9/24/24
Good evening Mayor and Council,
For the past few meetings you have all heard from employees who are also residents talk about the unfortunate issues we are facing with the negotiation process. At the meeting on 9/10 during public comment prior to closed session a Council Member abruptly interrupted me while I was speaking and stormed off to force the City Manager to come out of the closed session room to hear what staff was saying. My understanding is the City Manager is not required to be at the dais during public comment before closed session. I want to express my disgust with the behavior displayed towards an employee, the City Manager at that, and point out that no one was talking to or about the City Manager. Our messages about negotiations and are directed to you all and the decisions you all get to make which effects all of us. You all get to tell the City how much of a cost of living adjustment we deserve and how much more we deserve to have in benefits based off of our asks. Maybe the negotiating team needs to be more transparent with you all and what our asks are. Maybe you should review the MOUs for the groups and see what is already being received vs what is being asked for to help understand why we are asking for things. I offered to be available to answer any questions you have about our asks and still am. I’ve said it before, you all will end your terms and move on and will not be affected by the decisions you are making, we will. The decisions that affect workforce morale on top of the mental and physical demands put on us by all the other stuff going on which has been expressed by staff to you all as well. It seems you all are missing the points we are trying to make. We have always had a voice and all knew that as citizens and employees we were able to speak up off duty during public meetings, this is not new nor is it because one of you gave us a voice. We just never had to use our voices because we had a council who heard and saw us and wanted to value employees instead of berate and not trust them, a council who did what was best for the entire health and well‐being of employees and the community members we serve and not just their special interests. Your disapproval of staff has been made very clear over the years watching how you treat staff from your seats and when things don’t go your way for special events and staff end up in tears.
All of this combined will eventually have a negative effect on the service our citizens receive. Not keeping up with comparable benefits and pay will force staff to move to other agencies or private sector jobs and the lowering of the quality of people hired by the potential new processes possibly being implemented, will be your legacy and when people ask what happened to Brentwood and why it is not the City it once was, what answer do you think we all will be giving? We are tired of coming to meetings and asking and saying the things over and over again. Do you truly hear us as you say you do? Actions speak louder than words. It’s not how you act in public that gives you your credibly, it’s what you do that is unseen and truly for the greater good no matter who is watching. Thank you.
1 City Council Meeting, September 24, 2024
Agenda Item I.5
Planned Public Comment
I am Joe Young, the Current President of the Vineyards at Marsh Creek Owners Association, also known as Trilogy, which represents about 1800 Brentwood Residents. We are all deeply concerned regarding the recent tragedy at our community entrance and the ongoing traffic situation.
First Thank You:
• The Council for your willingness to consider this matter, • Allen Baquilar and Staff for their investigation of this need.
We are appreciative of the action already taken including:
• Radar speed warning signs
• Pavement Speed limit markings
• Better landscape shaping – which must be kept up regularly • Improved crosswalk markings
• Pedestrian warning lights, which are being proposed for improvement • Recent speed and pedestrian law enforcement – Which should be continued We believe the best ultimate solution will be a traffic signal light at Trilogy Parkway and Vineyards Parkway and that a thorough engineering study will support this need, if not now, at some time soon. However, in the interim, we feel that Multi-Way Stop Signs would be a better alternative than the proposed Flashing Beacons with Advance Warning Sign.
The Multi-Way Stop Signs should utilize motion or push button activated flashing lights with advance warning similar to those currently at Oak Street adjacent to the Library and recently installed at Balfour Road and Byron Highway.
There are sufficient extenuating circumstances that dictate the need for full four-way stop control at this intersection. These include:
• The completion of the Trilogy Development
• Los Medanos College is approaching full use
• Brentwood is strongly considering the addition of an amphitheater and entertainment center which will impact this location
• Cowel Ranch, adding 140 homes with access to Vineyard Parkway • Fall Sun orientation creates a blinding situation during portions of the day 2 The Warrant Analysis included in the report appears to suggest a 4-way stop is not yet indicated. We believe there are adjustments that should be made to the analysis that will bring it more closely to supporting the need for a 4-way stop.
The analysis is based on an 85-percentile speed of 36-37 MPH. A review of the summarized survey data indicates that it is quite possible that the 85-percentile speed will exceed 40 MPH.
Criteria for both speed levels have been included in the table below. I have talked with Allen, and he is looking to see if the raw vehicle data is still available for further speed analysis.
