City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 1 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
7 City of Lafayette
City Council Minutes
Lafayette Library and Learning Center – Don Tatzin Community Hall May 28, 2024 3491 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, California 6:30 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, Planning Commission and Design Page 2 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Mayor Dawson called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: City Council: Mayor Dawson, Vice Mayor Kwok; Councilmembers Anduri, Candell, and McCormick
Present: Design Review Commission: Chair Arman Hadilou; Vice Chair Glenn Cass; Commissioners Travis Kauzer, and Richard Stanton; Absent: Jon Gray
Present: Planning Commission: Chair Stephen LaBonge; Commissioners Gary Huisingh and Kristina Sturm
Staff Present: Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager; Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director; Lt. Ben Alldritt, Police Services Manager; Patrick Golier, Transportation Program Manager; Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director; William Francis, Engineering Intern; 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
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to adopt the agenda. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, Candell, Kwok, McCormick, and Dawson; Noes: None).
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS (For Closed Session Items only)
6. CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
Gov. Code section 54956.9(d)(1)
Contra Costa Superior Court, Case No. MSC20-01130
Reconvene Meeting – 7:00 p.m.
REPORT OF CLOSED SESSION – Mayor Dawson announced that no reportable action was taken in Closed Session.
7. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Mayor Dawson.
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS (For Items not on the agenda).
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 3 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
LISA DISBROW, leader of First Do No Harm protest, reported they now have a 25th state choose to ban puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors and join the path of England, Finland, Sweden, France, and Norway which is to ensure minors are getting the best care possible and reducing the possibility of negative consequences. She introduced Chloe Cole, 19, who is one of the 11 de-transitioners who filed lawsuits in the U.S., and she described Ms. Cole’s experience and advice to socially transition and described a book called The Detransition Diaries.
JAMES CHAPRAYIL said he is a Lafayette resident, spoke about the half-cent sales tax increase which he thinks is not enough and suggested $120 per parcel tax in addition to the half-cent sales tax.
JEAN FOLLMER voiced appreciation of allowing people to participate remotely, asked if the Council would consider a small stipend for City Councilmembers that would cover additional related expenses for time and effort to participate in meetings and other events.
9. City Manager’s Update
City Manager Niroop Srivatsa gave the following update on department activities:
• The Council has made fiscal sustainability a priority for the last two years and the City faces a significant structural deficit amounting to 10% or over $2 million starting in the next fiscal year.
Without new revenues, the City will not be able to offer the current level of services or take on any new additional projects, and the Council will have to make tough choices and decisions about which programs and services to reduce or cut. In June and July, the Council will discuss the budget for the next fiscal year and may consider the possibility of placing a funding measure on the November 2024 ballot, asking voters to authorize an increase in the local sales tax by up to 1%.
The Council has until early August to make that decision and information about the deficit has been shared with the community through a number of means.
As the Council continues these discussions, staff will continue to monitor and update the website, so information remains current and relevant. There is a page on the website called, “The Fiscal Sustainability” page and it can be viewed from the Home Page, under the Headliner under News.
The community is also encouraged to subscribe to the Weekly Round Up which is a local update provided to anyone who subscribes, and it comes out every Friday.
Staff will also be doing additional outreach to the media and to on-line platforms. A press release will be sent out tomorrow on May 29th regarding the fact the City is considering placing a funding measure on the November 2024 ballot and explaining the need for these funds. As they go through discussions, they invite the public and community to share comments, and she said people can contact staff via phone, emailing them at [email protected] and every Monday, the community can pose questions on the City’s Facebook page and can be assured they will get a response.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
10. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recognizing the Achievements of the Acalanes High School Music Department Recommendation: Receive and file.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 4 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Stella Wotherspoon thanked the Council for recognizing the instrumental music program at Acalanes High School, and the students regret they are not able to attend today because they are in the middle of finals week. Another group of students are at Yoshi’s in Oakland performing, and for some it is their senior year.
Edwin Cordoba is conducting them so he could not be here, but she is honored to be here on their behalf.
Mayor Dawson and Councilmembers thanked Ms. Wotherspoon for being here and recognizing outstanding performances, and Mayor Dawson read the Proclamation into the record.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
B. Lt. Ben Alldritt
1. Recognizing Deputy of the Year Brendan Barckley, Lafayette Detective Recommendation: Receive and file.
Lt. Ben Alldritt recognized Deputy of the Year, Brendan Barckley, Lafayette Detective, said he joined the Sheriff’s Office in 2014 and in 2019, he joined Lafayette Police. He described Detective Barckley’s selection in 2023 as the Sheriff Office Deputy of the Year, and this is an honor given there are over 700 sworn personnel in the Sheriff Office. He said Sergeant Amanda Sears put forward a nomination and she is present tonight, and Detective Barckley won. He was honored at a ceremony at the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers, and he becomes the official Corporal for 2024.
Lt. Alldritt then described two examples; An overdose case Detective Barckley was assigned who was able to locate the suspect who had been supplying fentanyl and other drugs to juveniles in the county and sexually exploiting them. As a result, the suspect was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison with a mandatory 15-year probation after their prison term. Another case involved the victimization of a juvenile that happened later in the year, and he cited the number of hours and diligence associated with the case by Detective Barckley. Unfortunately, Lafayette Police will lose him in July to join the future U.S. Marshal’s Fugitive Task Force for Contra Costa County and wish him the best.
Mayor Dawson and Councilmembers recognized Detective Barckley for his outstanding efforts, and Mayor Dawson read the Proclamation into the record and presented it to Detective Barckley.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
2. Recognizing the Police Academy Graduates
Recommendation: Receive and file.
Lt. Ben Alldritt stated they had their first spring Citizens Academy of 2024 with many great community members. They enjoyed this program at the Police Department and usually host two per year in the spring and fall, and usually 12-15 residents go through various curriculum for 6 nights, which he described and introduced those residents in the spring Academy.
Some of the graduates of the Citizens Academy said they highly recommends the academy to everyone, said it is an amazing experience, and said they learned a lot from the program.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 5 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Mayor Dawson and Councilmembers congratulated graduates, recognized the Police Department and Chief.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period.
DAVID CLARK congratulated graduates and said he attended the program a number of years ago and would encourage residents to consider it. He thanked the City and Police Department for continuing to fund this program because it is a benefit to the City.
C. Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director
Design Review Commission and Planning Commission
Annual Update and Workplan
Recommendation: Receive report and approve work plan.
Planning and Building Director Greg Wolff said the Planning Department has prepared a Work Plan for 20 years and would bring this to the Council annually at this meeting with the DRC’s and PC’s annual reports.
That practice changed last year with the goal of aligning all department work plans with the budget, and he turned over the presentation to DRC Chair Arman Hadilou.
DRC Chair Arman Hadilou stated three Commissioners are present; Vice Chair Glenn Cass, Commissioners Travis Kauzer and Richard Stanton. Chair Hadilou gave PowerPoint presentation which described the role and responsibilities of the DRC, Commission members, guiding policies and documents, statistics of applications, and reviewed meeting statistics.
Councilmember Candell asked if the DRC would present the work plan, and she asked and confirmed with Mr. Wolff the objective standards are included in the Work Plan which will come with the budget at the next Council meeting. He stated there are no new initiatives from the DRC or PC and stand ready to assist in the Work Plan which will continue into the next year to complete tasks the Council identified and prioritized from the March meeting.
Councilmember Candell asked and confirmed the DRC will not wait until the City gets its Housing Element approved.
Mayor Dawson thanked DRC members for their service and recognized the amount of work accomplished.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Mr. Wolff then introduced the Planning Commission who will present their annual update.
PC Chair Stephen LaBonge introduced PC members Krisina Sturm and Gary Huisingh, and he then gave a PowerPoint presentation on the role and responsibilities of the PC, Planning Commission members, noted there is one current vacancy being publicized, guiding documents, meeting statistics, work and recommendations from the year, and continued work moving forward.
Commissioner McCormick said the Planning Commission is an impressive group, noting that there are different disciplines and expertise of the Commission. He said it was a privilege to be a former Planning Commissioner and he thanked them.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 6 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Mayor Dawson echoed comments, voiced appreciation for the PC’s work on the Housing Element and looks forward to the work ahead.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period.
Commissioner Gary Huisingh recognized how great the Planning staff is and said it is a pleasure to work with such a professional group of people. The City is fortunate to have Mr. Wolff leading the Department with quality staff. When looking at the Work Plan, it amazes him how much work staff gets done with so few people. He also recognized the Commissioners are volunteers and they tackle some tough projects along with great projects. It is very rewarding and interesting to learn from projects approved, especially when driving around town and seeing projects they have approved, which only makes the next project even better.
Mayor Dawson thanked Commissioner Huisingh for his comments and recognized staff and the Commission’s work.
D. Report from the Citizen’s Technical Advisory Committee on EBMUD’s plans to reduce the reservoir tower height by forty feet as part of the tower’s seismic retrofit Recommendation: Discuss and direct.
City Manager Niroop Srivatsa gave background and overview of the CTAC’s work to review and comment on the EBMUD’s Lafayette Reservoir Tower Seismic Retrofit project. The committee has spent countless hours reviewing technical studies, reports, plans, and specifications provided by EBMUD in an attempt to work collaboratively and identify alternatives and mitigations. They have met with EBMUD staff and AECOM; EBMUD’s consultant twice and have exchanged numerous emails with them.
The committee completed its final report earlier this month and based upon extensive review of EBMUD’s seismic analysis and conceptual design documentation, it is the consensus opinion of the committee members that EBMUD’s proposed shortening of the tower would increase the seismic risk for downstream residents of Lafayette in a major earthquake rather than lessening the risk. She turned over the presentation to Committee Chair Gordon Chong.
Gordon Chong, Architect, Committee Chair of TSAC, introduced Loring Wyllie and Matthew Bertics, both of whom are structural engineers and members of the committee. Two members who were unable to be present are Mason Walters and Jack Moehle. Their resumes are included in the packet and while their resumes are extensive, they generally go unquestioned. Recent suggestions have called the committee’s professionalism into question.
Regarding six of most relevant areas of the committee’s structural engineering expertise specifically pertinent to this project are that Jack Moehle is recognized as a leading national, if not international, authority of concrete structures and serves as a UC Berkeley Research Professor. Secondly, Loring Wyllie has provided similar peer review of a seismic renovation of the Tulloch Reservoir and Dam Renovation in Seattle. So, the specificity of his experience is unquestioned.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 7 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Third, Mason Walters, Loring Wyllie, and Jack Moehle have assisted in the actual writing of State and national codes utilized by practicing engineers as well as plan approval agencies. Fourth, Mason Walters, Loring Wyllie, and Matthew Bertics are principals of leading California firms who have been at the forefront of designing for seismic risk on a wide variety of complex projects on a day-to-day basis for over 40 years.
