson stated she agreed with many of Vice Mayor Yentes’ comments in that it was a large Town with large roads and large families that required movement by vehicle. She added that she would not go to the gym more if offered a free pass, as in Vice Mayor Yentes’ comparison example, and that she answered no to the TMP public survey for the questions related to whether she would walk bike, or hike more. She agreed that the transportation bond should be separated from the TMP, as they were separate, noting the TMP was a living, breathing, transitioning document and elements could change and get updated. Councilmember Koprowski responded that those were good points, but historically there was no city that had built its way out of congestion and it was not possible. She stated that the way to tackle the matter was to approach it with a holistic view, as the COVID-19 Pandemic provided a clear example of significantly lessened congestion as people were commuting to work. She noted that multi-modal approach did need to be included for the holistic approach, but agreed that vehicle transportation should still be prioritized. She stated that looking at smart, alternative solutions, including telecommuting, would support the overall improvement for residents. She acknowledged that the TMP was a 20-year plan and was disconnected from the bond voting language. She asked how often the Town was required to update the plan. Director Mieras responded that, according to the implementation strategy of the plan, it would be reviewed each year, but he was not sure if there was a statutory requirement to update the plan. He addressed the concerns regarding the 20-year scope of the plan and explained that, though many changes could happen in that timeframe, the tiers of the plan allowed them to prioritize the projects. Councilmember Tilque commented that the disconnect between the TMP recreation-related projects and the bond question were because the consultants took into account that, if the bond passed, the parks and recreation projects would be included and considered how they would be impacted by the TMP. She noted that what she saw the plan doing was looking at the current projects and determining how they could be enhanced to accommodate connectivity. She highlighted the public’s interest in increased connectivity, primarily via car, but there were a lot of people looking for connectivity via other modes. She noted trail improvements being made to the Greenfield Road area to increase safety and lessening potential accidents, and examples as such, were how she expected the plan to enhance projects rather than shift priorities. Vice Mayor Yentes stated they received a high-level presentation with the Parks and Recreation Board and she asked if the goal was to try to reduce the number of drivers in total. She added that the response to her question was yes, so she then asked what the metrics were to determine if they were successful in achieving that goal by reconfiguring entire networks. She said it was explained that, once the changes were made, they could check and see if more people were walking and biking. She said she did not want to adopt a plan or roadmap presenting to the public priorities that were not rooted in reality, but rather in social engineering. She noted some other cities across the country did have written in their planning documents that they would optimize signals to create congestion in order to try to force people out of their vehicles. She said that approach was a red flag and she wanted to move in the opposite direction. Councilmember Anderson responded that he agreed that he did not want to force that to happen and that was not the intent of the plan; however, every year the transportation category was rated worst on the National Citizen Survey. He stated they needed to address that, and everyday Council received emails from the community regarding transportation concerns. He added that those reasons were why the TMP and bond were needed, but the Council needed more time to review the plan and supporting materials. Vice Mayor Yentes noted she had not had the chance to go through all the specific projects, but appreciated that there were specific paragraphs discussing tradeoffs and asked if additional highlights on the projects’ tradeoffs could be made in order to aid the policy body conversations and clarify the process. Councilmember September stated that everyone could benefit from more time to review the plan and asked if there would be another Study Session on the matter or if it would go straight to a meeting agenda. Mayor Peterson explained that the goal was to bring the plan to Council for approval in June, as it had been in progress for two year, but could be brought to another Study Session as that was the first time it had been presented to Council. Councilmember September reiterated that additional time to review would be a good idea. Mayor Peterson stated that she realized it was a lot of information and that was the reason to hold the Study Session, to provide the document, information from staff, and time to take into consideration what was discussed at the Study Session to discuss the matter again later with a better understanding. Vice Mayor Yentes commented she felt the plan was a little thin on adapting to technology in order to be in alignment with the City of the Future initiative. She stated that walking was the oldest form of transportation but if they wanted to adapt to ridesharing, autonomous vehicles, more sophisticated traffic optimization signaling, and more, then that was what the network should be built around in order to be nimble in having funds to adopt new technology to improve the efficiency and quality of life for residents and businesses. Councilmember Hendrix stated he had no comment. Mayor Peterson stated there were some great comments from the Council and they could have an additional Study Session with staff prior to the item adoption to discuss the questions and concerns highlighted from the discussion they had that evening. She thanked the staff and partners for their participation and the presentation. 2. Discussion on Ocotillo Road Bridge Project. This item was rescheduled for May 24, 2022. 3. Discussion on Billboards. This item was removed from the agenda. ADJOURN Mayor Peterson adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m.  ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________________ Brigette Peterson, Mayor Chaveli Herrera, MMC, Town Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Study Session of the Town Council of the Town of Gilbert held on the 17th day of May, 2022. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this __________ day of ______________, 2022. ___________________________________ Chaveli Herrera, MMC, Town Clerk