Transportation and Circulation Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. So I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is the City of Lafayette Transportation and Circulation Commission for September 8th, 2026. I will begin with roll call, starting with Commissioner Brown. Present. Commissioner Ratner. He's not here. Commissioner Greger. Present. Commissioner DiPrisco. Here. Commissioner and Vice Chair Sahar. Present. And my name is Bart Carr. I'm the Commission Chair and we're supported by Pacta Collier who is the Transportation and Circulation Program Manager for the City of Lafayette. We have one absence tonight and that is Lynn Hedane. Lynn Hedane has served on this Commission for 50 plus years. And she became ill earlier this year and she has unfortunately left Lafayette to be closer to her family. So she is no longer on the commission, but she has served the city of Lafayette with dedication, passion, and her focus has been on making conditions better, not only for people driving cars, but for those of us that ride bicycles or that walk with special emphasis on safety. So Lynn will be missed and we wish her the best. With that said, Item 3 doesn't apply tonight. Item 4, can I hear a motion to adopt the agenda?

I move to adopt the agenda.

Is there a second? Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. So that is unanimous. Before I go into public comment, let me just say that this meeting is being made available on video feed to those that want to watch it remotely. If we lose the video feed, we'll make every effort to reestablish it. But if we can't do that, this meeting will continue. And those that were watching the video are invited to come down and join us in person. So we will now go into public comment. This public comment period is for items not on the agenda. The agendized items will have their own public comment section or period. So again, this is for public comments for items not on the agenda. Public comments are limited to three minutes. At the three-minute mark, I will politely remind people that they need to conclude their comments, and we'll go on to the next commenter. For those here, please submit a speaker slip. And I see we have one here. So we will go into that right now. So we have, well, actually, this is, we won't. So you're here for an item on the agenda.

Oh, I thought it was five.

Five. Well, let me see. What is five? I'm sorry. You're right. So welcome, Brian. You're up.

I'll conclude through that. Yeah. So thank you for making me speak today. I just want to bring up two topics. One is LES is beginning a walk and roll program. It is funded by Contra Costa County. Three of us at LES have got the ball rolling. It will roll out on October 28th. So what we're hoping to see is a decrease in traffic, higher foot, bike traffic, and it also focuses on carpooling tool. So any data collection that a transfer can help with. Also, Patrick, I emailed you earlier for everyone's clarification. And then anything transportation needs to help out with or could help out with as far as safer crossings, funding, collecting data, stuff like that. Again, it will be Wednesday mornings when this takes place for LES only. But we also, like, transfer, if it's possible, get the word out next year to schools because the county is paying for it. So it's a great program where they supply a lot of things for us to do this. The second issue is Lafayette's Vision Zero policy. I didn't realize it, but today is the five-year or maybe tomorrow's five-year anniversary of Ashley Diaz's death. From my understanding is Vision Zero was pushed because of that. And after learning about Brook Street and kind of what Vision Zero is, it is a policy. It's not a mandate or anything like that. And we'd like to see what we can do to enhance that to make every repaving an opportunity to enhance streets slowly. That's what they do in a lot of other countries that do vision zero the right way. It's kind of been filtered out as it came across to America, but we'd like to see what we can do with that. And I'm not sure if that goes on an agenda item officially, but I'd like to know how we can start reviewing that to push it, especially with M3 coming.

That's all. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. So rock and roll, that's going to be a weekly event on Wednesdays. Is that,

Every Wednesday.

And what is involved?

So what happens is, I believe, the week before, we'll educate teachers on what is happening so they're aware. Essentially, kids will come in. They will get a little tag provided by the county. It links up to an app. Me and the other two or three volunteers have to learn the app and run it. But essentially, it's going to check in every kid who says they walked, biked, carpooled, rolled to school, drive them there. The way that it's going to work is we're going to count bicycles and bicycles alone other than app check-ins. That's really the only way we can tell the difference in usage according to the funding. Patrick was coming up to give me some more input and I reached out and found out from, I think it's a modality or whatever. There's engineers that will also help out with creating a safe route map at some point. They are limited to how many schools will get it for each city. Apparently it's only one this year. Spring Hill is also trying to do this. So I don't know if it will be LES or Spring Hill that gets the green light to get this included in the routes map. But yeah, does that answer everything?

Yeah, is there going to be any sort of training for kids so that they can learn safe practices as they think?

I believe that CCTA will include one bike safety program, a person named Schmitty. He apparently goes around the county and does these. I think that's scheduled for later in the year. I wish it was closer to the beginning when people want to learn how to do it. There's also an assembly, I believe, but I could be wrong on that. But there is a video that they will put out, but it's more of a marketing. video for people to understand the process.

Okay. Well, that sounds great. You know, Brad Crane, who I think you know, you know, he was very active at OES for a long period of time, you know, encouraging both, you know, biking his kids to school, but also encouraging other parents to join him. So to get more kids biking. So I assume you're talking to him and he would be a great resource I think.

We'll reach out to them.

Yeah. Yeah. I think that would be good. But good for you. I'm glad to hear that's happening, and good luck with that. And yeah, if there's any way that we can, you know, commissioners can support that, that would be great. So, all right. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks, Brian. Okay. Is anyone else? Are you?

Don't wish to write a note. I'm with the Senior Services Commission, and I'd like to be the liaison to your commission. and report back to mine about what's happening and how it may affect seniors in the community. We also have a plan within the city that we developed called the Age Friendly Plan, which does have an element on transportation, which I believe you all commented way back when. But anyway, I would like you to also take that into consideration whenever you're making any policy decisions.

And I'm sorry, where can we refer to that?

The Age-Friendly Plan.

Yeah.

It's associated with AARP and the World Health Organization. It's a national, international area of interest for all ages. And it includes various areas that useful to all of the citizens. So transportation, hospital, healthcare, and schools, or education, I guess I would say, socialization, respect. And there are nine of them. Of course, I'm forgetting what all of them are.