So, he thinks they understand the issues they are confronted with.
Fifth, Loring Wyllie is former chair and long-time member of the State of California Historic Building Safety Board, which he thinks is important given the 100-year history of the asset they are addressing. Lastly, both Jack Moehle and Loring Wyllie have been elected to the prestigious National Academy of Engineering for their lifetime of achievement. Not many have that honor.
Hopefully, these six reminders will underscore to the Council both the committee’s expertise and professional integrity as well as their extraordinary ability to undertake every aspect of technical review, as well as to provide suggested mitigations and alternatives to the EBMUD proposal. He also wanted to assure the Council that they have undertaken the review with independent freedom, with breadth, depth, and professional rigor of the material provided by EBMUD themselves over the last 15 months. He thinks it is important to remember that their analysis and findings are based upon EBMUD’s own research and not on any contrarian data generated by their committee. They are reviewing their data.
Any suggestion that the committee does not have adequate understanding of the issues is simply not accurate. The committee’s aggregate expertise and experience is more than equal in his mind to any review panel or design firm that may be assembled. EBMUD may recall that during the meeting with EBMUD in July of 2023, Mason, Matt, and he underscored that their guiding principle, and in fact, their highest priority was to protect the public against the threat of a risk from a seismic event. That remains their primary concern to this day.
At the encouragement of Vice Mayor Kwok from the onset, the goal of the committee was to work collaboratively with EBMUD and their consultants, AECOM, by reviewing, analyzing, questioning, sharing, exploring alternatives but most importantly, attempting to stimulate AECOM and EBMUD’s structural design thinking and approach. After having made a number of suggestions reflected in their July 17, 2023, and February 1, 2024, report during various Zoom and in-person meetings and numerous email interchanges, it has become clear that EBMUD is no longer interested in their review comments nor collaboration to identify potential alternatives. In response to their many suggestions, EBMUD has dismissed all suggestions and defensively rebutted their suggestions rather than utilize them as stimulants for further exploration.
After over a year and three months attempting to collaborate and find technical alternatives, they have determined that is no longer a reality, given the lack of an interested collaborator. By necessity then, in their final report, they have pivoted and turned away from their earlier efforts to search for alternatives.
Instead, they find themselves having to analyze the potential impacts of the EBMUD proposal so as to make the City of Lafayette and fellow residents aware of the potential seismic risk to the community. That brings them to this evening, and he asked Loring Wyllie to provide a synopsis of the final report which is included in the packet.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 8 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Loring Wyllie said he is a structural engineer and 58-year resident of Lafayette. Based upon their extensive review of EBMUD’s seismic analysis and conceptual design documentation it is the consensus opinion of their committee members that EBMUD’s proposed shortening of the tower would increase the seismic risk for the downstream residents of Lafayette in a major earthquake rather than lessening the risk. The basic idea behind EBMUD’s scheme is that decreasing the height of the tower would reduce the seismic effects of the tower by eliminating a significant amount of seismic inertia mass. While shortening the tower would reduce the bending forces in the tower, doing so would cause the tower to shake more violently and this shaking would significantly increase the harmful lateral sheer forces near the base of the tower. It is the committee’s opinion the resulting intensification of lateral sheer near the base would increase the seismic hazard of the entire tower and consequently, the emergency outlet of the reservoir.
In explaining this further in lay terms, the tall tower would shake or vibrate in an earthquake. The period of this is such that it would go over and back in about one second as the tall tower. Now, if the tower is shortened, the period reduces considerably, and the tower would be going back and forth a lot faster and it increases the force at the base of the tower from what the tall tower would be doing. It is this increase at the base that is their primary concern. According to EBMUD’s documentation, there would be about a 13% increase at the base of the tower in the sheer force caused by the shortening of the tower.
It is the committee’s consensus that the above would increase the safety concern downstream. It is notable that EBMUD was informed of these kinds of issues in 1995 by the authors of an earlier seismic evaluation, specifically the 1995 ICEC report, entitled “Seismic Validation for the Lafayette Tower Reservoir” which was written under the direction of Dr. Joseph Penzien, a UC Berkeley Professor, which was one of his, in fact, structural engineering and structural mechanics who was a pre-eminent international expert in foremost authority in the field of vibration of structures. One of the conclusions of that report was that the alternative action of reducing the tower height to achieve acceptable seismic response scenario is not a viable approach and should not be taken. This is because reducing the tower height increases the seismic bands in the structure and, therefore, does not reduce damage levels.
The committee’s conclusion is not based on this report. It was just a coincidence that they discovered that report had the same conclusion. Their conclusions do not suggest either solution is necessarily unsafe.
They simply believe that the shortened tower increases the seismic risk at the base of the tower where less is known about the quality of concrete and things of that nature because that is much harder to see and is all below water, and harder to understand.
So, the consensus opinion of the committee is that tower shortening would increase the seismic risk up to the tower and safety of downstream residents and, therefore, is not a viable retrofit option. In making three more quick points—one, is the present tower is not designated a historic structure by EBMUD; however, most people in Lafayette think of it as an historic structure. Realistically, 90 years ago there was not much more than a few farmhouses and barns in Lafayette.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 9 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Secondly, one of the big concerns of the tower situation is the conduits underneath the dam. There are two conduits 5 foot in diameter that go from the base of the tower out under the dam, one being the spillway to dump into the local creek, one being to connect to the EBMUD water pipes and supply. These conduits are over-stressed whether the tower is tall or short. This is one of the major retrofits that is needed for this work. It is contended that the taller tower increases the force a bit in these conduits. They are not 100% sure if it is the tower of the dam that is increasing the effects or whether it is the taller tower, but no matter what, the cost of fixing these conduits is a major and very difficult task. They have to work in 5-foot diameter towers, either add steel straps or steel pipe, or reinforced concrete liner in there, and this is a very expensive task. If there is any increase from the taller tower it is just the fact that some of the steel may be a fraction thicker or a few more rebar would be needed which is minor in the cost of doing all that work because the labor is so extensive. So, this is one of the major factors in this whole work.
Finally, California State Department of Safety of Dams is the regulator. EBMUD specifically asked the committee not to contact them. They suggested having joint meetings with them and they declined that.
They are not aware of their review status or the status of them issuing any kind of permit to proceed, but they do have a strong recommendation and suggestion that the City of Lafayette forward their reports to the Department of Safety of Dams so that they are aware of all opinions in making their regulatory decisions.
Mr. Chong concluded the presentation and said they were available for any questions of the Council.
Mayor Dawson thanked the committee for their extensive follow-up, particularly for their continued emphasis on safety and bringing this back to the Council for consideration.
Councilmember Anduri thanked the committee for all the work done on this over the past year. It has been above and beyond, and the committee last reported to the Council in July. It is very unfortunate, even today, of receiving a letter that talks about the committee being irresponsible and misrepresenting data.
He said this is amazing that a public agency would say something like that about leading experts in the field and volunteers who have come to the assistance of their city. He is sorry this happened, as the committee put themselves forward to do this and do not deserve such a response.
So that everyone is aware, the City received today a response letter from EBMUD signed by the Director of Engineering and Construction responding to the final report. One of the things it states is that it accuses the committee of misrepresenting and misinterpreting the data when coming to their conclusion, and it points out the basis for that accusation is that the committee has ignored information that has been developed since the 1995 ICEC report. There are three bullet points in the letter that refer to that information. One is that the foundation soil to bedrock contact is deeper than ICEC assumed. The second is that the material surrounding and supporting the tower is generally weaker than ICEC assumed, and third, that the bedrock sheer wave velocity profile gradually increases with depth unlike the constant value assumed in the 1995 ICEC study. He asked if these points are relevant to the conclusion reached.
Mr. Chong said he thinks both Loring and Matt have comments in addressing that question.
Loring Wyllie said they do not think that is all that relevant. They did have access to that information and results, and those were incorporated into the analysis that EBMUD did, or AECOM did. This is the basis of their conclusion and recommendations.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 10 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Matthew Bertics stated they are really not relevant because as Mr. Wyllie explained, the basic seismic principles of shortening the tower becoming more stiffer, shaking more violently apply independent of statements made here. They basically reached the same conclusion with the 1995 report with a different set of data because the principle is the same. So, comments made by EBMUD are really not relevant to the issue.
Councilmember Anduri asked if the committee’s conclusion, even after receiving the EBMUD letter today, is the same. Mr. Wyllie, Mr. Bertics, and Mr. Chong stated yes.
Mr. Chong pointed out that if the Council reads their final report, they go through their own analysis and only incidentally at the end of which do they reference the ICEC report which coincides with their own findings. So, irrespective of the commentary by the letter the Council received today about their dependency or lack of understanding of those three issues, they have no basic relevance to their findings the committee made earlier in their report.
Mr. Bertics added that they had actually concluded their analysis prior to receiving the 1995 report.
Councilmember Anduri asked when the committee received the 1995 report, and he asked if that had been provided early in the process. Mr. Wyllie explained that at their last meeting, Mason Walters, as he went in the restroom, someone said, “Have you seen the 1995 ICEC report?” So, they had not seen it, so they asked for it and got it. Mr. Chong added this was in March 2024 at the end of their efforts.
Councilmember Anduri said the City Manager received a letter on February 20, 2024 from EBMUD’s Director of Engineering and Construction which referred to the committee’s November 28, 2023’s meeting with EBMUD, their consultant, AECOM and the committee which said, “As stated in the meeting, EBMUD completed decades of studies, including a recent comprehensive evaluation of alternatives that concluded that shortening of the tower was the safety, most appropriate approach for addressing the deficiencies of the tower.” But, as they now have a study prepared in April 1995 by International Civil Engineering Consultants, prepared for EBMUD, it concludes, “The alternative action of reducing the tower height to achieve an acceptable seismic response scenario is not a viable approach and should not be taken.” So, he assumes the decades referred to in the February 20th letter began in 1996, as EBMUD clearly had a report that indicated that shortening the tower made it less safe. He asked if this was fair to say.
Mr. Chong and committee members confirmed.
Councilmember Anduri said to make sure the Council is not misunderstanding, he asked if the committee is saying that the EBMUD proposed alternative of shortening the tower, putting the house on top, presents a greater risk to the operation of the spillway and the emergency outlet than the existing full height tower.
