City Council Meeting Page 1 of 31 January 8, 2024
7 City of Lafayette
City Council
Minutes
Lafayette Library and Learning Center – Don Tatzin Community Hall January 8, 2024 3491 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, California 7:00 p.m.
As a courtesy, and technology permitting, members of the public may participate virtually. However, the City cannot guarantee that the public’s access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time. Unless required by the Brown Act, City Council/Board meetings will continue despite technical difficulties for participants using the teleconferencing (Zoom) option. To participate virtually in the City of Lafayette’s public meetings and provide public comment, please follow these steps:
1. Watch or Listen: Meetings are broadcast on the City of Lafayette’s YouTube Channel:
http://bit.ly/LoveLafayetteYouTube.
2. Submit Comments Before the Meeting: Members of the public can provide public comment by sending an e-mail to [email protected] for City Council meetings no later than noon the day of the meeting. Those e-mails will be distributed to City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney, and will be posted as part of the public record.
3. Live Remote Public Comments: Technology permitting, members of the public may submit live public comment via Zoom conferencing by using the link below. You must download the Zoom app or software. Zoom meetings can be accessed by telephone, computer, or smart device. When the Mayor invites public comment for the item on which you would like to comment, please use the "raise hand" feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone only) to alert staff you have a public comment to provide. Each speaker is allowed three (3) minutes to speak.
4. At the time and date of the meeting, please click this URL to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89008805648?pwd=ODQxRGxzaGNHSWVITUVFalFuUHBIZz09 Passcode: 426199 Or join by phone: Dial 1 669 900 9128
Webinar ID: 890 0880 5648 Passcode: 426199
City Council Meeting Page 2 of 31 January 8, 2024
Mayor Dawson called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: City Council: Mayor Dawson; Vice Mayor Kwok (participating remotely); Councilmembers Anduri, Candell, and Gerringer
Absent: None
Staff Present: Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director; Jennifer Wakeman, Assistant Administrative Services Director; Mike Moran, Engineering and Public Works Director; Matt Luttropp, Manager Engineering Services; Mala Subramanian, City Attorney; Joanne Robbins, City Clerk
3. Disclosure and/or Take Action on Remote Participation due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances Pursuant to AB 2449 (Gov. Code section 54953(f).)
4. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Councilmember Candell requested moving up Item 11.A; recognizing the Acalanes High School Football team.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Gerringer) to adopt the agenda, as amended. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and Gerringer; Noes: None).
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (For Closed Session items only) - None
6. CLOSED SESSION
7. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Paul of the Acalanes High School Football Team led in the Pledge of Allegiance.
8. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT
A. Mayor Dawson
Land Acknowledgement Statement
We acknowledge that Lafayette is part of the unceded, ancestral homeland of the Bay Miwok people. The Bay Miwok and neighboring Ohlone people have lived in and moved through this place for thousands of years. They stewarded and shaped this land for hundreds of generations. We express our appreciation and gratitude for this profound legacy, which enhances and contributes to our lives to this day. We will strive to honor this land and strengthen our ties with the Indigenous communities that continue to live and work in our East Bay region as our neighbors and community members. We acknowledge and honor them and their ancestors, elders, and next seven generations.
11. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recognizing the Acalanes Football Team on Winning the CIF Division 3-AA State Championship Recommendation: Receive and file.
City Council Meeting Page 3 of 31 January 8, 2024
Mayor Dawson read and presented a Proclamation recognizing the Acalanes High School Varsity Football Team on winning the CIF Division 4 North Coast Sectionals and also the NorCal Division 3-AA Regional Football State Championship, earning a spot in the Division 3-AA State Championship game.
Head Coach Floyd Burnsed thanked the City Council for recognizing the team’s accomplishments and won the title for the first time in the school’s history. It is great for football players as well as the entire Lafayette community, which he described.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Mayor Dawson and Councilmembers again congratulated the team.
9. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA)
DIDDO CLARK, Walnut Creek, said she lived in Lafayette for 70 years and when she heard Councilmember Gerringer is retiring she wanted to thank her for her service, as well as all Councilmembers for their service. She thinks Councilmember Gerringer is awesome and thanked her for her contributions to the community, thanked all Councilmembers and City staff, said she has served on 3 Lafayette Commissions, and she will be on the ballot next month for registered Democrats in County Supervisor 2 and running for re-election to the Contra Costa County Democratic Central Committee. She is the senior elected member since 2000 and her priorities are the Democratic Party platform and democratic values of inclusion, respect for others, and procedural due process. She asked the Council to vote for her, and she wished everyone a happy and healthy new year.
10. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson announced that the City Manager was absent for the meeting, and she would provide a report at the next meeting.
11. PRESENTATIONS
B. Audit Presentations
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report Recommendation: Receive and file.
Assistant Administrative Services Director Jennifer Wakeman presented the FY 2022/23 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. This is the fourth audit prepared for the City by Badawi and Associates which has a 3-year contract with 2, 1-year options to extend. The Finance Subcommittee met to discuss the draft report on December 19, 2023, and their comments and feedback have been incorporated into the final report.
Badawi and Associates has issued an unmodified or clean opinion on the City’s financial statements and the City continues to be in a strong financial position. All of the City’s financial highlights can be found in the Management Letter on page 5 of the audit report. She then highlighted some of the most significant items, which include: ARPA funds, purchase of 2 properties, and implementation of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) No. 87 which addresses long-term lease commitments which are now included on financials.
City Council Meeting Page 4 of 31 January 8, 2024
Mayor Dawson and Councilmembers thanked Ms. Wakeman for her report.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Gerringer) to receive and file. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, Candell, Gerringer, Kwok, and Dawson; Noes: None).
12. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Dawson asked if there were any items Councilmembers or the public wish to remove from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Gerringer requested removal of Item 12.B. She confirmed there were no public comments.
A. Minutes
December 11, 2023
Recommendation: Approve
C. Declare Equipment as Surplus
Recommendation: Declare that the equipment described is surplus property and donate or sell as appropriate.TR6569 Lucas Ranch – vacation of existing and acceptance of a larger, relocated conservation and scenic easement on Lot 7 (88 Lucas Ranch Road) for a net increase of 44,124 sq. ft. at the previously approved subdivision at the end of Lucas Drive.
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to vacate the existing Conservation and Scenic Easement and accept a larger, relocated Conservation & Scenic Easement.
D. Accept 2023 Pathway Project as Complete - Project No. 014-9737 Recommendation: 1) Allocate $13,219 out of the Road and Drain Maintenance Fund 011 310 861.34 to cover cost overruns associated with the 2023 Pathway Project, Project No. 014-9737. 2) Accept the 2023 Pathway Project, No. 014-9737, as complete and authorize staff to file a Notice of Completion.
E. Letter of Support for County Connection Grant Application Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter in support of a Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning grant application.
F. PA01-21 Larry Thal (Owner): Allow applicant for the approved development application at 3393- 3395 Mt. Diablo Blvd. to pay in Lieu fees to be placed in the city’s Public Art Fund for projects.
Recommendation: Approve In-Lieu Fees for the development application at 3393-3395 Mt.
Diablo Blvd. to be placed in the city’s Public Art Fund for projects.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Gerringer/Candell) to adopt Consent Calendar Items A, B, C, D, F, and G. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and Gerringer; Noes: None).
13. OLD BUSINESS
A. Matt Luttropp, Engineering Services Manager
East Side Pleasant Hill Road Pathway and Pleasant Hill Corridor Study by CCTA Update Recommendation: The alternatives offered previously are still valid. Discuss and direct staff.
City Council Meeting Page 5 of 31 January 8, 2024
Engineering Services Manager Matt Luttropp gave the staff report and overview of the item, stating at the last Council meeting, the Council directed staff to reach out to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and determine the current scope of work and timeline for completion of the Corridor Study on Pleasant Hill Road. Staff was also directed to request that CCTA include bike and pedestrian improvements in this study. Subregional Corridor Management Plans have been proposed for many routes of regional significance in Lamorinda, including Pleasant Hill Road as part of the 2023 update to the Lamorinda Action Plan, and CCTA would be the lead agency for development of the Corridor Study, more specifically, Roadways 15; action in the March 23 version of the Lamorinda Action Plan states:
“Develop subregional corridor management plans for Moraga Road, Moraga Way, Camino Pablo, San Pablo Dam Road, and Pleasant Hill Road to provide adequate roadway capacity for local and subregional travel while also including both public and active transportation modes and nonmodal transportation issues such as equity, climate change, safety, and technology. Plans on evacuation routes should also address long-term emergency evacuation.” Subsequent to the October 10th meeting, Transportation and Circulation Program Manager Patrick Golier Spoke with Matt Kelley from CCTA and was informed that the scope of the study had not yet been developed and that funding and timeline for the study had not been allocated or determined. Thus, staff is not able to provide any definitive information about potential future Pleasant Hill Road corridor management plans at this time.
Therefore, this brings them back to where they were at the last meeting with regards to studies and engineering work for an east side pathway project. So, all options and costs that were presented at the last Council meeting are still in play. He did update one cost because previously the design cost he had included of $110,000 did not include the design work that would be necessary to install signals at the on and off ramps.
The consultant told him that if they include that work, the design cost could be approximately $350,000.
Part of that is because it is fairly unknown what reconfiguration of the ramps might be required by Caltrans as part of putting in signals. To reap other costs, strip maps for the east and/or west side would cost $17,000 which is a schematic sketch of what the project would be. To do concept drawings for the ramps on the east side would cost approximately $3,500. Basic traffic analysis of the signalized ramps would be approximately $4,500, and the cost to develop a design concept for the signalized ramps would be an additional $10,000. To develop a full traffic study which would be required by Caltrans if the City were to pursue traffic signals at their ramps, it would cost approximately $30,000.