If we go to the AARP website, we could find this.

The AARP website and look up Lafayette, and it has a number. relative to all the other cities in the United States. Okay. But also, I believe you can go to the city's website and see the actual plans. That's been updated, I believe.

Okay. Well, we welcome your liaisoning with us, and we look forward to seeing you at future meetings. Okay. And we meet twice monthly. Every two weeks.

I was not aware of that. I will try and be here twice a month.

Okay. And can I just get your name, please?

Oh, I'm sorry. Dorothy Walker.

Dorothy Walker. Okay. Thank you, Dorothy. Do we have anyone on loan? Nobody? Okay. Well, then I'm going to close. Seeing no one else, I'm going to close public comment. And we have no... old business that I can, I'm aware of. So we will go into item seven, which is new business, which is the 2050 countywide transportation plan Lafayette project list update. And staff recommendation to us is review the proposed updates to the Lafayette project list for the 2050 Contra Costa countywide transportation plan and provide comments to staff for consideration prior to city council review. Is there a presentation?

There's not a presentation. I'm going to give an introduction, but I just thought we'd best to pull the list up. Okay. And we can go blow it up. Try. So it's more legible. I tried to make it as legible as possible. Oh, that's better. Yeah. Okay. So good evening, commissioners. Tonight, I'm just going to give a little bit of a background on the countywide transportation plan, and then we can start a discussion. I'm asking the commission to help staff review and update the project list, Lafayette's project list in CCTA's 2050 Countywide Transportation Plan. So I first want to emphasize that this is a working list. This is not staff's finished recommendation. This is my initial review of the project list that I wanted to give you all something concrete to respond back to. And I want to get your input before I make amendments and bring it to City Council at their September 28th meeting. For some context, the countywide transportation plan of the CTP is CCTA's long range transportation planning and investment framework for the county. It establishes the county's transportation vision and priorities across all modes that provides guidance for future planning, funding, and project delivery. So one component of the CTP is a project list. So this is essentially a countywide inventory of transportation investments that local jurisdictions at CCTA want represented in that long range framework. The current draft list contains about 1,200 projects and programs countywide ranging from major capital projects to smaller local improvements. Being on the CTP list does not mean a project is funded, approved, ranked, or committed for construction. It also doesn't need a final design cost estimate or funding source to be included. It just what matters at this stage is whether the underlying transportation need belongs in the city's long range plan. But inclusion in this list does matter. CCTA identifies the projects and programs and the CTP is representing local and CCTA priorities and their inclusion makes them eligible for future funding or may make them eligible for future funding opportunities. The timing is good to update this because CCTA is beginning development of their future transportation expenditure plan, or the TEP. And this is a completely separate process that will ultimately identify programs, projects, and funding levels for a potential future transportation sales tax measure associated with Measure J. So the CTP doesn't determine what will be funded through the TEP. but this is a good time to make sure that our long range list does represent the transportation needs that we want represented as that regional funding discussion moves forward. Our current list has accumulated over quite a bit of time through different planning efforts. So some entries are outdated, duplicative or completed. Some still represent a valid transportation need that may no longer describe the right solution and there are emerging needs that aren't currently represented. So I didn't take this as a simple keep or delete exercise. I recommended in some cases consolidation, reframing, and where the transportation need remains valid but may be influenced by M3 or some of the other studies happening downtown, I tried to preserve enough flexibility to allow that planning work to occur. So with that context, there's three questions that I'm hoping the commission can help answer tonight. What project should stay? What should be removed? What should be consolidated, broadened, or reframed? And what's missing? So what I did to help guide this discussion is I tried to, I think you're on page two, CJ. I tried to group the projects Um, in ways that made sense to us all, um, and, uh, mostly geographically. So I thought maybe I just kind of give a little bit of a background on each of the sections and then we can open up for discussion. So the first grouping is the Aqueduct Pathway, Pleasant Hill Road and Deer Hill Road segment. Um, for the Aqueduct Pathway, I'm recommending we update the existing entry to reflect the current project that we're designing. while preserving longer-term opportunity to continue the pathway east towards Walnut Creek and the regional trail network. For Pleasant Hill Road, I'm recommending removing the center median pathway alignment as a standalone project while retaining the underlying objective of providing a safe bicycle and pedestrian connection through the Highway 24 interchange. I'm just trying to not deliberately determine the alignment. And I proposed a new CCTA-led Pleasant Hill Road corridor study because the issues there across Lafayette, the county, Caltrans jurisdictions can go well beyond any single bicycle or pedestrian project. On Deer Hill Road, the changes are more targeted. I'm recommending that the existing corridor operations project be narrowed to focus on the Deer Hill-Oak Hill intersection. which has previously been identified as intersection for potential signalization. I'm also recommending that we retain the Deerhill and Brown Avenue traffic control project. That's another signalization project as a backstop in the event that the Terraces project does not ultimately deliver that improvement. And I'm proposing keeping the remaining pedestrian gap on Deerhill Road on the north side under discussion because it ultimately may be addressed through the Aqueduct pathway rather than as a separate project. So maybe I'll open it up to discuss that group.

I have one question on the Deerhill Brown. At what point in the process is Terrace supposed to pay for that in terms of their construction?

Only before they get... they're able to open it up. It's not going to be for quite some time.

It's not for a while. Yeah. Okay. Cause I, it happened to be, I've actually had some people complain about that. So I was, I wanted to show the good news that there was a project and train, but it sounds like that. So that could be more like plus 2030 ish. Is that or 20?

For sure. Later. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

Okay.

And what are their commitments in terms of the intersection design or is that still up for discussion?

Oh, we would do the design and they would fund it. Okay. But I saw some language signal roundabout. So when they were doing that whole EIR process for the terraces 10 years ago, there was a question of can we put it around about there? The answer is no. Yeah, not a lot of room.