Mr. Wyllie said yes, they feel it is a greater risk in that the critical stresses in the base of the tower which are being increased is the area of the tower that the lease is known about. There were no concrete cores taken below the water level down deep. Over a period of many months of construction, the concrete may have been somewhat different at that time, and it is just an area of unknown and uncertainty in the committee’s opinion that was not investigated as thoroughly as it could have been.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 11 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Councilmember Anduri said during the meetings that occurred, he asked if EBMUD was open to the committee’s suggestions, considered them fully and provided valid reasons for not adopting them.
Mr. Chong said when saying EBMUD, they have to think of two aspects of that entity. From a technical perspective, they worked closely with AECOM, their consultants. During their technical discussions, structural engineer to structural engineer, there was understanding. There were shared thoughts. There were explorations and commentary. They came away thinking there is a possibility here of collaboration which is what Vice Mayor Kwok encouraged them to do. However, upon receipt of their summary memos following the meetings, which were written by EBMUD individuals and signed by them, all of their comments were dismissed. All of their suggestions were dismissed. The rebuttal was that it is not possible; that they have looked at it; that DSOD will not permit it, but a totally different approach than what he would consider to be a collaborative process with AECOM and a lack of collaboration with EBMUD.
Councilmember Anduri said the City has a letter from EBMUD’s Director of Engineering and Construction in April. After the March meeting, the committee had requested further information from EBMUD, and the committee had not yet received it. But, in April the City received a letter which basically said that a final decision had been made. He was a bit surprised to see the statement that a final decision had been made and that EBMUD was proceeding with the final design on the shortened tower. Again, this was before the committee had received the information and had a chance to come back and comment. He asked at what point did the committee get the impression that EBMUD and not AECOM had already made up their minds.
Mr. Chong said he would hate to second guess when they had made up their minds, but in terms of an attitude with which you enter a relationship or a collaboration, their approach was to make suggestions which would stimulate some thought. Throughout the process from day one, the response the committee received from EBMUD was rebuttal and defensiveness to their recommendations and suggestions. So, they could see that with the writing that came from EBMUD’s Director, very straight-forward noting that EBMUD has sole responsibility and authority for the structural solution that is put forward which basically shut down any thoughts of collaboration coming from a third-party review entity no matter how capable the committee might be and how well-meaning the committee might be with the intent to collaborate. They have said EBMUD holds the responsibility for that, which basically means, so what.
Councilmember Anduri reiterated that Vice Mayor Kwok is the primary liaison for EBMUD, and he is the alternate, so they have been involved in this. From the outset, Vice Mayor Kwok had said that they want to be as collaborative as possible. If EBMUD came back to them and showed them this was the safest, they were willing to accept it. While one Councilmember might understand the science here, if they came back with responses to the committee’s technical input that satisfied them or at least made a case, as he understands it, the committee did not receive responses from EBMUD from the committee’s technical data they provided and the information provided and, most important, the alternative provided.
Mr. Bertics said one example from today’s letter from EBMUD, EBMUD states, “The committee ignores the fact that the reduced mass of the shortened tower actually results in lower overall forces throughout the height of the tower.” This is simply not true and not consistent with their data. This is their most recent data. The existing tower at its full height condition has a base sheer of 1619 kips, which is 1,000 lbs., and when they shorten the tower in their proposed shortening scheme, that base sheer goes up to 1824 kips.
It gets worse.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 12 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Councilmember Anduri asked if the committee felt their attempts to collaborate and provide data were met with responses to the data.
Mr. Bertics said no, this is what he is trying to say is they pointed this out and their report states it, and the response they get back seems to ignore their report and their own data.
Mr. Wyllie added that from what they understand of the shortened tower’s situation, EBMUD is not doing anything to strengthen down at the bottom of the tower where the forces are higher. They are relying on data taken up in the upper part of the tower of the concrete strength that was originally specified as 2,000 pounds/square inch concrete. The tests at the top were more at the 4,000 range of the 190-year-old concrete and right about the water level was higher yet. But, they have no information down near the bottom, so it is this uncertainty of the base of the tower is where the committee feels there is a bigger risk because of the unknown there. It is not that things are unsafe, but there is a bigger risk because of the unknowns down at the base of the tower.
Councilmember McCormick added his thanks to the committee’s time and expertise. He has a Bachelor of Engineering from Cal so he cannot match the technical knowledge here. When EBMUD seems to be responding to the report, it is a bit challenging for them to ignore some of the committee’s findings, but they also talked about the cost-effectiveness and how much more expensive it would be. In the committee’s report, they mention it is more cost-effective to just reinforce the tower as it is versus shortening it. They provide some counter to that of a significant cost overrun by shortening it, and he wondered if the committee could address that.
Mr. Wyllie said he believes his way of looking at it is the conduit is under the dam. That may be the biggest portion of the cost of the project. It is the committee’s feeling there is a very negligible increase from the tall tower. If the tower is left tall, the top of the tower whipping around is very over-stressed and bending, and there is some cost needed there to strengthen all of this, and the committee has made several suggestions as to how that could be done. There is a bit of an increase there. It is his understanding they are not doing much strengthening down at the bottom of the tower where their big concern is, so yes, there is a slight increase in cost for the taller tower, but it is the committee’s opinion that this is reducing the risk at the bottom where things are most critical.
Councilmember McCormick said the report states it is more cost-effective, and they came back that it would be $8 million more, so he was trying to understand their reasoning.
Mr. Wyllie said he did not see that particular cost estimate. It will be negligible in the conduit, but there will be extra cost up in the tower.
Mr. Bertics emphasized that when it comes to dam, tower, and public safety, what is important is for EBMUD to get this right. Their proposal to shorten the tower does fix the flexural problem, but they do not resolve the sheer deficiencies that exist in the existing tower and have made no improvement there. Their solution needs to fix that problem. Globally, they have increased the load to the tower if they shorten it, and that is fundamentally, in a seismic retrofit, not a good idea to increase the load. This is exactly what they have done.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 13 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Mayor Dawson said she understands EBMUD states they have the authority passed along by the DOSD to go forward. In her experience with governmental agencies, they welcome the input of the public that they serve. She asked to clarify what the experience has been in following up or getting feedback from that department.
Mr. Bertics said they would welcome the opportunity to talk to DSOD about their concerns, but they have been prevented from doing so by EBMUD.
Mayor Dawson said earlier she heard that they might suggest the City follow-up on behalf of this concern and the committee’s extensive expertise in the reporting provided.
Mr. Wyllie said, for example, he does not personally work with the DOSD. He is more of a building guy than a dam guy, but he is convinced they are a responsible agency and will certainly do their best to ensure safety of the project that moves forward. But, he thinks it is important they receive all opinions so they have a full grasp of other opinions that might be important.
Councilmember Candell asked if the committee would ask that the Council submit their final report. She asked if there is also thought they would return with a rebuttal to this letter, as well.
Mr. Chong said he thinks the position they have taken with the final report is that they have done their best efforts and the collaborative process to look towards alternatives and mitigated measures. They pivoted and made their assessment and analysis of the threat provided by the EBMUD proposal. Continuing their discussions in rebuttal and debate they do not believe will be very productive and it is just a matter of the need to find the correct arbiter to bring to resolution. But it is their belief that the City of Lafayette and its citizens need to understand the threat they perceive from the proposal. But no, they do not intend to continue this process because it is not fruitful.
Councilmember Anduri said lastly, it is the committee’s conclusion that if they were to agree or go along with the path EBMUD is taking with the alternative of shortening the tower they would be increasing the risk to the public in Lafayette.
Mr. Chong said this is clearly what their report summarizes in their conclusion.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period.
JIMI YOLOYE, EBMUD Director of Engineering and Construction, said for the past year, the District has worked with the Citizens Technical Advisory Committee to share information and discuss the engineering analyses in an attempt to find a solution that met the District’s needs and the committee’s interests. As the committee has noted, they do have a shared interest in safeguarding their facilities and the downstream community. However, the District is disappointed and concerned by the Committee’s final report to the Council. The conclusion in the report is based on incomplete information about how the tower will respond in an earthquake and incorrectly concludes that shortening the tower is not viable or a safe alternative. This conclusion also misrepresents and misuses the information the District shared with the committee and, unfortunately, it will create confusion for the public.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 14 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
They find it irresponsible that the committee would advance an argument that relies on statements from a 1995 report with findings that have been superseded by additional soil exploration, concrete testing, and detailed analysis in a 2020 report. The committee has ignored updated analyses that the District shared about how the tower would behave during an earthquake. The committee’s final report states that “lowering the tower heights would raise the spectral acceleration or shaking, over the full height of the tower resulting in an increase in the base sheer. What the report fails to mention is that even the increased base sheer is within the capacity of the tower. The committee ignores the fact that the significant decrease in mass and height of the tower actually enhances its seismic performance because it reduces sheer and moment forces along the height, resulting in forces that do not exceed the capacity of the tower. Therefore, shortening the tower is a safe design. The District’s analysis was clearly explained to the committee over the course of several meetings most recently on March 13, 2024. The analysis has also been independently corroborated by the California Division of Safety of Dams who are the regulator for the project and is responsible for ensuring the safety of dams statewide.
In 2011, DSOD performed an independent analysis and stated that lowering the height of the tower improves the structural performance by reducing the seismic loads. In its formal review of the design concepts in 2015, DSOD concluded the recommended option, which has shown to be highly effective, is to reduce the tower height. They have worked with the committee in good faith for the past year in a process that is above and beyond what would be necessary to advance a safe project and, at considerable expense to the District, in an effort to be responsive and collaborative. Unfortunately, the committee is now misrepresenting the information they shared to advance an argument in support of its desire for a tall tower. They have shared a technical approach to preserve the tower heights with the committee and the City Manager. This approach is estimated to cost at least $8 million more than the recommended shortened tower and would still require approval from DSOD which they believe is doubtful because it is challenging to construct and carries a higher safety risk.
The District is accountable to its ratepayers and for responsible use of funds and the District is the owner and operator of the dam and is held accountable to DSOD and the public. Therefore, in order to ensure the tower is safe and to protect the community, they intend to proceed with the retrofit of the tower by shortening the tower as reviewed and approved by DSOD.
Councilmember Candell said this is a tough one for the Council to understand and get its arms around, but in the presentation, it seemed to her that they say EBMUD’s design by shortening the tower does not necessarily decrease the sheer, but it is still within limits. She asked Mr. Yoloye to explain what is meant by this statement.