The stated goal of the multi-user pathway in the corridor has been to provide a low stress facility that eliminates the need for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross the uncontrolled intersections with the freeway on and off ramps. As such, staff does not recommend pursuing an option without traffic signals on the east side, as it does not meet that stated goal. However, it should be noted that it is likely that the impacts from the addition of traffic signals at the on/off ramps will significantly impact both Highway 24 and Pleasant Hill Road traffic congestion and delay. In the unlikely event that Caltrans allows for this impact, they may require additional mitigation measures to be incorporated into the project that cannot be foreseen at this time.
City Council Meeting Page 6 of 31 January 8, 2024
If the City Council wishes to explore the scope of the east side pathway and possible impacts as an alternative to constructing the center median pathway, staff would recommend the City Council pursue Items 1, 4, and 5, which are the strip map with the design concept for signalized ramps and a basic traffic analysis of signalized ramps. This would be an estimated cost of $31,500.
Once this is done, a public meeting can be held to discuss the design option and potential impacts on traffic. If this option continues to be viable, Item 6, a full traffic study for an estimated cost of $30,000 can be implemented to develop a submittal for Caltrans’ review, assuming Caltrans is willing to review a submittal at less than 100%. If they find the impacts to be acceptable, the full design could then be pursued at a cost of approximately $350,000. It should be noted that these options are currently unfunded. If the City Council wishes to further explore the scope and look at the westside pathway option, it would likely be a similar cost to the eastside pathway option.
Caltrans is continuing to work on the installation of their RRFBs for the rectangular rapid flashing beacons at the on and off ramps within the City of Lafayette. They are also doing some extra streetlights to illuminate these crossings and he believes they are planning on finishing that up in the next couple of months. They are also putting in some new pedestrian push buttons at Mt. Diablo and at Old Tunnel Road to bring those intersections up to current ADA compliance.
These are the alternatives, and he is seeking questions of the Council and direction as to how to proceed.
Councilmember Gerringer referred to funding and staff said the decision tonight is whether to and how deep to go into additional studies of the east and west sides and not specifically the center median. Staff noted that there is no funding for any additional studies, so if the Council decides as they break these things up that they want to do it all or some of it, she asked where the funding would come from.
Mr. Luttropp said this is the big question. Engineering does not have any funding sources for this.
Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson added that the Council will have an opportunity to review the budget, but it would have to come out of the General Fund.
Councilmember Gerringer referred to the Caltrans work being done right now in terms of the 18 RRFBs and the other illumination of crosswalks. She asked when studies were done on those. Mr. Luttropp said he asked Caltrans this question because Stella Wotherspoon had a good comment on the project. Caltrans had not done anything to address the free rights on Mt. Diablo, so he asked Caltrans, and they said their studies show they are not dangerous, that they are safe, and there have been no accidents. He asked Caltrans to provide him with the studies or memorandums to show him how they came to these conclusions, and they said “no”. Therefore, he does not know if this means they did not do any studies, or they simply do not want to provide them. The first time he saw the plans was two years ago and they implemented some of his comments, but not all.
Councilmember Gerringer said the City does not know why they would choose those infrastructure enhancements in terms of safety, so she asked if there has been a direct study related to the center median or the Terraces and the slip lane. Mr. Luttropp not at all. They are doing many intersections in Contra Costa, and Acalanes Road is getting these flashing beacons, so it had nothing to do with the center median, the Terraces, etc.
City Council Meeting Page 7 of 31 January 8, 2024
Councilmember Anduri asked if staff has any idea of when they will finish those improvements. Mr.
Luttropp said his understanding is in the next couple of months, but he is not sure. He has not seen anyone out there in a while and maybe they are waiting for material to show up. All of the electrical work is in.
The pedestrian push buttons have been put in for Mt. Diablo, and he thinks they are just waiting for the equipment to put it up.
Councilmember Anduri referred to page 2 of the staff report, it states, “The stated goal of a multi-user pathway in this corridor is to provide a low stress facility that eliminates the need for cyclists and pedestrians to cross the uncontrolled intersection with the freeway on/off ramps.” He asked and confirmed with Mr. Luttropp that this is the goal of that particular project.
Councilmember Anduri referred to the next sentence: “As such, staff does not recommend pursuing an option without traffic signals that does not meet this stated goal.” However, he said the goal is for the center median and not for any other project. Mr. Luttropp said the idea of why the center median was approved by the Council is because it was going to move people away from that conflict. It is specific to that project.
Councilmember Anduri clarified that the Council approved to apply for funding to design a project that would avoid those on ramps as opposed to saying the City needs something that avoids those on ramps.
He said there is an interesting exchange around December 6th with Mr. Luttropp, Stella Wotherspoon, Councilmember Candell in terms of the median, and he asked the City Attorney if it was okay to talk about that at this meeting.
City Attorney Subramanian said it is in the packet, but the Council is limited to talking about the eastside Pleasant Hill Road Pathway and Pleasant Hill Corridor Study. She needs to look back at the exact correspondence to see if it is included within that description.
Councilmember Candell said she finds it interesting that they cannot get the studies back from Caltrans and she too was concerned with the stated goal of “a multi-use pathway in this corridor is to provide low stress facility that eliminates the need for cyclists to cross those uncontrolled intersections.” She looked up some Department of Transportation studies on RFFBs and in one case the DOT stated they “improved the rate at which drivers yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk from 10% to 20% to 70% to 85%.” In other cases, they say it goes up to 95% of drivers looking at them in yielding. She knows it is uncontrolled, but she asked where that lands them.
Mr. Luttropp said the RRFBs are a significant improvement over the existing, but it is still technically an uncontrolled intersection. There are RRFBs on Happy Valley Road and he would say only about 50% of the time do people stop when he is trying to cross that street. Where he is crossing is short across Happy Valley, and the one across Deer Hill has “iffy” compliance, so he thinks you really do not know what the compliance will be with an RRFB until it is installed. So, his hope is that the ones at the on/off ramps will have a very high rate of compliance.
Councilmember Candell asked if they are going to study that. She knows it is not their jurisdiction and she asked if there is any way for them to study that. Mr. Luttropp said no, not formally. He thinks informally they can spend some time going out there when school lets out and there are kids walking. This is probably the highest likelihood of time when people cross it or when the cross-country team runs through it, as well. They can do a casual observation as to what the compliance rate is.
City Council Meeting Page 8 of 31 January 8, 2024
Councilmember Candell returned to the RRFBs and said a couple of these dollar items are big. One relates to the traffic study, and she was in that meeting with Caltrans, but she really struggles to understand functionally how an RRFB being there is really any different than a streetlight being there in terms of functionality. They are both on-demand. You still have to wait for cars to stop when someone crosses. It will be a short length and then traffic goes again. This is the same as a stop light, so she asked if there is a way the City could push this back on Caltrans as to whether a traffic study is warranted. Caltrans knows there is a traffic impact from the RRFBs and there will be, but she wonders why they are making the City justify something different from a stop light to that, and why would Caltrans make the City do this.
Mr. Luttropp said there is a difference between a stop light and RRFBs. As soon as a person has cleared the crosswalk with an RRFB, you can go. With a stop light you cannot, you must wait until it cycles back to green. The amount of time that cars are required to either go through the yellow cycle and prepare to stop and the red cycle they stay stopped, and then they can go will be longer than with an RRFB. If one person pushes the button and they cross the street and it is still flashing away, the car can go because it is just a yellow light. With a traffic signal, it is one person and they run across the road, the person still has to sit in the car at the light for the full cycle of the red light. He did not know what the minimum red time Caltrans would accept is. It is also not a right-turn on red situation so you will get at least 15 seconds of wait time with a red, maybe longer. Pedestrians are going to assume when setting the red time, it is not someone on a cross country team but someone in a wheelchair. So, they will be held up for a bit longer.
Councilmember Candell said she knows staff feels it is very important for the City to reconfigure the lanes to do this. She asked and confirmed that the bike lane is a Class I bike lane. She said if they can fit one in the middle, they can fit one on the side, so she asked if it is feasible to do the Class I bikeway into the existing RRFB intersections and be able to continue between those but keep the RRFB intersections.
Mr. Luttropp said if he is understanding the question, it is whether the City can put in a Class I facility and not have to completely reinvent those crossings. He thinks if they need to move things a little bit, it would not be expensive because there is not the issue of having power and equipment. They would just move it over and rewire it, so they could do that without redoing the RRFBs.
Councilmember Candell said this is a smaller cost and she knows they would qualify because they can take advantage of the RRFBs Caltrans provided and still get the Class I funding. Mr. Luttropp said he was not sure, but it is possible, and it depends on how competitive they will be in the grant.
Councilmember Anduri said Alternative 1 is the $17,000 study. He asked if they could take into consideration the new improved RRFBs and the impact it is having. They are supposed to give pros and cons of using the east side. He assumes they would take into account this new improvement and provide their view on what impact it would have on a Class I walkway and narrow it down. Mr. Luttropp said yes, their analysis would include whatever the existing conditions are now or will be. To be clear, the $17,000 is a strip map and a listing of pros and cons. It is not so much a study because it does not do more traffic counts or things like that. It just looks at the layouts.
City Council Meeting Page 9 of 31 January 8, 2024
Vice Mayor Kwok referred to the 1st page and said there is a discussion about their October 10th meeting and the request they made as a Council to explore what CCTA was planning for this intersection which has many challenges to it. They talked about how as a route of regional significance there were many issues that need to be addressed, of which the center median lane in the east they are only addressing partial issues of rider safety and not some of the other issues about congestion at key hours.
His interest in learning what the overall plan was from a high-level entity that has more funding than the City does is what is a holistic approach to try and address multiple issues and, from a design and funding point of view, and what is the timing of that—short, medium or long-term. In reading this paragraph, the answer was it is not known. When asked about when a study would be done or what is the timing, it had not been determined, and staff then cannot come to today’s meeting with a definitive answer. He asked if it is something that they could expect would be looked at within 2 years or 5 or 10 years. He was reading that nothing may happen in early 2024 and asked to look at it in a 3–5-year timeframe.
