Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Active Transportation Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays Active Transportation Plan contract to clarify public outreach and deliverables
Summary
After public comment and council questions, Thousand Oaks delayed approval of the Active Transportation Plan consultant contract to clarify scope and the timing of public outreach; council voted 5-0 to continue the item to a date uncertain.
The Thousand Oaks City Council on Jan. 14 delayed action on a consultant contract to update the city’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP), citing ambiguity in the contract about when public outreach would occur and what kinds of projects would be included.
Andrew Pletcher, a Newbury Park resident who said he was speaking in his individual capacity and as a member of the Traffic and Transportation Advisory Commission, urged the council not to approve the contract in its current form because public outreach in the scope (identified as “task 4”) appears to occur after the consultant and stakeholders select 10 high‑emphasis improvement projects.
“Public outreach is not until task 4 for our consultant,” Andrew Pletcher said. “After the consultant, staff and stakeholders have already decided the 10 other high emphasis improvement projects the ATP will then focus on over the next 5 years.” He asked that outreach be prioritized earlier in the process.
Nadar Hadari, city engineer and deputy public works director, told the council the outreach described in the contract is broader than a single task and includes online input, two in‑person public workshops, one virtual workshop, two dedicated in‑person meetings with the Bicycle Advisory Team (BAT) and a presentation to the Traffic and Transportation Commission. He said monthly stakeholder meetings and BAT participation are listed in task 1 of the contract and that tasks are not strictly sequential.
Hadari said the 10 projects listed in the contract are “primarily bicycle improvement projects” intended as a starting point and that the ATP could identify walking, scooter or transit recommendations as well.
Council members said they supported the ATP update but wanted clearer language in the scope of work. Council member Adam proposed not voting that night; after discussion the council moved to continue the item with a “date uncertain” so staff and the consultant could address scope clarifications. The motion to continue passed 5-0.
Council and staff said the modification was expected to be minor and likely would not cause a long delay; staff offered to return with revised contract language at a future meeting.
Votes at a glance: Motion to continue consideration of the ATP consultant contract to a date uncertain — passed 5-0.