Mr. Yoloye said he could, but he thinks the next speaker might be able to explain it better from AECOM, and they have a chart they can present.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 15 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Councilmember Anduri said he appreciates what EBMUD is presenting this evening, but he is still sorry they are saying the committee’s misrepresenting which is unfortunate. He said in the April 12th letter to the City Manager, Mr. Yoloye said EBMUD assesses there is no viable alternative to the DSOD approved shortened tower retrofit. Later in the letter it states, “While we understand there may be disappointment with our final decision (which is before the committee had received the additional information) we are confident the community will recognize the importance of prioritizing the safety of Reservoir visitors, the City of Lafayette, and downstream communities.” He asked when EBMUD made up its mind that they had made the final decision.
Mr. Yoloye said it was about the time that letter was written. At that point the committee had provided information on alternative designs, and they had looked at those. One of those alternatives was to retrofit just the top half of the tower. They presented information that showed that was not going to be a feasible alternative and after they did that, they proceeded further to find out what would be an alternative that would maintain the height of the tower.
Councilmember Anduri said this was before the additional requested information had been provided to the committee and before they had a chance to review it, EBMUD made its final decision, which is what Mr. Yoloye is saying. He said in 2017, EBMUD told the Council that “the impact of a tower failure is expected to have limited impact to the Lafayette community.” He asked if this is still the view of EBMUD and, if not, he asked what has changed.
Mr. Yoloye said he was not sure what Councilmember Anduri was quoting from, and Councilmember Anduri said this is from the EBMUD website and it was removed once they began these discussions.
Mr. Yoloye said the failure of the tower is a dam safety issue. That does not have limited impact.
Councilmember Anduri said in 2017, the City was told it would have limited impact.
Mr. Yoloye said at that time they were talking about lowering the Reservoir level and if they keep the Reservoir very low they probably do not have much impact, but that is a temporary situation for the dam.
It is not a permanent solution for the seismic problems they have with the tower.
Mayor Dawson asked whether or not the community concerns for this issue has been forwarded to the DOSD on the City’s behalf.
Mr. Yoloye said they have communicated with DSOD, and he believes the committee also sent a letter at one point directly to DSOD, so they are aware of the discussions they have been having with the City and they have that information.
Councilmember Anduri clarified the letter was from the City of Lafayette which he signed. This was a further collaboration because they had planned to send the letter that would provide more information and express more concern to DSOD, but they decided they would support at the point Mr. Yoloye was asking for an extension of time. So, they basically just supported that extension. So, to his knowledge, there has been no meaningful communication of information on the feelings of the residents of Lafayette to the DSOD.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 16 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Mayor Dawson said Mr. Yoloye made a comment that they have responsibility to the ratepayers, but he would think the highest responsibility should be to the safety of those people as well because that is built in with those rates. She emphasized this is an issue of safety for the City.
Mr. Yoloye said they could not agree more, and it is a matter of safety for them.
FARIBORZ SHAHRAN, Project Engineer/Consultant, AECOM, said he has worked on this project since 2018 and he would like to focus on the technical portion. AECOM is a 50,000-person company. They design these in different parts of the country, and this is not the first project done with EBMUD. They are familiar with the standards that are current, familiar with DSOD criteria, Army Corps of Engineer criteria. Their designer was not able to attend tonight, so he will go over some of the items they prepared and have shared with EBMUD.
The first thing Mr. Yoloye mentioned was that they received lettersfrom the Committee and have internally discussed them. They have presented them to the City and also to EBMUD. One thing that was presented by the committee was an alternative analysis. They looked at the alternative analysis and proposed refinement to that analysis and this is where the $8 million extra cost comes into play.
There are three parameters that affected how much seismic load impacts the tower. The first one the committee has noted was the response spectrum which is basically consideration that the tower experiences. This accounts for the site response, the surrounding fault, the local geology, and structure at the tower. The other important parameter is the mass of this structure being affected by an earthquake.
Shortening a tower reduces its mass by about 30%. The height of the structure is reduced by around 40 feet which also influences how much the mass is bending the tower.
There are three parameters they need to focus here—the net seismic load that goes into the tower is the result of all three parameters and not just the response spectrum mentioned by the committee. In the May 15th letter, the committee pointed out only the first parameter and failed to mention the other two that affect all three parameters. The committee said to focus on the demand only and not the capacity.
In looking at the analysis results, he displayed, and the Council can see that in the middle is a tall versus a short tower. On the left the Council can see the bending diagram and on the right the Council can see the sheer diagram. He first starts with the lower right circle which is the point the committee is trying to emphasize; that the base sheer is increased for the shortened tower which is basically the blue dot versus the triangle. Both of those are below the threshold acceptable by DSOD. The other thing the Council can see in these graphs is not the demand. It is the demand over capacity.
ELIZABETH BIALKE, EBMUD Engineering Manager, ceded 3 minutes to Mr. Shahran.
Mr. Shahran turned to the bending graph and said along the height of the tower, the existing tower which is plotted in black exceeds the threshold for most of the height. Shortening the tower to 460 reduces that and puts the curve on the left side which is what they want. The sheer, on the other hand, both perform overall good. The tall tower exceeds between 410 to 430 but the shortened tower stays on the left side for the full height. So, these are the two main criteria they used in their structural design. They had many alternative analyses. All alternative analyses should pass these criteria for both movement and sheer. So, just focusing on the point at the bottom is not really conclusive to the design.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 17 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Their analysis overall, which takes into account all parameters which is weight, height, and response spectrum as reviewed by the DSOD shows that reducing the height of the tower is a safe design both for the tower and also the conduit under the dam. He also mentioned that the dam conduit needs retrofit which they understand, but the amount of retrofit needed for the shortened tower is totally different than what is needed for the tall tower. The extent of demand exerted on the conduit from the tall tower is not really known to them at this point because they just did an analysis that was one month to show the committee that the tall tower has exceeded the demand in the conduit.
So, the $8 million that was proposed, part of it is the unknown that they do not know about the effect of the tall tower on the conduit. As mentioned, the main thing is where the conduit retrofit comes into play in this tall tower alternative proposed.
Councilmember McCormick said AECOM is comparing the existing tower unreinforced with the shortened tower, so there are two conversations going on. There is a conversation about whether a shortened tower is worse than no change at all which he thinks Councilmember Anduri asked. But the general suggestion is not to leave the tower as is. It is to do a retrofit of the upper one-half of the existing tower utilizing only a modest addition of mild steel reinforcement which would address seismic risk, life safety, code compliance, cost effectiveness, and environmental sensitivity. He asked if there is a similar chart the Council can see that actually shows the existing tower with this modest reinforcement.
Mr. Shahran referred to the right and left graph. The improvement mentioned for the top half of the tower building really helps with the bending which is the left graph. If they do not change the sheer demand or exceedance at the bottom of the tower which they mentioned that to the committee, back then they told them that maybe the bottom of the tower has more strength at 6,000 psi as opposed to 4,000 that they assumed. They said, let’s just take a core at the bottom and see if that is 6,000. Today, he heard that they say maybe the bottom has 2,000 which is opposite to what they mentioned to him last time when they spoke with them. So, just to answer again, the top of the tower retrofit will only help with the left graph.
It will not help with the right graph which is the sheer problem at the bottom of the tower.
Councilmember Candell thanked Mr. Shahran for explaining this. It seems to get back to the committee’s concern which is with the sheer at the base. She asked if EBMUD has taken any concrete samples and asked what were the assumptions of the state of the concrete at the base and asked where are they getting this data.
Mr. Shahran said they did core samples above the water back in 2018/2019 timeframe. They did 9 samples. 8 samples were successful. Based on those experiments, they estimated the strength to be 4,000 psi as opposed to 2,000 psi as noted on the design drawings.
Councilmember Candell asked where are the underwater samples. Mr. Shahran said they have not done anything underwater.
Councilmember Candell said she is an engineer, and it seems AECOM is criticizing the committee for something AECOM has failed to do and that is distressing, especially since when showing these graphs both of the sheer bases at the bottom are sitting right at 100%. So, Mr. Shahran is saying he has not sampled even though AECOM’s design is going to put them almost at the unsafe place on their own admittance and there is no way to back it up that it is even real.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 18 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Mr. Shahran said the core sample they did were about at the water level. Councilmember Candell said unless it is self-healing concrete it will be worse under the water.
Mr. Shahran said but the assumption is that usually concrete under water is curing all the time.
Councilmember Candell said it is not self-healing. It gets voids and it gets cracks, and this is what happens under water.
Mr. Shahran said this is something they can consider but it will not change the result the way he sees it.
This is something they have discussed internally with EBMUD, and they can look at it. This was one answer that was provided in one of the letters to the City. Councilmember Candell said it seems additional light has come upon it tonight so they would definitely appreciate that.
Mayor Dawson confirmed there were no other speakers and she returned discussion to the Council.
Councilmember McCormick asked if the committee could comment on the speakers’ statements.
Mr. Chong said he suggested to the committee that they not attempt to debate the technical aspects of this in public because it is very complex. They have their own thoughts about all stresses and where they occur, and they happen to be counter to what AECOM has just told the Council. If the Council has a specific question of them, rather than debating the presentation heard, they would be happy to answer any specific questions they have, and he is sure some committee members want to comment, but he is holding them in tight control.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he and Councilmember Anduri are the liaisons to EBMUD, and he should mention that the City of Lafayette have had a great relationship with EBMUD for many years. This is amongst the agencies they work with, and these are the “good guys.” This has been something they went into this process thinking they should respect that long and productive relationship they have with each other. So, this is why their instructions to the committee was to take a very open mind to this project. Definitely, they can have differing viewpoints, but he asked to make sure they have as productive a conversation to try to be collaborative in finding a solution.
Unfortunately, he is surprised and disappointed that they have heard the type of dialogue they have heard tonight because it has been a year and Councilmember Anduri, himself, and staff have monitored the situation for many months and they have very qualified individuals representing the City, qualified individuals representing EBMUD, and they have a world-class engineering firm, so these are all professionals. However, he does not feel that the result he had hoped for with professionals working together would find a win/win situation. Clearly, it has come to the point where this is not where they are at.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 19 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
He does not think the Council is a body that can adjudicate the engineering aspect of this. The City of Lafayette is also not staffed up to do this, so to him, it is a question of who are they going to bring in to adjudicate this matter that can address the safety issue, which is of course to ensure the right decision is made. They have professionals on both sides of the conversation who have come to loggerheads, and he would say they have either the State agency who is charged with looking into this to hear it and he does not think they have heard all sides of the story, and they have respected EBMUD’s desire not to approach the regulator, but this opportunity now has gone by.