Mr. Luttropp said he spoke with Patrick Golier today and he had recently spoken with CCTA. They said their first priority will be the Countywide evacuation plan which is their near-term priority. He does not know what other near-term priorities they have other than this corridor study, so he was not sure how CCTA goes through their priorities, but he would be surprised if they were addressing this corridor study within 2 years. He imagines the evacuation plan will take a significant amount of effort and expenses.
Councilmember Gerringer said she knows the plans in the queue for Lamorinda have been there for a while, so while she does not know the exact timing, she thinks it is out farther in the 3–5-year cycle.
Members of the Lamorinda group and staff through TAC can continue as they hold discussions to place the project as a priority for the area, move up to SWAT, and then to the Board. It is not an immediate solution, and it will take some time while lifting up certain projects as priorities and working through regional solutions.
Mayor Dawson recognized the 3-5 timeframe and asked and confirmed there were no other questions of Councilmembers.
JANET THOMAS stated this has been an interesting discussion and many questions she had have been addressed. Her feeling is these incredible flashing beacons are going up at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. She is very concerned about the safety of the Pleasant Hill pathway and corridor and would love to see a wider pathway for bikers and pedestrians. She thinks it should be reviewed as part of the corridor. In discussions over months, there has been talk about wanting a path from the trail all the way to Reliez. She feels the east side of Pleasant Hill Road is where to look for that all the way to Reliez Valley and crossing at Quant. There is plenty of space in front of Acalanes and possibly widen the sidewalk. But, right now, the City is looking at the Pleasant Hill corridor between Mt. Diablo and Acalanes High School.
She feels that to make a commitment of a certain amount of money to have signalized lights makes no sense until they see how well the flashing beacons perform, how the public responds, and how safe that makes that area.
City Council Meeting Page 10 of 31 January 8, 2024
She would like to see a strip plan and continue to look at options for this area. But, again, she personally thinks having a signal at on/off ramps is going to wreak havoc in terms of traffic on the freeway and not improve the safety that much more. She personally would prefer to see a strip plan and a study of the broader corridor because this is part of that and while it may be 3 to 5 years before looking at the broad portion, she asked to think of this as part of that broad portion as well. She appreciates the work that has been done by staff and she wants a continued dialogue. She represents most of her neighbors who do not think they would use a median pathway.
Ms. Subramanian said she reviewed the December 6th correspondence and thinks it is within the agenda description for discussion.
STELLA WOTHERSPOON said she is speaking as a resident only, and said she is in agreement with Janet Thomas and what Councilmember Anduri stated. She advocates for the Council to conduct Item 1; the strip map drawing with a summary of pros, cons, and potential impacts because Caltrans has invested this almost $1 million in the community to improve pedestrian safety on Pleasant Hill Road with the RRFBs at each ramp, which is a total of 18 with 2 at the crosswalks and one advanced warning signal up aways. The existing conditions at the time the center median pathway was conceived have changed, and it would be helpful to understand the impacts of the RRFBs at the present time. That preliminary information would help in determining if Items 4 and 5 are worth pursuing. Those would be the signalized studies. She thinks this investment shows that Caltrans prioritizes the east sidewalk safety and, as such, the center median design which is on-going must not degrade this facility by increasing the level of stress to existing sidewalk users .
They have always known the traffic lanes would be shifted east under the center median design, but now they have a draft schematic that shows the traffic lane edge line will be only 3 to 4.3 feet away from the curb of the sidewalk which is very short. This is in the stretch between westbound Hwy 24 off-ramp to northbound Pleasant Hill Road and Acalanes Avenue. For perspective, the white hatched paint buffer that is adjacent to the green bike lane is 3 ½ feet wide from edge to edge. This is approximately what will be the distance from the edge line of the traffic to the curb. This is pretty small and not enough distances from vehicles traveling.
They had seen the engineering traffic survey which recently showed 43 mph at the 85th percentile speed, so this is fast. Therefore, she asked the Council to direct staff to have the consultants to provide options for increased buffer widths in the 60% design plans that they will bring back in February. She also asked to direct staff to hold a February public meeting in person at Acalanes Avenue in a workshop format similar to what was held in December for the Connecting Lafayette School Street project and have consultants there who can answer questions from the community, from the Council, and from staff. She asked to come together, collaborate, and hold conversations.
Mayor Dawson said Ms. Wotherspoon is suggesting holding a public meeting in February and she asked if this would be for looking at 60% of the center median design. Ms. Wotherspoon said yes, this is what Mr.
Luttropp had indicated was a tentative timeline for when consultants would be bringing back what they have, which is the 65% version. Matt had noted he would have a public meeting. Her suggestion is to have it in person, hold it at Acalanes High School, and give the community and any residents who anyone who is interested such as consultants, advocates, etc. to answer questions directly. Through collaboration they might find a solution.
City Council Meeting Page 11 of 31 January 8, 2024
ROBERT LAVOIE said it seems like the way this was defined is destined for failure if they say the only reason the center pathway was designed was to bypass the freeway on/off ramps. He thinks that the work that Caltrans has done needs to be considered carefully. He also thinks they do not need to wait for a traffic study to figure out traffic and pedestrian counts. They have the new equipment a few months ago that was supposed to provide traffic, pedestrian, and bike counts, and he has not seen any of the data that was supposed to be put on the website. He asked for that equipment to be put out in these areas and get the City’s own data, so they get the data and see how many people are walking, biking, vehicles, and also to see if there are some changes after the beacons get installed.
BRAD ROSENTHAL referred to demand and said they have still not seen a demand study done for this yet.
No one has reached out to Acalanes Avenue to do a survey. Other similar types of projects have surveys.
He sent a link to a number of bike paths that actually do surveys. It is unclear to him why they have done that. He has heard “if you build it they will come” mentality; however, in a project like this that impacts tens of thousands of motorists who travel through this corridor daily, he does not think the City should take that approach. In addition, there are emergency vehicles that go through this corridor from a regional level, and there have been some serious accidents at the intersection of Stanley and Pleasant Hill Road, so he does not think this “if you build it they will come” mentality should be considered here and that we should be doing a demand study to understand who the City is building for and what the demand would actually be.
Secondly, regarding beacon lights, he wanted to be sure the Council saw that the beacon lights have a light further off the off-ramps, about 100 or so feet,so people would get an advanced warning that beacon lights are blinking. Thirdly is the buffer which goes down to about 2 ½ to 4 feet south of Acalanes Avenue.
There will be a number of people who do not want to take the center median. He does not see people pushing strollers through the center median and, as a result, they will be taking the east path walkway.
Eric Law provided a picture of an accident on Pleasant Hill Road recently in his Facebook group in which a car went right over the curb. So, there will be a 2 ½ foot barrier right up against the road.
Regarding Valencia Street, it is a totally different project and there are no barriers, but the City moved forward with an initiative of not really garnering much support and moved forward with it. That so far has been a failure. There were articles this past week about the usage of bikes and how they have decreased and how there have been a number of accidents. He understands this is a different project, but it is an instance where the City moved forward with something despite having a lot of opposition and now they will likely have to totally reconfigure it. Lastly, he referred to the Caltrans studies and his understanding is those would likely be covered under CPRA unless there is a legal basis not to do so. The City Attorney could opine on that, but presumably the City would be able to get access to it if it is a State study or was paid for by the State.
Councilmember Anduri asked and confirm Mr. Rosenthal’s second issue was the beacon lights. In the schematics provided in the public comments, the beacon lights are 100 or so feet further up off of the off ramps, and Mr. Luttropp could probably give the exact footage. Cars when coming off the off ramps will be getting a warning well in advance that the beacon lights are blinking, other than some lights he has seen on Stanley Boulevard or the BART station.
City Council Meeting Page 12 of 31 January 8, 2024
MICHELE GREER said she lives in the Acalanes Avenue neighborhood and spoke in the past on this subject.
She does not have anything new to add and wanted to voice agreement with Stella Wotherspoon, Janet Thomas, and Brad Rosenthal. She would like to state in October 2023 on a picture-perfect bike-riding type of day, she went to Acalanes High School and counted the number of bikes in the rack there on what she would consider a great day, and there were 25 bikes in the racks. A question to go back to the demand would be whether they need submittal of the road center bike lane to completely disrupt an entire neighborhood but being built for half of those bikes which come through Pleasant Hill Road to get to school. She can take pictures of the rack as the weather turns this winter to show that there is not much of a demand for Acalanes students because so many of them, given their gear, books, etc. get rides to school or drive themselves.
She added that she walks her daughter to school and coming out of Acalanes Avenue getting onto the sidewalk on the east side of Pleasant Hill Road, many times they will scooter or bike and there was an accident of a car that came right up onto the sidewalk. A middle of the road bike lane will not help the families who are walking their children to Springhill Elementary School and bringing those cars closer when they eliminate that buffer. It would make it impossible for her to walk her daughter to school safely if it were to go into play. So, they are giving a handful of bicyclists something they do not need or want and taking away an entire neighborhood’s ability to walk their children safely to the elementary school just further down the streets.
Mayor Dawson clarified that the corridor they are looking at is also connecting the different network and pedestrian trails through town and not just the Acalanes High School students. She returned to discussion by the Council and noted staff has followed up on Council direction and she asked for comments.
Councilmember Anduri said he agrees completely with Councilmember Candell’s December 6th email in which she points out that with respect to the center median, they should ask Kittleson to make the east side buffer as wide as possible and secondly, the city should let them know that the impact of the center median project on the east side path will be one of the key metrics when they make further decisions with respect to the center pathway. He knows from his own decision-making is that if it turns out that the center pathway negatively impacts the eastside pathway, that will be a factor in decision-making. He wants to be sure that as they are coming up on their 60% work that they are looking at what they can do to not degrade the safety of the east side path and, if there is any way to enhance it, that would be great.
Mr. Luttropp said they already have been given that direction before they started the 60% plans, and the Council may recall there have been 3 meetings before the Council. At one meeting he showed the buffer areas, so they are already looking at how to create the buffer areas. To the last speaker’s point, if you are coming out of Acalanes and trying to walk towards the high school, the buffer space in that area available now and the buffer space available with the center median pathway will be the same. There is a turn pocket there that wipes out most of the buffer right away. He spoke with the Fire Department about how that buffer could be created but still make it so that cars could scoot over and get by, so that portion is pretty good.
