City of Lafayette Lafayette Regular and Special City Council Meeting Parlis, Trails and Recreation - Trails Subcommittee MINUTES

Transcription

1 City of Lafayette Lafayette Regular and Special City Council Meeting Parlis, Trails and Recreation - Trails Subcommittee MINUTES Lafayette Library and Learning Center 3491 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, California March 10, :00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Tatzin called the regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: Mayor Tatzin; Vice Mayor B. Anderson, M. Anderson; Mitchell and Reilly None Steven Falk, City Manager; Tracy Robinson, Administrative Service Director; Niroop Srivatsa, Planning & Building Services Director; Tony Coe, City Engineer; Jennifer Russell, Parks, Trails & Recreation Director; Leah Greenbtat, Transportation Planner; Lindy Chan, Senior Planner; Donna Feehan, Administrative Analyst; Mala Subramanian, City Attorney; Joanne Robbins, City Clerk PTR Trails Subcommittee: Commissioners Susan Dalcamo, Abby Fateman and Alison Hill 3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA ACTION: It was M/S/C (Mitchell/M. Anderson) to adopt the agenda. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Tatzin, B. Andersson, M. Anderson, Mitchell, and Reilly; Noes: None). 4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Tyler and Emma Hunt led in the Pledge of Allegiance. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS JOHN KAUFMAN presented a handout to the Council outlining the following requests he and his neighbors have of the Council and Circulation Commission: 1) Allow public to clarify and comment on consultant proposals prior to selection; 2) allow public to speak with selected contractor about-and withln-the scope of the study; 3) allow public to hear consultant's observations and concepts delivered to the Circulation Commission; 4) provide public with timely notification of public participation hearings; and 5) confirm that project is still on schedule; specifically, traffic data will be data collection will occur before May 15, Mayor Tatzin stated that every meeting the Circulation Commission has on this topic wiil be publicly noticed and they will take comments from those in attendance as well as the ability to receive correspondence. He said it is possible to comment on the study which should go to the Circulation Commission who can share them with the contractor. City of Lafayette Regular/Special City Council Meeting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 1 March

2 Vice Mayor B. Andersson said another way to address the Circulation Commission is to designate specific people in the community to distribute it to everybody to ensure everybody is advised and Mr. Kaufman stated he is designated as that person. George Riley, said he understands that the signs up and down Mt. Diablo Boulevard that state "Open for Business" have been requested to be removed by the parking enforcement officer and he asked if the Council was aware of this. Mayor Tatzin asked if staff could provide the Council with information on this. City Manager Falk said he was not aware of this but expects the downtown project to be completed within the month. CHERYL MAC DONALD said she knows some businesses have been asked to take down their signs, but they are fighting for every dollar since construction has started over the last six months. She asked if they could be given some leeway until the project is done. Mayor Tatzin noted that the City Manager will look into the situation. Councilmember M. Anderson clarified that the signs were off of sidewalks put out by private businesses which were given permission at one point. 6. PRESENTATIONS A. Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director introducing Jennifer Wakeman, Financial Services Manager Recommendation: Receive and file. Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson introduced Jennifer Wakeman, the City's new Financial Services Manager who will replace Gonzalo Silva who will be retiring on Friday. Ms. Wakeman comes to the City from Walnut Creek where she served as Senior Accountant and she was previously the Finance Manager in Moraga. City Manager Falk added that Ms. Wakeman's children are fifth generation Lafayette residents which is rare. Mayor Tatzin and Councilmembers welcomed Ms. Wakeman. B. Parks, Trails, Recreation Commission - Trails Subcommittee New City Trails Pamphlets Recommendation: Receive and file. Trails Subcommittee Chair Abby Fateman stated the subcommittee is a part of the overall PTR Commission. She stated the PTR Commission has worked on the pamphlets and before the Council are 6 individual tri-fold trail maps that discuss the various trails of Lafayette. She thanked th6 PTR Trails Subcommittee members who specifically worked on the pamphlet who were Jeff Peacock, Alison Hill, Susan Dalcamo and John Kieferwho is their Trails Maintenance Coordinator. She stated Ms. Russell was instrumental in allowing the Commission to hire an Intern in July; Emily "Chippie" Kislick, who was knowledgeable with GIS, getting to know the area, developing brochures and used her skills to make the project happen. Without her, the brochures would not be possible. Committee member Alison Hill stated she was on the Trails Subcommittee last year and worked closely with "Chippie" who graduated from Berkeley in December and went on from her internship to NASA. The larger map of the recreational trails map was revised from a couple of years ago and shows ail trails and how they link which is useful. She said trails that are named after people are shown with their photograph and history, which she briefly described. Also Oily of Lafeyette Regular/Speciai City Council Meeting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 2 March 10, 2014

3 included in the brochure are trail rules, emergency information, and trail descriptions, their locations and other important information. Councilmember M. Anderson asked if the EBRPD has been approached and/or are willing to put some of the maps in their brochure boxes on connecting trails. IVls. Hiil stated they can ask EBRPD but they are available at the City's Parks and Recreation Office, at the City's offices, the Chamber of Commerce, the Library and they are on the website. The next step is for the map to be interactive with smart phones. Councilmembers thanked the Trails Subcommittee for their work on the pamphlet. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Mitchell requested removal of Item 7A. ACTION: It was M/S/C (M. Anderson/B. Andersson) to approve Consent Calendar Items B, C, D, E and F. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Tatzin, B. Andersson, M. Anderson, Mitchell, Reilly; Noes: None). B. Circulation Commission 2014 Workplan Recommendation: Approve the 2014 Workplan for the Circulation Commission. C. Revised Streetpole Banner Policy Recommendation: Approve the attached revised City of Lafayette Banner Policy. D. Initiating a Public Scoping Process to Consider Adding Park Elements to Leigh Creekside Park Recommendation: Approve initiation of a public process to determine whether additional park features should be added to the park and return to the Council with a report on the public process and recommendations. E. Reorganization of the Environmental Task Force Recommendation: Reorganize the Environmental Task Force by (1) reducing the number of members to nine and (2) eliminate the requirement for members to represent other commissions and committees. F. iviemorandum of Understanding between The American Red Cross Bay Area Chapter and The City of Lafayette Recommendation: Authorize City Manager to execute Memorandum of Understanding between The American Red Cross Bay Area Chapter and the City of Lafayette. 8. OLD BUSINESS-None 9. STAFF REPORTS A. Tony Coe, City Engineer Current Policies and Practices Regarding Use of Right-of-Way by Construction Projects Recommendation: Review existing policy and direct staff to explore potential changes, if any. Mayor Tatzin stated this is a discussion he asked the City Engineer to help begin regarding the City's current policies and practices regarding the use of the right-of-way. In addition to the City's use of the right-of-way, particularly on the east end over the last several months for the Cily of La^yette Regular/Special City Council Meeting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 3 March

4 median project, tliere liave been a couple of construction projects that have taken up portions of the sidewalk, sometimes parking lanes, as well as another project on the west end that has done the same. He wanted to understand what rules and regulations the City has in place to manage private use of the right-of-way and then to determine whether the Council is comfortable with that and then what their options are. City Engineer Tony Coe stated he tried to describe in his staff report the basic principles behind the encroachment permit program which is the instrument used to regulate these sorts of activities. It involves conditions for how traffic lanes are taken, for example, when they can be done, hours which they can be done, the fee, and security deposit that guarantees performance of the permit conditions. He would be happy to answer any specific questions about the program or bring back additional research into new ideas for improvement. Vice Mayor B. Andersson stated the report states that lane closures are typically allowed between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to avoid the peak of the rush hour. Given that rush hours tends to start early and although by 8:30 a.m. the peak has gone by but there is still a considerable amount of traffic, he asked if Mr. Coe had a sense of how much of the disruption is caused by the lane closures that occur between 8:30 and 9:00 and the 4:00 to 4:30 periods. Mr. Coe said the 8:30 to 4:30 timeframe is the standard for typical case. When the City is dealing with a project setting that is sensitive to traffic, there are much more restrictive hours than this. For example, if someone were to work on Mt. Diablo Boulevard in the area they know traffic is going to be an issue, they have had past projects with conditions where there are no lane closures outside of 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Councilmember M. Anderson said he appreciates the staff report. He asked if it makes sense to post for the bigger projects what the actual time of closure might be so people understand there is a limitation. On building projects, the contractor puts out a sign that states who people can contact if they have a problem and what the hours are. While it might not be appropriate for all settings, it might be good for those larger projects so people can see there actually is an ending period or a time when it is not going to be in place. Mr. Coe said the City is doing something similar in a situation where staff knows there will be lane closures in a particular busy area. Staff asks the contractor to post a changeable message sign in advance. Perhaps those signs should be kept up to announce hours. Councilmember Reilly referred to multiple projects occurring and said she knows with Mt. Diablo Boulevard, there was construction of senior housing and the medians project. It seemed there were many competing projects happening simultaneously. She asked if there was discretion on timing so they do not have projects happening so close together for those that are really disruptive. Mr. Coe said this year is the first time in his tenure where they have had a situation where there were 4 projects in the same vicinity occurring at the same time. He is not sure how often they will see this again in the future. It is difficult for him to say whether or not the City can regulate the window of construction of the projects. Particularly for development projects, once they receive their entitlement improvement, he was not sure the City can say they cannot start work until a specific date. He was not sure whether this could possibly be a condition of approval. City Attorney Mala Subramanian said she would be uncomfortable limiting when they could start because once they receive approvals, if they are ready to move forward, the City could simply limit the timeframe of the day they can keep the lane closed. Therefore, it may be restricted if there are more projects. City of l_afayetle Regular/Special City Councii Meeting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 4 March 10, 2014

5 Councilmember Reilly said if there were a few projects happening close together and they use the right-of-way, she asked if they could have one project have certain hours and another have different hours so they are not happening at the same time. City Attorney Subramanian said the City would have that discretion. Vice Mayor B. Andersson noted that in the past there was a case where Moraga Way and Moraga Road were both going to be worked on at the same time and there was adjustment there. He thinks the City might not be able to require certain things, but if there is enough advance warning where City projects are involved, there could be some discussion and adjustment. Mayor Tatzin said his own view of this which is supported by the staff report is that the City charges a relatively small amount for use of the public right-of-way and the City allows private contractors to inconvenience the public and not require them to pay anything for that. In his view, the City is giving them an inexpensive staging area which in some cases may encourage them to use the public right-of-way for a longer period than they would othenwise have to. It is not as much the lanes but also the sidewalk and parking area. He said he would like the City to look at an escalating fee structure that would give the contractor clear incentive to get out of the public right-of-way as quickly as possible. He said while it is not a criticism of staff or the contractor, it is not something he would like repeated if the City can avoid it. He can understand someone needing to do work in the right-of-way but he thinks the City should look at a staging plan so staff can meet with the developer in advance and a condition of approval that there be a staging plan and staff has to approve the use of the public right-of-way and put limits on it and then have a fee structure that makes it relatively inexpensive to use it for a limited period but makes it increasingly expensive to use it on an extended basis, with the hope that it would be a disincentive for people to review the public right-of-way as part of their staging area. With that, his preference is to ask staff and the City Attorney and Mr. Coe to work together to understand what options the City has to think about this differently and bring that back. If the Council is not interested in that and is happy with the status quo, that is fine. Councilmember M. Anderson supported doing something to make sure people have the ability to develop their projects because often they do not have the space except for public right-of-way to do it, but certainly to have something that inflates over time or for a major project. If contractors are going to be there 24 hours a day, there should be a real cost for that so they have an incentive to close the work up as quickly as possible. Vice Mayor B. Andersson added that there may be situations where what they really need is loading and unloading opportunities and not storage. In that case a lane might not need to be closed. They might just need to restrict parking so trucks can stop there and have access. Mayor Tatzin suggested thinking about the sidewalk, parking lane, the travel lanes, bike lanes and possibly treat each one separately. Councilmember Reilly said she would support staff looking into that because whatever the City can do to incentivize the companies to work more efficiently with less disruption, it would be appreciated by residents. ACTION: It was M/S/C (Mitchell/Reilly) to direct staff to review the existing policy regarding use of right-of-way by construction projects and direct staff to explore potential changes as indicated. Vote; 5-0 (Ayes: Tatzin, B. Andersson, M. Anderson, Mitchell, Reilly; Noes: None). Leah Greenblat, Transportation Planner City of Lafayette Regular/Spedal Cily Coundl Meeting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 5 March 10, 2014