He thinks they are not in that place any longer so this is something for a future meeting they can agendize and specifically consider options with DSOD or options with the courts. If there are other options, they can consider those, but clearly they have tried a collaborative approach that has not worked. He is disappointed, but those are the options moving forward and he suggested escalating it to a body that can decide this.
Councilmember Anduri said therefore, they are suggesting tonight to begin listing their options and discussing them. After the meeting, the Council liaisons to EBMUD will continue to develop the options and then put this on the agenda for the next Council meeting. The Council will discuss on June 10th how they would proceed. This will give time to flush out these options as well as time to get public input, although recognizing that there is only a small section of the public that will understand this issue.
Then, he also suggested tonight to direct the City Manager to send a letter to EBMUD requesting that the work cease on the designs with a shortened tower, and indicate they are still working on this.
Councilmember Candell said she will have to recuse herself with this discussion moving forward and she will disclose that at another time. She then left the dais.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian said depending upon the recusal, Councilmember Candell may need to disclose what the recusal is based on, i.e., proximity to the tower or something else and she suggested taking a recess.
BREAK
Mayor Dawson called for a recess at 9:00 p.m. and, thereafter, reconvened the regular meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Recused:
Councilmember Candell recused herself from an abundance of caution because she is in a personal lawsuit with EBMUD at her home, and she left the Council Chambers.
Councilmember McCormick asked what is the timeframe for this project and asked when things will move forward from EBMUD. The final decision was in April and Councilmember Anduri said the construction time was originally scheduled for this summer and he thanked EBMUD for moving it off by one year. He understands the target for EBMUD is next summer’s construction season.
Mayor Dawson said she thinks the Council can discuss options to lay out for the next meeting.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 20 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Councilmember Anduri said he created options to try to get as many aspects into it and thinks they may need some refinement:
Option 1: The Council agree to the EBMUD retrofit Plan B which is the shortened tower with the replacement house on top. The pros of doing that would be A) There is no demand on City resources of time or dollars; B) It would maintain their relationship with EBMUD although he assumes they will always continue to have a good relationship with EBMUD no matter how they proceed; and C) While there is more risk with doing that than the committee’s proposed alternative, it is not a great risk.
The cons to this approach are: A) There is a greater risk to public safety than the committee’s proposed alternative; B) that the City would lose its iconic structure.
Option 2: To take steps to maintain the existing tower without a retrofit. The pro to that is that they would maintain the iconic structure as is. The con is that it would require a large effort with little chance of success.
Option 3: Taking steps to improve the safety of the tower while maintaining its existing height which would involve steps to change decisions by EBMUD and by the DSOD up to and including litigation, although any decision on that would be made much later.
The pro for that is that if this effort is successful, they would have the best of both worlds; lower risk and the iconic tower. The con is that it could be very expensive in terms of time and money to pursue that option.
Councilmember McCormick asked to understand the difference between Options 2 and 3. Councilmember Anduri said Option 2 would be to go in saying they do not see any need to change the tower and leave it as status quo. What EBMUD is proposing to do would make it riskier, and the risk of the existing tower is not, in the City’s view, significant. Of course, they would have to discuss that. They can ask the committee on this, and they learned today that the Army Corps of Engineers has a slightly different standard for evaluating. His understanding is that in order for there to be a downstream risk to Lafayette, two things would have to happen: 1) a maximum credible earthquake, which has not occurred in a long time, and at the same time a maximum credible earthquake occurred, a maximum precipitation event would have to occur at the same time. Again, they have not had one of those either. So, the odds of both happening within a period of time to make them relevant is very, very low. There was an extended exchange of emails on this, and he remains of the view there is limited risk to the limited downstream risk.
Councilmember McCormick said in following up on his question asked, it was the February 20th letter that the City received from EBMUD where they articulate that they believe the cost is approximately $7.6 million more to retrofit the full height tower versus shortening it. They mention this in the letter they received today. In looking at their safety and there is this cost-benefit of the safety. So, he worries that if they get into this discussion of it is just as safe and the tall tower is $8 million more to retrofit versus just shortening it, this is a different argument and different discussion. He asked if this needs to include that. They are all EBMUD ratepayers and all having to get a response for the bottom line, so he just does not know they can exclude that from their considerations.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 21 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Mayor Dawson said she thinks this is something that would come out when pursuing the options and to understand what those numbers are, as they have heard from the group that numbers can work as you want them. So, they could see what those costs are attributed to, this would be better, and this might come out in discovery.
Councilmember McCormick said he was just thinking that if they are doing this safety and they want another party to adjudicate their two experts and they get a graph that is slightly more positive or negative to what they want, yet one solution is $8 million more than the other, he is just concerned that they are at an impasse, and he is definitely in favor of taking another step. He just wants to move forward with eyes wide open that if keeping the tower is $8 million more, this will continue to be brought up in each response.
Mayor Dawson said again, this is something they can take into consideration after further discussion.
Vice Mayor Kwok thanked Councilmember Anduri for outlining three options for the plan. He thinks the third Option to define a safe solution is the one that resonates with himself for the fact that engineering teams on both sides have come to different views on this, that the Council is not a body to adjudicate this.
He thinks the DOSD would be the one to decide whether the cost is worth it or not. This was just a preliminary cost, and he thinks they need to be careful as to what actually would be done and get a real cost.
So, he would look to an impartial adjudicator to look at all the engineering issues, to understand costs, and weigh the safety for the public, and make the decision for them. This would be a reasonable path forward— to instruct the City Manager to write a letter to EBMUD and its Board of Directors, copying the DSOD, requesting that progress on this project cease immediately given the City’s safety concerns, and as a followup to the next meeting, they can discuss more specifically about items. They understand the decision has already been made, then they need a response to say they object to this, and he would like to have that known, and they can decide at a future meeting how to proceed. He would suggest approaching a qualified arbiter to help address this for them.
Mayor Dawson agreed and wondered if they should in parallel find that contact at the DSOD and also copy the letter they would have liked to send to the DSOD, so they are not working through EBMUD as the mediator at this point. She asked if the Council would consider that in parallel with this letter to EBMUD.
Vice Mayor Kwok agreed and said he was saying to copy the regulator and ensure the regulator has the findings as well as the rebuttal so they can understand what the issues are.
Councilmember McCormick said if they end up going to DSOD or some other arbiter, he asked if they will need a response to this later that includes addressing some of the points made in this letter today from EBMUD. He thinks they need to address some of the issues.
Mayor Dawson said she would think the letter to the DSOD would be an indicator they are at this impasse and safety is the issue. As a City, they want to make sure they are not increasing the security just because something is being done within a budget and a timeframe.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 22 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Councilmember Anduri said to be clear, what the Council is asking the City Manager to do this week is to send the letter to EBMUD, copying DSOD, but also attaching on the copy that goes to DSOD the final report of their committee. At their next meeting, they can discuss whether they send a direct letter explaining the situation in more detail to DSOD. He did not think they were prepared to send that letter at this point.
Mayor Dawson said she would say it is one way to get their voice right now as opposed to a copy. There are three partners here; the regulator, the agency, and the City. They all need to be on equal footing. If they just do the letter and copy the DSOD and make the attachments, it is still through that filter of EBMUD.
She would suggest making a direct contact with DSOD to outline the dilemma and even say they will be copied on the letter, so they know.
Councilmember Anduri said he just does not think the Council is prepared to do that at this meeting. He thinks their discussion about what path they want to take is they want to get public input and then they will decide at the next meeting. It might be the first thing they do is to send a comprehensive explanation of their situation to DSOD.
Mayor Dawson said in her experience with utilities where there were safety issues, it went directly to the regulating body who then helped to arbitrate the issues and it worked very well. Councilmember Anduri said the proposal is all they do now is send something to EBMUD saying the Council heard you and the Council would like them to stop. If the Council decides they want to go to DSOD, they have wanted to do that throughout this entire process, so his understanding is the committee would be willing to make a presentation to DSOD.
Mr. Chong said yes, but he truly believes in the past in their attempts to be collaborative, their approach to addressing DSOD was to do so in a three-party effort with EBMUD. Today where they are, he thinks that has changed. He thinks he is in favor of what the Mayor is suggesting and that they should be able to share their perspective with DSOD in an unfiltered manner. He thinks unfortunately as he stated repeatedly, he does not see much opportunity for continued attempts at collaboration and filtering, etc. So, he would encourage the City to take the lead on that effort.
Councilmember Anduri said the only difference with what he has and what Mr. Chong has proposed is that they decide that at the next meeting after they have had public input—to decide to go directly to DSOD.
The other option is to not spend the time and money, and he thinks they need public input as to whether the public thinks that is the option to pursue.
Mayor Dawson said if it is a question of public safety, she did not think they need to entertain the public comment on that. Then you are entertaining the question of expense. But, she thinks as responsible leaders, they do need to vet this question of increased safety risk to the DSOD, and they can still obtain public comment at the next meeting, but it is imperative that if these are the findings of a body they have tasked to look into this, it would be the responsible thing to do to go directly to the DSOD.
Councilmember Anduri asked how would this be done and what would they tell them. Mayor Dawson said she thinks they would forward the reports of where they are at with EBMUD, that they understand there is approval of these plans by EBMUD, but their committee has found discrepancies, and they would like further discussions with DSOD to vet these concerns and attach the report.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 23 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Councilmember McCormick said his only concern is that the report as it stands now does not articulate.
They need a follow-on conclusion to pull it altogether because they have the committee report which says one thing, and he does not know that report itself going to the DSOD is sufficient. There is only a two-week gap of what they do today which is to send a request to cease and desist to EBMUD, copying DSOD. It is copying them but not directing the exact question which is what they need more time for.
Mayor Dawson said experts on the City’s behalf are raising the concern, so she thinks it is a valid enough reason to have a direct letter to that effect. It does not have to get into the technicalities per se because the report does, and the findings do. So, she would have the same opinion in two weeks.
Councilmember McCormick said he knows there is a new EBMUD Director. He asked if she is involved in this or is this something the City needs to get them involved with. It seems they be involved significantly and potentially because they could be very helpful or a hindrance. He asked if the City has reached out to her.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he thinks these are all things they could be doing between now and the next meeting.
Mayor Dawson suggested taking a straw vote on the options. She agrees with Option 3 and moving it to another meeting for further discussion. Councilmember McCormick agreed, as well.
Councilmember Anduri confirmed Option 3 is to take steps to improve the safety of the tower while maintaining its existing height which would involve steps to change decisions by EBMUD and DSOD up to and including litigation, which they do not have to decide now, given the Council can discuss this again in two weeks.