City Council Meeting Page 13 of 31 January 8, 2024
For the rest of it, there are really not many opportunities to create more buffers because there is so little space out there. Any shifting of the lanes they need to do to accommodate the center median is going to reduce the buffer space between the lanes and the sidewalk to create a larger buffer. To make those bigger, they will have to start moving curb and gutter and existing sidewalk and pushing that further away as part of the center median project. That was not in the design scope they gave to Kittleson. If this is something the Council wishes to do, they could but it will cost more money and he did not think they had a lot left in the design budget for that project.
Councilmember Candell said she assumes there will be pros and cons in their report. She asked if they would report that as a con. On the median project, because the City is reducing the buffer there and they would point that out. Mr. Luttropp said they are not doing pros and cons on that anymore. The next step is the 60% plans where they are just confirming it is more or less following the direction given. They are not making wholesale changes to alignments. It is very unusual for anything more than a presentation showing here is what we are going to do, and do you have questions on how they will build it, when it will get built, how it will impact one’s commute. At 60% plans, you are not workshopping it because then you are talking about wanting to completely redo what your design scope is.
Councilmember Gerringer said on the same topic on the buffer, right now the Council would be interested in having the consultant look at ways in looking at the center median to improve the safety buffer in those other areas. South of Stanley to Mt. Diablo, looking at where the buffers are now, the Council is seeing it does create more stress level in those areas. They are now trying to figure out if there is something Kittleson could bring forward as part of the design for the center median that looks at not changing the east side so much that it creates more stress there. Even with the RRFBs not there, she asked if there is a way to look at this, using Kittleson’s expertise to do that.
Mr. Luttropp said he does not think there is. He has now stared at this street far more than any person should because he also designed the overlay project the City did on it, so he is painfully aware of the geometry out there. By putting a 10-foot center median in, that land must come from somewhere. A good chunk of that stretch has a very skinny existing center median so it must come from the sides of the road.
What people want them to do if they are putting in a center median is to put the center median in, but he wants the buffers to be exactly the same as they are now on the east side. This cannot be done as there is not enough room to do that. So, Kittleson has been told they want to enhance the buffers on the east side as best they can. They thought of striping, extra curbing, and all sorts of what they want this to look like. Arguably, if they have 2 feet of extra space, conceivably you can put a guardrail in, but Caltrans might take issue with that. So, there just is no room left.
To Councilmember Anduri’s point, if having a reduced buffer when putting the center median pathway in is a dealbreaker because you want 2 paths of travel and not just the center median, then the center median will not work because there is not enough real estate out there to have your cake and eat it too.
Councilmember Candell asked if Mr. Luttropp was saying they will not be able to improve between Acalanes Road and the off ramp with the existing buffer because it will be small. In Mr. Luttropp’s opinion, she asked if he did not think the center median is the right choice. Mr. Luttropp clarified it is if the Council wants to have 2 paths of travel.
City Council Meeting Page 14 of 31 January 8, 2024
Councilmember Candell said the residents have been very clear. They will still use that and now with the RRFBs, they will use that, so it seems clear that there is demand for that and you see people walking on it now quite a bit. She said 2 feet seems close to 45 mph with people coming off the freeway. She did not think the neighbors are asking for it to be like it is today but maybe better than that.
Mr. Luttropp said if you want to make a bigger buffer than that, that will entail moving curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlights further out. His understanding of the question is what can we do to enhance the buffer given the existing east side curb, gutter, and sidewalk. If they want to incorporate reconstructing the east side sidewalk further away from the road as part of the center median project, that is a big design scope change that the city does not have the design budget for.
Mayor Dawson said the Council has approved the design for the center median pathway and we are now talking about how we can enhance or look at as an alternate the east side. It is clear from what staff is saying that as designed there is no room to do a Class I with enhancements. So, it sounds like they should at least look at number 1 so they can flush that out.
Councilmember Candell agreed and said they probably want clarity on looking at number 1 with a Class I leading up to the RRFBs or leading up to possible lane configurations. She thinks that is a question here the Council should consider. There is money to change the off-ramp lane configurations to add in the traffic signals. The road map includes everything, so she asked if there is a way for them to do this to just do a strip map to the now RRFBs with a Class I and get a concept of where that would get them, or both, or just one.
Councilmember Anduri said this is his understanding of what number 1 is. It is the east side Class I, user pathway, summary of pros and cons, and potential impacts. He asked if it matters if they wait to do that until the RRFBs are in place.
Mr. Luttropp said he believes Ms. Thomas commented on wanting to see how the RRFBs work. Normally, staff would do much of this work in-house by staff. Right now, they do not have staff time available to do this. He suspects they may have staff time available to do this next winter or fall to do a strip map. This is not massively time-consuming, and this would give them time to see how the RRFBs work out and then it would not cost anything but staff time, but they would have to wait one year.
Mayor Dawson said she likes this idea because it gives them time to see what the RRFBs gain them. She knows there is a lot on staff’s workload. The budget is an issue, and so the idea is grand, but she asked if it is realistic with projects going on. Mr. Luttropp said he believes it is realistic. They have already hired a consultant for one of the big projects they are doing in the following year, which is repaving a big chunk of St. Mary’s Road. This is a big chunk of staff’s workload for that year, so they just have a couple of other streets to do and potentially a pathway, so his design team are getting much more proficient. So, he is hoping between the 3 of them, one of them should have enough time to develop a strip map which is not that hard to do. So, he is optimistic that by January 1, 2025, they will have a strip map they can take to the public for meetings.
Mayor Dawson asked if that could include a pros and cons analysis, and Mr. Luttropp confirmed.
City Council Meeting Page 15 of 31 January 8, 2024
Councilmember Gerringer said to clarify, the $17,000 for Option 1 assumes they would give this to a consultant and today, they could approve Option 1 up to this amount which could be done with some cost savings by staff later. She also thinks it is very important to get some idea about improving safety to some extent by raising awareness of pedestrians. It would be great if there could be some traffic analysis and study, but the City can do this internally with the strip map. She said they will see what happens with the RRFBs, the strip map, and pros and cons. She is trying to determine how they will evaluate the efficacy of the RRFBs.
Mr. Luttropp said Mr. Golier has been working with the streetlight software which is the equipment one of the speakers referenced. He knows of no other equipment they would have. They were able to get cyclist and pedestrian counts coming through the area, which is far higher than one would expect. It was in the high hundreds per day which he would have never guessed. So, they have access to that data. After the RRFBs go in, they can look at streetlight and see what that gets them. So, this will compare apples to apples where the data came from the same source. Beyond that, he is not sure what other study information they could get. They have not had any reported injuries or fatalities at these intersections, and if they get one of those, that would be bad, but beyond looking at streetlight data, he is not sure what study information they could have, but staff can share that with the Council when getting to that point.
Councilmember Candell asked about doing a survey from people in the neighborhood that take it and see what they think about the RRFBs. Mayor Dawson said before they were describing the latter where it would be $31,000 for the strip and then the different surveys. If they saved money by doing it in-house, she asked if they could also look at the traffic surveys.
Mr. Luttropp said many of the surveys look at how a signalized intersection impacts it. From what he is hearing from everybody is that is not what people want to do which is fine. He is concerned that the likelihood of them achieving that is extraordinarily low. The way he envisions it in his head is you prepare the strip map, look at streetlight data, have a public meeting and ask for input as to whether the public likes how the RRFBs are functioning, and if that seems to be meeting their needs, and present the strip map to make the east side better as an alternative project. He thinks it is important to pull these 2 projects apart. They keep getting jammed together and this makes it an awkward discussion. But this is how he would envision going forward. If they do that, the cost of that approach is simply staff time.
Vice Mayor Kwok asked Mr. Luttropp to clarify on Option 1 the strip map concept and whether it is done in-house or outside. He asked if the design will be contemplating the existence of a median strip in the middle plus this or in the absence of the median strip, and this would be an alternative. Mr. Luttropp said it would be an alternative and in the absence of the center median.
Councilmember Anduri said the question is whether they want to wait until January 2025 to have the next word on this alternative or he asked if the Council wants to spend money to get it sooner. Mayor Dawon said there is a plan for the center median design to come and there will be a time to have all of these things the Council can look at during one time. Looking at them right now is confusing matters, but at the same time it is one corridor. She personally thinks it would be good to have the timeline to save money on this. It is a year out. They will be able to get data and survey on pros and cons by the end of the year, and they could have that in hand along with the design for the center pathway and will hopefully have more information from Caltrans at that point too, and they can bring all of this forward to look at this as a corridor plan. Her thought would be to take advantage of what staff is offering by doing it in-house.
City Council Meeting Page 16 of 31 January 8, 2024
Councilmember Candell agreed with this because of the RRFB data. The only way they can get that included is to wait, so they could do a strip map and do the traffic analysis afterwards or they can just wait for both and save money.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he would agree and support the Mayor and Councilmember Candell’s views, as well. Councilmember Anduri agreed, as well.
Councilmember Gerringer said she is generally supportive. She referred to the center median and said it continues with Kittleson with the timeline staff has on one of the pages in the email conversation. It has this being out for comments and the environmental review by August 1, 2024, and she asked how those 2 things work together.
Mr. Luttropp said all work associated with the center median that still needs to be done to get it to the point where it could conceivably go out to bid. This is still part of his workload moving things through.
That, plus lots of other things, is why the strip map cannot be done until much later in the year. So, he envisions things starting to clear up for his team around October where they lighten up for him in October.
At that point, they could start looking at strip maps. By October, Kittleson will be done.
Councilmember Gerringer said in the following paragraph to the timeline, staff notes there should be plenty of time in this center median schedule to look at possible modifications to striping, possibly minor changes to the existing east side sidewalk if the Council wishes to expand the scope work. So, Kittleson finishes their work, there is a design on a shelf in an alternative package, and then the Council is leaning towards doing more in-depth eastside work after the RRFBs, and she asked if that is a viable alternative on its own. She asked if they can then go back and look at the center design to determine whether they both can be there.