Conditional
Criteria
Actual
Measure
≤ 40 MPH
Requirement
> 40 MPH
Requirement
> 40 MPH
Qualification
Average 8-
hour volume1
335 450 315 Yes
Combined
Vehicle &
Pedestrian
Volume
2 78 150 105 No
Short without
pedestrian &
bicycle count
Sight Distance
Ft.3
~250 360 360 Yes
1. The report shows an 8-hour volume of 324 VPH. There are slight data transfer discrepancies and a more appropriate max hour selection that when incorporated yields 335 VPH count.
2. The report shows 76 VPH. When adjusted for items noted in note 1 above, the count is 78 VPH (No pedestrian traffic in included, which would increase this count on the order of 5-10 units in some hours)
3. With the recently improved landscape shaping the sight distance is 250 ft.
However, the required 360 ft distance is not available without pulling into and blocking a very busy crosswalk, see photo attachments.
The first and third conditions are met, with the adjustment of the 85 percentile speed criteria, and the second condition will likely be met on some days depending on the level of activity at Trilogy’s Club Los Meganos thus making a potentially strong case for multi-way stop control.
The second condition, combined vehicle volume at 78 units is below the 105-unit criteria.
Including pedestrians and bicycles (which is appropriate) will increase the unit count by 5-10 units and bring the total count closer to supporting the need for a stop sign. There are other warrants that may dictate stop signs or signal light control especially with the completion of Cowell Ranch, the possible amphitheater, and an event center. These warrants include Peak Hour and Pedestrian Volume considerations.
Additionally, regarding the second condition combined vehicle volume, the US MUTCD Table 4C-1 suggests that the Vineyards at Marsh Creek, Lark Hill, Vista Dorado, and Barcelona developments being largely surrounded by open space and isolated from other residential areas 3 may qualify as an isolated community of less than 10,000 with a lower than 105 vehicles count threshold for multi-way stop control.
Regarding the third condition Sight Distance, the Highway Design Manual Table 4C-1suggests that left turning vehicles should have a 7½ second sight distance which equates to 495 feet, a distance that is not available regardless of how far into the intersection one goes.
Also note that although accidents are not at a level to trigger a full stop warrant there was a fatal accident at this intersection in the last year. Staff has indicated that they believe a multi-way stop would not have prevented this unfortunate death. I personally visited the accident sight the next day at the same time and feel strongly that the blinding effect of the sun that day was such that a full stop would have provided all parties a little extra time to avoid the accident.
In conclusion, we urge the City Council to take a proactive step to protect the Citizens of Brentwood and direct staff to use the grant funds to install a four-way stop with activated flashing lights and advanced warning signs. It is also imperative that the traffic situation and control needs are regularly reevaluated as conditions due to planned growth and use materialize.
In assisting the Council in taking positive action, I provide the following insight for use in considering your actions.
The warrant analysis included in your packet, which is not an engineering study, is based on the CA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Page 58, Section 1A.09-03 of the manual, cautions:
The decision to use a particular device at a particular location should be made on the basis of either an engineering study or the application of engineering judgment. Thus, while this Manual provides Standards, Guidance, and Options for design and applications of traffic control devices, this Manual should not be considered a substitute for engineering judgment.
Further on page 129 of the CA MUTCD, Section 2B.07-03 & 05 it states:
The decision to install Multi-way stop control should be based on an engineering study… Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include:
A. The need to control left-turn conflicts; [This condition is present at this intersection] B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; [This Condition is present at this intersection] C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop:
[This condition is present at this intersection due to alignment and sun exposure] 4 We are eager to work with the City staff to achieve this need and in view of the recent unfortunate pedestrian death at this intersection we feel that installing the ultimate traffic light sooner will be better.
Thank You for this opportunity to express our concerns and seek your support.
Joe Young,
President, VMCOA
Attachment:
Visibility Sight Distance Photo Attachment
To demonstrate the sight distance, we placed two orange pylons to the south of the Trilogy Club entrance on Vineyards Parkway. The first pylon is approximately 250 feet, the second pylon is approximately 360 feet from the intersection.
Photo 1 shows the view from a car properly stopped at the limit line when looking south on Vineyards Parkway. Only the 250-foot pylon is visible
Photo 2 also shows the second 360-foot pylon which is visible when pulling into and blocking the heavily used crosswalk at the intersection.
Photo 3 shows the position of the vehicle when blocking the crosswalk to see the 360-foot pylon.
5 Photo 1 – Sight Distance for 250 foot pylon with Vehicle at Limit Line not protruding into the cross walk. Note the planting is already extending above the 24 inch height necessary for visual sight line 6 Photo 2 – Sight Distance for 360-Foot Pylon with vehicle in cross walk. 7 Photo 3 – Vehicle in position to observe Pylon 2 at 360 feet