6 1. Consideration of Implementing a 2-Hour Parking Time Zone and the Residential Permit Parking Program on the West Side of Mtn. View Drive between Songbird Court and West Road Recommendation: Adopt Resolution establishing a 2-hour parking time zone on the west side of IVitn. View Drive, between Songbird Court and West Road, Monday-Saturday, 7am-6pm; and Adopt Resolution incorporating the west side of Mtn. View Drive, between Songbird Court and West Road into the City's Residential Preferential Permit Parking Program. RECUSAL Councilmember M. Anderson recused himself from participating in the item since he lives within 500 feet of the proposed area and left the dais. Transportation Planner Leah Greenblat said before the Council is a recommendation from the Circulation Commission to establish a 2-hour parking time zone and the implementation of the City's residential preferential permit parking program on the west side of Mtn. View Drive between Songbird Court and West Road. This is a section of the roadway which serves as a transition point between the City's commercial downtown, the Trader Joe's area and the residential area. The Circulation Commission heard from residents on Mtn. View Drive. Several of the speakers cited all-day and multi-day parkers, nuisance trash and cigarette butts being left behind, and difficulty with the trash company accessing their trash bins. The Commission also heard from residents from the developments on the side streets and they did not tend to support the recommendation because they wanted to use the area for their overflow and guest parking. Staff is recommending the Council adopt the Commission's recommendation which would include a resolution to establish the 2-hour parking time zone and the other is to implement the residential parking program in the area. Mayor Tatzin asked if Moon Court was one of the streets that had residents speak at the Commission meeting.. Ms. Greenblat said she did not know and would need to check the meeting minutes that are attached to the staff report. Councilmember Mitchell asked for a map of the area to be displayed. He said his understanding is there is this residential preferential parking program in other areas of the City and he asked where those areas are located. She displayed the map showing Mtn. View Drive, Songbird Court, West Road, and said one of the existing properties has a 2-hour parking time zone which is 945 and the original request came from 941. Staff was concerned about creating island pockets of parking regulated areas because it would be difficult to alert the public and difficult to enforce. What staff had recommended to the Circulation Commission was the frontage from Songbird Court to West Road. Councilmember Mitchell said on page 2 it shows where people signed a petition and he asked staff to explain this. Ms. Greenblat said in terms of other streets that have residential permit parking, there are some on the north side by the BART station which was in response to overflow parking in that area. There are some streets further to the east side of town on Dyer Drive, and another more recent one on Moraga Boulevard between Moraga Road and First Street. Ail in all there are about 10 different streets in the City subject to the program. Councilmember Mitchell asked if the program has been successful in those other locations, and Ms. Greenblat stated since she has been with the City there has been only one neighborhood that has requested removal from the program because they thought they no longer had a City of l.^fayette Regular/Speciai City Council Meeting & PTR Traits Subcommittee 6 March 10, 2014

7 problem. She thinks residents are pretty satisfied and staff usually hears from them if they are not. IVlayor Tatzin said some of the report and correspondence talks about people's concerns regarding parking for guests and asked how that works. Ms. Greenblat stated there are two options; one option would be for the guest to park on-site in the resident's driveway. Another option is to provide them with the tag. There may be multiple drivers in a household but each household only receives one permit for the street designated for the residential permit parking. Ms. Greenblat displayed another map and said the crosses indicate properties that have signed the petition in support of the 2-hour parking time zone. Councilmember Mitchell asked if there was an omission in that no one in the subject area signed the petition. Ms. Greenblat said staff asked the person submitting the request to obtain the petition and explained the need for the petitioner to contact people who would be impacted by it. Possibly they do not support it or possibly he was unable to reach them. Councilmember Mitchell said the City has received feedback from Mr. Doran and others, and he asked If staff was aware of others who are for it or against it in the affected side of the street. Ms. Greenblat said no, not people other than those who spoke at the Circulation Commission meeting. Councilmember Reilly asked if someone is holding an event and needs muitiple guests, can they either have a permit or they can park there for 2 hours. Ms. Greenblat said the resident who has the hang tag can pass this onto their guest. Each car can park for two hours before being cited. She added that the limit only restricts parking for certain hours. Someone could park greater than 2 hours after 6PM as welt as on Sundays. Mayor Tatzin called for public comments. Public Comments: TODD ERICSON, said he supports the 2-hour parking and permitting, but he is south of where this is limited to West Road. What the City will force is from West Road south, there is no time parking so everybody will be pushed down further into their neighborhoods. He takes BART and the neighborhood has BART parkers, Trader Joe's employee parkers, and overflow parkers that cannot park in Trader Joe's or in the parking lot. As he supports the 2-hour parking, where he lives, he just has a driveway but his neighbor has a townhouse where part of the approval for that residence was to provide parking on the street for guests in that townhouse. All of this parking is used up mainly by BART parkers. So if the City is going to extend this, it should be extended further down the street because it will cause a rippling effect further down the street. Mayor Tatzin said he was not sure they could amend the proposal tonight, but if they were to move forward with this, the Council could ask staff to initiate moving it further down. Ms. Greenblat stated that if someone is interested in expanding the 2-hour time zone, the process is to fill out a transportation action request and a petition of support so staff knows others are interested and then it gets processed through the Circulation Commission. CHERYL MAC DONALD said she is not against having some regulation on parking. She is the president of a very small HOA called Songbird Court and they also are grateful for the permit process, but an HOA member not able to be here tonight asks if it is possible to make it 4 hours, if the Council were to walk the area, there is a combination of 2 and 4 hour parking. She thinks this would also help employees not parking there. City of l^fayette Reguiar/Speciai City Council IWeeling & PTR Trails Subcommittee 7 March 10, 2014

8 Councilmember Mitchell asked if there are a variety of times for parking restriction and he asked the reason why people arrive at different times. Ms. Greenblat said staff usually works with the neighborhood to establish a time and staff will usually provide a recommendation. In this case, there is already a 2-hour parking time zone along part of it, but more often the recommendation is based on the fact that parking they primarily observe is from Trader Joe's employees and it is so close that a 4-hour parking time zone is usually not enough to dissuade an employee from parking there because they can go out on a break and move their car. ROSLYN STENZEL echoed comments and said she her husband, Tom, live on Moon Court and like Mtn. View, Moon Court has seen an increase in BART and nearby Plaza workers parking on their street. They believe if there is a 2-hour parking iimit and permit on Mtn. View this will only push the parking issue onto Moon Court, which is off of Crescent which is off of Mtn. View which essentially kicks the can down the street. To compound the problem, when the parking lot behind Panda Express closes for construction, many of those vehicles will most likely come to their neighborhood to park all day. Currently Diablo Foods rents out spaces at that lot for their employees and Trader Joe's parks in their neighborhood also. This is also a safety issue for their neighborhood. Their cul-de-sac is small with 10 homes on the court. They have 23 children living on Moon Court from preschool to middle school aged. They have talked with all residents of the court and all would like to explore the idea of residential permit parking along with what is being considered from Mtn. View. They would be opposed to a partial 2-hour permit solution for only a segment of their neighborhood but would support a comprehensive solution that improves accessibility and safety for all residents in the surrounding area of Diablo Foods and Trader Joe's. Lastly, she asked if the permit is a fee residents have to pay. Mayor Tatzin said the process for getting Moon Court and other streets included would be to fill out a traffic action request. He asked and clarified that the fee is $15 per year and it is pro-rated annually. Councilmember Reilly asked if it is incumbent upon each neighborhood and street to come to staff, or since the City is pushing the problem onto them, she asked if the City should be doing more of a holistic parking program in that neighborhood versus expecting each street to come in and do it. Ms. Greenblat said she does not know this creates a problem elsewhere. There may already be a problem in these locations and this may solve the problem. Staff has not looked at the other locations and this is something they would want to do before bringing a recommendation before the Circulation Commission and City Council. She said generally the City's approach has been that residents bring recommendations to staff so staff is not imposing a recommendation on them as there may be residents who would want to maintain the current situation. This is also why the petition is one of support. Councilmember Reilly recognized this, but she thinks this is parking by bits and pieces. She questioned whether there should be some outreach. She agrees with speakers that as parking gets eliminated or restricted, it will push people farther into the depths of the neighborhood. Ms. Greenblat said she thinks this needs to be balanced with where they stop. As they add more and more streets to the program they will be to the southern limits of the City. TOM STENZEL pointed to the map showing Bickerstaff which is behind Trader Joe's, there is 2- hour limited parking but then on Crescent there is none. He thinks Crescent should be part of the program and Moon Court as well. SUSAN SANDS, asked and confirmed that she was included in this and regardless of not receiving a petition, she voiced her support. She is happy with the 2-hour restriction and her neighborhood as well. City of Lafayette Reguiar/Speciai City Councii Meeting & PTR Traiis Subcommittee 8 Marcli10,2014

9 Vice Mayor B. Andersson said there is an argument to be made to just do a comprehensive study to see how far the 2-hour limit should go, but the fact is, it is tricky because it is a question of human behavior. If what is proposed is done, it may push parking down Crescent Drive and farther down Mtn. View. If pushed out further there, it might affect streets farther down the line. At some point it will be far enough that Trader Joe's employees and BART riders will find a different solution which is what the City is looking for. He thinks it is difficult to do a comprehensive study that is done incrementally and really find out what the result is. It is also expensive to do and it may wind up as something the City imposes on neighborhoods. Personally, he said he prefers the incremental approach. It may be that if one section is done and possibly three years later, other neighborhoods might indicate they have a problem. He thinks the incremental approach and the neighborhood generation of the interest and proposal works well. Councilmember Mitchell agreed that the Council hears problems with parking and traffic and the City is taking the issue seriously. There is a more comprehensive parking study more directed at the downtown because they realize that is a problem. He is also in favor of the staff proposal now. He thinks the incremental approach will deal with the existing problem and the City can see how it adjusts. It may need additional work in the future which can be addressed as it comes forward. Councilmember Reilly suggested that any neighborhood with concerns getting their comments to the Circulation Commission and supported taking it by a neighborhood by neighborhood approach. She does want to be mindful that many of these neighborhoods have problems and she would hate to put an extra burden on other neighborhoods unnecessarily. Mayor Tatzin said he would also support the application before the Council. He suggested that if the Stenzel's and Erickson's believe Crescent will be impacted to speak to neighbors on Crescent and to submit an application that includes streets they think need to be included. It does not necessarily need to be limited to Moon Court per se. He could envision that over time this could spread to all areas from Mtn. View to Dewing and Mt. Diablo to Brook Street. One way to avoid the piecemeal is that the City will put the burden on neighbors and have an application that comes from people throughout the neighborhood and the City could process that. ACTION: It was M/S/C (Mitchell/B. Andersson) to Adopt Resolution establishing a 2- hour parking time zone on the west side of Mtn. View Drive, between Songbird Court and West Road, Monday-Saturday, 7am~6pm; and Adopt Resolution incorporating the west side of Mtn. View Drive, between Songbird Court and West Road into the City's Residential Preferential Permit Parking Program. Vote: (Ayes: Tatzin, B. Andersson, Mitchell, and Reilly; Noes: None; Absent: M. Anderson). 2. Final Traffic Calming Plan for Merriewood-Sllverado Neighborhood Recommendation: 1) Receive presentation of Merriewood-Silverado Final Traffic Calming Plan; 2) Adopt Merriewood-Silverado Final Traffic Calming Plan and authorize using the Traffic Calming Program Reserve to implement the plan. 3) Permit a modification to the Traffic Calming Process to allow a NAT (Neighborhood Action Team) evaluation of effectiveness 12 months after implementation of the plan, as presented in the staff report. Transportation Planner Leah Greenblat gave the staff presentation, stating the Merriewood- Silverado neighborhood applied to the City's traffic calming program. After being vetted by the City of Lafayette Regular/Special City Council l\4e6ting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 9 March 10, 2014

10 Circulation Commission, they were selected by the Commission in 2012 as the high priority traffic calming project. The project's limits are Rohrer Drive on the south and the intersection of Merriewood and Silverado on the north end. In December 2012, the City held a neighborhood kick-off meeting where volunteers were sought to serve on the Neighborhood Action Team (NAT). Like all NATs previous, this NAT was developed to purposely include residents with a diversity of geographic locations and points of view. The NAT included 16 residents, Commissioner Mary-Jane Wood as liaison, and 2 engineering staff members. There were also 4 resident alternates. Of the 16 residents on the NAT, 4 of the NAT members live on Merriewood, 6 live on Silverado, 1 resident lives on Indian Way, and the remaining 6 members live on the feeder streets onto Merriewood and Silverado. The group was composed of individuals with a variety of opinions ranging from people who saw there was nothing wrong with the current situation and those who viewed speeding as a very serious problem. The NAT met for 6 times and discussed a range of options before developing a draft plan. During the course of these first 6 meetings, they also implemented a number of Level 1 enforcement and educational traffic calming tools where they would reach out to fellow residents and raise awareness of the condition. The draft plan was eventually presented at a well-attended neighborhood open house and the feedback was generally positive with relief expressed that the plan did not include more aggressive traffic calming measures. Residents did express a lot of interest in having additional traffic enforcement in the area. The NAT met a /'^ time to review the feedback it had received at that meeting as well as from the Circulation Commission. During the course of this process there were several informal check-in's with the Circulation Commission and 2 formal check-in's where the NAT'S plans were presented. Staff would characterize the plan before the Council as a compromise plan. It is a relatively simple signing and striping plan that is modest in scope and respectful of multiple perspectives. She presented plan highlights included in the packet, stating the key elements are the signing and striping features which are intended to reinforce existing speed limits with a combination of new signage, pavement stencils, reinforcement of the existing school crosswalks, and additional striping to enhance pedestrian safety at intersections. She presented an example of some of the plan elements, examples of the stenciling in the school zone, the revised crosswalks, additional speed limit signs and relocation of speed limit signs, two in-pavement in-street paddles, some stenciling of the 25 mph speed limit and at some corners where there is additional striping and raised pavement markers where there is encroachment into a multi-purpose shoulder area to define that area. She presented an example of what these would look like at the intersection of Silverado and Merriewood. Staff heard many comments during the process about people cutting this corner and this is a neighborhood without sidewalks. The combination of striping with raised pavement markers was intended to keep cars out of that area and provide more of a safe haven for pedestrians. There are also some non-physical measures that are part of the Merriewood-Silverado plan. There is one week of intensive traffic enforcement with documentation of the hours of enforcement, the location that is patrolled, and the number and types of citations issued. There will also be a staff-generated newsletter to area residents summarizing the final plan and including some education and safety tips for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists and what is unique about this plan is that they are requesting that at a minimum of 12 months after the plan has been implemented the NAT would meet again to review the measures of effectiveness before considering any follow-up action. They have identified several measures of effectiveness; the first is to look at before and after observations made by staff of encroachment into shoulder areas. This would occur in three locations. There also would be a comparative analysis of the City of i.^fayette Reguiar/Speciai City Coundl Meeting & PTR Traiis Subcommittee 10 March 10, 2014