Yeah. And I think like the other related question comment I have is just how that intersects with your concept for the product pathway. And it's a little fuzzy for me how that interfaces with Deerhill.

Yeah, so the pathway would come up under the freeway west of Brown Avenue. So really the only at-grade crossing would be there at Brown intersection. So our design would incorporate, well, it would remove the slip lane and it would be signalized, but we would make sure that at least the southern leg is built to accommodate the pathway.

yeah i guess i guess to me it does feel like there's a a need for that now even before the terraces um size and obviously i mean who knows we'll see how bart park you know parking flows work right now there's we have a lot of people coming from out of town and parking at our lots and then leaving on that road so does feel like Deerhill has become more congested than I would have imagined, let's say, three, four years ago, even before terraces. Anyway, so that is one where I certainly would keep that as a priority project. But I don't know how the negotiation with terraces work. And if you lose something, whether you get something else, I certainly wouldn't want to give up anything that the city has won in terms of the negotiations.

Any other comments on the group that Patrick has

I have one. Does the design funding for the Pleasant Hill Road median pathway carry forward into 1771? That design is complete.

The state gave us funding for that, and it is complete for the center median pathway, but right now it's just on the shelf. Okay.

Yeah. But you're kind of recommending we fold 3459 kind of into 1771, right? Is that my mistake? Because you said kind of including that. Is that the right way to read that? Because I guess I support that idea, but I didn't know that that was supposed to be.

Yeah, 3459 was system media. So I put that in the remove file because we want to be aligned and agnostic.

Okay.

um so I left I um and there was obviously a lot of duplication in scope between that one yeah and this this one so um I just kept the I mean that this is still a priority for us getting people from Mount Diablo up to Springfield yeah safely and I had one more in regards to senior mobility and ADA like I didn't see

Anything specifically overall in regards to like programs or no accessible, no upgrades. And there's some language about access for all. We just wanted to see if there's something that's in the pipeline or emerging side of the projects.

In terms of ADA? In fact, there is. Jurisdictions are required to put together an ADA transition plan. If you are, if you have more than 50 employees, we just hit that threshold. So we have an RFP out currently for, to complete our ADA transition. Yeah. Great. Timely question.

You want us to start with this packet? Yeah, just this one. Greg, you got anything?

Patrick, can I just ask you, just in general, pulling back, this is the 2050 plan for the county. How often is it updated? Not very often. Like, is it every 25 years?

Every decade-ish. Okay. Yeah. However, this list has projects that go back further than a decade.

Right. So this is... So, all right. So whatever we put on or amend or change, you know, is going to be on the plan for... at least a decade. Correct.

However, our true priority is we're going to make the argument we wanted in the TEB, right? We want some funding allocated to it.

Okay.

Is this a living document? Can it be changed? It can be changed. In a given year? Yes. One more thing. We're still talking about this citywide.

For I just want to know, like, in regards to the school bar Peters corridor. So realize we have valley and happy belly. There's area has no CTP entry. Are we planning to have one or is it on the high injury network.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, but there are realized valley and happy valley area. There's no CTP entry. I'm not sure for some of the citywide.

Oh, we are the first thing. Yeah. Okay. Okay. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Mark said it so man i'm sorry I was going to jump into the phone i've got the aqueduct pathway scope I left out the happy valley road great separation to point kill at that yeah.

HAB-Michael Leccese Jr.: I just so we can maybe move on to the other sections i'll just summarize a couple small things I think like little comments like that I sent you beforehand. HAB-Michael Leccese Jr.: It sounds like from this discussion that there is still scope to consider things on pleasant hill or Jason photos and or a point for yes right, so we wish. hopefully down the line have the Aqueduct pathway and that continues to the Northeast, but to get back to Spring Hill or to do something further on Pleasant Hill, like keep open the opportunity for that, whatever it may look like. And it sounds like within various projects here, maybe two or three are going to be helpful.

Yeah. And in looking at this again, this list again today, you know, I'm wondering, I recommended this new project, which is kind of just... the whole corridor and not just for pedestrian and cyclists, but for drivers as well. But that would be multi-jurisdictional.

And who are the big players there? Is it Caltrans?

Caltrans, us, county. County, because it's a route of regional significance?

It does go through county jurisdiction. And then the northbound line is... Yeah, yeah, yeah. Any other agencies that would need to be at that table?

Walnut Creek cost shares with us, the intersection with Green Valley.

Okay.

So we operate it, but they pay us half the operating cost for it because immediately to the east is Walnut Creek.

Yeah, I mean, I support that, I think, as long as something becomes it, you know, that it It's great. They have a lot of priorities at CPTA. That is the next step in my mind. This and then the Olympic project will get to that. Hopefully county transportation authority-led projects.

Before we go on to the next group, I've gotten a speaker slip. Normally, the way things work, we would take public comment on this item after this presentation that we're receiving. But given that we have two students here, and one of them wants to make a public comment, I'd like to take his public comment right now. So Hunter, you want to come up?

I am Hunter. I go to LAS. And I think that Burton Valley is a great school and I think there should be a biker walk trail connecting to it because it's mostly just driving some walkers and I think there should be a nice path to it.

So you would like to see a path from Lafayette Elementary to Burton Valley Elementary?

Like Okay. Okay, well, that sounds interesting.

So thank you for sharing that with us. Okay.