Mayor Dawson said she agrees they should get the letter off to EBMUD and she confirmed all Councilmembers agreed with this. She asked for a straw vote on the letter copied to DSOD, and she would say either in parallel or shortly thereafter it be sent so they are aware this is an issue, but she will go with the majority of the Council on the timing.
Councilmember Anduri said one option is to send the letter to EBMUD, copy DSOD on that, and in addition to the copy, also send them the report of the committee. He understands the Mayor is proposing to send a separate letter directly to DSOD explaining the situation. Mayor Dawson said she thinks it is important to reach out directly to DSOD and she does not think there is a reason to wait because it is important to establish a contact that the City can talk with directly, and then go from there. In her experience with a regulatory body, she is not sure how the DSOD works.
Councilmember Anduri said he would like time to develop a more comprehensive letter explaining the situation to DSOD because their informing them initially will be very important as to how to frame it, which he does not think they are ready to do.
Vice Mayor Kwok said the Council could direct staff to draft a letter which does not mean it needs to be sent within two weeks, but it could be drafted immediately as opposed to waiting to the next meeting to decide on it. Councilmember Anduri said he supports someone starting to write the letter.
Councilmember McCormick asked if the Council would approve the letter to the DSOD as the process.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 24 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Councilmember Anduri asked if they are eliminating tonight Options 1 and 2.
Mayor Dawson said she thinks they need to establish the facts and pursuing the safety issue. The point is that there is some unknown information still to Councilmember Candell’s point about the base and the data. So, there is some outstanding data, so maybe they need to go down a bit of the path of Option 3 to get that due diligence. Councilmember Anduri said they will not get that from DSOD.
Mayor Dawson said no, but they hopefully will get that from EBMUD in terms of follow-up on that question particularly and also the numbers as far as what that cost is. She thinks they are looking at the committee’s findings and vetting out their concerns.
Vice Mayor Kwok said to recap next steps, he would propose to: 1) Ask the City Manager to draft a letter to EBMUD to ask them to stop the project from moving forward until the City has resolution on the safety issues; 2) That the Council representatives set up a meeting with the EBMUD Boardmember Luz Gomez as soon as possible; and 3) That City staff and the City Manager commence drafting a letter to the DSOD to summarize the City’s position and request a meeting. He thinks the City Manager is quite expert on the topic at hand, as she wrote the staff report and has been part of every meeting, so they do not necessarily have to return to the Council to review the letter if the goal is to provide background information and request a meeting.
Councilmember Anduri asked what would the Council do at the next meeting. Councilmember McCormick said he worries without an action plan, other than saying they are asking EBMUD to pause the project, it is fine, but if they have not decided on a course of action, he worries about what the content of the letter is going to be without agreement from the public and Council.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he would say the letter is to request a meeting to adjudicate this issue and to hear the facts on both sides and help set up a process to solve a go-forward plan. They could either decide that right now that this is the goal of the letter and the ask or they could continue this item to the next meeting and have time to think about what the ask would be and adjust the ask for next time.
Mayor Dawson said she thinks the first ask in the letter would be to request the meeting. She thinks the DSOD can help that process so there could be a shared understanding of facts. It may not need to be continued to the next meeting because there may be response to the letter.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he does not think they would agendize this at the next meeting or a future meeting until such time that it would be relevant to agendize.
Councilmember McCormick asked and confirmed with Vice Mayor Kwok that there was nothing for the committee to do at this time, but he said he was a little worried about what they are asking for and what the strategy is. Mayor Dawson said once they get further along with responses and a meeting, the Council could then discuss options.
Councilmember Anduri said he cannot remember how long it was, but the City did not get an immediate answer from DSOD to their letter. It was a matter of months before they received a response, so he would be concerned that if this is their plan to send a letter to DSOD, they may not hear for quite a while.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 25 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Mayor Dawson suggested indicating the need for a timely response to keep it moving forward out of respect for EBMUD’s schedule and for what the City would hope to accomplish in understanding safety issues, whether they are mitigated, and ensuring a collaborative approach, with the budget in mind but a decision based on facts. She would hope the DSOD would bring the parties to the table to bring out the information in a transparent way, and then follow-up on the analysis of the facts requested of EBMUD.
Councilmember Anduri asked if the Council is asking DSOD to help the City get the facts. Mayor Dawson said this should be one of their roles. The City is concerned that their risk may be elevated, and they want to vet that concern to make sure they understand it. Once the City receives a response from DSOD, they will know more on how to proceed, along with EBMUD.
Councilmember Anduri agreed with Vice Mayor Kwok’s suggestions to: 1) Ask the City Manager to draft a letter to EBMUD to ask them to stop the project from moving forward until the City has resolution on the safety issues; 2) That the Council representatives set up a meeting with the EBMUD Boardmember Luz Gomez as soon as possible; and 3) That City staff and the City Manager commence drafting a letter directly to the DSOD to summarize the City’s position and request a meeting.
ACTION: Council consensus was to: 1) Ask the City Manager to draft a letter to EBMUD to ask them to stop the project from moving forward until the City has resolution on the safety issues; 2) That the Council representatives set up a meeting with the EBMUD Boardmember Luz Gomez as soon as possible; and 3) That City staff and the City Manager commence drafting a letter directly to the DSOD to summarize the City’s position and request a meeting.
Councilmembers thanked EBMUD representatives for being here and emphasized they all want to work collaboratively, but they voiced disappointment thus far, as they do not feel there is the level of collaboration they had hoped for.
Noted as Present:
Councilmember Candell returned to the dais to participate in the remainder of the meeting.
E. Lt. Ben Alldritt
Annual Police Department Report
Recommendation: Receive and file.
Lt. Ben Alldritt gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Police Department’s Annual Report which provided an overview of calls for service, police reports, arrests, citations, City annual events, current staffing, Part 1 crimes statistics, property crimes, auto burglaries and grand theft of vehicles, Slow Down Lafayette program, multi-year comparison of accident data, radar equipment acquired on speeding and good results, educational programs and materials, Emergency Preparedness Commission, Measure X funding for Zone Haven countywide, partnership and evacuation clearing with Con Fire, added Firewise communities and proactive collaboration, Alert CA cameras that detect fires, and briefly described recent strong arm vehicle robberies, armed robberies at a liquor store and the 7-Eleven, and said police will remain vigilant.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 26 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Councilmember McCormick referred to commercial burglary statistics and in 2022 there were 32 and last year, 15. He asked and confirmed 5 were solved, which Lt. Alldritt is typical given camera footage results.
Lt. Alldritt added that some crimes are classified as shoplifting versus commercial burglary. When businesses are open they are captured in the larceny section. From 2022, there was a doubling of shoplifting in one year from 26 up to about 51. Business owners are still facing this and police capture a large number of shoplifters because businesses are diligent about calling them. One grocery store gets hit more often due to its locale to BART, but they have gotten good between their employees calling, an officer goes directly to BART and/or the store, and arrest numbers are good in this area. They often get cited and released based on laws, and said they are only successful in arresting people for shoplifting if business owners sign a citizen’s arrest.
Mayor Dawson referred to citations and asked why that number will go up. Lt. Alldritt said they are working on this, stating they have more beat officers writing citations. If their accidents had gone down, traffic citations would be fine where they are at. But they want to see accidents come down, so enforcement is a big component which starts to diminish traffic accidents.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Mayor Dawson and Councilmembers thanked Lt. Alldritt for the presentation and great work of police.
11. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Dawson asked and confirmed there were no requests for removal of items or any public comments.
A. M0inutes
1. May 6, 2024
Recommendation: Approve.
2. May 13, 2024
Recommendation: Approve.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Kwok/Candell) to adopt Consent Calendar Items A.1 and A.2. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and McCormick; Noes: None).
12. OLD BUSINESS – None.
RE-ARRANGE AGENDA
City Manager Srivatsa asked if the Council could move up Item 13.B on the agenda, ahead of Item 13.A, and Councilmembers agreed.
13. STAFF REPORTS
B. Patrick Golier, Transportation Program Manager
2023 Traffic Calming Program: Traffic Calming Projects along Acalanes Road and Hidden Valley Road
Recommendation: Authorize staff to implement the proposed traffic calming projects on Acalanes Road and Hidden Valley Road using the Traffic Calming Sinking Fund.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 27 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Transportation Program Manager Patrick Golier presented the staff report and provided an overview of the final two traffic calming projects recommended as part of the 2023 Traffic Calming projects. He described existing conditions and the projects on both streets, noting that both streets are designated as evacuation routes. Staff recommendation is to authorize staff to implement the proposed traffic calming projects on Acalanes Road and Hidden Valley Road using the Traffic Calming Sinking Fund.
Councilmember Anduri asked if Mr. Golier is saying the proposal for Hidden Valley Road is not the double stripe but the dotted line plus the reflectors as the top recommendation. Mr. Golier confirmed, stating they would change the striping detail for the centerline to a dashed yellow line with reflectors.
Councilmember McCormick said he appreciates the staff report and attaching the police report about the different traffic calming mechanisms and how they impacted speeds on Acalanes Road. There were different mitigations and results, such as the radar sign which showed the decrease, police patrol and speeds decreasing, and in the proposals there is striping. He asked if there is data on Hidden Valley Road if striping is put in, and he asked what reductions they should expect.
Mr. Golier said he has a study from ITE that had done studies of those types of treatments on different types of roadways, and they indicate speeds are reduced from 2 to 7 mph largely by narrowing the lane width and also providing visual cues.
Councilmember McCormick said his personal experience is that sometimes there is striping, and you go faster because it is more of an expressway versus a country road that is not striped, but he guessed it could go both ways.
Councilmember Candell said they did see effects from lane narrowing in Burton Valley, which was something residents said they saw, especially on a couple of the roads. It was pretty effective. She asked if there is an example of the yellow striping. Mr. Golier said Caltrans provides the City with a limited number of options for centerline striping. Staff is using their most recent 2023 manual and there are a few options. It would be a single dashed yellow line and then reflectors between those dashed yellow lines.
Vice Mayor Kwok said continuing on the centerline on Hidden Valley Road, he asked what other options staff had. He asked if there is an option for a double yellow solid line. Mr. Golier said this is what staff had originally proposed but the feedback they got is that it would reduce property values and change the character of the street, with little interest.
Vice Mayor Kwok asked and confirmed the side lines are still white on the borders. He asked what is the width of each lane on Hidden Valley Road. Mr. Golier added that the white edge lines would increase in width size. They are going with the maximum width Caltrans will allow. In terms of roadway lane width, what they want to do is bring it down to 10 ½ feet. Today it is inconsistent with some sections with 11- foot widths, and they want to narrow that to 10 ½ feet, as well as on Acalanes Road.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 28 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Vice Mayor Kwok recognized the technique of narrowing lanes which has shown to reduce speeds, although if there were solid yellow double lines in the middle versus the hashed lines, it would be a stronger emphasis of the 10 ½ feet, and emphasize the reduction as compared to the dashed striping but neighbors did not embrace that even though they want lower speeds. Mr. Golier confirmed.
Vice Mayor Kwok said when he first moved to Lafayette, he lived on 3 Hidden Valley Road right on the corner, so he was familiar with the addresses of neighbors who wrote on this particular street. His children were in kindergarten and back in 2002, he did not recall the intensity there is today of speeding, Google Maps and such driving traffic off of Hwy 24. So, he can see why some of the letters complaining about out-of-towners driving rapidly down that street, which is a problem worth addressing.
Councilmember McCormick referred to speed cushions and asked about putting a stop sign to slow people down. If the goal is to mitigate this out-of-town through traffic that race around Hwy 24 to avoid backup, he asked and confirmed with Mr. Golier that stop signs are not traffic calming treatments but meant to indicate right-of-way and Caltrans gives guidelines on how to evaluate an intersection for stop sign treatments. They are clear as well that they should not be used as a traffic calming measure.
Mayor Dawson voiced appreciation of the fact that staff is trying to accommodate residents who want traffic calming but are still asking for variations. She asked if there are other speed cushions in Lafayette, and Mr. Golier said no and said it will cost more time and money to create a design for these. He said Con Fire were very clear about the types of treatments. Last year, when the Local Road Safety Plan was adopted as well as the traffic calming program, staff met with Con Fire, and they were very clear about the roadways they did not want vertical elements on. He can raise the question about speed cushions with them, which staff did not explicitly ask about because they do not have any in town as of today.
Councilmember Anduri asked for the timing and whether the Council needed to make a decision tonight in order to meet the summer schedule.
Mr. Golier said if not tonight, he would need approval by the next meeting.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period.
CHRIS LAVIN, introduced his wife Holly. He said he is relieved to hear the Council is reconsidering a double yellow center line which he did not think was the right way to proceed. He referred to the current striping proposal which is a double center yellow line and the alternative measures he thinks should be considered. A double center line would be the worst possible outcome here. It actually demarcates where the road is, and it encourages drivers to have confidence and to speed along the road. For this, he consulted “Walkable City Rules” written by a Harvard trained architect, Jeff Speck who has consulted nation-wide on measures. He confirms that double yellow center lines convey the street is a thoroughfare. It clearly demarcates where the road and lane of travel is and conveys to drivers that is their lane which gives them confidence to drive as fast as they feel comfortable. He states it makes a 7- mph difference.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 29 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
He noted that Mr. Speck cites numerous studies shown that streets without centerlines are safer and there is no opposing data. So, he asked not to consider a center double yellow line. He and his wife walk with their dog on Hidden Valley Road and if they were walking where there are many bicyclists there, a double yellow center line would indicate they would have to stay in that lane of travel and cannot use the rest of the road. If they would want to go over, they would probably stay in their lane which would be behind slower bikers and pedestrians and encourage road rage, so he asked that it be denied.
Secondly, regarding alternatives to the striping proposal, he thinks a dashed yellow line with a reflector sounds like an interesting idea and would like to see an example of that in the agenda packet. There was no similar map in the packet for Hidden Valley Road and thinks all interested residents would like to see what that looks like. He also asked to consider a pedestrian crosswalk at Diablo Circle at the north end which would set the tone for the neighborhood that this is a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood.
Councilmember McCormick referred to the book, and asked if it talked about dashed lines or any kind of centerline treatment. Mr. Lavin said the author was generally against centerlines of any kind because it would introduce ambiguity into the road and drivers have to pay more attention.
Councilmember Anduri asked if Mr. Lavin knows the copyright date of the book is, and Mr. Lavin said it is 2018.
Councilmember Candell asked and confirmed Mr. Lavin suggested a pedestrian crosswalk at Diablo Circle at the north end so vehicles coming off the highway would see it with signs, a pedestrian crosswalk to indicate it was a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood.
GREG MARSHALL said he completely appreciates the time and effort the Council and staff puts in. He and his wife have lived at 24 Hidden Valley Road for 31 years and at the Transportation Circulation Commission meeting last week, 11 residents gave input to the proposed striping of Hidden Valley Road. There was a very strong consensus that a double yellow line would do little or nothing to affect traffic speeds and that it would significantly change the character of the neighborhood and likely have a negative effect on property values. He understands the striping package for Hidden Valley Road is connected to the Acalanes Road and the plan for it to be done this summer in the currently allocated budget. He is glad to hear this and hopefully the alteration from these solid double yellow line to the dashed yellow line would be approved which will not change cost, but he asked that it be entered into documents, so the contractor actually does the right thing.
Additional suggestions discussed at the meeting included putting a sign before the turn on Hidden Valley Road where it goes from 35 to 25 mph, stating “25 mph ahead” which he thinks is a great idea. It would give warning to drivers and work in combination with the other measures. It easily could be done with the already planned work. They also talked about a sign as traffic exits the freeway and before it turns on Hidden Valley Road that says, “Thru Traffic For Neighborhood Only.” He did not hear this discussed as part of the conclusions, but he thinks it would be effective.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 30 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Lastly, the most effective traffic calming measure is the use of speed cushions and many residents spoke up about the use of these. The initial concern about pavement integral speed bumps is that they can impede emergency vehicles and the beauty of speed cushions is that they have insets for emergency vehicles, are wide wheel based to pass through unimpeded and at speed. If there is not a budget for it this year, he asked that they be budgeted for next year. Hidden Valley Road has become a through-way for freeway drivers when traffic is slow on Hwy 24 and it is unlikely the phenomenon of Google Maps and Ways directing speeding traffic onto their small street will change with just striping and signage changes unless significant impediments to the external traffic flow are implemented, and speed cushions will make that happen.
DAN GROVER, said his wife wrote to the Council this morning and they appreciate the Transportation Circulation Commission looking into this. The residents, including those who wrote the initial request to have it looked into would like to see a more comprehensive view. Increasingly, this street is a pass-through from Hwy 24 and a bigger problem. He completely agrees that the double striping would change the character of the neighborhood, would make it look like a boulevard and not a street, and these are people circumventing traffic. These people are watching apps and shaving seconds and giving them carrots and sticks on their app to make a good time. People doing 35 mph in a 25-mph zone are now doing 33 mph which is not safe for their kids. This is also a bike trail and a connector from central Lafayette to the Orinda trail and it is full of bikes on the weekends. Having that double solid line in the middle would increase road rage, would make it less clear who has space, and it is a disaster waiting to happen. It needs to be looked at broadly from the top which is a very dangerous left turn going towards Orinda on the freeway at times of traffic all the way down to Acalanes and not just having a coat of paint applied to it.
FAITH KIRKPATRICK said she is new to the Hidden Valley Road neighborhood. She met some neighbors tonight the other day and she also said it is quite a pedestrian area which was surprising to her as she was new to the neighborhood. She thinks it is very easy to come off with the speed of the highway onto their street and she thanked staff for taking the petition from the neighbors and looking through the different options. She agrees about the double striped line in that it will make people continue the speed they are traveling and the feeling they are safe and protected, and that people might be less likely to move to the center of the road to avoid pedestrians or bikes.
She thanked staff for proposing the dashed line instead. She supported review of the speed cushions, especially if there is more budget next year or other signs like the “25 miles ahead”, “thru traffic”, “slow down” signs and maybe some painting on the road about bike lanes or share the road or anything that can be done in addition to what is proposed to communicate to drivers about children, dogs, bikes and all the thinks they are trying to do on the road to stay safe.
Mayor Dawson said there is also a more detailed map of Hidden Valley based on what is proposed similar to Acalanes in the packet. She asked if anything else might need a diagram that might be helpful. Mr.
Golier said the reason staff does not have a design that was created and prepared as part of the packet is because the striping detail is standard, and they are able to tell the contractor what they want. Again, they save money and staff time by indicating these are the treatments they are looking for on this street.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 31 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
They are still proposing wider white edge lines, changing the center line striping so there is something more defined than what is out there today with some additional hatching on the side street intersections to tighten those visually very wide intersections with side streets, as well as additional signage to alert drivers that they are entering a different neighborhood when they turn that corner and start to drive south towards Acalanes Road.
Mayor Dawson said the other question was whether there could be a sign for “thru traffic for neighborhood only.” Mr. Golier said this is not their jurisdiction. It is either Caltrans or the City of Orinda where the freeway exit is, but it is not Lafayette jurisdiction.
Mayor Dawson said another question related to budget. She said this is a budget set aside for traffic calming and it will be depleted after this year. The City does not have a mechanism to re-fund that right now. She thinks those covered all questions.
Mr. Golier reminded everyone that he reached out to Officer Comley to take a look at the street as well for consideration as part of the Slow Down Lafayette campaign.
Councilmember Candell asked what does Hidden Valley Road look like before it turns before it is parallel to Hwy 24 it is 35 mph and then it turns. She asked what is the road treatment there.
Mr. Golier said it is a dashed yellow line until you get within a couple of hundred feet of that turn and then it is a double yellow center line.
Councilmember Candell said therefore, there is an obvious transition, and Mr. Golier confirmed.
Councilmember Candell asked why a yellow dash and not a white dash down the center line. Mr. Golier said the yellow dash is the center line treatment. There are no white center line treatments.
Councilmember McCormick said he thinks the Council likes the Acalanes Road defined bike lane separation. He knows it will take staff time, appreciates the double yellow to the single dashed line but he personally would like to see a design or a sketch on what will happen on that road. It is a long road and there is a lot going on between the frontage part and then when it goes into the neighborhood, he would like to see where the dash will be and side stripes, where the hatching is before approving it on the Hidden Valley side, but the Acalanes treatment seems good.
Vice Mayor Kwok referred to Hidden Valley Road and asked what is the expected reduction in speed expected from the narrowing. Mr. Golier said he had referenced a research paper from the ITE that was not part of his staff report that indicated speeds could be reduced from 2 to 7 mph.
Councilmember McCormick said there is the concern they are not solving the problem and he again suggested taking a holistic look at how to slow the street down.
Councilmember Candell said she agrees with that, but it does not mean this has to be the end. It does not have to end here, and she asked if this is true; that they can do this now and can add more things later when they have the budget and resources to do it.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 32 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Mr. Golier confirmed. He also reminded the Council that it is an evacuation route and so there are some restrictions as part of that.