11 before and after speed and volume data and then a reassessment of the NAT's perception of the speeding problem. In preparing this item for Council consideration some residents raised procedural questions about the plan. Staff checked with the City Attorney which resulted in some back-tracking. However, per the City Attorney's direction staff scheduled another NAT meeting that was consistent with noticing and formalities of a Brown Act meeting in order for the NAT to vote again on the plan. There is much more detail in the staff report relative to this matter and IVls. Greenblat indicated she would answer questions about it. At this last NAT meeting there were 17 of 19 members present. They discussed extensively the paddle at the school driveway. There was a lot of concern about its location, possible parking impacts, and its impact on school bus operations. The NAT agreed it did not want to remove the paddle but asked staff to identify some solutions for how it could be kept without impact. The NAT then agreed to fonward its plan to the City Council with that amendment and the vote was 12 in favor, zero against, and 5 abstentions. After the NAT meeting, the City Engineer spoke with the Director of the School Bus Program and the Principal to determine if an option could be worked out which would address the NAT's concerns. Mr. Coe developed an option which has the support of the school district. Ms. Greenblat presented a map showing the Burton Valley school driveway and Merriewood Drive. With keeping the paddle in relatively the same location as was desired by the NAT, Mr. Coe redesigned the driveway shifting the exit lane further to the south by creating a striped median. This is consistent with other goals that the school has, and the Principal and the district have indicated their support. What this does is it changes the turning pattern of how the 40 foot school bus would turn. There is enough clearance now so it would not hit the paddle and it would not interfere with any parking on the east side shoulder area. Ms. Greenblat said tonight, staff is seeking the Council's adoption of the Merriewood Traffic Calming Plan and authorization to use the traffic calming program reserve funds to implement it, as well as a modification to the traffic calming process for this particular project so the NAT can evaluate the effectiveness of the Level 2 measures approximately 12 months after implementation. Councilmember Reilly referred to the map and stated one house has a steep driveway. She asked if they would be backing into the paddle or would it interfere with their ability to get in and out of their driveway. Ms. Greenblat pointed to the driveway which she said comes to the edge of it. They should have clearance for getting in and out. She noted there is another driveway and the paddle is located so there is no interference as well. Councilmember Reilly asked if staff has discussed this with these two homeowners. Ms. Greenblat said yes; one neighbor is on the NAT and the other is an alternate member. They will most likely speak this evening under public comment. Vice Mayor B. Andersson thanked Ms. Greenblat for her staff report and said since there is the ability after 13 months for the neighborhood to come back and say it is not working or they want more or other ideas of how it could be done better, he asked if there is any need for the 12 month review to modify the process when in another month they can check in again anyway. Ms. Greenblat said the 13 month option is different. It would send them back to the beginning. They would need to re-apply with a petition, and get selected again by the Circulation Commission as a high priority neighborhood. She presented the flow chart of the Traffic Calming Process processes included in the Guidebook. The reason for its detail is that they were in the Burton Valley neighborhood many years ago. They heard at that time that there was not a clear review process. When the program was developed it was very specific. City of i_afeyette Regular/Spedai City Councii Meeting & PTR Trails Subcommiltee 11 MarctilO, 2014

12 Vice IVlayor B. Andersson said with the 12 month review, he asked where they would come into the process at that point. Ms. Greenblat said they would come in at Level 3 if that is what they wanted to do. They would need to meet and decide how effective they think the measures were. Councilmember M. Anderson said he has the same questions about the process in terms of embedding the NAT's ability to come back and restart part-way through the process. He thinks these projects come about because there are people concerned about a problem. They start at the beginning with a petition process and initiate it. It seems that if they keep the committee alive and allow it to be an on-going monitoring body it has a different flavor to it. It is almost as if they are trying to experiment with an idea when they are not really sure it is going to work. They should have an idea they know will work and staff has done a good job of solving the problems that are apparent. He would like the Council to think about allowing this to run its course in a normal way. Should there be an interest, they should start all over again and there is a value in that. They would get a sense from the community whether there is interest and a will to do it, and then they can start the process over again. He is not quite clear why they have changed the process for this one project. City Engineer Tony Coe stated the original reason why staff proposed this deviation from the plan is that since the program's adoption, they have done 4 other projects in other neighborhoods. Invariably, they have observed that when people are made to go back to the beginning after they have worked on it together for a year, they do not want to go through the initiation process again. If this is their one shot to get something done, they would go for the most aggressive and most sure plan they can come up with. This finality in choice steers them in a direction where they may be reaching for some solutions that may not be necessary and, in the process, the debate may become more divisive within the neighborhood. With every neighborhood the City has been working with, there is the diversity of opinion. Some people do not fee! there is a problem. So in order to create the setting where compromise rules the day, they felt there needed to be a mechanism that allows people the feeling that if they tried some incremental first steps that are modest in nature then that is not their final bullet at this problem. That was the reason why staff proposed it in the beginning. Councilmember M. Anderson said he appreciates the explanation but was still not clear if it fits this situation. Councilmember Mitchell said whether the neighborhood comes back in 12 or 13 months or not at all, if they were to come back he confirmed they could request further modifications at Level 2. If they choose to pursue Level 3, he confirmed that whatever they propose would have to go through a neighborhood vote. Ms. Greenblat explained that the Level 2 program was developed to provide a more streamlined option for less invasive proposals and requires only a vote of the NAT and review by the Circulation Commission and City Council. The Level 3 proposal has more check-in's,-one of which is an advisory vote by the neighborhood. It is a more involved review which starts with a neighborhood open house, then the City generates a ballot packet to send out to residents. It is sent to residents in the area where the actual measures are proposed, along with properties on the feeder streets. In this case, it would be a very large area given that there are about 420 properties. Councilmember Mitchell asked and confirmed that then the residents collectively could vote to accept or reject a Level 3 proposal. Ms. Greenblat added that in the traffic calming program, there are different ways votes are counted. When the program was adopted by the Councii there was an interest in having the greatest level of participation. Anybody over 18 who is in the focus or study area is eligible to vote, but when a Level 3 type of proposal has an element in front of someone's property, in that City of i_a!byette Reguiar/Speciai City Councii Meeting & PTR Traiis Subcommittee 12 March

13 case the traffic calming program calls for having a certain percentage of property owners approving it at that location. Two-thirds approval by adjacent property owners is needed when a measure is adjacent to their property. Mayor Tatzin said in the current guidebook, for a Level 2 action, he asked who gets to vote on the NAT. Ms. Greenblat said any NAT member. However, currently they have a catch 22 situation now. When the guidebook was developed it was developed with the intent that the NAT would not be subject to the Brown Act. It would be an informal neighborhood advisory group such that members could go outside of meetings and meet amongst themselves and talk about it as an open forum. By doing so, they could get greater participation and it would be representative of the neighborhood. Different NAT members are assigned to a particular biock to get feedback from people. The way it is written in the guidebook for a Level 2, it states that all NAT members must vote, but in practice, it is difficult to require someone to have to vote. With the designation of it now being subject to the Brown Act, staff cannot compel somebody to vote. But if they are in attendance at the meeting which was subject to the Brown Act, like the last NAT meeting, members who were present were eligible to vote but there are no proxies allowed at a meeting subject to the Brown Act. Mayor Tatzin asked if membership on the NAT is limited to the residents in the area. Ms. Greenblat said no. According to the traffic calming guidebook, it is combination of residents, the Circulation Commissioner liaison and engineering staff and other staff as they may need to bring in. For this particular NAT it was just herself, Mr. Coe and Commissioner Wood. Councilmember Reilly asked for clarification on how a NAT member was selected versus proxies. Ms. Greenblat said there was a lot of interest at the kick-off meeting and staff collected application forms from people to serve on the NAT. After the meeting, as people went out and talked about it, additional applications were received. They then mapped out where all applicants live and based upon feedback at the kick-off meeting, staff tries to form a NAT that has a diverse geographic representation and point of views. Staff. reviews this with the Commissioner liaison and the neighborhood point people for the project. As much as feasible, if someone volunteers, they want to be able to utilize them, but it is also a bit of a balancing act. In this particular NAT, they had a lot of volunteers on particular streets. In that case, those people were designated as alternates. There were 4 alternates of the 16 residents mentioned. Throughout the course of the meetings with the neighborhood there are a series of votes taken which has historically been quite informal. If a primary NAT member is unable to attend, they are told to ask their alternate to attend on their behalf. Later on as meetings progressed, there is the perception that it is a higher stake vote because clear direction is being given on what they want to see occur. In the case of one of the later meetings of the NAT, there were people on the NAT who were unable to attend who did not have alternates. Some of them ed her or put something in writing that indicated a certain person could vote on their behalf and staff included the votes, which were represented with proxies. Councilmember Reilly said in talking about Level 3 she asked that when it comes to a vote, did the votes of those affected or adjacent properties be weighted differently. She said on the Level 2, representatives were disseminated throughout the entire neighborhood versus having them clustered. If there were interested parties with properties adjacent or some most impacted, the vote was more spread out. Ms. Greenblat referred back to Level 3 voting and said there are different thresholds of voting when getting closer to where something might be proposed. In the case of the Level 2 measures, they are generally less invasive measures. The idea was to have a simpler system to implement the plan. The simpler system, because is the measures are less invasive, was just to have the NAT vote. But, throughout the process the NAT has tried to be very considerate of impacts to residents. For example, at the meeting last week there was City of l-ai^yette Reguiar/Speciai City Councii Meeting & PTR Traiis Subcommittee 13 Marcti 10, 2014

14 discussion about wiiether or not there should be a parking restriction on either side of the crosswalk at Burton Valley School. Some NAT members said they would not want to have parking restricted in front of my house and they wanted to find a solution that did not impact the parking in front of their neighbor's house. What is before the Council is a compromise and not everyone likes it. Councilmember M. Anderson said because this needs to follow the Brown Act, he asked the City Attorney if the Council needs to re-look at this process and make sure what the City does through all parts of it are consistent with the requirements of the Brown Act. They will have to have votes that are recorded, minutes taken, public comment, and a lot of other things that go along with that. City Attorney Subramanian said they have talked about amending this going forward to make sure that some of the provisions that do not comply with the Brown Act are amended and they can still keep the intent and comply with the law. To the extent that there were already actions that occurred and there was an attempt to cure it, they did their best, but it was to comply with the Brown Act and therefore certain things like everybody being required to vote was not implemented. If there was a conflict between what the current guidelines said and what the Brown Act provides, they defaulted to the Brown Act. Going fon/vard, they want to review the guidelines more comprehensively and make other changes; however, she definitely wants to make changes as they relate to the Brown Act to the NATs. Mayor Tatzin summarized and confirmed the discussion, stating the impacts of the approach they are using in this case as compared with the guidelines are that they did not allow proxies in the final vote, they noticed the meeting under Brown Act requirements, they did not require everyone to vote and they proposed a change to the review process to have a review at around 12 months and provide the option to move to a Level 3 or Level 2 modifications without going back to the initiation process. Ms. Greenblat relayed that the plan the NAT approved last week is fairly consistent with the plan that the Circulation Commission previously reviewed and recommended be forwarded to the City Council. The only difference is the driveway approach at Burton Valley School. Mayor Tatzin disclosed that he had met with some of the neighbors this morning and read Mr. Coe's report that was submitted for tonight's meeting and went to the Lamorinda School Bus meeting this morning. At that point, they had not seen staffs proposal and he asked if Mr. Coe if he had a chance to talk with the school bus operator later in the day for their input. Mr. Coe said he spoke with the manager of the school bus program before developing the option Ms. Greenblat presented earlier. Their conversation centered around re-routing the school bus so it does not need to make a left turn as it comes out of the school. Ms. Juliet Hansen indicated she is open to doing that, although this is not her preference. Based on this, he was trying to find other ways where they did not have to impact the school bus route. While she has not seen this, he does not think she will have a problem with it. Mayor Tatzin said they would actually like to take a bus out and drive it to see if it works, and they have not had a chance to do that yet. Mayor Tatzin opened the public comment period. Public Comments: SHANNON BRUCE said she is a school bus driver for Burton Valley. She said even if the City changes the direction of how they exit the driveway from Burton Valley it will not matter because of the length of the bus. When coming out of the driveway, there will be a problem if there is parking at the residence on the corner and people are coming up, as well as from the with current construction there. When she drove through today, she asked the workers if they knew it City of Lafayette Reguiar/Speciai City Council Meeting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 14 March 10, 2014

15 was illegal to park in the crosswalk which has happened often since they have been working at the house. The paddle situation as a school bus driver is not going to work. She is a 71- passenger bus which is smaller than an 81-passenger bus which is 40 feet. More turning ratio is needed for the 40 foot buses. If there are paddles on both sides and if she were to turn right out of the driveway, they will still need the turning ratio to turn out of the driveway. They will still hit the paddle because of the traffic that comes in and out through there, as well as construction trucks and people parking there. She suggested that instead of having the paddles, put speed limit signs up like those on Willow or have a signal light instead of having something in the street. As a driver, the paddle situation will not work. Vice Mayor B. Andersson asked the City Engineer to comment as to whether or not the situation will or will not work. Mr. Coe said he can say that the turning path is that from a 40 foot bus vehicle and this is the tracking path of the wheels based oh a turning template. There is only one paddle also which is going to be put feet back from the crosswalk. In this case, the turning path clears the shoulder area so even if there were a car parked there, it is not in the path of travel. Vice Mayor B. Andersson said when coming south on Merriewood and turning into the school, he asked if a bus could make the turn without hitting the paddle. Mr. Coe said this should not be a problem. KEN KISNER, said the paddles are not placed there for school times. This program was to slow traffic and not about student safety. When school children are walking to and from school people cannot drive more than 5 mph because the area is congested. He is not sure the paddles are proposed for their intended purpose. He disagrees with the current plan that has been approved by the Circulation Commission. The Council is not voting on the plan approved by the Commission. It has been changed and to him it should go back to the Commission before coming to the Council. The plan uses the school zone as major criteria for changes; however, there are no discussed issues concerning the safety of students going to and from school Secondly, the plan cannot be implemented as drawn and paddles were addressed after the Circulation Commission meeting. One of the problem is that the bus comes into the on-coming traffic all the way to the sign which looks to be 20 feet beyond the crosswalk and he asked if cars would have to back up backwards to allow the bus to turn. Lastly and most important is the disregard for the processes and procedures. He feels the NAT guidelines should either be changed and/or followed or followed as written now. He quoted Louis Brandeis, stating in part, "If the government becomes the law breaker it breeds contempt for law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy." The NAT was formed of 16 members of the neighborhood and a clear 9 member majority; however, they are allowing 19 people to vote including staff, which he disagrees with. Councilmember Mitchell asked if Mr. Kisner was concerned with the voting aspects of the guidelines or the 13 month aspect of it, or both. Mr. Kisner said he is concerned about the 13 month aspect of it because he thinks there is value in the process. He thinks part of that process of a community is how they govern, and he thinks there is value in starting the process over when there has been a change mid-stream with the NAT. NIK LEVANDOWSKI, said he thinks they do need speeding regulations to calm traffic because people drive too fast and cause accidents. When he is walking his dog or riding his bike it is unsafe because cars go so fast. It is also dangerous when he has to walk in the street to go around a car that is parked on the side. People do not always stop at the crosswalk. He thinks the crosswalk should be improved by having the paddles put up and asked to repaint the signs. City of l^fayette Reguiar/Speciai City Council Meeting & PTR Trails SutKXjmmittee 15 March 10, 2014

16 He does not think paddles are a concern, and this will pressure people not to speed and stop at the crosswalk. Councilmember Reilly asked if there is a crossing guard at school times both coming to and going from school. Ms. Greenblat said there is at the Burton Valley and Merriewood in the morning and afternoon. LAURA LEVANDOWSKI,, member of the NAT, said she has lived on Silverado for 11 years. Silverado Drive is a busy thoroughfare in Burton Valley with handling over 2,000 cars per day. Like the rest of her neighborhood she wants to preserve the rural feeling of their community, but her block looks like a runway and feels like a highway. The plan before the Council is a compromise that is minimaily invasive and she hopes it works. It has been recommended by staff and approved by a majority of the NAT at the first and second time they voted on it. It was embraced by the Burton Valley community at the community open house and by the Circulation Commission. Ms. Greenblat led them through the traffic calming process and she and Mr. Coe wrote very clear and comprehensive staff reports recommending that the Council approve this plan. She urged the Council to approve the plan to help protect walkers, cyclists, and school children in Burton Valley and to slow the traffic in front of their homes. She noted that there is a crossing guard at Burton Valley but another concern is that the school is used after school and on weekends for sporting events and the driveway is closed and blocked by the gate so people park on the streets and walk to school, often times when it is not in session. Councilmember M. Anderson asked what in the plan is going to directly affect traffic on Silverado Drive, except for speed limit signs. Ms. Levandowski noted that there will be a crosswalk paddle at the school crosswalk on Silverado Drive at Indian Way. GAIL WHERRITT, NAT member, said they have been discussing a traffic calming plan for over a year. The committee is unfairly represented by proponents of the traffic calming plan. When residents but not NAT members who did not see a problem attended a meeting they were not allowed to speak. At various meetings, City staff and the Circulation Commission liaison voted on some issues but not others. The bias of City staff was, apparent at the outset. There is a plan before the Council which is a Level 2 plan. However, an exception to the guidebook is included in this plan. Proponents of the plan and the NAT may consider implementing a Level 3 plan after one year. This exception to the guidebook compromises the work they have done. It is essentia! that no Level 3 plan be instituted in their neighborhood unless the proper procedure as outlined in the guidebook is followed. Many residents who regulariy walk and bike consider their streets safe and beautiful and want to ensure it will remain. Statistics do not merit any traffic calming plan. The answer is education and enforcement This was her first attempt in involving herself in any government arena and she was very disappointed that residents were not permitted to speak, votes were taken informally, the guidelines were not followed and an air of confrontation rather than compromise prevailed. Councilmember Mitchell asked if Ms. Wherritt was concerned more about the Level 2 plan being offered or the re-evaluation part of the 13 month issue, Ms. Wherritt said she was concerned about the re-evaluation. JOE MC DONOUGH, said he is a new resident to the area and they have two young boys, one attending Burton Valley School and he honestly feels there is a traffic and speeding problem. He does not allow his children to play in the front yard because drivers are cutting into the white line which corners Silverado and Burton Drive. He listens to comments from the NAT, heard of the Level 2 plan, feels it is inadequate and urged the Council to take some time, visit the neighborhood and experience traffic themselves. On weekends, people are speeding by, cutting Cily of i_afayette Reguiar/Speciai City Councii Meeting & PTR Traiis Subcommittee 16 IVIarch 10, 2014

17 into the lane and driving way too fast. He thinks the suggestions for Level 2 are a start but being new to the area, the Council is failing at this problem. There are many people that have their own signs saying "slow down". Councilmember Mitchell asked if there are new markings proposed at Burton and Silverado Drive. He noted there is a right hand turn from Burton onto Silverado and it is a similar situation at Silverado and Merriewood where there is a corner that needs some separation. Ms. Greenblat said she thinks this is an area they are focusing on outside of the study area, but it does not show up on the map. ADRIAN LEVY, echoed sentiments of Mr. McDonough. He and his wife grew up in Lafayette, moved to Burton Valley in 1991 and they still believe it is a nice place to live. He was part of the group that approached the City in 1997 and asked for traffic calming measures on Roar Drive. It was a trying process. One of the most poignant memories he has is that Scott Robinson, Chief Safety Officer at United Airlines at SFO was quoted as saying speeding is the most dangerous health hazard in Burton Valley. This has not changed. He walked up Roar Drive this afternoon and saw somebody texting, putting on lipstick and cleaning their window all while driving. Traffic is still a dangerous situation. He loves Lafayette but does not think its residents understand the dangers of traffic speed and inattention. When someone gets killed it will be a life-changing event for everybody involved. He would imagine the Council needs to follow some sort of process of a Level 1, 2 or 3 and he expects after a year, everybody will be back talking about a Level 3 solution. He asked the Council address speeding in Burton Valley. WILLIAM FALKSON, said on February 28*" the City Attorney advised the traffic planning department that it and the NAT acted in violation of the Brown Act in devising this plan. These violations included prohibiting his neighbors and him from speaking at and participating in NAT meetings, conducting invalid votes, miscounting votes, changing rules, not keeping records, not properly noticing meetings, private meetings, and City staff sometimes voting and sometimes not voting depending on how they felt. The City Engineer has dismissed his department's Brown Act violations of the past 10 years as an unfortunate and inadvertent technicality. He also refers to his own traffic calming guidebook as just a bunch of guidelines. This is a,10 % year violation of all NAT projects the City has conducted and not a mere technicality. Unfortunately the planning staffs remedy to this mistake was to double down and compound the error. With just 72 hours' notice the traffic planner announced a revote with new rules that required a quorum of only 9 NAT members. When it was pointed out to City staff that their own rules said all NAT members must cast a vote on the Level 2 plan, they replied that traffic planning would go ahead with a second vote on March even though they knew it would not be in compliance with the guidebook. They wrote that the planning department had learned some valuable lessons from his concerns but it always conducted votes this way so it would continue to do so. They indicated they would clarify their procedures on the next project. The NAT is supposed to be a forum for an open exchange of ideas and debate and not simply a one-sided rushed cost, predetermined agenda item. Mr. Coe's response makes references to the law of reasonableness as to why he is continuing down this path. After operating illegally for 10 >^ years one would think the reasonable path would be to call a timeout rather than rushing ahead and changing the rules one by one at the last minute. The proposed traffic calming plan then asks for another exception to the traffic planning guidelines so this illegal NAT can reconvene and subjectively consider a Level 3 plan in 12 months. If this NAT has conducted itself illegally and the program has operated illegally and if participation and attendance in the existing NAT has been dysfunctional, he asked why the Council would ever give it an exception to continue. The only substantive part of the plan he finds problematic is the paddle on Merriewood Drive. He questioned how it could be recommended without knowing how buses and trucks will turn around it. It took him presenting a video to the Circulation Commission before planning and NAT City of Lafayette Regular/Special City Coundl IWeeting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 17 March

18 even knew it was a problem. His remedy and the Council's remedy should be to stop this plan and send it back to planning to conduct their project within the bounds of the law. If the rules need changing, do that first. If the rules need changing he asked the Council to do this first. PAUL DERBY seeded her time to allow Mr. Falkson to continue. He asked not to accept the planning department plea to let them do it wrong just one more time and then fix it later and he asked not to grant them any modifications to traffic guidelines because the traffic planning flowchart on page 8 of the guidebook states when the NAT is done, it is done. He said if the Council does not reject this plan, he believes the Council is opening up the City for potential legal action. He feels there is no hurry to pass this measure. The neighborhood has been safe and functional since it was built over 50 years ago and it is more important to get the process and the plan right than it is to get it fast. Councilmember M. Anderson asked the City Attorney if it was possible for the Council to consider this project given its problems with the Brown Act. Ms. Subramanian said if there is a violation of the Brown Act, the requirement is to cure the default and this is why she requested the vote occur under the Brown Act and subject to its rules and that this happen before the Council considers it. Staff was able to hold the meeting and 17 of 19 members were able to participate. Therefore, they have cured the Brown Act violation and the Council can move fonward with the vote if it chooses to do so tonight Councilmember Reilly asked besides meeting the deadline of tonight's meeting, she asked if there was any other reason to have the vote last week or she asked if that could have been postponed also. Ms. Subramanian said it could have been postponed. When she spoke with staff she stated if they could get the group together before the Council meeting, then they can proceed. If they could not, she recommended continuing it to allow the vote to occur properly under the Brown Act and bring it to the Council. What she did not want to happen is for it to be heard by the Councii until they cured the default. There was not a timing constraint other than members of the NAT have been working on this for quite some time. Vice Mayor B. Andersson clarified with Ms. Subramanian that in this last round there were some things done that were in conflict with the guidelines because in fact they were consistent with the Brown Act. Where there was a conflict between the two, the City Attorney went with the Brown Act which is the controlling measure. Councilmember Mitchell asked if the Brown Act allows City employees to vote. Ms. Subramanian said it does if they are on the Commission. The NAT provides that staff members can be on the Commission and they can vote. JOE TORRES, said his family and many neighbors witness daily speeding. They witness the unwillingness of drivers to slow down and yield to children and other pedestrians at the intersections of Silverado, Indian Way and Merriewood which are school crossing areas. Their observations of speeding are backed by data collected. He urged the Council to approve the recommendation presented by the planning department. He has been pari: of the NAT for the last year and the recommendation for Level 2 solution is very basic but necessary to remind drivers to operate at 25 mph. This is a constructive approach. The recommendation is the result of many meetings and options, including police enforcement, on-going education, speed bumps, re-painting, adding signs, etc. He is well aware of the commendable efforts by some of his neighbors in the last 12 months educating and informing residents about traffic calming initiatives. "Slow down" lawn signs have been displayed throughout the neighborhood, stickers for garbage cans have been provided. Driver's education and commitment to obey the 25 mph City of Lafayette Regular/Special Cily Council Meeting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 18 March 10, 2014

19 has all been provided for people and there have been many big signs on Merriewood, Silverado and Roar informing people about traffic calming meetings, an open house inviting people to Circulation Commission meetings and informing people of this City Councii meeting. He has seen more information about the traffic calming initiative for Merriewood and Silverado than any other project in Lafayette. He attended two Commission meetings and on both occasions, members encouraged neighbors to take stronger measures such as stop signs, speed blinking signs or speed bumps. However, to appease the minority of NAT members who did not want any measures taken at all, the NAT reached a compromise solution which they voted on and approached which the Commission voted on and approved. He hopes the Council approves this tonight and he feels this is a step in the right direction, given the process. If they do not do this, they cannot get to Level 3 solutions that might be necessary. PAULINE DORR, NAT member, pointed out that this afternoon she observed two children and an adult in the middle of the street playing games. She asked why enforcement cannot address individual behaviors that are creative perceptive issues with many people. The four "E's" are in place, they have talked about education, engineering, and she wouid the panel to consider evaluation, but feels that the City's paid force can institute things which would bring many individual behaviors into line. She is concerned that if the Level 2 plan is put into effect that in 12 or 13 months, a Level 3 plan will move forward and no evaluation will have been done of what was and was not right. In her opinion, if the City just handled enforcement and not let people know when it will happen, they will see behaviors change and all kids will be able to play out in the street. Vice Mayor B. Andersson stated that when the City sees a problem where enforcement can help, they often direct the Police Chief to conduct spot enforcement or focus on a particular area. This is not something that is long term or consistent. There are about 18,000 drivers in Lafayette and 2-3 patrol officers at any given time. They can do something there, but it is not a complete answer. Ms. Dorr said as a teacher, when doing a surprise quiz, they find out who has studied and who has not studied. Vice Mayor B. Andersson agreed that this can be effective to a certain extent for a certain time. JENNIFER DORR, said she notices many signs with posted speed limits and with "drive like your children live here" signs. She sees kids biking and people out in the street often and signage helps. She would say there is not a traffic problem in her area as far as the number of cars on the street. Traffic is heavy during school times but it is very slow because it is so congested. Kids coming out of school automatically slow people down, but during non-school times when traffic is not as heavy, there are still people and children out, but the solution does not seem to be anything other than an eyesore in the road which she feels will not solve the problem. She thinks ticketing will catch people who race through the area, but residents who live there recognize the speed limit. Councilmember M. Anderson asked what Ms. Dorr takes issue to and asked if it was just the aesthetics of the proposed plan. Ms. Dorr said she does not think it solves any problem the group has brought fonward. The paddle is directly in front of her house which is an aesthetic issue but it is in the crosswalk where there is a school crossing guard, and she was not sure it was in the correct location to slow down a speeder. The location is an obvious school zone no matter what time it is. There are people and children there on the weekends and it is obvious that there are people in the area and she thinks it is redundant. City of Lafayette Regular/Speciai City Council Meeting & PTR Traiis Subcommittee 19 March 10, 2014

20 JOHN DORR, SR., said he has raised both of his children at his residence of 18 years, said they have always felt it was safe and he joined the NAT as an alternate, was told to be quiet, not to vote, and they were bullied at the NAT by staff on numerous occasions when the vote was not going in their favor. Mr. Coe stated that staff would not support it which definitely had an influence over the community and how they were moving on in the NAT meetings. After attending 3 Circulation Commission meetings and speaking at two of them, he was the first to bring up the issue about the proxies when they did not have to follow the Brown Act at that time, one person had 4 proxies and 5 votes of the 8 votes taken. He said he thought this was unfair. A motion was made and never got a second at the Circulation Commission meeting. He brought up the bus issue at the first meeting. At the second meeting, Bill Falkson brought in a video and showed the Circulation Commissioners, and at both meetings, they asked to have it sent back to the NAT and not for it to be brought fonward. It did not happen. They stili have no way of measuring success. They said after 12 months they will get together and see how effective it is. Many who have been in business measure success with specific measurements to be able to see what has been achieved. They talked about slowing down the average speed 1-2 mph, as he and law enforcement does not think there is a speeding problem. Of the 3 tests run, 85% were less than 25 mph. At the second Circulation Commission meeting, 15 people spoke against the current plan and asked to have it sent back. Two people said it should move fona/ard and the Circulation Commission put it forward. He does not think City government should follow perceptions but facts. The City's police department has not seen it fit or warranted to ticket the area because there is no speeding problem after having taken down a speed box. If they will not ticket the area, he questioned why they even had a NAT. He asked the Council to reconsider this and at least remove the paddles after 12 months without exception and keep the plan basic. Councilmember Reilly confirmed that the police department put out a speeding box that reads speeds and volumes and she asked what the police department said about this. Ms. Greenblat said there were multiple speed counts that took place. In some ways it is apples and oranges because they had two different methodologies and tools taken to conduct the counts. There was the traditional count with hoses across the roadway. In May and June 2012 when those counts occurred, the 85*" percentile speed was 32 mph on Merriewood and 35 mph on Silverado. When police collected their data in February 2013 their 85"^ percentile on Merriewood was 32 mph and 31 mph on Silverado. Councilmember Reilly asked if there was any education that occurred in the neighborhood. Ms. Greenblat said yes. Mayor Tatzin asked and confirmed that school was in session at both times. For the Merriewood numbers, people have said that during the school hour there is a fair amount of traffic not moving very fast. He asked if those counts include the effects of the school traffic and the 85*" percentile calculation based on the school traffic being included. Ms. Greenblat said yes, the 85*^ percentile count is a 24 hour count. The information derived from the police department is macro and they were able to get into more detail with the information they collected with the two counts. Mayor Tatzin said it would be interesting to know what the 85*" percentile is outside of school hours. Mr. Dorr stated there is no volume on their street. They have people playing games out in the street. He feels this is a solution looking for a problem. JOHN DORR, JR. said the problem with traffic or safety does not exist. He grew up on Merriewood and in 18 years he has never seen a traffic citation written or people pulled over. It is his belief that the solution offered is a waste of money. As a child growing up on this street, he always felt safe and it is his opinion that the Level 2 plan offered is not necessary. City of i_afayettg Reguiar/Speciai City Council Meeting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 20 March 10,2014

21 BRETT HOLDEN, said he lives at the corner of Merriewood and Indian, commended everybody for all the work put into coming up with solutions and it is not easy. He feels the divisiveness in the neighborhood which is not comfortable. He lived in the neighborhood for 19 years and was part of the plan back when they put the speed bumps and stop signs in on Roar Drive. At the same time Merriewood and Silverado were part of that plan at the time, but they determined that nothing needed to be done on Merriewood and Silverado and this is still the case. Unfortunately, the perception is that cars are going fast especially when looking at the security of children walking down the street. It is not a speeding problem. When 85% of the cars go 31 mph, this is 31 mph or under. In walking, he does not feel there is that much of a speeding problem. He thinks enforcement would help once a week for several weeks and in a couple of weeks, the problem will change. St. Mary's Road has a person at the same spot all the time and he knows cars slow down when going through that area so he thinks enforcement is something they should look at more. The paddle is something they should re-evaluate because it could be more of a problem. On St. Mary's Road where there is a paddle, he has seen cars veering outside to avoid hitting the paddle which is looked at as more of an obstruction in the middle of the road. When veering, the cars are in the biking or walking lane, so children, animals and walkers are more in jeopardy with the paddle in place. Therefore, he asked the Council to re-evaluate that part of the plan, but he was thankful for the rest of the plan. NICOLE FORTNER, stated her children were the ones identified as playing out in the street and when they got home, she scolded them for running out and playing in the street. It is so dangerous and this is not something they usually do because she does not feel it is safe. In fact she moved from San Francisco one year ago. When she first invited people out from San Francisco, they thought it was great, but she can only allow her children to play in the backyard and not out front unless she or her husband were with them. This has changed her perspective about how great her neighborhood is. Also, for the 15% that are over 30 mph, she would be interested to know how many actual cars was part of that number. Again, it comes down to one incident to make things turn bad. She realizes that the issue is a much larger community issue, as there are walkers, soccer practice, kids riding bikes in the neighborhood and kids walking down to swim practice and it is scary to see how fast people drive which is constant. Cars do not slow down. The streets are so wide and instead of slowing down, they veer into the center and continue on. It has become a freeway loop through Burton Valley and people are not paying attention to safety. The plan includes visual and physical markers to help shake perception and get people out of their tunnel vision and to start re-engaging them with their surroundings, to just tap on the brakes and slow down a bit. It is just paint and some paddles, and this was all they could get through in order to make everybody as comfortable as possible and be as minimally invasive while still trying to make a difference. She asked the Council to please approval the plan. ROMI SMITH, said they moved here almost 3 years ago from Minneapolis and they have two elementary aged children. The second day they moved they felt there was a speeding and pedestrian safety issue. They are beautiful roads and areas but they are wide open and they make it easy for people to reach speeds that are not safe for children, walkers, riders or pets. She has worked on this process since she moved in by talking to neighbors and she was one of the people who initiated the petition. The petition was signed, they got signatures from neighbors who did agree there was an issue. The City moved fon/vard with the project, the NAT was formed and they have been working with staff ever since to reduce speed, protect pedestrians and preserve the aesthetic of the neighborhood. They looked at many solutions, weighed pro's and con's, cost and effectiveness. It has been time-consuming and an arduous process with many compromises that the previous speaker alluded to. They feel they ended up with a minor plan; however, it represents a compromise among the NAT. Regarding the paddles City of Lafayette Reguiar/Speciai Cily Council Meeting & PTR Traiis Subcommittee 21 Marcli10,2014

22 and why they chose that measure, she said it had a high effectiveness with low cost as far as reducing speeds and drawing attention for pedestrian safety. Their hope is that they would serve as added protection on the crosswalks during school time and outside of school time, but also as a visual queue to break up the freeway feeling on the street. She said the plan has been voted on and approved by the NAT several times. It was presented and well-received at a neighborhood open house in October and approved by the Circulation Commission on more than one occasion. They even heard feedback at the open house and from the Commission that it was not strong enough, and as heard, the NAT met again last week for a special re-vote and it passed again with 12 yes votes, 5 abstentions, and not a single "no" vote. They are now in the final phase and she feels there is risk of derailment solely based on some outlying opinions and process technicalities that were only brought up when the final vote was coming near. These efforts to throw out two years of work when the vote and the neighborhood voice have been clear, is disheartening. She urged the Council to approve what is before them, to respect the work, to listen to the multiple votes on the topic and to allow them to test it and reconvene to discern whether it was effective. By reconvening and testing it does not mean they will necessarily go to a Level 3 plan which she wants to make clear. It allows them to reconvene as a group to look at what they have done and if and how it was effective. Councilmember M. Anderson said if they do not have the re-evaluation lead to a new start of a Level 3 process, he asked if this would be okay, and he asked if Mrs. Smith just wants to make sure people actually has a chance to evaluate the effectiveness. Mrs. Smith said because so much work has gone into this, she would like the group to have the ability to get together, look at the data and have a conversation. If there are other measures to be considered, she would like to do that without having to go through the process. There is more stringent voting and process that goes into place for Level 3 and it is not a done deal. She would like to have the group come back and discuss it because otherwise, there is no accountability. Councilmember Reilly asked what measurement tools would be looked at to re-evaluate, as she has heard differing opinions that there are measurement tools and there are not. Ms. Greenblat stated the NAT agreed to the following measures of effectiveness ^that there would be before and after observations made and analyzed by staff on the frequency of driver encroachment into the shoulder area at 3 locations, there would be a comparative analysis of speed and volume data before and after the implementation of the plan and there would be a re-assessment of the NAT'S perceptions of the speeding problem that may warrant further action. Councilmember Reilly stated it sounds as if two are subjective and one has more of a measurement tool. Ms. Greenblat said two are objective the second one being the observation of whether or not people are driving in and out of the shoulder area. CHRISTY MACK, said she and her family have lived there for 3 years and has been an active member of the NAT. When looking at the plan, she sees it as a straight-forward plan, as a plan that refreshes and standardizes the crosswalks in their neighbor that are extremely faded. Paint is worn down in the crosswalks where they are hardly visible unless people know they are there and to look for them. She thinks it is smart for crosswalks, especially in a school area to be painted to be seen from a distance as drivers are approaching them. She also thinks the plan includes the refreshing of lines on the road. They are very worn. Those that separate and protect people as they are walking in the road are very faded and chipped in locations. It would be important to refresh them so when cars are driving down Merriewood and Silverado they can see much more clearly that this is the area where pedestrians are walking and where bicyclists are riding their bikes. The last thing it does is add the crosswalk paddles at what she views as two critical locations, one being in a crosswalk near Burton Valley Elementary at Merriewood. She thinks it is typical that most schools have these crosswalk paddles in place near schools. It City of Lafayette Regular/Speciai City Council Meeting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 22 March

23 also adds another one on Indian at Silverado, there with the hopes of slowing people down. When they looked at many solutions, they found that the crosswalk paddles were very highly effective for the cost in slowing people down as they are coming down roads. There are no other physical measures in this plan to calm the traffic and there is no financial contribution required from neighborhood homeowners. To her it is a simple plan that takes a step fonward in helping to protect all those who walk in the neighborhood. It has a smart option to check back in 13 months as to its success. Therefore, she thinks it is better than what they have today and she thinks it will help protect people from the many who use their street daily. ANSON MOORE, said he is one driveway south of the Burton Valley/Merriewood entry. He has lived in the neighborhood for 21 years with two kids at Burton Valley who do a lot of walking and bicycling in the area. He thinks there is a speeding issue and thinks that the NAT has done a terrific job in trying to pull together what is a reasonable compromise. He urged the Council to move forward with the proposal. WES HILTON, said he is against the plan, stating he moved to Burton Valley in 1967 and has lived there off and on his entire life and continually in the last 13 years. He has 5 older brothers and a younger sister who would walk to what was then Merriewood Elementary and Fairview Intermediate School which eventually became Burton Valley Elementary, and also hiked down to Stanley. He has 5 children, aged from 18 to 8 and they also walk to Burton Valley Elementary and hiked down to Stanley. He has heard different, but he personally has never seen an accident or injury and he thinks things are fine as is. He is very concerned about changing the character of the neighborhood. If his neighbors would like refreshing of the painting and added painted stripes, but he thinks the paddles go too far as it urbanizes the look of the neighborhood. After the Circulation Commission meeting, he kept his eyes open for paddles in the City and has seen one on Upper Happy Valley Road which is beat up and sideways. It obviously has been hit and they look trashy. His hope would be to veto the paddle. He is also concerned about the rule of law and procedure that has been talked about and the special exception made for the NAT to skip some of the introductory steps. KATHI TORRES, said traffic and speeding are serious concerns for most living on what is a busy thoroughfare and for all who have young children living at home. She has witnessed firsthand accidents and near misses on her street and based on the hard evidence collected by the City shows that 90% of drivers speed. This is a couple of hundred drivers per day on Silverado go more than 10 mph than what the law allows. It is a problem, it is real, and to suggest anything different is to blatantly deny the facts. Speeding is a problem. It has been validated and substantiated. Some neighbors told her it was a problem long before she moved in 12 years ago and she commended members of the NAT for taking the necessary steps to finally address the problem. They have worked together for 18 months to work out a solution, guided by the expertise of a transportation planner and a City Engineer. The plan does nothing to change the character of the neighborhood because it leverages what already exists crosswalks and signage. It does not force people to stop on their way and the data suggests they should see a reduction in speed at the crosswalks. Her house was built in 1958 and much has changed, but she does not believe the way things were should ever be used as a justification for obstructing improvements to their neighborhood today or in the future. On a related note, in January a Moraga man wrote a letter to the editor complaining about a ticket he got when he rolled through a stop sign in Lafayette. Another man wrote a letter of support, basically saying that stop signs should be abolished and that driving for 50 years made him an expert. One of Lafayette's Circulation Commission members, Ms. Hiden, wrote her own letter in response saying "We tested for a state research team the efficacy of the in-pavement flashers one often sees now at mid-street and intersection crossings. The chief finding of the research team here as compared to drivers in the cities in the rest of the state where the team had visited was that City of Lafayette Regular/Speciai Cily Council Meeting & PTR Trails Sut)committee 23 March

24 those who drive in or through Lafayette exhibited an attitude unique in the state a peculiarly cavalier attitude towards the safety of pedestrians." She asked the Council to approve the basic safety recommendation and not allow a minority who show a peculiarly cavalier attitude towards pedestrian safety to rule the day. GEOFFREY BELLENGER, said he livps in the focus area near Roar and it is important to note that Silverado is a very different street than Merriewood. It is 4 feet wider and back in the original speed determinations, the 85**^ percentile speed was 35 mph which means that 15% of the people are really going fast and probably nobody is going 25 mph. There has been and there is a speeding problem. Once this process started, the police data did show a reduction which is due to a large part to education going on among neighbors and signs put in their yards. He believes that the plan put forward is a very minimal plan but it is a plan that addresses the issues. It is a painting plan, providing paddles which are effective in reducing speed and improving safety of children in crosswalks, which is essential. In addressing measurements and getting together aftenwards, he thinks it is extremely important that this portion of the plan that has to do with measuring before and after conditions should remain in the plan. However, unless it is in the plan he was not sure it will necessarily happen. He also thinks it is important that the NAT get back together to reconsider the issues and whether perceptions have changed based on that data. The NAT has been formed and the whole idea of being able to get back together was one of the primary drivers that led to compromise. Othen/vise, the plan might involve more structurally invasive measures. He thinks the NAT came to agreement on this less invasive solution based on the fact they would have a chance to review results aftenwards to determine if more actions were needed. He requested the Council approve the plan as approved by the NAT, the Circulation Commission and as presented tonight Lastly, they are looking more at an 18 month process because measurements must be done, the plan will get implemented for a year, they will return and do measurements, get those results and then the NAT would meet to review those. GEORGE MC LAIN, said he lives at the corner of Roar and he is not a member of the Dorr family. He would recommend the proposal be modified with respect to the paddle on Merriewood. He strongly agrees with the effort to provide some form of measurement so they know in fact whether these measures have been effective, he does not think they should allow reopening this on a fast track, and they should take the normal process. BETH FALKSON, said she has lived right at the entrance of Burton Valley Elementary School for 28 years. She is an alternate on the NAT which means she attended the meetings but could only vote when her primary representative was not present. She does not believe they live in a dangerous neighborhood, does not think they need traffic calming measures, but as a member of the NAT she has been concerned with the lack of structured process and inconsistency with which the NAT functioned. Following the traffic calming guidebook process and then sometimes ignoring it at other times are issues that concern her the most. The primary concern is that the plan is approved with the modification to the process by allowing the NAT evaluation of effectiveness 12 months after implementation of the plan. This exception was brought up several times by several different people in the NAT who disagreed with its inclusion. They were told each time by City staff that this is what they were going to be doing and there was no discussion or a vote to include this exception into the plan. The City staff told them that the exception would allow them to measure the success of the Level 2 plan which she understands is reasonable, but one of the objective parts is about the speed comparisons. When she suggested coming up with specific numbers they would use as goals to aim towards such as 1 or 2 mph less, there was no sense of a need for that. They wanted to just wait and see how people felt about it at the time. Again, this brief discussion led to talk about a reduction in 1-2 mph and this being a reasonable thing to consider, Mr. Coe said this would be an impressive City of l^fayette Regular/Special City Council Meeting & PTR Traiis Subcommittee 24 March 10, 2014

25 reduction but they did not vote on it and it was not included in this plan. Despite her belief that the traffic calming measures are not necessary, she feels the plan is acceptable as is without the exception of the 12 month modification. She asl^ed to follow the process currently in existence and not modify it to accommodate what they think would be a nice thing to do. They were informed that the goal was to address Level 3 issues, assuming the plan did not work and this is intended for more measures in the area. In answer to questions, the police speed count done was done over the President's Day weekend and when school was not in session, and for the 2007 plan that brought Roar speed bumps, Merriewood was involved in that towards the tail end and the determination was that residents on Roar wanted the speed bumps but Merriewood wouid do enforcement and they had huge success with that including several friends who got tickets and slowed them down. JANEAN MC BRIDE, said her family lives at the corner of Silverado and Indian, said they moved to the neighborhood in October and she has found that after moving multiple times she has found that seeing things with new eyes is important. She has been surprised at how lax things are here. There are no flashing school signs indicating it is 15 mph, as this is the standard in every other state she has lived in. However, there are several things in the plan she is impressed with. The striping, especially on the corners can make a big difference and this seems minor. Drivers, including herself changed their behavior on how they rounded a corner with a simple line of paint. It sounds like the paddle is the big issue of concern and for that reason, she likes the idea of re-evaluating the plan. A paddle is proposed at her corner of Silverado and Indian and people do not seem to have a problem with that one and she likes it. She has four young children and across the street are also four children. All children go back and forth and no one stops as they approach the crosswalk. Therefore, she likes the idea of something that restricts this. WALT SASSER, said he has lived at his home for 45 years and is familiar with the area. Most of the things that he wanted to cover have been spoken to already. He opposes the plan and is a NAT member. He opposed it in the beginning and still feels that way because it is not necessary for the area. Regarding the structure of the NAT and how is it formed, there are 6 people from Silverado who are proponents of the plan. There are 2 people on Merriewood who are proponents, and this totals 8 people. He does not believe staff or the Circulation Commission member liaison should be allowed to vote, as this totals 19 and they will pass whatever they want to pass. This is not an equal opportunity situation as he sees it He thinks the staff and the liaison should be an advisory position only. They do not live there and people who live there are stuck in moving fon/vard. He felt that the whole process has also had some legal and procedural issues that really have, been ignored. Often when plans are brought fon/vard, what should be asked is what they are not being told and not thinking to ask. As an example, Ms. Greenblat reported at the February 3 Circulation Commission meeting in her that there were those who spoke against the plan and for the plan. What she did not say is that 15 people spoke against the plan and 2 people were in favor of the plan. From the beginning he has said that Silverado and Merriewood are not comparable streets. Merriewood should not be part of the plan. He does not believe the paddle on Merriewood would do anything valuable and it is an eyesore. FRED GEORGE said everything has been said he would say. GINA NEY, said they have no sidewalks in this neighborhood and she thinks this is the crux of the issue. They did look at putting in sidewalks as part of this process. The Circulation Commission suggested that numerous times but from a cost, neighborhood, and engineering standpoint, they cannot even get paddles put in and people would not want to lose some of their yards. The process, while frustrating at times, has been fair. It is pretty evenly split which is why City of Lafayette Regular/Special City Council Meeting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 25 IVIarcti 10, 2014

26 they have a compromise plan. Half of the committee wanted something more and half wanted something less and many wanted nothing at all. She hopes this plan works, hopes the Council approves it, and what she likes about being able to reconvene as a group to review how the plan has worked is that they all have been part of this process and they can evaluate it based on the knowledge gained over the last year. She was not a huge fan of the paddle initially, but for the cost, it was the second highest effective measure to slow down speed, which also means pedestrian safety. If it is something that does not work, it is easy to remove. She does not think it is fair that neighbors make it sound like they will go straight to a Level 3. To go to this level will be a 5 year process. They would have to evaluate and get the entire focus and study area to vote on and this will not be done lightly. There are other solutions they can look at and she feels this is a basic plan and asked that it be approved so as to do something. She walks and rides her bike everyday along with her entire family and there are a few people who speed and swerve into the shoulder which is scary. IVlayor Tatzin closed public comment and thanked all speakers for their comments. Vice Mayor B. Andersson said one thing that always concerns him is the question of the perception of a problem. He was pleased to have the information on the speed surveys and 32 or 35 mph is a significant speed on a residential street. He was actually hit by a car at 30 mph and would not recommend it. He is very happy it was not 35 mph which is significant. Based on this evidence, he feels there is a problem. He was supportive therefore of the Level 2 proposal which is basically paint and signs and a paddle. He was not sure why the paddle has played such a prominent role in the discussion, as it is a small thing in the middle of the street but placed so people notice it more. He would not support the 12 month re-initiation of the process or continuation of the process. He thinks if it is necessary to do more, they can go through the process. He likes the idea of doing a review to see how it is working but if it is felt more needs to be done, the process has proved itself useful and he would support this. The other reason he would not approve a continuation to a Level 3 option is that he is optimistic it will not be necessary. He thinks Level 2 types of solutions can be very effective. He used to live in Orinda on Moraga Way on a curve. Every year there was a major accident in front of his house and this had been going on for decades. The telephone company was replacing poles regularly. He got the City to install a "curve" warning sign and he put a few reflectors on his fence so people would realize they could not drive right through and the next 5 years they did not have a single accident. These types of solutions make people more aware, educate them and remind them which can be effective and he is optimistic Level 2 items will work. Councilmember M. Anderson said he would support most of what the Vice Mayor indicated for different reasons. He said he likes the comment from Ms. Mack about the plan being more of a refreshening of lines there. He thinks it will create some safe spots along the shoulders of the road where they can stand waiting to cross or for drivers to recognize there is a crosswalk that has to be considered when driving down the street. On his street on Mtn. View Drive, there are a lot of people not speeding but it seems like they are. They appear to be going very fast and regardless, he would not want to see kids walking along the side of the road at that speed. He thinks perception is an issue here and hopefully the paddles and striping wiil provide more reinforcement and safe zones. The piece he is concerned about is the process the City has. He cannot support the re-evaluation being rolled into this plan. He thinks staff should look at this process, clearly add in the Brown Act process which changes things a bit, and talk about staff and the Commission liaison voting which he questions as part of the process. Possibly when it returns to the Council, he might understand more about why this is important, but he would not include the re-evaluation. He thinks it will be a good year or so before having a revised process and at that time, there might be a way to shorten a move from Level 2 to Level 3, but this should be part of the City's re-evaluation of its process that returns to be re-considered at that time. He City of Lafayette Regular/Speciai City Council Meeting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 26 March 10,2014

27 would support Vice Mayor B. Andersson's comments and have the process go back to staff and Circulation Commission for re-assessment and return to the Council, recognizing the Brown Act issue and how votes are tallied and what is done to get problems out on the table. Vice Mayor B. Andersson asked if this would involve returning and continuing the process with the NAT. Councilmember M. Anderson suggested evaluation of the problem makes sense, but linking this plan to the on-going NAT is not a good idea. He thinks the City should re-evaluate the overall process. Councilmember Reilly agreed with Councilmembers in that the plan seems modest. Repainting seems reasonable. For many years she walked Burton Valley regularly and is familiar with it. Her problem and concern would also be similar to the process. While she does not have a problem with the recommendation for tonight, she has reservation about the paddles, but more about the process. She attended the Circulation Commission meeting last week. There were two Commissioners who wanted to slow down the process before coming back to the Council which was reasonable. It did not get passed and it did come to the Council tonight. For many people, their only experience with City government is neighborhood issues. This is a very valuable experience and it needs to be one where everybody feels they are included. Sometimes taking an extra meeting to rectify something that may have been unintended would not have necessarily been a bad thing. At the end of the day, the group probably would have gotten what they wanted but having slowed, down the process and waited to make the people who felt they were not involved or because of the Brown Act might have had a different opportunity to vote would not necessarily have been a bad thing. With this said, she thinks the measures are modest. She does not believe this should continue for the future and that the Council should follow the guidebook. Lastly, she added that she has some concern with staff being a voting member. Staff should be neutral, advisory only and not be voting. The same thing would hold true for a Commissioner liaison in that their role should be more advisory and guiding the process, helping the neighborhood on both sides to be able to come together without one party feeling that it is not a neutral environment. Councilmember Mitchell said he is very familiar with the neighborhood and he really loves it. The proposal here for Level 2 is pretty modesl Re-striping the street is a good idea particularly in the curves. The paddles will take the neighborhoods a little getting used to but they are not a big imposition. He knows many neighborhoods are reluctant to change but he does not see it as an onerous requirement. He too is not in favor of the 12 month re-evaluation. He thinks they should go through the normal process. Lastly, regarding the traffic calming guidelines, he understands staff's idea of a less formal process to get people involved and they can get a broader public support but the outcome was not what they were looking for and some neighbors pointed out the weaknesses. He thinks they should re-evaluate the traffic calming guidelines procedure so that all members of the public feel like they are being heard effectively and the process is not being influenced by staff. Mayor Tatzin said as other Councilmembers have said, there are two issues before the Council; one is the process and one is the specific recommendation in this case. He thinks from' a Council perspective the more important issue is the process. The whole concept here is for the neighborhood to come up with a solution and barring something illegal, his reaction is to have the Council concur with that. He concurs that the physical improvements are fine. He suggested deferring the paddle on Merriewood. The Council received a little bit of conflicting information tonight. He received a request by the bus operator today to be able to go out with the real bus and drive it and this makes sense. With regards to the process, they are in a difficult position. The people who asked for this followed what was in the guidelines and in a sense realized at the end that the guidelines the City wrote years ago violated the Brown Act. So he would go City of l_afayette Reguiar/Spedai City Coundl ivleeting & PTR Traiis Subcommittee 27 March 10, 2014

28 further and suggested an effort to amend the traffic calming guidelines to make them Brown Act compliant. He was thinking about the issues of having staff and the Commissioner liaison voting on it and he questioned what he was thinking when he approved those, but in retrospect, it is not right. In every other situation, staff gives recommendations. Commissioners give recommendations but they do not participate as voting members of a body and he would make that change. And he was struck by what Mr. Coe said. One of the things they have learned in using the guidelines is that there may be times where you can create compromise on a Level 1 or 2 plan that may or may not lead to a different level. The guidelines are written to allow you to do that without re-initiating. He thinks that is a valid observation but the City would need to change the guidelines in order to do that and not change them because it seems like a good idea in this case. He would ask the Circulation Commission and staff to look at as they modify the guidelines. He also does not favor the automatic 12 month review and the ability to go back to some level without re-initiating, but if the new guidelines grandfathered in the 5 projects that were done and say they can be re-evaluated and go back and that is the guideline the public gets to comment on, this is fine. But he does not think the rules should be changed that are established. Therefore, he is hearing concurrence on the physical changes with his concern about the paddle at Merriewood, having an evaluation in 12 months but this does not automatically lead to resuming the process without going through the initiation process unless it is changed in the entire guidelines. Mayor Tatzin restated the motion stating that if the guidelines are not changed the current NAT is sunsetted and would have to re-initiate the proposal, which could change. ACTION: It was M/S/C (B. Andersson/M. Anderson) to adopt the Merriewood-Silverado Final Traffic Calming Plan and authorize using the Traffic Calming Program Reserve to implement the plan with the clarification that performance data will be collected, but there will be no automatic reconsideration of the Plan following implementation. 2) Directed staff to coordinate placement of the in-street sign paddle on Merriewood with the Lamorinda School Bus Program. 3) Directed staff to return with modifications to the traffic calming process for further consideration; Permit a modification to the Traffic Calming Process to allow a NAT (Neighborhood Action Team) evaluation of effectiveness 12 months after implementation of the plan, as presented in the staff report. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes; Tatzin, B. Andersson, M. Anderson, Mitchell and Reilly; Noes: None) BREAK Mayor Tatzin called for a break at 10:20 p.m. and thereafter reconvened the regular meeting at 10:30 p.m. NOTED PRESENT Councilmember M. Anderson returned to the dais to participate in the remainder of the meeting. B. Diana EIrod, Housing Consultant, Niroop Srivatsa, Planning & Building Services Director. Lindy Chan, Senior Planner, Greg Wolff, Senior Planner Housing Element Update Review of Process and Procedures Recommendation: Initiate the Housing Element Update and preparation of a density bonus ordinance. Planning & Building Services Director Niroop Srivatsa introduced the Housing Element Update team: Housing consultant Diana EIrod and Senior Planner Lindy Chan, and she noted that Senior Planner Greg Wolff was attending the DRC meeting. She said what is before the Council is a request to initiate the Housing Element Update process. The City has 10 months to City of Lafayette Regular/Special City Councii IVleeting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 28 March 10, 2014

29 complete and submit an adopted Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Ms. EIrod and Ms. Chan wiil present some of the issues that face the update and staff is available for questions. Diane EIrod said she would skip the staff memo's detail about what is a Housing Element and discuss the major issues before the Council which staff would like feedback on. In terms of the process, the state is offering two kinds of reviews for Housing Elements. The first is a standard review that looks at everything in the Housing Element and is similar to what has been done in the past, and the second is the streamlined review in which the State will only look at things the City would identify as having changed materially. In order to qualify for the streamiined review which cuts down on the amount of back and forth between the State and the City, a number of actions prior to submittal must be completed, and the City has completed all but one of them already. One is that reasonable accommodation of a policy or zoning ordinance, any zoning changes addressing supportive and transitional housing which has already taken place, zones for emergency shelters, i.e., making sure there is some land in the City should a homeless shelter ever be proposed, and having a density bonus ordinance. The City does not have a density bonus ordinance in the code. The Eden Housing project did receive a density housing bonus and the City was doing this on a case-by-case basis. In order to be eligible for the streamline review, they would have to complete an actual density bonus ordinance which is written into state law. The Council also has in the staff report pros and cons of having a density bonus ordinance or not having one. The primary concern about not having one is that the City would not be able to do the streamlined review, and this is something they want to take advantage of, so staff is seeking direction on this. The next item of particular interest is the housing inventory. The City is required to provide land zoned at appropriate densities to accommodate all Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) across all income levels and in the past they had an inventory that met the RHNA requirement and have now deleted those sites that have been developed including the Merrill Gardens site and the Eden site, and have put together a new inventory to see how close they are to meeting or hopefully exceeding the RHNA numbers to ensure an appropriate buffer. There are three spreadsheets in the packet. The first one shows keeping the entire downtown inventory area at 35 units to the acre which is what it is right now and adding a number of sites they did not count before. These are sites that are lettered A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H. It includes things like scattered sites for new second units. The City does have a few second units it approves every year. They have not been counted in the past, and the state has gotten more lenient about how they can be counted. If they are called affordable units, the City must be able to document that which they are planning on doing. They are also putting forward the idea of amnesty for second units, as there are existing non-conforming second units in the City. Depending upon how they can structure an amnesty program the City can approve, they may be able to convince the state to include this as part of their RHNA requirements for lower incomes. They also have never included single family homes even though most or all are above moderate income level. They did want to count them because they are part of the housing stock of the City and there are a number of other sites on the list that have not been included before, one of which is Woodbury which is where the 18 off-site units would be located, but they have not been included before. Ms. EIrod referred to the mathematical total of 863 units, but taking into account various factors including topography, realistic development of sites based on their location or shape, etc. The breakdown can be seen by income category, and they are barely over the amount needed for the very low income category. While none of this is written in stone, this is the first cut of what they know they want to go forward with. There may be changes in methodology or application of City of Lafayette Reguiar/Speciai City Councii Meeting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 29 March

30 calculations, but essentially this is what it would look like. They meet the lower income units at about 110% which is a tight buffer. She presented the inventory of 26 units to the acre. They have been asked to provide an understanding of what wouid happen with the sites if they had downzoned all of the area of the downtown to 26 units to the acre from 35 units to the acre, and they are barely passing for the income categories. Mayor Tatzin asked Ms. EIrod to explain the density bonus implications of 35 units to the acre and why the City chose 26 units to the acre as an alternate. Ms. EIrod said a question had been posed and concern about having larger developments in the downtown at 35 units to the acre. In doing the math, if a site comes in at 26 units to the acre and wants the density bonus for affordable housing, it is 35% density bonus, this gets back to the 35 units to the acre. The idea was to keep the density lower. The only problem with doing this is that while it is great in keeping the actual density from being built, those density bonus units cannot be counted. The City can only count the underlying base density which for this scenario would be 26 units to the acre. The reason for this is that density bonus is elective for a developer and cannot be mandated by the City. Mayor Tatzin clarified that they cannot be counted in the plan, but if built, the City can count them as units produced. Councilmember M. Anderson asked and confirmed that this would be the way to have a density bonus ordinance in place and for the City not to find itself over what they currently have as their density. Ms. EIrod said the question then becomes will the very tight numbers of the lower income categories cause the state to provide more scrutiny on the City's planning and whether they will accept that as a reasonable buffer. There is nothing in the law that says specifically what that buffer is. Ms. EIrod presented the same scenario at 35 units to the acre. The difference is a total capacity number which is about 250 to 300 units. This shows a much more robust buffer for the lower income categories, and the City would be meeting about 137% of the lower income categories. She said this is something she would not think would cause undue scrutiny by the state. Ms. EIrod said the last example or draft scenario for the inventory shows a mixture of three different densities; 26 units to the acre for the western and eastern ends of the downtown, shown in green. 35 units to the acre for the downtown core, shown in white. 20 units to the acre for the residential area south of the downtown which is Neighborhood 2, shown in blue. The only site in the inventory that comes from Neighborhood 2 is Site No. 9. She noted that 20 units to the acre is considered the default density for the City of Lafayette which means it is the minimum number of units per acre that the City could assume affordable housing could be built. The important part is that the state says the default density for Lafayette is 20 units to the acre. When getting to the calculations at the end of the report, it is slightly improved across the board from the alternative scenario at 26 units to the acre. The City reaches about 117% of the lower income units and all the other factors as described would have an impact of about 150 units from the 35 units to the acre scenario. Again, she stated none of these scenarios are final and the City will continue to look at them and receive feedback and then move fonward based on direction from the Council and the Planning Commission. Lindy Chan discussed next steps, stating the City has about 10 months to complete the Housing Element Update and in that time period a lot must be done. The first step is to hold public workshops. They anticipate holding 3 public workshops in April and May, break them down into 3 major categories where they would have topics, a focus of discussion and they would invite the public to attend and provide their comments and concerns in helping staff in directing and guiding the Housing Element. Staff envisions the first meeting to be an introduction of the City of Lafayette Regular/Special City Councii Pi/leeting & PTR Traiis Subcommittee 30 Marcti 10, 2014

31 Housing Element where information is provided about what a Housing Element is, rights and requirements, what implications there are if it is not certified, how it relates to a Priority Development Area (PDA) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Also, they will discuss with the public whether they should proceed with the streamlined review process which is the focused review on changes made, or should they go with the standard review process. If they choose to pursue the streamlined review, what would it entail to do a density bonus and discussing the pros and cons of this. A second meeting would be on the inventory. This is the discussion of the tables talking about the changes for the sites, additions of new sites, the idea of the secondary units both for new secondary units in the amnesty program, as well as adjusting the maximum densities and how the public would weigh into that. Lastly, they would want to discuss the policies and programs, what the government constraints are and how that would lead to policies and programs that would be incorporated into the Housing Element. Following the public review process, they would also have a draft review by the Planning Commission in June, a Council review in July and staff would submit for their initial 60-day review in August. Between now and August they would have to make decisions on the density bonus and if they decided to pursue a streamlined review process, they would have to have a density bonus ordinance adopted by August. This is a short timeline to make those decisions, to obtain feedback and to get that crafted. If they decided to pursue the density bonus, it would have to be reviewed concurrently with the Housing Element before the Planning Commission and the City Council. While HCD is doing its 60 day review, staff would conduct its CEQA analysis and then once comments are received back from HCD, staff would take it back to the Planning Commission for consideration of the final draft in November, Council for final review and adoption in December, and staff would submit the adopted Housing Element by January. It is due January 31, Because of these timing constraints, staff is looking for direction on some of these key concepts, to direct staff to initiate the Housing Element Update, and again, because of some of the constraints with the timeframe, to have staff draft a density bonus ordinance that if they decide to table, that is fine but they would actually have to move fonward immediately on it if they decided to pursue the streamlined review. She said the team is available for questions. Mayor Tatzin commented that Councilmember M. Anderson and he are Council liaisons and have met with staff and the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Commission on two occasions in public meetings where they have discussed options and reviewed early versions of this. He said the pros and cons are laid out in Ms. EIrod's memo of doing a density bonus ordinance. It talks about options in terms of underlying density. Another thing he might be interested in is whether lawsuits have merit if the City downzones, and even if they did not have merit, he asked if they could delay certification of the Housing Element and what risk that poses. Vice Mayor B. Andersson said for the streamlined approach, it obviously has some significant advantages. In the staff report, there are 4 things to qualify for it. Numbers 1 and 4 have been done. Number 2 the City has done some of, and Number 3 is the density bonus ordinance. With respect to the density bonus ordinance, the City has a resolution and is subject to state requirements. If they were to craft a density bonus ordinance that simply reflected the state requirements, he asked and confirmed with Ms. EIrod that this would qualify them as having met that condition. Vice Mayor B. Andersson stated that in completing actions they committed to during the last Housing Element, he asked what the other programs the City would have to complete and he asked if these are possible. Ms. EIrod said the only one that must be completed in order to comply with the streamlined review process is the density bonus ordinance. Everything else the City of Lafayette Regular/Speciai City Council Meeting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 31 March 10, 2014

32 City has said It would do is either not related to the streamlined review or has already been completed. Vice Mayor B. Andersson referred to new second units and said the experience the City of Orinda had when doing their second unit ordinance was that there were actually very few that qualified as official second units. He asked if Ms. EIrod perceived this as anything other than a single digit effect. Ms. EIrod said they intentionally downplay the number of units because they want to make sure they are not overstating something they then cannot justify later. For example, outside of second units they are not expecting development to occur more than about 75% of zoned density. There may be projects that come in much higher than that and this is great, but in terms of demonstrating what the City means what it says here and not overstate to HCD, staff has specifically taken a conservative track and this is true with second units as well. Vice Mayor B. Andersson referred to existing units and said he is sure many qualify as affordable. Since they already exist, he asked if these could still be used for meeting RHNA requirements. Ms. EIrod said they are going to float that idea to the state. Vice Mayor B. Andersson asked if any other city has been successful with this, and Ms. EIrod said she was not aware of any. Mayor Tatzin added that there was some change in state law that says, for example, when Woodbury converts and puts restrictions on some existing units, those would now be able to be counted whereas they would not be able to be counted several years ago. Ms. EIrod agreed. Vice Mayor B. Andersson said these are non-affordable units becoming affordable. He asked if the City already has affordable units and recognizes them, he wonders if this would be recognized by the state. Mayor Tatzin said they may be affordable units now obligated to be affordable. Ms. EIrod said depending upon how an amnesty program is structured, if this is something the City wants to do, there are a number of ways they could create the pool needed for the RHNA requirement. She also mentioned that the closer the City gets to meeting 100% of its capacity, if a site is removed from the inventory and it is used for a non-housing purpose, the City will be required to replace it with a new site for housing. The point of having a surplus is not to have to do that exercise; that they will always maintain an appropriate number of sites that could be developed for housing. Especially at the 26 units to the acre scenario, this one is very difficult and ties up most of the sites in terms of being able to meet the lower income figures. Councilmember Reilly referred to the graph that shows the mixed 26, 20 and 35 units to the acre, and asked what the green area represents. Ms. Srivatsa said staff based it on the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP). The west end is between Risa Road and Mtn. View Drive, and the east end from First Street to Pleasant Hill Road which would be at 26 units to the acre. The central part which is the downtown retail district and the plaza district will be at 35 units to the acre being closer to BART and closer to services. Lastly, the neighborhood immediately south of the downtown, or the Brookes Street neighborhood which currently has a maximum density of 35 units to the acre would be changed to 20 units to the acre. Only one site from Neighborhood 2 is in the City's inventory, which is the site at the corner of Moraga Road and St. Mary's Road. Councilmember Mitchell referred to the Vice Mayor's question about adopting a density bonus and using the state's example. On page 4 of 9 it goes into the pros and cons of adopting and not adopting. It seems like if the City was to adopt, they may lose some flexibility, and he asked for a discussion about this. Ms. EIrod said if the City was to adopt a density bonus ordinance it theoretically would not reduce its flexibility in terms of what it would consider for concessions and waivers that are required. When providing a certain amount of affordable housing, the developer gets one, two or three concessions or waivers of some kind. For example, it could be increased height or reduced parking. Some jurisdictions have tracked the language directly from City of Lafayette Reguiar/Speciai City Councii IVleeting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 32 March 10,2014

33 state law which still gives some amount of flexibility in terms of determining what those concessions and waivers are. Other jurisdictions have gone the opposite direction and have listed what they will allow as concessions or waivers, and anything outside of that list, the developer would have to prove they should get them. The City could determine what it wants to put out there, what it is willing to accept, make a list of things on or off the table or identify things that need to be further discussed, or just leave it the way it is which is take each project on a case-by-case basis. Councilmember Mitchell said if the Council were to specify certain characteristics, he asked if they could set the thresholds of levels the Council likes or he asked if there are adopted standards. Ms. EIrod said there are some jurisdictions that have adopted things that are vague in terms of the level to which they provide something, such as not saying how many parking spaces can be reduced, but rather they say they will grant parking concessions and grant reduction in fees for affordable, etc. She said she has seen one or two that have gone Into great detail about what the threshold is, and many do not go that far. Councilmember Mitchell confirmed the Council is going to continue to address this topic, and he voiced his need for further understanding. Mayor Tatzin said if a project develops as a mixed use that is on the inventory site he asked what happens to the need to provide more housing if any. Ms. EIrod said if they are producing the number of units on the site or if they are close enough, the City would then not have to find another site. It is only if the site is taken out of the inventory by a non-residential use. If there is some amount of residential use on it, the City is still in a good place regardless of the income level. Without giving incentives or money, the City cannot say this must be affordable. It just needs to make enough land zoned as affordable in case some developer wants to come in and develop. Mayor Tatzin said he would like to see what the options turn out to be, but he senses that the idea of doing the density bonus ordinance is that the City can become more specific in what concessions it will grant. For example, a big issue in the DSP has been height. It strikes him as granting height variances would be low on the list whereas granting a variance in the public art requirement for new development might be higher on the list, or things like fee waivers. While the Council wants to hear from the public, he thinks a more specific density bonus ordinance is at least worth exploring. Ms. Chan added that after the Council has provided direction this evening, staff would like to present this to the Planning Commission and introduce it to them, as well. Mayor Tatzin opened the public comment period. He disclosed that he spoke to the Lafayette Homeowners Council last week about this item. Public Comments: GUY ATWOOD, commented that if there is a 35 foot height limit, it would be a lot easier to go to 40 or 45 feet under the density bonus ordinance. He said he would concentrate his comments on the workshops and that process moving forward and the issue of PDA. All other issues he had were addressed and,resolved. He would encourage the Council and staff to split out the discussion of the PDA to the extent possible so they do not get bogged down in the workshops on this issue. He thinks the PDA is a hot issue in the community. Obviously, they will need to address the PDA issue in this process but he asked to minimize it as much as possible if they want to have productive workshops. He suggested that workshops be held throughout the City and not just in one location such as one on the east end and one on the west end and at the City of i^fayette Reguiar/Speciai City Council iweeting & PTR Trails Sut)committee 33 i\flarch 10, 2014

34 library in order to encourage and make it easy for people to attend. He thinks they can work harder if they concentrate on an area, get better turn-outs, and he presumes they all will be somewhat similar. Mayor Tatzin stated no; they will be different topics which Ms. Chan reviewed. Mr. Atwood said secondly, he asked to prepare a FAQ sheet to present to people so they can easily read it and get up to speed without having to go through all documentation. He would like to see this reviewed by the planning subcommittee before it is distributed to be sure it answers most of the anticipated questions that will come up. Lastly, he was somewhat vague on the amnesty and the second unit issue. He thinks it would be helpful to know what the process will be, and to the extent there is any way to help in the community, he volunteered to do this. Vice Mayor B. Andersson said he does not recall seeing any mention of PDA's in the staff report and he asked if they have any relationship to the Housing Element. Ms. EIrod said only tangentially. The concern has been raised by a number of citizens that the PDA has increased Lafayette's RHNA numbers and actually the defining factor is the fact that there is a BART station in town. It is really connected to the BART station and not the PDA. The City did get a few more units than it would have otherwise received, but proportionate to other cities of its size, it is not really any different than any other cities with BART stations. Mayor Tatzin referred to page 9 on Item D, it refers to the relationship between Housing Elements with PDA's and ABAG. What he heard is that this should be toned down a bit in the workshop. Even if there were a relationship, the City must still have to do a Housing Element and RHNA is set for this cycle. Vice Mayor B. Andersson agreed with Mr. Atwood to not get involved. Mayor Tatzin said he has indicated to several members of the community that he is happy to have a hearing or workshop on PDA's per se and staff was working on information that will be useful for that, but from what he has seen it is not related to the need to do a Housing Element or the probable outcome of the Housing Element. Councilmember M. Anderson said this is why he thinks Mr. Atwood's suggestion of having some kind of a FAQ sheet available to people at each workshop is important. Each time a workshop is held someone will show up and need this information. Councilmember Reilly agreed that having a FAQ sheet would be very helpful. It sounds as if the City is on a very tight time schedule and the more efficient the meetings can be made, the better off they will be. If they can have information easy to look at for residents this will help move the process along. Also, for people coming who want to discuss PDA's, possibly the best solution would be to let them know that the City is planning to have something in the future. Mayor Tatzin said he thinks the City will discuss this during the course of the Housing Element process, but just at different meetings. Councilmember Reilly said as far as direction, the density bonus ordinance does feel a bit heavy-handed by the state. If the Council wants the streamlined process, it must have this density bonus ordinance. It feels like local control is slipping away by this insertion; however, she understands some of the thoughts about looking into it in the future, but it feels a little uncomfortable to her. Mayor Tatzin clarified that regardless of whether the City has a density bonus ordinance it must comply with density bonus law. So the heavy handedness has already occurred. All the Council City of Lafayette Reguiar/Spedai City Coundl Meeting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 34 March 10, 2014

35 is really thinking about is by having a density bonus ordinance, does it lighten the pressure on their necks a bit. Councilmember Mitchell said he acknowledges that the City must have an approved Housing Element, but he heard a statistic that a lot of development or 80% is directed towards PDA's. He does not understand completely the relationship. Ms. EIrod said it is the expectation that if the City of Lafayette, whether it has a PDA or not, it has a BART station and 100 units it must accommodate in RHNA. The expectation is that 80% of those units will be in the PDA. Of those 100 units, there still are another 20 units somewhere else and this does not change the overall number that go to the jurisdiction, it changes where in the jurisdiction the expectation is where those units will be built. Councilmember Mitchell said so the City is still getting 100 units either way. The expectation is that they will be close to BART. Councilmember M. Anderson noted that the City's PDA matches its DSP and this is where density will have to occur anyway. Councilmember Reilly said she likes the idea of the second units and hopefully an amnesty program would be acceptable to the state in counting the units that have not been counted. With that said, regarding the PDA, hypothetically If the City has more second units than anticipated and they are not in the PDA, she asked if this then sways their numbers. Ms. EIrod said it will not matter for meeting the RHNA requirements. The PDA matters in terms of infrastructure planning, getting funding for TOD, and it can be al! over the community. The state just has the expectation that new high density housing will go into the PDA and not somewhere on the fringes of the community. Mayor Tatzin said if the City found 100 second units and the state accepted them, and they were all at some level of affordable housing. If the City's population stays below 25,000, density could be reduced in more of the City. They could either take some sites out of the inventory and still comply or, they could reduce the density for the proposed site. So it is worth looking at, but there are several steps before knowing if it will do the City any good, and it is not related to the PDA. Councilmember M. Anderson said second units are sweet because they end up counting as the very, very low income which is valuable. Vice Mayor B. Andersson stated that in the City of Orinda experience, they did not put an affordability limit on it but a maximum size which was quite small. In order to be a qualified second unit, it had to be so small it had to be affordable. Mayor Tatzin noted there is state law about how big they can be. Councilmember Mitchell said it seems like the more the City complies the more the state penalizes them. If they build units they remove vacant and under-utilized parcels and it makes it harder for them in the next round. Ms. EIrod said this is becoming more of a problem for a lot of jurisdictions especially in the Bay Area where things are very congested already and there is a big question as to how ABAG will be able to allocate in the next round. She said they are thankful that this is an 8+ year round so the City does not have to think about it for a while. Mayor Tatzin said the recommendation before the Council is to initiate the Housing Element Update and direct staff to prepare a draft density bonus ordinance and begin the process for briefing the Planning Commission, thinking through the workshop dates, locations and format. City of l_afayette Reguiar/Specia! City Council Meeting & PTR Trails Subcommittee 35 March 10, 2014