Mr. Luttropp said the short answer is he still does not think there is the real estate for both to be there, but if they have the center median design, then they do the strip map, and they have a grand epiphany for something that could be different. That would make the center median palatable to everybody. At that point, they could go back to Kittleson and say they would like to make a revision to the center median design, and they could do that. It might cost a bit of money, but they could do it. He is not, however, optimistic that they will have that epiphany. He thinks it will be a choice to pick situation.
Mayor Dawson reassured the community that there will be many times for public comments and meetings to discuss the median at various points and updates.
Mr. Luttropp added that right now, staff is only planning on having one public meeting at the 60% plans.
He would then give the City Council an update as to how that meeting went, but this is the only remaining center median public meeting anticipated prior to finishing the design. With all projects and 3-4 years from now they are building the center median pathway, they would have a public meeting to let everybody know they are building it and here is what to expect in the process.
Councilmember Gerringer asked what the format of that public meeting will be. There was a request to have it be similar to the one she and Councilmember Candell attended related to Connect Lafayette in December.
City Council Meeting Page 17 of 31 January 8, 2024
Mr. Luttropp said the intent is to update people on what the center median pathway design looks like and minor tweaks, such as restriping a crosswalk or painting a curb red, or little things like that. His intent is to hold this as a Zoom meeting because over the last 3 years having meetings for this project he found the Zoom meetings had far higher participation rates than in person public meetings. But, if the Council wanted him to have an in-person meeting, he would take that direction.
Mayor Dawson said she would want to encourage as much participation as possible and would want to offer the Zoom meeting for access.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to direct staff to prepare a strip map concept drawing for the east side Class I multi-user pathway with a summary of pros and cons of potential impacts and that this be done after the installation of the RRFBs and sufficient time to evaluate the efficacy of the RRFBs, but no later than January 2025. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and Gerringer; Noes: None.
14. STAFF REPORTS
A. Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager and Mala Subramanian, City Attorney Announce City Council Vacancy, Next Steps and Process to Filling Vacancy on the City Council Recommendation: 1. Announce the vacancy of the City Council. 2) Direct the City Clerk to advertise the position for two weeks and accept applications until the week prior to the first interview. 3) Direct the Mayor and Vice Mayor to draft interview questions for consideration by the Council at the January 22nd meeting. 4) Schedule two interview dates for candidate interviews and ultimately adopt the resolution to fill the vacancy.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian said as the Council is aware, on December 15, 2023, Councilmember Gerringer announced her resignation which will be effective on January 23, 2024. She has served on the Council since 2018 but her term does not expire until November of 2026. Given the length of time left on the term, under State law, the Council must fill the vacancy within 60 days and the person the Council appoints to fill the vacancy will fill the vacancy only until the next regularly scheduled Municipal Election.
That election will be in November of 2024. So, this year in the November election, the City will have 3 Council seats that will be up that will be 4-year terms and then one Council seat that will be the remainder of the 2-year term.
Back in 2019, the Council adopted a resolution establishing a policy on how to fill vacancies. The policy is very detailed, and it provides for the Council announcing the vacancy, the Council directing the City Clerk to advertise the position for no more than 2 weeks, and then the Council will conduct interviews of all candidates who submit an application.
Staff is also recommending as in the past, that the Mayor and Vice Mayor meet in advance to prepare questions. The staff report indicates that those questions could then be considered by the Council at a public meeting on January 22nd. She noted in the past, the Council has done it right before the interviews so the Council could also choose to do it the hour prior to the interviews occurring such that candidates do not necessarily have much notice of the questions. Staff is also requesting the Council schedule at least 2 interview dates to conduct the interviews.
Councilmember Candell asked how did the Council prepare the questions in the past. She did not remember it was the Mayor and Vice Mayor and thought each Councilmember submitted questions.
City Council Meeting Page 18 of 31 January 8, 2024
Ms. Subramanian said the problem with having Councilmembers submit questions in advance is it would be a Brown Act issue, and this is why staff is suggesting an ad-hoc committee of 2 Councilmembers to start the discussion. In the past, they had the Mayor and Vice Mayor create a list of questions. That list of questions was brought back to the full Council, and then they could be modified at that time. This is recommendation #3; Direct the Mayor and Vice Mayor to draft interview questions for consideration by the Council. So, the Council will consider them, revise accordingly, and then designate which Councilmember asks which question and what order they go through that level of detail.
Councilmember Anduri said the process adopted in 2019 says the position will be advertised for up to 2 weeks. The recommendation the Council has states “advertise the position for 2 weeks” but he asked and confirmed with Ms. Subramanian they do not need to do it for longer than 2 weeks.
Councilmember Anduri asked and confirmed with the City Clerk that the advertising could begin as early as tomorrow on social media. He will have a proposal because he will be out for 3 weeks from February 4 th to 25th. He asked if they want to fill the vacancy before February 4th or wait until March. His proposal would be that the City begin advertising tomorrow, set the application close at 8:00 a.m. on January 25th, and conduct the first interviews on January 29th and the second interviews on January 31st. The rest of the recommendation still work.
Mayor Dawson said she thinks that is a good, proposed schedule. She opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Mayor Dawson said it is with regret that the Council accept this resignation, and she asked, and Councilmembers agreed to advertise as soon as possible. Regarding Councilmember Anduri’s proposal, she thinks the sooner the Council moves on this, the better. She asked if anyone has any disagreement or questions.
Councilmember Candell asked how quickly did they do it the last time. She thinks the Council can do it, but she wonders if applicants were given more time the last time. City Clerk Robbins said she sent the timeline to the Mayor. Councilmember Burkes announced his resignation on July 12th. They had the first set of interviews on August 19th and then the second interview was on August 25th, so it was longer, but it was summer and there were travel issues.
Councilmember Anduri said Councilmember Gerringer announced she was departing on December 15th, so if they do their first interview on January 29th, this is a week longer.
Vice Mayor Kwok said since Councilmember Gerringer did give advanced notice, although she will serve until January 22nd, so they do not really start the clock until January 23rd. Their requirement is to fill the position by January 23rd plus 60 days or March 22nd which would be around the legally required date to fill it. They have had advance notice, so the formalization of getting it out on social media was widely publicized in the press. Ordinarily, if this did not happen and the Council was to hear about it on January 22nd, having more time would be wise, but they have actually had a month’s head start here.
Mayor Dawson said they also have the scheduling opportunity to consider this later with Councilmember Anduri being out of town. She asked Councilmember Anduri to repeat his proposal about the timing.
City Council Meeting Page 19 of 31 January 8, 2024
Councilmember Anduri recommends the City Clerk 1) begin advertising on social media tomorrow; 2) announce applications will close at 8:00 a.m. on January 25th; 3) to provide 3 days’ notice to the public as to when and where the interviews will take place and who the candidates are; 4) the first interview will be held on Monday evening on January 29th; and 5) schedule the second day of interviews, as needed for January 31st. He noted the Mayor is giving the State of the City address on February 1st and could announce the results.
Mayor Dawson suggested including this as a motion.
Ms. Subramanian asked if the Council will direct the Mayor and Vice Mayor to prepare interview questions. Councilmember Anduri asked first if all Councilmembers were available on January 29th and 31st.
Vice Mayor Kwok asked what would be the start time. Mayor Dawson said this leads into getting the questions together. In the past there was an hour before interviews started where Councilmembers reviewed the questions and looked at what they would be and who would ask them. She would suggest 6:00 p.m. unless they bring the questions to the January 22nd meeting, which would be more of a public discussion.
Councilmember Anduri asked and confirmed the Council cannot discuss the questions in Closed Session, and so he would be in favor of doing it an hour prior to 7:00 p.m.
Councilmember Candell agreed to start at 6:00 p.m. or to be determined depending on the number of applicants.
Ms. Subramanian said the Mayor can set it in conjunction with the City Clerk, assuming all Councilmembers are available as early as 5:00 p.m.
Mayor Dawson asked Vice Mayor Kwok his timeframe, and Vice Mayor Kwok said any time after 5:00 p.m. on the 29th and 31st are fine with him.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) that the Council announce the vacancy on the City Council; 2) that the Council direct the City Clerk to begin advertising on social media on January 9th and continue advertising until January 24th; 3) that the deadline for accepting applications be set at 8:00 a.m. on January 25th; 4) that the date of the interviews be set for January 29th and 31st and that the times be determined by the City Clerk and the Mayor; and 5) that the Council direct the Mayor and Vice Mayor to draft interview questions for consideration by the Council at the January 29th interview session. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and Gerringer; Noes: None).
B. Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager and Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director - FY2023- 24 Municipal Budget Discussion and Report on City Council Priorities Recommendation: Continue budget discussions to January 22 for adoption of the Final Budget.
Confirm Council priorities for current fiscal year.
City Council Meeting Page 20 of 31 January 8, 2024
Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson said she will be presenting the FY2023-24 Final Municipal Budget, which is a refinement of the proposed budget. This includes the actual expenses for the prior FY2022-23, includes changes that have been approved by the City Council between June and December, and it is also an opportunity to tweak the budget in certain areas which she will review, although there are very few.
Overall, the City did for the 2022-23 fiscal year end up in a good position. She made one correction on page 1 of the City Manager staff report. It should be that the financial audit is complete for FY22-23 not FY21-22. Actual expenses were $2.6 million less than budgeted and the revenue was $900,000 more than budgeted. This puts the City in a better position than anticipated, although challenges still persist. The City is still projecting budget deficits in the coming year, although slightly less than what they had in the proposed budget.
The expense variances were due primarily to projects deferred. There were some staff openings. Police Services was under budget, and there were some general cost savings of about 2 ½% of the budget all of which adds to about $2.6 million. The revenue variances are also a change that should be made on page
2. It should read “property taxes” and not “property tax transfers” which came in higher than expected.
Vehicle taxes also came in higher. They had higher investment earnings, which is one bright spot in higher interest rates. The TOT was also higher. All of those added up to about $900,000 more.