So the next grouping is Mount Diablo Boulevard and downtown. And my general approach to these groups of projects is to avoid locking the city into older project concepts from just or beginning to be a re-project. So we have several existing CTP projects that address pieces of the downtown transportation network. The Mount Diablo Boulevard PDA corridor project. There are two East End Mount Diablo projects identified. and then Golden Gate Way and Brown Avenue Slow Street projects. So for the Mount Diablo Boulevard projects, I'm recommending that we retain the underlying objectives, but update and consolidate descriptions where appropriate. So for example, the two East End projects can be combined into a broader Mount Diablo Boulevard and Houston Multimodal Improvement project, rather than maintaining the multiple overlapping entries. M3 that can help them determine the mixture of bicycle pedestrian transit traffic related operational, you know, elements to that project. I also recommending not that we don't automatically delete the Golden Gateway or Brown Avenue projects. But both streets could play an important role in a future low stress bike and ped network through downtown or M3 may identify an entirely different role for them. So my point is that M3 gives us an opportunity to look at these projects as pieces of a larger downtown multimodal network rather than as isolated improvements. So I was trying to maintain flexibility. However, today I was thinking a little bit more about this and I realized we could also handle this group of projects by consolidating them into one broader downtown multimodal access and circulation project. You know, we've got M3 and the BART access and circulation study. They will both be producing recommendations for future projects. We don't know what those projects will be yet. So in trying to, rather than trying to anticipate them in the CTP, a broader entry could provide a home for the bicycle, pedestrian, transit, circulation, safety, and access improvements that emerge from those studies. So we do, we would lose a little bit of specificity in the CTP today, but we gain flexibility and also, um, allow us to think a little bit more holistically about the downtown as a whole. That's a bit of a wrinkle in my, you know, my staff report came to me today.

So, um, so I, I, yeah, actually your, your comments just, uh, raised a question in my mind of, you know, M3 is, as you just said, M3 is going to produce its own set of recommendations, I assume. And those are going to come after, how do those relate to what we're looking at right here? Is the intent that if those recommendations come as this is being finalized or after it's been finalized that Lafayette would submit these to CCTA to?

Yeah, that's what I would do. So the M3 recommendations, the part access and circulation recommendations would come after a CTP is finalized. Right. But before the TEP is finalized. So, you know, This seems a little scattershot in my mind. The current list of projects don't necessarily represent kind of the vision for downtown as it stands today and what council has indicated their vision is, which is why I thought maybe a broader, everything kind of fit into one broader category of downtown safety improvements.

I guess one question I have, and obviously there's like different ways to think about how you categorize stuff, right? So Golden Gate being a very extreme one right now where there's no housing, right? But in the future there could be. But Brown, we already do have housing and we already do have families trying to get to schools. So to me, that one feels like less of a new downtown concept and more of the safe routes to school and this Vision Zero, all the things that we've already committed to. So I guess that is, I guess my, I would be somewhat reluctant to just lose that there's already a demand. So there's different, to me, I view it as there's already a demand for the Brown Street project, whereas Golden Gate and the other ones, not say there's not demand, but it's certainly the M3 project work process, as I understand it, is about kind of the future demands and needs that could be, right? So that one feels a little different, unless there's going to be a lot more building around Brown, which I don't think there, I haven't seen any, you know, projects that might be there.

I don't want to put you on the spot, Bart, but having been part of the BIPED mission, the pre-dated transfer, I don't know why just Golden Gate and Brown were identified as slow streets. When there's a whole downtown, you know, network of, you know, you know, class three routes.

I'd have to go back. I mean, that was years ago. That was 2006. I'd have to go back and look at the plan and see what my memory, what I can resurrect with my memory. So I can't answer your question right now.

Yeah.

But to respond to his question and his concern, Brown Avenue may be a very appropriate project for the ITEP, since my take is that that's potentially a more detailed look at you know, at projects and maybe funding may be closer for that either, you know, through county-wide fund, you know, county funding or through grants or what have you. So I don't know, that might respond more to your question, what your concern.

Can I ask, what's the timing again on, when the M3 recommendations and report will come out? Year and a half to two years. And then are there advantages, disadvantages to just having a general project that's contingent on M3 findings versus the specific ones in here that may or may not have differing levels of support or need at this point?

The TEP will likely be bigger, sexier projects that will appeal to voters as part of the Measure J extension on the ballot. So just speaking honestly, a Brown Avenue, a very, very localized project, is not likely to be included in their countywide transportation expenditure plan.

Right. I guess that's why I would kind of keep the brown one, but obviously it's all theoretical. I don't have money for it, but it just feels like that's an existing need as opposed to a future big project question, which is important, but different.

Yeah. My thinking with these is that maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle that, you know, what, what are we gaining by having like one big, downtown citywide project. I think maybe that could be a little bit too big, too general, but maybe that does compete better on the county level if we did get to that point. But I would likewise be interested in like why Gold Gate, why Brown, why not Brooke, right? Like I could mention other streets that are part of that downtown bypass, whether we want to still call it that or something else. And are there any streets that aren't downtown that could benefit from kind of a prototype facility type like this the slow streets concept and maybe i'm a little biased because i do this in my day job um a lot of this came out this concept in the pandemic but you could call it like a bike boulevard or a neighbor way or something else and i definitely think that this city could benefit from these class three shared streets you know be it brown be it i don't know if golden gate is actually on that list but it could be brook all the rest that take us parallel to mount diablo and having like a concept the city knows if these streets get paved or if there's an opportunity to do something, what would we do? So, you know, what I wrote down before hearing your newer idea is some consolidation, but just with these last two. And, you know, is it a Slow Streets program? Is it a Slow Streets project? And we can list some of these streets because there is some history here. I think I would advocate to add Brooke because we have heard this from the community. And then in terms of consolidating with these West End and East End projects, I could entertain that, or I could entertain just combining those two into something. Does that make sense? Or do you feel like you would want it all together in one?

Well, there wasn't a West End and an East End. There were two East End projects with different project limits.

I think I'm thinking about this first one, 2933. Okay, so that I was interpreting as kind of a west end sort of problem?

The PDA corridor is really the core. I mean, there's over... What does between all of them stand for? Priority development area.

Development area, I see. Okay. Why does it go to Apollonius Road? Because there will be development down there.

The Susan? No.

The Silver. The Silver property. I mean, that feels to me at least like what I term as like west of West End town. Yeah, okay. Yeah, I don't know, but I think if you're going to have an East End project, which is probably a compliment on the other side of town.

I think the East End project, I believe, was because there's no mediums down there. It's still the, you know, kind of strobe-like group. I think that's what prompted calling that out by itself, East End. Sure, yes.

So I think at least for those first two, I maybe have fewer opinions about organization, but I, I do, I do feel strongly of having some sort of like a slow streets or neighbor way core program, even if it's just downtown or citywide, it can connect with school connections. I think that there's, there's also an arm there, which feels different than just downtown. If we extended it citywide. Okay.

Okay. Where are we Patrick?

Citywide. Any more comments on that? No? Okay. So we're up to citywide bicycle, pedestrian and schools. So within this category, the biggest change is consolidation. So there are several legacy CTP projects tied to the city's older bike and walkway master plans. There are several separate projects for walkway improvements, implementation of the bicycle master plan, and bicycle striping and signing. So rather than carrying all these as separate kind of legacy projects, I was recommending consolidating them into one broader citywide bike and ped plan implementation project so that preserves a place in the CTP for future bike and ped improvements citywide while allowing an updated planning process to determine the specific projects and priorities. School projects are a little bit different. This is an area where I'd love to get some input from the commission. So I recommended removing the broad school safety project from 2021 and 2022, because the improvements identified through that effort have been either completed or advanced separately. We also have the school street pathway moving forward on its own pathway, but that's fully funded. Um, there was a question that was sent to me, um, from one of the commissioners about whether or not there are any remaining school area access and safety needs. Um, that all the priority projects we were on completely didn't. Um, we finished that, um, two-ish years ago. Um, so, uh, anyway, hoping to get some input on the proposed consolidation of the projects within this category.

Yeah, I had sent Patrick an email, maybe other people did too. And I think one of the things that at least jumped out to me from the county's documents was that they did have some language around school access and also an emergency egress. So what I would recommend is that we add a school area access and emergency egress improvement project. I think it has been a long time if we've ever had a study around how long it would take to evacuate, you know, in the event of emergency, especially if it overlapped with Happy Valley or Spring Hill, you know, school drop-offs or pickups. And there is some county roads back there. So I feel like it does have a nexus with some county properties. So I also see CTA is running, I guess, a countywide emergency evacuation plan right now. And I don't think we have any projects in that climate adaptation and resilience category so i would ask that we add one which is a citywide dual purpose and shape project uh under so the unbuilt remainder of three four six zero kind of could be folded into that rather than disappear um give me my recommendation patrick our

school evacuation plans, or is that something that communities do? I mean, it sounds like a good idea. I mean, is that something that others have done?

I'm not aware of any. So you were recommending on streets that are fronted by a school and that typically get congested during school times, there's a specific focus on those wounds. Is that the intent?

Yeah. Yeah. So schools that carry an elementary school, obviously. So including I thought you mentioned that Berkeley, there was a Berkeley evacuations survey. Yeah, for the whole city. Right. So that's why. Yeah. So that was what so some cities have done this. evacuation times and what it could do with the school pickup and drop-offs. So I would just recommend we have that. And if there are any changes that we need to do for Happy Valley or Spring Hill in particular.

Well, I assume there's an evacuation plan for the city of Lafayette. It might require updating, but I assume that plan exists. I was just wondering whether there's a separate plan specific to schools that communities have put together and not just during, you know, the start and the end of the school day, but anytime the school is in session.

We just never find it. We've never done a survey of what it would take, how much time it would take in those areas.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other comments on the items that Patrick covered?

Regards to the Lafayette-Muraga trail improvements, I would support maintaining that. If we look at some of our surrounding communities Walnut Creek, unincorporated areas, Alamo, Danville, San Ramon, progressively, they sort of have a model in mind of how our city street intersects with the trail. And it's gotten very consistent. In many cases, it's a wider street with a deep interrupter flashing deep. And most of our intersecting streets are quite small. I don't think we need that. But it's kind of along the lines of the slow streets idea of the city understanding and knowing what we would do at these intersections so that when they're paved or we have an opportunity, I know a lot of that is still regional trail jurisdiction or other jurisdictions, but at least intersecting street, we could have a say in what that crosswalk looks like, or maybe there's a partnership to do some sort of signs or eat in or something more if it's moving. So I would like to keep that.

I'm a, I'm a, I'm fine with combining bicycle and pedestrian planning together in one, I assume, larger document. In some ways, that does make sense to integrate those two plans together versus keeping them separate as they are now. It'll just be obviously a bigger effort to do that. Patrick, you and I have talked, and I'd like to see specific to bicycle, and I'd like to see a plan updated sooner rather than later. And we've discussed that. I don't know if doing something like this will just sort of kick the can further down the road because it's going to be a much bigger effort to do something like this. But having said that, I see the reason why it would make sense and it would be nice if we could get that done, you know, sooner rather than later. So. Any other thoughts on what Patrick has covered up to this point? Patrick, you want to go into the next group?

Sure. Regional and multi-jurisdictional projects. So these include projects that are regional in nature and should be advanced by Lafayette acting alone. The most significant change that I've made to the existing list is to add the Olympic Boulevard Regional Low Stress Connector Project to this list. The objective would be to establish a continuous low stress bicycle and pedestrian connection between the Lafayette-Murata Trail and the Iron Horse Trail. And that is not a new idea. There is a 2015 planning document that that came out. And has not been implemented. But delivering that connection would require coordination between Lafayette Walnut Creek and the county. And so, and I believe Caltrans as well because it does go under 680 So that's why I was proposing that it be framed as a CCTA-led multi-jurisdictional planning effort or planning and design or planning, design, and construction effort rather than as a Lafayette project with a predetermined alignment. The other question this raises is what to do about the Lafayette bicycle and pedestrian connectivity project. So... This was a regional La Mirinda effort as scoped whenever that will happen. So if we are consolidating projects downtown into a broader project, some of what the older La Mirinda project was intended to capture may be redundant. So we could either HAB-Jacques Juilland, remove this project or retain it and we're framing specifically around regional bicycle and pedestrian connection that extend beyond the m3 and bar study areas, so it could be include you know the aqueduct pathway Olympic. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Well, those are their their own projects and then the downtown multimodal access and circulation projects, but we've kind of encompass everything outside of those those areas.

I'll make my pitch for Olympic. We love Lafayette. I think we can do a lot in this town. But Walnut Creek is the place that a lot of us have to go for other needs. We no longer have a bus that connects to Lafayette. And Walnut Creek, and unless you're getting to the BART station and waiting for a train that comes every 20 minutes, walking and biking, I think at least bicycling, rolling scooters could be a good alternative. Olympic is flat, it's wide. I think the next time that street gets resurfaced, which is hopefully pretty soon, is an opportunity to do more. That 2015 study I'm sure requires a new look. It's been a decade, but I would not be interested in just spending another half decade converting that into an updated study. I like the idea of like an implementation plan, an action plan. Are there some things that we can do quickly with a paving project that don't cost a whole lot of money, dial concrete islands, There's just so much room on that road. And then maybe we build to something bigger and there's longer term recommendations there, our signal changes or things near the on and off ramps. But I just feel like I'd like to move the needle on that in some way. And in terms of our La Mirinda friends, I mean, I'm sure that there are little things that we can do to connect better to those towns. But, you know, the Aqueduct pathway, the La Mirinda pathway, off at Moraga Trail, going to Moraga. There's some pretty low stress facilities that go to Orinda. I think those are fairly well covered, or at least it's within our kind of daily wick to kind of raise them up in some pretty, like it doesn't take a whole lot of effort, I guess, to make them feel a little bit better. But the Olympic, I think, stands out. It's just, I personally don't want to see another study. I'd like to see something that's a little more action oriented.

I agree with Mark on that. or Olympic needs a lot of help in terms of improving it for people, especially bicyclists to use to get from Lafayette to Walnut Creek. But when I saw this, I thought it was sort of dated. Again, we've got the Lafayette Moraga Trail, we've got St. Stephen's, we've got that loop route that connects all three communities for bicyclists. Unless you want to do some tweaks here or there, and I don't know what they would be, but I just don't see you know, in the, in sort of the grand scheme of things, what more needs to be done there?

So they're meaning connecting the La Miranda. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah.

Uh, we could do a, uh, protected pathway along the South side of El Nido ranch road that can get you to St. Stephen's, um, that can just go right into the aqueduct pathway.

Okay.

Um, and then Olympic and yeah. Well, Olympic to me is not, that's outside of La Miranda. So I think that's needed, but that doesn't fit within this. So that's one project I guess you could do. So, I mean, if that, you know, makes this still current, then okay.

And if it's not El Nido, maybe it's Mount Diablo, the West End, which would be covered by a previous project we discussed.

Yeah.

It's part of the Mount Diablo corridor.

Okay.

All right. To Alkaline's.

Okay. Anything else?

So, Bart, your comment was perhaps update the scope a little bit to the La Miranda one, but keep it?

I felt it was redundant. My comment was it was redundant or dated, but you reminded me that there may be some projects we could do to make the connectivity better. gave the El Nido example. So if that's the case and if other commissioners agree with you, then we can keep it. And if there's no other comments on that, we can move into the technology and signals.

Technology and signals. So this is the last group in this field, traffic signal technology. So there are two older CTP entries, one for adaptive signal technology and another specifically provide video bicycle detection in the downtown. So since those projects were initially scoped, CCTA's smart signals project has become kind of the primary vehicle for bringing more advanced signal technology to Lafayette. So much of what these older projects were intended to accomplish is either being addressed through the current smart signals project or could be potentially addressed through a future phase two that CCTA is already starting to scope. And realistically Lafayette is unlikely to have the resources to independently undertake major investments in our signal technology beyond what CCTA is advancing. So I'm recommending that we not preserve older technology specific projects just for the sake of keeping them on a list. So I,

left it here for discussion but you know went off to remove the projects since they are kind of being superseded by the smart circles project so i just have one question on the smart signal i know we had some conversation in our email traffic but on the pleasant hill road in particular um i guess will there If we remove that, does that mean, because I don't see that. You said Moraga and Mount Diablo, which I get the foot signals for bicycles. That's great. I guess my concern on Pleasant Hill Road is that it is being used for folks to cut around from 680. And I think we did a study in 2015 or something or something about timing of the sequencing on that. But it would be great to make sure we're you know, we're aware of that and can adjust in real time if we can discourage folks from using those roads instead of freeways.

We'll be able to be accommodated to a smart signal. Okay.

I just didn't know if smart signals was including Pleasant Hill. That's all.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. These are the old projects, but the smart signals project will definitely cover all the signals.

Will there be like a County-wide, I mean, will that be included as a county-wide project in there? I mean, I agree with kind of removing the one-offs that may not be particularly relevant anymore, but, you know, will the general concept of smart signals be captured elsewhere in the plan?

No, because it's already being imported by CCTA. So it wouldn't be a Lafayette-specific project but it's already, will go under construction, be in construction soon. And they're already scoping phase two.

I guess I have a question with smart signals and if you could refresh my memory, is the project just really the installation of hardware or would there be a need for the city to have funding to make a suite of operational changes or to do an investigation of what operational changes we would make? Because I think what I got out of that conversation is- this city doesn't have a lot of staff to really investigate and use these signals.

No, I just have a contrast there. I don't have an answer whether or not that will ship back to the city or will continue to pay a contractor who can then do it faster and cheaper because they can do it remotely, make those changes remotely rather than going out to the signal controller.

So I guess that's part of the question is, you know, is there a you know, a need for something a little bit more than the spot changes that we make with the contractor that would investigate a whole corridor like Pleasant Hill Road, for instance, you know, or do you feel like that's already covered based on how we operate? Would you want, would you benefit from having a spot like that?

I don't think so, no, because apparently we will have the capacity, staff will have the ability to make those changes remotely. Mm-hmm. As well our own record.

Okay. But I think personally support deleting like specific intersections unless there's anything left off that wasn't included in smart signals that's on staff's mind.

So what I hear from staff is that we should consider removing the two items under the technology and signals. And I support that, so.

Peter Haslund, There was an interest in looking at the signals along pleasant hill road, but I think that that can be. Peter Haslund, accommodated within the new.

Peter Haslund, project that we're proposing yeah yeah you could maybe just include that as a reminder or a check to make sure that it's worth I have not done the studies i'm not sure that it's a good idea, but I feel like it's a good question it's a fair question to ask yeah.

Okay. So the next is 1B. That is the proposed removal list. If it's green. I didn't think it was a need to walk through every project unless the Commission would like to. I think the important distinction is that remove doesn't necessarily mean the city no longer supports the underlying transportation objectives. Some projects are complete or fully funded. Some are being consolidated into broader projects that are in the first attachment. Some have been superseded and some are older concepts that no longer appear to reflect the current.

We've already covered a lot of this. You're just sort of focusing our attention, just reminding us what is being removed.

Yes. Right. Yeah. Um, So as you look at this list, is there anything that makes you say, wait a minute, let's talk about this, or let's not move so quickly? But I think that most of the projects here we've addressed because I propose consolidating them.

Patrick, is there a project around wildfire evacuation modes?

That should be accommodated with the CCTA evacuation plan. So that's meant to be kind of the first step in giving the city what we need to be able to develop that.

CCTA is doing a countywide one. There'll be a lot of focus on wildfire. Yeah.

Patrick, is there I mean, does it matter either way to remove the school street pathway? I mean, I understand that it's fully funded, but it's not complete at this point. Is there harm in leaving it on or do you think it's adequately captured with the sort of more general project prior?

Well, it's, you know, I think it's HAB-Masyn Moyer- Far enough along that it doesn't need to remain we we've got a fully funded if just about 100% design that'll go out the bid later this fall for construction spring.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Again, if you feel differently, let me know but HAB-Terry Palmos- That would just be my question until it's complete whether it stays on. But, you know, if you feel competent and will defer to you. Yeah. And then I just had a question. It looks like the last two projects or 583 looks like it's sort of listed twice with Slightly similar comments, but just different. I don't know if there's any Distinction between the two or Yeah, I just be consolidated.

Yeah. Which I'm sorry, which project last 20583 yeah Oh, yeah, that that's a key spring regional park business project. HAB-Jacques Juilland, And I was surprised to see it on our list, other than it's just within. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Within the city. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Okay, but the burden Burton Ridge regional trail. HAB-Jacques Juilland, I was surprised to see it and I reached out to Jonathan and parks correct and we said, no, that seems to be a regional part of in there, they are pursuing it. HAB-Jacques Juilland, But I, you know, I don't want to remove it before making sure they're putting it on some list but HAB-Jacques Juilland, So they said that to see CTA as well. They should be no practice. Yeah, I mean, I'm surprised. This isn't this trail would not have a transportation function, really. I mean, it's a no.

But just in general, I'd be curious if we're going to use the regional system. So integral.

So I'm not going to remove it before I make sure that it is there somewhere else. But this is not a city project.

Yeah. The The citywide striping, stenciling, and directional signing for bikeways, priority bikeways, I understand that would make sense to include that, and it would be included in the master pedestrian bicycle plan. But keeping that separate You know, I'm just thinking in terms when we have, you know, every year we have capital improvement projects, you know, repaving streets and restriping and those kinds of improvements taking place. Having this standalone separate from a larger plan that's years in the future, that makes sense to me. And I'm thinking in terms of Brooks Street as an example, where we use the improvements taking place now in Brooks Street to improve on street symbols and, you know, for bicycling. I'd still like to see signage added there. But it makes sense to me that that would remain separate and stand alone from some future master plan for bicycling and pedestrians. And I'd I don't know if other commissioners would agree with me on that, but that's sort of my take on that.

Art, would you support keeping that until the walk-by plan is completed and then maybe we don't need it any longer?

Well, take a look at what's in the master plan. But yes, if the master plan adequately addresses it, then that could go away. But until then, I think that would be important to preserve. Yeah.

I think that's interesting. I would just here about what this means because if we are going to rely on this for a couple of years it would be nice to have a process to understand like what basic things we we would like to do when streets are repaved whether it's i think work is getting a greenback shero or whether it's a new sign again it's it's like going back to a lot of my comments tonight just the city understanding trail crossings class three slow streets whatever you want to call them Just basic streets with bikeways on them. Like, what do we do when we upgrade them? We've done good things, and we've also missed some opportunities. Pleasant Hill Road got some green paint. That's great. But there are other streets that just, you know, like we re-striped Mount Diablo. We just put the Sheroes back exactly where they were, even though that's, in many cases, the inappropriate place for the Shero. So if we are going to keep this for a couple of years until the walk-by plan is produced, I'd like to at least understand and define it a little bit better. And then maybe we just get rid of it when we no longer need it.

I'd agree. Okay. Yeah. Okay, good. Thank you. Anything else on this section on attachment 1B? Okay.

I just have one more comment on the first section that I forgot to get to. Sure. Project 1772. I would be interested, so it says these small traffic signals, if we could just leave a few words introduced there that would also open up scope for geometric changes. That's another intersection with Slope Lane. We have people walking across that intersection every day to get between the bar parking lots and the stations. Not to say we would remove the slip lane, but just the Better. Okay. Okay. Yeah, right. Just so that that scope includes more than just let's keep the geometry and Chris traffic signals, but maybe we could also reconsider geometry.

So it looks to me that Attachment to is just provided as a reference

That was a reference, right. That was kind of the first step I took was just kind of reviewing what council had told me three years ago for the primary transportation projects that I should be doing. So basically, and the center meeting is halfway there, but they did not support that. at the time, but the other projects were supported. And I just wanted to make sure that those projects were somehow reflected in this list.

OK. But there's nothing you want to go into right now other than attachment to those two? OK. Well, I think that concludes our discussion. I'm prepared to go into public comment if there is any on this item now. And I see some speaker slips coming. Thank you. Got two of them. Okay. So we will begin with Brian and then Brian will be followed by River.

Yeah. Just three things based on conversation. Mark, you would ask about Golden Gate Avenue and why that was the slow street. I've talked to Tom Chastain recently on M3 and he told us this little story about what previous plans have been. So you should reach out to him. He's on M3 and He might be able to give you insights on that. Number two was Olympic Boulevard. I did a bike ride with the East Bay Regional Parks board member from Concord on that to check it out. He said East Bay Regional Parks would be very encouraged to help with that. So as far as the different districts, maybe they could help with funding. But we also did that bike ride to check out underneath Pleasant Hill Road where Las Trampas Creek goes, there's a very wide area. And he said in other parts of Contra Costa County, flood control has been very positive in allowing multi-use paths to go down there. And they put up security gates for when it is flooding to block people from using it. But that would help people avoid the roundabout at Olympic and Pleasant Hill where there has been a bicyclist at before. So just some information on that. And then the last one, I think, get what I wrote on there, if I can see it.

Sorry for my scribbling.

Yeah, trail crossing. Consistency, that would be awesome. Las Huertas was repaved. And just something simple to help with daylighting would have been great. And just baking that into the process. So yeah, I would fully support that.

Thank you. Any questions or comments for the speaker? Now we're going to move to River.

I agree that the trail should go to Arenda.

He plays soccer off of St. Stephen's and I told him that and got very excited.

Okay.

Thank you. Is that it?

All right. Thank you. Thank you, River. Do we have any comments on that? I'll close the public comment section. Any further discussion on this item? None. If not, then I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to close the item. Thank you. Thank you. And then move on to Commissioner and staff updates. I'll begin. I'm going to be traveling from this coming Friday, the 11th, September 11th through October 6th. I'll be out of the country, so I will not be available to attend meetings during that time period. Anyone else have any commissioner reports? None? Okay. Staff?

I was asked by one of the commissioners to give a little bit of a look ahead about what will be on the agenda in the future. And so in October, Matt has agreed to come and talk about the CIP process. and how CIP is developed, and then a follow-up to that would be the proposed roads that are under consideration for repaving next summer. So, you know, guide those two discussions.

How will we, how will this commission, I realize officially we won't have any role in the M3, and Mark is going to be participating in that for us. But is there a way for us to stay aware of the discussion and meetings and get updates, that kind of thing?

I think it can come from Mark and myself. OK. And then what I wanted to do and what I am doing is on the schedules for M3 as well as the BART Access and Circulation Study, I'm bringing those studies here earlier. So that, you know, there are opportunities to provide input before they go back to the advisory committee. So I will be doing that.

Okay. Well, that's good to hear. Is there a timeframe when that would be happening? Do you have any idea? I don't know yet. Okay.

The next meeting, I'll bring those schedules in for discussion.

Okay. And when is the M3 meeting? effort going to begin?

The first M3 meeting was supposed to be on the 21st of September. That's Yom Kippur and we got a request to shift the meeting and so I'm still working on that. So it may be the following week. It may be September 29th.

Not to put you on the spot, but do you know all the representatives on the committee? Yes. I know you have to remember names.

I know that. I know. So the city council representatives are Carl and Dury. And what happens when you get old? Don't get old. This is John McCormick. John McCormick, thank you. Mark is representing Trans-Circ. We have the representative, the chair of the planning commission. And then the three at-large commissioners are Tom Chastain, Jen Riffsheim, and Amy...

I knew I was going to do that. It's not important.

I just... Is it posted on the website now? It is.

Oh, is it? Is it on the website? It is, yeah. Okay, good. I'll look for it there. I'm sorry about that.

Although I think it's also on me to give a commissioner update. Peter Haslund, Right after these meetings and update all of us and what we've been doing so okay i'll make an effort to do that okay. Peter Haslund, Patrick I think when when the paving presentation. Peter Haslund, 27. Peter Haslund, comes through if it is possible to have a couple of weeks to review. Peter Haslund, But that would be nice to get because I I will personally try to make some site visits, I think some other Commissioners might just think through I think next year is a smaller smattering of streets. across the town. So it's not just like, okay, you know, a couple of big corridors that we would have to think about.

And I know you're real busy with M3. So whenever you can fit it in, we did at one time start a discussion about that software that allows us to get an idea where historically...

Yes, Streetlight.

Streetlight, thank you, yeah. So I'd like to, when you can do it.

And I'm going to have Andy Conley come back as well, who gives an annual Slow Streets discussion. So it's time. Okay.

Sounds good. Anything else?

No. Okay. Any part of that angle, just to kind of take something that we heard earlier today, isn't just that five-year Vision Zero update. Like this could also be kind of an opportunity to look back and And also take some credit for city staff of what they've done specifically around schools.

Yeah, that's a good idea.

So it's a little bit more than just policy.

Good idea. Okay, with that, I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to adjourn the meeting. So thank you very much, everyone. It is 8.14. And I'll see everyone in a month.