Councilmember Candell asked and confirmed the current recommendations with the modifications indicated tonight are the best effort to do this, the right direction, and that the City can make continuous improvements as this moves forward.
Councilmember Anduri asked and confirmed Councilmember Candell did not need the drawing, as did he, and he asked what this would gain.
Councilmember McCormick said he appreciates the ‘do not harm’ but the feedback from neighbors that were impacted from striping and the double strip is what they did perceive as harmful. He just did not want that changed.
Councilmember Anduri said what was sent to the neighborhood on May 9th included 4 things to be done to Hidden Valley: 1) thicker white line lanes along the edge of the street; 2) a double yellow centerline, which is now proposed to be changed to a dot and dashed yellow lines with reflectors in between the dashes; 3) addition of reflectors to emphasize the striping details which the Council is in agreement with; and 4) the project would use paint to visually narrow the wide intersection at Diablo Circle north which is still in, and using paint to narrow the lanes.
There was also a request that staff investigate the use of speed cushions and staff will review this. There is no money for it, and it may return in the future. There is also signage to alert drivers they are entering a residential neighborhood. This is something staff is going to look at, but it may happen, and it may not.
If funding is available, to consider the speed radar signs, which can be something in the future, but the immediate item is staff will talk with Andy Comley about making this part of the Slow Down Lafayette campaign.
This is his understanding of where they are, and he would support that. Vice Mayor Kwok agreed, and Mayor Dawson agreed as well, and she suggested a motion.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to authorize staff to implement the proposed traffic calming projects on Acalanes Road and Hidden Valley Road using the Traffic Calming Sinking Fund. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and McCormick; Noes: None).
EXTEND MEETING
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to extend the meeting until 12 midnight. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and McCormick; Noes: None).
BREAK
Mayor Dawson called for a 5-minute break at 11:00 p.m. and, thereafter, reconvened the meeting at 11:05 p.m.
A. William Francis, Engineering Intern
The Downtown Commemorative Bench Program
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 33 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2024-13 Approving the Downtown Commemorative Bench Program.
Engineering Intern William Francis gave the staff report and overview of the Downtown Commemorative Bench Program. Staff recommends the Council adopt Resolution 2024-13, approving the Downtown Commemorative Bench Program.
Councilmember Anduri asked how many requests staff has received for commemorative benches. Mr.
Francis said he did not have an exact number, but he has been made aware by the City Manager that they do receive requests for commemorative recognition specifically in the downtown plaque installations. The most recent commemorative bench request is for Don Jenkins, and they are looking at a location at a bus stop west of Moraga Road on the south side of Mt. Diablo Boulevard.
Councilmember Candell asked how much maintenance and how long will the benches last. Mr. Francis said these are very high-quality benches, so staff expects them to be around for quite a while. Maintenance costs should be very low based on what they expect from existing benches in the downtown.
Councilmember McCormick said it looks as though there are two commemorative benches currently downtown, and Mr. Francis confirmed and said neither of those are actually the standard steel benches.
They are wooden benches with plaques added to them, so having this program in place would establish standards for a more uniform aesthetic.
Vice Mayor Kwok thanked Mr. Francis for showing a picture of a steel bench painted black and he asked if this will be the material used going forward or he asked if there might be wooden benches. Mr. Francis said the standards established by DSIMPIC are for these 6-foot wide, black steel benches, and this is the standard moving forward.
Vice Mayor Kwok said in anticipation of steel, he asked if the benches would need repainting every now and then. Regarding maintenance, he asked if staff plans to maintain the benches in perpetuity. Mr. Francis said yes, this is the idea and based upon existing facilities, it does not seem to be a big maintenance issue for the City.
Mayor Dawson said in terms of perpetuity, she noticed that if there are any issues with the plaque or bench, it would need to be replaced and asked how this will work. She asked if the donation will need to be renewed to replace the plaque. Mr. Francis said in the event a plaque was damaged to a point it needed replacement, staff would make an effort to contact the original donor to ask if they wanted to pay to replace the plaque, and that donation would be smaller to cover the cost of the plaque itself and the inscription. If the donor was not interested in replacing it or if staff was unable to make contact with the original donor, the idea is it would be added as a candidate location to the candidate location list provided to donors with a reduced fee for just the plaque cost. The City will also cover and pay for any vandalism.
Councilmember McCormick stated there are different types of paint that is graffiti-resistant. Mr. Francis said he was unsure of this type of paint specifically, but the bench manufacturer is very high quality.
Councilmember McCormick asked and confirmed the program would start as soon as the resolution is adopted, the program approved, and staff is able to load materials up on the website.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 34 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Mayor Dawson asked if any benches would be considered with a center arm or separators so it would not encourage people napping. Mr. Francis said they do make them with the center arm, but this is not part of the DSIMPIC standard.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Councilmember Anduri thanked Mr. Francis for the great staff report, and he thinks if people are putting up $4000 to buy a bench that will be of use to all citizens of Lafayette, if someone comes along 20 years from now and defaces the plaque, he has no problem with the City replacing the plaque. He does not see why they would go after someone else to take over the bench and was not sure if this should be explicitly spelled out to ensure the City takes responsibility for it.
Councilmember Candell agreed and the words are included in the program that if the plaque or bench falls into such disrepair, it can be taken out. If the bench is in good shape but the plaque gets vandalized, she would support the City replacing the plaque.
Councilmember Anduri said he likes that the program makes clear that if something comes up that requires the bench to be moved, the City can move the bench.
Vice Mayor Kwok echoed comments on the great staff report and pictures. He noted the City of San Francisco has a similar program he has some knowledge and experience with, and he noted their program is that all donations are tax-deductible. He was wondering if Lafayette would do that.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian said the City does not give tax advice and she is concerned that the City is charging for the actual bench, so it is providing for the cost, so it is not necessarily a donation in the sense.
So, she would not make an assertion that the Council could not support.
Vice Mayor Kwok asked if staff could study that topic because it could be a benefit to the donor. Also, they have $10,000 for 10 years or they have a program for $6,000 for 10 years, but it is limited, and it has a sunset date. He thought it was somewhat prudent to have a sunsetting because for a city to have in perpetuity a maintenance obligation no matter how small, it seems they might want to state “The City agrees to maintain this for 20 years, whether it is defaced or needs to be painted” so they are not limited to the perpetuity wording.
Councilmember McCormick suggested the wording be “a minimum of 20 years” or something like that.
Vice Mayor Kwok suggested “A minimum donation of $4,000 for a bench, the City will undertake to maintain the bench for a period for at least 20 years.” The City can continue after that, but at least their obligations are not in perpetuity.
Mayor Dawson asked for the cost of a replacement plaque, and Mr. Francis replied approximately $250.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to adopt Resolution 2024-13 approving the Downtown Commemorative Bench Program, as revised to specify that the City will endeavor to maintain the bench for 20 years. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and McCormick; Noes: None).
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 35 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
14. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Francine Kuykendall, Public Works Services Manager
1. Core Area Landscape and Lighting District 1979-1 Assessments for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Recommendation: Conduct public hearing and adopt Resolution 2024-17 Confirming the Engineer’s Report, Diagram and Assessments for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Core Area Landscape and Lighting District 1979-1.
2. Residential Lighting District 1979-2 Assessments for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Recommendation: Conduct public hearing and adopt Resolution 2024-18 Confirming the Engineer's Report, Diagram and Assessments for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Residential Lighting District 1979-2.
Public Works Services Manager Francine Kuykendall gave the staff report, background, and overview of 1) the Core Area Landscape and Lighting District 1979-1 assessments for Fiscal Year 2024-2025; and 2) Residential Lighting District 1979-2 assessments for fiscal year 2024-2025.
Mayor Dawson opened the public hearing, and there were no speakers. She closed the public hearing.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Kwok/Candell) to adopt Resolution 2024-17 Confirming the Engineer’s Report, Diagram and Assessments for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Core Area Landscape and Lighting District 1979-1; and 2) to adopt Resolution 2024-18 Confirming the Engineer's Report, Diagram and Assessments for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Residential Lighting District 1979-2. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and McCormick; Noes: None).
15. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT – None.
16. COUNCIL/COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Councilmembers report on activities and consideration of matters a Councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda.
Councilmember Candell stated Lafayette Community Day is on Saturday, June 1st and she asked people to sign up and get involved.
Councilmember McCormick reported on his attendance to the MCE Board meeting last week. It was reported that California in May generated more renewable energy than it consumed, so the entire State was in a net negative for several hours each day, given all rooftop solar and geothermal.
Councilmember Anduri reported that July 1st people can no longer have gas powered leaf blowers on their properties. The Taste of Lafayette was a big success, and he congratulated the Chamber of Commerce on a very enjoyable event. It was perfect weather, and it was great to see people walking in the downtown.
Mayor Dawson reported at the Recycle Smart meeting they recognized two student scholarships. One was for Marcus Han who is a Lafayette resident and Campolindo High School student who did so much to forward the food waste processing at the school and awareness of the issue in a fun way with social media.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Page 36 of 36 May 28, 2024 Review Commission Meeting
Mayor Dawson said Maria Gastelumendi Rising Loafer won the Reuses Award, which is from Upstream, a national non-profit focused on re-use. Maria won this award for activist of the year because of her working with food ware to go for take-out orders and for using reusable food ware on site.
Mayor Dawson referred to El Curtola Bridge and said she and the City Manager have held a few meetings with Caltrans and the CHP, as well as Senator Glazer. Caltrans posted signage to indicate signage is not allowed on the bridge. They are at an impasse with CHP because they are the enforcement arm for Caltrans. The City Manager is reaching out to CHP so they can get a meeting with them and hopefully get something on record as to their enforcement approach, and she will bring back an update to the Council.
She confirmed there are demonstrations still occurring, and she foresees this as something that will continue through the election year so she would like answers from the CHP to be proactive.
Councilmember Anduri asked if Mayor Dawson can share what CHP has indicated. Mayor Dawson said they have acknowledged it is a safety issue for them and now the City has this acknowledgement, they are asking what is the issue with enforcement. Unfortunately, similar to other demonstrations, they cannot sit there and wait for something to happen.
Councilmember Anduri said if the City knows the demonstrations are occurring, if they forward these to the CHP, she asked what their response would be. Mayor Dawson said this is what they are looking to obtain.
17. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None.
18. ADJOURNMENT – 11:35 p.m. in honor of fallen service members.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Gina M. Dawson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk