Sia de to FAtal
TOWN OF MORAGA
REGULAR MEETING
September 28, 2022
Lovember, 191% MINUTES
6:30 p.m. Regular Meeting
335 Rheem BoGuard, Maraga, California 94556
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Steve Woehleke.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present: Mayor Steve Woehleke, Vice Mayor Renata Sos, and Councilmembers Sona Makker, Mike McCluer and Teresa Onoda Councilmembers absent: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Onoda and members of the Moraga Youth Involvement Committee (MYIC) led the Pledge of Allegiance.
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no special announcements.
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Introducing the New Moraga Youth Involvement Committee (MYIC) Members for 2022/23
Jasmine Bateson, Recreation Supervisor, and staff assigned to serve on the MYIC, introduced the new members for the 2022/23 term which ran the duration of the school year, September through May. She provided a brief update of the process with 17 applications received for the MYIC that included seven returning members. All members were well-qualified students from Joaquin Moraga Intermediate School, and Campolindo and Miramonte High Schools. members had taken their oath of office at the Town Offices and will attend in-person meetings at the Casita on the second Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m.
MYIC provided youth with opportunities for civic involvement, implementation and assistance in activities and services coordinated for the community by the Town and had made appropriate recommendations to the Town Council on youth-related issues. MYIC activities and events changed yearly based on the interest of the MYIC, with specific interest this year on intergenerational activities.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Mardi Potts, Co-Founder of the MYIC, presented the Town Council with a copy of Ordinance 133, which had been used to create what had become the MYIC, and a letter she had sent to the Town Council Regular Meeting September 28, 2022
Lamorinda Weekly detailing some of things that had been done when the MYIC had been formed.
She publicly acknowledged the MYIC members at that time and was pleased the MYIC was continuing its 32-year tradition. She thanked the Town Council, Town staff and the work of the Recreation Supervisor for keeping the MYIC moving forward.
The Town Council expressed its appreciation to the new and current MYIC members, recognized the goal to work on intergenerational activities, and efforts of the Town of Moraga to be welcoming to all youth in the community and also recognized the work of the MYIC to better the community.
The Town Council hoped MYIC members would be further interested in exploring new opportunities as they served the community. The Town Council also expressed its appreciation to Recreation Supervisor Bateson and Ms. Potts for co-founding the MYIC.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
B. Update on the Status of the Contra Costa Library System by Sarah Morgan, Library Commissioner for Moraga
Sarah Morgan, Library Commissioner for the Town of Moraga and Campolindo High School Librarian, reported she had been in contact with the new Library Manager in the Town of Moraga and who was interested in greater outreach. She reported that story hour had begun again at the Moraga Library for ages 0-3 years but was open to all ages. There were more face-to-face programs planned to include a Jazz Music Festival and Writing Workshop, and the Summer Reading Program had been a success with participation from all ages and with more participants than in the past. Moraga Library also had a Seed Library, a popular program, with residents encouraged to donate their seeds to the library to pass out to the community.
Banned Books Week had been celebrated over the past week which was a celebration of books and resources, and Ms. Morgan described the library's Reconsideration Policy related to requests to ban specific books. In terms of the Countywide Library system, the County Library Commission met every other month via Zoom, with updates on all County activities including the Reconsideration Policy, diversity training for all Commissioners and Library Managers, and updates on the allocation of Measure X funds which had been earmarked for other County programs. Available funds in the Contra Costa County Library Foundation for projects such as libraries in East County were also identified and she reported that the Pleasant Hill Library had recently reopened after numerous improvements.
Ms. Morgan added that Sunday hours of operation remained a desire for the County Library system although there was a staffing issue. In addition, the Moraga Library facility would be refreshed with exterior paint and carpet,
furnishings, shelves and an additional self-check-out desk. The Moraga Librarian was working with Town staff on the timeline for all improvements.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Mayor Woehleke reported there were no comments from the public.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
The Town Council thanked Ms. Morgan for the comprehensive presentation of Library activities, recognized her work in the community, her advocacy and outreach for the Library and looked forward to future reports.
Ms. Morgan clarified she understood all seeds would be welcome to be part of the Seed Library including non-native seed species, but she would verify that information. In terms of the County goals, she understood a more racially diverse program was being sought allowing all voices to be Town Council Regular Meeting 2 September 28, 2022
heard and she identified a recent reading/story hour at the Walnut Creek Library by a drag queen.
Also, the Community Reads Book would be announced by the County Library on October 1, 2022, with copies of the book to be made available in different formats.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Mike McCluer, Moraga, speaking as a private citizen and a Moraga Rotary Member, provided an update on Moraga Community Service Day to be held on September 30, October 1 and 2, 2022, with 304 volunteers signed-up and more were welcome. Additional information was available at moragaserviceday.org website and he invited everyone to participate. He also reported that every volunteer would receive a water bottle with the Community Service Day logo, courtesy of Wendell Baker with the Moraga Kind Project. He described the numerous activities planned for the event and stated that anyone unable to volunteer their time could donate perishable food items for those in need. He further identified the membership of the Community Service Day Steering Committee.
6. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
A. Acceptance of Consent Items
No Consent Items were removed from the Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Mayor Woehleke reported no comments had been received for this item.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
ACTION: It was M/S (Onoda/McCluer) to adopt Consent Agenda Items 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3.
Vote: 5-0.
6.1 Receive Accounts Payable Claim for 09/09/22 ($477,997.08) Approved
6.2 Approve Minutes for the Regular Council Meeting on June 22, Approved 2022
6.3 Commitment Letter to CCTA for Safe Streets and Roads Approved Consider Authorizing a Letter of Commitment to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for Submission of a Safe Streets and Roads for All Grant Application for their Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Improvements to Improve Equity Countywide (CEQA Status: Exempt)
B. Consideration of Consent Items Removed for Discussion No items had been removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
7. ADOPTION OF MEETING AGENDA
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Mayor Woehleke reported there were no public comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Town Council Regular Meeting 3 September 28, 2022
ACTION: It was M/S (Onoda/McCluer) to adopt the Meeting Agenda, as shown. Vote: 5-0.
8. REPORTS
A. Town Manager Update - Town Manager Cynthia Battenberg reported that the Planning Commission had a vacancy due to a recent resignation and there were challenges ensuring a quorum, and given another member was running unopposed for the Town Council and likely would leave the Planning Commission, those vacancies along with one vacancy on the Audit and Finance Committee (AFC) and two vacancies on the Local Sales Tax Oversight Committee (LSTOC) would be open for applicants with interviews to be brought to the Town Council.
The Town was also starting the process to roll-out its 2022 Pavement Rehabilitation Program on worst streets but it was unclear whether the work would be completed this year or next spring. More information would be available once a kick-off meeting had been held with the contractor in the next week. She added that approximately 70 properties with curb, gutter and sidewalk repairs needed to be completed as part of the project and the Public Works Director/Town Engineer emphasized the importance of facilitating this work for homeowners. A bid had been received from the contractor allowing residents to elect to sign a contract and have the work completed by the Town's contractor or do the work themselves.
Ms. Battenberg reported that the Administrative Services Department was starting work on the Finance software upgrade and completing the audit. During the month of October, all County Connection and para-transit bus rides would be free for the entire month. The Pear and Wine Festival had been well attended, was a success, and the live music stage within all of the booths offered a nice addition. She noted that the Planning and Public Works Departments had great conversations with the community about the Housing Element and Public Works projects and she had the opportunity to introduce Mackenzie Brady, the new Parks and Recreation Director who would commence employment with the Town on October 17, 2022. Also, panel interviews would be held for the Town Clerk's position on September 29, and the Planning Department was looking for a Principal Planner.
Ms. Battenberg also reported the Town of Moraga had been named the 18th safest college town in America for 2022 based on violent and property crimes and the safest college town in California. The wall along Moraga Road and Rheem Boulevard had been repaired; staff had located an old agreement between the County and the property owner which indicated the County would assume maintenance responsibilities for a small portion of that corner. The East Bal Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) flood and erosion control project at Canyor Road Bridge was expected to be completed by the end of October with extendec work hours on October 3 through 7, 2022 from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and EBMUD may have to stop traffic and have intermittent bike lane closures.
B. Mayor's and Councilmembers' Reports
Mayor Woehleke - Reported he had attended the Pear and Wine Festival and represented the Town of Moraga in accepting a donation from the Moraga Community Foundation (MCF), the second half of a $100,000 donation from PG&E to be contributed towards replacing the restroom facilities at the Commons Park and continuing the Town's Tree Planting Program. He thanked the MCF for its fundraising efforts, and thanked PG&E. He also reported that Karl Davis had Town Council Regular Meeting 4 September 28, 2022
stepped down from the Moraga Planning Commission after securing a new position and he would miss Mr. Davis' experience and valuable input.
Vice Mayor Sos - Reported that trash collection issues remained in the community and these issues had been elevated to the highest levels of Republic Services. She also reported people may see people walking down their streets in the near future with orange/green vests as part of a state-mandated inspection program to ensure that residents were putting the right items in the right collection bins as part of State Bill (SB) 1383 requirements. RecycleSmart had contracted with a vendor to provide those services to the community. She clarified that inspectors would only view what could be seen from the top of the bin after opening the lid, and they would not dump the bins in the street, impose any fines, take photographs, or violate privacy. Inspectors would post a tag to identify whether the right items were in the right bins or advise when something was amiss. The visits at this time would only involve 25 households per route.
Vice Mayor Sos also reported the work on the Lamorinda Action Plan continued to mitigate congestion in the Lamorinda area and encouraged alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle usage, with the plan currently being updated under the auspices of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). The Town of Moraga had submitted a comment letter on the latest version of the Action Plan in direct response to comments from residents that any and all transportation planning take into consideration wildfire risk, emergency evacuation planning, bicycle and pedestrian safety, and promote and increase the use of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle trips.
Vice Mayor Sos added as part of the effort to update the Lamorinda Action Plan, CCTA had already held some public workshops for public feedback and an upcoming special workshop for the Lamorinda area would be scheduled to allow feedback on the latest draft, with the date to be widely advertised when known.
Councilmember McCluer - Reported he had attended the Pear and Wine Festival and suggested the integration of music was a great idea and he thanked everyone for the successful event. He had also attended a County Connection Board meeting and continued to have conversations with developers on the Housing Element and inclusionary housing. He also reported that Campolindo High School had been recognized in the top 20 of all public schools in the State of California for education and learning and congratulated the school on its achievement.
Councilmember Onoda - Thanked staff for the repair of the John Muir Land Trust (JMLT) wall along Moraga Road and Rheem Boulevard and the Public Works Director/Town Engineer for his quick reply to a resident about street safety. She also announced that Dover Saddlery had beautiful flowers, wreaths and pumpkins at their door, and she challenged other Town businesses to do as well.
Councilmember Makker - Reported that United Against Hate Week (UAHW) would be recognized the second week of November and members of the community were welcome to provide any suggestions to her or Councilmember McCluer. She also thanked staff and the Council for the flexibility when returning to in-person meetings and reported she was expecting her first child and appreciated that flexibility.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Town Council Regular Meeting 5 September 28, 2022
A. Landscaping in the Right-of-Way Ordinance
Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider Waiving the First Reading and Introducing by Title Only an Ordinance Amending the Moraga Municipal Code Title 12, Adopting Chapter 12.10 - Trees, Shrubs, and Hedges and Other Landscaping in the Right-of-Way, Sections 12.10.020, 12.10.030 and 12.10.040 (CEQA Status:
Exempt)
Reporting on ex-parte communications, Councilmember Onoda advised that she had a lengthy conversation with Dave Bruzzone this date; Councilmember McCluer reported he had a conversation with Mr. Bruzzone on this topic and Mayor Woehleke also had a recent conversation with Mr. Bruzzone on this topic.
Public Works Director/Town Engineer Shawn Knapp presented the staff report and asked the Town Council to conduct a public hearing and consider waiving the first reading and introduce by title only an Ordinance amending the Moraga Municipal Code (MC) Title 12, adopting Chapter
12.10 - Trees, Shrubs, and Hedges and Other Landscaping in the Right-of-Way, Sections
12.10.020, 12.10.030 and 12.10.040.
Ms. Battenberg added that when the Ordinance had been adopted in 2020, it had been the policy of the Town. Language had been added to the Ordinance to provide clarity for the community and in response to efforts by the Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD) for fire prevention in that there were two areas where some of the community had appealed their responsibilities. The MOFD had asked that there be clarification in the Ordinance to make sure that the sidewalk definition did not actually require a sidewalk and to ensure that in instances where a utility or other company had come in and performed a public works improvement, that improvement would now return to the responsibility of the property owner.
Responding to the Council, Mr. Knapp, Ms. Battenberg and Assistant Town Attorney Denise Bazzano clarified:
• There had been confusion about the Ordinance prior to 2020, which was why some of the 2020 language had been updated and there were now further refinements that had been proposed. The changes had also been in part in response to a resident who had questions about replacement plantings the Town had conducted, which was why language had been stricken from Section 12.10.040, as shown on Page 3 of the September 28, 2022 staff report. (Vice Mayor Sos)
• The definition for "Sidewalk Area" had been defined as: Means the area between the property line of the parcel and the street line, which may include landscaping, such as shrubs, bushes and trees, mailboxes and other items, and improvements, such as a sidewalk, pathway, parking strip, curb and gutter. Additional language had been added and the definition had been expanded a bit to be more inclusive of other possibilities. (Vice Mayor Sos)
• The definition of "Abutting property owner" had been defined as: Means the owner of a parcel of real property which fronts on any portion of a sidewalk area between the property line of the parcel and the street line, including a parking strip and curb. Staff reported a resident had appealed to the MOFD about this requirement. There had been some concern this definition was unclear, and the Ordinance intended to clarify what a sidewalk area meant in the context of an abutting property owner. (Vice Mayor Sos) • "Sidewalk Area" had been used in several areas of the MMC, had been used in "Sidewalk Maintenance," had originated from that section, and that section had interpreted everything in that area, not just sidewalks, and could include anything in that area, Town Council Regular Meeting 6 September 28, 2022
although a property owner had pushed back against that language. In 2020, staff proposed a new section for landscaping, shrubs and other improvements to provide more clarity. Typically, the definitions applied to the specific chapter which was why definitions flowed within each chapter. (Vice Mayor Sos)
• The sidewalk area was defined as the area between the property line and the edge of the road and could include a parking space if there was a secondary parking space that was not part of the travel lane. The sidewalk area was within the right-of-way (ROW). Parcel Maps had been designed to set the boundaries of a parcel whether it was private or a public ROW and was not looking within, but at the raw square footage to allow the tax collector to determine property taxes that included the edge of the property line, which was the edge of the ROW. As to the location of the edge of the road, and whether the public had access to such information, Contra Costa County had maps that provided an aerial of the roadway and was available through the Contra Costa County website. (Mayor Woehleke)
• A survey had not been done in the Town to identify any potential impacts to parcels in the Town based on the revisions to the Ordinance, as proposed. Just like any other landowner, the Town of Moraga maintained the public ROW for landscaping and fire abatement issues in front of its own properties. As the Ordinance was written, a property owner fronting a public ROW would be responsible for landscaping, which had always been the case. As an example, as one turned right onto Bollinger Canyon Road towards the Bluffs Subdivision, to the left there was a cliff with homes above. Staff clarified the Town would maintain the hillside. There were several catchment fences along that area.
It was not a landscaped area, although the hillside and shale from that hillside were different issues. (Mayor Woehleke)
• In the 1990 iteration of the Sidewalk Maintenance section of the Ordinance, there had been a focus on sidewalks that was intended to be broad, with the definition of "Sidewalk Area" from the edge of the property line to the edge of the pavement including curb and gutter or parking lane. As written, it had been interpreted to mean that anything in that area was the responsibility of the property owner to maintain. In the current iteration, parking strip, curb and gutter.
All revisions were for clarifying purposes, although this Ordinance requirement had been in place since 1974. (Councilmember McCluer)
• Staff had received input from two property owners about the revisions to the Ordinance and reiterated that where there had been push back on the Ordinance. Both instances involved appeals to the MOFD where the property owners did not want to take responsibility and the Town had clarified the language in the Ordinance to allow the MOFD to execute its fire prevention efforts. (Councilmember McCluer) • Section 12.10.030 Tree maintenance in the public right-of-way, originally read: Each tree placed in the public right-of-way, except those trees placed by the Town, shall be maintained by the Abutting Property Owner in a neat, healthy and safe condition. No encroachment will be permitted or maintained which interferes with, impedes, obstructs, or denies pedestrian or other lawful travel within the limits of the public right-of-way of a public highway or impairs adequate sight distance for safe pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
Town Council Regular Meeting 7 September 28, 2022
The section had been revised to read: Each tree in the public right-of-way, shall be maintained by the Abutting Property Owner in a neat, healthy and safe condition. No encroachment will be permitted or maintained which interferes with, impedes, obstructs, or denies pedestrian or other lawful travel within the limits of the public right-of-way of a public highway or impairs adequate sight distance for safe pedestrian or vehicular traffic." Staff referred to scenarios that had challenged the previous language in the Ordinance, which the proposed language was attempting to clarify. (Councilmember McCluer) • The Town did not remove or trim trees unless they were a hazard, safety issue or an imminent danger to the public. It had been the responsibility of the property owner since 1990, and earlier through a 1977 Ordinance, where the property owner was responsible for this area. (Councilmember McCluer)
• The Town's Street Tree Policy was clarified. The Town maintained the center medians outside of this definition as shown in the subject Ordinance. Tree trimming notices had been sent to properties along Canyon Road that backed up to the roadway, with fences on one side and a tree that may be on either side of the fence. If the tree was a public safety issue, the Town would work with the property owner to make sure the tree was trimmed over the sidewalk or the street. (Councilmember McCluer) • The property owner was responsible for curb and gutter, and if that traveled to a storm drain, as an example, the property owner was not responsible for the storm drain. The Ordinance spoke to the responsibility of maintaining the infrastructure itself and did not discuss impacts to the storm drain system but if a facility was not maintained, an issue could occur. A sidewalk, curb and gutter adjacent to a storm drain inlet, if an issue, would be localized and may not allow water to get into the storm drain system. A portion of the Town's storm drain system was privately owned and those that were privately owned were the responsibility of the property owner to maintain. (Councilmember McCluer) • The definition of "Sidewalk Area" was again clarified with the intent to add more information to provide clarity. Staff had tried to be descriptive with the language that had been added. (Councilmember Makker)
• Staff had reviewed 20 other agencies in Contra Costa County and a number had the same language staff had proposed for "Sidewalk Area." Fourteen local agencies including Contra Costa County required the property owner to be responsible for sidewalk repair; one agency had a 50-50 split and three of the 20 agencies conducted sidewalk repair where their agency assumed responsibility. There was a question of whether or not it would be beneficial for the Town of Moraga's Ordinance to be the same as the City of Orinda since they were both members of the MOFD. The City of Orinda had indicated it would be doing some cleanup language in the next review of its Ordinance which may address some of those issues. (Vice Mayor Sos)
• Public engagement on this topic included advertisement through the agenda item. (Councilmember McCluer)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Mayor Woehleke reported there were no comments from the public.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Mayor Woehleke commented that while he understood the practical requirements, Moraga was a small town, not well funded, and had to share the burden. He had no problem expecting Town Council Regular Meeting September 28, 2022
homeowner responsibility when a ROW sidewalk area was 10 to 15 feet in depth, but had issues when there were exceptions, and where undue burdens had been placed on individuals. He did have a problem where property lines were 50 feet from the edge of the road and that was called a "sidewalk area," and suggested those homeowners should not be responsible for those 50 feet.
A good portion of that example occurred in the upper regions of Laguna Creek and the cliff along Bollinger Canyon where a homeowner could be excessively overburdened as compared to others.
Mayor Woehleke suggested the majority of Moraga residents would not support a small group taking an undue share of the burden. Because of that he was torn, and while he understood the practicality of staff's effort for the reasons stated, it was difficult to support the Ordinance which lacked credibility and was not reasonable.
Councilmember McCluer was also torn and unsure how staff would spend its time given its limited resources. He had concerns with the language that had been struck from Section
12.10.040, as reflected in the staff report. He was also sympathetic to the Mayor's comments He sought more engagement from residents, such as through a potential Town Hall, and to publicize the Ordinance and be very specific about the issues. He suggested that additional steps should be considered, and he would be open to other alternatives.
Councilmember Onoda appreciated the comments but had a different opinion because of Firewise and what residents had been doing by cutting down trees, branches, trimming grasses and doing the responsible things to protect their homes and neighbors' homes, and this was the time for everyone to step up and be responsible. When she had formerly resided on El Paraiso, the property backed up to Moraga Road and she had been cognizant of the area from her fence to the road and had felt it was her responsibility. She supported the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Makker was also happy with the staff recommendation for the reasons articulated by Councilmember Onoda and with clarity provided. If nothing was done and there continued to be confusion, the Council would not be addressing the problem. Rather than more public engagement, she suggested it would be more valuable to educate more on the responsibilities involved. She noted the Town Council had good information on what other Ordinances required; the Town's Ordinance was aligned with what Orinda required, and she was comfortable with the staff recommendation to close some of the ambiguities.
Vice Mayor Sos agreed it was about education and not public engagement with the fundamental principle for a property owner's responsibility having been well established in all communities, and she suggested there was no need to get into that. She emphasized the importance of avoiding confusion and that the MOFD not be hindered from its efforts to make the Town fire safe by potential ambiguities and misunderstandings in the Ordinance. She agreed with the staff recommendation and the language that had been stricken from Section 12.10.030 for tree maintenance in the public right-of-way as reflected in the staff report, since otherwise the original language could mean that the Town had responsibility in perpetuity.
As to the definition for "Sidewalk Area", Vice Mayor Sos found there was some appeal to having the City of Orinda and the Town of Moraga have the same definition, although Ms. Battenberg explained the City of Orinda did not have a definition for "Sidewalk Area" and referred to the County definition, which the Town of Moraga had codified in the MMC in 2020.
Vice Mayor Sos commented she had read the City of Orinda's Ordinance and recalled that "Sidewalk Area" had been defined and was again informed by Ms. Bazzano she had quickly looked at Orinda's Ordinance and could not find a definition that was the same as what had been proposed for the Town of Moraga.
Ms. Battenberg clarified that the Town of Moraga's Ordinance included a "Sidewalk Area" definition in the sidewalk maintenance portion of the Ordinance.
Town Council Regular Meeting 9 September 28, 2022
Mayor Woehleke asked whether the Town Council would accept a "Sidewalk Area" definition be "x" number of feet from the edge of the road, which could provide some mitigation for homeowners.
Councilmember Onoda commented that could be problematic given the variation in the Town.
Mayor Woehleke offered as an example the situation for residents of Ashcroft who sit below Mulholland Ridge, which was Town property with a road at the top, and which continued all the way down to Ashcroft. He did not want the homeowner to be responsible for maintaining foliage all the way up the road and he wanted to remove that type of variable. He commented that when he had reviewed parcel maps, there were parcels that had not been identified as being owned by anyone, which was a concern.
In response to the Vice Mayor, Ms. Bazzano clarified that once an Ordinance was introduced and the first reading conducted, no further changes could be made if the Town Council wanted to conduct the second reading. If a change was made between the first and second reading, another first reading was required. The Ordinance could be introduced at this time, the Council may come back for the second reading, and if the Council decided to make changes, the item could be pulled with changes made and another first reading would be required.
Ms. Bazzano also clarified the definition for "Sidewalk" from the City of Orinda's code under Sidewalk Maintenance and Repair, Chapter 12.04 read: As used in this section includes a park or parking strip maintained in the area between the property line and the street line and also includes curbing, bulkheads, retaining walls or other works for the protection of any sidewalk or any such park or parking strip.
Mr. Knapp explained that was the same definition for the area with the same edge to edge description.
Further responding to the Vice Mayor as to whether staff was confident the changes would not continue to cause confusion, Ms. Bazzano stated the changes had been reviewed with those issues in mind, and staff was of the opinion the changes would clarify abutting properties by adding the definition of "Sidewalk Area." The clarifications were consistent with Town staff's interpretation, the intent of the Town Council prior to this evening, and what had previously been used in practice by Town staff.
Vice Mayor Sos supported moving forward, understood this was a clarification and not a revisit of the fundamental principles of who was responsible and where the property line was located.
She was not in favor of looking at 50 feet versus 20 feet because that was reinventing things and would support moving forward with the intention to make the Town fire safe.
Mayor Woehleke referenced the definition for "Abutting property owner" and opposed the use of the term "fronts," which meant the fronts of the homes that would be applied to homes that backed up to the streets, and although Mr. Knapp clarified the intent of the term, "fronts" was directly at any portion of the sidewalk area, he requested the definition be modified to avoid causing confusion.
Ms. Bazzano suggested the definition could be modified to read "Abutting property owner" means the owner of a parcel of real property which abuts on any portion of a sidewalk area between the property line of the parcel and the street line, including a parking strip and curb.
Town Council consensus to accept the revision as stated by the Assistant Town Attorney.
Town Council Regular Meeting 10 September 28, 2022
When asked by the Vice Mayor, Ms. Bazzano stated the term "fronts" had not been used elsewhere in the Ordinance and had only been shown in the one definition.
ACTION: It was M/S (Sos/Makker) to waive the First Reading and Introduce by Title Only an Ordinance Amending the Moraga Municipal Code Title 12, Adopting Chapter 12.10 - Trees, Shrubs, and Hedges and Other Landscaping in the Right-of-Way, Sections
12.10.020, 12.10.030 and 12.10.040 (CEQA Status: Exempt), with the definition for "Abutting property owner" in Section 12.10.020 Definitions to be modified to read:
"Abutting property owner" means the owner of a parcel of real property which abuts on any portion of a sidewalk area between the property line of the parcel and the street line, including a parking strip and curb. Roll Call Vote: 3-2. Noes: McCluer, Woehleke.
Mayor Woehleke declared a recess at 8:20 p.m. The Town Council meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. with all Councilmembers present.
10. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR ACTION
A. Funding Emergency Reserve and Pension Liability with Palos Colorados Discuss the Intent and Potential Use of Fund 100 - One Time Developer Fees (Palos Colorados Fund), Including to Establish an Emergency Reserve and to Make a One-Time Payment to Reduce the Town's Future Pension Liability and Provide Direction to Staff
Ms. Battenberg provided a PowerPoint presentation which included an overview of the direction provided to staff from the Town Council on June 22, 2022; the Palos Colorados Fund Balance background information, details on a potential Emergency Reserve Fund and outline for the establishment of an Emergency Reserve Policy; Unfunded Accrued Liability and Town of Moraga Projected Unfunded Actuarial Liability (UAL) from Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 to FY 2040. There were two options for consideration: Option 1 to cap payment at $1 million; and Option 2 to cap payment at $900,000.
Ms. Battenberg recommended the Town Council consider:
1. Establishment of an Emergency Reserve Fund and allocation of $1.0 million from Fund 100 - One Time Developer Fees (Palos Colorados Fund); and
2. Options to set aside approximately $1.5 million from Fund 100 - One Time Developer Fees (Palos Colorados Fund) to reduce the Town's future pension liability.
Responding to the Council, Ms. Battenberg and Mr. Knapp clarified the following:
• While the Town Council may consider using the General Fund Reserve and have the ability to take loans from the Palos Colorados Fund, which could be a policy option to address emergency reserves, the Town of Moraga's situation was different than other cities in terms of the General Fund Reserve in that the Town did not have a diversified revenue stream where most cities had a far more diversified revenue stream. While the Town Council may consider placing some funding in the Palos Colorados Fund and borrowing when needed, the question was when discussing the expenditure of the funds for recreation, open space and other mitigation, that money would be spent and the Town Council would have to discuss it at that time if the source was not available. (Councilmember McCluer)
Town Council Regular Meeting 11 September 28, 2022
• The reason why the Town of Moraga had done so well in the state ranking of fiscal health for California cities was due to the fact that Moraga was in a much better position with many of the factors the state looked at in terms of pension. The Town had no Other Post- Employment Benefits (OPEB) and its General Fund Reserve was relatively well-funded. (Councilmember McCluer)
• The Town had commissioned a Pension Liability Study in 2019, which included certain recommendations and had been based on certain assumptions, forecasts and predictions, but was pre-COVID and pre-ramifications of COVID and the current status of the stock market. The Town was trending three percent of what had been predicted in that modeling and the trending was consistent with the curve. While things changed, the Pension Liability Study could still be relied upon. There had been significant changes in the California Public Employee's Retirement System (CalPERS) which had occurred in 2013 when the Public Employee Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) had been introduced, a new level of benefits had been offered to all new members which were lower and which capped the cost of future pension liability of employees. In the next ten years the Town would see the benefit of the change. (Vice Mayor Sos)
• PEPRA was again clarified and staff clarified that anyone who had been working more than ten years in municipal government would be considered a Classic Employee. (Councilmember Onoda)
• Staff recommended a new reserve account be established, to be called an Emergency Reserve or Rainy Day Fund that could be available in case of a natural disaster. (Mayor Woehleke)
• Responding to the statement on Page 4 of the September 28, 2022 staff report that Moraga Road was one lane in the City of Lafayette in each direction with little benefit to widen the road in the Town of Moraga, staff was unsure of the exact date when the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Palos Colorados development had been prepared but it had likely been prepared in the 1990s. As to whether traffic conditions had since that time, staff confirmed the Town of Moraga had added some subdivisions since that time and over time other things had also changed and there was also future development anticipated in Moraga. (Mayor Woehleke) Ms. Battenberg commented as related to this specific discussion, the Town Council had received an email from a resident who had concerns with the turn off of Moraga Road. She reported that Livable Moraga Road was the plan that had not been completed and would identify what Moraga Road should look like; whether one or two lanes or have turn pockets. In conversations with the Mayor, she understood there were some recommendations from the Planning Commission for center turning lanes along Moraga Road near Corliss Drive, but that had been pulled from the plan. There appeared to be bigger questions about Moraga Road, which meant they had to take that partially completed plan off the shelf as soon as possible and look at what the plan should Mayor Woehleke agreed and commented the last time he had heard about the Livable Moraga Road project, it stopped at Campolindo Drive and he was uncertain why. He hoped that plan was not being used to make decisions on localized traffic, and Ms. Battenberg clarified there were multiple sections to the Livable Moraga Road Plan.
• The Development Plan for Palos Colorados called for an analysis of the intersection of the new subdivision with a number of features to be added including turn pockets; whether a center lane turn pocket or turn pockets coming from northbound from the Town into the subdivision. As one traveled out of Town they would still be constricted by the one lane Town Council Regular Meeting 12 September 28, 2022
and could not go faster or push more cars through than what could go through a slow windy road (Moraga Road). Staff acknowledged the concerns that localized effects of those feeders into the road may not have been modeled yet, with the exception of when the EIR had been prepared, although staff noted there was an analysis the Town could go through at the time of construction to re-analyze the intersection needs, with stipulation language in the EIR and in the Subdivision Agreement for Palos Colorados to facilitate that. (Mayor Woehleke)
• The staff report included a breakdown of the Estimate of Development Impact Fees Waived, as shown on Page 5 of the staff report, with the Town in the range of reasonableness if the Town Council were to decide to use some of the funding now, which would not put the Town in a disadvantaged position down the road of having enough for the impact mitigation. Also, the Town had a Complete Streets Project that would look at how to make Moraga Road and Canyon safer with an estimated cost of $3.7 million, with many of the improvements to be made by the developer. (Vice Mayor Sos) The Town received yearly reports from CaPERS on the four funds the Town had that identified the unfunded pension liability with the latest report received in July 2022 and dated June 30, 2021. Staff also provided an overview of the Unfunded CaPERS Pension Liability Study where the Town had contracted with Bartel & Associates in 2018 to provide actuarial services, as outlined on Page 3 of the staff report. Staff clarified that the report from Bartel & Associates had used a number that discounted the discount rate, where CaPERS was still using the seven percent discount rate that the Town was paying on. (Councilmember McCluer)
• As shown on Page 1 of the staff report, the background of the Palos Colorados funds were clarified and included a statement that Palos Colorados fees are unrestricted, thus the use of the funds is not limited or constrained and may be utilized for any purpose the governing body sees fit. A letter from June 2022 from the President of Richfield Real Estate Corporation to the Moraga Town Manager was referenced by Councilmember McCluer and which explained why the Town received funds and their intended use, and which included a statement that read: Richfield proposed to provide alternative compensation to the Town of Moraga for the lost golf course recreational/employment facility, to fund recreational and community facilities in the Town, and development impacts attributable to the Palos Colorados project in the amount of $14 million dollars. Responding to why the letter had not been included in the staff report, staff noted this was the legal interpretation of the funds with additional information in the January 2019 staff report to describe more in-depth how the funds had come about.
Also, Pages 1 and 2 of the staff report included the background of the Palos Colorados funds and a breakdown of how the Palos Colorados funds had been spent to date. Staff had not categorized how the funds had been spent or whether the majority of the funds had been spent on non-recreational items, but Councilmember McCluer had calculated that 80 percent of the Palos Colorados funds had been spent on non-recreation items. (Councilmember McCluer)
• If the Town Council were to consider the establishment of an Emergency Reserve Fund, staff would return to the Town Council with a resolution that would explain why the fund was being established and include any elements the Town Council wanted to include.
Once established, the funds would be placed in the reserve fund, set aside and reported as part of the reserve fund on the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (CAFR). Staff suggested that action could come back to the Town Council at its next meeting. (Councilmembers Makker and Onoda)
Town Council Regular Meeting 13 September 28, 2022
• In terms of the unfunded liability, once the Town Council identified a number, staff would come back and consider placing funds in either a 115 Trust, which would enable the investment of the funds although there could be some risks, the funds could be placed into a reserve fund or used to pay down CaPERS. Staff did not recommend paying down CaPERS given that payment would not change the shape of the curve. Staff could provide more information on the potential mechanisms to be used so that the Town Council may determine how it wanted to handle that, although that would take more time and staff would not be able to return at the next meeting with that additional information. (Mayor Woehleke)
• Richfield's responsibilities in the public ROW as shown on Page 4, and the Estimate of Development Impact Fees Waived as reflected on Page 5 of the staff report, were again clarified. Staff pointed out there was no one on the current staff who had been involved in the approval of the Palos Colorados project and staff did not know what the approximately 250 plus conditions of approval were or exactly what had been envisioned in terms of the park or trails, and staff would want to look at the possibilities and what may have changed including traffic; i.e., the intersection. The breakdown of the Palos Colorados Fund, as shown on Page 3 of the staff report was again highlighted. • Staff would return to the Town Council in the future pursuant to the direction provided by the Town Council on June 22, 2022, to provide the Town Council additional information related to using Palos Colorados funds for a) a one-time payment to reduce the Town's future pension liability; and b) the establishment of an emergency reserve/rainy day fund, including discussion of the intended use of funds; provide the Council with a proposed process for engaging the Park and Recreation Commission and the public regarding development of a Town-wide Open Space Plan; and research and provide to Council additional information on development impacts at a time in the future given current resource limitations. (Councilmember McCluer)
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Mayor Woehleke reported he had received a request to read into the record the following two letters:
Kate and David Marshall, Moraga: Dear Town of Moraga, I have written before about the dangers of turning left out of my street, Corte Santa Clara, onto Moraga Road. Redwoods and a bend in Moraga Road limit visibility of cars zooming south around the bend. When SB traffic is backed up during school start times, there is little/no visibility of NB cars that we'd be trying to merge northward with. Increased traffic from Palos Colorados residents will worsen this, so / once again urge the Town to designate developer fees to mitigating the dangers for residents of Corte Santa Clara, Via Granada, and all the houses along Moraga Road between Via Granada and Campolindo Drive. Has this issue been studied? I marked it on the recent virtual traffic survey but don't see anything that addresses it in the relevant part of the staff report below. Perhaps / missed it? If the line item "Moraga Road (SB) Center Lane/Left Turn Lane with traffic striping and signage" refers to just the SB cars who want to turn into PC, then that does not help Moraga Rd residents.
I am a layperson but question whether a traffic light at the PC entrance, without a center turn lane on Moraga Rd, would make things better or worse. If the light backs up NB traffic and still allows a steady stream of SB cars, either cars coming from Lafayette or from PC (depending on the light), how do homes on Moraga Rd turn left during busy times and in an emergency? Has a traffic engineer weighed in on this? Lastly, I disagree with staff's statement that there would be no benefit of widening Moraga Rd since it is only one lane in Lafayette. That may be true for through traffic but certainly not true for those of us trying to get in and out of our homes along Moraga Road.
Thank you in advance for considering using PC fees to mitigate traffic safety issues for this stretch of homes.
Town Council Regular Meeting 14 September 28, 2022
Julie Wood, Moraga: Dear Council Members and Town Clerk, Knowing you are discussing the uses of Palos Colorados fees at the upcoming meeting, I think it's important that / write again about the dangers of Moraga Road to those who drive it and those of us who have driveway or road access via Moraga Road. I apologize for not getting this letter in earlier, but we have been straddling a couple crises - brother-in-law in the cardiac /CU and a son in Tampa as Hurricane lan approaches As you may recall, I have written before about the traffic dangers on Moraga Road. These include turning left towards Lafayette from our properties and turning left into our properties when traveling from Moraga. This is the worst at school start/dismissal times and at the beginning/end of the workday. I believe that some of the Palos Colorados funds being earmarked for other purposes should be used to get an independent assessment of the current risks on Moraga Road (the portion from Campolindo Drive to Via Granada). I believe that the only real solution is a third lane for this portion of the road. I don't agree with the staff suggestion that a less robust solution will be adequate, and, in fact, I think it could make the danger worse depending on how it is implemented. While we've waited for Palos Colorados to be built, the Town has put off dealing with a traffic issue that seems to be growing worse. • High School Driving Population: The driving practices of what appear to be some Campo students is scary. Often they park in the Campo subdivision and when arriving or departing, some drivers seem to forget the speed limits and stop light regulations. Personally, I have almost been hit by a distracted driver making the turnout of Campo as he sped home from school. • Older Driver Population: Not to call out just the younger demographic, I have also been rear ended by a senior citizen who didn't see my turn signal and break lights as / waited for a break in the traffic to turn onto Corte Santa Clara. • Accidents Around the High School: While I haven't seen the multiple accidents firsthand, I have heard about them and listened to the squeal of brakes and sounds of impact. • Dangerous Lack of Visibility: Simply put, turning outward in the direction of Lafayette can be an act of faith as drivers sometimes have zero visibility regarding approaching traffic. I don't think we can continue to delay addressing this problem as who knows when or if Palos Colorados will be built. And if it is, 123 more homes will only make it more hazardous. It is only a matter of time before a bigger accident, perhaps involving fatalities happens. If so, Moraga is sure to find itself in the middle of litigation to answer the question of why - despite regular requests from town residents - nothing was done to mitigate the danger.
Mr. Knapp referenced the August 24, 2022 Town Council staff report where the Town Council had awarded the 2022 Pavement Project that included a line describing the safety and striping improvements at Moraga Road and at Corte Santa Clara, with staff addressing those concerns at the initial stage and providing a clear area to help residents get out of that particular court.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Councilmember McCluer spoke to the two questions staff had asked for input from the Town Council and suggested there was also the opportunity to discuss intention, recreation and development impact fees.
Mayor Woehleke suggested traffic was another topic that could be discussed.
Vice Mayor Sos understood the only thing the Town Council was meaningfully prepared to discuss was the two staff recommended items, with the other topics too preliminary to have a meaningful discussion. Staff had already stated it would have to return with a more comprehensive analysis on impact fees, which would take some research of the numerous conditions of approval and staff was not prepared to return with more information until a later date.
In terms of park and recreation, the Town Council had directed staff to come up with a plan for how to engage the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Director to start the process of community outreach and come up with a potential Parks and Open Space Plan. She asked the Town Council to focus on the two questions as opposed to an untethered discussion on the other topics.
Town Council Regular Meeting 15 September 28, 2022
Mayor Woehleke valued the Vice Mayor's comments but he wanted to provide some input on traffic since it had not been understood and had been misrepresented in the staff report. If there were other items that had a nexus the staff report was open ended and not closed and he was not inclined to close it.
Councilmember McCluer commented the description of the agenda item was to discuss the intent and that should be discussed. The Town Council had the same conversation during its June 22 meeting about having a discussion about the intent of emergency reserve funds and some discussion would be helpful.
Mayor Woehleke recommended the two subjects recommended by staff be addressed along with any other subjects, with each Councilmember to be allowed three minutes to raise any concerns.
It was the consensus of the Town Council to follow the Mayor's recommended direction.
On the question of the Establishment of an Emergency Reserve Fund and allocation of $1.0 million from Fund 100 - One Time Developer Fees (Palos Colorados Fund), Vice Mayor Sos suggested the intent of the idea was laudable since the Town wanted Town services to continue undiminished and uninterrupted in the case of an emergency. She understood the General Fund Reserve was for a different purpose, was a timing issue and suggested the question was whether the Town Council wanted to adopt a rainy day fund policy today that would steer future Councils in a certain direction if confronted by an emergency or leave it to the judgment of a future Town Council as to how to fund emergency measures and repairs. She suggested the better policy would be leave it to a future Town Council as to how to fund emergencies to allow it to be done based on the facts and circumstances at the time, based on availability or not of funds from a broader range of sources, which would include Fund 100 and could also include Measure Kor other revenue generators, none of which could be predicted today. She suggested the Town Council do what it had decided to do in 2019 when the question had last been addressed, stay the course, and not set up a rainy day fund.
Councilmember Onoda reported she had experienced two emergencies while a member of the Town Council and the process followed had served the Town well. Staying the course had been done before and could be done again. For residents, Palos Colorados funds meant a high quality of active life and for Town government the funds meant a blank check to fund projects. She agreed with the recommended direction offered by the Vice Mayor.
Councilmember McCluer commented the policy for the General Fund Reserve for the past 48 years had not been just to deal with timing differences since the Town had gone through two emergencies; the failed Canyon Road Bridge and the Rheem Boulevard Sinkhole, and the Town had removed funds from the General Fund and had used a loan from Palos Colorados funds to address both emergencies at the same time. He suggested the Town did not need an Emergency Fund since the General Fund Reserve had served the unexpected, unanticipated and emergency items, and if a loan was needed from Palos Colorados, that could be considered since there would be several years before the development was built. He did not support taking money intended for recreation and development contrary to the intention of the Palos Colorados funds.
Councilmember Makker did not disagree with the articulation of the Palos Colorados funds, as described in the staff report. The Town Council had given direction at the June 22 meeting requesting more information on specific items and discussing the intent was not one of those items. In terms of establishing a policy, she had not been a member of the Town Council when the emergencies had occurred, but she had heard and understood the facts around the emergencies that could not have been anticipated. For the reasons already articulated by other members of the Council, she suggested the best thing would be not to establish the policy itself.
Town Council Regular Meeting 16 September 28, 2022
Mayor Woehleke thanked staff for an excellent report and appreciated the estimate of the mitigation of development fees that the Town would otherwise achieve from the project, which had shown the funds the Town had negotiated were very robust and a real asset. While he agreed the specific use of the funds should not be limited, he did not want to leave it completely open to avoid misuse. He suggested there should be some guidelines with regard to the use of the funds.
He added that the Town Council had established a goal for 2022 to develop a process on how the Palos Colorados funds should be used. He disagreed the money was completely free and clear because it was in-lieu of impact fees and the funds were the Town's source of income to address those impacts.
Ms. Battenberg clarified the Town Council consensus on the question of establishing an Emergency Reserve Fund and allocation of $1.0 million from Fund 100 - One Time Developer Fees (Palos Colorados Fund) was to do nothing.
On the question of the option to set aside approximately $1.5 million from Fund 100 - One Time Developer Fees (Palos Colorados Fund) to reduce the Town's future pension liability, Vice Mayor Sos supported the recommendation and suggested the Town Council had an opportunity to exercise fiscal responsibility and place the Town in a better position in the future, particularly for FY 2030 through FY 2036 when the payments would be massive. There had also been a lot of discussion about intent, and there was disagreement with the intent of the Palos Colorados funds, with some who were of the opinion the funds were just for recreation and open space while there was a legitimate argument the funds were for general use given there was no documentation that suggested they were not.
Vice Mayor Sos commented the last time the Town Council had this discussion, she had read a letter into the record from Preserve Lamorinda Open Space (PLOS), which had been very active in the settlements, and which had suggested that pension liability was actually in-scope as far as that organization was concerned as to the use of the funds. She recommended staff return with a recommendation on an amount and suggested the Town should do what was sensible and prudent and which would actually have an impact. The amount and the method should be identified whether a trust, direct payment, or another method. She suggested the Town Council did not have enough information at this time to provide guidance on those points.
Councilmember Onoda agreed with the Vice Mayor's comments.
Councilmember Makker also supported the Vice Mayor's comments, appreciated the City Manager's comments that a fair amount had been used on other unfunded needs, such as through the use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, and the Town had to move forward with this issue.
Councilmember McCluer commented that three years ago the consultant had provided the Town Council with the option for a one-time lump sum fee of $1.5 million for pension liability or waiting a few years and depositing $265,000 a year, each year for ten years, with the economics suggesting a lump sum early on with placement in a pension trust so that it could grow. He favored the item and agreed with the staff assessment for the amount of $1.5 million to be set aside for pension liability. He did not want to pay CaPERS directly. If the payment was placed in a separate fund, the Town would be limited on how the funds could be invested. A pension trust offered many opportunities with five different investment categories that could be considered, but he suggested no decision be made on that option at this time. He added the MOFD used a pension trust and made 50 percent in two years and the City of Pleasanton had used a pension trust for ten years.
Councilmember McCluer commented if doing that, the Town would be taking funds out of the Palos Colorados Fund to solve the unfunded pension liability and while a good economic decision, Town Council Regular Meeting 17 September 28, 2022
it was not the intention of the Palos Colorados funds, which were for recreation and development impacts. He suggested there was an option to do both and recommended the Town Council take $1.5 million from the Palos Colorados Fund as a loan for use in a pension trust fund, to be repaid to the Palos Colorados Fund over 10 to 15 years, which would be either $100,000 or $150,000 a year from the General Fund. He noted over the last four years the Town had received hundreds of thousands of dollars in discretionary funds for use for this repayment to the Palos Colorados Fund. This option would allow the pension liability to be addressed and funds to be used for recreation as part of the Palos Colorados funds.
Mayor Woehleke understood Councilmember McCluer supported the staff recommendation at the $1.5 million level but tying it to repayment for recreation back to Palos Colorados. He personally did not buy into that and commented the 2007 Settlement Agreement had not explicitly stated in any way the money was to be used solely for recreation. He suggested putting money aside for UAL as proposed by staff was an excellent idea, although he could not support it because of traffic safety. He stated this was not a future traffic safety issue but current traffic safety issues that were localized at this location with a nexus to the development. He referred to the situation with people who had to cross stop-and-go traffic into another lane that could be traveling 35 to 40 MPH on a daily basis, and any accident would likely involve a T-bone, which was an extremely dangerous accident.
Mayor Woehleke commented the Town had donated $250,000 to the JMLT for Harvey Ranch and were discussing setting aside $1.5 million for UAL. He emphasized that the Town should at least determine the danger of the roadway at this point, which would not be informed by the EIR for the Palos Colorados project. He wanted to see the right person evaluate that traffic situation.
Councilmember Onoda understood that Mr. Knapp had responded to Julie Wood, one of the residents who submitted an email, and he was working on those issues which was why she had thanked him for responding so quickly.
Mayor Woehleke commented he had not seen the staff report to Ms. Wood's email but regardless the Town needed an assessment for a long-term solution. Over a year ago, he had raised the concern with staff and suggested a mirror be placed in the area to help people see the traffic coming at them. He had been told that was no longer allowed.
Mr. Knapp explained that he had a discussion with a resident this date about another location, and again read from the August 24, 2022 staff report about the award for the 2022 Pavement Project, and reiterated that safety improvements had been planned at that intersection at the corner of Moraga Road just north of the school. As to the entrance, there were two possible things that could be done at the time of the construction of the project and the developer would have to analyze the intersection and provide the Town feedback. Also, the Livable Moraga Road project was the perfect vehicle for analyzing that section of the roadway along with other sections of Moraga Road for improvements into the future.
Vice Mayor Sos found that at least four Councilmembers had coalesced around a path forward to direct staff to come back with an analysis and recommendation with respect to investing $1.5 million in a pension trust and evaluating why other potential options were not as desirable. As part of that to determine what a loan, if it was a loan, from Palos Colorados funds would look like from a budgetary perspective.
Ms. Battenberg commented in response to Councilmember McCluer and the Vice Mayor that a motion was not needed on the direction the Vice Mayor had outlined.
Mayor Woehleke understood the majority of the Town Council trusted in the Town Manager to look at the finances at the appropriate time and come back with a recommendation.
Town Council Regular Meeting 18 September 28, 2022
Councilmember McCluer stated the Vice Mayor's summary was exactly where he was at and Councilmember Onoda agreed.
In response to Councilmember McCluer, Mayor Woehleke again clarified his comments and concern with the traffic safety issues that would be exacerbated by the Palos Colorados development and there was nowhere else in the Town that had the same issue.
Councilmember Onoda thanked the Mayor for looking out for the people who had submitted emails. She also appreciated all of the work of staff to address the concerns.
Councilmember McCluer again agreed with the Vice Mayor and with the Mayor, and suggested they were not pursuing a process but a one-off, which made him uncomfortable, but it was time to move forward on the pension issue. He was not concerned that if addressing the pension issue the funds would not be available to also address the safety issues raised by the Mayor, although Mayor Woehleke stated he was waiting for an expert to tell him that.
Ms. Battenberg asked for input from the Town Council as to whether or not it wanted Bartel & Associates to redo the study, although it had been very costly and she questioned whether that would be a good use of Town funds. She asked whether the Town Council would accept something that did not recalculate the entire UAL and just work with the strategy.
Mayor Woehleke suggested given future returns from CaPERS were unknown, including the impacts of the return for the last year, the Town had to operate at a gross level and did not need to get precise.
Ms. Battenberg recommended that direction as well, since the numbers from CaPERS changed each year.
Councilmember McCluer reported that CaPERS could run projections at lower discount rates for agencies and had an actuary he had spoken to, but Ms. Battenberg commented if CaPERS indicated they had to set aside more than that, she was uncertain whether they needed to do anything with that information. Staff would work with the professionals who could run some numbers and who were aware of the sensitivity analysis.
Councilmember McCluer again referenced the letter he had earlier mentioned which described why the Town had received the Palos Colorados funds, and which had stated a recreation item had been given up and now there were funds for recreation and development fees in the amount of $14 million, which was the intention of the funds. The Town had spent $3.5 million in Palos Colorados funds on non-recreation items, and added $1.5 million for pensions, still not on recreation. He had also spoken with PLOS and had been informed the letter it had submitted to the Town had been cherry picked in June 2022, and PLOS now wanted to see the use of Palos Colorados funds for its original purpose to address recreation and development impact fees. He stated the Town could take a loan out of Palos Colorados funds and repay it for other items but the direction and intent from now on, in his opinion, should be a policy for recreation ano development impact fees with an exception that the Town Council could take a loan and pay it back.
Mayor Woehleke suggested that could be considered as a future agenda item.
Councilmember Onoda agreed with Councilmember McCluer's comments.
11. DISCUSSION ITEMS
There were no Discussion Items.
Town Council Regular Meeting 19 September 28, 2022
12. COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no Council requests for future agenda items.
13. COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communications.
14. ADJOURNMENT
ACTION: It was M/S (Onoda/McCluer) to adjourn the meeting at 10:03 p.m. Vote: 5-0.
Respectfully submitted by:
Mashi Ha
Yashin Abbas, Interim Town Clerk
Approved by the Town Council:
Have Woellele
Steve Woehleke, Mayor
Town Council Regular Meeting 20 September 28, 2022