She said she will go over the changes on page 3 of the City Manager’s report that the Council had not already approved, as follows:
• Under Police Services, there was a police vehicle that was totaled in a collision. This is $80,000 which includes the vehicle plus the build and equipment. Staff is still working with MPA to see how much of that might be reimbursed;
• Added $90,000 for a radio encryption that was required under California law. She asked Chief Alldritt to provide additional information specifically on what that was, and she can return this at the next meeting;
• $27,000 requested by the Police Chief for equipment for the Slow Down Lafayette campaign. She and Councilmember Anduri had a conversation today where he reminded her that Chief Alldritt said he could have probably absorbed that in his prior budget with some of the savings, which is true, but she wanted to call it out because it is an additional program with additional costs; Everything else was approved by the Council either in June when amendments were made to the proposed budget or elsewhere during the year. There were no changes in personnel, but pointed out there are currently 3 positions of the 5 new positions added which continue to be open which include the Senior Engineer, Administrative Analyst-Personnel, and the Administrative Analyst-City Manager. Thus far, the City has not been successful in recruiting a Senior Engineer, although they have tried on a number of occasions. They have left the Administrative Analyst positions open for the time being mostly because they want to be sure they have on-going funding available for those positions. • Sinking fund changes were all approved by the Council before and she said she just re-budgeted everything with the remainder of ARPA funds for the first tranche and they cleared that sinking fund. As the City spends it, she will continue to re-budget it.
City Council Meeting Page 21 of 31 January 8, 2024
• She will be bringing back to the Council at the next meeting a recap of what they have spent ARPA funds on, what they have budgeted the first tranche for so the Council can see more clearly what is left going forward. Everything else was approved. The only transfer changes that are different are just when she and the City Engineer looked back and re-budgeted projects. They transferred gas taxes and Measure J to Fund 14 which were trued up and those numbers were changed to show the actuals that were spent and projects that were being rolled over. • Staff also transferred $1.5 million from the Public Facilities back to the City Offices Fund. They had moved all that money out when they were contemplating buying 2 properties. They only purchased 1 property and they transferred that money back to the City Offices fund.
In conclusion, even though the City did slightly better, the 5-year model still shows in the outyears a deficit of approximately 10%. They received very little relief from the fact that the property taxes were slightly more. She used that as a base, and they grow from there. The 5-year model does not project quite as large a deficit, but they are still talking over $1.7 million in the out years. She pointed out that those are for ongoing expenses and do not include anything for special projects. In fact, she specifically takes out special projects they are doing this year in future years because she does not want to build on a too big of a base.
The numbers are estimates but they should reflect on-going costs. Under Reserve Standard, those are similar projects, and she does not ask the City to reserve money on special projects. The 60% is not calculated on these, so these are the same monies taken out in future years so staff does not doublecount those.
So, the City is on the same trajectory and will be returning to the Council in the future to talk about how they may address these shortfalls. But, at this time, staff is asking for questions or changes and at the next meeting, she will return with any changes and corrections, and the Council can approve the budget at the next meeting.
Vice Mayor Kwok thanked staff for a thorough report. He referred to investment earnings have increased, given interest rates took a sharp upturn last year in 2023. He asked what strategies staff was able to use to shift to higher interest-bearing ways of investing the City’s money and also how does the City forecast those higher interest rates into the upcoming budget. He asked what type of returns is staff forecasting.
Ms. Robinson said this is not an exact science. The way they have done it is we have a strategy where they ladder their funds in 1, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year length investments. As nearer term investments fall off and they reinvest, they reinvest them out at 4 and 5 years. If the yield curve looks like it is supposed to, they should be getting higher returns farther out as you invest them longer. As investments mature, those invested at 1% and 2%, staff invests them out at 5 years at higher rates of 4% or 5%. This is a normal strategy. She did not do a robust analysis as it was a matter of projecting where they were in the past because they must figure out how much cash they have at any given time.
Councilmember Candell said this item is just for the budget and she asked if Council priorities will be a completely different topic, and Ms. Robinson confirmed.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period.
City Council Meeting Page 22 of 31 January 8, 2024
ROB LAVOIE said he was wondering if staff could comment on the number of past years where the City has had a positive variance on the higher property taxes with the skyrocketing home values and their turnover which will generate a new tax basis. It seems that has a potential for future years as well. He referred to the laddering of securities and asked if staff has considered going out 7 to 10 years to lock in at the new, higher rates and keep a couple of years at a shorter term for liquidity. They can always sell a 10-year bond if the rates drop at a premium. This is the opposite problem the City has had in the past 15 or 20 years so it is a great time to consider something like that.
Ms. Robinson said she has projected in her 5-year model property taxes going up at 3 ½% a year. The City does usually outperforms that. It will go up by a minimum of 2% because everyone’s property taxes goes up by 2. As Mr. Lavoie rightly pointed out, as older homes turn over, they get them on the rolls at a higher rate. They tend to budget conservatively. She would say they have not seen it yet, but it is entirely possible with the higher interest rates that it slows somewhat because it is now more expensive to buy homes. So, possibly the home prices will drop slightly from where they were or will just slow. It is very conservative, and she could probably boost it up. She thinks at this point they are talking about by a $200,000 a year, but not $2 million a year which is the deficit they are looking at. Yes, they can boost it a bit and it probably will come in higher, but it is not enough to solve the issue they see.
She does not believe their investment policy allows the City to invest anything past 5 years, so they cannot go out 10 or 20 years. The investment policy is included in the budget, so it is very specific and set by the State as to what investments the City is allowed. They could get higher returns, but it would be riskier, and the City is not allowed to do some of those instruments.
Councilmember Anduri commented that Vice Mayor Kwok is the primary liaison for the Environmental Task Force, and he is the secondary liaison. They passed the ban on gas-powered leaf blowers and the ban is in effect, but they cannot be used any longer after July 1, 2024. At the ETF’s last meeting, they decided they will devote the next few months for an educational campaign. The ETF has no budget to do that. They are meeting on Thursday, and he wanted everyone to be prepared there may be a budget request that returns from them.
Mayor Dawson then moved to the second update of Council priorities.
Ms. Robinson said this is a review of the City Council adopted priorities for 2023-24 which is an update on what they have done, what they did last year, and where they are with each of these priorities. As a reminder, they have 4 priorities: 1) wildfire prevention, preparedness, responsiveness, and utility safety; 2) improving pedestrian and traffic safety and multi-modal mobility; 3) specific tasks associated with the Mt. Diablo Corridor and downtown; and 4) develop a Fiscal Sustainability Plan for short and long-term needs.
The staff report outlines what was completed in 2023 and all the Department Managers have been updating their parts on what work has been done to date for each of the Council priorities and she can take specific questions or comments.
Councilmember Candell asked if the Council is intending to meet again this year and asked when it will be held. Ms. Robinson said she believes this will be February or March where the City Council meets to set goals and priorities. She said likely it will be March.
City Council Meeting Page 23 of 31 January 8, 2024
Mayor Dawson referred to the Downtown Mt. Diablo Corridor Specific Plan and said the scope of work is being prepared. She asked if there is any particular timing on this. Ms. Robinson said this project has been pushed for other priorities because Planning has been concentrating almost entirely on the Housing Element.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Mayor Dawson referred to the first priority and wanted to be sure she noted that they added new policy in terms of the utility safety in the Safety Element.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Gerringer) to continue budget discussions to January 22, 2024, for adoption of the Final Budget, and confirm Council priorities for current fiscal year. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and Gerringer; Noes: None).
15. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Ordinance 651 Amending Section 8-8164 and 8-8165 of Title 8, Chapter 8-8, Article 15 Parking Meters and Lock Boxes of the Lafayette Municipal Code Relating to Time of Operation and Parking Fees
Recommendation: Introduce Ordinance 651, waive first reading of the ordinance, take public testimony and continue to January 22, 2024 for second reading and adoption.
Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson said as discussed in the past, the Council indicated that they would like to increase the meters hourly rate from $1 to $2/hour. Right now, the City parking program is sitting in a negative position. There are a couple of reasons for that, but primarily, COVID impacted the numbers and patterns have changed. The last time the City increased meter rates was in 2016 so it has been awhile. She did include in this final budget there was for roughly 5 months before the City would get it implemented, the rates would be $2/hour. So, the City will be slowly whittling away at the negative balance.
She made one correction with the Ordinance, which is 691 and not 651 which was the old Ordinance.
She believes the City Attorney is okay with making that change at this meeting so they can still maintain the same schedule. Also, staff is pulling out the setting of the times for meters to be set by resolution.
They have been asked by the Chamber of Commerce to potentially change the times. Specifically, they wanted the meters to start later at 10:00 a.m. instead of 9:00 a.m. Staff needs to evaluate that because if they did implement that time change and did not extend on the other side past 6:00 p.m. the City would be losing $50,000 a year and the whole point of raising the rates is so they can pull themselves out of the negative. If the Council wants to consider changing those times, they may want to extend on the other end, so the private lots go from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and they are also at $2/hour. There may be an advantage of matching with them because there has in the past been some complaints because the lots are different hours, although they also go on Sundays, which the City would not consider doing.
Vice Mayor Kwok referred to the proposed increase from $1 to $2/hour and he asked what are the average rates for the private lots per hour, and Ms. Robinson said she believes they are $2/hour already.
There is not a range and set at $2/hour so the City would be matching those lots.
City Council Meeting Page 24 of 31 January 8, 2024
Mayor Dawson opened the public hearing, and there were no speakers, and she closed the public hearing. She asked and confirmed the times of the meters will be considered at a separate meeting.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Gerringer) to introduce Ordinance 691, waive the first reading of the Ordinance and continue it to January 22, 2024, for the second reading and adoption. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and Gerringer; Noes: None).
BREAK
Mayor Dawson called for a break at 9:30 p.m. and thereafter reconvened the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
16. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
B. Resolution 2024-02: Request for Allocation of TDA Article-3 Funds for Mt. Diablo Boulevard Crossing Enhancement at Hampton Road and Adoption of a CEQA Notice of Exemption Recommendation: 1) Authorize staff to submit a $410,000 TDA Article 3 grant application, including a local match of $260,000. 2) Adopt Resolution 2024-02 approving the request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for an allocation of TDA Article 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Project funding for fiscal year 2024/25. 3) Adopt a CEQA Categorical Exemption for the project under Section 15301(c) for the project and authorize staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk for the County of Contra Costa.
Councilmember Gerringer introduced the item, stating the Council received a number of public comments and she wanted to remove it from the Consent Calendar because they were asked by residents to pull it for discussion. She wanted to give staff the opportunity to answer some of the questions raised.
Engineering and Public Works Director Mike Moran said the item is to add a protected crossing at Hampton across Mt. Diablo Boulevard. It was an item requested originally as part of a Transportation Action Request. In 2019, he took it to the Transportation Circulation Commission, and this was a popular, community-requested safety enhancement they wanted added. Staff even had a developer that agreed to contribute towards a flashing beacon crossing at that time, but that development has gone away, and they continue to have requests for safety improvements at this location.
The same people who want this safety improvement are completely opposed to it if the City adds any sort of center median. This was on hold for 4+ years. The City did not go into the design during this time, but based on input and observation the Council should prioritize this crossing, even if they do not get the development funding, they need to fund the project themselves. They can get some of it from a TDA grant which is the initial request tonight asking permission to apply for the TDA grant and a resolution that would go with that and commit to funding this should they get that grant funding.
As they look into it, it is 5 vehicle lanes and 2 bike lanes. It is about 77 feet across. They found they really should include an island median refuge where there is a third ped push button to activate flashing crossings so that anyone taking more time to get across could reactivate it. While the design is not universal, it is a common design. Once staff got into the details and hired Parametrix to look into this for the City, when they got to discussing the crossing and whether it should have a median, it was an obvious “yes.” He pulled out some federal highway administration guidelines and has “cheat sheets” from 2018 and 2020 that talk about if you add the pedestrian refuge island, the changes of a pedestrian accident go down from 30% to 56% just by having that. So, why wouldn’t the City build the safest crossing they could do.
City Council Meeting Page 25 of 31 January 8, 2024
The guidelines or criteria for when you would want one states: It is highly desirable for either mid-block (which they have in one direction), crossing 4 or more lanes (which they are), speed limits are 35 mph or greater (and they have an 85th percentile 39 mph at this location) so they meet that as well, and their annual daily average traffic is 9,000 vehicles or higher (and this exceeds 9,000 vehicles per day, as well).
So, they check every single one of these boxes so, to a transportation professional, the only reason you would not build a pedestrian refuge would be if you could not for some geometrical reason. They can here and, in fact, it can be built. It is not a large median. It would be a bulb out in the front and a taper of 12-15 feet in length and the width of the center median lane would be about 10 feet wide.
In looking at that with the designer, you can still accommodate all of the turns at this location such as in and out of Shell, in and out of the Royal Service Station, in and out of Hampton. The complaint, which is very valid is, if someone makes a left turn out of Hampton and they used to turn into the center turn lane where they only had to cross 2 lanes of traffic and then they could deal with the other westbound traffic and merge over into them, this is a valid complaint. It is not a reason not to build this though. Someone can still make a left turn and now they must cross 3 lanes of traffic. They could still stop in the middle of the intersection, and they would have protection in that center turn lane, but they would have to clear the westbound traffic before going out and making that left turn. You could also cut back up on Dyer Drive and come out on Willow one block to the west and still make that turn and have the center turn lane available. Or, if they got stuck there and traffic was too much to cross, they could turn right and go down and make a U turn or go a different direction. Staff believes they could design this and not cut off access from any location, including parking at the beauty salon with diagonal parking which would still be accessible, but they would have the center median refuge for the pedestrian.
Councilmember Candell said there were some other options of locations that people were talking about and she asked if Mr. Moran could go through why they would or would not work. She said the first one was Eileen Street and having it there versus Hampton.
Mr. Moran said Hampton is in the middle and is an existing crossing. It splits Carol Lane and Brown Avenue almost equal distance in the middle,so it is 1100 feet and 1200 feet from either side. Those are the closest signalized intersections. There is a bus stop at Hampton, and it is a County Connection. It takes kids to Acalanes High School, so it is eastbound in one direction and westbound just to the east of the Shell in the other direction. So theoretically, if a child utilizes that bus stop, they are crossing there. If you go out and just stand there for an hour, you will see people crossing and they will cross not at Eileen but at Hampton because they are closer to the 7-11, Starbucks, and wherever else they are going to, but you will see people crossing there. So, they are naturally crossing closer to that location than one street off.
Councilmember Candell said she thought this was proposed at the other side of Hampton. Mr. Moran said the crosswalk is on the west side of Hampton. Someone could cross the street and put it on the east side of Hampton. He looked at that and it is not as good and, if you do the center median refuge which people suggesting it are not considering a center median refuge, now they are impacting access into the Royal Service Station driveway with a center median. Also, there are already ramps laid out, although they are not ADA compliant at the Hampton location. So, they are not completely starting from scratch like they would be if they went to the east side. They are cutting through more stuff so constructability-wise, it is a better location where it is proposed, as well.
City Council Meeting Page 26 of 31 January 8, 2024
Councilmember Gerringer asked if staff could talk about the Hawk system. Mr. Moran explained what staff is proposing to install right now is a rapid flashing beacon system; however, they would construct it as if it was a Hawk system. What he means is that instead of having singular poles with flashing beacons, they would have mast arm poles because they are spanning 77 feet. They would still have the flashing beacons, but a rapid flashing beacon system can be powered by a solar system they can mount on the pole on the north side of the street with a southern exposure. The beacons only flash when they get a call, do not take a lot of power, and if he has a good full southern exposure, he can power them. They are a yield, and as was pointed out earlier when Mr. Luttropp was talking, you push that and as soon as a pedestrian crosses, even if they continue to flash, vehicles are allowed to progress through the crosswalk.
Regarding the difference between the flashing beacon and the Hawk is a Hawk could be upgraded and if you get a pedestrian call, it is a flashing red. So, it is a stop instead of a yield. Really the constructability would be the same, but it does have a higher power requirement. It could not be controlled with the solar system so the reason for proposing phasing this if they are not pleased with how the flashing beacon is working is it could be converted to a Hawk easily should they get a power source. It is changing the flashing bulbs. The cost at the signal would be very inexpensive. The big expense and time is getting a service pedestal and a power source from PG&E. He noted the Mt. Diablo Court signal took them quite a long time and quite a chunk of money. Depending on where PG&E would allow the City to draw the power from, even though they have a streetlight across the street adjacent to where the City would put this, but they do not give power usually from there. They need a location where they will get you from a transformer or service box. If it is 2 blocks away, it may cost $50,000 for trenching. If it is closer it may cost less. Either way, they are looking at 1 ½ to 2 years to get through their engineering, approvals, and even when they were completed with the signal they waited months for them to make the power connection.
Councilmember Gerringer said this went to the Transportation Circulation Commission and they recommended it move forward. She noticed in the staff report it talks about community engagement if the City gets the grant and to look at the project’s design and other elements. Another thing suggested in a public comment was to write the grant in a way that was more a placeholder. She asked how this works.
Mr. Moran said this particular grant is specific. The application is part of what the Council has here and to get a TDA grant, the City either does a show and tell or a presentation of the exact project that will be built. So, this is not an option for this. He is aware it went to Transportation Circulation and there was some back and forth on whether or not to do a median. He thinks a median should be done. Most every traffic professional would say so. It meets all of the criteria where they highly recommend it. You do not have to but not only does it meet that criteria, statistics are telling you it is a safer crossing. The whole point of this project is to have a safe crossing there. So, it is a slight inconvenience for someone making a left turn out of Hampton. It would be something you would have to learn and get used to, but along Mt. Diablo Boulevard there are many places where you must make a left-hand turn around a center median. It is not an oddity. It would be just different for that location. Most other locations do not have crosswalks and where they do have crosswalks with flashing beacons like at Golden Gate, they already have a center median refuge. Caltrans has one at Mt. Diablo Boulevard at Pleasant Hill Road even though it is a fully signalized intersection. It is a standard improvement over not having it.
City Council Meeting Page 27 of 31 January 8, 2024
Obviously, some community members feel so strongly against it that the same people who requested this safer crossing are saying they do not want it if they build this (center refuge island). If they hold a community meeting and Engineering says they should still add a center median or do not do it, then they should not even get there. If the Council would not want them to install the refuge, the City should not even seek the grant.
Councilmember Candell asked how large the median will be. Mr. Moran said it is the center turn lane and will cover most of that. The front of it will be a nose like 6 feet in a semi-circle or half-circle which is the depth, so it is short in the front which it must be because they would design it so people can turn left off of Hampton and swing around the front of it.
Councilmember Candell asked how much would it extend in the back. Mr. Moran replied 12 to 15 feet.
Councilmember Candell asked why and said this is part of the question. She asked if this could be made as short as possible. Mr. Moran said you want more mass there and because that is not impacting turns.
They would minimize it for the location as opposed to it being 75 feet long and a planted median. It would be something 12 feet in depth and 12 feet in width because this is the lane width of the center turn lane.
It would be some shape that is sort of rounded so if he is turning into the service station or auto shop, he can swing around. It would be designed to take into account the turning movements at that location.
Councilmember Candell said the recommendation is to submit a $410,000 TDA grant and a local match of $260,000. She asked where does the $260,000 amount come from and asked if this is in the budget. Mr.
Moran said it is not. That would come in their next budget for 2025. They would not get this grant until the fall of 2024 so it would not be put in until 2025. It would come as a formal request with all capital program for the balance. However, you do have to consider that as this would count against something else. The question is whether they want to do this safety project or do they want to surface seal more streets instead.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period.
CHERYL MACDONALD said she lives in this neighborhood and is not so adamant as Mr. Moran is indicating.
They are definitely a pedestrian safe neighborhood and have presented it as a TAR because of that. They met with Mr. Moran in 2019 and analyzed Hampton Road with 2 other people and came up with a solution with the Hawk with no median. Bobbie Freitas had a petition that supported a crosswalk with no median.
So, they did not find out about any changes to this idea until Monday at the Transportation Circulation Commission meeting. The presenter of the TAR request was not notified ahead of time, and she understands this is the current policy based on history of it being done. It was also over the Christmas holiday, so people were a bit broadsided; however, she did not think this was intentional by the City.
Regarding Eileen Street, Bobbie Frietas lives next to Hampton and Eileen Street is right across from there, so it is not really as far a distance as it is away from Hampton as was presented. This is why they were hoping the scope could be expanded a bit because it was so close to Hampton. She watched a video from Caltrans about the Hawk system and there was a 68% reduction in injuries with this system and that includes no median.
City Council Meeting Page 28 of 31 January 8, 2024
She watched videos that had a 5-lane highway in Sacramento, and this was done in Sacramento, and it is still there. So, they thought this could be done without a median. She said they could go down Dyer to Willow and this is where the injury took place that put them into the high injury network. So, now they are making a left turn off of Willow where there is no crosswalk where the injury took place, so it just seems weird they are being encouraged to drive down to Willow to make the left turn there where the incident took place. This also caught them off-guard. They could make a right and make a U-turn at the intersection, but there was no public notification of this for them to understand the differences.
ROB LAVOIE said he likes the idea that the BBS could be switched to a Hawk if that was deemed a better solution. He has not been in the lighting business for about 30 years, but it seems like the power consumption for an HID light, or the old streetlights is much higher than the current LED lights which he noticed is what they have in there now. So, it seems like there might be some potential to talk with PG&E and seeing about getting some power if they did want to do the Hawk system.
He noted the area is 146 feet according to Google Maps between the current sidewalk and where you might do it on Eileen or maybe another 10 or 15 feet, so it is not that far. He thinks looking at the east side of Hampton Street still has some merit. You could turn into the Shell station before the crosswalk or after because it is a pretty wide property there. This would eliminate the problem of making the left-hand turn that the neighbors are concerned about. Staff is talking about reducing the speed limit to 30 mph which eliminates some of the reasons staff wants to do the center median as well and there are many other locations just as busy and with a lot more people like the UC Davis Hospital in Sacramento, so he thinks there examples of projects that are obviously deemed safe and in a similar situation. He thinks they should look at all alternatives and work something out that the neighbors are happy with.
Councilmember Gerringer referred to no public notification or engagement, the meeting with Transportation Circulation was held in the middle of December or on the 18th, and she asked and confirmed all normal noticing went out. She asked if it is the City’s policy to reach back out to residents who submit TARs and asked if this is over a course of time. Mr. Moran said yes, generally it usually is.
When going along with the request, it is not as big a deal and they knew they had 2 more steps because they are just seeking a grant. So, there was the Transportation Circulation meeting, and they knew they would have to come before the Council because a resolution is needed from the Council and authorization to apply for it, and a commitment to build it should they get it, just like they have done for other projects.
So, they have 2 more public processes before they would seek the grant.
Councilmember Gerringer said she would say she is still supportive of the staff recommendation. She appreciates residents sent the emails which caused the Council to remove it from the Consent Calendar and ask questions. She thinks in looking at it and having crossed there in the past as well as having gone through the refuge across Mt. Diablo at Pleasant Hill many times, she appreciates the increased safety of those locations and is inclined to support going for the grant and that the Council sets expectations that it will be submitted the way the scope of the grant is if successful. There will be public outreach but the idea it could be completely reworked after they got the grant causes more anxiety and consternation on the part of the public. Therefore, she is ready to support moving forward with applying for the grant. The way the design is, it could be phased into a Hawk and one that actually stops traffic if in fact the analysis shows it needs to be expanded.
City Council Meeting Page 29 of 31 January 8, 2024
Councilmember Candell said if the Council approves this, when they expand to the Hawk she asked if this would be more possible with a Hawk versus an RRFB. Mr. Moran said no, you would want the same design. You would still want that center refuge. You would even do it where it is a fully activated signal like Mt. Diablo and Pleasant Hill Road. You would still want the refuge if you had a slower crossing person.
It gives them a chance to reactivate the call and have more time to get the rest of the way across the street.
Councilmember Candell said she is inclined to go for the safety with a small median and turning left out of Hampton is unfortunate, but it seems like there are enough people crossing there it would be safer.
Mayor Dawson voiced support to improve safety and the City is looking at reducing speed there, and this might also make it safer for those turning left. So, she thinks it is a good investment especially with more development going along Mt. Diablo.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Gerringer/Candell) to 1) Authorize staff to submit a $410,000 TDA Article 3 grant application, including a local match of $260,000. 2) Adopt Resolution 2024-02 approving the request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for an allocation of TDA Article 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Project funding for fiscal year 2024/25. 3) Adopt a CEQA Categorical Exemption for the project under Section 15301(c) for the project and authorize staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk for the County of Contra Costa. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and Gerringer; Noes: None).
17. COUNCIL/COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Councilmembers report on activities and consideration of matters a Councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda.
Councilmember Gerringer shared that she is looking forward to a happy, healthy next chapter of her life with her family in the Pacific Northwest. In the meantime, she will continue to fulfill her duties and work with her colleagues as an elected Councilmember until January 23, 2024.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he is sorry he could not be in person for the meeting, but this morning he tested positive for COVID and as a result, he is not joining the meeting. It is a reminder that people are still getting sick and COVID is not gone, and people can be susceptible to it. He has been careful with masking on airplanes, being vaccinated, and he got it.
He reported that the ETF met last in December. They had a change of leadership and are looking forward to 2024 planning. They unanimously agreed to focus on the transition to the electric leaf blower ordinance and to prioritize that. The 7-member body will work to get the education out to the public and they want to lead by education. He has encouraged the ETF to share their findings on how other communities have been successful and hopefully in the months ahead the community will embrace this change. As Councilmember Anduri mentioned, there is a zero budget, and the ETF would benefit from funds to do outreach needed to be effective in their communications. They hope to bring this to the next meeting.
City Council Meeting Page 30 of 31 January 8, 2024
Councilmember Candell said there was a bill passed last year where the Lamorinda School Bus Transportation Agency can be eligible to receive up to 60% of funding from the State under the Home to School Transportation Reimbursement program. However, the City is a community-organized JPA and the money from this cannot go through a JPA and must go directly to the schools. So, they are trying to work with the schools to enable the program to get $900,000 that would be a huge benefit for buses. They are also estimating costs will be going up by about $900,000 as well, so it turned into the school districts being very hesitant to go along with this.
They are getting pushback from the districts that they do not want to do this, but now knowing they are facing a problem, they hope for cooperation. There is one more possible pathway which is to do this legislatively, and she reached out to Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and Whitney, and asked if they could modify the bill to add JPAs. The only other one happens to be in San Ramon, which is the traffic system, which is also a JPA, so there are 2 in her district which would benefit from a legislative fix. So, they are doing the dual routes and going after both.
Councilmember Anduri asked to raise something for possible inclusion on a future agenda which is the El Curtola Overpass situation. In this discussion, he will not mention what the causes are of people on the overpass because he does not know, and he does not think they should mention any particular examples because they need to be completely content neutral in their decision. But, they have received memos from the public. The public does not understand why the City cannot do something. They have received advice from BBK and know what they can and cannot do. He is wondering if they can discuss adopting another strategy for trying to do something about the situation. They had the CHP and Caltrans representatives come to one meeting which was fairly unsatisfactory.
What really spurred him this time was the letter they received from the person who is on the bridge who basically said that as a result of their being on the bridge, a car stopped on the freeway and blocked traffic so the person could shout at them, and a car pulled over by the side of the road underneath the vigil and appeared to be watching them. So, people on the bridge are recognizing it is not safe. The CHP will not recognize it and it is a ridiculous situation. He wondered if they should go to BBK or Townsend or both together to see if there is some sort of lobbying to get some action on this. The current situation is just not satisfactory. The bridge should not be seen as a place where people can go and wave flags. Whether or not they attach them to the side, it is a distraction and it should not be happening in Lafayette.
Mayor Dawson and Councilmembers agreed. She reported that she and Vice Mayor Kwok are in the midst of interviews for the Code Enforcement Appeals Board, and they hope to have recommendations at the next meeting. The ETF on the leaf blower ordinance came up so they hope to discuss how funding could be considered for education.
B. Councilmember Anduri and Gerringer
Lafayette’s Representative to the Contra Costa County Advisory Council on Aging Recommendation: Recommend Richard Morisky to the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors as Lafayette’s representative on the Contra Costa Advisory Council on Aging.
Councilmember Anduri stated he and Councilmember Gerringer interviewed Richard Morisky who has applied to be Lafayette’s representative on the Contra Costa Advisory Council on Aging. They recommend him for that position, and it will be the County Board of Supervisors that make the final appointment. Mr.
Morisky would serve on the advisory council and would liaise with the City’s Senior Services Commission.
City Council Meeting Page 31 of 31 January 8, 2024
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Gerringer) to recommend Richard Morisky to the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors as Lafayette’s representative on the Contra Costa Advisory Council on Aging. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and Gerringer; Noes: None).
18. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. Resignation from Carol Reif, Public Art Committee (PAC) member.
Recommendation: Accept with regret and thank her for her volunteer service.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Dawson/Gerringer) to accept with regret and thank Public Art Committee member Carol Reif for her volunteer service. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, Candell, Gerringer, Kwok, and Dawson; Noes: None).
19. ADJOURNMENT - 10:30 p.m. in memory of Awais Saeed Mughal, member of the Art Theater Trust Board of Directors who passed away unexpectedly in December.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Gina M. Dawson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk